I don't like Scarce

7 views
Skip to first unread message

Henrik

unread,
Oct 16, 2001, 7:26:45 AM10/16/01
to
I gave the Scarce-concept some thought, and came to the conclusion that I
don't like it. Even if the new bloodlines are not *designed* to be played
alone, there was still a *possibility*. Even if WW only release, let's say,
3 Nagaraja, I would still have wanted to play an all-nagaraja-deck, with,
perhaps 4 of each of the Nagarajas, maybe find some caitif or something with
matching discilplines... Simply to expensive with scarce...

Might be foolish to jump any conclusions though... Let's hope there is a
card that helps me play a all-bloodline-deck, even though it might be
theamtically wrong!

/henrik


James Coupe

unread,
Oct 16, 2001, 7:37:00 AM10/16/01
to
In message <9qh59u$o7n1u$1...@ID-99227.news.dfncis.de>, Henrik
<henri...@spray.se> writes

>I gave the Scarce-concept some thought, and came to the conclusion that I
>don't like it. Even if the new bloodlines are not *designed* to be played
>alone, there was still a *possibility*. Even if WW only release, let's say,
>3 Nagaraja, I would still have wanted to play an all-nagaraja-deck, with,
>perhaps 4 of each of the Nagarajas, maybe find some caitif or something with
>matching discilplines... Simply to expensive with scarce...

Add Clan Impersonation.

Pool costs are now offset by library construction concerns.

--
James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D
And if it's all right, I'd kind've like to be your lover EBD690ECD7A1F
'Cause when you're with me I can't help but be B457CA213D7E6
So desperately, uncontrollably happy 68C3695D623D5D

Henrik

unread,
Oct 16, 2001, 12:13:43 PM10/16/01
to

James Coupe skrev i meddelandet ...

>In message <9qh59u$o7n1u$1...@ID-99227.news.dfncis.de>, Henrik
><henri...@spray.se> writes
>>I gave the Scarce-concept some thought, and came to the conclusion that I
>>don't like it. Even if the new bloodlines are not *designed* to be played
>>alone, there was still a *possibility*. Even if WW only release, let's
say,
>>3 Nagaraja, I would still have wanted to play an all-nagaraja-deck, with,
>>perhaps 4 of each of the Nagarajas, maybe find some caitif or something
with
>>matching discilplines... Simply to expensive with scarce...
>
>Add Clan Impersonation.
>
>Pool costs are now offset by library construction concerns.
>

Creating a all-nagaraja deck would, as far as I can forsee, be to expensive
either pool-wise (paying 3/6/9 extra pool), or to action/blood-expensive...
To easy to ruin the day of a deck just by blocking a +1 stelath action. And
if the action is unblocked, the poor nagaraja has to take another +1 stelath
action to be able to play the nagaraja-specific cards (if any).

/Henrik


Orpheus

unread,
Oct 16, 2001, 1:22:40 PM10/16/01
to
Is there any cards that allows a controller to burn one of his own vampires
before controlling him ?
Because if the text reads "from the uncontrolled region to the controlled
region", it doesn't say anything about the ash heap, so the Necromancers
could come out the great winners of the Scarce contest... :-)
--
Orpheus

http://cypheranima.free.fr
news://news.zoo-logique.org/VTES-francophone
audio...@yahoogroups.com

"Henrik" <henri...@spray.se> a écrit dans le message news:
9qhm46$nde5c$1...@ID-99227.news.dfncis.de...

LSJ

unread,
Oct 16, 2001, 1:37:03 PM10/16/01
to

There are at least two off the top of my head:

Goodnight, Sweet Prince
Might of the Camarilla

--
LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc.
Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and tournament rules:
http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/

Orpheus

unread,
Oct 16, 2001, 1:50:11 PM10/16/01
to
> Orpheus wrote:
> >
> > Is there any cards that allows a controller to burn one of his own
vampires
> > before controlling him ?
> > Because if the text reads "from the uncontrolled region to the
controlled
> > region", it doesn't say anything about the ash heap, so the Necromancers
> > could come out the great winners of the Scarce contest... :-)

> There are at least two off the top of my head:


>
> Goodnight, Sweet Prince
> Might of the Camarilla

Yes, but none is playable by Giovanni...Same thing goes for Sabbat
Inquisitor (not to mention that probably no bloodline will thaumaturgy...).

