Submission: At the gates

jblacey wrote:

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.

Isn't this card more dangerous than my original suggestion?

Since now
- you can't remove it yourself, because:
- you require votes for removing which you can't have or the card would not have been attached in the first place (the original referendum would have just been voted to fail unless the player using it had vote-lock or enough allies who want you to have it)
- It actually burns blood now
- You can't block without wakes or untaps, in my suggestion you could
- Nothing prevents said deck from putting lots of these into the deck just the same as before, only now its harder, and most likely impossible to remove (since it doesn't remove itself and you require votes for removal). This means that if the table which includes a vote deck, wants to screw you over, they will.
- Worst thing in my opinion: theres a high chance that this card does literal nothing (imagine a powerbleed deck that taps out REGARDLESS.
- It can be too easily countered by a single blood doll to pay the blood from pool.
- The suggestion is not unique and cannot be removed except by voting, so if the sabbat deck spams these on vampires, they are burning boatloads of blood and I'm pretty sure the situation is much much worse than in my suggestion.

So the chances are extremely high that it either does literal nothing, or you are completely locked out of the game by it(if said vampire is empty they are locked into endless hunt/burn blood loop). This is precisely the kind of card I DON'T want released. I don't want extremes, I want the midroad. I want a card that has discernible effect, that's not brokenly good, and that enables sabbat voting plans in a way thats not the generic "prey burns x pool thing".

If a weenie vote deck spams your suggestion, I'm pretty darn sure that it would be far worse than my original suggestion. My suggestion at least doesn't have a stackable effect. Multiple "can't do this" do nothing extra,

At the very least above suggestion needs "a vampire can have only one at the gates placed on it" clause. Even with it I think it would be stronger than my suggestion.

In my suggestion I didn't go for the "requires d-action to remove" route, because I think it would've made the card stronger in general and I tried to keep the card strength level medium. Its also I think easier for the deck using these cards to prepare for that eventuality (if it can be removed with a d-action) and have an effectively harder lock. I made the card remove itself to keep its power level down and have less probability of a lock.

You can't assume you always have the cards you need in your hand. I honestly think that cards that are only effective one turn are FAR weaker than cards that stay unless they are removed with an action.

jamesatzephyr wrote:

stuff

I noticed you didn't comment on my suggestion of a minimum cap requirement, what do you think of that? It would automatically cut weenie decks out of contention, while still retaining the cards functionality?

On topic (my posts are getting obtusely large so I made another post)

Thematically it might be suitable to remove the card with a d-action that's directed at the player who played At the Gates. This would be akin to running a blockade, sneaking or dashing through the siege of sabbat vampires. If any player could do the d-action, it could be likened to an outsider helping the blockaded vampire to escape. This action should probably cost blood.

Voting At the Gates out wouldn't suit thematically unless it was a sabbat-only vote. I mean, a camarilla prince wouldn't come to a sabbat war party and say "Hey you, lift this siege!".

However, I have specific reasons I didn't write the card this way. Prime reason being that such cards, which individually require actions to remove and can be spammed, are in my opinion considerably stronger than a card that removes itself and doesn't benefit from stacking.

For example, I have been trying to build combat decks for last few months as a project. I've noticed that anarch revolts make pretty good win conditions for such a deck, even though any vampire can call a vote to remove it, and I would likely be unable to block such a vote from across the table.

Reason being that I noticed players across the table are usually unwilling to expend that action to help their cross-table ally. Actions are a precious commodity, and people generally want to use them to either set up or oust their prey. Said players would more likely spend one action to turn anarch (and counter all anarch revolts) and leave my prey to die to the revolts. My prey/predator actions I could block.

Therefore, I tried to write my submission in a way that would increase CARD interactions, instead of table interactions.(actions to perform and block) This should be kept in mind. I think there are many ways to combo my suggested At the gates with other cards, those that require d-actions to remove or burn blood. Not putting these in the same card lessens the power level since you require more cards.

Now if weenie votes are the only fear, my suggested minimum cap requirement to play this should handle the problem, yes?

Include "requires a titled sabbat vampire with capacity of 8 or more" for example?

ps. Im fully behind Peetu (Kraus) on what he wrote. I also think that my suggestion is far weaker than people make it sound like.

Bloodartist wrote:

jamesatzephyr wrote:

stuff

I noticed you didn't comment on my suggestion of a minimum cap requirement, what do you think of that? It would automatically cut weenie decks out of contention, while still retaining the cards functionality?

That's true. It could work. Maybe something reasonable like "requires a titled sabbat vampire with capacity of 6 or more". They aren't weenies, but neither are they big caps. Anarch barons require 5 or more, as does Reckless Agitation.

Bloodartist wrote:

Isn't this card more dangerous than my original suggestion?

It would have to be tested. Several easy changes if it is too powerful, but the goal was to provide an example.

I don't want extremes, I want the midroad.

Then you need a cap limit for the acting vampire or a younger vampire restriction. Otherwise you won't be able to prevent weenies from using the vote.