How I would re-launch V:TES. (audience participation is encouraged)

Mael wrote:

Personally I would ditch the whole concept of contesting votes entirely.

I'd also change princes/archbishops to either (eg)
Ladislas Toth
Sabbat. 2 Votes (titled)

or
Ladislas Toth
Sabbat. 2 Votes (titled, Archbishop)

The former option would also suggest changing all cards that say 'requires a Prince' to 'requires a titled Camarilla vampire'. So it may have balance issues with the current card pool.

On a similar note, if the game was to be relaunched as an LCG or with a limited card pool, I'd also ditch the concept of vampires contesting. Change uniqueness to instead be something that only applies per player. So two different players could have Nergal in play, but one player could not have two copies of Nergal in play.
Even if the game was relaunching with the full card pool, I'd consider this change.
I don't really think that contesting cards adds anything to the game, other than sometimes meaning one person loses before his game even gets started.

I don't want to see titles go away. I also don't want to totally homogenize all of the titles across all sects. I also think it would be a grand idea if it were easier to tell at a glance if a title is unique.

Also, the contest mechanic becomes more important the smaller the card pool is.

Imo contesting unique library cards and titles is good part of the game while contesting vampires is really bad and should be dropped

Contesting is a very important part of vtes game balance ans should not be dropped at all. Not for anything. Vampires should be contested. If the game suddenly creates a master card "Put this card on Nergal, in the end of your turn you burn X pool and your prey burns 2X pool, this card can not be cancelled" then the only thing keeping that deck in check is contesting Nergal. All opportunists will face a sour game and lose. As soon as any strategy becomes too strong and successful contesting unique vampires is the thing that will keep it in check. It prevents boring Netdecks from becoming rampant.

Are you mad that Lutz got contested? Sucks to go for such a "safe" netdeck. Are you mad you can't play Nana and your ashurs? Be more imaginative.

In a game where there are 2000+ vampires contesting should never happen. The fact that the one you want to play because it's proven tried and true is not coincidence, it was a lame choice to start with and the fact that you have to contest it proves this.

Contesting should remain, but made milder to balance the entire table. Currently if 2 players contest a key card for their chosen strategy, the rest of the table have an advantage until either one concedes and basically give up being a contender. A simple solution would be:

- Don't put contested cards out of play.

Players still pay 1 pool for each contested card and have an option to concede. But they can still use their unique card or title and their game is not ruined, just made more expensive.

Pentex for everyone! I've seen pentex be contested for 8 turns. Not sure having several pentex simultaneously on the table is better than putting them out of play.

A local player made an excellent suggestion related to vampire contests - each player keep the vampire, but wipes their text book except for their sect. So two Ansons simply become generic 8 cap vampires with the same disciplines, who both belong to the Camarilla. But neither is a Prince or has the special text. Once one player stops the contest, they keep their generic vampire, and the other regains all of it's special text.

That allows contests to still be a balancing factor without totally destroying both player's ability to play the game.