Proposal for a new set: 'IV'

Well this seems to be a great idea.
I really appreciate that you guys are thinking on long term about game development and his survival

Like Alek above I think that rules should be reduced removing a lot of marginal effects for a base set, like he suggest plus advanced vampires and cards with multi disciplines

also this set need to be carefully planned. If we want to have all (13) mains clans inside there is little room for cards. Like:

12 vampires for each clan: 156
4 clan's card for each clan: 52
8 cards for each discipline: 136
8 cards for each set: 24
Generic actions: 4
Generic modifiers: 4
Generic allies: 6
Generic combats: 8
Generic equipments: 8
Generic masters: 40 (with 17 disciplines cards)
Generic political: 16
Generic Reactions: 4
Generic Retainers: 4

456 cards, 156 vampires and 300 library cards (just an example)

of course if we reduce the number of clans we have more cards slots free

so I think that first this set need to be planned and then we can start to choose which cards need to be placed inside

my 2 cents

Rather than going straight into more disciplines, might be worthwhile looking at a clan to see what they'd cover. My proposal for Ventrue, for example, would be 9 cards.
Emily Carson
Gustav B
Jack Tredegar
Johannes Castelein
Juniper
Louis Fortier
Mary Ann Blaire
Mustafa
Portia

Not a full crypt? No worries; with a print and play duplicates don't matter as much. In that core crypt of 9 you've got 3 princes, a primogen and a justicar so it's distinctly Ventrue-like.

Thoughts? Is 9 enough, or 12? 15?

Disco

Walt: Thanks for writing it out so clearly. Does "8 cards for each set" mean "8 cards for each sect"?

Disco_Stu: I don't think 9 is enough to provide crypt-building options. Maybe 13.

AaronC wrote:

Walt: Thanks for writing it out so clearly. Does "8 cards for each set" mean "8 cards for each sect"?

yes and if I managed to have just a single error in my post I'm really proud of myself

from a design standpoint, something that's bothered me for a while is that only some of the clans have a discipline that's ostensibly 'theirs.' Nosferatu, Ventrue, Toreador, and Brujah all have to share their 'in-clan' disciplines with other clans; having no discipline that is unique to them. This is largely a legacy issue from 2nd Edition Masquerade (and frankly one of the big things that Requiem got right). I think it would be beneficial to use only clans that have unique disciplines.

Walt, thanks for the breakdown. It demonstrates why I'm suggesting a narrower group of clans and sects.

Ashur, I don't believe that adding Tremere created a sufficiently distinct strategy for the cards they'd take up. But this is all about curation by a group, so if others believe that it'd work then great.

Some of the other comments can be answered by: what is the point of the game? To have fun, and to encourage others to participate and have fun. If you want to play with every card, great! I love trick decks, and play bloodlines and Laibon more than classic clans. But that gameplay doesn't encourage new players. What I propose is a limited format that satisfies existing players and brings new players in, to build buzz.

Re: uniqueness of disciplines, partly agree However in a more limited environment, crossover if disciplines benefits good deck design as much as it hinders.

Disco