Proposal: Crypt = Pool

Jeff wrote:

Dorrinal wrote:

I'm not impressed by the rule, but I appreciate the sentiment. It would be nice for transfers to be worth something later in the game. On the other hand the effect would have to be very strong indeed to provide a worthwhile alternative to Enchant Kindred, et al.

The main point is that this is a potential new rule which does not require any card text to be effective.

I, too, appreciate the sentiment, but the fact is that VTES is a game that attempts to have all the "exceptions" on card text and not as "new" rules. Not to mention the slippery slope that your new rule, and rules like it, create. So, in that sense, without a damn good reason, I'd be against such a rule when cards such as Wider View are implementing such ideas already.

KevinM wrote:

I, too, appreciate the sentiment, but the fact is that VTES is a game that attempts to have all the "exceptions" on card text and not as "new" rules. Not to mention the slippery slope that your new rule, and rules like it, create. So, in that sense, without a damn good reason, I'd be against such a rule when cards such as Wider View are implementing such ideas already.

This proposal would be the rule, not the exception. In fact, because it uses fundamental concepts, it isn't really an exception as presented.

What form do you imagine this slippery slope would take? Sometimes it is unnecessary to add a new card to the game to achieve a desired effect. Dorrinal mentions Inconnu Tutelage, but that's a search function which is very powerful and ought to have a card which provides that capability.

As stated, Wider View does something different than this proposed rule. It facilitates searching quickly through your crypt for a new vampire to influence into play. The "crypt card into pool" rule just gives you a chance to either 1) Recoup your pool investment if the decrypt didn't work so well, and 2) Give "superstar" decks (or just tight crypts in general such as a 4x Black Hand Assamite crypt) a chance to squeeze a bit more use out of their uncontrolled region.

While I don't expect to see this rule in play for 2013, I hope others give it a shot in their playgroups too. It's very easy to implement and remember.

@Jeff:

Dorrinal's suggestion of Iconnu Tutelage is purely to emphasise that people rarely use a card that allows you to burn vampires to gain a card of your choice. It is a powerful effect, gaining a card of your choice) and it is not enough incentive to make people use Iconnu Tutelage.

My point about Wider View is that Wider View is a more efficient crypt-search than your rule change. I am also unwilling to add another way to gain pool as a core rule into VTES. It means that for Effective Management + 4 Transfers = Ascendance (4 Transfers is a negligible cost in the mid-to-late game).

Paying 1 pool for a crypt card is a gamble. It has always been a gamble and I see no reason to take away the risk element of that card play.

Jeff wrote:

KevinM wrote:

I, too, appreciate the sentiment, but the fact is that VTES is a game that attempts to have all the "exceptions" on card text and not as "new" rules. Not to mention the slippery slope that your new rule, and rules like it, create. So, in that sense, without a damn good reason, I'd be against such a rule when cards such as Wider View are implementing such ideas already.

This proposal would be the rule, not the exception. In fact, because it uses fundamental concepts, it isn't really an exception as presented.

What form do you imagine this slippery slope would take?

A potential avalanche of "new" rules suggestions, if not outright changes, based on card text, if yours got accepted. VTES doesn't need new rules, it needs the current rules (and card texts) more consistently, succinctly worded and grammatically adjusted.

Jeff wrote:

As stated, Wider View does something different than this proposed rule. It facilitates searching quickly through your crypt for a new vampire to influence into play. The "crypt card into pool" rule just gives you a chance to either 1) Recoup your pool investment if the decrypt didn't work so well, and 2) Give "superstar" decks (or just tight crypts in general such as a 4x Black Hand Assamite crypt) a chance to squeeze a bit more use out of their uncontrolled region.

While I don't expect to see this rule in play for 2013, I hope others give it a shot in their playgroups too. It's very easy to implement and remember.

I neither feel that there is a need, perceived or otherwise, for implementation of such a rule -- on which I hope we'll just disagree in a friendly way -- nor do I believe that having the quality of being very easy to implement and remember gives a potential "new" rule any additional credibility.