So, next ?


Halcyan 2

unread,
Oct 16, 2001, 2:36:08 PM10/16/01
to
>Creating a all-nagaraja deck would, as far as I can forsee, be to expensive
>either pool-wise (paying 3/6/9 extra pool), or to action/blood-expensive...
>To easy to ruin the day of a deck just by blocking a +1 stelath action. And
>if the action is unblocked, the poor nagaraja has to take another +1 stelath
>action to be able to play the nagaraja-specific cards (if any).

You're actually complaining about the Nagaraja getting actions through? Really!
Just like the Giovanni: Mr. Nagaraja does some really cool action that's at +1
stealth normally. I play Seduction so my prey's untapped Dragos can't block. I
play Sleeping Mind at superior so no animalism untaps for my prey and no 2nd
Tradition untaps from my predator. What? Meshenka wants to Wake with a Cat's
Guidance for intercept? Let's see, Mr. Nagaraja plays a Spectral Divination so
the action's now at +2 stealth. Meshenka wants to add on an Enhanced Senses?
Well the Call of the Hungry Telemarketers says he can't block any more. Anyone
else want to try?

I rest my case. =P

Halcyan 2

Halcyan 2

unread,
Oct 16, 2001, 2:37:24 PM10/16/01
to
>Yes, but none is playable by Giovanni...Same thing goes for Sabbat
>Inquisitor (not to mention that probably no bloodline will thaumaturgy...).

So...you really think that the Giovanni (and the Nagaraja and Harbringers)
should get special privileges to circumvent the scarcity rules and too bad for
everyone else? That sounds like play balance...

Halcyan 2

Roger Carhult

unread,
Oct 16, 2001, 2:45:16 PM10/16/01
to

"Halcyan 2" <halc...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20011016143608...@mb-mq.aol.com...

Wow 5 blood to get through the Clan Impersonation. Well you can always 5th
Trad it up again....whoops forgot they aren't Camarilla! Tough luck I guess.

Roger


Orpheus

unread,
Oct 16, 2001, 2:54:44 PM10/16/01
to
No, I don't think they "should get special privileges", but that it may very
well be intended as such : don't forget, 3 bloodlines play Necromancy (well,
at least 2, and probably the Samedi) !! So if these bloodlines are scarce,
but that there is a way to circumvent the scarceness, it could be viable
(not easy, maybe long or complicated, but viable) ; and there could very
well be other strategies concerning other scarce bloodlines. I don't know,
just guessing.

And anyway, let's face the truth : if these vampires are truly interesting,
we're all going to try strategies to circumvent that problem. Well, it has
already started on this list !! :-)

--
Orpheus

"Halcyan 2" <halc...@aol.com> a écrit dans le message news:
20011016143724...@mb-mq.aol.com...

Halcyan 2

unread,
Oct 16, 2001, 3:05:45 PM10/16/01
to
>Wow 5 blood to get through the Clan Impersonation. Well you can always 5th
>Trad it up again....whoops forgot they aren't Camarilla! Tough luck I guess.

Unless they Clan Impersonate into a Camarilla clan! Now they just have to get
enough votes for a Praxis! =)

Halcyan 2

Nystulc

unread,
Oct 17, 2001, 2:32:50 AM10/17/01
to
Henrik wrote:

>Creating a all-nagaraja deck would, as far as I can forsee, be to expensive

>either pool-wise (paying 3/6/9 extra pool), or too action/blood-expensive...

