file Poll: Merge Antitribbu into base Clans?

×

Poll: Should Antitribbu become one with base clans?

No! Too much to do.
31 73.8%
Yes! But not Salubri, too much there
2 4.8%
Yes, and Salubri, oh well
9 21.4%
Other, and explain in comments.
No votes 0%
Total number of voters: 42 ( Malachy, Oshi, omnevolent, Sydnelson, Klaital ) See more
Only registered users can participate to this poll
04 Dec 2018 18:12 #92245 by ReverendRevolver
Why do a reboot?
Continuing this game is quite practical, and transitioning broad rule changes have been done with other card games (combat damage an the stack, interrupts disappearing, changes in mana spending, removal of mana burn, combat damage not using the stack, frame changes, format rotation changes......steel and dark energy becoming basic, gust of wind getting constantly redone at lower power levels, introduction of supporter subtype and subsequent retrofits, changes to certain names to make card limits and evolution cleaner..... I don't actually care about the other game of top 3, I have no idea how it competes with the other 2. It's a mystery...)

Our biggest changes in like 25 years are:
Removal of ante
Changing the name to something with less negative association in modern society.
No repeat action rule.
Changing "tap" to "lock"

From a design expansion point, this happened:
Add non-camarilla clans (independent big4)
Add Sabbat clans(2) and "evil goatee Spock" versions of first clans to tie in with(at the time) current edition of the game.
Add bloodlines.
(Enter LSJ)
Add anarchs
Add newly implemented laibon
Add imbued to tie in with year event
Add 2 not really discipline disciplines

The logical path forward is basically, as mentioned, groups 6&7 at LEAST are going to reflect current happenings in the WoD. So antitribbu isnt a thing that matters largely.
Cam Assamites matter. Anarchs matter.

Of course we have a more in touch group of people than before at the helm, so whatever happens it will be good, and move us forward.

If someone else designs another game, cool. But my concern is vtes.

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

More
04 Dec 2018 18:28 #92247 by self biased
@ReverendRevolver a reboot would allow for a fresh start, since most people who are veteran V:tes players are adamantly against set rotation. Or any sort of change that might make the game accessible to more players. There's a lot of concern about perceived value of cards l, too. I'm sitting on a collection of about 30k cards myself, but i realize that the value of those cards is all of the hours I've spent playing the game, not a cash value.

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

More
04 Dec 2018 18:59 #92250 by ReverendRevolver

self biased wrote: @ReverendRevolver a reboot would allow for a fresh start, since most people who are veteran V:tes players are adamantly against set rotation. Or any sort of change that might make the game accessible to more players. There's a lot of concern about perceived value of cards l, too. I'm sitting on a collection of about 30k cards myself, but i realize that the value of those cards is all of the hours I've spent playing the game, not a cash value.


But that's not capitalizing on one ofthe attributes that defines Vtes: we dont rotate.
You say "reboot" "soft reset" and "spiritual successor" and I keep being confused; it's either a new game or we are forcing the whole card pool into nonexistence, except a new reedited group of them.
I would call that: releasing a new core set by canceling a game.
I think the Intent is good, less clutter and easier new player acquisition. But new products and possibly a "compatibility patch" if you will, accomplish this and retain the card pool and player base.
If we ban imbued, we dont lose most of the playerbase and the game doesn't change.
If we remove Sabbat, Events, and Trifles, redesign all of combat and politics and stuff everything into 14 clans with no bloodlines then the players who aren't that attached to vtes get a new game, but most of the playerbase just sits and ignores everything made after 2018.

Hence why proposals that look at ONE thing that doesn't fundamentally kill the game and opens up deck building options and design space is what I've been pushing.
My crusades have been: more cam gangrel, more no nonslave gargoyles, nerf MMPA decks, make cards that enable strategy XorYbutnotZ, make anarchs more accessible, and obviously look at antitribbu merging to base clan..
All seeking opinion and insight, the most useful of which often comes from whoever's saying what my own reasons against the idea, but saying it better than I would have.
All is conjecture. But it's still something to think about, and it's more fruitful to think about when others say a better version of the idea, or more solid opposition.

