[KMW Spoiler] Black Annis

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

Black Annis
9-Cap Nosferatu Antitribu, Group 4
ani pro OBF POT
Sabbat. Black Annis can enter combat with any minion controlled by your
predator or prey as a (D) action. Other non-hunt actions cost her an
additional blood. +1 strength. +1 stealth.

Interesting... a bigger Beast with +1 stealth, and fewer restrictions,
but even a basic bleed costs her a blood.
98 answers Last reply
More about spoiler black annis
  1. Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

    Fabio Sooner Macedo wrote:
    > Side note 2: A friend of mine notices that it is the fifth set peview
    > in a row that shows up a !Nos, even if the Sabbat is not that given
    > set's theme. Kinda curious, isn't it?

    Not at all. I have no idea what you're talking about. There's no
    impropriety here, and if there was, it was all transacted in cash
    anyway, so there's no incriminating paper trail.

    So, uh, what's the friend's name? And address? And what route does he
    take to work? Just, y'know, asking. No special reason. Oh, and what's
    the going rate for a hit man in your country again?

    > Fabio "Sooner" Macedo

    -John Flournoy
    -the sometimes-!Nos-newsletter-writer
  2. Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

    I guess that there's no useful discussion to be had over taste (to
    roughly translate the latin), but I like it - it fits what I imagine
    'a' Black Annis to be. (Annis, pl. Anni, is a mythological creature;
    more or less a hag-witch-troll).

    Also, only her discipline combination makes her (almost) worth the 9
    pool, and even then I'd be loath to use her without fortitude (for
    prevention and freak drives). Sure, she can use Flesh of Marble /
    Drawing Out the Beast, but aggro-poke is still a problem. At least she
    has an answer to Burst of Sunlight and Breath of the Dragon.

    Glad she was introduced though, it's an ok vampire for people who like
    ani/pot rush.


    Regards,

    Patrick
    Columbus, OH
  3. Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

    Fabio "Sooner" Macedo wrote:
    > On 3 Feb 2005 09:11:12 -0800, "John Flournoy" <carneggy@gmail.com>
    > wrote:
    >
    > >Fabio Sooner Macedo wrote:
    > >> Side note 2: A friend of mine notices that it is the fifth set
    peview
    > >> in a row that shows up a !Nos, even if the Sabbat is not that
    given
    > >> set's theme. Kinda curious, isn't it?
    > (eh, I could swear that Teresita was in there... Maybe the next
    > expansion should go towards medicine references instead of Viagra
    ones
    > so I can draw a Phosphorous Pill card or something like that)


    Camarilla: Didn't really have standard previews (though Patagia did get
    a boost)
    Anarchs: Nothing
    Black Hand: Yong-Sun (Advanced) preview AND Teresita special preview
    Gehenna: Aeron preview AND Shahid preview
    KMW: Black Annis preview AND Echo promo card


    Seems like the current system of previews didn't start until Anarchs.
    And the Nos/!Nos surely have gotten more than their fair share already!
    I agree it's rather suspicious...

    IIRC, Teresita and Selena were special previews (they were in the
    Retailer section or some special web-page). They weren't in the offical
    count-down preview, but were previewed even before that.
  4. Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

    On Thu, 3 Feb 2005, Orpheus wrote:

    >> Side note: crypt cards like these are what makes me certain that the
    >> grouping rule IS necessary indeed.
    >
    > Funny. That's the kind of cards that make me think exactly the opposite.
    > Kinda like : what do we need a new group for (four) if it just duplicates
    > existing things with slight variations ?!

    We don't. We don't need anything beyond Jyhad to have a great game.

    I like having new expansions and new vampires and all that. If grouping
    is necessary to have new vampires all the time, then I'll take grouping.

    Matt Morgan
  5. Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

    On 3 Feb 2005 07:21:59 -0800, jnewquist@difsol.com wrote:

    >Black Annis
    >9-Cap Nosferatu Antitribu, Group 4
    >ani pro OBF POT
    >Sabbat. Black Annis can enter combat with any minion controlled by your
    >predator or prey as a (D) action. Other non-hunt actions cost her an
    >additional blood. +1 strength. +1 stealth.
    >
    >Interesting... a bigger Beast with +1 stealth, and fewer restrictions,
    >but even a basic bleed costs her a blood.

    In case someone didn't notice, even rush actions provided by other
    means - Bum's Rush, Haven Uncovered, Blooding + Shakar, whatever - do
    cost a blood also.
    That's how I understand "Other non-hunt actions".

    This restriction might prove more painful in practice than in theory,
    and I don't mind her being somewhat similar to Beast - now we can
    choose more restrictions/[cel]/no stealth/7-cap or less
    restrictions/[pro]/+1 stealth/9-cap. That's fine. There's only so much
    you can do with a given set of options.

    Side note: crypt cards like these are what makes me certain that the
    grouping rule IS necessary indeed.

    Side note 2: A friend of mine notices that it is the fifth set peview
    in a row that shows up a !Nos, even if the Sabbat is not that given
    set's theme. Kinda curious, isn't it?

    best,

    Fabio "Sooner" Macedo
    V:EKN National Coordinator for Brazil
    --------------------------------------
    Now a "luminary", whatever it means:
    http://www.thelasombra.com/WhosWho/fabiomacedo.htm
  6. Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

    "Fabio \"Sooner\" Macedo" <fabio@cohesp.com.br> wrote:
    > On 3 Feb 2005 07:21:59 -0800, jnewquist@difsol.com wrote:

    >>Black Annis
    >>9-Cap Nosferatu Antitribu, Group 4
    >>ani pro OBF POT
    >>Sabbat. Black Annis can enter combat with any minion controlled by your
    >>predator or prey as a (D) action. Other non-hunt actions cost her an
    >>additional blood. +1 strength. +1 stealth.
    >>
    >>Interesting... a bigger Beast with +1 stealth, and fewer restrictions,
    >>but even a basic bleed costs her a blood.

    > In case someone didn't notice, even rush actions provided by other
    > means - Bum's Rush, Haven Uncovered, Blooding + Shakar, whatever - do
    > cost a blood also.
    > That's how I understand "Other non-hunt actions".

    Nothing that Perfectionist can't patch...
  7. Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

    On 3 Feb 2005 09:11:12 -0800, "John Flournoy" <carneggy@gmail.com>
    wrote:

    >Fabio Sooner Macedo wrote:
    >> Side note 2: A friend of mine notices that it is the fifth set peview
    >> in a row that shows up a !Nos, even if the Sabbat is not that given
    >> set's theme. Kinda curious, isn't it?
    >
    >Not at all. I have no idea what you're talking about. There's no
    >impropriety here, and if there was, it was all transacted in cash
    >anyway, so there's no incriminating paper trail.

    Ah, ok.
    Well... But let me pay you a beer. Here it is.

    [2 hours later and a big row of empty bottles/cans of ale]

    But now, maaate [hic] just between you and me: you DID arranged for
    the removal of a !Nos from the Anarchs preview just to cover for the
    noticeable pattern, don't you?

    (eh, I could swear that Teresita was in there... Maybe the next
    expansion should go towards medicine references instead of Viagra ones
    so I can draw a Phosphorous Pill card or something like that)


    >So, uh, what's the friend's name? And address? And what route does he
    >take to work? Just, y'know, asking. No special reason. Oh, and what's
    >the going rate for a hit man in your country again?
    >
    >> Fabio "Sooner" Macedo
    >
    >-John Flournoy
    >-the sometimes-!Nos-newsletter-writer

    Don't ask, you'd be tempted ;)

    Or your hit man would, by the way; your target... *cough*, my friend
    understands too well about those Temptation feelings.

    best,

    Fabio "Sooner" Macedo
    V:EKN National Coordinator for Brazil
    --------------------------------------
    Now a "luminary", whatever it means:
    http://www.thelasombra.com/WhosWho/fabiomacedo.htm
  8. Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

    On 3 Feb 2005 07:21:59 -0800, <jnewquist@difsol.com> wrote:

    > Black Annis
    > 9-Cap Nosferatu Antitribu, Group 4
    > ani pro OBF POT
    > Sabbat. Black Annis can enter combat with any minion controlled by your
    > predator or prey as a (D) action. Other non-hunt actions cost her an
    > additional blood. +1 strength. +1 stealth.
    >
    > Interesting... a bigger Beast with +1 stealth, and fewer restrictions,
    > but even a basic bleed costs her a blood.

    I don't like her. Why did we need another take on Beast? I'm sure lots
    of stuff are there to be explored (for example, I haven't seen any
    chainmail bikinis yet).