You may think that paying 2 blood and an action is almost as bad as paying
three pool for each new vampire, but the major difference is that the latter
case, the cost does not escalate. Thus, each new Nagaraja will cost an extra 2
blood + an action regardless of how many disguised Nagaraja are already in
play. That's big savings over the 6 pool one would ordinarily pay for a third
Nagaraja, or the 9 for a fourth..

Whether such a project is worthwhile depends on how "overpowered" these scarce
vampires are to make up for their scarcity. It may turn out to be a pretty
good deal. It may be that scarce vampires are designed to be worth an extra 2
or 3 pool, but not an extra 6 or 9.

It also seems to me more than likely that some of these new bloodlines may have
access to a less expensive or otherwise more advantageous versions of Clan
Impersonation. The Baali, in particular, are supposed to be masters of
impersonation. The main reason that they are so "scarce" is that they are all
busy pretending to belong to other clans.

-- John Whelan

Sorrow

unread,
Oct 17, 2001, 12:42:07 PM10/17/01
to
> Whether such a project is worthwhile depends on how "overpowered" these scarce
> vampires are to make up for their scarcity. It may turn out to be a pretty
> good deal. It may be that scarce vampires are designed to be worth an extra 2
> or 3 pool, but not an extra 6 or 9.

I cannot imagine them to be *that* overpowered if something as simple as
Clan Impersonation can get by the additional pool cost.

Sorrow
---
"Our generation has had no Great Depression, no Great War.
Our war is a spiritual war. Our depression is our lives."
- Tyler Durden

Nystulc

unread,
Oct 17, 2001, 1:56:39 PM10/17/01
to
Sorrow wrote:

>> Whether such a project is worthwhile depends on how "overpowered" these
>scarce
>> vampires are to make up for their scarcity. It may turn out to be a pretty
>> good deal. It may be that scarce vampires are designed to be worth an
>extra 2
>> or 3 pool, but not an extra 6 or 9.
>
>I cannot imagine them to be *that* overpowered if something as simple as
>Clan Impersonation can get by the additional pool cost.

Well, an extra value of 6 or 9 pool is of course ludicrous and out of the
question. But I never really considered as a possiblitiy that scarce vampires.

But if by "*that* overpowered" you mean worth an extra 2 or 3 pool, this is not
much better from being worth an extra carded action and 2 blood -- not much
different from being worth the trouble to play Clan Impersonation for. It may
ge a good deal, but hardly an unimaginably good one. For comparison, please
consider that superior Govern the Aligned - or Fourth Tradition, is also a +1
stealth action that costs only 1 blood (compare ClanImp's 2) and saves 3 pool
cost on a vampire being transferred into play..

-- John Whelan

Chris Berger

unread,
Oct 18, 2001, 2:11:58 AM10/18/01
to
What I don't understand is, why 3 pool? Why not just 1 pool per other
vamp of the clan? 2 max. 3 pool means that either a) the first
scarce vampire of the clan will be grossly overpowered, or b) the
second and subsequent scarce vampires of that clan will never be worth
the cost. I understand adding scarce as additional storyline. I
understand adding to the pool cost as an extra game mechanic, but I
see 3 pool as being too heavy-handed. This is only slightly less
restrictive than saying "only one scarce vampire of a particular clan
may be in play at a given time".

I assume this has come up in playtesting, and I wonder what the
general view on it is among playtesters. Does anyone else see the 3
pool per clan member cost of scarce to be a little too game altering?

It's a little like Jimmy Dunn. He's a very effective vampire for his
cost, he has +2 disciplines for his size. But if someone else plays
with him, you could easily be out 4 pool. With a scarce vampire, in
order to be worth playing, it will need to be a very good vampire for
the cost. Say a 5 cap scarce vamp. If he is no better than a
non-scarce 5 cap, why play with him? But how good should he be?

