ReVamping VTES?
14 Jan 2018 19:16 - 15 Jan 2018 09:23 #84903
by Ankha
- there's a lot you can do without any cards, including bluffing. If you play a weenie ANI deck, everybody is expecting you to be able to play Carrion Crows and Aid from Bats... even when you don't have any in hand, but that is a thing that other players don't know. (For the record, I know players who won games with a Tzimisce deck and playing less than 10 cards in the game.)
- since it's a 5-players game (or 4-player game for those who are unlucky), it's uncommon to have a bad hand AND allies that can't do anything for you (or against your predator).
Replied by Ankha on topic ReVamping VTES?
I'm surprised by such a ratio. Bad luck is normally mitigated by 2 factors:60-80% of my VTES games seem to be decided by me not drawing the cards I need from my deck. (Usually cards that comprise 10-15% of my deck, ie. not singleton cards or anything)
- there's a lot you can do without any cards, including bluffing. If you play a weenie ANI deck, everybody is expecting you to be able to play Carrion Crows and Aid from Bats... even when you don't have any in hand, but that is a thing that other players don't know. (For the record, I know players who won games with a Tzimisce deck and playing less than 10 cards in the game.)
- since it's a 5-players game (or 4-player game for those who are unlucky), it's uncommon to have a bad hand AND allies that can't do anything for you (or against your predator).
Was it a 3-players table?As an example I give a game from last week, where our local playgroup was playing at a restaurant.
One unlucky person had:
- His 11-cap star vampire was not in his starting crypt.
- His prey was a weenie wall which got out 3 minions quickly with bowl, ivory bow and heart of Nitzchetus.
- His predator was me, with Unnamed boosted out quickly with the help of Zillah's valley.
Prince of Paris, France
Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
15 Jan 2018 09:27 - 15 Jan 2018 09:29 #84911
by Ankha
On a five players table, you have 2 allies, and each of them has 2 allies, so it is more than twice the interactions on a 4-player table, and since players are more tied to each other, the "bad luck" is less impacting.
Of course, the more stable your deck is, the better it is for you, and the table.
Replied by Ankha on topic ReVamping VTES?
It's harder to balance the odds on a four players table because you have only one ally, and that ally has only one ally (you). So if either of you both breaks, the other is likely to be weakened as well.
No, four.Was it a 3-players table?
On a five players table, you have 2 allies, and each of them has 2 allies, so it is more than twice the interactions on a 4-player table, and since players are more tied to each other, the "bad luck" is less impacting.
Of course, the more stable your deck is, the better it is for you, and the table.
Prince of Paris, France
Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
16 Jan 2018 07:17 #84915
by LivesByProxy
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.
Replied by LivesByProxy on topic ReVamping VTES?
REVAMPING VTES (WITHOUT DUMBING IT DOWN), PART 2:
Last time I mentioned Depth vs Complexity, and talked about how certain aspects of VTES made it artificially more complex than it needed to be - such as the abundance of card types. IMO, not only are fewer card types are possible, reducing complexity, but they are desirable since they would not harm the game's depth.
RULES MINUTIAE
Did you know that in Magic's Alpha days and until 6th Edition, there was a rule that "tapped Artifacts have no effect" i.e. they don't work. What about the rule that tapped blockers don't deal combat damage? No? OK, what about the rule that if you had unused mana in your mana pool at the end of steps and phases, it disappeared and you took a point of damage for each unused mana, AKA "mana burn"? How about the rule that players with 0 life did not lose the game until the end of their turn?
Maybe the VTES crowd isn't that familiar with MTG, but all of these rules have since been discarded, despite being part of the game since the beginning. Now, I'm not sure how the VTES rules have changed over the years, but I see a couple of odd little rules that make the game more complex but don't seem to add any additional depth. Basically, why does this rule exist?
+1 Stealth For X But Not Y?
Most actions come at a base +1 stealth: employ Retainer, recruit Ally, equip Equipment, call Political Action, and Hunt all get this bonus. Additionally, so does Leave Torpor, Rescue From Torpor, and Diablerie. For some reason though, the basic Bleed action is at 0 stealth, as is play Action card. Now, presumably, this is because bleeding at base of 1 stealth would mean vampires would need to have external +1 intercept bonuses, like that from Raven Spies, or their special ability . So the basic bleed action is at 0 stealth so your prey can (attempt to) block. Fair enough. However, 95% of Action cards come with "+1 stealth" written on the card. Why? Why clutter up valuable card text space with something that could just be a simple rule (all actions are at +1 stealth)? Again, it's not overly complex - this is not brain straining mental activity. It's just a weird pattern in the rules that doesn't have any perceivable (to my novice eyes) benefit.
The Blood Hunt
So after a vampire diablerizes another, a Blood Hunt is automatically called. However, this Blood Hunt is not an action, so it can't be blocked, nor can action modifiers and reaction cards be played. I think the political action aspect of VTES is very cool, but for the game to have this feature which basically ignores the entire normal voting process and takes power and decision making away from players is very odd. Odder still, the game has this keyword feature: Red List, but rather than creating interaction with the Red List, the game rules have players forego all of that. What if, for example, the rules were: any vampire could call a referendum (at +1 stealth) to Red List any vampire that had diablerized another vampire? Presume the automatic non-interactive Blood Hunt rules were gone. Wouldn't such a change be, by its very nature, more interactive? More complex, certainly, but the interaction is what gives it depth, yes?