Anyway, what I want is the "kill it and rebuild " group to throw up thier take on what the proposed merger would/could do in fixing the problems they perceive with the game. I see a good game and want more out of it. James, who's right depressingly frequently, sees an idea that creates more problems than it could ever solve. What, on the topic at hand, could happen in they eyes of players actively opposed to just continuing and not canceling and restarting?

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

More
04 Dec 2018 22:34 #92252 by LivesByProxy
@ReverendRevolver: Proposed merger would be mostly great, I actually don't have a problem with it. My issue is this: where do you draw the line? This merger you're talking about is errata, plain and simple, so at what point do you stop errata'ing cards? Because there are many cards which could use errata to make them more playable and thematic. The proposed merging is a large clan-sect based errata on most cards. It makes me want to see further errata on cards that should play with age, discipline, torpor, and number of vampires. But then we get into the Ship of Thesus territory, which VTES has been in for a while, admittedly.

As someone who doesn't have 30K cards, and isn't deeply invested in the WoD or WW lore (I just like a lot of concepts and themes of VTM, and vampires in general) I don't have a problem with sweeping errata because obviously it would impact me much less.

And as someone in the "kill it and rebuild" diablerize VTES crowd, the problems it would fix, for me, would be just the perceived cohesiveness of the game. I think one of the reasons Magic is such a huge success is that it is generic enough to be universally applicable. Five colors that can be represented and abstracted and metaphorically used in so many ways. The disciplines occupy the same sort of space that colors do in Magic, they form the core of deck-building but only kinda. (Disciplines should be the primary deck building restriction IMO.) But the disciplines are tied to the clans, and I'm not sure how much the clans actually add to the game. I find VTM's (and even VTR's) clans to be odd conceptually. We have clans based on social class, geographic location, physical characteristics including race and sex, very specific curses, pseudo-religious practices and/or ideology. And there are 22 or so of them. Merging the antitribu with their counterpart clans would go a long way toward making the setting more consumer-ready because it avoids a lot of the weird conceptual gymnastics you have to do to explain the setting. Oh, and mechanics-wise, the merging would power-up clans all around, but I think the clans without Dominate would benefit the most, which is good.

:gang: :CEL: :FOR: :PRO: :cap6: Gangrel. Noddist. Camarilla. Once each turn, LivesByProxy may burn 1 blood to lose Protean :PRO: until the end of the turn and gain your choice of superior Auspex :AUS:, Obfuscate :OBF:, or Potence :POT: for the current action.

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

More
05 Dec 2018 00:59 #92256 by Mewcat
It's really hard to have a discussion if we start from a point where you don't see problems. The list of frustrating or limiting effecys is quite large.

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

More
05 Dec 2018 01:52 #92257 by TwoRazorReign

DJHedgehog wrote: Dear Ben Peal and Hugh Angseesing and all of Black Chantry,

Reboot VTES. Please. Black Chantry you guys are fantastic designers. Start over with the new source and give us a fresh take on the game. The current rules are convoluted and you have to reference tons of rulings made by a guy who is currently not involved in the game at all.

This benefits new players and will allow BC to clean up the rules and the clans and create cards that are worth playing. Don't let the people clinging to this 24 year-old game and complaining about changes deter you from what needs to be done.

You guys play the game so I know you see where it falls short. The best way to preserve this game is to start over.


I would love nothing more than Jyhad 2.0 to be released in concert with V:tM V5. This is really probably what should happen, given all the major changes V5 is introducing. The problem is, if a reboot happens, who will this reboot be marketed to? I'm guessing the average TCG player will not be that interested in a card game based on source material from a role playing game that was a phenomenon 24 years ago and just had some weird controversial update happen. That leaves established VTES players as the target market, and I think established VTES players do not want any part of a reboot because their collections will become useless. So it seems the game is kind of stuck with bolting on incompatible V5 changes to the current VTES. Unless I'm really underestimating the demand for Jyhad 2.0 among the average TCG gamer.

If I was an established VTES player with a huge collection (which I'm not), I think I'd be a little concerned that the makers of V5 didn't really seem to take into account VTES when they made the changes in V5.

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

More
Moderators: AnkhaKraus
Time to create page: 0.177 seconds
Powered by Kunena Forum