Okay, what follows is some fairly shady math. It's not really as
rigorous as it should be, but I think that its essential point is
still valid:

I doubt that LSJ will let us in on the capacity/discipline formula for
scarce vamps, or basically how much scarce "costs" (assuming he
knows... I'd guess that he does, but I've been wrong before), so I'll
use a variable for that. A scarce vampire's "worth", that is, his
disciplines plus abilities (using the standard formula for inf disc =
1, sup disc = 2, +1 bleed or strength = 1.5, each vote = .5, etc.)
will equal capacity + X for a scarce vampire between 5 and 8,
inclusive, where X is the cost of scarce. On the other hand, the
vampire's true cost to bring into play will equal capacity + 3Y, where
Y is the number of scarce vampires of that clan already in play.

Therefore, for the vampire to be worth the cost of bringing him into
play, X must be equal to 3 times the expected value of Y, as you would
not bring him into play if he was no longer worth it. If X were, for
example, 3, then you would expect there to always be 1 vampire of the
clan in play when you brought yours out. If there were 2 in play,
then you would not bring yours out, because it would not be worth it
(not always true, but mostly true... which is why it gives an
expected value... there could possibly be more than 1 other vamp out,
and there could possibly be less). So, in all games in which at least
1 scarce vampire is played (games when you do not want to bring out a
scarce vampire are the trivial case, which is ignored because it
unduly skews the results), the expected number of vampires of that
clan in play is X/3, where X is the "cost" of scarce.

Setting X at 3, however, makes for a very strong vamp. You get a
vampire with the equivalent disciplines and abilities of an 8 cap for
5 pool. It doesn't have the capacity of an 8, but that's a minor
issue. That's a huge game swing, larger even than Jimmy Dunn. Not to
mention that Jimmy is just to the left of a discontinuity in the
capacity formula. If he were a 5 cap, he would be entitled to his
disciplines with no drawback, but he is a 4 cap, and so his drawback
is worth 2 points. Giving people a +3 point vampire, which has no
penalty *once it's in play* is like printing ToRIII as it was in AH.
It's still nasty, it's still a huge game effect when it comes out, and
the only reason it wouldn't come out is if someone else had that
advantage first.

So, I think we can assume that scarce doesn't cost 3. It seems most
likely to cost 1. Which means that in games when you play a scarce
vampire, the expected number of other vampires of your clan in play is
.33. I don't know what the standard deviation for this distribution
is, but the fact of the matter is, you're about 67% likely to never
have another vampire of the same clan in play at all. Even if you
have them yourself. Assuming that you are attempting to get into play
vampires that are worth their cost, and not just playing a weird
all-Nagaraja deck, you will only ever play one Nagaraja, and you will
not do so if your opponent already has one out.

This essentially means that the "scarce" identifier has little actual
game effect. The 3 pool will almost never be payed, and 6 pool is out
of the question. That seems just a little *too* scarce. If I have 5
Malkavian Antitribu out, why can't you have just 2 Nagaraja?

If we want the expected number of Nagaraja to be 2 (in games where
there are not 0 Nagaraja, of which there will still be plenty), with X
= 1, then the cost should be 1 per other vampire of the clan. If we
want the expected number to be 1.5 (approx. a 50% chance of paying the
extra pool), with X = 1, then the cost should be 2. That looks like a
pretty good cost. That is, scarce vampires should have 1 additional
point of disciplines, and should cost 2 extra pool for each member of
the same clan in play. That means for each game in which you bring
out at least one scarce vampire, you are about 50% likely to pay the
extra 2 pool at least once during the game.

Granted, I'm working without a lot of information here. But if X =
1.5, think about just taking a random 4 cap and adding +1 bleed and
scarce. Seems a little scary. X = 1 should be about right. If the
cost of scarce is less than 1, then the expectation goes down even
further. If the cost is considered to be .5, then I think the extra
pool cost should only be 1, again giving you a 50% chance of actually
paying the extra pool.

James Coupe

unread,
Oct 18, 2001, 5:41:23 AM10/18/01
to
In message <5287ede4.01101...@posting.google.com>, Chris
Berger <ark...@ugcs.caltech.edu> writes

>What I don't understand is, why 3 pool?

