More political actions like Dramatic Upheaval?

As other have already said, political actions are probably THE space for design where you can do all sorts of super weird things that break the rules of the game, like Reversal of Fortunes and stuff.

But never bring Dramatic Upheaval up again as a real suggestion. We already know it was a horrible thing in competitive play. No reason to dig it up.

But, on the other hand, I think we already know roughly how to do political actions with numbers. KRC, Ancilla Empowerment, Parity Shift and Reckless already lay down foundations for a good numerical political action. Anything beyond that power creeps them, which is not a thing we want, I'd guess.

Even though Eat The Rich was excellently designed and still has numbers, Lily Prelude in a sense is kinda boring as it's yet another way of doing 4 damage across the table. A needed addition to card pool, no question there, and surprisingly interesting in actual games, but ultimately not inspiring.

Banishment is super powerful, probably the most powerful pol. action in the game, and does numbers indirectly. Reversal of Fortunes is kinda cool and (but?) makes for one of the most oppressive and stupid decks in the game. They are interesting designs. But, do not touch the VP distribution. There's unlimited potential for vote designs. Balancing is super tricky with them. As already stated, they're often either unusably bad or break the game. In particular VP distribution should not be touched. Just... don't do it. Especially in votes. Or make it unbearably complicated to pull off. I know votes make for a tempting area for such effects, but really, don't do it.

That said... I'd kill for more non-numeric effects for political actions. It's just super duper tricky to design them properly.

brandonsantacruz wrote:

LivesByProxy wrote:

I am thoroughly flummoxed that Red List was not a Political Action card.

Trumped-Up Charges
Political Action
Requires a titled non-Red List vampire.
Choose a ready non-Red List minion. If this referendum succeeds, put this card on that minion. This minion is now Red List. In this referendum, the chosen minion's controller gets 2 additional votes for every Red List minion in play. Any titled vampire may call a referendum to burn this card as a +1 stealth political action. Burn this card if the minion is no longer Red List.

So Trumped-Up Charges is what Red List should've been in the 1st place. But oddly they were both printed in the same set...

Ankha wrote:

LivesByProxy wrote:

And I understand that cards like Dramatic Upheaval were banned because tournament time-limits

It was banned because it "undermined the prey-predator relationship". And still would.

Don't most cards undermine some aspect of the game? Does not Zillah's Valley or Govern The Unaligned undermine the cost/time to influence out vampires? My guess is that they do, but they feel more 'fair' than Dramatic Upheaval, judging from these comments.

jamesatzephyr wrote:

LivesByProxy wrote:

Successful referendum means each Methuselah’s prey becomes the person to their right. (The person to each player’s left is now their predator.)

This is terrible for the same reason that Dramatic Upheaval is terrible - one player, through absolutely no fault of their own, gets to have two predators smacking them at once, with the second predator ready to swoop in with Dramatic Upheaval.

This isn't 'mixing up table politics', it is 'making one player's life hell, at random'. This is bad for the game, just as it was bad for the game when Dramatic Upheaval saw regular play.

LivesByProxy wrote:

Successful referendum means this card is put into play. If a Methuselah’s predator would be ousted, he or she gains the victory point instead of that Methuselah’s predator. Any vampire may call a referendum to burn this card as a +1 stealth action.

Again, this makes another player's life hell, at random, because their predator is trying to oust them, and their prey is trying to oust them, and then plays this just before they do. This is bad for the same reason that Dramatic Upheaval is bad.

James, how do you read either of these as two predators smacking the same target? There are only a few cards that allow players to bleed outside the normal prey targeting restrictions.

When I 'made' these cards, I looked at them like defensive cards. Your predator giving you a hard time? Call the vote to see if you're no longer his prey (becoming his predator). Or play the other card to get him off your back - if he ousts you, he gives his grand-prey 1 VP instead. I looked at them like cards that buy you a turn or two, and in a casual environment, I thought they'd be pretty fun.

I guess in a competitive environment, they could be used like you imagine, to team up on and snipe particular players, but then I wonder why the meta wouldn't adapt to include more high-caps for votes or that each deck would have a 'vote package' similar to how each deck has a combat or master package.

@Ashur, ReverendRevolver, Kraus: I really just want to see cool creative political cards, and I thought Dramatic Upheaval was one of the more interesting ones. It just bums me that so many political cards are for granting titles, and burning pool (boring). I mean, the main entire win condition of 'political decks' is KRC more often than not. The game that's meant to be THE multiplayer political card game has moved away from (or under-developed) the political aspect.

Maybe I am crazy, but when I think of what a political deck should be, I think of passing 'laws' that slowly strangle and cripple your prey & predator's ability to function, trapping them in so much red-tape. (And that the way to do this is more than just burning them out.)

LivesByProxy wrote:

James, how do you read either of these as two predators smacking the same target? There are only a few cards that allow players to bleed outside the normal prey targeting restrictions.

You're creating political cards and then only talking about bleed actions. Either you're being completely and utterly disingenuous, or you understand literally nothing about V:TES. Why would a political deck be in any way hampered by the directability of bleed actions, when a political deck can play political actions that work cross-table? Does the fact that bleeds target my prey stop my Legacy of Pander vote deck hitting its predator with KRC and taking the VP for the oust? Does the fact that bleeds target my prey stop my Prince deck throwing Parity Shift and ConAg at my predator and taking the VP for the oust?

No, nothing stops that.

So my predator gets his actual predator trying to take him out, and his fake predator (me) doing that too.

LivesByProxy wrote:

I guess in a competitive environment, they could be used like you imagine, to team up on and snipe particular players, but then I wonder why the meta wouldn't adapt to include more high-caps for votes or that each deck would have a 'vote package' similar to how each deck has a combat or master package.

