"Color Wheel" and VtES

Disclamer: there is no agenda other than to discuss "Color Wheel"

LbP has thrown an idea to look at VtES in a logic of Color Wheel concept of MTG.

For those not in the know the concept is splitting effects into 5 colors, so, as in MTG it was (in general) 1-2 colors in a single deck, nobody will have an ability to put all effects in one deck. So you will got 10 (or 15 if we count mono-color) different possible combinations, each of which organically produce at least one deck archetype. Diversity!

In VtES situation is kind of different. We got disciplines fine, but effects are not unique to nearly any one of them, as well as Vampires are very rarely limited to one, or even two disciplines.

I got and idea, that key component in understanding VtES "wheel" is not a split of effects, but the opposite of it - combination.

So if we take, for example, very basic combination of Bleed + Stealth (M94) - you will "spend" more resources (speed, vampire cost=actions etc) than both and weenie, so for it to work "effect" of it should be bigger than resources spent. And, actually, to play weenie you should get something significant in addition to just computer hacking caitiffs.

Third discipline, to be included, should add some additional effect etc. (does not work with M94, but works with if we need bleed bounce., or does not too, because we got both bleed and stealth at , so drop and go for weenie)

As if we want three discipline combinations (clans) to work, we should aim into making such combinations 1) significantly better then all two-discipline included in them. 2) unique, so we have the point of trying them at the first place.

From here the problem with bigcaps became apparent - 3 disciplines will be maxed out at 6-7 cap, to go higher we need to add forth discipline or even fifth (NB "prince/justicar cards works sort of like additional discipline), but in most cases we are out of effects to justify it.

Do I making myself clear?

Thank you for the disclaimer, it will help limit confusion and pointless arguing, hopefully.

Your idea that we should have 2- or 3-discipline cards is not a bad idea. It's something that maybe should have been done sooner, but there is a barrier to 3-discipline cards specifically, which is the name and theme (flavor) of the card itself.

Disciplines should be assigned to cards where it makes sense that they would be relevant, i.e. where flavor. With a card like Aura of Invincibility, we have the word 'Aura' which is the flavour of and the word Invincibility which is the flavor of and so the case can be made that Aura of Invincibility should've been a / card, which would've limited it to mostly the Ventrue.

Which is actually very flavorful considering what we imagine the Ventrue to be like.

What words and word-pairs and word combinations of a name would require 3+ disciplines? Maybe the case could be made that Aura of Invincibility, for example, should've been but I don't think 'invincibility' falls under Dominate's thematic description.

You say that the VTES "Wheel" is not a splitting of effects, but I think it should be and has had the potential to be all these years. Magic groups a lot of different effects under 5 colors because the colors are broad enough to mean a lot of different things: the color blue is the color of the sky and ocean and everything that implies, but it is also a 'sad' color and a 'calm' color, so WotC give it effects that simulate sleep, dreams, knowledge, illusion, etc.

VTES' disciplines are Magic's colors if Garfield and Co. had decided to split the 5 colors into 12+. Except there is so much overlap in VTES' disciplines without any meaningful distinction. What's the real difference between +2 bleed from and +2 bleed from ? The cards that grant +bleed bonuses rarely distinguish themselves from other +bleed cards, even within the same discipline! What's the difference between Govern The Unaligned and Enchant Kindred? What's the real difference? It's the same effect, but one gets a +1 boost at the cost of 1 blood. Where is the creativity?

As much as I hate Magic for printing outrageous and ridiculous effects, at least they are constantly exploring the design space and pushing boundaries. VTES' design is tame by Magic's standards. I will give some kudos to the VEKN design team though. It looks like they're trying to explore with the new Lost Kindred Cards like Blessings of the Loa, Unleash the Hounds, and Inevitability of the Void. Finally, some +bleed modifiers that come with unique conditions that make players want to build decks around them! This kind of conditional design should've been adopted decades ago.

Imagine how different VTES would be if Conditioning said: +2 bleed if your prey did not attempt to block. Or if Confusion said +1 bleed and you may redistribute up to 3 pool on one of your prey's uncontrolled vampires among any of their other uncontrolled vampires. Or something, anything to make +bleed actions (among the tons of other wallpaper cards) more interesting.

But, why can't Aura of Invincibility be card with:

Some politic stuff.
Some combat prevention.
Some awesome effect (or , or ?)

This way, we have card that can be run in high cap deck (as it's in worst case just mono discipline card), but also fit aforementioned ventrue.

Problem in high cap deck is that all vampires have to share all those disciplines, and cards like this would help decks based upon vampires with different discipline spreads.

@Lech: It could be.

I don't think we should let the [inferior] / [superior] model hold back cool designs. Not every card needs an inferior and superior option.

I also don't think every card needs multiple options. Army of Rats only has 1 mode but is one of the best cards in the game. More discipline cards could be printed with just a single effect.

Perhaps some cards should follow the template:

INFERIOR: Do something. If capacity above X, do something.

For example:

Preternatural Quickness
celerity 1 blood combat
Additional strike. If played by vampire with capacity above 5, cost 1 less blood.

Spreading Madness
dementation 1 blood action
+1 stealth action.
Move up to 3 blood from this vampire to up to three vampires in your uncontrolled region. If this vampire have capacity above 6, influence out any vampires that have blood equal to their capacity.

LivesByProxy wrote:

TWhat's the real difference between +2 bleed from and +2 bleed from ?

This is key point, I think!

Multi-discipline, including quite cool design from Leech, is useful, but I think that even basic stuff is unexplored.

If both and (or any other disciplines) got +bleeds in both action and modifier, than there is no point it combining them (there is such point - majesty, but let's not talk about it ). So if you want bleed you chose most effective one and go with it.

But if, for example, all good +bleed actions will be in , all good +bleed modifiers in , then in will be completely different "world": there will be tree possible strategies - two different(!) bleed weenies as well as combined midcap deck, with bigger vampires requirements but also with ability to make bigger bleeds.

Even at game as is you may look, for example, at Arika decks, quite successful from the beginning of time, because spread allows to use all disciplines together (big bleed with stealth, untap than political actions), so spending effort to put 11cap into play is justified.

So the goal is to provide other discipline spreads with comparable synergy. Mostly VtES design failed to do it pushing instead questionable agenda of cheating bigcaps into play by giving them broken written abilities and/or easy way to return spent pool.