Contesting As An Ousting Archetype?

A month ago I made a post about Political Actions and how 45% of them are title cards, 30% are pool burn (but not as good as KRC or Parity Shift) and the remaining 25% are corner case, with maybe 2% of those doing something unique or cool (Political Flux, Dramatic Upheaval, Ancient Influence, Reversal of Fortunes, etc.)

In that post, I suggested a card:

Behind Closed Doors
Political Action
Successful referendum means this card is put into play. While this card is in play, instead of paying the normal cost to contest a card, each Methuselah contesting a card or title with another Methuselah secretly bids an amount of pool. The highest bidder burns that much pool and the other contesting Methuselah yields that title or card. (In case of a tie, the card remains contested.) Any vampire may call a referendum to burn this card as a +1 stealth action.

But contesting titles or vampires (even Master cards to some extent) is rare because there are so many unique titles and vampires. And contesting, when it does happen, is a way of stopping a player from playing the game (taking out a vampire they spent turns influencing), or an attrition war. Neither are super fun. Contesting is not a strategy unto itself, but can help with ousting. But what if using it to oust were more direct?

Thus I was wondering if maybe political cards that enabled with, and played with contesting, would be a interesting or fun sort of win-condition.

So lets assume the following (hypothetical) rule-change:
If you're contesting a vampire, and you yield that vampire, it is returned (face-down) to your uncontrolled region. (If you try to influence it out again, and the other vampire is still there, it will become contested again.)

And then we could print cards like these:
Where Loyalties Lie
Political Action
Choose a vampire of a different sect from this acting vampire. Successful referendum means this card is put into play as a copy of that vampire (place an equal amount of blood on it from the blood bank), except it is the sect of the acting vampire (causing you to contest that vampire.) Burn this card if you yield.

More Disputed Territory
Political Action
Choose a location. Successful referendum means this card is put into play as a copy of the chosen location (causing you to contest that location.) The other Methuselah cannot yield during their next turn.

Political Rivalry
Political Action
Choose a Prince or Archbishop. Successful referendum means this acting vampire is contesting that Prince or Archbishop's title and the chosen vampire's controller burns 1 pool.

Prince's Gambit
Political Action
Requires a Prince. Choose a non-titled Camarilla or Sabbat vampire the same age or older. Successful referendum means this acting vampire's title is considered contested by the chosen vampire. If this acting vampire yields, this he or she loses their title, and the chosen vampire becomes Prince or Archbishop of the same city. The winner of the contest gets a permanent +2 bleed.

4D Chess
Political Action
Successful referendum means this card is put into play. After a vampire steals a card from another Methuselah (including you), you may contest that card. (The contested card is turned face-down.) The winner of the contest takes control of the card.

So no one thinks contesting should be explored as an ousting condition or is an interesting mechanic?

Contesting Is Cool 2018
Political Action
Successful referendum means any player can contest any vampire as a Master Phase action. (The card is turned face-down and is considered out-of-play.) In addition to the normal cost to contest a card, each player contesting a vampire this way must pay 1 additional pool.

Sounds like a very exploitative way.

Weenie voters (preferably with single clan so they can benefit from bloating with Consanguineous Boon) sure come to mind immediately.

First of all you most likely have more minions that the other dude. So by contesting his minions with your weenies (say Embrace?) is WAY more costly for him AND...

secondly if the opponent(s) happen to be playing a voter deck by contesting you also remove his votes from the table with each contesting thereby swinging the table even more to your favor. (also very valid against wall or rush decks as each contest removes vampires that would otherwise torporize your minion, however now by removing one from your horde you also remove one of your opponent's minions).

So to quote Mr Horse: "No Sir, I don't like it!"

If you are into contesting shenanigans build a deck using Thanks for Donation!

Yea, contesting as an archetype is no fun. Like Imbued level of no fun.

But as a win condition, it's not unthinkable. Malk 94 or similar aggro decks can easily justify Parthenon, Dreams, Jack, Papillon, and even Fame to hope for contest and removal of beads from the table.

Contesting as your only way to win would be as successful as Eyes of the Dead being your only way to block.

If you wanted to punish people for all playing the same thing, a card like that could be designed. Like:

Cheese Melter
Master out-of-turn.
Only usable if a methuselah has played more than 2 non-trifle master cards this turn. Steal 3 pool from that methuselah, and give her this card. Each master phase she plays more than 2 non-trifle master cards she gives you 3 pool and immediately moves to her minion phase.

Or

Reap the next great Maelstrom
Action
remove X wraith ot Zombie allies in other players ash heaps from the game to gain X blood.
as above but gain pool instead.

You get the idea.

LivesByProxy wrote:

So no one thinks contesting should be explored as an ousting condition or is an interesting mechanic?

I agree, contesting is one of the least fun aspects of the game.