Vampire reboot more likely than new sets?

alek wrote:

- Fix Dominate by adding a bit more power to other disciplines., maybe not deflection/bleed type cards but alternatives, be creative.

That is the easiest of all: just make Govern a Presence card as it should always have been. Don't put bloat and bounce in the same discipline.

CalibanX wrote:

Example: Do we really NEED all the different Sects with their redundant terminologies? Consider titles: the 3 titles introduced in Jyhad was simple and easy to work with. Does it really increase the depth of the game to add new names for the same title (Prince, Arch Bishop, Baron, Magaji, Independent)? In my view, all of the sect-specific cards could have a similar strategic purpose if simply applied to existing clans, titles, and generation level.

Titles aren't hard or too complex.
- A title is worth X votes, look it up a few times and you memorised it.
- Some titles are unique, look it up a few times and you memorised it.
- Some cards require a specific title, it says so on the card.
done.

Titles also tell a story and gives the game body, would be a shame to lose that.
If you replace it with "X votes" it becomes too abstract, no story, no body, no charm.

One could separate it from votes however, add a box with a number that represents a vamp's vote count and turn the title into a keyword for card interaction. Title uniqueness is harder to solve without it taking a lot of space...

Keyword/card interaction is quite common in VTES and also easy to comprehend (ie. grapple, frenzy etc), no problem there. It's a great example of how cards can add more depth without rule additions. More depth is not bad if it translates well on the cards.

elotar wrote:

Yea, grooping rule is idiotic.

Care to elaborate as to why you feel this way?

I personally think it's a genius idea. It gives the developers a way to limit the card pool without completely invalidating older cards for play. V:tes is the only [citation needed] CCG that didn't move to set blocks as a means for card pool rotation, it works really well.

GreyB wrote:

Titles also tell a story and gives the game body, would be a shame to lose that.
If you replace it with "X votes" it becomes too abstract, no story, no body, no charm.

I half agree with you here. We currently have both "Titles" and "X Votes" on vampires. The inconsistency really bothers me, and i'd much rather see "X Votes" go away in favor of genuine titles for everyone. I mentioned this on the forums in the past, but everyone else here had some kind of bizarre hard-on for the status quo because they felt that this was a better way of representing 'unique' titles.

One could separate it from votes however, add a box with a number that represents a vamp's vote count and turn the title into a keyword for card interaction. Title uniqueness is harder to solve without it taking a lot of space...

I like this idea.

self wrote:

Care to elaborate as to why you feel this way?

Because having small numbers on cards, limiting comparability of vampires, vithout any meaningful reason, is idiotic.

Somehow we don't need it for expanding library cards pool, but for vampires it's suddenly nessesary.

Unfortunately it's probably hard to do something about it now.