[submission] Alvusia's Revenge

Name: Alvusia’s revenge
Cardtype: Combat
Clan: Gargoyle
Cost: 3 pool
Usable only when the opposing vampire is going to torpor; Not usable by a vampire going to torpor or being burned.
Burn the opposing vampire and put 2 blood (or 3 blood if the opposing vampire is a Tremere or Tremere antitribu) from the bloodbank on a gargoyle in your uncontrolled region.

Art notes:
A gargoyle dragging a vampire body into a dark cave or alley.

How does this card address a compelling game need?:
When playing gargoyles, I’ve found pool management to be absolutely awful as independent gargoyles have no aid from disciplines in pool management and adding tremere’s adds too many moving parts and weakens the whole point of playing gargoyles. I modeled this card after ‘decapitate’ and made it cost pool since it does have a serious impact on the game. Effectively it’s a “govern the unaligned” for Gargoyles with a more challenging mechanics to achieve, but fits in nicely with the theme and gargoyle gameplay. It’s completely inefficient to use in a non-combat deck and pointless to use in a tupdog deck.

Created by:
Ben Gerrissen

GreyB wrote:

Name: Alvusia’s revenge
Cardtype: Combat
Clan: Gargoyle
Cost: 3 pool
Usable only when the opposing vampire is going to torpor; Not usable by a vampire going to torpor or being burned.
Burn the opposing vampire and put 2 blood (or 3 blood if the opposing vampire is a Tremere or Tremere antitribu) from the bloodbank on a gargoyle in your uncontrolled region.

Art notes:
A gargoyle dragging a vampire body into a dark cave or alley.

How does this card address a compelling game need?:
When playing gargoyles, I’ve found pool management to be absolutely awful as independent gargoyles have no aid from disciplines in pool management and adding tremere’s adds too many moving parts and weakens the whole point of playing gargoyles. I modeled this card after ‘decapitate’ and made it cost pool since it does have a serious impact on the game. Effectively it’s a “govern the unaligned” for Gargoyles with a more challenging mechanics to achieve, but fits in nicely with the theme and gargoyle gameplay. It’s completely inefficient to use in a non-combat deck and pointless to use in a tupdog deck.

Created by:
Ben Gerrissen

This is effectively a really high condition inferior grunt version of Zillah's Valley. I wouldn't be playing it while Gargoyles could instead play Street Cred.
So for a Gargoyle Deck looking to beat the living crap out of minions... find something better than Street Cred which doesn't break Gargoyles.

Juggernaut1981 wrote:

This is effectively a really high condition inferior grunt version of Zillah's Valley. I wouldn't be playing it while Gargoyles could instead play Street Cred.
So for a Gargoyle Deck looking to beat the living crap out of minions... find something better than Street Cred which doesn't break Gargoyles.

The bit where you get to burn a vampire for a cost of 1 pool (sort of) using Raking Talons or Disarm isn't entirely shabby, though. Being able to do that with Tupdog without burning yourself (as might well happen if you played Raking Talons + Amaranth)(*) and without needing to stack up a lot of damage for an outright burn would be potentially fun, though what your uncontrolled region looks like at any given point is anyone's guess - if you have an Antonio d'Erlette sat there, it's good, whereas if you've left a Tupdog sat there to absorb the pool (and even transfer the one excess back), it's a bit more uncertain.



(*) If the Tupdog is burned before his own card text kicks in, you don't get to pull a vampire into your uncontrolled region. So while losing a Tupdog to Amaranth + Blood Hunt + burn isn't the end of the world, it would do potentially odd things to your crypt flow.

Juggernaut1981 wrote:

This is effectively a really high condition inferior grunt version of Zillah's Valley. I wouldn't be playing it while Gargoyles could instead play Street Cred.
So for a Gargoyle Deck looking to beat the living crap out of minions... find something better than Street Cred which doesn't break Gargoyles.

It's a street cred + decapitate... I'd call that better than a "Street cred".
My view for this card is for it to be put into a deck up to 1-4 times, just to get rid of nasty vampires and it to be more attractive than Decapitate. It should not be a main strategy card, hence the high pool cost.

jamesatzephyr wrote:

The bit where you get to burn a vampire for a cost of 1 pool (sort of) using Raking Talons or Disarm isn't entirely shabby, though. Being able to do that with Tupdog without burning yourself (as might well happen if you played Raking Talons + Amaranth)(*) and without needing to stack up a lot of damage for an outright burn would be potentially fun, though what your uncontrolled region looks like at any given point is anyone's guess - if you have an Antonio d'Erlette sat there, it's good, whereas if you've left a Tupdog sat there to absorb the pool (and even transfer the one excess back), it's a bit more uncertain.

(*) If the Tupdog is burned before his own card text kicks in, you don't get to pull a vampire into your uncontrolled region. So while losing a Tupdog to Amaranth + Blood Hunt + burn isn't the end of the world, it would do potentially odd things to your crypt flow.

Yeah, maybe the pool cost should turn into blood cost. My main goal is to try and make Gargoyles as a clan more attractive, not tupdog decks. Tupdog decks need no love whatsoever. What do you think?

GreyB wrote:

Juggernaut1981 wrote:

This is effectively a really high condition inferior grunt version of Zillah's Valley. I wouldn't be playing it while Gargoyles could instead play Street Cred.
So for a Gargoyle Deck looking to beat the living crap out of minions... find something better than Street Cred which doesn't break Gargoyles.

It's a street cred + decapitate... I'd call that better than a "Street cred".
My view for this card is for it to be put into a deck up to 1-4 times, just to get rid of nasty vampires and it to be more attractive than Decapitate. It should not be a main strategy card, hence the high pool cost.

The high Pool Cost is why I would always put in Decapitate or Street Cred over this card.
If you want a Gargoyle Decapitate, not a problem, but they have Potence generally so it shouldn't be an issue for them to rip someone's head off. Plus Decapitate costs blood.
If you want a Gargoyle Street Cred, not a problem, but they have Potence and Street Cred only costs blood.

Restricting it to Gargoyles might allow you to merge the two cards into a single one with a Gargoyle requirement. Or even get ambitious and make it like Ritual of the Bitter Rose

Alvusia's Revenge
Action/Combat
Requires a Gargoyle
Burn a vampire in torpor and place X-2 blood evenly across all of your Uncontrolled Gargoyles where X = the amount of blood on the vampire in torpor.
As above, but playable when an opposing vampire would go to torpor instead of a vampire already in torpor.

GreyB wrote:

Yeah, maybe the pool cost should turn into blood cost. My main goal is to try and make Gargoyles as a clan more attractive, not tupdog decks. Tupdog decks need no love whatsoever. What do you think?

Blood cost is potentially doable. At 1 blood, an empty Tupdog couldn't play it - and the Tupdog would be empty if they'd been hit by hand damage. They don't have Fortitude, but they do have access to prevent from Rockheart and Stonestrength . So they might still be on one blood. Two blood would rule them out (since your card doesn't require Visceratika), but might then be too expensive for decks to consider.

You could brute force it somewhat with specific Tupdog avoidance like "Put 2 blood (or...) on a unique vampire/unique Gargoyle." "Put 2 blood (or...) on a younger vampire" - use a fattie to bring out a midbie or weenie. Nothing that feels 'right', though.

Also, I wrote:

jamesatzephyr wrote:

if you have an Antonio d'Erlette sat there, it's good

Which is wrong on your original card text, which targets a Gargoyle.