file Slaves

07 Sep 2018 20:44 #90486 by GreyB
Slaves was created by GreyB
Can we drop the rule that Slaves cannot perform D actions untill you control their masters?
Fix or ban on tupdogs will be required ofcourse.

:garg: :VIS: :POT: :FOR: :flight: -1 Strength

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
07 Sep 2018 20:47 #90487 by Ankha
Replied by Ankha on topic Slaves
Why?

Prince of Paris, France
Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director
The following user(s) said Thank You: Snodig

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
07 Sep 2018 21:38 - 07 Sep 2018 21:41 #90488 by GreyB
Replied by GreyB on topic Slaves

Ankha wrote: Why?


In short: to make gargoyle vampires matter.

It is possible to make a competitive deck with hatchlings.
It is possible to make a competitive deck with rockcats and mages.
It is possible to make a competitive deck with tupdogs.

If you're not playing the above decks, it's probably better to play gangrel or brujah then to try and make a slave gargoyle deck. If you take away the slave D action rule, they'd be on par with gangrel and people could have fun mixing and matching indy/slave gargoyles. You can still add tremere, but you don't NEED to.

The main reason this thread exists is because I tried to make a group 5-6 slave gargoyle deck tonight and saw the lame/expensive options I had in group 5-6 (!)tremeres. I was also dissapointed LoK gargoyle cards where mostly slave oriented and did not use the storyline where Gargoyles rebelled and became free.

Removing the D action slave rule would imo. make gargoyles as a clan equally competitive to other clans although tupdogs will need addressing.

:garg: :VIS: :POT: :FOR: :flight: -1 Strength
Last edit: 07 Sep 2018 21:41 by GreyB.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
07 Sep 2018 22:40 #90489 by jamesatzephyr
Replied by jamesatzephyr on topic Slaves

GreyB wrote: Removing the D action slave rule would imo. make gargoyles as a clan equally competitive to other clans although tupdogs will need addressing.


I put forward one semi-elegant-ish way of doing that: www.vekn.net/forum/card-balance-strategy-discussion/74734-bloodlines-gargoyles#75569 , which is essentially to keep the ban (D) actions in the first turn they're out only. So Tupdogs still need a master to do useful stuff, but others can probably get by.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
08 Sep 2018 03:38 #90491 by Klaital
Replied by Klaital on topic Slaves
If you would do this then you would need to rebalance all slave gargoyles, because then slave would be purely strong beneficial trait and they would all need a point taken out from somewhere else.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
08 Sep 2018 07:44 #90492 by jamesatzephyr
Replied by jamesatzephyr on topic Slaves

Klaital wrote: If you would do this then you would need to rebalance all slave gargoyles, because then slave would be purely strong beneficial trait and they would all need a point taken out from somewhere else.


In the situation where slave didn't require a master, I'm not sure that the benefits would ever really materialize, because people wouldn't play them together. Complicating your crypt with incompatible disciplines is usually a real pain in the ass.

I suspect that what you'd get in reality the majority of the time in the best performing Gargoyle decks is just some of the slaves being used alongside some of the non-slave vampires for their compatible disciplines and abilities. And yes, some of the slave Gargoyles would be a bit of a bargain, but not really on a worse scale than quite a few other clans have a few really tasty vampires who feel undercosted compared to their fellows.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
Moderators: AnkhaKraus
Time to create page: 2.577 seconds
Powered by Kunena Forum