Master Disciplines

Ashur wrote:

Why is it suddenly so important that it should me easy to gain disciplines? "How does this card address a compelling game need?"

It was related to another discussion about making old master cards trifles. So, the reason it is "suddenly" relevant is timing. NOW is the time to discuss such changes, or possible additions to the game.

"How does this card address a compelling game need?"
Making trifle versions of discipline cards helps round out crypt choices, particularly for mid to high capacity vampires with an odd discipline at basic.

What I consider a compelling game need, to the extent that the game has any compelling needs, is for bloodlines vampires to be able to more easily get their clan-specific disciplines at superior than playing Sanguine Instruction.

Visionquest is one of the most offensively designed cards in the game, being essentially strictly inferior to Sanguine Instruction while being printed after SI already existed. Alternatively, the text might have gotten mixed up with another card and the card should actually read:

"+1 stealth action. Put this card on the acting Ahrimane. This Ahrimane gets an additional level of Spiritus [spi]. If this action is successful, the acting Ahrimane untaps."

Anyway, sure, !Salubri have a Valeren toy and a bunch of bloodlines have Fortitude to not have SI be so costly actionwise, but why shouldn't there be an alternative to Textbook Damnation, something for Sanguinus/Melpominee/Obeah/Thanatosis/Temporis, something for Visceratika (playable by both slaves and non-slaves), and something for Mytherceria other than Danse Macabre + SI to master the mysteries of one's clan discipline?

"How does this card address a compelling game need?"
Making trifle versions of discipline cards helps round out crypt choices, particularly for mid to high capacity vampires with an odd discipline at basic.

I would agree, that there might be a need of some ways for bloodlines to get their inclan disciplines, either through Discipline cards (e.g. Abombwe) or through some other, possibly less/more convenient way, one of which could be trifle versions, action versions or whatever.

What I strongly disagree with is making such things universal. I do enjoy making 4 or 5 discipline decks and have to say, that limitations of the crypt is what making the deck unique, not the combination of the powercards. Trying to remove crypt limitation, imho, is AGAINST both lore of the game and fun of the game. If you disagree with the latter part, imagine an extreme case - removing discipline, clan and sect requirements altogether and decide would that increase diversity of the decks or vice versa? I imagine, the primary idea is to make certain card combinations more worthwhile, but the way to do that would have (not obviously) an opposite effect.

For example, I like playing Hektor-based 4 discipline (CEL, FOR, PRE, POT) decks with different angles. All of them HAVE to give Hektor FOR, and only 1 vampire out of them all actually have all the disciplines at superior. This does not stop from taking GWs, but works as a control for powerplaying (using out of clan discipline). Imho, difficulty to get disciplines SHOULD outweigh usefulness of the disciplines you want to abuse. And this part is important, even now some decks do abuse disciplines and I would not want discipline cards becoming staple. There are more than enough useful mastercards as it is now.

kombainas wrote:

For example, I like playing Hektor-based 4 discipline (CEL, FOR, PRE, POT) decks with different angles. All of them HAVE to give Hektor FOR, and only 1 vampire out of them all actually have all the disciplines at superior.

For me, that's the problem - the fact you can't even start to think to use a decent discipline like fortitude without having it at sup - and the solution is not trifle master helping having the superior version (which is not what Kombainas is advocating either=.

Of course, it's the kind of thing which is "long term goal" and not "quick fix". But a proper solution taking a lot of time don't mean there is a real need for a quick fix with undesirable side effect.

ICL wrote:

What I consider a compelling game need, to the extent that the game has any compelling needs, is for bloodlines vampires to be able to more easily get their clan-specific disciplines at superior than playing Sanguine Instruction.

Is there really a need for that ? Most bloodline already have extremely good splash of their main discipline.

For example :
* every True Brujah have sup' temporis, as befitting for the fact they are all big vampire
* every Blood brother have at least inf' sanguinis, and the only circle with less than 40% sup' sanguinis are the Hermanas, which are 3-cap.
* every Baali have daimonion, all cap 7+ having it at superior. In fact, exactly one baali have inf' daimonion and other sup' discipline
* exactly one Daughter don't have Melpomine, and she's two cap. Above 5 cap, only Evil Jensen don't have sup' melpominé.
* every Kyasid have Mytherceria. They are a bit less consistent at having it at sup', but doing a pure kyasid crypt with more than enough sup' mytherceria is easy enough.

All other bloodline are in that kind of boat. Abonwe too, with every single Akunanse having at least inf' abonwe. I wouldn't be surprised if Tzimisce, Lasombra, Tremere, and Giovanni were in the same boat with their special discipline.

Arhimane gr4 and gr6 may be the worst for that, with "only" 2 vampire having the superior discipline ; the problem seem to be more that there are only 5 arhimane per group, and having bridge vampire without the superior, than that they are shafted of their discipline.

Good insight, Ohlmann!

I have to add, that for the particular example outlined by me, there is no cripling drawback in using for instead of FOR. I have to adjust my library to not be dependent on FOR. E.g. there are Skin of Steel there, which would cede to Rolling with the Punches if the crypt was based on FOR. I add one-two For skillcards to improve efficiency, but it is not like the deck is inefficient with for. E.g. FOR makes Hektor be able to counter additional strikes, use freak drive when blocked. But it is not like Hektor is easily beaten by additional strikes, or many decks fancy blocking agg-handed vampire.

It is a deck archetype which works reliably as it is with regular skill cards. I do not see how triffling disciplines would improve the game, but I do see how it would improve certain archetypes which do not really need help. I really miss the point why skill cards need to be messed with.

Inferior fortitude is plenty. Any fortitudes better than none if you need defense or multiacting. Inferior celerity is shitty, but bloodlines disciplines do not inherently need to all be upgradable. Im jist confused why theres zero help for non slave gargoyles, when they are more commonplace now in the real fluff.

Ohlmann, cam vitae slace is a lasombra retainer, and i dont think everyone should have access to it. Even ylthoughthey everyone does with agent of power plus summon history.

I just liked liliths for adding skill cards. As i said, little fortitude is plenty, and i actually lost my facorite bruise n bleed deck with it being banned. Cant survive with my antimalk potence if my 9 cap (harold or the archbishop girl) lack fortitude. Then its just marge khan rushing while weenies bleed.

I could hinestly care less about skill variants if they bring back a fixed lb soon.