Healing & Damage
So... rather than damage simply subtracting blood from a vampire, a vampire is required to burn blood to heal damage if able. Functionally, this does not seem to make much difference, but rules-wise it could matter? Except it doesn't, apparently. I only found 3 cards that interact with this "burn blood to heal damage" rule (Regenerative Blood, Sword of Nuln, and Repair the Undead Flesh) which makes me wonder, why is this rule here? The design space seems cool, but it is basically under-explored and under-used. It could just be that damage burns blood, period. There is also aggravated damage, which has vampires burn blood without any pretense of 'healing' it (because they can't), and the added benefit of instantly wounding the receiving vampire and sending him or her to torpor. Yet, the conversion rate is not 1:1. A vampire being dealt aggravated damage must first burn 1 blood as they become wounded, and then burn X blood where X is the aggravated damage they've received. It's a little added bit of complexity that I'm not sure what purpose it serves. So, with so few cards that interact with the 'healing' factor, and with agg damage basically being normal damage+1 why not just make all damage burn blood?
SUMMARY
Maybe these are nitpicks, but I'm bringing them up to elicit feedback. I'm think these things can be simplified or tweaked without losing any depth to VTES. What do you think?
Last time I mentioned Depth vs Complexity, and talked about how certain aspects of VTES made it artificially more complex than it needed to be - such as the abundance of card types. IMO, not only are fewer card types are possible, reducing complexity, but they are desirable since they would not harm the game's depth.
RULES MINUTIAE
Did you know that in Magic's Alpha days and until 6th Edition, there was a rule that "tapped Artifacts have no effect" i.e. they don't work. What about the rule that tapped blockers don't deal combat damage? No? OK, what about the rule that if you had unused mana in your mana pool at the end of steps and phases, it disappeared and you took a point of damage for each unused mana, AKA "mana burn"? How about the rule that players with 0 life did not lose the game until the end of their turn?
Maybe the VTES crowd isn't that familiar with MTG, but all of these rules have since been discarded, despite being part of the game since the beginning. Now, I'm not sure how the VTES rules have changed over the years, but I see a couple of odd little rules that make the game more complex but don't seem to add any additional depth. Basically, why does this rule exist?
+1 Stealth For X But Not Y?
Most actions come at a base +1 stealth: employ Retainer, recruit Ally, equip Equipment, call Political Action, and Hunt all get this bonus. Additionally, so does Leave Torpor, Rescue From Torpor, and Diablerie. For some reason though, the basic Bleed action is at 0 stealth, as is play Action card. Now, presumably, this is because bleeding at base of 1 stealth would mean vampires would need to have external +1 intercept bonuses, like that from Raven Spies, or their special ability . So the basic bleed action is at 0 stealth so your prey can (attempt to) block. Fair enough. However, 95% of Action cards come with "+1 stealth" written on the card. Why? Why clutter up valuable card text space with something that could just be a simple rule (all actions are at +1 stealth)? Again, it's not overly complex - this is not brain straining mental activity. It's just a weird pattern in the rules that doesn't have any perceivable (to my novice eyes) benefit.
The Blood Hunt
So after a vampire diablerizes another, a Blood Hunt is automatically called. However, this Blood Hunt is not an action, so it can't be blocked, nor can action modifiers and reaction cards be played. I think the political action aspect of VTES is very cool, but for the game to have this feature which basically ignores the entire normal voting process and takes power and decision making away from players is very odd. Odder still, the game has this keyword feature: Red List, but rather than creating interaction with the Red List, the game rules have players forego all of that. What if, for example, the rules were: any vampire could call a referendum (at +1 stealth) to Red List any vampire that had diablerized another vampire? Presume the automatic non-interactive Blood Hunt rules were gone. Wouldn't such a change be, by its very nature, more interactive? More complex, certainly, but the interaction is what gives it depth, yes?
Healing & Damage
So... rather than damage simply subtracting blood from a vampire, a vampire is required to burn blood to heal damage if able. Functionally, this does not seem to make much difference, but rules-wise it could matter? Except it doesn't, apparently. I only found 3 cards that interact with this "burn blood to heal damage" rule (Regenerative Blood, Sword of Nuln, and Repair the Undead Flesh) which makes me wonder, why is this rule here? The design space seems cool, but it is basically under-explored and under-used. It could just be that damage burns blood, period. There is also aggravated damage, which has vampires burn blood without any pretense of 'healing' it (because they can't), and the added benefit of instantly wounding the receiving vampire and sending him or her to torpor. Yet, the conversion rate is not 1:1. A vampire being dealt aggravated damage must first burn 1 blood as they become wounded, and then burn X blood where X is the aggravated damage they've received. It's a little added bit of complexity that I'm not sure what purpose it serves. So, with so few cards that interact with the 'healing' factor, and with agg damage basically being normal damage+1 why not just make all damage burn blood?
SUMMARY
Maybe these are nitpicks, but I'm bringing them up to elicit feedback. I'm think these things can be simplified or tweaked without losing any depth to VTES. What do you think?
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.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
16 Jan 2018 08:10 #84916
by Lönkka
Elotar, is that you?
Not for a single moment buying that you are a neonate who actually hasn't played VTES. I'm extremely suspicious on this kind of attempt to hide your true identity (whoever you might be) while advocating fundamental changes to the system that works well and one that has several times been selected as the (one of the) top CCGs.
Replied by Lönkka on topic ReVamping VTES?
REVAMPING VTES (WITHOUT DUMBING IT DOWN), PART 2:
Elotar, is that you?
Not for a single moment buying that you are a neonate who actually hasn't played VTES. I'm extremely suspicious on this kind of attempt to hide your true identity (whoever you might be) while advocating fundamental changes to the system that works well and one that has several times been selected as the (one of the) top CCGs.
Finnish Politics!
Politics!
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
NC Russia
Time to create page: 0.115 seconds
- You are here:
-
Home
-
Forum
-
V:TES Discussion
-
Generic V:TES Discussion
- ReVamping VTES?