Archeology: Jyhad combat as it can be reconstructed from present time

You want to discuss something and force the subject on, but in the same thread you confess not to have read the actual written book by the original developers exactly about this very subject.

www.amazon.com/Eternal-Struggle-Strategy-Guide-Jyhad/dp/1565041631/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1527675835&sr=8-1&keywords=jyhad+richard+garfield

Brum wrote:

You want to discuss something and force the subject on, but in the same thread you confess not to have read the actual written book by the original developers exactly about this very subject.

www.amazon.com/Eternal-Struggle-Strategy-Guide-Jyhad/dp/1565041631/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1527675835&sr=8-1&keywords=jyhad+richard+garfield

Tiago, we are discussing here Jyhad combat BEFORE it took final form (SCE were introduced). What "Strategy Guide" should have to do with it? As I get from the reviews of the time, it was quite useless even for the game as published.

But if there were some interesting information, I'll be very grateful if you share it with us.

I don't understand how this thread is still going.
Only Garfield and the initial playtesters possess information to support or denounce the theory.

Nothing about a conclusion matters, but Elator, some incite apparently appears in the beginning of a book that's $10for a pdf.
Since its changed since conception to now so drastically, there's nothing even remotely meaningful for the game today. You are of course fine to chime in on the endless discussions about potential combat reworks, or argue that some change or another would benefit the game.
But I don't see anything about pre-launch versions of cards mattering. Scott admitted there were some cards he was less than crazy about, I'm sure Garfeild had similar hindsight, but the game is moving forward, not backwards.

Hear, hear!

Changed my mind about second round strikes - they should be the the main goal of the discipline. It answers two main questions - why there are three second round strikes and no presses and how Theft of Vitae should work to not be so overpowered in a world, where thrown lead deals 2 damage.

So the main combat card. Optional press as a superior was a common logic on most ranged strikes:

Theft of Vitae
[tha] Strike: ranged. Steal 1 blood.
[THA] as above, with an optional press

Side note - story about Blood fury/rage:

There was (is) second level power at Path of Blood called Blood Fury, which forces opponent to burn blood against his will, obviously was not helping against it, and it was a fixed damage no matter your strength - you was just touching, not hitting. The clever idea was to make it an answer to weapons (it got some minor psychological effect also), as logic was that all combat disciplines need it. But then they was searching for the weapon answer to , "invented" "Blood Rage", made a correct assumption that version should deal more damage ( is not a damaging discipline), but instead of changing card templates, they moved Fury to and leave Rage at . Then they thought about Sideslip and clutter the card text. Later designers fucked it up even more - changed templates to +strength damage and moved Fury back to

TLDR: hypothetical "right" way to go with the cards should be this:

Blood Rage
Requires: Thaumaturgy
Cost: 1 blood
Only usable at close range.
[tha] Strike: 2 damage. This damage cannot be prevented. If the opposing vampire attempts to strike with a weapon this round, he or she does no damage.
[THA] As above, but 3 damage.


Blood Fury
Requires: Fortitude
Only usable at close range.
[tha] Strike: hand damage. This damage cannot be prevented. If the opposing vampire attempts to strike with a weapon this round, he or she does no damage.
[THA] As above, but for +1 damage.

So the was no misprint at Jyhad! Is this card really needed i do not know, thou. Prevention looks like a fine answer to weapons anyway.

Second round
So to elaborate, how the combat supposed to work:
- default range was long
- each discipline got an "affectiveness zone"
was fine at staying at long, throwing things and pressing
was defensive as is, packed with weapons in can deal massive damage at first round. Again - at long.
can deal few, but aggravated damage at close
mostly can't deal real damage, but it can negate opponents damage regardless of range, so theoretically it should came on top in some strange infinite lasting combats.
deals massive damage at second round at any range
combination deals massive damage at the first round up close.
should be "ultimate bad ass", able to have an answer to any combat strategy (having a weakest position at non-combat sphere).

So the logic for a for the second round was "updated version of first round strikes" (Theft, burst of Sunlight, Blood Rage):

Drain Essence
Cost: 2 blood (!)
Not usable on the first round of combat.
[tha] Strike: ranged; steal 2 blood.
[THA] Strike: ranged; steal 4 blood

Walk of Flame
as is

Cauldron of Blood
Cost: 1 blood
Not usable on the first round of combat.
[tha] Strike: 3 damage.
[THA] Strike: 56 damage. The've changed it when moved to close as a default range

So the logic behind this cards was to balance superior effects, as you will need to press at the first round anyway. And basic level was just an afterthought. Clever idea may be to make basic level do completely different things, it the first round or may be even outside of combat. No chance, thou.

So the math looks like this:
1 damage = +1 blood cost
ranged = 1 damage
1 aggravated = 2 regular
1 steal = 1,5 regular

elotar wrote:

Side note - story about Blood fury/rage:

There was (is) second level power at Path of Blood called Blood Fury, which forces opponent to burn blood against his will, obviously was not helping against it, and it was a fixed damage no matter your strength - you was just touching, not hitting. The clever idea was to make it an answer to weapons (it got some minor psychological effect also), as logic was that all combat disciplines need it. But then they was searching for the weapon answer to , "invented" "Blood Rage", made a correct assumption that version should deal more damage ( is not a damaging discipline), but instead of changing card templates, they moved Fury to and leave Rage at . Then they thought about Sideslip and clutter the card text. Later designers fucked it up even more - changed templates to +strength damage and moved Fury back to

...

So the was no misprint at Jyhad!....

You know what another clever idea was? Misspelling "Venture Justicar" and having it make a Tremere you control Tremere Justicar. The "designers fucked it up" by fixing the misspelling in the title and changing "Tremere" to "Ventrue" in the card text.

Seriously though, my theory is that Blood Rage, Concealed Weapon, Venture Justicar, etc. were simply proofing errors. In Jyhad, Fortitude and Obfuscate had one extra card each, and Thaumaturgy had one fewer card. This is why they were all changed later on.

Anyway, here are my theories on how these errors were introduced at the proofing stage:

Blood Rage: the proofreader saw the word "fortitude" in the card text and changed the symbol.

Concealed Weapon: The proofreader confused this card with the similarly titled Disguised Weapon and added the Obfuscate symbol.

Venture Justicar: Either nobody proofread this card, or these errors were introduced at a later stage in production.

So, in my theory, it was not the designers who fucked anything up, it was the proofreader (who obviously was not a very good proofreader if these types of errors were being introduced).