Submission: safety lock

Safety lock:
d action.
put this card on a minion, this action is at +1 stealth if you control this minion. As long as this minion is locked, actions directed at this this minion costs one more life or blood and gets -1 stealth. The controller of the minion with the safety lock can choose to not unlock this minion during his unlock phase. A minion can have only one safety lock.

interest for the game:
this card would have the following impacts:
- a cheap protection playable by any minion, so it could help protect for instance an ally from d actions or a star vampire... it is less effective than safe haven but less rewarding as well as d action are still possible
- it is more effective with vampires "making" actions as they get locked afterwards than vampire staying unlocked for a passive ability. so it rewards risk.
- a cross table card to limit the ability of a vampire to be rescued from torpor by other
- to protect a little an unlocked allied vampire from been diablerized

I wondered to replace the "-1 stealth" by a "can be blocked by a minion controlled by any methusealh" to involve the table about this "protection".

art: a door locked with a simple safety lock... with something weird like a keep out drawn in blood or a few blood drops next to it.

Two thoughts.

1. There is an interesting mechanic from the perspective of being able to play the card across table. Not really a fan of adding a discipline-less lock to lock effect.

2. The card in it's current state is way too weak to ever see play. The card is too disposable to make the cut. It just doesn't do enough to justify the card slot.

Suggestion:

What if we rename it to Witness Protection?

Witness Protection

+1 stealth
Flip a minion face down. The minion and any attached cards are not considered in play while face down and any ongoing effects are suspended (including effects that change ownership) until the card returns to play. If you do not control the minion, this is a direct action and does not have innate stealth. The controller of the minion may flip them face up during their turn.

So this does several things.

1. It means that card isn't in play, which means they can no longer be targeted by actions.
2. It isn't an inferior Secure haven or Chanjelin Ward.
3. This means the card can be a combo effect to stop a painful card in play. You want to get rid of a vampire with Fame in torpor without eating them? Now, you have an option.
4. You can also combo the effect with other powerful damaging card that hit multiple vampires in play. Want to call Kindred Segregation, Peace Treaty, and Anarchist Uprising but want yourself or someone else to dodge the effect?
5. Worse case scenario, you could temporarily remove a wall vampire but they get them back on their next turn.

Anyway... it is an idea for a more powerful effect. Thought it may be a fun combo mechanic.

I would like to see Witness Protection require Auspex because 1) puns; 2) VTES's disciplines are the coolest 'deck building restriction' of any card-game I have seen; 3) give unique and fun mechanics to specific 'colors' instead of making them universal, which should facilitate creative deck-building.

jblacey wrote:

Witness Protection

+1 stealth
Flip a minion face down. The minion and any attached cards are not considered in play while face down and any ongoing effects are suspended (including effects that change ownership) until the card returns to play. If you do not control the minion, this is a direct action and does not have innate stealth. The controller of the minion may flip them face up during their turn.

Taking a vampire out of play is a... little strong. Cards like Forgotten Labyrinth can get up to pretty high levels of stealth quite easily.

jblacey wrote:

4. You can also combo the effect with other powerful damaging card that hit multiple vampires in play. Want to call Kindred Segregation, Peace Treaty, and Anarchist Uprising but want yourself or someone else to dodge the effect?

Kindred Segregation and Peace Treaty are both quite conditional cards in the first place. You mostly(*) don't know that ally decks or weapon decks will be on the table, or that they'll be in a place you want to harm anyway. Needing there to be two such decks on the table and one you want to protect is getting a bit unlikely.

(*) You may know in special storylines, and to some extent you would know a bit in the finals of a tournament - but since V:TES doesn't include sideboards, that's also a bit random.


If you want to use it to protect yourself, not playing the ally or equipment is likely to be more prudent, or playing it sparingly. If you have five .44 Magnums out, you're not going to take enough actions to protect them all.

jblacey wrote:

5. Worse case scenario, you could temporarily remove a wall vampire but they get them back on their next turn.

Wall vampires probably aren't the big issue, as they're more likely to be able to block this. They would still fear Pentex Subversion more.