That's exactly why Dramatic Upheaval was banned, because that's exactly what people did.

If the defence to something that is fundamentally awful is "Well, players could completely rework their decks as the only reasonable defence to it", then enormous flashing lights with deafening sirens should be going off around you. When the only way to deal with a strategy is to have everyone rework their deck specifically to counter it, that's a sign you've created a broken card.

jamesatzephyr wrote:

You're creating political cards and then only talking about bleed actions. Either you're being completely and utterly disingenuous, or you understand literally nothing about V:TES. Why would a political deck be in any way hampered by the directability of bleed actions, when a political deck can play political actions that work cross-table? Does the fact that bleeds target my prey stop my Legacy of Pander vote deck hitting its predator with KRC and taking the VP for the oust? Does the fact that bleeds target my prey stop my Prince deck throwing Parity Shift and ConAg at my predator and taking the VP for the oust?

No, nothing stops that.

So my predator gets his actual predator trying to take him out, and his fake predator (me) doing that too.

It would seem that the problem you have against those cards (my hypothetical card ideas, which no one ever said were perfect) is a function of KRC et al. The ability to burn pool via political cards is, IMO, pretty lame and not what political cards should be about.

jamesatzephyr wrote:

LivesByProxy wrote:

I guess in a competitive environment, they could be used like you imagine, to team up on and snipe particular players, but then I wonder why the meta wouldn't adapt to include more high-caps for votes or that each deck would have a 'vote package' similar to how each deck has a combat or master package.

That's exactly why Dramatic Upheaval was banned, because that's exactly what people did.

If the defence to something that is fundamentally awful is "Well, players could completely rework their decks as the only reasonable defence to it", then enormous flashing lights with deafening sirens should be going off around you. When the only way to deal with a strategy is to have everyone rework their deck specifically to counter it, that's a sign you've created a broken card.

But that's not the only way to defend against that card... The card gives you the option to burn it as an action (maybe the burn action could be at +2 stealth or more, who knows?) and the referendum has to pass, meaning you need stealth and anyone with moderate intercept could block it. And then there are other cards that hinder it as well, like Delaying Tactics. And of course, the people at the table would have some incentive to intervene, rather than let the political deck player snipe VPs. I thought part of the appeal of VTES was that 'broken' cards and combinations were off-set by the players at the table.

Reworking a deck is one thing, but I wouldn't call adding a few copies of Delaying Tactics, or Dread Gaze, or Irregular Protocol, or Wrong & Crosswise, and such, 'reworking'. People put cards in their deck for defense vs combat, and defense vs bleed, why should defense vs politics be any different?

And even if it is banned from competitive play, what about supporting casual play with such cards? WotC realizes that they have different player psychographics and different formats, and they print cards for all different types of players and cards that are competitive in one format but not another. Casual is a format just as valid as competitive, not every card needs to be a tournament staple. Interestingly, Game of Malkav and Malkavian Game, are very fun 'casual' cards, clearly meant for kitchen table-top games, but they've seen tournament play.

It would seem that the problem you have against those cards (my hypothetical card ideas, which no one ever said were perfect) is a function of KRC et al. The ability to burn pool via political cards is, IMO, pretty lame and not what political cards should be about.

Okay, to me it seems like you're reading in between the lines and finding what you want to find. I get it that you don't personally, on a theoretical basis (since you have very limited play experience), like KRC types of votes. That doesn't mean that anything James said means that KRC is why your suggestions don't work. It's more multi dimensional than that, and I'm pretty sure you understand this.

But that's not the only way to defend against that card... The card gives you the option to burn it as an action (maybe the burn action could be at +2 stealth or more, who knows?) and the referendum has to pass, meaning you need stealth and anyone with moderate intercept could block it. And then there are other cards that hinder it as well, like Delaying Tactics. And of course, the people at the table would have some incentive to intervene, rather than let the political deck player snipe VPs. I thought part of the appeal of VTES was that 'broken' cards and combinations were off-set by the players at the table.

Which card are you talking about? Dramatic Upheaval and its problems have been on the table here, and it doesn't have a burn clause. If you're talking about your own suggested cards, there are plenty of problems with this: if you're already planning on passing them, you have the vote lock already in most cases. Others burning it is not that effective of a downside, since you can protect them with your own votes.

Anyways, none of that really matters. Mostly, you're being told by tournament veterans that your reasoning for deck diversity through these sorts of cards and adding defenses against them will not make for more enjoyable games. Dramatic Upheaval has been tried and tested, and your suggestions aim for more or less the same effect. "People will adapt!" is not a reasonable or a good argument when you want to realistically plan cards, especially when people with more experience and know-how have arguments against it. Even better: based on real life data.

About kitchen tables: really, there already is a number of fun, not so powerful cards being printed even today for kitchen tables. Casual is a format the casuals uphold. I'm putting in a handful of my 2-cents for that Blessed Blade (Lost Kindred) will never see competitive play. It's still there to fill a melee weapon !Salubri play style for those who really enjoy it; that is, in kitchen tables.

Also, if you're enjoying Dramatic Upheaval, NOTHING is preventing you from enjoying it with your friends. Tournaments are different of course.

If you're designing cards for casuals, please make it very clear in the opening post that those cards are not intended for tournament play.

As for tournaments? VP sniping isn't a 'cool strategy' 'for toolbox decks' that are 'countered by variety in defensive card slots'. In casuals it could be. In competitive it isn't, really. You just have to trust us in this. It's been done. It wasn't fun. VtES has a tiny, tiny amount of banned cards. Each was banned for a reason.