Card idea: Crisis and Riots

Mael wrote:

Ankha wrote:

Mael wrote:

It is a single card which simultaneously screws over a number of deck types at minimal cost to you, and with little chance of anyone preventing it (can't be blocked, suddened, etc)

We should ban all Gehenna events if we follow your logic. Tell me the difference between Crisis and Riots and Veil of Darkness or Slow Withering then (and the latter last until game ends, which is worse).

"Do not replace as long as this card is in play" is a significant cost. "Do not replace until a vampire commits diablerie." is slightly less harse, but is often not something you can control. The slow withering also "Requires at least one other Gehenna card in play." which is not an insignificant opportunity cost.

So it's only a cost issue? (2 pool are not an insignificant cost neither.)

Mael wrote:

And speaking of opportunity cost, both of those cards are ones that will seriously hamper your own deck unless you build it specifically to avoid that. You can't just throw them into any vote, stealth bleed, or rush combat deck without making massive changes to the deck.

I found your deckbuilding genius staggering. I've always played cards that would hurt or kill me in my decks. I should remove those Scourge of the Enochians from my Palla Grande.

Mael wrote:

You can with your card.

Wait, you'll play it in a swarm Nephandus deck? Brilliant. It means that either it is harmless even against swarm <allies-equipments-retainers-locations>, or that it has a real purpose. In both case, why do you complain?

I'm not ignoring your objections nor Mael's (since it's a 3-person discussion), but the arguments they're based on seem wrong or not enough detailed.
If I give the impression that that reject all your objections, it is that I need to dig in what you say, be the devil's advocate to extract useful pieces of informations, or highlight some contradictions. Yeah, it's tedious for me too.

To give my way of thinking about general considerations about card conception

• A card isn't bad because it punishes a deck or another. I know you'd prefer a card giving new options, but it doesn't make the others bad.
• There are many cards that don't help the game. Think of all the wallpaper. Think of cards such as Into thin Air (blah! another stealth card -- still, I find it interesting). Or Anarchist Uprising. We already had Ancilla Empowerment.
• There are many cards that wouldn't have made the cut because of the arguments you give. Just think of Scourge of the Enochians. Or Shepherd's Innocence.) They both punish decks.

Good detailed arguments would have been: "the card is too effective. It can cause a loss of 10-pool worth allies to a Nephandus deck, 5 for a Garou (they usually have 3 in play), and 6 for WG. An animalism deck can lose 3 or 4 Raven Spy.
It doesn't seem in line with other cards (such as cards that remove 1, max 2 allies, or make repay each. Those are wallpaper, so the card can be a little more powerful. Ex: make it chose 1 kind of cards (not all) by the predator of each methuselah".
or "It really hurts a Guillaume Giovanni deck. On the other hand, both are quite unlikely to see play at the same time. Still, making it pay pool to keep the locations would be nice because GG isn't overpowered and is not a no-brainer deck."
or "The "balance" effect the card wants to achieve seems overpowered. The bar should be raised to 3 permanents. It should require also some requirement such as "2 Inconnu" card to avoid an autoinclude effect, force more elaborated deckbuilding and allow players to see it coming."

Saying you don't like the card for reasons you don't detail isn't a good way of proceeding.

If I suggest the following card:

"Lost in the Dark. Action modifier. obf +5 stealth. OBF : +10 stealth", I'd like to hear it's not in line with other cards, that it should cost 5 blood, or be free and produce less stealth, at which point it would become useless because it would be the same as Lost In Crowd.

Your and Mael's arguments were:
"Can't Take It With You for Allies, Equipment, Locations and Retainers? Seems a touch rediculous really. Who is going to play this when they could play Peace Treaty and Can't Take It With You in a single turn?"
Tell me what I should do with this kind of remark? You don't tell what wrong. How it would affect the game with examples.

"It is a single card which simultaneously screws over a number of deck types at minimal cost to you, and with little chance of anyone preventing it (can't be blocked, suddened, etc)"
No example given. Could say the same of Scourge of the Enochians, VoD etc.
"Veil of Darkness and Slow Withering don't absolutely screw every deck."
Nor does CAR.
"It harms diversity in the game. "
How? Which decks? Would it not make the deck and game evolve?

Maybe the forum isn't a right place to discuss card ideas.