Some ideas I had would like some opinions

jamesatzephyr wrote:

This does "interesting" things to certain clans, such as it being trivial to change to a clan with very few members e.g. scarce clans, or Daughters.

Also:

- Gargoyles can (effectively) un-enslave themselves very easily.

- Not massively happy about what it does to Sacrifice . You still have to be Sabbat, at least. Now obviously, your prey (or whoever) might try to change to another clan, but if you're capable of multi-acting you can do that before your prey can. This potentially makes multi-acting better again.

- Not massively happy about what that does to Clan Loyalty , similar caveats to the above. Currently, it's pretty awful, but it could turn out quite nasty if I can pick my clan.

- Any titled vampire(*) can go Anarch by making their title inert first. Which while not a massive problem appears to violate design intent. Violating design intent is, of course, fine if there's a good reason for it, but I'm not sure this qualifies. (* - clan-or-sect-based titles, so Independents with titles that are neither clan-or-sect-based can suck it. In your face, Mata Hari.)

- Sanguine Instruction becomes easier for the Bloodline disciplines, because you don't need to draw a CI first. Do I want to make it easier for vampires to get Temporis or Obeah? (Obviously it's easier for all disciplines, but the Bloodlines are the ones I'm thinking about, since you aren't typically thinking about SI for a commonly available discipline which you handle through crypt construction.)



On the plus side:

- you could throw a weenie to Recalled to the Founder then have your vampires all pick different clans

- Conflict of Interests could become hilariously good fun. (This may be a downside. I just find it amusing.)

Clan impersonation should stay a card, period.

Yes, fetching disciplines needs to be a thing, which is why lilliths needs to return with a mandated skill card.

Id agree disciplines could be trifles. Id argue abombwe is less special if that happens, but good of lots versus goodo few, and so on.

On the topic of gargoyles: they suck. Im working on stuff to submit to help. But lets not kid ourselves that they can be good outside of tupdog spam. Ive tried with indy gargoyles. They need help cards. As woon as im satisfied with what ive worked up, i'll submit it and whatnot.

Clan impersonating being a default action undermines a large amount of the games themes with design and deckbuilding. And just the themes. Vampires didnt pretend to be other clans for shits n giggles. Some didnt know what they were, some were in hiding, such as some Baali(petaniqua) but most were up to something, like Vitel, some assamites, or good old Kementeri. So, as a card cool, not otherwise.

Now, i think maybe as a card idea, going antitribbu or non could be explored. Maybe. In most cases, i disagree with them being a different clan for sabbat, since only ventrue, early malks, gangrel, and salubri deviate from parent clans. But id rather see other things done, i suppose, before thats addressed.

Excellent points

Perhaps new master discipline trifle cards with no +1capacity and fetchable?

I am not sure about any of the new discipine's strengths' beyond bloodlines, would it be worth it to add any of them as new master discipline trifles?? To make them more playable??

ReverendRevolver wrote:

Now, i think maybe as a card idea, going antitribbu or non could be explored. Maybe. In most cases, i disagree with them being a different clan for sabbat, since only ventrue, early malks, gangrel, and salubri deviate from parent clans. But id rather see other things done, i suppose, before thats addressed.

White Wolf indicated ages back that - had they controlled the game - Toreador and Toreador Antitribu would be one clan with sects on cards. And some things might require Toreador, some might require Camarilla Toreador, and some might require Sabbat Toreador.

That's presumably why - where there wasn't already a separate clan - that happened when they were responsible for the game. For example, we have Lasombra Antitribu represented without a separate clan. (Lucita was kinda one, but Giangaleazzo is a genuine Lasombra antitribu .) Ditto, Serpents of the Light, Assamite antitribu. But not ditto Salubri/Salubri antitribu, since they're obviously very different.



As a cardless action, being able to swap Brujah <-> Brujah Antitribu might be a little annoying, though. Easy access to each others' clan toys - two Hunting Grounds, for example - which wouldn't be available to those clans that have since been printed with built-in antitribu. Extra book-keeping without a card.

With a card, there's a potential gap for a "swap to my corresponding antitribu clan" card - perhaps cheaper or easier than CI, and not the same as Writ, Frying Pan, or Into the Fire. But is it a compelling one? Many bad decks already start with the words "Well, first I Clan Impersonate to..."

jamesatzephyr wrote:

ReverendRevolver wrote:

Now, i think maybe as a card idea, going antitribbu or non could be explored. Maybe. In most cases, i disagree with them being a different clan for sabbat, since only ventrue, early malks, gangrel, and salubri deviate from parent clans. But id rather see other things done, i suppose, before thats addressed.

