Submission: At the gates

jamesatzephyr wrote:

When Banishment didn't say younger (which it didn't when first printed), you did see weenie decks taking out a lot of big vampires out, because being able to use a 2 cap with Presence to smack down a 10 cap was problematic - unbalanced, and unfun for the players on the receiving end. Learning from V:TES's mistakes may be helpful.

100% agree.

Ok. I assume you are correct and it is too strong. My problem is that any additional disadvantages might either require you to run a very specific crypt (something like Sha-Ennu) if you wanted it to work reliably - or be so weak nobody bothered to include it in decks.

How about:
- Increase title requirement to say, archbishop and above? This could be circumvented with crusades in weenie decks, but that would require yet more cards that aren't part of plan A and a single vampire can be more easily dealt with?

- Introduce a minimum cap requirement rather than a 'younger' clause? Something like, 'requires a titled sabbat vampire with capacity 8 or more'?

Ankha wrote:

The difference with the Crusade is that there's no choice involved: you put the card on the acting vampire.

Banishment (or At the gates) requires to set some terms before the referendum is called, hence the "Choose..." part.

I see. I hadn't realized that the wording implied exact timing for choosing a target, even if it makes perfect sense now that I think about it.
In casual/tournament games I play there is usually a huge discussion even before any blocking is attempted, which obscures when the choice actually has to be made.

jblacey wrote:

jamesatzephyr wrote:

When Banishment didn't say younger (which it didn't when first printed), you did see weenie decks taking out a lot of big vampires out, because being able to use a 2 cap with Presence to smack down a 10 cap was problematic - unbalanced, and unfun for the players on the receiving end. Learning from V:TES's mistakes may be helpful.

100% agree.

100% agree.

Then let's do something about the highly lacking power level of Public Vilification. It would possibly enable some strategies if it didn't have the 'younger' clause. Now it does, and it's nigh unplayable since it's power just doesn't compare to Banishment.

Banishment's effect is horrendous. Having 2-caps play that sort of an effect on 11-caps would be bonkers broken (and, it was it seems). At the Gates proposed effect is far from anything like that, and doesn't really compare well to real shut down cards like Sensory Deprevation and Nightmare Curse. And those don't require you to have a vote lock.

As a one turn pseudo lock-down this vote does not cut it in any kind of a deck. If it were to get a 'younger' clause it would break the flavor and instantly compare it to the vastly more powerful Banishment.

Rather, I'd really love to reinforce the weenie/midcap vote deck archetype that is supposed to be really Sabbat-y. To up the power here, I'd love to add a bunch of things here:

At the Gates
Requires a titled Sabbat vampire. Choose X unlocked Sabbat vampires you control and X+1 other vampires (only one of which can have a city title). Successful referendum locks all chosen vampires and they cannot play action or action modifier cards until your next unlock phase.

Or something to similar effect. I was thinking of something like:

-cannot play non-combat cards that require disciplines
-don't unlock during their next unlock phase
-cannot take D actions or block undirected actions
-restrict only action cards
-anything like that sorta

Any pseudo lock down could work.

At least it has power, instead of what's proposed now, and reinforces the brutal War Party theme better I'd think. That's sorta the direction I'd take the card.

Bloodartist wrote:

- Increase title requirement to say, archbishop and above? This could be circumvented with crusades in weenie decks, but that would require yet more cards that aren't part of plan A and a single vampire can be more easily dealt with?

Weenie vote decks typically have no problem stacking many Praxis Seizures out to wreak havoc with Parity Shift. Here's a random example I found from tournament winning decks on Secret Library: www.secretlibrary.info/index.php?deck=view&id=15609 16 weenies, and 16 Praxis Seizures.

Weenie vote decks that want to cause havoc and exploit titles do not, in general, put titles on a single vampire. At least, not decks constructed by decent players because that would obviously be a huge vulnerability for the deck. Even if you use the title relatively sparingly, just having the title can also help give you or solidify vote-lock. Getting multiple static titles onto the table by the end of turn 2 or 3 is handy, if you lack reliable vote-push. In some such decks that lack Presence, turn 2 can be about having one vampire to bleed to get the edge, giving you two votes on your Praxis Seizure. It may require a little good fortune. There are equally a bunch of weenie vote decks out there that pack some Presence (not necessarily on everyone).

Some similar-ish decks would throw in a relevant clan Justicar, if they were built around a clutch of vampires of an appropriate clan. (Not necessarily exclusively - just a large bunch of the same clan.) Handy where possible, because the extra votes on the Justicar vote are useful.

Kraus wrote:

Then let's do something about the highly lacking power level of Public Vilification. It would possibly enable some strategies if it didn't have the 'younger' clause. Now it does, and it's nigh unplayable since it's power just doesn't compare to Banishment.

You are over-simplifying the issue. The real problem isn't older vs younger but the actual card effect. Banishment didn't become a horrible card because it now says "younger". Similarly, Public Vilification doesn't become an amazing card if it doesn't say "younger".