    --
    Bye,

    Daneel
  9. Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

    On Thu, 03 Feb 2005 11:29:13 -0600, Jozxyqk <jfeuerst@eecs.tufts.edu>
    wrote:

    >"Fabio \"Sooner\" Macedo" <fabio@cohesp.com.br> wrote:
    >> On 3 Feb 2005 07:21:59 -0800, jnewquist@difsol.com wrote:
    >
    >>>Black Annis
    >>>9-Cap Nosferatu Antitribu, Group 4
    >>>ani pro OBF POT
    >>>Sabbat. Black Annis can enter combat with any minion controlled by your
    >>>predator or prey as a (D) action. Other non-hunt actions cost her an
    >>>additional blood. +1 strength. +1 stealth.
    >>>
    >>>Interesting... a bigger Beast with +1 stealth, and fewer restrictions,
    >>>but even a basic bleed costs her a blood.
    >
    >> In case someone didn't notice, even rush actions provided by other
    >> means - Bum's Rush, Haven Uncovered, Blooding + Shakar, whatever - do
    >> cost a blood also.
    >> That's how I understand "Other non-hunt actions".
    >
    >Nothing that Perfectionist can't patch...

    Is there something that Perfectionist can't patch? ;)

    (just to do a little overrating praise)

    best,

    Fabio "Sooner" Macedo
    V:EKN National Coordinator for Brazil
    --------------------------------------
    Now a "luminary", whatever it means:
    http://www.thelasombra.com/WhosWho/fabiomacedo.htm
  10. Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

    On 3 Feb 2005 10:19:45 -0800, echiang777@yahoo.com wrote:
    >Fabio "Sooner" Macedo wrote:
    >> On 3 Feb 2005 09:11:12 -0800, "John Flournoy" <carneggy@gmail.com>
    >> wrote:
    >>
    >> >Fabio Sooner Macedo wrote:
    >> >> Side note 2: A friend of mine notices that it is the fifth set
    >peview
    >> >> in a row that shows up a !Nos, even if the Sabbat is not that
    >given
    >> >> set's theme. Kinda curious, isn't it?
    >> (eh, I could swear that Teresita was in there... Maybe the next
    >> expansion should go towards medicine references instead of Viagra
    >ones
    >> so I can draw a Phosphorous Pill card or something like that)
    >
    >Camarilla: Didn't really have standard previews (though Patagia did get
    >a boost)
    >Anarchs: Nothing
    >Black Hand: Yong-Sun (Advanced) preview AND Teresita special preview
    >Gehenna: Aeron preview AND Shahid preview
    >KMW: Black Annis preview AND Echo promo card
    >
    >
    >Seems like the current system of previews didn't start until Anarchs.
    >And the Nos/!Nos surely have gotten more than their fair share already!
    >I agree it's rather suspicious...

    Time for rampant conspirational theories! :)


    >IIRC, Teresita and Selena were special previews (they were in the
    >Retailer section or some special web-page). They weren't in the offical
    >count-down preview, but were previewed even before that.

    Right. At least Teresita was there before, my mind just filed it under
    another section.

    But back to the more "serious" issues. Maybe noticing this was just a
    consequence of bad divination skills - I was sure that the three
    vampires to show after Ossian were to be a !Gangrel, a Giovanni and
    the TBA one, for whatever reason it is TBA. It would round everything
    well: one vampire for each indie clan and for each starter (if Tatiana
    - Alastor, Kemintiri - Red List starters respectively)

    best,

    Fabio "Sooner" Macedo
    V:EKN National Coordinator for Brazil
    --------------------------------------
    Now a "luminary", whatever it means:
    http://www.thelasombra.com/WhosWho/fabiomacedo.htm
  11. Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

    Daneel <daniel@eposta.hu> wrote:
    : On 3 Feb 2005 07:21:59 -0800, <jnewquist@difsol.com> wrote:
    : I don't like her. Why did we need another take on Beast? I'm sure lots
    : of stuff are there to be explored (for example, I haven't seen any
    : chainmail bikinis yet).

    "What do we need group 4 for?" - "Look, there's a big Beast there, too"

    //T
  12. Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

    Daneel <daniel@eposta.hu> wrote:
    : On 3 Feb 2005 07:21:59 -0800, <jnewquist@difsol.com> wrote:
    :> Interesting... a bigger Beast with +1 stealth, and fewer restrictions,
    :> but even a basic bleed costs her a blood.
    : I don't like her. Why did we need another take on Beast? I'm sure lots
    : of stuff are there to be explored (for example, I haven't seen any
    : chainmail bikinis yet).

    Now I got to take a look at her. Horrible picture. Otherwise it's 2 pool
    over Beast, a lot less imaginative power discipline no-brainer
    combination of Protean and Potence and ability to use equipment and
    recycle unnecessary rush actions from your hand, also for an extra
    maneuvers or presses - at stealth.

    Still, the picture.. Between the very nice art work of the Beast and
    say, passable art work of Mateusz, the picture on Annis looks like
    nothing that'd justify the mean specialties.

    //T
  13. Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

    > Side note: crypt cards like these are what makes me certain that the
    > grouping rule IS necessary indeed.

    Funny. That's the kind of cards that make me think exactly the opposite.
    Kinda like : what do we need a new group for (four) if it just duplicates
    existing things with slight variations ?!
    --
    Orpheus

    --------------------------------
    "Zane, Zane, Zane / Lalala Fashion Bip Bip / Oh ! By Jingo"

    David Bowie, greatest rock lyricist of all times
  14. Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

    "Jozxyqk" <jfeuerst@eecs.tufts.edu> wrote in message
    news:O8-dnR7qpsT0wp_fRVn-tQ@comcast.com...
    > "Fabio \"Sooner\" Macedo" <fabio@cohesp.com.br> wrote:
    > > On 3 Feb 2005 07:21:59 -0800, jnewquist@difsol.com wrote:
    >
    > >>Black Annis
    > >>9-Cap Nosferatu Antitribu, Group 4
    > >>ani pro OBF POT
    > >>Sabbat. Black Annis can enter combat with any minion controlled by your
    > >>predator or prey as a (D) action. Other non-hunt actions cost her an
    > >>additional blood. +1 strength. +1 stealth.
    > >>
    > >>Interesting... a bigger Beast with +1 stealth, and fewer restrictions,
    > >>but even a basic bleed costs her a blood.
    >
    > > In case someone didn't notice, even rush actions provided by other
    > > means - Bum's Rush, Haven Uncovered, Blooding + Shakar, whatever - do
    > > cost a blood also.
    > > That's how I understand "Other non-hunt actions".
    >
    > Nothing that Perfectionist can't patch...
    >
    (indeed, given the useful perm +1 stealth)

    or taste of vitae...


    George
  15. Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

    "Matthew T. Morgan" <farquar@io.com> a écrit dans le message de news:
    20050203124429.N72094@fnord.io.com...
    > On Thu, 3 Feb 2005, Orpheus wrote:
    >
    > >> Side note: crypt cards like these are what makes me certain that the
    > >> grouping rule IS necessary indeed.
    > >
    > > Funny. That's the kind of cards that make me think exactly the opposite.
    > > Kinda like : what do we need a new group for (four) if it just
    duplicates
    > > existing things with slight variations ?!
    >
    > We don't. We don't need anything beyond Jyhad to have a great game.
    >
    > I like having new expansions and new vampires and all that.

    Sure. And this could be done by creating really new vampires, with new
    discipline combos and / or abilities, that would allow for new strategies.
    Thousands of things haven't been done yet, and would be preferable to more
    Pot/Ani/Pro, !Ventrue OBT, etc etc.

    If grouping
    > is necessary to have new vampires all the time, then I'll take grouping.
    >
    > Matt Morgan

    It is now far too late to change anything, but I still believe it wasn't
    necessary, at least not at this point.
    --
    Orpheus

    --------------------------------
    "Zane, Zane, Zane / Lalala Fashion Bip Bip / Oh ! By Jingo"

    David Bowie, greatest rock lyricist of all times
  16. Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

    Orpheus <orpheus.13@eraserheadfree.fr> wrote:
    : It is now far too late to change anything, but I still believe it wasn't
    : necessary, at least not at this point.

    Well. If they are to revise the grouping rule, I'd very much like to see
    a rule that would allow enough backwards compatibility to allow using
    ol' Jyhad Vampires with the newest Group 4 Vampires. Can't wait.

    //T
  17. Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

    Getting back to Black Annis:

    She is obviously a combat oriented character. However, her drawback is
    fairly severe, especially context with her capacity.

    With this in mind, she is slightly under powered in my opinion due that
    she doesn't have animalism at superior. Animalism has proven itself a
    devastating combat discipline in the NYC circle in conjunction with the
    Nos/!Nos. We have a player named Corey who has a highly effective
    tournament winning !Nos deck using Combat with Superior Potence and
    Superior Animalism. This is due to environmental damage from Carrion
    Crows and Drawing out the Beast.

    Since the design has geared her so much towards combat, it would have
    been optimal for her to have superior animalism rather then obfuscate.
    In my opinion, this would still have made her balanced. She's still a
    great fighter, but I believe ultimately that environmental damage along
    with Trap is a more effective way with dealing damage prevention then
    her Protean offers.

    Still an effective minion. Especially when you couple the other
    !Nosferatu that has +2 strength.

