Card Idea: Scrawl

Louhi wrote:

Game development
- Currently if you expect to be up against vote decks, you put in some delaying tactics and only delaying tactics for defense (or maybe confusion of the eye?). This card is intended to give some versatility in vote defense.

I think versatility in vote defence would be better served by it not being dedicated vote defence. For example: votes at inferior / a good bleed mod at superior; an Anarch three-way with vote defence on a non-Presence discipline; aggresive combat at one level / vote defence at the other.

(Not necessarily in Obfuscate.)

I like the effect of somebody else setting of the terms but that card is just too annoying for vote decks and for the game also. I don't also like cards which only work as a good vote defense. Sometimes they don't work at all and when they work they can be too strong and annoying. I would just make it more minor as some vote defense with inferior and something else at superior.

Maybe something like:
Reaction
Only usable when a minion announces a political action. If the action is successful you set the terms of the referendum instead of the acting Methuselah. Acting minion may cancel this card as it is played. If he does so then the acting minion may not vote or play any action modifiers during or after the referendum.

Then superior a totally different effect.

I feel like completely changing the terms of a vote is too strong in conjunction with reaction vote push. There are enough reaction vote push and vote negation cards that you can completely take over someone else's vote for yourself.

On top of that, it adds more time to the game. Player often discuss the terms of a vote before setting the terms, and if a player plays this card, it forces another discussion on the terms of the referendum.

A couple options:
A) Let the player take the card back into their hand like a Delaying Tactic if they do not like the new terms for the card.

B) Instead of changing the terms, make it pool loss mitigation. Either prevent pool loss from a vote, or force another methuselah to take a certain amount of the pool loss.

i like the idea behind it but i think the wording of the superior is conflicting with rules of a referendum. and instead of changing the terms, maybe reducing numbers by half (rounded down) if the referendum passes or if its a vote damaging you, gaining pool equal to how much damage the vote does total (meaning a krc that would hit you and your grand predator for 3 and 1 respectively gains you a total of 1 pool)

i like obfuscate making the vote have unforseen consequences/ not doing what the voter intented by deception. but re-arranging terms might be too chimestry from a flavor standpoint.