Gaming with BS blog articles
use 2 transfers to move 1 pool to a vampire you control in torpor.
Wow! I love it - very elegant, and it includes and element of risk. Do I move pool to a vampire who might be diablorized? Although it might help convince a cross-table ally to rescue you ("I'll pay both blood if you rescue"). I really like this idea!
Check out my VTES blog: Gaming with BS
I also host a google doc which separates the TWDA into clans . That means I track how often clans win, which crypt groups get used, and how many people attend events. You can access all of that info here:
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
Although I guess making any rulebook change would only follow if the powers-that-be felt as though their was a significantly compelling argument as to why the rules should need this now, after 20 odd years of not having it!
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- Zombieking
-
- Offline
- Neonate
-

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
Wow, great idea -let's make it even harder for the rush decks to survive!
The 2 transfers + 1 pool to move 1 blood to a vamp in torpor idea doesn't really affect rush decks.
- You slow down you predator/prey's influencing out new vamps.
- You effectively do pool damage to your predator/prey.
- You can keep cycling rush cards

- as target of rushes, you have a teensy more chance to recover.
It's actually a pretty well balanced idea...





Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
The 2 transfers + 1 pool to move 1 blood to a vamp in torpor idea doesn't really affect rush decks.
Really?
- You slow down you predator/prey's influencing out new vamps.
The point of a rush deck is to force your prey/predator to choose between spending pool on new vampires (a quick death) or spend nothing (a slow death). The proposed third option in this situation affects rush decks negatively.
- You effectively do pool damage to your predator/prey.
Unless they choose to go the cross-table rescue route, then you don’t. Once again, a situation where added flexibility affects the rush deck negatively.
- You can keep cycling rush cards…
…and continue spinning your tires on that one opponent. This affects rush decks negatively.
- as target of rushes, you have a teensy more chance to recover.
Uh, yeah. This affects the rush deck negatively.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- TwoRazorReign
-
- Offline
- Antediluvian
-
- Posts: 739
- Thank you received: 170
- You slow down you predator/prey's influencing out new vamps.
The point of a rush deck is to force your prey/predator to choose between spending pool on new vampires (a quick death) or spend nothing (a slow death). The proposed third option in this situation affects rush decks negatively.
I'd say it's a mix between these two deaths – your pred/prey spends 1 or 2 pool on vamp in torpor but without table support, nothing happens, as they have to wait another full turn to see any benefit from doing this.
The pool transfer would happen at the end of the Methuselah's turn – so they're either relying on table allies to take a rescue torpor action. Or they still need to survive until their next turn to take the action themselves.. and even then, IF they get out of torpor, theyre possibly tapped, and may also have to mandatory hunt when that vamp can next act.
I dont think it's a massive thorn to combat decks given the slow response, rather to give another potential option in what can be a desperate situation. Anyway, was just a thought

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- Zombieking
-
- Offline
- Neonate
-
- You are here:
-
Home
-
Foro
-
V:TES Discussion
-
V:TES Websites, Podcasts & Blogs
- Gaming with BS blog articles