I see this being much more of an issue for less powerful decks that manage viability by including some vampires capable of bouncing, so they may only have one such vampire out. Flip that vampire out of play and shove some large bleeds through with minimal risk. If people respond to that by playing the decks with more regular access to bleed bounce, that's not great for deck diversity.

There are cards capable of doing something semi-similar - Reality, Sensory Deprivation, Blind Spot - but they're all quite expensive in their own way. Blind Spot's 'expense' principally comes from the fact that other master cards can be a lot more powerful, though it is far from terrible.

Edit to add: Banishment is an alternative that's potentially less expensive if the designated bouncer is a small or medium e.g. a 3 cap with dom or something. But if you're including Banishment in a deck in the first place, you're probably going for pretty big vampires in your crypt to facilitate it. Not guaranteed, but more likely.

LivesByProxy wrote:

I would like to see Witness Protection require Auspex .

I love Auspex, in fact of all of the disciplines it is probably the one I play the most. That said, we have too many critical effects required for a healthy game locked behind that single discipline.

Some auspex effects off the top of my head: Intercept, Bounce, Unlock, Discard, Vote manipulation, Combat Avoid, Hand Size, Cancel Combat Ends, Various Combat effects, Combat Rush action, multi-action, Bleed Bonus, Bleed Reduction, etc.

If anything, I am more inclined to make this card require Obfuscate and drop the innate stealth altogether.

jamesatzephyr wrote:

Taking a vampire out of play is a... little strong. Cards like Forgotten Labyrinth can get up to pretty high levels of stealth quite easily.

It might be an over-reaction to make it stronger, that said a card like this could fill gap in action avoidance that doesn't exist.

jblacey wrote:

Kindred Segregation and Peace Treaty are both quite conditional cards in the first place. You mostly(*) don't know that ally decks or weapon decks will be on the table, or that they'll be in a place you want to harm anyway. Needing there to be two such decks on the table and one you want to protect is getting a bit unlikely.

So from a meta perspective, Allies are everywhere right now... they might as well be common at this point. Weapons are conditional; probably on the uncommon side (not rare). The real challenge is how to play a deck with Allies where it is not your main focus (example: Carlton or Mylan) when you want to target and kill all allies in play like Emerald Legionnaire, Nephandus, various Mummies, War Ghouls, Garou, etc). The easiest option is just pay the pool cost, but a more elegant solution would be preferred.

If you want to use it to protect yourself, not playing the ally or equipment is likely to be more prudent, or playing it sparingly. If you have five .44 Magnums out, you're not going to take enough actions to protect them all.

The idea I was going for was how can you minimize the damage you do to yourself or a cross table ally? This isn't a perfect solution; just an idea off the cuff.

jblacey wrote:

Wall vampires probably aren't the big issue, as they're more likely to be able to block this. They would still fear Pentex Subversion more.

IMHO is probably the biggest problem with Pentex. The lack of interaction before it hits the table. Basically, Sudden it or suffer for at least a turn.

I see this being much more of an issue for less powerful decks that manage viability by including some vampires capable of bouncing, so they may only have one such vampire out. Flip that vampire out of play and shove some large bleeds through with minimal risk. If people respond to that by playing the decks with more regular access to bleed bounce, that's not great for deck diversity.

Interesting. You make a good point. This would be a discipline-less solution to bleed bounce. That said, it would not have the result of people playing more bleed bounce, but instead including more alternatives to bleed bounce. In fact, it punishes players for including bounce without also the option to block. Kind of an indirect nerf to Deflection and Redirection. Wouldn't that increase deck diversity?

There are cards capable of doing something semi-similar - Reality, Sensory Deprivation, Blind Spot - but they're all quite expensive in their own way. Blind Spot's 'expense' principally comes from the fact that other master cards can be a lot more powerful, though it is far from terrible.

Yeah, I am aware of these cards. If anything, the idea was to find a more unique mechanic.

Edit to add: Banishment is an alternative that's potentially less expensive if the designated bouncer is a small or medium e.g. a 3 cap with dom or something. But if you're including Banishment in a deck in the first place, you're probably going for pretty big vampires in your crypt to facilitate it. Not guaranteed, but more likely.

So the mechanic that I initially thought of was a non-political action version of Banishment. But clearly... that card would need to be significant expensive... especially if it didn't have the "younger" clause.