    Eldacar
  18. Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

    "Teemu T Vilen" <tvilen@cc.helsinki.fi> a écrit dans le message de news:
    cttvb1$nu6$1@oravannahka.helsinki.fi...
    > Orpheus <orpheus.13@eraserheadfree.fr> wrote:
    > : It is now far too late to change anything, but I still believe it wasn't
    > : necessary, at least not at this point.
    >
    > Well. If they are to revise the grouping rule, I'd very much like to see
    > a rule that would allow enough backwards compatibility to allow using
    > ol' Jyhad Vampires with the newest Group 4 Vampires. Can't wait.

    TBA : New ???
  19. Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

    Orpheus <orpheus.13@eraserheadfree.fr> wrote:
    : "Teemu T Vilen" <tvilen@cc.helsinki.fi> a écrit dans le message de news:
    : cttvb1$nu6$1@oravannahka.helsinki.fi...
    :> Well. If they are to revise the grouping rule, I'd very much like to see
    :> a rule that would allow enough backwards compatibility to allow using
    :> ol' Jyhad Vampires with the newest Group 4 Vampires. Can't wait.
    : TBA : New ???

    Certainly hope so.

    //T
  20. Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

    Eldacar351 <eldacar351@aol.com> wrote:
    > Getting back to Black Annis:
    >
    > She is obviously a combat oriented character. However, her drawback is
    > fairly severe, especially context with her capacity.

    Drawback? You're looking at it the wrong way. She pays one blood for
    +1 stealth (even when it is not yet needed), but she doesn't actually
    have the choice to pay or not. ;)

    Rogar
  21. Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

    On Fri, 4 Feb 2005, Daneel wrote:

    > I disagree. When the designers have reached the limits of their
    > creativity it is time to stop designing. I'm not talking about "whoa,
    > this vampire has built in rush, and not something that takes five
    > lines to phrase, this is lame", I'm talking about "wow, a bigger beast
    > clone". If Group 4 is really just Group 2 reshuffled, then did we
    > really need it? I'm not against the grouping rule in theory, but I'm
    > not ecstatic about what I've seen from group 4 so far.

    Black Annis doesn't bother me. She's different enough from Beast for my
    tastes. Actually, I love all the +strength !Nosferatu. Can't be sad
    about another.

    But what really gets under my skin is yet *another* Camarilla Ravnos with
    PRE. I mean, how many of those do we have in g2? It's basically the
    theme of the group and now we're going to get another for g4? You're
    right. Nothing left to design.

    But what if there was nothing left to whine about?

    Matt Morgan
  22. Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

    > If Group 4 is really just Group 2 reshuffled, then did we
    > really need it? I'm not against the grouping rule in theory, but I'm
    > not ecstatic about what I've seen from group 4 so far.
    >

    Haven't you ever looked at a vampire and said "Man, if only he had [insert
    discipline here]!"? That's what Grouping is all about! The merits of
    Vampire A versus Vampire A' can only be explored if you can't use them at
    the same time because of Play Balance. The only alternative to grouping is
    making all new vampires Advanced versions of exisiting vampires, and then
    CE would have been 99% reprints instead of 72%.

    Group 3 didn't look all that impressive when you only had 35 vampires
    (that would be after opening all the starters and about 10 booster packs).
  23. Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

    On Thu, 3 Feb 2005 19:40:18 +0100, "Orpheus"
    <orpheus.13@ERASERHEADfree.fr> wrote:

    >> Side note: crypt cards like these are what makes me certain that the
    >> grouping rule IS necessary indeed.
    >
    >Funny. That's the kind of cards that make me think exactly the opposite.
    >Kinda like : what do we need a new group for (four) if it just duplicates
    >existing things with slight variations ?!

    Because it's inevitable.

    In short, grouping allows both approaches: printing altered versions
    of older vampires, and trying something different. Both are valid and
    necessary.

    There are limits to creativity within a given set of guidelines when
    designing a card. No matter how much we want to see new specials and
    such, it is impossible to print EVERY vampire with something different
    without completely screwing up the power curve at some point.
    And we must account to the fact that new vampires should have some
    sinergy with existing cards also. It leads to keep printing new
    vampires who can benefit the most from, say, POT combat. This in turn
    will lead to what? Built-in rush actions, of course.

    Since you can't avoid making a vampire with a special rush action here
    and there - remember, there are five sets and at least 6 years between
    the original release of Beast and this new Black Annis - and it's
    necessary to avoid the dial-a-crypt syndrome, go grouping.

    I've already posted something on this thread about Black Annis having
    significant differences from Beast, [pro] being a HUGE one (access to
    prevention, anyone?), so I won't dabble in it again. Go figure,
    necrobrother!

    best,

    Fabio "Sooner" Macedo
    V:EKN National Coordinator for Brazil
    --------------------------------------
    Now a "luminary", whatever it means:
    http://www.thelasombra.com/WhosWho/fabiomacedo.htm
  24. Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

    i don´t think designers reached said point yet. one vampire out of 5
    is a "g4 clone" (i don´t agree with this either). i agree it´s not
    the best ratio of novelty, but hey, how many vamps are we getting in
    the set? i don´t know, but already 37 are in the preview list, and
    we´re only in malkavian!!!!

    let´s see:
    tatiana has a quite different special, making her effectively - if you
    leave consanguineous boon and the summoning issue out - a vampire with
    three clans.

    kemintiri adv is nice as well, getting votes (well, jan did that too,
    but you needed to have someone playing gehenna events for that) and
    making up for the lame special of her base version - and keeping her
    faithful to her vtm story - by making use of everything ventrue (or
    almost).

    then we have the awesome - imho - maureen. first of all, a titled
    baali, something we lacked in bloodlines. and one that makes up for her
    infernal cost, if need be?? okay, i know saqqaf has a somewhat similar
    special, but i don´t see maureen as a clone of him.

    the gunbunny for the assamites, michael has a new approach at the set
    distance special, unlike the one you get from the sniper rifle and
    clearly different from cailean´s one....

    black annis, then, is somewhat related to beast, but probably it´s
    ´cause they´re both from the same clan, and both have a heavier hand.
    but then, you have a difference in which you can only go spanking your
    prey´s and predator´s minions (and i´ve seen beast putting a
    cross-table good use for his special). also, she doesn´t seem to be as
    good an anarch as beast is, and so on....
  25. Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

    On Fri, 04 Feb 2005 11:19:14 -0200, Fabio "Sooner" Macedo
    <fabio@cohesp.com.br> wrote:

    > On Thu, 3 Feb 2005 19:40:18 +0100, "Orpheus"
    > <orpheus.13@ERASERHEADfree.fr> wrote:
    >
    >>> Side note: crypt cards like these are what makes me certain that the
    >>> grouping rule IS necessary indeed.
    >>
    >> Funny. That's the kind of cards that make me think exactly the opposite.
    >> Kinda like : what do we need a new group for (four) if it just
    >> duplicates
    >> existing things with slight variations ?!
    >
    > Because it's inevitable.
    >
    > In short, grouping allows both approaches: printing altered versions
    > of older vampires, and trying something different. Both are valid and
    > necessary.
    >
    > There are limits to creativity within a given set of guidelines when
    > designing a card. No matter how much we want to see new specials and
    > such, it is impossible to print EVERY vampire with something different
    > without completely screwing up the power curve at some point.
    > And we must account to the fact that new vampires should have some
    > sinergy with existing cards also. It leads to keep printing new
    > vampires who can benefit the most from, say, POT combat. This in turn
    > will lead to what? Built-in rush actions, of course.

    I disagree. When the designers have reached the limits of their
    creativity it is time to stop designing. I'm not talking about "whoa,
    this vampire has built in rush, and not something that takes five
    lines to phrase, this is lame", I'm talking about "wow, a bigger beast
    clone". If Group 4 is really just Group 2 reshuffled, then did we
    really need it? I'm not against the grouping rule in theory, but I'm
    not ecstatic about what I've seen from group 4 so far.

    --
    Bye,

    Daneel
  26. Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

    On Fri, 04 Feb 2005 14:09:26 GMT, Daneel <daniel@eposta.hu> wrote:

    >On Fri, 04 Feb 2005 11:19:14 -0200, Fabio "Sooner" Macedo
    ><fabio@cohesp.com.br> wrote:
    >
    >> There are limits to creativity within a given set of guidelines when
    >> designing a card. No matter how much we want to see new specials and
    >> such, it is impossible to print EVERY vampire with something different
    >> without completely screwing up the power curve at some point.
    >> And we must account to the fact that new vampires should have some
    >> sinergy with existing cards also. It leads to keep printing new
    >> vampires who can benefit the most from, say, POT combat. This in turn
    >> will lead to what? Built-in rush actions, of course.
    >
    >I disagree. When the designers have reached the limits of their
    > creativity it is time to stop designing.

