Card Idea: War for Territory

Comments on various variants of card:
1. "a 1 pool rush card" - honestly, a crap. 1 pool to waste to S:CE? or to Obedience? And all we get is +2 bleed, which is lost if target vampire is diableried.

2. "rush & burn location" - nice combo, but the text should be reworded.
> Enter combat with a vampire. If that vampire's controller has a location, you must also choose a location he controls.

3. "potence location steal" - erm... potence? control a location? WITH NO COST? Just TOO overpowered. Personally, i dont like the concept at all. But if i had to fix this card, i would suggest to:
- change card cost. 1-3 blood. It's not easy to fight for a territory, even if you have a potence discipline.
- switch [pot] and [POT] effects.

Finally the text would be:
War for Territory
[action] [cost 2 blood]
Do not replace until the end of this action.
[pot] {d} Burn a location you control to inflict 1+X pool damage to your prey, where X is the pool cost of the location.
[POT] {d} Take control of a location controlled by your prey.

- alternative effect:
[POT] {d} Take control of a location controlled by your prey until your next discard/master phase.
- if you want just to burn a location, this won't bother you. But if your greed wants that Hunting ground for yourself...

jAvel wrote:

Comments on various variants of card:
1. "a 1 pool rush card" - honestly, a crap. 1 pool to waste to S:CE? or to Obedience? And all we get is +2 bleed, which is lost if target vampire is diableried.

1) Either, you pay one pool AND get +2 bleed or you don't (pay pool).
2) I wouldn't play any rushes at all if I was afraid of S:CE.
3) Obedience is always a problem for rush decks.
4) Trading 1 pool for 3 pool is actually quite good trade to me, considering that you've just whacked one vampire to torpor as a bonus.
5) Card wording was: "put this card to Methuselah", so diablerie is not a problem.
6) Diablerizing a vampire has usually quite big effect. If card would be given to a vampire instead, I'd trade one destroyed vampire for one pool and lost +2 bleed any time.

Wording should be "after this action" instead of "this combat", to support other S:CE thwarting than IG.


Revised version:

War for Territory
Type: Action
Cost: 1 blood (alright, having already lots of restrictions, blood cost is enough)
Requires: sabbat
Requires a Sabbat vampire.
Enter combat with a ready vampire controlled by another Methuselah. If the opposing vampire is not ready after this action, give this card to the Methuselah controlling the opposing vampire; you still control this card. When bleeding the Methuselah with this card, this acting vampire may burn this card to get +2 bleed.

This is probably broken in a lot of ways, but I think the idea about giving you incentive to use combat as part of a more complex strategy is interesting.


Send them a warning
Type: Action
Cost: 1 blood
Requires a Sabbat vampire.
Enter combat with a ready vampire controlled by another Methuselah. If the opposing vampire is not ready after this action, put this card on another vampire controlled by the same Methuselah; you still control this card. Burn this card if the target vampire is not ready or if target Methuselah controls a vampire in torpor during his/her untap phase. Your vampires may bleed the Methuselah with this card as a D action with +2 bleed.

@Oskar:

Interesting idea, although it may be slightly too strong... I suppose, that the card grants +2 bleed action, so multiples won't matter.

Is the target vampire the one with the card? Maybe wording could be "Burn this card if the vampire with this card is not ready or...".

Yes the +2 is an action so not possible to combine with cards like govern. And I intended for the target vampire to be the one with the card like your wording.