Errata Discipline-less cards to have Disciplines? (where applicable)

I understand the opposition to the idea - I expected it. But I am not convinced by the counter-arguments. Allow me to explain my rationale by way of rebuttal:

Kraus wrote:

It's sorta cool, but ultimately unnecessary. I would rather see new wake effects designed for disciplines than see errata for the non-discipline ones.

The point is that anyone can use them.

There's really no need for errating existing cards when you could just as well design new ones.

Issues I have with this are:

1. How strong would these new wake cards to have to be to justify playing them (and thus meeting their requirements) versus having generic discipline-less easy-to-play low-opportunity-cost wakes? Discipline wakes would require particular crypt selection, just like most Discipline cards, and would emphasize a clan's / discipline's particular pros and cons.
2. Related to the above, having universal wakes serves to de-emphasize a particular clan's / discipline's pros and cons.
3. As mentioned in the thread about +/- intercept, there are only so many meaningful word-pair combinations and possible names for cards. VTES utilizing different European languages / phrases / idioms is cool and expands the possibilities, but it is still a legitimate concern.

Timo wrote:

For 2 reasons :
First : if something is not broken, don't fix it !

Second : we already have a very important defensive mechanism (bounce) which is basically reserved to 2 disciplines. And so we have "vampires who can bounce" and "vampires who can't bounce". I can't see how it would be a good thing for the game to have "vampires who can wake" and "vampires who can't wake".

That particular proverb isn't helpful - it encourages stagnation. Improvement is the goal, and I think VTES would be improved if certain effects were only capable via certain disciplines. This is, in fact, the way most of VTES works. You get the biggest bleeds out of Dominate. You find the most +stealth effects in Obfuscate. The most +intercept is via Auspex. Etc. Etc.

So I want to ask, how is the above a bad thing for the game? How is it a bad thing for the game that only some vampires / clans have access to bounce? Or only some vampires / clans have access to multi-act? Or only some vampires / clans can deal 5+ damage in a single round of combat? Or how only some vampires / clans can gain +8 votes during a referendum?

How is it bad to give the disciplines / clans their own unique strengths and weaknesses? Their own emphasized mechanics and specialties? That's the way the 80% of the game works.

Non-existant user wrote:

Definitely not. Wakes exist since Jyhad for a very good reason: without them, games easily collapse into deadlocks where nobody can dare to take an action. You can't remove them without breaking the game.

The wakes in Jyhad were Rat's Warning (Animalism ), 2nd Tradition: Domain (requires Prince or Justicar; was buffed via errata), and Wake With Evening's Freshness (a card that, within the lore, was a Tremere Thaumaturgy ritual.) Cat's Guidance , Majesty , Earth Meld , and Freak Drive could all be thought of as pseudo-wake cards, since they untapped your vamps, allowing you to keep blockers up.

Furthermore, I'm not suggesting we remove wakes from the game, but push wakes into specific disciplines, as demonstrated above. This gives the disciplines / clans specific weak points (Guard Dogs only untaps during a bleed action, my version of Wake With Evening's Freshness is telegraphed and potentially blockable) but also specific strengths (Guard Dogs costs no blood and is untap instead of wake. My Wake With Evening's Freshness changes the way your predator plays because he knows you have a wake effect available.)

BloodArtist wrote:

And lets not forget that there are other types of minions than vampires. Allies need to have cards as well.

That's why I made On The Qui Vive a wake for Auspex that specifically targets allies (and to differentiate it from Eyes of Argus). And most of the clans with Auspex (Tzimisce, Tremere, Harbingers) have strong ally options. Having it require a discipline might make having outferior disciplines on some of your big-cap vamps be useful.

jblacey wrote:

Errata is way more painful to the game vs just designing new cards. No one likes giving cards to new players and then explaining "but this card was errata-ed". It is worse if the card was errata-ed previously or has existed for an extended period of time in it's current state and the player finds out about it for the first time when they show up to a tournament.

I get that, but it seems likely to me that new players would have the newest cards (as ideally they would be purchasing them). It also seems to be the case that the players who have cards to give to new players are also the players most willing to buy the new cards, play in tournaments, and have the largest collections. I'm not sure whether it's kind or rude to give a bunch of old, out-dated cards to a new player while keeping the new, shiny ones for yourself.

But I would hope that if BC really gets rolling, the confusion of errata'ed cards would be mitigated by flooding the card-pool with the newest prints. So if there are 50,000 discipline-less Forced Awakenings out there in the world, that would be mitigated by the 250,000 new Forced Awakenings. I.E. that that one veteran player with the discipline-less Forced Awakening would be swamped 10:1 by new players with the newest prints.

But that's probably a pipe dream.

LivesByProxy wrote:

So I want to ask, how is the above a bad thing for the game?

It takes decks that are currently viable and makes them less viable, or non-viable.

Currently, for example, a deck that wants to bounce has to find access to Dominate (predominantly), but can easily play Wakes to untap and bounce because many really good Wakes are disciplineless. In your New, Improved World, they have to find Dominate and Fortitude, Auspex, Obtenebration, or Thaumaturgy. This is simple for some clans - the Tremere, Ventrue, !Ventrue, and Lasombra would have few problems. It is much harder for some other clans to find those disciplines, and particularly to find those disciplines in combination with Dominate.

Decreasing deck diversity is a really, really bad thing for the game.