    I'd agree with it if the game was stalled in all its aspects - sales,
    ideas for library cards, strategies available.
    Don't think it's the case, though. What would be the alternative?
    Releasing expansions without crypt cards, so we'd be stuck with the
    same vampires but new mechanics/effects for disciplines and such...
    Wait, there are always new players who can't get their hands somehow
    in the old vampire cards (yeah, that happens). New vampires are
    necessary. V:TES suffers too much already from being a fairly
    complicated game for newbies to learn.

    I'm not talking about "whoa,
    > this vampire has built in rush, and not something that takes five
    > lines to phrase, this is lame", I'm talking about "wow, a bigger beast
    > clone". If Group 4 is really just Group 2 reshuffled, then did we
    > really need it? I'm not against the grouping rule in theory, but I'm
    > not ecstatic about what I've seen from group 4 so far.

    I suspect that it is intended to be that way. Group 2 reshuffled or
    not, group 4 should not have Annekes or Arikas. So no utter ecstasy
    after a given special, I guess.

    But maybe this thread has derived too far from the original subject.
    Should we rename the topic and continue on? I'm afraid all these
    arguments about grouping have been out there before or I've been just
    too harsh on posting more and more now that I finally have a news
    account and an appropriate news reader program ;)

    best,

    Fabio "Sooner" Macedo
    V:EKN National Coordinator for Brazil
    --------------------------------------
    Now a "luminary", whatever it means:
    http://www.thelasombra.com/WhosWho/fabiomacedo.htm
  27. Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

    In message <opsloeupxpo6j3lh@news.chello.hu>, Daneel <daniel@eposta.hu>
    writes:
    >I disagree. When the designers have reached the limits of their
    > creativity it is time to stop designing. I'm not talking about "whoa,
    > this vampire has built in rush, and not something that takes five
    > lines to phrase, this is lame", I'm talking about "wow, a bigger beast
    > clone". If Group 4 is really just Group 2 reshuffled, then did we
    > really need it? I'm not against the grouping rule in theory, but I'm
    > not ecstatic about what I've seen from group 4 so far.

    It's rather hard to say that Group 4 is just Group 2 reshuffled.
    Certainly, for my money, the Camarilla aspects of Group 3 are
    interestingly quirky compared to Group 1 and 2/3 crypts tend to be quite
    different from 1/2 crypts.

    But a certain amount of "staple" vampires and "staple" abilities are
    inevitable. There's only so much you can do with a 2 cap, 1 discipline
    vampire without just being insane. And similarly, if you want to give
    the Malkavians a solid bleeder or the !Nosferatu a solid combat monster,
    there's only so much you can do.

    However, providing solid, staple abilities, vampires and disciplines is
    not the same as reaching the limits of creativity.

    --
    James Coupe "Why do so many talented people turn out to be sexual
    PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D deviants? Why can't they just be normal like me and
    EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 look at internet pictures of men's cocks all day?"
    13D7E668C3695D623D5D -- www.livejournal.com/users/scarletdemon/
  28. Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

    Orpheus snip:
    - African Kindred. Different clans, different discipline mixes, an
    interesting alternative to Bloodlines 2 which could have been Group 2
    without unbalancing anything, with a little designing care

    --> this would be my choice. the thing with it is that Laibon legacies
    are not - at least not all of them - completely similar to Kindred
    clans. even though the Shango are pretty much assamite sorceres, the
    followers of set are still the same but then we have akunanse and
    abombwe, which are not exactly gangrel/protean (even though close
    enough to do some adaptation). the other option - using legacies as
    bloodlines, i.e.: new clans - would over crowd, imo - the game with
    clans, thus making things a bit harder. but then again, i can see that
    being done without much trouble in a setting kind of way, since laibon
    do not interact with kindred often. all in all, whenever this is done,
    i´ll be glad either way.


    - Allies seen as "crypt" cards, allies extensions. Hunters, Garous,
    Mages
    with cards copied on the disciplines and "normal" disciplineless cards.

    Could be stand-alone or mixed with vampires.

    --> this i strongly oppose. allies are not vampires, period. afaiu, the
    game is about vampires, not about magi, garou or changelings, etc. yes,
    they do happen to show up every now and then, but they´re sidekicks,
    not main stars. that´s how it should be. again, imo.


    - Kindred from the East. Not a very popular extension so I guess not,
    but
    still different combinations could have come from it, without
    ressorting to
    a new group.

    --> too much tweaking to be done there, but it´s feasible nonetheless.

    cheers
    luciano "baital" de sampaio
    vekn anarch baron de curitiba
  29. Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

    "Fabio "Sooner" Macedo" <fabio@cohesp.com.br> a écrit dans le message de
    news: hr5701d1tvai8cppsgjah7n25ga490b0id@4ax.com...
    > On Fri, 04 Feb 2005 14:09:26 GMT, Daneel <daniel@eposta.hu> wrote:
    >
    > >On Fri, 04 Feb 2005 11:19:14 -0200, Fabio "Sooner" Macedo
    > ><fabio@cohesp.com.br> wrote:
    > >
    > >> There are limits to creativity within a given set of guidelines when
    > >> designing a card. No matter how much we want to see new specials and
    > >> such, it is impossible to print EVERY vampire with something different
    > >> without completely screwing up the power curve at some point.
    > >> And we must account to the fact that new vampires should have some
    > >> sinergy with existing cards also. It leads to keep printing new
    > >> vampires who can benefit the most from, say, POT combat. This in turn
    > >> will lead to what? Built-in rush actions, of course.
    > >
    > >I disagree. When the designers have reached the limits of their
    > > creativity it is time to stop designing.
    >
    > I'd agree with it if the game was stalled in all its aspects - sales,
    > ideas for library cards, strategies available.
    > Don't think it's the case, though. What would be the alternative?
    > Releasing expansions without crypt cards, so we'd be stuck with the
    > same vampires but new mechanics/effects for disciplines and such...

    Or finding new alternatives.

    Examples :

    - African Kindred. Different clans, different discipline mixes, an
    interesting alternative to Bloodlines 2 which could have been Group 2
    without unbalancing anything, with a little designing care

    - Medieval versions of the vampires, with some special rules. This does have
    its compatibility drawbacks, but could be feasible.

    - Allies seen as "crypt" cards, allies extensions. Hunters, Garous, Mages
    with cards copied on the disciplines and "normal" disciplineless cards.
    Could be stand-alone or mixed with vampires.

    - Kindred from the East. Not a very popular extension so I guess not, but
    still different combinations could have come from it, without ressorting to
    a new group.

    This, and the aforementionned "new combinations", leads me to say it was way
    too early for a new group.

    Deadly Yours,

    Orpheus, Necromonger.
  30. Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

    "Orpheus" <orpheus.13@ERASERHEADfree.fr> wrote in message
    news:4204d35b$0$17063$626a14ce@news.free.fr...
    > Or finding new alternatives.
    >
    > Examples :
    >
    > - African Kindred. Different clans, different discipline mixes, an
    > interesting alternative to Bloodlines 2 which could have been Group 2
    > without unbalancing anything, with a little designing care
    ....
    > - Kindred from the East. Not a very popular extension so I guess not, but
    > still different combinations could have come from it, without ressorting to
    > a new group.

    (Sidestepping the issue of whether grouping is good or bad, necessary or
    unnecessary.)

    I kind of like the idea of "different parts of the world kindred" done
    with some sort of other quasi-grouping world. As an example:

    African Kindred and Kindred-of-the-East based decks must be declared at the
    start of the game. Decks so declared must normally consist only of kindred
    with these respective designations (referring to AK or KotE designations on
    the crypt cards). Other vampires may be used in the crypts of these decks
    and these vampires may be used in normal decks, but in both cases, such
    vampires count as "scarce" vampires. In this case, the scarcity is calculated
    on all out-of-designation vampires together as a group. Any vampire which
    truly has the scarce designation must continue to pay its penalty on top of
    "designation scarcity". So, for instance, when bringing a scarce Nagaraja
    into play using a deck declared as an African Kindred deck which also has a
    non-scarce Kindred-of-the-East vampire and another Nagaraja vampire in the
    ready region, the penalty would be nine: six for the other non-African
    Kindred vampire in play and three for the other Nagaraja in play.

    Of course, African Kindred and Kindred of the East would either have to be
    above average vampires or a great many of them would have to be created in
    short order to make them competitive under such a rule. But it might make
    for some interesting possibilities in terms of what could be done with such
    vampires.

    Fred
  31. Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

    "Orpheus" <orpheus.13@ERASERHEADfree.fr> wrote in message
    news:4204d35b$0$17063$626a14ce@news.free.fr...

