New card idea, sabbat parity shift

Myrdin wrote:

So, I've run this idea through the Stockholm playgroup and reactions have been as follows: first "it's too strong" after some discussion "it's too weak".

It's both.

At times when it works, it would totally turn a table on its head. At other points, it'll just be clogging your hand. There's nothing inherently wrong with cards that can turn out badly for you - lots of cards are like that. But it's the table-on-its-head aspect that you want to examine. Personally, my gut instinct is that when it works, it will probably be off the scale, for my tastes.

It's also not that hard to exploit. It seems like it would get decks trying to 'abuse' it with things like Zillah's Valley, Info Highway etc., to bring big vampires out quickly - then steal back pool from its prey who hasn't spent it as quickly.

Ashur wrote:

First: So you don´t like it, but more titles should be able to play it?

Can't comment on Priscus, but adding Regent is a no-brainer. Regents are treated as Cardinals [10.2]. so it's just more explicit card text.

I don't like it at all, especially for the reasons mentioned by Lonkka and Surreal

I'll try to reply to most comments in this post, I'd spam too much imo if I reply to each person separately.

@Surreal
Feelings are hard to reason about so I'll just accept your thoughts about the sabbat'esqueness of the card =). As for gamechaging effects, alot of votes have this effect, net gains and net loss for votes are usually quite large. Comaparing the effect of 5 vs. 20 pool, even though imo it's an extreme case it would come up at times. The change would be to put the players at 13 resp 12 pool, a net gain and loss of 7 resp 8 pool. Total change is then 15 pool which is large. As for being game changing I agree but then so are Ancilla Empowerment or Anarchist Uprising, both would in a normal game net as much pooleffect (5 players 3 minions each).

The usefulness in these cases are limited though for player strategy, i.e. how low would you need to put yourself to make this play effectively often. It would then be a one-off card which would mean that it's a last minute resort and you can't build around it, you then put a few in "just in case" but the chance of drawing into it at the right moment is minor and it would make the card cornercase.

@Ashur
It's not only for offensive use mind you, defensively you could feed someone in risk of being ousted at the cost of your own pool =)

@Brum
If you consider my reasoning above about how "Big Plays" for this card since the net gain and loss requires more extreme pool management and the difficulty of making it work well, much more so than Parity Shift. With the unholy alliance of both though you could shuffle pool around the table quite effectively, that is if you're free to vote as you wish, in which case playing pure KRC's would probably be more efficient.


@Klaital
First off, by rules regents are always considered cardinals aswell, as for not including prisci, that was a choice I did to limit the playability. I did consider it only affecting prey, but that limits the flexibility of the card in feeding cross table etc. I was considering the early quick impact of parityshift vs the more extreme requirements for gaining the same effects in this card.
I will do math to it! Case: 3 pool vs 30 pool girls will net a 17 vs 16 pool split, total of 14 gain and 14 loss for both players, a shift in balance of 28, thats alot. but then, if you willfully plan for this case to happen you are in extreme peril to a DI or delaying tactics. This would be an extreme case, lets take a more common case, 17 vs 15 parity shift earlygame 5 players, net change of 10 putting players at 12 resp 20 pool, that change midgame is much more common.
As for punishing good play, i'd rather see it as punishing bloat, which is something that has been increasing alot lately with the mastercards that have become available.

@Lönkka
I agree that handing out Parityshifts to all sects is going to skew balance, but I for one appreciate the effects of parityshift and want more cards like it to be in the game, since there is only one of them it shifts the power of vote-decks to almost always include or be Camarilla, I very much would like to see a broader range of stable, voting archetypes.

Ankha wrote:

Myrdin wrote:

Give me your thoughts, have at me

It reminds me Dramatic Upheaval where one vote could change the whole table dynamics in an unpredictable way and would force players to play accordingly, ie. very carefully, leading to deadlocks.

Like Surreal, I don't like the card at all.

I do agree that it is reminiscent of Dramatic Upheaval/Kindred Restructure. But I think with a big difference. The main point of why those cards were banned was not only the annoyance of having to move your cards/counters but also that the cards were used to basically "steal" victorypoints, that was the main problem and why people were forced to play defensively, not to protect themselves but to not chip too hard at your prey since an aggressive playstyle would make you lose your victorypoint.
I don't think that is a problem with this card.

@jamesatzephyr
This is a very valid point, the card will be cornercase alot of the game and at times it will have a huge effect. Something we need to tread carefully around and can only really be resolved during playtests imo