Note also that cards like Guard Dogs function differently, in that they aren't actual Wakes. This causes issues for when you want to Wake in the "as played" window - actual untaps aren't sufficient. This is relevant for various card cancellers. Black Sunrise doesn't work for bounce, as it requires a block attempt. Babble superior is extremely awkward as you have to leave someone untapped in the first place, which is not the point of most Wake strategies.

LivesByProxy wrote:

I get that, but it seems likely to me that new players would have the newest cards (as ideally they would be purchasing them).

Maybe, maybe not. I am not sure you appreciate that card availability is a challenge in some locations.

It also seems to be the case that the players who have cards to give to new players are also the players most willing to buy the new cards, play in tournaments, and have the largest collections.

Not true. VTES has a long history and multiple expansions. So uniform card availability for all sets is not something you can count on. I have a large collection and I still proxy new versions of cards on top of the old versions. You will have a point when print on demand becomes an option.

I'm not sure whether it's kind or rude to give a bunch of old, out-dated cards to a new player while keeping the new, shiny ones for yourself.

I don't think you appreciate that a change to one of the most common cards in VTES has ripple effects for years to come. Just think of the requirement for opaque sleeves affects the game.

But I would hope that if BC really gets rolling, the confusion of errata'ed cards would be mitigated by flooding the card-pool with the newest prints.

- snip -

But that's probably a pipe dream.

Card availability has been one of the largest issues that VTES has suffered for years.

it is a bad thing for the game to have only some vampire who have access to wake effect because it is a very important mechanism that is necessary in most of the deck to even allow it to exist...

James wrote:

LivesByProxy wrote:

So I want to ask, how is the above a bad thing for the game?

It takes decks that are currently viable and makes them less viable, or non-viable.

@James: When I asked that question, I was referring to what was directly above: "VTES would be improved if certain effects were only capable via certain disciplines. This is, in fact, the way most of VTES works. You get the biggest bleeds out of Dominate. You find the most +stealth effects in Obfuscate. The most +intercept is via Auspex. Etc. Etc "

And what immediately followed to emphasize my point: "So I want to ask, how is the above a bad thing for the game? How is it a bad thing for the game that only some vampires / clans have access to bounce? Or only some vampires / clans have access to multi-act? Or only some vampires / clans can deal 5+ damage in a single round of combat? Or how only some vampires / clans can gain +8 votes during a referendum?

How is it bad to give the disciplines / clans their own unique strengths and weaknesses? Their own emphasized mechanics and specialties? That's the way the 80% of the game works."

@James, @Timo: You both say that making Discipline-less cards (most wakes in this example) would decrease deck diversity, and make some decks unable to exist.

But my thinking is that having Discipline-less cards actually decreases deck diversity. You may get more decks, but if you have more decks relying on the same tools to do the same tricks, is it really deck diversity? I'm not sure. For example, if Conditioning or Govern The Unaligned were Discipline-less, would we see more diverse decks, or decks that are more similar than different? My guess is the latter.

Having certain game mechanics be easily accessible and universally playable serves to homogenize decks and strategies. If wake effects required Disciplines, then we might see people relying on more diverse cards like Homunculus and Carrion Coffin in Protean, or leaning harder on +intercept, proactive rush, or even action denial effects as defensive options instead of just bleed-bounce.

Having bleed-bounce require (for example) + (for the wake effect + Deflection) would make Ventrue/!Ventrue play differently from weenie bleed (who would have a harder time waking), which would play differently from Kiasyd stealth bleed (who would burn more blood for the wake + bounce combo if using my Eluding The Arms Of Morpheus).

@jblacey: I appreciate all what you mention. I just want the best for VTES. I think balancing the game around Disciplines is the way to go. We talked about what Target Vitals being Discipline-less does to the game. It's a better combat card than most Potence cards and it's available to everyone. If it required Auspex , it might appear in less decks, but it would be an interesting option for Malks, Tzimisce, Toreador, etc.

LivesByProxy wrote:

@jblacey: I appreciate all what you mention. I just want the best for VTES. I think balancing the game around Disciplines is the way to go. We talked about what Target Vitals being Discipline-less does to the game. It's a better combat card than most Potence cards and it's available to everyone. If it required Auspex , it might appear in less decks, but it would be an interesting option for Malks, Tzimisce, Toreador, etc.

On one hand Target Vitals has made Undead Strike obsolete. On the other, Potence (in general) wasn't in a good place before the creation of Target Vitals. Keeping in mind discipline-less cards had always existed in V:TES.

What makes more sense? Errata multiple disciplines-less to add a discipline or create a new card. If I wanted to fix the issues with Undead Strength... I would recommend something like this:

New Undead Strength

Strike: Hand strike, dodge, or melee weapon strike; these all counts as a hand strike. Your damaging strikes have +1 damage this round.
Strike: As above, but +2 damage.

This fixes several things.
1. This means the card combos better with Immortal Grapple, since you can actually gain the benefit of a melee weapon for one strike.
2. This provide a way to mitigate hit back in melee without requiring another discipline like Celerity or Fortitude to cover it. This is something Potence has needed since forever.
3. The bonus damage stacks for additional strikes, but only for a round. This means the card doesn't outclass Torn Signpost (which is for the remainder of combat), but if you manage to play multiple in a single round, so the bonus stacks.

Net result: new and improved Undead Strength.

Want me to submit this card?