Friday, July 31, 2009

Poll Results: "Would you like to see the removal of the "transfer back" rule?"

Here are the results of the latest poll if one would like to see the removal of the "transfer back" rule as discussed in the VtES Usenet Newsgroup?". 120 readers of this blog have voted in this poll.
  • Yes. -- 8 (6%)
  • No. -- 86 (69%)
  • I quit playing VtES then. -- 22 (17%)
  • I wouldn't care. -- 7 (5%)
Not surprisingly a large majority (86%) is really not fond of this proposed rule change.

For reference here's the original rule change proposal by LSJ:
Well, with the understanding that influence-back rule was added to handle contesting issues (and has ended up turning Ecoterrorists and superior Govern and the like into bloat tools instead of the pack-building tools they were designed to be), I'd say changing something along those lines wouldn't be too out of line (as long as something's getting changed regarding contesting):
  • Remove "spend 2 transfers to move 1 counter from a card in your uncontrolled region to your pool."

  • Add "remove from the game a crypt card in your uncontrolled region that would contest a card in play to move all blood counters from it to your pool and draw a card from your crypt".

  • And make yielding a crypt card return the crypt card to the permanent controller's uncontrolled region, for good measure.

8 comments:

mongrel said...

You linked to a thread with 500 posts. It's pretty hard to find the "transfer back" rule in there. What I _think_ you're referring to is LSJ's posted text:

"Remove 'spend 2 transfers to move 1 counter from a card in your uncontrolled region to your pool.'

Add 'remove from the game a crypt card in your uncontrolled region that would contest a card in play to move all blood counters from it to your pool and draw a card from your crypt'.

And make yielding a crypt card return the crypt card to the permanent controller's uncontrolled region, for good measure. "

This text actually contains 3 rules changes. It would be helpful if you posted the rule you're referring to. (if its the whole text, or just part of it)

extrala said...

Yeah, I was a bit lazy here. Especially since linking a particular post in Google Groups is not a very pleasant experience.

Baaliprimogen said...

If the rule would be changed, well then we would se alot new cards that would "transfer back".

aaron_clark said...

I think it would be a fine change. Those cards were not 'meant' for pool bloat. Govern and Enchant were meant to represent how your current minions can use their powers to sway more minions to your side. They weren't meant to represent your minions' mental disciplines giving you more general pool resources.

reyda said...

aaron, excuse me if i disagree.

a card like govern means: your minions take action to get influence over other minions.

those other minions, then can be further influenced until they are totally under your control.
This means spending wealth, time and so on.

But, if you decide they are not so worthy to influence out in midst battle, you can still take back some of the influence -again in terms of information, valuables, money, from them, since you have already bonded ties with tem.


So, this vision may be fantasy, but in a world where influence is everything (your starting "life" also ;) ) it makes sense.
At least it makes more sense that
a curious "the cards were not designed that way". On this only Garfield can answer... Certainly not LSJ, who was not around at that time i guess.

Ben Peal said...

Reyda,

It doesn't matter what Richard Garfield's intent was 15 years ago. I'm sure there are plenty of unintended and unwanted results of his original design decisions still remaining, even after a lot of rules changes both under Wizards and under White Wolf. If it's the right decision to make today, then make it today.

That said, there's a problem with LSJ's proposal in that one can very readily bloat via Govern (and others) to cards one already has in play. The proposal should instead state:

'remove from the game a crypt card in your uncontrolled region that would contest a card in play _controlled by another Methuselah_...'

aaron_clark said...

Reyda, I have no reason to think that LSJ doesn't know the history of the development of VTES. He may not have been there, but it's still very likely he knows what happened if he says he does. I think we can agree it's possible there is a record of the development of the rules, and that if there is such a record, he probably has access to it.

I can see your argument. You're saying that gaining partial control of a vampire in your uncontrolled region would allow you to get resources from that vampire. Your vampire with DOM partially controls a younger vampire, therefore that vampire will be willing to give you some money, information, minions, etc. This loses you influence over the vampire, however.

The problem with this thinking is that you cannot do the same with a controlled vampire by using transfers. If you control a vampire, it should be much easier to take resources from them as opposed to from a vampire you only partially control. Using your reasoning, why can't you use two transfers to take back a blood from a controlled vampire?

If you've started exerting influence over a vampire by giving them bribes or information, blackmailing them, using mental domination, etc., but never exert enough influence to bring the vampire totally under your control, why should they have to give you anything 'back'? If an official wanted a $500 bribe and you gave them $250, you wouldn't get the favor you wanted, and who's to say they're going to give anything back at all if you change your mind? If you gave a gift to a teacher hoping that it would positively influence your grade, would you get to take the gift back when you don't get the grade you wanted? It's not like we're talking about dealings regulated by law.

Another problem is that it's hard to explain how you would lose control over a vampire who is being -mentally- dominated just because they give you some of their resources.

I'm at a loss to see how 'transferring back' makes sense in the context of the game world being represented.

sauce cake said...

I personally like the transfer back rule. Much like Reyda's train of thought, I believe that while the minions are under influence they are more easily manipulated. The minion has not been completely influenced to you but they are undergoing a change that makes them confused, thus more vulnerable.

With the examples given, I would make the assumption that at this point you would be the teacher and not the student. The student is waiting to be embraced; however, being the teacher you can keep the gift and still give them a bad grade.