Contesting *brainstorm*

Kraus wrote:

True that turns are lost, but false that time isn't gained: if you would lose the pool invested, or are forced to drag with the contest while bringing up another vampire, getting ousted happens sooner (as is basic maths). With the pool returned, you will use the turns for transfers, but will live longer with the extra pool that wasn't lost to the contest.

Ergo, you gain time to recalibrate your game.

Except not really. Take the Queen Anne example again. If I had Arika out, Arika could:

- help me gain pool
- block actions
- bounce bleeds

Since I now have no vampires out, my predator knows that their weenies with Dementation bleeding for three each aren't getting bounced. My predator knows that I can't play Delaying Tactics when they call Parity Shift on me - and excitingly, my pool total has just gone back up a lot, putting me back in range of Parity Shift.

My prey knows that they can be much freer in tapping out on any subsequent turn until Queen Anne (or whichever other fattie you want) flips out, and they know at the start of their turn if that's going to happen. That would-be blocker, would-be bouncer who's being left unlocked in regular play (without a contest) takes an extra bleed action - or over three turns, an extra three bleed actions.

If between turn three and turn six your predator and prey aren't planning to take a whole bunch of offensive actions, you've got very lucky indeed, perhaps stuck between two very passive wall decks with limited offensive potential (perhaps a very slow grinder).

And then you're also missing the fact that you're missing the chance to take actions. If Arika was still out, I could pass a damage vote, and play Voter Captivation to gain 2 pool, and untap, and Mind Rape an important vampire on the table. I could Govern at superior to bloat or accelerate. I might Govern instead to bleed. For three turns!

Similar is true for a wide variety of decks that were actually planning to do something with the vampire they had out.

Kraus wrote:

Semantics, sure, but a help nonetheless.

Not really. For the first six turns of the game, I can more or less sit there punching myself in the face in either scenario.

Kraus wrote:

A player with 30 pool to spend on 5 turns of transfers has more time to play than a player with 20 pool to spend on 5 turns (let's say you yield a 10cap star).

Which is more or less an academic point when your predator could have flipped out Dem weenies, or Legacy of Pander, or any pretty much any sort of deck that can switch to an aggressive mode and oust you when it sees you have nothing to defend with. Hurrah, I get ousted on turn 6 just as I was about to bring out Queen Anne, or turn 7 because I got her out by I'm now on 2 pool, because my predator used the time to destroy my pool. Let joy be unconfined, with balloons, and a release of doves. Oh frabjous day, callooh callay!

jamesatzephyr wrote:

Let joy be unconfined, with balloons, and a release of doves. Oh frabjous day, callooh callay!

Luckily I wasn't drinking any liquids!

Thanks you are the first replying to the actual topic.
It was not to debate the function of a discussion.

As usual my point is that VtES needs less rules, not more. Just one pool at the influence phase is quite fine punishment for contesting anything. I'm fine with allowing players to use contested things freely, for hardcore immersionists we may flip other copies out of game at the moment, when you are paying contest cost.