Parity Shift poll and discussion

I just don't believe you, Peter. Would all those tournament winning decks mentioned on the first page have been conventional KRC-spammers?

Keep in mind that I am in favor of nerfing Parity Shift. I simply disagree with the assertion that that will somehow make non-Parity Shift decks competitive with other tier 1 decks.

Dorrinal wrote:

Only relative to Parity Shift decks. The correct answer is to give non-Parity Shift decks a Parity Shift.

As I wrote in an earlier thread, giving Parity Shift to other sects wouldn't do much competitively. Even if Archbishops and Cardinals (and even Prisci) got an equivalent card, the Princes would still be stronger because they have better crypt options. There are so many more & Princes, and also good ol' Victor Pelletier. There's only 1 priscus at , and 1 archbishop at . the selection only evens up around the range.

KRC is still a very powerful vote card, even comparable to Dominate bleed. I think it's hardly crippling to take away Parity Shift from Princes, it just removes an overpowered "crutch" card. Though I admit I would be interested in seeing some kind of playtesting, how well would Prince decks still fare against standard bleed decks? I predict they'd still do fine, but I'm just curious.

KevinM wrote:

[...]with no serious cost to the card whatsoever.

This is not true.
1) Being lower on pool than your prey, and
2) Being lower on pool than anyone and then 'wasting' 5 pool damage not in your prey
are both huge costs.

I would be fine with a change which would add "A Methuselah's minions may pass only Parity Shift in a game." to the card text. I would be fine with it because I don't think it would change anything at all, since it's exceedingly rare to see a player make two parity shifts (for 4 or 5) happen in a game. But, also, because it would mean very little change, I think such a change would be redundant.

Before anyone says that the opportunity cost is cheap because you can "just get an assault rifle/renegade garou/another vampire" to go low on pool, I have to say this. That's extremely high risk. One delaying tactics and a deck like that is dead. Try to remember all the times a strategy to go low on pool has failed instead of the singular time it succeeded and it seemed overpowered.

Banning cards simply because they're strong sets a bad precedent. They have to be way-out-there-strong to warrant banning. Banning any strong card will eventually cause a perfect homogenization between clans, disciplines and sects.

Izaak wrote:

If vote decks without Parity Shift were strong, you'd see more of them. We don't, therefore vote decks without Parity Shift are not competitive (enough).

*Ahem*

www.thelasombra.com/decks/twd.htm#2011comssjc

*Edit* I see now that you mentioned it further on. My point was that it can be done (although this isn't a pure vote deck, but those are rare). I wasn't without luck and I would still like to see some better sabbat vote cards come out.

brandonsantacruz wrote:

*Ahem*

www.thelasombra.com/decks/twd.htm#2011comssjc

That's your own deck? Classy.

Xaddam wrote:

brandonsantacruz wrote:

*Ahem*

www.thelasombra.com/decks/twd.htm#2011comssjc

That's your own deck? Classy.

Tone is very poorly conveyed on forum posts. What do you mean by that?