Suggestion - Another option to handle constest

Sambomb wrote:

At the start of the influence phase, before any transfers be spent.
If a player have at least 1 counter in a unique crypt card that is already in play
They can pay 1 pool, remove this card from the game ( show to everyone ) and move all counters to another card with the same age or younger.

This can solve the main random contest issue ( 2 inactive players for several rounds ) and still holds back star vampires as they still are unreliable if someone else bring it first you will suffer to use it too and the table talk will be very differente since you could have other choice.

I like it. This makes the game better.

Sambomb wrote:

At the start of the influence phase, before any transfers be spent.
If a player have at least 1 counter in a unique crypt card that is already in play
They can pay 1 pool, remove this card from the game ( show to everyone ) and move all counters to another card with the same age or younger.

This can solve the main random contest issue ( 2 inactive players for several rounds ) and still holds back star vampires as they still are unreliable if someone else bring it first you will suffer to use it too and the table talk will be very differente since you could have other choice.

I really like this idea it for sure improves things, but this is not a main issue with contesting, Main issue is that you don't have a vampire you build your deck around.

Tadori wrote:

I really like this idea it for sure improves things, but this is not a main issue with contesting, Main issue is that you don't have a vampire you build your deck around.

So for you, the main problem with contesting is that someone who bases their entire game on a single card will not be able to play if contesting occurs?

Unbelievable! Really, I don't know what to say, how to answer this if you don't see for yourself the problem in what you're talking about.

This is just another proof that the existing rule is not a problem, but the problem is that some people want to play the game in some deviant way, and then they are bored if someone disturbs their game.

Thanks for clarifying this.

Palamedes wrote:

Tadori wrote:

I really like this idea it for sure improves things, but this is not a main issue with contesting, Main issue is that you don't have a vampire you build your deck around.

So for you, the main problem with contesting is that someone who bases their entire game on a single card will not be able to play if contesting occurs?

Unbelievable! Really, I don't know what to say, how to answer this if you don't see for yourself the problem in what you're talking about.

This is just another proof that the existing rule is not a problem, but the problem is that some people want to play the game in some deviant way, and then they are bored if someone disturbs their game.

Thanks for clarifying this.

You understand how star decks work right ?

Tadori wrote:

You understand how star decks work right ?

Yes, of course, I play them often, but go on, explain to me, what do you have to say?

Tadori wrote:

Sambomb wrote:

At the start of the influence phase, before any transfers be spent.
If a player have at least 1 counter in a unique crypt card that is already in play
They can pay 1 pool, remove this card from the game ( show to everyone ) and move all counters to another card with the same age or younger.

This can solve the main random contest issue ( 2 inactive players for several rounds ) and still holds back star vampires as they still are unreliable if someone else bring it first you will suffer to use it too and the table talk will be very differente since you could have other choice.

I really like this idea it for sure improves things, but this is not a main issue with contesting, Main issue is that you don't have a vampire you build your deck around.

If your star vampire got a sensory deprivation, you will not use it.
There is a lot of ways that you cant just lose your vampire turn 1...
And remember, after the "contesting" vampire leaves the table you can use yours.

If your deck cant play without a specific vampire, the problem is your deck, not the rules and you can still just contest and see what happens.