Banishment's effect is horrendous. Having 2-caps play that sort of an effect on 11-caps would be bonkers broken (and, it was it seems).

It was, but the real reason can be explained by Game Theory section at the bottom of this post.

At the Gates proposed effect is far from anything like that, and doesn't really compare well to real shut down cards like Sensory Deprevation and Nightmare Curse. And those don't require you to have a vote lock.

Sensory Deprivation and Nightmare Curse are very powerful cards. However both are actions, neither are at stealth, both are actions, both only prevent unlock (which can be circumvented with unlock cards), both have a clause to have their card effects removed, Sensory Deprivation requires 3 blood and for the lock mechanism and Nightmare Curse for the inability to unlock requires 2 blood and AND .

where as At the gates, is at +1 stealth, indirect (meaning cards that provide intercept on actions can't be used), doesn't require any blood expenditure, no discipline requirements, merely requires a title Sabbat vampire, and perhaps most importantly doesn't provide a clause to have it's effect end early.

As a one turn pseudo lock-down this vote does not cut it in any kind of a deck.

I think you are missing the bigger picture. Anyone that runs this vote isn't running one copy. Anyone that can block votes or has the ability to vote themselves aren't the ones that will be punished by this card. Consider this scenario, what if you could consistently play this card on every turn? You would effectively be taking a vampire out of the game, right? Now imagine if you made it really painful if they can't take actions for example: Brainwash. Now imagine if you played a bunch of small vampires (vote push, combat defense, multi-action, votes) which used At the Gates and Brainwash in the same deck. You might even be able to find room for Pentex Subversion and the Parthenon. It is quite possible that your prey may never get an action the entire game.

Now switch places. How fun do you think that deck would be to have as your predator?

Here are some Game Theories that I think may apply.

1) A good card creates more interactions, not less.

This card can be removed by a action. *Good*
This card can no longer do actions. *Bad*

2) A good card creates obstacles that can be overcome.

This card can not do this action, unless they burn a blood. *Good*
This card can not do this action. *Bad*

3) A good card has a natural foil.

+1 Stealth, +1 Intercept. *Good*
This card can no longer play a specific card type. *Bad*

4) A good card provides more benefit if it is game mechanically more expensive.

My expensive card has more/better options than your less expensive card. *Good*
My cheaper card has more/better options than your more expensive card. *Bad*

Using those rules, here is an idea.

At the Gates
Requires a titled Sabbat vampire. Choose a vampire. If the referendum is successful, attach this card to the chosen vampire. The attached vampire locks and burns a blood during their Methuselah's discard phase. Any vampire can call a referendum to burn this card as a +1 stealth political action.

Bonus Points: If this card works with Public Vilification.

Okay, I'm a bit confused here to be honest... Are we really talking about the same card proposal? Because either you guys are missing something, or I'm totally missing something, or we're actually talking about different things.

It really might be me missing something 'cause I'm reading the other moment, and taking fivers to write the replies, so it's on me if I'm really missing something crucial.

Yeah, it was me who brought up Nightmare Curse and Sensory Deprevation, so I'll take the fall for that. Of course they're really vampire- and strategy specific cards, and we really don't need more of their ilk in the game. It's a good thing they exist, but their power level shouldn't be matched.

Neither should Banishment.

All I'm saying the OP suggestion is underpowered to fault. You're suggesting a 'remove' clause but it already has one - your next unlock phase.

Basically the lock down effect is a 'vamp for a vamp', so to be honest Banishment isn't even that good a comparison. Mind Numb or Total Insanity are a lot better comparison points here. Both are okay cards, where the former acutally sees play since it's easy to combo with both offense and other cards, and the latter sees next to no play (for it's cost and restrictions).

So I mean, I'll take the fall for bringing Sensory Dep into the discussion, since it's not exactly that relevant in this case.

So if you spam this, you'll have to survive the whole of the table (votes and cross-table hate if it seems too dominating), commit your actions to defense instead of offense (wouldn't you KRC for a VP instead?), have card slots commited to it (which could be KRC), have a minion commited to it...

Yeah, I know it's kind of dull and over simplyfing if you always compare to KRC, but that's basically what you kinda sorta have to do if you're discussing a weenie voter strategy.

If you manage to build a board state where you're not hated out but still have a decent say in the game, you could probably play one or two, but I dunno. I just don't see the power here.

At least it's far, far from broken.

As for the interaction specifics, I couldn't agree more: reinforcing the synergistic parts of the game mechanics is always what should be done.

In a sense I like what @jcblacey suggests here, but it doesn't fit the theme of the card as well as the other proposals. It could work as a different card though. Still as good as Deploy the Hand, which really isn't played? Dunno rly.

I'm kinda liking the theme of the card, and I'd love to see an effect peeps could agree on and that would recreate the feel of an oppressive Sabbat horde locking down a whole town.