Fortitude reaction card

I like Ankha's proposition, it seems balanced and interesting to play.

You mention making "higher cap samedi/ravnos/gangrel/gangrel anti/daughters decks a bit better". What about adding a "Only usable when a younger vampire is bleeding you"-clause?

The vampires in question are cap 8-9-10, there are lots of bleeders of this capacity or higher. It would need to be playable on any action (at least on superior) to actually be useful, I reckon.

The card is fine. But i don't like the fact it requires fortitude. There should be clear differnces between disciplines. Bleed reduction for fortitude just makes no sense. It's like intercept for potence.

Sure, I appreciate your point. We should try to stick to a congruent world. But not to the cost of our game. The point of designing new cards is to make this game more fun to play. The most important part of this is increasing the number of different decks which are viable and competitive. A card like this will fix so much for the marginalized clans. If this card is implemented I can easily imagine the number of competitive decks increase by 50%. And that would be awesome! Bleeds, reduce and bounce have been poorly explained through-out, one more slightly weird thing won't ruin the game for me.

Name: Take the Fall
Cardtype: Combat/Reaction
Discipline: Fortitude
[for][COMBAT] Prevent 1 damage.
[FOR][REACTION] Only usable when you are being bled, after blocks have been declined. Tap this reacting vampire. For each pool that would be lost to this bleed, this vampire takes 1 damage. Reduce the bleed by X, where X is the amount of damage healed by this vampire.

I don't think this card would have the desired effect. Each blood on your vampire can reduce bleeds against you by one? That's exactly what villein does, and seeing how Villein works against votes as well it's just straight up better defense.

Aaron wrote:

Dorrinal wrote:

Weirdest thing I've seen posted here yet. What's the justification?

The same reason that the OP gave. I was agreeing with him, after all.

Direwolf/Edward: In WoD, there are several described advanced Fortitude powers that give you protection from mental influences. I had suggested a card in another post called Sensory Shield for Fortitude that would do the same thing as Telepathic Counter except cost a blood. Here is a link to the described advanced powers for Fortitude in WoD: wiki.white-wolf.com/worldofdarkness/index.php?title=Fortitude.

Now, unlike bounce, I think that reduction represents a minion going around and reversing what a bleeding minion does. This goes back to our (in person) conversation several weeks ago when you said you thought that bounce affects resources not the bleeding minion, while I disagreed. I think that reduction does affect resources.

Now, how could Fortitude help protect resources? Your minion with Fortitude could use his invulnerabiltiy to retrieve valuable papers from a burning building, play bodyguard to an important mortal lackey, or otherwise perform clean-up to the damage to a Methusaleh's physical property. Maybe the minion sacrifices his blood to the Methuselah who is running low after being forced to use a lot of disciplines to fend off attacks. Who knows? The cards don't always make perfect sense. For instance, I don't understand from a thematic perspective how Auspex can bounce bleeds, since Auspex doesn't allow you to control minds, only read them.

Lol why ya gotta use my real name?

Anyway, the above justification is what Dorrinal (and I) wanted to hear. Sure that's a little bit of a stretch, but it works. The title of the card and the artwork should be in line with it (which is the HARD part of designing an interesting card )

And about the Auspex Bounce: Auspex may not give you the ability to control minds, but it does give you information. A smart vampire will be able to then take physical actions to alter the intended events. For example, he finds out that his enemy is "Legal Manipulating" by filing a lawsuit involving large sums of cash and property. The auspex vampire might change the evidence in the case to implicate a third party, but only does so because he has enough advance warning to do so.

I just realised my suggestion is not worded in the way we would like it to function. It says "tap to", what we actually intended was a deflection-like use. More like this:

"Reduce a bleed against you by X, where X is the number of Methuselahs in the game. Tap this vampire."