    > Or finding new alternatives.
    >
    > Examples :
    >
    > - African Kindred. Different clans, different discipline mixes, an
    > interesting alternative to Bloodlines 2 which could have been Group 2
    > without unbalancing anything, with a little designing care
    >
    > - Medieval versions of the vampires, with some special rules. This does
    have
    > its compatibility drawbacks, but could be feasible.
    >
    > - Allies seen as "crypt" cards, allies extensions. Hunters, Garous, Mages
    > with cards copied on the disciplines and "normal" disciplineless cards.
    > Could be stand-alone or mixed with vampires.
    >
    > - Kindred from the East. Not a very popular extension so I guess not, but
    > still different combinations could have come from it, without ressorting
    to
    > a new group.
    >
    > This, and the aforementionned "new combinations", leads me to say it was
    way
    > too early for a new group.
    >
    > Deadly Yours,
    >
    > Orpheus, Necromonger.
    >
    >

    Or release Daeva, Mekhet, introduce Covenant cards, e.t.c...
    with a few words, introduce some FEW Requiem stuff.
    I know that this would require a lot of designing care,
    but i believe that it can be sucessfuly done after some years...

    Please don't release any Kindred of the East,
    support the Bloodlines with a few more minions and
    cards, modify the grouping rule now or after some time,
    so that we can use more than two groups when building
    decks. I am not talking about complete freedom, but
    instead of allowing certain combinations of groups, you
    might as well prohibit certain combinations.

    e.g. instead of saying that G2 can be mixed with
    only G1 or with only G3, you can say that G2 cannot
    be mixed with G4 or G6, e.t.c. I know that the G rule
    will become slightly more complicated than it is now,
    but people will gain access to new type of decks and
    thus that'll help to keep them interested in the game.

    We are not stupid, i am sure that we can handle a
    new improved G rule, even if it is more complicated.

    Finaly, please keep new sets at 2 per year or 3 per 2
    years, not more than this. In my opinion 1 set every 7-8
    months would be the ideal thing to do.

    We, who are buying a lot of stuff, won't have serious trouble
    keeping up with 2 or even 3 sets per year, but this will lead us
    to having a ton of cards and play with just a few.
    We might even end up not knowing what a great portion of the
    cards that we own does. That's bad...

    Additionaly, new players will be so furstrated and dissapointed
    because of not being able to catch up, having to buy the many
    new sets and at the same time old ones, that they could lose
    interest and even quit the game...

    That's just my personal opinion, comments are welcome...


    George
  32. Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

    tzimisce_dragon wrote:
    > Or release Daeva, Mekhet, introduce Covenant cards, e.t.c...
    > with a few words, introduce some FEW Requiem stuff.

    Uh, no thanks. The NWOD is so different from the old (and I think the
    official policy is "it has nothing to do with the old WOD except for a
    couple of names here and there"), that they really wouldn't mix at all.

    Adding stuff like Covenants to VTES would be just plain absurd and insane.

    --CV
  33. Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

    > Finaly, please keep new sets at 2 per year or 3 per 2
    > years, not more than this. In my opinion 1 set every 7-8
    > months would be the ideal thing to do.

    9 months is the current schedule, and I can go with that if I keep on
    buying.

    > We, who are buying a lot of stuff, won't have serious trouble
    > keeping up with 2 or even 3 sets per year, but this will lead us
    > to having a ton of cards and play with just a few.
    > We might even end up not knowing what a great portion of the
    > cards that we own does. That's bad...

    It is already the case for me and many persons I know. The 6 months schedule
    was very bad, even for small sets. There are too many things to try even
    when 10 new cards come out (Powerbase LA alone is a good reason to revisit
    many Anarch concepts, for instance), so 100+ new cards takes lots of time ;
    more with each coming expansion, as a matter of facts, because the options
    tend to multiply, many new cards bringing old ones under a new light.

    > Additionaly, new players will be so furstrated and dissapointed
    > because of not being able to catch up, having to buy the many
    > new sets and at the same time old ones, that they could lose
    > interest and even quit the game...
    >
    > That's just my personal opinion, comments are welcome...

    Done. ;-)
    --
    Orpheus

    --------------------------------
    "Zane, Zane, Zane / Lalala Fashion Bip Bip / Oh ! By Jingo"

    David Bowie, greatest rock lyricist of all times
  34. Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

    On Sat, 5 Feb 2005 17:28:40 +0200, tzimisce_dragon <georget@for.auth.gr>
    wrote:

    > Or release Daeva, Mekhet, introduce Covenant cards, e.t.c...
    > with a few words, introduce some FEW Requiem stuff.

    This is probably the WORST idea I've ever heard about the
    direction VTES should take. Grats, you suddenly swept the
    different odder-than-odd ideas from the top of my lemon
    list...

    --
    Bye,

    Daneel
  35. Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

    In message <4204d35b$0$17063$626a14ce@news.free.fr>, Orpheus
    <orpheus.13@ERASERHEADfree.fr> writes:
    <snip - various possible different sets that could be released>
    >This, and the aforementionned "new combinations", leads me to say it was way
    >too early for a new group.

    That seems to miss the point of what grouping exists for.

    It is not, so far as I can tell, in order to completely exhaust the
    creative possibilities of designers, who then start again from scratch.


    It prevents dial-a-vamp across the game as a whole, but also attempts to
    keep grouping pairs roughly power-equivalent amongst themselves. If,
    therefore, printing more group three vampires would make [2/3] (and a
    potential future [3/4]) more powerful than [1/2] in the view of the
    designer, they don't print any more.

    Sure, they could think up a thousand cool ideas with African kindred,
    kindred of the east, crypt-based allies, mages, demons, mummies. But if
    they think that that would significantly favour [2/3] over [1/2], they
    step back from it. Bear in mind that both [1/2] and [2/3] have access
    to Bloodlines (for random kookiness), and that giving [2/3] access to
    more random stuff could provide it with a potential edge. This is bad,
    because it pisses off old players who were told all their old decks were
    still usable - it doesn't matter if they're usable if they're made
    entirely obsolete.[0]

    Once they've got to a stage, however, where the [2/3] crypt
    possibilities are, in their opinion, roughly balanced with the [1/2]
    options (for a given clan, a given discipline combo, or whatever)
    printing more is a difficult choice. Whilst dial-a-crypt mitigates
    heavily against cross-clan combos getting out of control, if you start
    giving your group three Brujah a lot more vampires than group one had,
    you end up with a potential imbalance as your [2/3] Brujah decks
    outclass the [1/2] decks, leading to power escalation.


    Hence, a significant part of grouping is NOT about the creative options
    of random sets that could be produced, but a cold and clinical numbers
    game of balance across grouping pairs.


    [0] This is one of the reasons I was slightly concerned by the
    introduction of the Event card type, and the possibilities it brings
    out, because old decks have no way of defending against it, and old
    vampires don't have built in specials like, say, Jan Pieterzoon's
    (Advanced). Inevitable, but still mildly concerning. (The emphasis
    here is on the word "mildly".)

    --
    James Coupe "Why do so many talented people turn out to be sexual
    PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D deviants? Why can't they just be normal like me and
    EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 look at internet pictures of men's cocks all day?"
    13D7E668C3695D623D5D -- www.livejournal.com/users/scarletdemon/
  36. Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

    James Coupe wrote:

    > Hence, a significant part of grouping is NOT about the creative options
    > of random sets that could be produced, but a cold and clinical numbers
    > game of balance across grouping pairs.

    Yeah, see, everyone is all like "when will there be group 5?!?!?!". Likely,
    the answer is, like, "when G4 is the same size as G2". As the whole thing is
    essentially numbers based, we are just trying to get equivelantly sized
    groups. G1 is big. G2 is small for matching G1 clans and big for non also G1
    clans. G3 is big for G1 clans and small for G2 clans. G4 will likely, then,
    be small for G3 clans and big for G2 clans--we'll get, what, like, 7 or 8
    various G4 Camarilla vampires, likely, but have room for about, what, 15-20
    vampires for a given Sabbat clan (like in G2). And G4 has space for,
    essentially, a whole new, identically sized Bloodlines set of vampires. And
    a similarly sized set of independant vampires.

    So until G4 contains, say:

    ~8 each of the Camarilla vampires
    ~20 each of the Sabbat clans
    ~20 each of the Independant clans
    ~the exact same number of all the Bloodlines clans

    We don't need a G4. Once we hit that, we can go to G5. And probably will.

    > [0] This is one of the reasons I was slightly concerned by the
    > introduction of the Event card type, and the possibilities it brings
    > out, because old decks have no way of defending against it, and old
    > vampires don't have built in specials like, say, Jan Pieterzoon's
    > (Advanced). Inevitable, but still mildly concerning. (The emphasis
    > here is on the word "mildly".)

    Ahh, but see, Jan Pieterzoon fits in with Old decks, as he is G2. So it is
    certainly possible to fix this very issue by making advanced G1/G2 vampires
    with abilities built for events.


