A debate on diablerie, Angelo-Promo, Revelation of the sire

Thought I'd throw this out there as it was on my mind.

Angelo-Promo:
When POD is up and running, perhaps an errata which makes Angelo's group "Any". To me it makes sense and isn't overpowering the groups. It makes the vamp more useful and makes sense considering what he does. He's everybody's friend, unless you happen to be outside his group. That makes a sad Angelo. ;(

Revelation of the sire:
Could we get it so this card effects Caitiff and Pander?
To me they are one and the same. Makes the card slightly more useful. A simple errata.

Diablerie:
In my eyes, diablerie doesn't happen often enough and if it does, doesn't give enough of a reward or incentive to do it, because you need to stack your deck and plan for it. With the way that modern games have evolved, the rules system should supply a means to reward diablerie if a Player has no Master: Discipline cards.

Perhaps an option to search for a Discipline card if the target was older OR simply increase your vampires capacity by 1.

It seems like outdated bad game flow to me. It would also give the marketing team a type of promo card to create which doesn't effect the game balance at all.

A card that simply says "Diablerie" and grants a +1 capacity in the bottom right corner.

Done and done.

Apart from ashing a vamp, I think there should always be a benefit, instead of always relying on cards in your deck.

Thoughts?

No to all. Ive had the same theories, amd heres why i no longer do:

Angelo doesnt neex to be any. Theres(count them) one circle he cant group with. Hes dead in the fluff. Maybe an advanced version could help, or a wording change to add some versatility, but thats all. Hes support, not an end all be all.

Revelations of the sire is a card nobody talks about. Its neat. Make andy a trujah, make convert a gargoyle. Neat. The reason it says caitiff is the fluff principle behind it. Caitiff didnt chose to be caitiff. They are largwly aboandoned and or havent enough to distinguish them as a clan member. So, declaring yoirself ones sire gives them those two things that led to them being caitiff.
Now the pander were in that boat. But they declared themselves pander, not clanless. They didnt care to have that status or any other. They are rabble and proud. So, revelation doeant fit them.

Diablery is minion removal, equipment stealing, rarely blood gain, and can be done in combat with amaranth. To be honest, i dont think ive eaten somebody and fetched a skill card in a non casual game ever. If i play master disciplines, i pit them on with a mpa, or liliths before it was banned. Diablery is supposex to be parilous, the rewards are plain, blood, guns, maybe a skill card, then a trophy if yoi ate a redlist minion. Its sound as is.

Other things neex help, just not those.

I think your three idea are bad. I only want to develop on the first one : no, Kiev Group does not need Angelo.

Arthur wrote:

Revelation of the sire:
Could we get it so this card effects Caitiff and Pander?
To me they are one and the same. Makes the card slightly more useful. A simple errata.

To the Sabbat, they've very much not the same. Joseph Pander fought hard to establish relatively equal footing for the Pander. Hence in V:TES, Pander is an actual clan, whereas Caitiff isn't. To the Camarilla, Caitiff are anything from an annoyance to an embarrassment to a reminder that the Third Tradition wasn't followed. Being a Caitiff is a definite social disadvantage in the Camarilla. Being a Pander isn't treated the same way by the Sabbat.

Arthur wrote:

In my eyes, diablerie doesn't happen often enough and if it does, doesn't give enough of a reward or incentive to do it

If this theory is true, getting +1 capacity isn't any real incentive.

Probably the greater issue is that burning a vampire outright is actually quite easy (relatively speaking). In part, that's because the rules have made it easier than it was in Jyhad, and even LSJ's reversion back towards Jyhad from the burn-fest of the V:TES rewrite isn't that strong. These days, even going back to the Jyhad packetization rules wouldn't alter things all that much, given that we have so many ways to stack damage.

There is also a question of whether or not removing other players' minions easily is a good thing for the wider game. (Certainly, it can be the right tactical decision at any given moment, or for deckbuilding decisions.) Players without minions have less fun. Personally, if I could go back to 1994 and wave a magic wand, I'd make the combat elements of the game more about screwing vampires up and less about actually removing them from useful play.

James, by screwing vampires up, what do you mean?

Like Monomancy? Permanent Fleshcraft/Bonecraft?

Just musing, I can't see taking them out of play for multiple turns as that's kind of what torpor is supposed to be.

It could be, say, forbid vampire from taking action if they are too low in blood. Or having the most powerful card require a lot of blood on the vampire, without consuming them. For example, Govern the Unaligned who require to have at least 3 blood but still use only one.

It would make dropping blood from vampire a lot more disruptive, while still allowing some actions. And it would tie in with the fact that a vampire who had been severely beaten recently (or is exhausted by too much actions) is unlikely to be a daredevil.

In exchange, of course, it have to be a lot harder to strike for 9 or 10 in a single combat. Or even for 5.

(that's random musing. VtES cannot stomach such radical change
s)