First of all, it appears to be a way of discouraging *extremely hard*
any attempt at bringing out more than 1. Two might be acceptable.

Then if you've only got one on the table, and people putting lots in
their crypt are slightly buggered, or need to go the whole Clan
Impersonation 2 blood +1 stealth action route, they can be compensated
for that.

If it was only 1 pool, say, it becomes much less of a problem. People
*will* bring out several, after all, we're all quite used to having a
vampire where we think "Oh, that could do with being a shade cheaper,
but hey-ho." So, it discourages the whole thing thematically. And then
game balance kicks in to make them playable when they're around.

(You'd hope.)

Orpheus

unread,
Oct 18, 2001, 8:02:45 AM10/18/01
to
I think I've got it figured out !!
I mean, how to make Necro work "against" scarce.

The thing isn't to burn your second scarce vampire B4 he gets outs, and then
resurrect him ; the thing is tu burn your FIRST one, then get the second one
out for no extra cost, and resurrect the first.

Burn your first vampire is an easy thing if you go in combat without any
resistance discipline, or using some dangerous For cards ; once you're in
torpor, either diablerize your own if you have the votes, wait until someone
else diablerizes him, use Sacrificial Lamb, what have you...

A little long, but it could be worth it if these vampires are really that
good, couldn't it ?

Chris Berger

unread,
Oct 18, 2001, 1:40:56 PM10/18/01
to
James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote in message news:<mlLpERID...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk>...

> In message <5287ede4.01101...@posting.google.com>, Chris
> Berger <ark...@ugcs.caltech.edu> writes
> >What I don't understand is, why 3 pool?
>
> If it was only 1 pool, say, it becomes much less of a problem. People
> *will* bring out several, after all, we're all quite used to having a
> vampire where we think "Oh, that could do with being a shade cheaper,
> but hey-ho." So, it discourages the whole thing thematically. And then
> game balance kicks in to make them playable when they're around.
>
We're used to vampires that should be cheaper, but we rarely actually
play with them, at least not in real decks. Who uses Patrizia or
Vittorio Giovanni? Nakova has been seen in decks (usually trick
decks), but is so overcosted as to be generally worthless even in
those. Andrei Puxon is only missing one discipline for his capacity,
yet he's pretty much never worth it, because there are just better
vampires.

If scarce gives a vamp 1 extra point, then he becomes overcosted by 2
pool after one other member of the clan is out. That rivals any of
the useless vampires we have so far. If two of a clan is acceptable,
then lower the scarce pool cost to 2 per vampire of the same clan.

I haven't seen the text of the promo vampires (maybe I missed them in
that thread?). Could someone post one of them here, or just let me
know what the capacity cost of scarce is? Sure, we're used to
vampires that are incorrectly priced for their effects, but that's no
need for them to give us more vampires like that.

My point is, with scarce giving a vampire more than 1 point, the first
one in play with be very overpowered, and a second one will still be
pretty rare. Therefore the game swining effect of getting that first
one out will be unacceptable, IMHO. But with scarce only giving a
vampire 1 point, scarce might as well just outright restrict you to 1
vampire per bloodline whose vampires are scarce, because it just won't
be worth it to pay 3 extra pool, much less 6, for a vampire who's only
a little bit stronger than any other vamp of his capacity.

I *like* the idea of escalating pool cost, and would like to see the
"escalating" part actually come into play. I would like to see
someone agonizing over whether or not they should pay to bring into
play a scarce vampire when someone else has already brought out 2, or
even 3. I just don't see that happening with the way current pool
cost is.

Reyda

unread,
Oct 18, 2001, 1:56:21 PM10/18/01
to

"James Coupe" <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> a écrit dans le message news:
mlLpERID...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk...

