file Submission: Relentless Hunter

09 Jul 2018 20:20 - 21 Jul 2018 14:32 #88689 by jblacey
Name: Relentless Hunter
Cardtype: Action Modifier
Cost: 1 :blood:
Capacity: n/a
Discipline: :cel: :obf:
Clan: n/a
Text:
Only usable after a successful bleed action.
:cel: :obf: Your prey burns a :pool:.
:CEL: :OBF: No other Relentless Hunter may be played this turn. For the remainder of the turn, whenever your prey loses a pool during a minion phase action, they lose an additional pool.

Flavor text:
“They sense it, can you?"

Art notes:
City Gangrel !gang! swarm surrounds a powerful vampire.

World of Darkness reference: n/a

How does this card address a compelling game need?:
This was meant to be an alternative breed and bleed mechanic for both !gang! and :assa:, instead of +bleed. It was left with two disciplines to make the cross clan crypt possibly easier. The inferior text was meant to provide another means to counter bleed reduction and bounce mechanics. The superior text was written in a way to make it flexible enough to work with other minion actions (even non bleed) but not master phase actions. I am fine if it triggers off Fame, but hoping it may open more deck concepts.
Bonus: I would like this card to work with Speed of Thought and Night Moves at both inferior and superior.

July 12th, Updated:

Relentless Hunter
:modifier:
1 :blood:
Only usable after a successful (D) action targeting your prey or a card they control. The action fails. A vampire can only play one Relentless Hunter each turn.
:cel: :obf: Your prey burns 2 :pool:.
:CEL: :OBF: Burn a :blood: from X (up to 3) other ready unlocked minions you control and your prey burns 2+X :pool:.
"They sense it, can you?"

July 22nd, Update

Relentless Hunter
:modifier:
1 :blood:
Only usable after a successful (D) action targeting your prey or a card they control. The action fails. A vampire can only play one Relentless Hunter each turn.
:cel: :obf: Your prey burns 2 :pool:.
:CEL: :OBF: Burn a :blood: from X (up to 3) other ready unlocked vampires you control and your prey burns 2+X :pool:.
"They sense it, can you?" - Luke Fellows

Notes: This is becoming one of my favorite card designs. It creates a new deck with cards that are normally considered "bad" and turns them into viable competitive deck.
Last edit: 21 Jul 2018 14:32 by jblacey.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
09 Jul 2018 23:06 #88694 by Ratadin
I would point out two things about the wording:
First, the inferior version doesn't affect "bleed reduction", as a bleed of 0 is an unsucessful bleed (and so this card could not be played). It is cool against bounces, though.
Second, the wording on the superior part feels weird. You could refrase it as this:
"Put this card into play. Whenever your prey loses one or more pool, it loses an additional pool. Burn this card at the start of the next influence phase. Only one Relentless Hunter can be played at superior each turn."
This way, you are stopping unlock and master phases effects from triggering, as this could only be played during a minion phase, and would burn during the influence phase, stopping also any discard phase effects from triggering this. This also takes into account the possibility of this card being played during another player's turn. You could add a clause to be triggered only during actions, but I don't think it should be that relevant.
Still, I think this card has the potential to be pretty dangerous, as cards like Tension in the Ranks could be pretty damaging, Lutz could be a living nightmare with this, as would any version of a turbo deck (although that wouldn't be that problematic).
Also, I think (by doing a quick read of the rulebook) that the concept "losing" pool isn't considered, and instead all instances of "losing" are actually written with the word "burn", which is also used to pay costs. This means that you will need to either create a new concept (lose), use the word "burn" (affecting your prey paying for cards, like concealed+magnum), or changing the effect to "Whenever your prey burns pool because of the effect of an action", which could take out many interactions, like Tension in the Ranks or Lutz (as they are, as I understand them, not the effect of the action, but a reaction to the action).

Anyway, cool idea. Don't know if balanced, but cool.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
10 Jul 2018 00:38 #88695 by jblacey

Ratadin wrote: I would point out two things about the wording:
First, the inferior version doesn't affect "bleed reduction", as a bleed of 0 is an unsucessful bleed (and so this card could not be played). It is cool against bounces, though.


True, bleed reduction may not be a big issue. The bounce is definitely what I was thinking about.

Second, the wording on the superior part feels weird. You could refrase it as this:
"Put this card into play. Whenever your prey loses one or more pool, it loses an additional pool. Burn this card at the start of the next influence phase. Only one Relentless Hunter can be played at superior each turn."