    Peter D Bakija
    pdb6@lightlink.com
    http://www.lightlink.com/pdb6

    "How does this end?"
    "In fire."
    Emperor Turhan and Kosh
  37. Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

    "Daneel" <daniel@eposta.hu> wrote in message
    news:opslrncge1o6j3lh@news.chello.hu...
    > On Sat, 5 Feb 2005 17:28:40 +0200, tzimisce_dragon <georget@for.auth.gr>
    > wrote:
    >
    > > Or release Daeva, Mekhet, introduce Covenant cards, e.t.c...
    > > with a few words, introduce some FEW Requiem stuff.
    >
    > This is probably the WORST idea I've ever heard about the
    > direction VTES should take. Grats, you suddenly swept the
    > different odder-than-odd ideas from the top of my lemon
    > list...
    >
    > --
    > Bye,
    >
    > Daneel

    :)

    thanks....

    Anyway, as i have said, releasing such cards would have been after
    some years and would require an open mind from the players...

    Maybe it is a bad idea, ok, don't do it... BUT please NO KotEast...


    George
  38. Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

    In message <BE2BA604.1D1C0%pdb6@lightlink.com>, Peter D Bakija
    <pdb6@lightlink.com> writes:
    >James Coupe wrote:
    >> [0] This is one of the reasons I was slightly concerned by the
    >> introduction of the Event card type, and the possibilities it brings
    >> out, because old decks have no way of defending against it, and old
    >> vampires don't have built in specials like, say, Jan Pieterzoon's
    >> (Advanced). Inevitable, but still mildly concerning. (The emphasis
    >> here is on the word "mildly".)
    >
    >Ahh, but see, Jan Pieterzoon fits in with Old decks, as he is G2. So it is
    >certainly possible to fix this very issue by making advanced G1/G2 vampires
    >with abilities built for events.

    Oh, yes. One small caveat is that I had a brain failure and thought Jan
    was Group 3 temporarily. So yeah, that side of the argument loses out.

    The difficulty of introducing new mechanics, without making old decks
    need to account for them, is harder though. It's not quite 'power
    escalation' (in the sense of printing a card that's simply outright
    better than KRC), but it does require some element of buying new cards.
    Nowhere near as aggressive as Magic, of course, but it's there. Which I
    guess it has to be, in a commercial concern, but well, you know. It's
    just a bit ick for casual players with older collections to gradually
    become more distant from current play if they want to dip in.

    The other concern I have about Events specifically is the lack of a
    general defence, though. Actions? Play intercept. Masters? Play
    Suddens or Bleeding the Vine. Any minion card at all? Play DI. And so
    on. Lots of events really require you to specifically put in counters.
    One of the things I like about V:TES is that you can put in specific
    counters if you want (e.g. Delaying Tactics for votes) or you can put in
    general counters when you're unsure (e.g. intercept).


    More generally though, yes, I'd like to see more older vampires Advanced
    - as discussed in another thread right now! Small sets which went over
    bits of Group 1 and Group 2 and filled in some of the holes with
    Advanced vampires would be really cool.

    Advanced Salubri Antitribu! Just think of the possibilities! (Hmmm.)

    --
    James Coupe "Why do so many talented people turn out to be sexual
    PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D deviants? Why can't they just be normal like me and
    EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 look at internet pictures of men's cocks all day?"
    13D7E668C3695D623D5D -- www.livejournal.com/users/scarletdemon/
  39. Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

    James Coupe wrote:

    > Oh, yes. One small caveat is that I had a brain failure and thought Jan
    > was Group 3 temporarily. So yeah, that side of the argument loses out.

    Caveat...ACCEPTED! Oh, wait. I thought you meant gambit. Never mind...

    :-)

    >
    > The difficulty of introducing new mechanics, without making old decks
    > need to account for them, is harder though. It's not quite 'power
    > escalation' (in the sense of printing a card that's simply outright
    > better than KRC), but it does require some element of buying new cards.
    > Nowhere near as aggressive as Magic, of course, but it's there. Which I
    > guess it has to be, in a commercial concern, but well, you know. It's
    > just a bit ick for casual players with older collections to gradually
    > become more distant from current play if they want to dip in.

    Oh, yeah, sure. But like, for instance, the introduction of Events means
    that you either have to buy into the new set for any kind of defense (even
    ones that old decks can use, like, say, Emergency Preperations or The
    Bloodening/Black hand Ritual), or just not worry about it. I think that
    Gehenna had enough generic Event defense that can shuffle into completely
    unrefitted old decks well enough that if someone was really worried about
    Events in their, like, old school G1 Malk S+B deck, they could deal with a
    handfull of Emergency Preps.

    But even still, I don't think it is that big of a deal, overall--people were
    all sorts of worried about Events destroying the game when they came out,
    but really, at this point, I still see very few of them in play on a regular
    basis. A few gateway Events get regular play (Anthelios, obviously, and The
    Unmaskening in ally decks), but overall, I'm yet to see enough huge event
    play that I have ever worried about having to respond with anti-event tech.
    My pal Jay has one deck that is crazy with the events, but on the small
    number of occasions that I see it in play and it doesn't just get killed
    outright, it is just really funny when everyone is savaged by the 7 or 8
    Events on the table. But that happens *really* rarely. So from my
    experience, Events aren't really something that old decks need to respond to
    all that much. But still, I see where you are coming from.

    Although I still would be happy with a bunch of cool, new, Adavanced G!
    vampires with some Gehenna tech special abilities. That'd be cool.

    > The other concern I have about Events specifically is the lack of a
    > general defence, though. Actions? Play intercept. Masters? Play
    > Suddens or Bleeding the Vine. Any minion card at all? Play DI. And so
    > on. Lots of events really require you to specifically put in counters.
    > One of the things I like about V:TES is that you can put in specific
    > counters if you want (e.g. Delaying Tactics for votes) or you can put in
    > general counters when you're unsure (e.g. intercept).

    Well, there is always Emergency Preperations, which is just as usable as
    Sudden, even more so in a heavy Event environment (so you can use them to
    untap if you have them after the fact). And Sabbat decks can use The
    Bloodening/Black Hand Ritual (which also cycles freely if you don't need it
    then). If someone really wants anti-Event tech, it is available. Luckily, it
    doesn't seem to really be necessary.

    > More generally though, yes, I'd like to see more older vampires Advanced
    > - as discussed in another thread right now! Small sets which went over
    > bits of Group 1 and Group 2 and filled in some of the holes with
    > Advanced vampires would be really cool.

    Agreed.

    > Advanced Salubri Antitribu! Just think of the possibilities! (Hmmm.)

    I'm thinking already. And sooooo happy...


    Peter D Bakija
    pdb6@lightlink.com
    http://www.lightlink.com/pdb6

    "How does this end?"
    "In fire."
    Emperor Turhan and Kosh
  40. Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

    In message <BE2BDAC6.1D1D7%pdb6@lightlink.com>, Peter D Bakija
    <pdb6@lightlink.com> writes:
    >James Coupe wrote:
    >> The other concern I have about Events specifically is the lack of a
    >> general defence, though. Actions? Play intercept. Masters? Play
    >> Suddens or Bleeding the Vine. Any minion card at all? Play DI. And so
    >> on. Lots of events really require you to specifically put in counters.
    >> One of the things I like about V:TES is that you can put in specific
    >> counters if you want (e.g. Delaying Tactics for votes) or you can put in
    >> general counters when you're unsure (e.g. intercept).
    >
    >Well, there is always Emergency Preperations, which is just as usable as
    >Sudden, even more so in a heavy Event environment (so you can use them to
    >untap if you have them after the fact). And Sabbat decks can use The
    >Bloodening/Black Hand Ritual (which also cycles freely if you don't need it
    >then). If someone really wants anti-Event tech, it is available. Luckily, it
    >doesn't seem to really be necessary.

    Oh, I really like Black Hand Ritual. The last deck I played in Watford
    had four of the things in. I'm not sure that Blooding is necessarily a
    good way to go about playing it, though. I'd much prefer to have a few
    real Black Hand vampires in there, as it's quite hard to make sure you
    get both and in the right order if you don't include quite a few.
    (Though Black Hand Ritual might be worth including quite a few of, for
    the untap.) Then, of course, Rob Treasure was the only person to
    include an event, and it was The Unmasking. Not a big issue that day.

    And I do agree that Emergency Preparations is possibly a useful card to
    include, and possibly useful anyway.


    However, there are two things that mildly concern me. (Again, this is
    only mild concern, not THE END OF THE WORLD.)

    1) The card type is Event. It's merely a facet of the Gehenna expansion
    that all the events have the Gehenna designator too. Port Authority
    shows the possibility for non-Gehenna events. Of course, this can be
    countered by making Emergency Preparations-like cards for other Event
    types, or even a more generic anti-Event tech. But this feeds into
    mild concern 2.

    2) As a new card *type*, it's not vulnerable to the standard deck types.
    Compared with, say, a new designator for master cards (vulnerable to
    anti-master tech) or a new equipment type or new, powerful (but
    costed) actions (vulnerable to burning equipment, block actions,
    etc.), it means that your defences have to change a fair bit if you
    need to defend against it. And decks are already pretty darned full,
    so if you want to defend against Events, do you drop some of your
    anti-vote tech?

    Now, of course, there are two obvious counters here:

    1) The game gets shaken up a bit. It's not like you wouldn't have to
    re-orient your decks if the new cards had been some super-strong
    equipment cards.