> In message <5287ede4.01101...@posting.google.com>, Chris
> Berger <ark...@ugcs.caltech.edu> writes
> >What I don't understand is, why 3 pool?
>
> First of all, it appears to be a way of discouraging *extremely hard*
> any attempt at bringing out more than 1. Two might be acceptable.

And if two scarce vampires are moved at the same time to the active region
?? what happens ??
Hey ! i've found another way to oust people ! play bucketloads of Honor the
elders and see them burn 6 pool while the vampires pop up =)

reyda

LSJ

unread,
Oct 18, 2001, 1:58:49 PM10/18/01
to
Reyda wrote:
>
> "James Coupe" <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> a écrit dans le message news:
> mlLpERID...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk...
> > In message <5287ede4.01101...@posting.google.com>, Chris
> > Berger <ark...@ugcs.caltech.edu> writes
> > >What I don't understand is, why 3 pool?
> >
> > First of all, it appears to be a way of discouraging *extremely hard*
> > any attempt at bringing out more than 1. Two might be acceptable.
>
> And if two scarce vampires are moved at the same time to the active region
> ?? what happens ??

Good question.
Move one out, then the other. Pay 3 for the second.

skippy

unread,
Oct 18, 2001, 2:05:09 PM10/18/01
to

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message
news:3BCF1859...@white-wolf.com...

> Reyda wrote:
> >
> > "James Coupe" <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> a écrit dans le message news:
> > mlLpERID...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk...
> > > In message <5287ede4.01101...@posting.google.com>, Chris
> > > Berger <ark...@ugcs.caltech.edu> writes
> > > >What I don't understand is, why 3 pool?
> > >
> > > First of all, it appears to be a way of discouraging *extremely hard*
> > > any attempt at bringing out more than 1. Two might be acceptable.
> >
> > And if two scarce vampires are moved at the same time to the active
region
> > ?? what happens ??
>
> Good question.
> Move one out, then the other. Pay 3 for the second.
>

From Rulebook 7.0
"At the end of your influence phase, any vampire in your uncontrolled region
with a number of blood counters on him equal to (or more than) his capacity
becomes controlled. The vampire is turned faceup and moved to the ready
region, untapped. The blood counters are kept on him to represent his blood
(counters in excess of his capacity drain off immediately as usual)."

it seems that there's no order as to moving your full vamps to the
uncontrolled region, so they would become controlled simultaneously.

--
Oscar Garza
Prince of College Station
The Crazy Aggie


LSJ

unread,
Oct 18, 2001, 2:11:03 PM10/18/01
to

I see nothing in there to indicate that the effects must be simultaneous.
Non-simultaneous is the default.

James Coupe

unread,
Oct 18, 2001, 2:21:16 PM10/18/01
to
>We're used to vampires that should be cheaper, but we rarely actually
>play with them, at least not in real decks. Who uses Patrizia or
>Vittorio Giovanni?

I've used Vittorio, yup.

I was more, however, referring to vampires like Tatiana than Patrizia -
vampires who just seem a little "out", rather than plain sucky.

>Nakova has been seen in decks (usually trick
>decks), but is so overcosted as to be generally worthless even in
>those.

That's the point - she's overcosted by quite a lot, whereas some
vampires are overcosted by only a little. Nakova most closely
approximates "scarce" in that manner.


>If scarce gives a vamp 1 extra point, then he becomes overcosted by 2
>pool after one other member of the clan is out.

It depends on what clan toys they're given, of course.

>I haven't seen the text of the promo vampires (maybe I missed them in
>that thread?). Could someone post one of them here, or just let me
>know what the capacity cost of scarce is?

We haven't seen one - the released card was "The Stranger Among Us".

Reyda

unread,
Oct 18, 2001, 3:49:53 PM10/18/01
to

"skippy" <ski...@tam0.edu> a écrit dans le message news:
9qn5kn$q38$1...@news.tamu.edu...

