Poll: Merge Antitribbu into base Clans?

Lönkka wrote:

Disco_Stu wrote: Sure, it will duplicate some effects, or create some doubling down on certain tactics, but the end result of that will be the core themes of clans will come out even more strongly.

If the duplicate entries (say Hunting Grounds) is deemed broken or problematic then just banning one (or rewriting both so they can't be in play at the same time. Contest?) shouldn't be problematic. But I'd rather avoid banning.


Allt he other distinctions can be handled easily by following wordings:

"Usable only by Camarilla vampire."
"Usable only by Sabbat vampire."


Examples:
"Art Museum
During your influence phase, you may lock this card to move 1 blood from the blood bank to a Toreador in your uncontrolled region."

changed to:
"Art Museum
During your influence phase, you may lock this card to move 1 blood from the blood bank to a CAMARILLA Toreador in your uncontrolled region."


"Palla Grande
Put this card in play and put 3 debauchery counters on it. Toreador antitribu get +1 bleed. Remove a debauchery counter from this card at the end of each of your turns. Burn this card if it has no counters."

changed to:
"Palla Grande
Put this card in play and put 3 debauchery counters on it. SABBAT Toreador antitribu get +1 bleed. Remove a debauchery counter from this card at the end of each of your turns. Burn this card if it has no counters."

Palla grande is strong enough to need it, Art Museum is already in the hands of the more wall-oriented side of the clan.

Just like Art Scam is already with the side that has the most with low capacity.

Obviously, testing is key. If we start with only restricting Paths and Palla Grande, I think we can test and find out.

Dear Ben Peal and Hugh Angseesing and all of Black Chantry,

Reboot VTES. Please. Black Chantry you guys are fantastic designers. Start over with the new source and give us a fresh take on the game. The current rules are convoluted and you have to reference tons of rulings made by a guy who is currently not involved in the game at all.

This benefits new players and will allow BC to clean up the rules and the clans and create cards that are worth playing. Don't let the people clinging to this 24 year-old game and complaining about changes deter you from what needs to be done.

You guys play the game so I know you see where it falls short. The best way to preserve this game is to start over.

Lönkka wrote: Allt he other distinctions can be handled easily by following wordings:

"Usable only by Camarilla vampire."
"Usable only by Sabbat vampire."

Except the distinction is between Sabbat and non-Sabbat. Being clan doesn't mean Camarilla; it means non-Sabbat. Antitribu means Sabbat always with the lone exception being !Gangrel Joseph Fischer, who's Anarch.

Your rigidity with Camarilla hear actually harms some existing decks. Using "Usuable only by a non-Sabbat vampire." is a better choice for the first option.

Let group 7 and 8 reflect v5 changes and older groupings reflect WoD history. I see zero reason to retrofit v5 on existing card base.

Oblivion etc. can be introduced in group 7 and 8. Challenge is to make g7/8 competitive against older groupings. Heck g7/8 can even powercreep over older groupings imo.

*edit*
Tournaments can also be timeline restricted:
1990’s tournament = group 1-3
2000’s tournament = group 4-6
2010’s tournament = group 7-8

Which can also be persisted in casual games and make it easier for new players.

You could also drop groupings and introduce ‘timeline’ keyword which can be used for more than vampires.

Ps. Would be awesome if Black Chantry would eventually publish a new WoD card game that can co-exist with vtes as is, but lets not call it a reboot