    2) As you say above, it may well be the case that anti-Event tech isn't
    actually worth all that much.


    There's quite a few Events which I do believe are powerful, though, even
    if they're not currently being used heavily. People don't like, say,
    Anarch Revolt because of the random effect to the table. Similarly, I'm
    concerned by that possibility with Recalled to the Founder and Fall of
    the Sabbat/Camarilla. "Oh, you didn't include enough anti-Event/Gehenna
    tech in your deck? Bye bye vampires. Bye bye votes." Is there
    necessarily a good deck in there? Dunno, but it's somewhat similar to a
    bad player sitting down with a bad Anarch Revolt deck and the effect it
    can have on a table - he may not win, but he can take everyone down with
    him in an arbitrary fashion.


    Again, this isn't as though I'm thinking "OH MY GOD IT'S THE END OF THE
    WORLD." It's just one of those things I think about.


    >> Advanced Salubri Antitribu! Just think of the possibilities! (Hmmm.)
    >
    >I'm thinking already. And sooooo happy...

    Frankly, I'd be willing to single-handedly advance medical science to a
    point where I could bear LSJ's babies if this happened.


    --
    James Coupe "Why do so many talented people turn out to be sexual
    PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D deviants? Why can't they just be normal like me and
    EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 look at internet pictures of men's cocks all day?"
    13D7E668C3695D623D5D -- www.livejournal.com/users/scarletdemon/
  41. Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

    James Coupe wrote:

    > Oh, I really like Black Hand Ritual. The last deck I played in Watford
    > had four of the things in. I'm not sure that Blooding is necessarily a
    > good way to go about playing it, though. I'd much prefer to have a few
    > real Black Hand vampires in there, as it's quite hard to make sure you
    > get both and in the right order if you don't include quite a few.
    > (Though Black Hand Ritual might be worth including quite a few of, for
    > the untap.) Then, of course, Rob Treasure was the only person to
    > include an event, and it was The Unmasking. Not a big issue that day.

    Yeah, The Bloodening isn't, like, the best option for using Black Hand
    Ritual tech, but if, like, you were *really* set on using a G1/2 deck with
    sabbat vampires, and were afraid of Events, a handfull of The Bloodening and
    BHRs isn't going to hurt that much (as all the BH vampires are G3+).

    > And I do agree that Emergency Preparations is possibly a useful card to
    > include, and possibly useful anyway.

    I mean, like, if you are worried about events (say some specific, easy to
    play event *really* kills your deck, or you play in an event happy
    environment), then a few Emergency Preps can't hurt so much, and could
    possibly help a lot.

    > 1) The card type is Event. It's merely a facet of the Gehenna expansion
    > that all the events have the Gehenna designator too. Port Authority
    > shows the possibility for non-Gehenna events. Of course, this can be
    > countered by making Emergency Preparations-like cards for other Event
    > types, or even a more generic anti-Event tech. But this feeds into
    > mild concern 2.

    Ooh. Strong point I hadn't considered--Emergency Prep and BHR only get
    Gehenna cards, not Events, right? Huh.

    > 2) As a new card *type*, it's not vulnerable to the standard deck types.
    > Compared with, say, a new designator for master cards (vulnerable to
    > anti-master tech) or a new equipment type or new, powerful (but
    > costed) actions (vulnerable to burning equipment, block actions,
    > etc.), it means that your defences have to change a fair bit if you
    > need to defend against it. And decks are already pretty darned full,
    > so if you want to defend against Events, do you drop some of your
    > anti-vote tech?

    Also true. But again, now that they aren't so new anymore, they aren't
    seeing that much play. At least in my experience.

    > There's quite a few Events which I do believe are powerful, though, even
    > if they're not currently being used heavily. People don't like, say,
    > Anarch Revolt because of the random effect to the table. Similarly, I'm
    > concerned by that possibility with Recalled to the Founder and Fall of
    > the Sabbat/Camarilla. "Oh, you didn't include enough anti-Event/Gehenna
    > tech in your deck? Bye bye vampires. Bye bye votes." Is there
    > necessarily a good deck in there? Dunno, but it's somewhat similar to a
    > bad player sitting down with a bad Anarch Revolt deck and the effect it
    > can have on a table - he may not win, but he can take everyone down with
    > him in an arbitrary fashion.

    I think that the hard Events (Recalled/Fall) are difficult enough to get
    into play that it is farily difficult to build a deck around them.
    Especially as their benefits are narrow enough to not always actually be
    useful--you could fill your deck with enough infrastructure to be able to
    play Fall or Recalled, but unless you are sitting next to someone who it
    will actually harm significantly, all that infrastructure isn't that useful,
    providing disincentive to actually play such a deck a lot.

    > Again, this isn't as though I'm thinking "OH MY GOD IT'S THE END OF THE
    > WORLD." It's just one of those things I think about.

    And certainly reasonable things.

    > Frankly, I'd be willing to single-handedly advance medical science to a
    > point where I could bear LSJ's babies if this happened.

    Heh heh. Wasn't there a movie about that?


    Peter D Bakija
    pdb6@lightlink.com
    http://www.lightlink.com/pdb6

    "How does this end?"
    "In fire."
    Emperor Turhan and Kosh
  42. Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

    Oy Fabio, been trying to mail you, please send me your address by mail
    (remove the "eraserhead" part in my mail address).

    ---------------------
    Orpheus, Necromonger
  43. Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

    James Coupe wrote:
    > 1) The card type is Event...
    >
    > 2) As a new card *type*, it's not vulnerable to the standard deck types.

    This is true, although the effect of many of the Events isn't that
    remarkable.

    Take, "The Unmasking" (allies get +1 intercept), for example. An
    old-school Group 1 deck doesn't need to be changed to cope with this.
    Either the deck cares about intercept and thus already had stealth, or
    it doesn't.

    Many of the easier-to-play and thus more commonly played Events are
    similarly mostly new ways of doing old things. A pre-Event deck can't
    prevent these things happening, but the effects of the Events are not
    really unprecedented.

    > Similarly, I'm concerned by that possibility with Recalled
    > to the Founder and Fall of the Sabbat/Camarilla. "Oh, you didn't
    > include enough anti-Event/Gehenna tech in your deck? Bye bye
    > vampires. ... it's somewhat similar to a bad player sitting down
    > with a bad Anarch Revolt deck ...

    I agree.

    Although, I'd note that Recalled to the Founder is not generally a huge
    problem. It's the equivalent of having a PTO played on a largish
    mid-cap of your choice. Sure, if you aren't playing any mid-caps you're
    either going to lose a single large cap. vampire or many weenie vamps.
    Most decks, however, do have a 6-7 cap. vampire that it's irritating
    but not totally disastrous to lose - particularly if your pred/prey are
    also losing one. The point being that, a random PTO is not exactly
    unexpected for (post Ancient Hearts) decks. Therefore, neither is
    Recalled to the Founder.

    In some ways, a proliferation of anti-Event tech. (say as Group 1
    advanced vampire card text) would _disadvantage_ old-school decks.
    Events would be designed assuming that they could be (more) easily
    countered/prevented, hence they would be designed to be more powerful,
    compelling old school decks to include the "new" advanced vampires. I
    could imagine this annoying players.

    --
    * lehrbuch (lehrbuch@gmail.com)
  44. Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

    In message <BE2C41F6.1D206%pdb6@lightlink.com>, Peter D Bakija
    <pdb6@lightlink.com> writes:
    >James Coupe wrote:
    >> Frankly, I'd be willing to single-handedly advance medical science to a
    >> point where I could bear LSJ's babies if this happened.
    >
    >Heh heh. Wasn't there a movie about that?

    The film was destroyed, in order to preserve humanity's sense of taste
    and decency.

    --
    James Coupe "Why do so many talented people turn out to be sexual
    PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D deviants? Why can't they just be normal like me and
    EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 look at internet pictures of men's cocks all day?"
    13D7E668C3695D623D5D -- www.livejournal.com/users/scarletdemon/
  45. Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

    On Sat, 5 Feb 2005 15:08:27 +0100, "Orpheus"
    <orpheus.13@ERASERHEADfree.fr> wrote:

    >"Fabio "Sooner" Macedo" <fabio@cohesp.com.br> a écrit dans le message de
    >news: hr5701d1tvai8cppsgjah7n25ga490b0id@4ax.com...
    >> On Fri, 04 Feb 2005 14:09:26 GMT, Daneel <daniel@eposta.hu> wrote:
    >>
    >> >On Fri, 04 Feb 2005 11:19:14 -0200, Fabio "Sooner" Macedo
    >> ><fabio@cohesp.com.br> wrote:
    >> >
    >> >> There are limits to creativity within a given set of guidelines when
    >> >> designing a card. No matter how much we want to see new specials and
    >> >> such, it is impossible to print EVERY vampire with something different
    >> >> without completely screwing up the power curve at some point.
    >> >> And we must account to the fact that new vampires should have some
    >> >> sinergy with existing cards also. It leads to keep printing new
    >> >> vampires who can benefit the most from, say, POT combat. This in turn
    >> >> will lead to what? Built-in rush actions, of course.
    >> >
    >> >I disagree. When the designers have reached the limits of their
    >> > creativity it is time to stop designing.
    >>
    >> I'd agree with it if the game was stalled in all its aspects - sales,
    >> ideas for library cards, strategies available.
    >> Don't think it's the case, though. What would be the alternative?
    >> Releasing expansions without crypt cards, so we'd be stuck with the
    >> same vampires but new mechanics/effects for disciplines and such...
    >
    >Or finding new alternatives.

