compress Change in the crypt contest rule

29 Nov 2019 02:47 #98032 by William_Feitosa
I would like to propose a change in the contest rule, specifically (and only) in the crypt contest.
I propose the change to be: “The moment a vampire contest happens the matuselahs contesting must pay 1 pool during their untap phase or burn the contested vampire” both vampires remain in play and can still do actions as normal, in terms of lore you can say the vampire is a double agent or an impersonator or even a shapeshifter.
Here are my arguments for this change:
1- Most library cards are played by or only with your minions. Most decks will have around 5 or 6 masters that do not require a minion, but these are usually Direct intervention/wash/Sudden reversal, which means you don’t start to play the game unless you have a minion in play.
2- bringing an older vampire (9,10 or 11cap) usually takes 3 or 4 turns and costs a third of your pool, that pool gets locked and requires a significant longer time to acquire back if you see a possible contest. So you lose precious turns without being able to do anything.
3- in some cases there is no deckbuilding around it. If you want to create a star vampire deck e.g. a stanislava multiaction deck or a unnamed deck there is no alternative to these minions in the game, no other minion has their set of abilities, so the moment you sit on the table and there’s someone else with the same ideia there WILL be a contest. And I can also make an argument for optimal crypts for a given strategy.
And my last argument:
4- Its not fun. The moment you sit on the table and someone brings out the vampire you’ve been influencing you know your chances of playing a fair match just plummeted and that’s not fun for most in that position.

Thank you for your time reading my arguments.
The following user(s) said Thank You: Charles_Bronson

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

More
29 Nov 2019 07:54 #98040 by beslin igor
William_Feitosa I like you idea,and all you argument!!!!
Specialy is problematic contest star vampire and vampires with high capaciti.
So if no aceptable whole you rule maybe is good to this rule apply for vampires with (example) capaciti 5 or more.
You give me one idea: maybe you know for VTES online competions,and i think maybe is good to test you idea in some future leagues,I will see also what other people think,if more players who standard play acept you idea,we will test it.
Do you have facebook? Facebook is big thing today,much people use it,so I think is good to you topic be shared there too. and also in group who serve for online play to can see what other players think,if they like you idea,we will test it.

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

More
29 Nov 2019 08:04 #98042 by elotar
This idea was proposed several years ago and I'm not sure that it was the first such proposal.

Back than it was obvious, that it's a good idea and should be implemented asap.

But no, because reasons.

:splat: NC Russia
:DEM::san::nec::cap4:

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

More
29 Nov 2019 10:17 #98044 by kylynx
Imho many of the decks you mentioned are balanced by the risk that your star vampires might be contested. Lets take the unnamed as an example, you gain 2 pool for every successful bleed, so paying the contest does not really hurt you that much when the unnamed can act. Same thing holds true for a girls deck (ashur), big cap vote (voter cap).

So there is many decks, and I might even miss a few in the list, which wouldn't even care about paying 1 pool every round for the star. Additionally the probability that a certain vampire is contested in a tournament is in my opinion directly proportional to its power level. So abolishing this rule, would only help decks, that don't really need any buffing.

Yes, if you build a star deck and its contested by chance, you won't do much on that table. I give you that, but the same holds true for so many things. Take wall decks, that use bowl, rack , heart of cheating. These are unique and key cards. Info highway in weenie decks, ....

This is a problem you have to think about, when building/deciding to play a deck. Having fallback plans when your star does not show up in your crypt/is contested. Sure there is not many ways around not having your star vampire at all due to a contest. But for me this is one of the more appealing things in this game. You're forced to think about the meta, and about the probability that your vampire is contested. Maybe build even decks that do not use certain vampires, that are contested fairly often.

So far for my 2 cents.
The following user(s) said Thank You: jaakkon

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

More
29 Nov 2019 10:28 #98045 by Palamedes

William_Feitosa wrote: I would like to propose a change in the contest rule, specifically (and only) in the crypt contest.


No, no, and no. That's a terrible idea! There is a reason why this rule exists.
Do you really want to see in game more then one Stanislava, The unnamed, Lutz or any other star vampire on the same table??
Imagine the situation: Two Enkidu fight each other, while other vampires try to block it.
Please stop this kind of nonsense. If you want to play such a game, switch to Magic: The Gathering. There are flying giant worms in boots and things like that.
The following user(s) said Thank You: jaakkon

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

More
29 Nov 2019 10:34 #98046 by beslin igor

kylynx wrote: Imho many of the decks you mentioned are balanced by the risk that your star vampires might be contested. Lets take the unnamed as an example, you gain 2 pool for every successful bleed, so paying the contest does not really hurt you that much when the unnamed can act. Same thing holds true for a girls deck (ashur), big cap vote (voter cap).

So there is many decks, and I might even miss a few in the list, which wouldn't even care about paying 1 pool every round for the star. Additionally the probability that a certain vampire is contested in a tournament is in my opinion directly proportional to its power level. So abolishing this rule, would only help decks, that don't really need any buffing.

Yes, if you build a star deck and its contested by chance, you won't do much on that table. I give you that, but the same holds true for so many things. Take wall decks, that use bowl, rack , heart of cheating. These are unique and key cards. Info highway in weenie decks, ....

This is a problem you have to think about, when building/deciding to play a deck. Having fallback plans when your star does not show up in your crypt/is contested. Sure there is not many ways around not having your star vampire at all due to a contest. But for me this is one of the more appealing things in this game. You're forced to think about the meta, and about the probability that your vampire is contested. Maybe build even decks that do not use certain vampires, that are contested fairly often.

So far for my 2 cents.


You forgot to say how you lose 10 pool for Unnamed,lose 3 turns to bring him out. and then what? leave contest and lose this 10 pool,or continue with contest and lose every turn 1 pool and dont playing game,very boring!
About ashur and girls deck,only 1 ashur will win and gain only 3 pool when play 3rd ashur,you pay contest every turn.
Much changes in VTES are mades in last time,maybe if players give this topic more suport this bad rule also be changed.

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

More
Moderators: AnkhaKraus
Time to create page: 0.135 seconds
Powered by Kunena Forum