power level debate on cam and sabbat
Archbishops under 7 cap: 2, Archbishops 7 cap:4
Princes under 7 cap:8. princes 7 cap:13
Could you please elaborate on this? I don't follow what "cap" means and what the numbers are.
There are 2 archbishops under 7 capacity, 4 7 capacity acrhbishops. etc. We can see that there are clearly more 'affordable' camarilla vampires with the main titles. I also don't see any addition valuing for sabbat vampires.
Did I look at every vampire? No, but I now place the burden on you to prove that the sabbat vampires are costed consistence with your statements. While there may have been a recent shift in philosophy on these vampires the old jyhad vampires haven't gone anywhere so must be considered.
In order to prove whether or not Camarilla has stronger cards than Sabbat we need to have a measurement system. What do you suggest?
If I return back to your original comment that 2nd. Tradition is stronger than several dual discipline cards then I am saying it is also easier to base a deck on vampires with two disciplines rather than building a deck on vampires that have prince or justicar title. Also, both prince and justicar titles could be contested. Also, there is likely to be one justicar in the crypt otherwise you need to give up on disciplines.
For example Read The Winds you can play in a deck averaging 4.75 with 50% of the crypt being AUS ANI, 25% being aus ani and the rest being just ani. In a game you aim to have 4-5 minions out and 2 of them should be able to play Read the Winds superior, 1 of them inferior and the rest cannot play it at all. What would be the average crypt of the deck based on princes and justicars, so that at least 50% vamps can play 2nd tradition. And if so, how many disciplines will they have in common?
I suggest as a starting point what we use the vampire costing formula. We cost, if I recall correctly, 1 level of discipline at 1 'point' and prince/archbishop at 1 or 1.5. From this we should expect that any dual discipline card at inferior should outperform prince/archbishop title (by a bit since the disciplines have no static effect like votes). We should take into account the variety of effects that become available but to very limited extent. In a game with no card limits we are often just picking the outlying 'power cards' in large numbers.
So here I have made an argument that dual discipline cards are not costed appropriately compared to a select few prince cards, and by a large margin. Moving on to sabbat titles and the benefits therein we will again use the costing formula which says that arcfhbishop and prince are equivalent.
Prince cards that matter: archon (literally 2 sabbat votes in one but better), 2nd tradition, parity shit, hospitality (never see it but is fine) 4th tradition (again, is fine)
Archbishop cards that matter: eternal vigilance, under siege, is there anything else.
Admittadly a mitigating factor would be if being sabbat is better than being camarilla so that the value of the titles may be less important. I think that is sort of what people are arguing but im not sure of the strength of that argument.
About Under Siege vs Second Tradition. I think you are forgetting here that Under Siege is some what permanent, very cost efficient and doesn't require any specific title,it just needs a titled Sabbat vampire. Once you have it in play, you can also use its ability with any sabbat vampire, even those that don't have any titles. Compared to Second Tradition it is a lot more powerful in many ways, it is more cost efficient, more slot efficient and it is more accessible for different vampire, it is also somewhat noteworthy that Second Tradition costs blood in many cases, which is kind of difficult in some cases, as the card also forces you to enter combat, which can make you lose more blood, where Under Siege is just 1 pool investment. Also you should take into account that Sabbat have access to Abbot, which makes both Under Siege and Eternal Vigilance potentially very powerful.
Most of the cards you are pointing as overpowered from Camarilla, are political actions. That is something you should think when evaluating the card. Card being a political action has to be really powerful for it to really be worth it, with the added cost that you need titled vampires with very specific titles you also have to deal with potentially 2 blocking players, as the action is undirected, after which you have to pass the referendum, where you have to interact with all the players on the table, instead of just the two players next to you. Also, there are cards in the game that just outright cancel the referendum, even if you would have the votes for getting it passed.
I have to bring up something that I said earlier too. Sabbat and Camarilla are very different from each other. They don't have to be good in the same things. Camarilla is the political monster of VTES world. This is good and just. Sabbat doesn't have to be as potent with politics as Camarilla is. With titles and the printing of Under Siege, it is easier to make some us of that aspect of the game, with already powerful votes like Banishment, Political Stranglehold, Ancient Influence, Reins of Power, Ancilla Empowerment and Anarchist Uprising. It is not necessary for you to be able to play a full on political deck with Sabbat. That is the beauty of the game. Different things excell in different things. Every game is like that. You don't build a "draw go" control deck from Red in MTG...
Prince of Joensuu, Finland
Lönkka wrote: Mewcat seems to be under the strange idea that all Sects (of Clans. Or Disciplines) need to be equal.
They do not.
Variance is a great flavor!
I don't think you would deliberately misrepresent what Mewcat is saying, so what you said here is very strange.
I don't think Mewcat wants things to be equal. I'd wager he wants cards to be good. I'd also wager he probably wants elements of this game to be more distinct from one another.
Balance is not synonymous with Equal. A scale can be balanced with unequal distributions of weight. Something close to game balance can be achieved in CCGs with careful design and forethought.
Like, what does a Sabbat political deck really bring to the table that makes it distinctly different from a Camarilla political deck? A lack of strong political cards? And how do you differentiate Sabbat politics from Camarilla politics? Is it a noteworthy difference that Camarilla princes can untap with surprise intercept (2ndTrad) while the Sabbat title guys get a temporary permanent that can untap with intercept (Under Siege)?
To me intercept is intercept, and mechanically there is not enough differentiating the two. (And thematically, it doesn't even make any sense - aren't the Sabbat suppose to be the ones besieging? The besiegers? Don't they create armies of shovelheads to throw at Cam cities?)
Votes are votes, KRC is KRC. It's not like any card asks you if you control XYZ city titles. None of the political actions - besides maybe National Guard Support - really feel like political actions: our vampires aren't legislating laws about how vampire society governs itself. There isn't a single political action that I know of that 1) stays in play like a permanent (like a law); 2) has some constant status effect on the board; and 3) is actually good / playable.
If you want to give Sabbat powerful political actions they first need to do something that the Camarilla doesn't already do. If you want to give the Camarilla good non-political cards (for the non-titled Cammies) give them Cam-specific retainers and vehicles.
Here's an idea: what if the Sabbat political cards were thematically differentiated by being political actions that stay in play and boost the Sabbat in various ways.
Gangrel. Noddist. Camarilla. Once each turn, LivesByProxy may burn 1 blood to lose Protean until the end of the turn and gain your choice of superior Auspex , Obfuscate , or Potence for the current action.