White Wolf indicated ages back that - had they controlled the game - Toreador and Toreador Antitribu would be one clan with sects on cards. And some things might require Toreador, some might require Camarilla Toreador, and some might require Sabbat Toreador.

That's presumably why - where there wasn't already a separate clan - that happened when they were responsible for the game. For example, we have Lasombra Antitribu represented without a separate clan. (Lucita was kinda one, but Giangaleazzo is a genuine Lasombra antitribu .) Ditto, Serpents of the Light, Assamite antitribu. But not ditto Salubri/Salubri antitribu, since they're obviously very different.



As a cardless action, being able to swap Brujah <-> Brujah Antitribu might be a little annoying, though. Easy access to each others' clan toys - two Hunting Grounds, for example - which wouldn't be available to those clans that have since been printed with built-in antitribu. Extra book-keeping without a card.

With a card, there's a potential gap for a "swap to my corresponding antitribu clan" card - perhaps cheaper or easier than CI, and not the same as Writ, Frying Pan, or Into the Fire. But is it a compelling one? Many bad decks already start with the words "Well, first I Clan Impersonate to..."

Ane i agree entirely with that last part. Is it worth it? Think of all the noobs that after 2 weeks of stealthbleed try to use clan impersonation arbitrarily in a deck with every bad combat card printed for some diwciplines, and add in Clan impersonation for something like "this way, Apolonious can impersonate gargoyle and employ stone dog to rush, then play 2 barettas, and win. With Apolonious. "

So, i think it was bad relating to source material, and honestly, you can joim whichever faction you please tgiven circumstances, but very few antitribbu are really different.

But its not (currently) somethimg im worried about as more than a passing curiosity. My design and submit agrnda is topped with Gargoyles, Gangrel, Harbimgers, and Abominations being better, followed by protean, viseratika, necromancy, and commonly shared by 2+ clan 2 disciplime combos, like ani for, aus for, cel obf, cel pre, dom pot, nec aus, etc.

The only noncarded stuff i see being good are additional effects of cards that stay in play. Such as Anarch Secession allowing other titled vamps to go anarch as a 2 pool action. Or other such crazyness.

jamesatzephyr wrote:

delangen wrote:

Or perhaps making all master:discipline cards trifles? Seen alot more powerfull master trifles then a discpline!!

That's been suggested, and is really easy to accomplish via a rule change such that "Master: Discipline" works in a given way. And we're relatively safe from the Bloodlines, since the discipline-granters that they have are handled in other ways - Feral Spirit, Blooding by the Code etc.

We'd probably have to think hard about whether Giovanni getting Chimerstry really easily was a positive benefit for the game, but I wouldn't be massively upset if Blood Dimmed Tides was announced with Lasombra antitribu pirates, weresharks and Disciplines=Trifles as a rules change.

So, to undercut my own comments somewhat, and think about this from the other side. Most of what I'm saying would apply even more to the "fetch a discipline" case, I think.

If we think about this as a way of enabling that kooky ANI/QUI/OBT/NEC deck we've all dreamed of, it's not a terrible proposal from a mechanistic point of view, and possibly not from a balance point of view. But let's instead consider the flipside...

Now that Dominate is that much easier to play, do players find themselves adding a few Dominate skill cards to their decks to enable playing more Deflection? Perhaps they have a crypt composition where a small number of vampires have Dominate, but now with a few Dominates playable as a Trifle, they can up the likelihood of having a vampire with Dominate to hand. And if you think of a Trifle that said something like "The vampire with this card can play Deflection", I imagine it wouldn't be regarded terribly.

Repeat for any other significant, top-tier cards. Freak Drive, maybe?

So would this just fuel more of that sort of thing?

Obviously, players currently could just say "Well, I'll play this deck with lots of Dominate available, rather than this other deck with a little Dominate available", and we'd still see lots of Deflections. And so the change might encourage a broader diversity of crypts. But at what point do even the most creative players just say "Sod it, I'll add some Dominate to the deck, it's so easy" - and perhaps end up with a broader range of crypts playing a narrower range of strategies?