>
> > > And if two scarce vampires are moved at the same time to the active
> region
> > > ?? what happens ??
> >
> > Good question.
> > Move one out, then the other. Pay 3 for the second.
> >
>
> From Rulebook 7.0
> "At the end of your influence phase, any vampire in your uncontrolled
region
> with a number of blood counters on him equal to (or more than) his
capacity
> becomes controlled. The vampire is turned faceup and moved to the ready
> region, untapped. The blood counters are kept on him to represent his
blood
> (counters in excess of his capacity drain off immediately as usual)."
>
> it seems that there's no order as to moving your full vamps to the
> uncontrolled region, so they would become controlled simultaneously.

Let's create a new rule :
If you're skilled enough to turn face up all the vampire simultaneously, you
don't pay. Prestidigitators and octpus will have an advantage though....

reyda

Nystulc

unread,
Oct 18, 2001, 4:56:36 PM10/18/01
to
Chris Berger:

>My point is, with scarce giving a vampire more than 1 point, the first
>one in play with be very overpowered,

Your mistake here, is that you are assuming that scarcity is NOT a disadvantage
if you plan on only bringing one into play. You therefore assume that the
first one will be overpowered if given any kind of compensatory advantages.

But this is wrong. Scarcity is still a disadvantage, even if you only have one
Nagaraja in your crypt -- primarily because someone else is playing Nagaraja
and they may get it out first.

Also, if you plan on playing only one, this makes it rather more difficult to
implement strategies that might depend on that type of vampire. Hence you are
forced to compensate with cards like "Stranger Among Us" -- or else use
multiples that might lead to Crypt Jam.

The problems associated with scarceness are similar to those associated with
Uniquness, except that they apply to a class of cards rather than a single
card.

So, if Nagaraja are undercosted by 2, there is little reason to be afraid that
"everyone" will start playing Nagaraja now? Surely if "everyone" starts
playing Nagaraja because they are so undercosted, this is a problem that will
quickly take care of itself. The first person lucky enough to get one into
play gets a good deal. Everyone else is screwed, and they may think twice
about using the card next time. The metagame eventually ensures balance.

This is especially true if the "undercosting" refers to advantages in the forms
of extra discipline slots for multiple disciplines. As Ian Forestal has shown,
such advantages can be very hard to abuse.

-- John Whelan

Halcyan 2

unread,
Oct 18, 2001, 7:49:36 PM10/18/01
to
>it seems that there's no order as to moving your full vamps to the
>uncontrolled region, so they would become controlled simultaneously.

But then you have the problem if a player decides to bring out 4 Jimmy Dunns
into play simultaneously. Hmmm...since they all enter play simultaneously,
there is no "first" or "second" copy...So?

Halcyan 2

skippy

unread,
Oct 18, 2001, 7:52:30 PM10/18/01
to

"Halcyan 2" <halc...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20011018194936...@mb-fo.aol.com...

wow, i just broke jimmy dunn. hehehe

Chris Berger

unread,
Oct 19, 2001, 5:06:20 PM10/19/01
to
nys...@cs.com (Nystulc) wrote in message news:<20011018165636...@mb-de.news.cs.com>...

>
> Your mistake here, is that you are assuming that scarcity is NOT a disadvantage
> if you plan on only bringing one into play. You therefore assume that the
> first one will be overpowered if given any kind of compensatory advantages.
>
> But this is wrong. Scarcity is still a disadvantage, even if you only have one
> Nagaraja in your crypt -- primarily because someone else is playing Nagaraja
> and they may get it out first.
>
And *your* mistake here is the same one that was brought up to defend
ToRIII, back when it was broken. Just because a card is only a true
advantage to the first person that brings it into play, doesn't mean
that it's necessarily balanced. ToRIII was undercosted by at least 2
pool, maybe 3 (as someone once said, "I don't know if any sane cost
would be appropriate for the ability."). Even though you were
basically screwed if someone else got it out first (they probably
already got its cost back on the turn it was played, and you now have
to pay 3p for the privilege to contest), it was still a broken card.
If scarce vampires are undercosted by 2, then they will be a huge
swing effect for the first person that gets one out. IMHO, that's a
Bad Thing.

