Vampire: Elder Kindred Network Newsletter November 2017

elotar wrote:

Rise of the Nephtali: With Anthelious banned it's kind of unplayable as is...

What?

Ankha wrote:

Also, your suggestion affects allies that a War Ghoul can burn or not, or a Cry Wolf that could be turned into an Abomination.

The War Ghoul can already burn allies played that turn, that is the reason why it burns itself if there is no other target.

Non-existant user wrote:

#2: Fine with the concept, but the execution looks a bit messy. Could anarchs be defined as a sub-sect of Independent so that we do not have to change all existing Independent cards?

EDIT: there is a grand total of 6 cards for independents, So I guess rewriting them would not be such a big effort. Besides, it opens some design space, as not all of those cards feel right for anarchs.

Banner of Neutrality: Independent only (and find a way to make it suck less.)
Community Justice: Independent only (see above.)
Exclusion Principle: Independent/Anarch.
Free States Rant: Anarch only (the only reason it is not is that it was printed before Anarchs were introduced.)
Reckless Agitation: Independent/Anarch.
Rise of the Nephtali: Independent only, because IIUC Nephtali is its own mini-sect.

Haqim's law: judgment requires independent assamite(s)

Reckless agitation seems like a major card for anarchs currently. Making it so that Anarchs couldn't call it would be a huge blow to anarch vote decks. Because the card is so strong, I'm tentatively ok with this. The change would be effectively nerfing Anarchs.

However, overall I am not a fan of this change, because there are so many cards that have 'independent anarch' in their card text. This change would confuse things once again.

Ankha wrote:

Remembering that an ally can't act or putting it in the recruit region requires the same energy.
Either way, you have to track that state.

Not really, since some things are more intuitive than others. I'm pretty sure I've never, during the couple years that I've played VTES, put an ally to uncontrolled region. The current rule seems like unnecessary clutter to an already unnecessarily complex game.

You also have a delayed thing to remember (first putting ally to play to uncontrolled region, then moving it to controlled region). Instead of just putting it to play and considering whether it can or can't block when the situation arises. The latter allows shortcutting without endangering game state, the former requires you to do something largely superfluous EVERY TIME you play an ally. Adding obligatory things for player to do and remember that are largely irrelevant to how the game proceeds should be avoided.

The slight difference is that with your suggestion, the ally can block a minion controlled by another Methuselah acting the turn where the ally has been recruited (Enkil Cog, Madness Network). This is currently not the case.
But it's a suggestion worth considering.

This sounds like a corner case scenario. I would personally be fine in allowing allies to block in such a case. Its intuitive for allies to block since they are already in the game.

Kushiel wrote:

elotar wrote:

Rise of the Nephtali: With Anthelious banned it's kind of unplayable as is...

What?

Only decks I've seen which played it was some MMA with Cybele. Without Anthelious it's better to remove Gehenna cards from them altogether.

elotar wrote:

Only decks I've seen which played it was some MMA with Cybele. Without Anthelious it's better to remove Gehenna cards from them altogether.

I don't think this has anything to do with anthelios. Anthelios makes master card-intensive decks simply better. You can still play Rise of the nepthali without Anthelios if you want titles. There are other non-disruptive gehenna cards to play to satisfy Rise. Blood trade for example.(all boons are burned, woop woop!)