New versions of old cards

Thank you James for the in depth response!

However, I would argue that it IS a significant design flaw. You argue that it has been addressed before with "Immortal Grapple" and the "grapple" effect in general.

The point I am making is that my solution does not require the addition of keywords (IE "grapple") nor does it require changing the text of existing cards.

There is a long history of changing existing cards. Example already mentioned are the addition of the text "You cannot play another action modifier to increase this bleed amount" to Conditioning and Threats and bleed modifiers. Another example is one you brought up, James, in adding "Grapple" to cards such as "Immortal Grapple" and "Mighty Grapple."

I brought up changing "Voter Captivation" to include a new keyword "Rider. (Only one rider may be played each action." The suggestion was not received well, under the argument that currently printed cards should not be changed.

Because it's okay if the official publisher of the game changes the text of a card and forces you to remember every errata and card text migration. Heaven forbid we should talk about it on these forums.

Another thing that my presentation of alternate cards could do is give players more options for basic cards. For example, "Precognition" and "Spirit's Touch" are basically alternates of the same card design: +1 intercept and +1 intercept and a bonus. Why couldn't there be more cards that include +1 intercept with a bonus? Because we don't want to see Dieter Kleist play 16 different ausepex intercept cards.

James, I want to address your comment on my alternate/advanced version of "Mr. Wintrop." First of all, it was an idea. While I appreciate your criticism of the power of the card idea, discussing that particular card idea was not the point. I want to present possibilities and encourage discussion on the subject. Arguably, I could have created an example that was not over-powered or subject to abuse. (I'm not that smart!)

Also, to address Ashur's concerns about the complexity of adding new cards: Did you complain the game got to complex when they added "Anarchs?" What about "Black Hand" or "Red List?" (Don't make me bring up the Imbued!)

My suggestion does not add complexity. It actually reduces it. When new cards are designed, they have to take into account existing cards. This is why you see things like "Preternatural Strength" which specifically mention another card. If you make a new version of "Torn Signpost" you don't have to errata "Preternatural Strength."

The other thing my suggestion does is make contestation more relevant. If there are multiple versions of unique retainers, allies and equipment, than you will find more contestation. A card put into play by a Methuselah is an object. There is no reason why it has one, and only one use. Two Methuselah's may fight over the same resource for very different reasons. One may want the intercept from Mr Wintrop, the other may want an untapper. The lucky son of a bitch who draws both might get both.

Ashur wrote:

One thing I dislike even more than new keywords are new errata

Are you opposed to keywording things that take multiple words when it would not hindercthe game?

Keywording things like "rush" which is already the slang term for "enter combat with" could at least help. Even looking at karsh orxlucinde, " X may rush a tapped, non camarela vampire". We know a rush to be a D action to enter combat with a minion controlled by another methuselah. Just as bleeding is a d action to decrease ( ideally yiur prey's) pool.

I agree that things like moon sigil shouldnt have been keyworded, and im not sure how i feel about the design logic of " this minion cannot play signposts anymore" or " you cany play lost in crowds and into thin air in the same action"(when limiting it so you cant play superior into thin air makes more balance sense, due to its dnr drawback).
I KNOW im agqinst limiters on already redundant limitations on coeterie tactics and elder intervention. They are the same card, with the only text difference being the name of the other card being disallowed. And they were printed long bwfore DI2.

But, keywording some effects or actions could be useful. Redlist is crazy clunky, so why not keyword simpler things like:
Rush: d action to enter combat with any or a certain type of minion controlled by another methuselah.
Wake: a temporary effect that lets a minion block and play reaction cards as though untapped.
Bounce: a reactionary effect that lets a minion change the target of a bleed targeting them, only useable after blocks are declined or attempted and failed.

We already havexkeywords not in the rulebook, like grapple and modifier, but adding things like these common effects that are already used as alang couldnt hurt looking at.
And want testing? Weve all been doing it for years...

"Aksnia can bounce a bleed once a turn if shes above ground and untapped"
"This dude can discard XXXX to wake once an action"
"Roxy can rush a 3 cap or smaller vamp"
"Enky can rush any minion as an action"

You get the idea....

direwolf wrote:

The point I am making is that my solution does not require the addition of keywords (IE "grapple") nor does it require changing the text of existing cards.
...
I brought up changing "Voter Captivation" to include a new keyword "Rider. (Only one rider may be played each action." The suggestion was not received well, under the argument that currently printed cards should not be changed.

But your version essentially does errata the other card too. When you look up Large Container of Sanguine Fluid, it's going to say the following:

And then when you go and look at Giant's Blood, it's going to say:

Because the person playing Giant's Blood should be able to easily find out that there's an alternate for their card - it might change their mind on playing it.

direwolf wrote:

For example, "Precognition" and "Spirit's Touch" are basically alternates of the same card design: +1 intercept and +1 intercept and a bonus. Why couldn't there be more cards that include +1 intercept with a bonus?

Possibly: because it's nice that one discipline can't do everything, and that if you want +1 intercept and [some other ability], you consider playing a piece of equipment, or lining up with another discipline, or using Black Hand or titles, or a master location, or something else.

Is it really adding anything compelling to add:

Wouldn't it be much more interesting to empower underexplored mechanics, like Anarchs or Laibon or Trophies, rather than just pouring more, identi-clone cards into vanilla Auspex? Imagine a card more like:

Potentially interesting addition to the game, rather than just making weenie Animalism better. (I pick Animalism here because Black Hand Auspex isn't terrible already.)

Once again, James, thank you for the in-depth post! While I know we may not agree, it is clear that you "get it."

But there is a difference between "essentially" errata as you mentioned and actually errata.

In the case of alternate cards, there is a huge difference between

a) a player choosing to use "Giant's Blood" without knowing the alternatives
b) a player using an old version of "Majesty" not knowing about the blood cost

When another player plays "Large Container of Sanguine Fluid" he or she is supposed to announce the function of the card as it is played. (this would include the fact that it is a "Giant's Blood" and therefor rendering Giant's Blood useless.) The fact that other versions of a card are available has no impact on the player holding the Giant's Blood... It would be the same if another player had played the exact same card!

If a card has new card text from an older version, or if the newest version of the card has errata that is not printed on the card, you will have players (new or veteran!) unfamiliar with the changes and have to look it up. This has an adverse effect deckbuilding decisions, as well as during a game when players play cards not knowing the changes.

The response to card text migrations, rulings and errata is that the player playing should know about the changes. But what is proposed with introducing alternate cards does not require changing older cards. A player is expected to be knowledgeable of the rules of the game.

When deckbuilding, a player does not need to know the alternate versions of cards that he or she does not possess. If a card with an alternate is unique or playable once per game, the player already knows that the card may become useless if someone else plays it (or an alternate.) If the card is NOT unique, it only matters as far as the no-repeat action, or one modifier/reaction per action rules. A player building a deck has the cards in front of them, and should be familiar enough with the rules to recognize "alternate cards" and how they interact.

A player mistake involving "alternate cards" would likely due to not understanding the rules regarding alternate cards, or do to a misinterpretation. A player mistake involving errata or card-text migration is generally due to a player using old cards not knowing the changes.

Remember when "Majesty" was changed to always cost a blood? That was huge. There have been many occasions where I've seen players play an older Majesty not knowing about the changes. There is a huge difference between "Ulgh, they changed that card! If had known I wouldn't have used it!" and "Oh, I didn't know I couldn't play Precognition and Carefully Planned Punch on the Noggin during the same action!" (when Carefully Planned Punch on the Noggin says on the card that it is a "Precognition" card.)

It's easier to correct an error when it can be pointed out in card text. "You can't play that card because they are both "Lost in Crowds" cards!" or "You can't equip Mr. Wintrop on that minion because you already have a regular Mr. Wintrop in play!" "Sorry, you can't play your Sack of Blood, I already played Giant's Blood this game!"

You don't need to errata old cards because the new cards take care of it when it comes to ruling during play. With errata and text changes, you have to look up the changes. There will always be knowledgeable players who know all the rules and changes. And there will always be ignorant or new players