Chris Berger

unread,
Oct 19, 2001, 5:13:25 PM10/19/01
to
James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote in message news:<HIcx$wRc2x...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk>...

>
> I've used Vittorio, yup.
>
Well, you shouldn't have. ;)

> I was more, however, referring to vampires like Tatiana than Patrizia -
> vampires who just seem a little "out", rather than plain sucky.
>

But that's not how scarce vampires will be, with a 3p per clan member
penalty. Unless they are hideously powerful when you're the first to
get one out.



> That's the point - she's overcosted by quite a lot, whereas some
> vampires are overcosted by only a little. Nakova most closely
> approximates "scarce" in that manner.
>

I can't tell if you're agreeing with me, or if that's a typo. Nakova
is overcosted by approximately 2. Which *appears* to be how much the
second scarce vampire of a particular clan will be overcosted by. 2
pool is a lot of extra to pay for a vampire, unless they have a
particularly interesting special ability that you intend to exploit.
Nakova, IMHO, does not have a good enough special for that. Some have
tried to exploit it, but I have yet to see her actually be worth the 6
pool. Zack North would be a much more effective means of burning
vampires for the same cost.

Nystulc

unread,
Oct 20, 2001, 4:47:50 AM10/20/01
to
Chris Burger wrote:

>nys...@cs.com (Nystulc) wrote in message
>news:<20011018165636...@mb-de.news.cs.com>...
>>
>> Your mistake here, is that you are assuming that scarcity is NOT a
>disadvantage
>> if you plan on only bringing one into play. You therefore assume that the
>> first one will be overpowered if given any kind of compensatory advantages.
>>
>> But this is wrong. Scarcity is still a disadvantage, even if you only have
>one
>> Nagaraja in your crypt -- primarily because someone else is playing
>Nagaraja
>> and they may get it out first.
>>
>And *your* mistake here is the same one that was brought up to defend
>ToRIII, back when it was broken.

No. It is not the same. I agree that TORIII was overpowered and did not
defend it. You are not arguing with my position but with another one. I am
totally failing to comprehend what you are trying to do here..

>Just because a card is only a true
>advantage to the first person that brings it into play, doesn't mean
>that it's necessarily balanced.

Huh? Since when did I ever claim that unique cards - or scarce cards - are
necessarily balanced? All I claimed was that uniqueness, and scarceness, are
disadvantages which require compensatory advantages to be balanced. This is
also true of unique locations like TOR III. Problem with TORIII was that it
was unbalanced relative to other unique locations (and also that it was so
temporary that uniqueness was not much of a disadvantage). The problem was not
that it was better than non-unique masters. That was only proper. The problem
was that it was better than other Unique cards.

If uniqueness is worth about 1 extra pool value (as appears to be the case with
allies) then it is likely that scarceness may be worth a bit more. Perhaps 2
pool? I don't know. I have not done the playtesting. .


>ToRIII was undercosted by at least 2
>pool, maybe 3 (as someone once said, "I don't know if any sane cost
>would be appropriate for the ability."). Even though you were
>basically screwed if someone else got it out first (they probably
>already got its cost back on the turn it was played, and you now have
>to pay 3p for the privilege to contest), it was still a broken card.

It was undercosted relative to other unique cards. That was the problem with
it.

>If scarce vampires are undercosted by 2, then they will be a huge
>swing effect for the first person that gets one out.

Huge?

>IMHO, that's a
>Bad Thing.

If scarce vampires are not undercosted at all, they will be wallpaper. Clearly
some compensatory advantage is proper. Appropriate costing is probably about 1
or 2 (I'm not sure which). 3 is probably too much, but that's just a guess
without playtesting. 1 seems too small -- at least it is so small that playing
cards like Stranger Among Us will not be worthwhile for their sake. 2 might be
slightly too high, but hardly game breaking.

-- John Whelan

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages