Another (NEW) suggestion to handle constest

I apologize for not answering earlier. I take your suggestions into account, but I'm a little tired of thinking about all this. For now, I will leave it like it is, and you may shape your suggestions in the form of a specific rule (as in the rulebook). That would make it easier for me and everyone who reads this to choose the best suggestion.

On some things (from here and Facebook) I disagree and I'll explain why.

-Does this give the player no. 2 a much bigger advantage over the player no. 1?
-Player no. 1 already has an advantage because he has the wanted vampire and is already using it. With the current rule, Player no. 2 remains to contest it for two reasons:
1. It can be part of a tactic - he can block both vampires and benefit from it;
2. He has no choice, he has gone too far with the influence and he has no time to return the blood and distribute it to other vampires. So he has to go to the contest, so whatever happens.

With my rule, he has a new choice, to distribute blood without wasting time. Most will do this if the contest does not work in their favor. Keep in mind, most will choose to avoid the contest, so player no. 1 keeps his (usually main) vampire so he doesn't lose anything and still has the advantage.

-Will player no. 1 be a victim and will have no choice if player no. 2 choose contesting?
-Yes, he will have no choice (He has already made the choice to choose his vampire), he will be a victim of someone else's tactics, as he could have been so far. He can also be a victim of stupid or bad play, as before. But now he will be a victim for a reason, not because player no. 2 had no other choice.

-What about pool cost?
-I have already explained above: The goal is to avoid the contest, not to delay it. So it is fair to give player no. 2 good offer.

-Why remove the vampire from the game and draw a new card?
-If the vampire remains in the uncontrolled region, tactic of player no. 2 may be to intentionally contest later, and I want to avoid that tactic because he has already been given a good choice. If the next card in the crypt is the same vampire, then it's ok, he can use that tactic. The next card serves to increase his choice, or in case there are no more cards in the uncontrolled region to save the blood.

-What about to give the player no. 1 the choice to to yield immediately and return the blood to his pool?
-No, that way we deny the tactic part of the player no. 2, and leave the player no. 1 the choice al la Golconda: Inner Peace.

Also, keep in mind that the rule must be simple. If it's complicated, it's bad. This game is already cluttered with complicated rules, the basic rules must be as simple as possible.

I can really go either way about whether or not to draw another crypt card, but the option to redistribute counters should cost at least 2 pool if the player draws a new one.

docnightfall wrote:

I can really go either way about whether or not to draw another crypt card, but the option to redistribute counters should cost at least 2 pool if the player draws a new one.

Look at this crypt:

5 Anarch Convert
4 Enkidu, The Noah
2 Karsh
1 T.J.

Deck: Rolo compressor 3.0
Mailton Silva
Mask of a Thousand Faces
Fortaleza, Brazil
2019-12-14
21 players


You've got 2 Enkidu, 2 Anarch Convert.

The other player already controls Enkidu. The only real alternative to you is Karsh, right? You already put 7 counters on your Enkidu. Your predator already influenced a DOM guy and has already bled you for 6. Your turn, you have your 4 transfers and no vamp in game. You don't know it yet but the order in your crypt is:

Enkidu, The Noah
Enkidu, The Noah
Karsh
Anarch Convert
T.J.
Anarch Convert
Karsh
Anarch Convert

What are you going to do, influence 4 pool and then give 6 more pool to get Karsh?

The Enkidu deck you are showing there is a star vampire deck. The player took a chance, made a risky deck relying on just one crypt card, and got screwed. I see nothing wrong here. If you bring a star vampire deck, you should plan contingencies for when your star vampire becomes unusable for any reason, or you just accept the risk and suffer the potential consequences.

According to BCP, the rule change that they are proposing isn't intended to remove the weakness of star vampire decks. It's intended to avoid contestation occurring due to random chance-- for example, two clan-based decks incidentally deciding to influence out the same midcap as their first vampire. The players made safe deckbuilding choices but got into a potential contestation purely because of bad luck. In this case, I emphasize again that neither player made risky deckbuilding decisions but the whole table might still have an bad experience if players contest or someone is left vulnerable for 1-2 turns.

BCP seems to be concerned that in the future, such events can occur more frequently even if there is a healthy variety of decks at a tournament, just because there is A VERY VERY LARGE NUMBER OF PLAYERS. (I applaud BCP for thinking in this way-- they are planning for their future success.) They don't want players to be dissatisfied if they feel that they were somehow punished for something that was totally not within their ability to control.

As you know, I have nothing against the existing rule, and I would like the most if it not to change. This is pure star deck, but there is an alternative (Karsh). Let it use the alternative, instead of unbalancing the table (this is cited as a problem).

If the deck has no alternative, such a deck does not deserve to play normal, because it is bad deckbuilding or probably uses some abnormal combo (example Cybelotron, Turbo Arika...), and he has already destabilized the table with his existence.

If we talk about "Clan" decks, let's say about BCP precons, they are full of various vampires, let the players tabletalk and agree who will control what, as it has been so far, but this way they will be able to reach the normal number of vampires if their initial draws match.

Yes, that's why I think there should be a pool cost. Star vampire decks will still be screwed if the player opts for risky crypt construction and didn't build a backup plan into the deck, so that aspect of the game is unaffected. But for potential contestation occurring only due to random chance, having a pool cost will balance out the advantage of the second player being able to redistribute counters after other players have already revealed their initial plans.