Finally, I'm sure this will be amazing!

My impressions are positive. Having to basically stake honour on "agreements" around the table is very thematic and cool.

Looks great so far!

Where can I learn more? Very excited!

Seems like to get the group back together!

Finally!

(I have not much more to add... other than I need a group to game with) ?

Ummmmm, how large can a multiplayer game be?

Possible to have 1 player from each Clan, fir a total of 7 players starting a game? If so, that would take like forever to complete....

I can see a player game, maybe ‘teams’?

Technically, there's no max limit...you could play with 20 players, if you really wanted to. But like you said, more players = more time to complete. Treaties might be beneficial for larger games, the beta rules suggest a treaty can be in effect for the remainder of the game...presumably you could have treaties in place until only treaty participants are remaining, and they have to battle it out to the end (if someone isn't winning by that point already).

Another thing is that as you lose provinces, you have fewer places to spread your claimed rings. As the game progresses, it becomes much easier to claim multiple rings with a province break. That might cut the end game a bit short. I think it might require some actual playtesting to see how that affects larger group games.

Kaito, you are right.

After reading the rules, I have some concerns with all of those rings being in play, coupled with no upper limit of players, which just seem silly, rather funny, downright weird imo.

While games larger than 4-5 players is not common, I would love to have played a 7-Player game that had one representative from each Clan.... but I just can’t see how each player would be involved in the game if there is this much going on (rings, treaties, Provinces, etc) all the while a player bidding low ends up having an advantage (or would that be a DIS-advantage?) over the rest of the players. But I need to see this in play and then sus out the possibility of the rules ‘working well’ or working as intended.

Multiplayer rules ain’t easy.

Keep in mind though that with the 4+ player rules, you can only bid 2 or 4. So you'll be trading card advantage for honor (fewer cards = gain honor from everyone who bid 4, more cards = pay an honor to everyone who bid 2). If single player trends apply, I suspect everyone will want to bid 4 on turn 1, then rely on as much card draw tech as possible unless they have other sources of maintaining/replenishing their honor pool. Depending on how many players, that is. But yeah, there's a lot of new moving parts and interactions to consider with multiplayer, I think giving it a try (and bearing through however long it takes to get a big game played through) is the only way to really know for sure how it works with all the extra people.

One thing that could drag things out, though...imagine every action/reaction window running until all 7 players pass consecutively... ?

3-5 will be the sweat spot, but definitely 7 player game would be interesting to try... at least ones.

i have played 12-14 player Vampire ccg game in the Bar... the beer was absolutely needed during that

But that was ones in lifetime game. 4 player is most likely the absolutely best. Is two players ally, the other two allmost have to ally also. It can be really interesting! 3 player game depends a lot of player Group, because the best is to harrash both opponents, by all players...

Honor will be an even worse mechanic the larger the player pool is just due to the undefended penalty. With a concerted effort you from 2-3 players you could easily be looking at losing 4-6 honor a turn from undefended conflicts if you aren't careful.

5 hours ago, Schmoozies said:

Honor will be an even worse mechanic the larger the player pool is just due to the undefended penalty. With a concerted effort you from 2-3 players you could easily be looking at losing 4-6 honor a turn from undefended conflicts if you aren't careful.

I don’t see how that would be mitigated unless there is higher starting Honor for all players in the game.

17 minutes ago, LordBlunt said:

I don’t see how that would be mitigated unless there is higher starting Honor for all players in the game.

I don't either, bids are going to be key (3 as the safe bid to minimize loses will probably be the smart play).

The other as I suggested in another thread is limiting players to one conflict per turn.

Funny, that was our most common bid in our home brew rules. It worked. (different word than ‘worked’ needed)

22 hours ago, Schmoozies said:

I don't either, bids are going to be key (3 as the safe bid to minimize loses will probably be the smart play).

In +4 players games, you can only bid 2 or 4.

Just now, Tabris2k said:

In +4 players games, you can only bid 2 or 4.

Less of an issue as 4 player becomes essentially teams with treaties. Any odd number will be problematic but the more you get the less so.