Reins of Power and Ancient Influence rewording

kschaefer wrote:

The problem with these votes is that know one knows what's going to happen until after the vote succeeds.

?? In most cases, everyone picks their biggest vampire. For the few remaining cases, the player will usually show signs that he is on tilt, and nothing prevents you from asking before casting your votes.

The whole thread just sounds like sore losing to me. Threatening to hit back if one gets ousted is playing to win. Without another way to make the vote fail, it might actually be the only possible move to survive. Don't blame the card. Don't blame your prey. Blame yourself for giving away leverage when you are ready to oust.

I personally don't play the card specifically because of the lack of control and the ambiguity on what will happen on success.

If I were the prey and thinking about that move (of not picking a vampire), I'd announce it. In hopes that it scares my predator into voting it down. "You might get me, but I won't pick a vampire. Good luck trying to win the table." That's perfectly good brinkmanship.

I think the issue that Kraus is concerned about is a prey that decides too late (after it's successful) to do anything about it. A bad prey who does it out of spite, not as part of a forewarned ploy. Though if I announce I'd do it, you best believe I will if you oust me; make sure you think twice next time we're in that situation.

Considering that cards like Fame, Tradition: Hospitality, and Army of Rats saw serious errata, I could see this change going through, but I have to wonder if it is really worth it... Isn't the potential to 'spite' your predator worth it? Isn't that possible social interaction valuable?

I think Reins of Power is perfectly acceptable as is, your prey is not responsible for your next oust and it does not break the 'play to win' rule. I don't even consider the situation you mentioned to be a 'spite' move. Your prey; when about to be ousted can choose to either help you or their prey in this specific situation. It can be considered 'helping' or 'spite' either way.

Spite is a tactical, tangible thing in vtes when it comes to play to win situations.
Typically, if you call any of the three cards like this (political stranglehold is obviously not being mentioned here because it doesn't burn pool) and you have at least taken a moment to consider all possible outcomes to calling the referendum before you turn the acting minion sideways.
Ideally, you control the situation and choose Lodin instead of Hardestadt and advertise that up front to your prey who's at 5 pool. Or you have enough dominate to not care. Dealing with your prey is never something your prey can trust, but if they are presented with "I'm calling this and you'll be burning pool until you're at 1, you then have one turn to oust your prey, choose a vamp wisely" then things change.

But if you just smile and tell them"good game" as you try to oust with said vote, the price you pay is an additional up to 6 pool on your next prey.
I've Archon Investigation on Lutz at 4 pool. Died before my next untap, but knowing they potential exists for someone to ruin your game if you oust them a certain way is part of the social interaction so indicative of VTES. As is the complete bullshit of saying you're going to do something you haven't the cards for.
I've threatened to eat Minions with Ariadne but had no amaranth in hand, but fear was enough. I've also toldy prey not to contest DoTs or I'd burn his 7 cap outright on turn 3. He did, so my turn 4, Lucinde bleed, he blocked, and I played Dawn op, weather control, pentient resilience and amaranth.
Lying and subsequently negotiating large swings is one of the trademark parts of the game.

I'd still play the cards if naming a vamp was mandatory or happened before referendum, but I feel the choice of giving your prey 6 pool was intended, and removing that choice removes something important, even if seldom used, from the card(s).

Getting off the soap box now....

Non-existant user wrote:

kschaefer wrote:

The problem with these votes is that know one knows what's going to happen until after the vote succeeds.

?? In most cases, everyone picks their biggest vampire. For the few remaining cases, the player will usually show signs that he is on tilt, and nothing prevents you from asking before casting your votes.

Pretty much the only case when someone doesn't pick the biggest vampire, is when they are getting ousted to the reins and can sabotage his predators play by not picking a vampire at all. I don't call it "sore losing" when it makes no difference to you personally what happens. Why make things easier for your predator? Are you obliged to co-operate when someone ousts you?

I am not a fan of the "play-to-win" rule, but its not being broken in this case.

Also since IC vote decks don't need any more buffs in my opinion, I don't support the proposed change. This change would be just a buff to reins.