Contesting Titles

elotar wrote:

Actually I think quite the opposite - VtES represents fluff much better that any edition of VTM.

Your argument is that V:tM does a poor job presenting the fluff of V:tM?

Kushiel wrote:

elotar wrote:

Actually I think quite the opposite - VtES represents fluff much better that any edition of VTM.

Your argument is that V:tM does a poor job presenting the fluff of V:tM?

Mechanics of VtM does a poor job not only representing fluff, but just being a playable game.

Kushiel wrote:

Whisker wrote:

1. Background fluff; Other sects are simply bigger than anarch and have more resources to throw around for contesting rulership of cities.

Not that you're wrong, but this is always a poor reason for any rule in this game, because this game does a terribly sloppy job of trying to emulate the RPG.

The Caitiff clan rule had similar reasoning, but was just as inelegant. It's a corner-case that you have to remember because when contesting with another Baron there's no additional cost.

From other posts, it's clear that the rule isn't even known by all players. Probably because everyone "knows" how contesting titles works, except when they don't, when it's non-obvious that there's an exception.

Kraus wrote:

...do Barons have to pay extra for contest?

Wow.

The things you learn.

Well, 4.2 Contested Titles makes no mention of it. You have to read section 10.5 Anarchs to find that out. When looking up information on contesting titles, the player may never think to reference 10.5. I mean why would they?

If we're going to keep the additional cost, it should at least be called out in the most logical spot to look, section 4.2.

Just one of many, many examples of why the current rulebook needs a full revision...

TwoRazorReign wrote:

Just one of many, many examples of why the current rulebook needs a full revision...

I agree