I am open to suggestions on the wording. I realize this ability could open up new problems but really I am looking for a really potent effect that has oust potential that isn't telegraphed with an action card. One of the things I love about Celerity and Obfuscate is the surprise effect of both disciplines. I want to change the dynamic of :OBF: :CEL: so that it is threatening without :DOM: or :DEM:.

You could add a clause to be triggered only during actions, but I don't think it should be that relevant.


At one point I thought about saying "pool burned
from minion phase actions" but it seemed like an unnecessary restriction.

Still, I think this card has the potential to be pretty dangerous, as cards like Tension in the Ranks could be pretty damaging


Yeah, I would be okay with that... but I doubt it would be consistent enough.

, Lutz could be a living nightmare with this, as would any version of a turbo deck (although that wouldn't be that problematic).


I thought about that.. and it totally did occur to me that this could make Gangrel Antitribu bleed/vote decks a thing. But Lutz bleeding seems more risky than calling a vote (so I doubt this would happen) and Turbo decks would choke on card cycling to "only one Relentless Hunter" per turn thing.

Also, I think (by doing a quick read of the rulebook) that the concept "losing" pool isn't considered, and instead all instances of "losing" are actually written with the word "burn", which is also used to pay costs. This means that you will need to either create a new concept (lose), use the word "burn" (affecting your prey paying for cards, like concealed+magnum), or changing the effect to "Whenever your prey burns pool because of the effect of an action", which could take out many interactions, like Tension in the Ranks or Lutz (as they are, as I understand them, not the effect of the action, but a reaction to the action).


I agree, still working on the text but yeah you totally got the idea immediately. Pool burned from minion phase actions is what I considered but that really limits interactions with combat. Still thinking about it.

Anyway, cool idea. Don't know if balanced, but cool.


Thanks, trying to find new interactions. Especially for clans and disciplines that are under represented.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
10 Jul 2018 08:32 #88701 by Whisker

Ratadin wrote: Also, I think (by doing a quick read of the rulebook) that the concept "losing" pool isn't considered, and instead all instances of "losing" are actually written with the word "burn", which is also used to pay costs. This means that you will need to either create a new concept (lose), use the word "burn" (affecting your prey paying for cards, like concealed+magnum), or changing the effect to "Whenever your prey burns pool because of the effect of an action", which could take out many interactions, like Tension in the Ranks or Lutz (as they are, as I understand them, not the effect of the action, but a reaction to the action).

Anyway, cool idea. Don't know if balanced, but cool.


At least Poison Pill uses lose pool wording, so there is precedent.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
10 Jul 2018 09:08 #88702 by Ratadin

jblacey wrote: I thought about that.. and it totally did occur to me that this could make Gangrel Antitribu bleed/vote decks a thing. But Lutz bleeding seems more risky than calling a vote (so I doubt this would happen) and Turbo decks would choke on card cycling to "only one Relentless Hunter" per turn thing.


I was thinking on luzt + 2-3 mid-caps playing KRC and burning 2 extra pools per political action, plus lutz bleeding, which could hurt.

And on the turbo part... your card can be used only once at superior, nothing is stopping a turbo deck from ciclying the card during their force of will bleed through the inferior level.

In fact... if I bleed you for 3 and then use this card at inferior while having used this card at superior before, would the superior level trigger from both the bleed (going from 3 to 4) and from the inferior level of the card (burning 2 pool instead of 1), meaning that your prey just lost 6 pools?

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
10 Jul 2018 11:22 - 10 Jul 2018 12:00 #88706 by jblacey

Ratadin wrote: I was thinking on luzt + 2-3 mid-caps playing KRC and burning 2 extra pools per political action, plus lutz bleeding, which could hurt.


With the perfect setup you could do 4 - 6 pool, which is significant. That said this card isn't consistent enough for Lutz. You would be better off with more votes or stealth, especially since Lutz can't play this card himself. You would need another consistent vampire other than Lutz to pull the combo off.

Note: Did you know there is only one Malkavian in V:tES with both :OBF: :CEL:?

And on the turbo part... your card can be used only once at superior, nothing is stopping a turbo deck from ciclying the card during their force of will bleed through the inferior level.


It names the card. It doesn't say "played at superior" unless that is the assumption with all cards. A slight rewording could fix it if it is too ambiguous. Beyond the Turbo abuse, I worry that superior + inferior use of the same card would be too strong. I already thought of that interaction and was looking at preventing it.
Last edit: 10 Jul 2018 12:00 by jblacey.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
Moderators: AnkhaKraus
Time to create page: 0.274 seconds
Powered by Kunena Forum