    See, I'm nowhere near the camp that the game has reached the point
    where there is nothing else to add. The whole paragraph above was
    written under the assumption that some upper limit was somehow
    reached.

    But still the game have some limits to consider when designing a new
    card. Consider library destruction. It was introduced not a long time
    ago and it still bothers some players. Any new strategy to be added
    has to be not disrupting, in accordance with the scenario the game is
    based in, and should not case players to thing that V:TES is headed
    toward anything that could downgrade existing strategies very clearly.
    At the same time, the game needs continuing support for available
    strategies, including vampires who could help. That's what leads me to
    believe that there's only so much space for new alternatives.
    Not that there's none. There's plenty. But each 20 or 30 vamps or so,
    one will look like a reshuffled version of X vampire from group 1 or
    2. That's inevitable.

    Not to mention that all these alternatives listed below are damn
    interesting, but don't fit with the KMW theme.

    best,


    >Examples :
    >
    >- African Kindred. Different clans, different discipline mixes, an
    >interesting alternative to Bloodlines 2 which could have been Group 2
    >without unbalancing anything, with a little designing care
    >
    >- Medieval versions of the vampires, with some special rules. This does have
    >its compatibility drawbacks, but could be feasible.
    >
    >- Allies seen as "crypt" cards, allies extensions. Hunters, Garous, Mages
    >with cards copied on the disciplines and "normal" disciplineless cards.
    >Could be stand-alone or mixed with vampires.
    >
    >- Kindred from the East. Not a very popular extension so I guess not, but
    >still different combinations could have come from it, without ressorting to
    >a new group.
    >
    >This, and the aforementionned "new combinations", leads me to say it was way
    >too early for a new group.
    >
    >Deadly Yours,
    >
    >Orpheus, Necromonger.
    >
    >

    Fabio "Sooner" Macedo
    V:TES National Coordinator for Brazil
    -----------------------------------------------------
    now a "luminary", whatever it means:
    http://www.thelasombra.com/WhosWho/fabiomacedo.htm
  46. Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

    "Fabio "Sooner"" <fabio_sooner@NOSPAMterra.com.br> wrote in message news:f7sf01tctlhhpuob35v8ah5sdn7qbrvoei@4ax.com...
    > On Sat, 5 Feb 2005 15:08:27 +0100, "Orpheus"
    > <orpheus.13@ERASERHEADfree.fr> wrote:
    >
    >>"Fabio "Sooner" Macedo" <fabio@cohesp.com.br> a écrit dans le message de
    >>news: hr5701d1tvai8cppsgjah7n25ga490b0id@4ax.com...
    >>> On Fri, 04 Feb 2005 14:09:26 GMT, Daneel <daniel@eposta.hu> wrote:
    >>> >I disagree. When the designers have reached the limits of their
    >>> > creativity it is time to stop designing.
    >>>
    >>> I'd agree with it if the game was stalled in all its aspects - sales,
    >>> ideas for library cards, strategies available.
    >>> Don't think it's the case, though. What would be the alternative?
    >>> Releasing expansions without crypt cards, so we'd be stuck with the
    >>> same vampires but new mechanics/effects for disciplines and such...
    >>
    >>Or finding new alternatives.
    >
    > See, I'm nowhere near the camp that the game has reached the point
    > where there is nothing else to add. The whole paragraph above was
    > written under the assumption that some upper limit was somehow
    > reached.
    >
    > But still the game have some limits to consider when designing a new
    > card. Consider library destruction. It was introduced not a long time
    > ago and it still bothers some players. Any new strategy to be added
    > has to be not disrupting, in accordance with the scenario the game is
    > based in, and should not case players to thing that V:TES is headed
    > toward anything that could downgrade existing strategies very clearly.

    Huh?!? OK:
    --DISCLAIMER--
    The following is written as a response to the that comment that, "Any
    new strategy to be added has to be not disrupting, in accordance with
    the scenario the game is based in,..." It may or may not have anything
    to do with grouping and I'm not trying to assert grouping is good or
    bad. I just think this comment misses the point about why library
    destruction, as a strategy, is bad to design into the game.
    --/DISCLAIMER--

    First of all, you need to get your vocabulary cleaned up.
    I'm not sure what you mean by "disruption". That word has little
    relevance that I can think of when used in the context of what
    strategies or tactics should or should not be supported in VtES.
    To "disrupt" tends to suggest interference with another player's
    defense (means of remaining in the game) or offense (means of ousting
    prey and thus making progress towards winning the game). Rush combat,
    as an easy example, clearly does both. So a statement that begins,
    "Any new strategy to be added has to be not disrupting..." ignores
    the reality of the game since it was invented.

    Library destruction can not be deemed evil by any conceivable
    definition of the term "disruptive". If anything, it's LESS
    "disruptive" than many stratigies given that its victim has a
    completely free hand to operate normally until a specific point is
    reached when his library is exhausted. In fact, if the predator is
    expending most or all of his offensive resources on just library
    destruction, if anything, the problem caused is that the prey has
    TOO free a hand since he isn't getting otherwise attacked by his
    predator which would be normal by comparison. If anything, the
    problem with pursuing a library destruction offense is that it
    unbalances the board by being too UNdisruptive. (Bah. Enough. I
    think I've made my point.)

    The problem with library destuction is just that it doesn't work
    very well as a strategy, period. Most all strategies for winning,
    even the highly defensive ones, involve destroying the prey's pool
    directly or his resources for defending his pool (then destroying it
    directly by cruder means), and moving on. Once your prey's been
    ousted, you take over the job of ousting his prey, which should be
    already partially digested by that time so you don't start from
    scratch. But with library destruction, it doesn't work that way.
    You go through all your prey's library cards, run him out, then get
    him either with Brinksmanship or just by the disadvantage cause by
    his lack of library (which could still be quite difficult). In
    any event, however you get him you are then faced by the challenge
    of starting nearly from scratch on the next player. Presumedly,
    your grandprey has gone through some of his library but unless it's
    taken you a long time to oust your first prey, he should still have
    a pretty sizable chunk of his library left. If you have taken a long
    time, then he's had a lot of time to make progress on his position
    and may well have made some ousts (or be very near one) by now.

    This all causes two distinct problems for game balance:
    1) It's not a very attractive strategy to the user. With the library
    destruction cards available to those pursuing the strategy, it's
    unlikely to get more than one oust in a game and even getting one is
    not very easy;

    and 2) When it doesn't work - which is often, it often cripples the prey
    in favor of third parties. Particularly, the predator's predator (who
    may well find his grandprey near out of library about the time he starts
    in on the latter) and the prey's prey, who may reap the rewards of having
    no pressure on him if the prey starts desparately attacking backwards to
    end the library destruction as soon as possible (and sometimes just out
    of spite).

    In short, the reason library destruction is intensely dislike is for the
    same reason as Anarch Revolt strategies: they tend to throw a game way
    out of kilter.

    Fred

    spoiling for a different debate - one that I find more intruiging
  47. Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

    Frederick Scott wrote:
    <snip>
    > In short
    <snip>

    This word...I do not think it means what you think it means.

    --Colin McGuigan
  48. Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

    "Colin McGuigan" <maguaSPAM@BGONEspeakeasy.net> wrote in message
    news:NdWdnVdWTfuErZXfRVn-tw@speakeasy.net...
    > Frederick Scott wrote:
    > <snip>
    >> In short
    > <snip>
    >
    > This word...I do not think it means what you think it means.

    Well, you gotta to admit, the part AFTER "in short" was actually short.

    Sigh. Some things, if you're brief, you're wrong. If you're right, it's
    too complicated to bother with.

    Oh, well. I had fun writing it.

    Fred
  49. Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

    Frederick Scott wrote:

    > In short, the reason library destruction is intensely dislike is for the
    > same reason as Anarch Revolt strategies: they tend to throw a game way
    > out of kilter.

    Wahhh! Fred! Your logic is flawed! And here is why for 8 pages! Bwaaaa!!!

    Oh. Wait. I completely agree with everything you wrote.

    Never mind.


    Peter D Bakija
    pdb6@lightlink.com
    http://www.lightlink.com/pdb6

    "How does this end?"
    "In fire."
    Emperor Turhan and Kosh
Ask a new question

Read More

Games Predator Video Games