Breach (Obf+Pot)

Breach
Action Modifier
Requires:
Play after resolution of a successful bleed action.
Put this card into play.
Your prey's minions cannot block actions your minions are taking against them.
Your prey may burn 2 pool to burn Breach.

Boost for Nosferatu.

This is fine.

Maybe add a effect, something minor? +1 Bleed (limited)? That would make this multi-purpose.

I would make this trigger only when you succesfully bleed your Prey, as the rest of the theme works on your prey only. I can't see why bleeding cross table would allow you access to your prey's minions.

The way you have worded it is that the minions cannot block actions that target those minions themselves; it would still allow other minions your Prey control to block the actions as long as the action doesn't target them. I'm guessing this is not the intent, but actions that target minions your Prey control become unblockable? This way Breach would undermine even Eagle's Sight, which would make it stronger. You could add a clause, "unblockable by your Prey's minions", but it gets wordy.

Breach

+1 Bleed (limited)
Play after successfully resolving a bleed action against your Prey. Put this card in play. Actions taken by your minions that target your Prey's minions are unblockable. Your Prey may burn 2 Pool to burn this card.


Krausedit\\ If you feel like the card would just become a +bleed machine for main utility (which would be fine; gargoyles got it and the jump in viability is barely visible), the basic effect could say "Burn 1 blood to get +1 Bleed (limited)".

Whoops. The "them" was meant to refer to your prey, not his minions. I was unclear in my haste. And yes, it should only work of you bleed your prey.

I dont like an inferior giving +bleed. Maybe something else. One of the goals was to have a card that was a way of dealing pool damage that wasn't just +bleed.

I can't express enough how much I wish bleed and burn and pay were all emphasized as different aspects of pool loss. That way we could have some clans good at bleeding, others good at burning, and others still that force your prey to spend pool (to the bank) and pay pool (to other players). Also stealing pool and "moving" pool. Oh well.

LivesByProxy wrote:

Whoops. The "them" was meant to refer to your prey, not his minions. I was unclear in my haste. And yes, it should only work of you bleed your prey.

Oh. And I thought the idea was to first make a bleed to allow for unblockable rushes, Horseshoes, Temptations, Mind Numbs, Mind Rapes and the like, which would be thematic for Potence, and strong since finding the correct targets (let's say Fame) is rather strong. That would really help many bruise strategies.

Unblockable actions against a player however? That includes bleeds. I'm not fond of that idea to be honest.

I dont like an inferior giving +bleed. Maybe something else. One of the goals was to have a card that was a way of dealing pool damage that wasn't just +bleed.

I figured as much, but in the game as is, it is a reasonably strong extra effect. Any other similar idea could work, such as +1 Stealth for actions only.

I can't express enough how much I wish bleed and burn and pay were all emphasized as different aspects of pool loss. That way we could have some clans good at bleeding, others good at burning, and others still that force your prey to spend pool (to the bank) and pay pool (to other players). Also stealing pool and "moving" pool. Oh well.

Whereas all of this can already be done within the game's mechanics. No need for extra terminology when it can be done, and has been done already. If I'm understanding you correctly, Kindred Segregation makes you 'pay' or repay for allies, Parity Shift technically 'steals', and Enticement 'burns' pool.

Instead of getting worked up around semantics you can already design the cards in ways you describe and would like. I do not see what is stopping you.

According to the rules, actions against a player's minions constitute actions against that player, no? So it supports throwing Horseshoes and rushing prey's minions, as well as bleeds.

Kraus wrote:

Whereas all of this can already be done within the game's mechanics. No need for extra terminology when it can be done, and has been done already. If I'm understanding you correctly, Kindred Segregation makes you 'pay' or repay for allies, Parity Shift technically 'steals', and Enticement 'burns' pool.

I don't think that's accurate. All pool that is 'paid' or 'spent' is technically burned, as per the game rules. Parity Shift effectively 'steals' pool, but technically it isn't 'stealing', as that is a specific game term with a specific definition. Enticement burns pool, but all bleeds also burn pool.

We can't, as per the rules that now exist, have a card that says: "Whenever your prey burns 1 or more pool due to a card effect, they burn 1 additional pool." because even though that would help Nosferatu with Army of Rats and Victim of Habit and Fame, it also helps every bleed and vote deck. Little would change.

Edit: To further emphasize the point, we can't have a card that says: "If you would burn 3 or more pool, reduce the burn by 2." as that would not only be great against cards like Enticement and Fame, but it would also effect all bleed and vote decks. It would be a better Telepathic Counter.

According to the rules, actions against a player's minions constitute actions against that player, no? So it supports throwing Horseshoes and rushing prey's minions, as well as bleeds.

I would have to check, not exactly sure, but the thing is bleeds are superior - mostly - to other actions. Obviously not in all cases, but bleeding is by design the go-to ousting mechanism.

Like it or not, that IS the case, and should be taken into account when designing cards.

I don't think that's accurate. All pool that is 'paid' or 'spent' is technically burned, as per the game rules. Parity Shift effectively 'steals' pool, but technically it isn't 'stealing', as that is a specific game term with a specific definition. Enticement burns pool, but all bleeds also burn pool.

What technically, effectively happens is what matters in the end. I am a supporter of semantics as a tool for communication, but if it is glaringly obvious these specific changes in terminology will not happen, I'm saying the technical is what we'll work with.

Exclusion clauses are a thing even in VtES. Add "non-bleed" in front of an action and you're good to go.

Add "--burns 1 pool due to a card effect _in play_, they burn 1 additional pool" and you're helping a specific thing.

These things can be done.

And, in all honesty, I also think that terminology is naturally built around real life events, mechanics and action, not the other way around. Someone first invented a wrench before it was named.