Change in the crypt contest rule

Timo wrote:

skimflux wrote:

I would suggest the following:
- When two minions contest, they are both out of game.
- At the beggining of each turn, each of the contesting players can pay 1 pool to bring his copy into play if no other copies are in play (following the regular impulse rules). At the end of the turn, any copy in play is 'flipped back' out of play.
- When a Methuselah chooses not to pay on his own turn his contest is yelded and removed from the game.

This way the default is still that the minions are out of game, but players can use them during their own turn or for defense during other turns, at a cost.

And so the 3 afore-mentioned The Unamed players can choose not to have a The Unamed on the table during the turn of the 2 other players playing rush combat

This seems perfect !

Yes, I noticed that issue - notice that he also becomes 'immune' to Banishments, Fame, and other 'play on a vampire' Master cards.

I did consider adding an option for any player to 'flip back' a contested vampire by playing the 1 pool penalty to allow for targetting effects, but that would negate the opportunity to flip the vamp back for defense - the active player could simply flip the non-prey copy to prevent his prey from getting that option. Still, at 1 pool cost, it could be a reasonable option... nobody likes Goratrix decks anyway.

Or go back to Peter Bajika's original suggestion - the vampire stays in play until another player chooses to flip his copy back on during their unlock.

beslin wrote:

So skimflux you think how is 'one or two strongest vamps' and 'so strong that 60% of decks in every table want to use it'.
Did you play VTES with much diferent people or with 5-6 players who always play high cap vampires?
I know some players who like to play small cap or weenie,and they base strategi on big number vampires,and these weenie easy kill you unbalanced/overpowered vampires(I mean player who play it) So play one unbalanced/overpowered vampire not mean GW

I'm not sure what you mean, but it seems we agree - there are many decks other than 'star vampire' decks, so I don't think the game would ever devolve into 'everybody plays The Unnamed' bleedfests.

I started playing VtES in 1995, so I've seen all kinds of metas. Now is probably the most 'star vampire' meta I've ever seen, but still there is plenty of variety in decks played everywhere.

skimflux wrote:

I'm not sure what you mean, but it seems we agree - there are many decks other than 'star vampire' decks, so I don't think the game would ever devolve into 'everybody plays The Unnamed' bleedfests.

I started playing VtES in 1995, so I've seen all kinds of metas. Now is probably the most 'star vampire' meta I've ever seen, but still there is plenty of variety in decks played everywhere.

Yea,much people like to test plenty of variety in decks,I also like much type of deck to test: bleed,combat,vote,wall,weenie,star vampire(enkidu,stanislava),and I beleive other people also mixed his meta. For now i like idea in start this topic,and lets try how this work,I offer to test first in online play in start next year,maybe vekn also need to allow some special event with this rule. I dont beleive to in each table can be 3x unnamed,or 3x enkidu,3x lutz,contest happen,but not in every game,but if happen contest only 2 players destroy complete balance,someone dont have predator,someone dont have prey,so maybe someone easy can use vp. people need to test also in real life,in frendly games,league games,and write his experience if contest happen what they think,so first play some games,to see how it works and they say ,this rule is beter that current rule,or this rule is bad and can destroy game.

Contesting Anarch Convert is my favorite win condition.



I think contesting as it currently stands is fine for minions. I'm intrigued by the old archbishop/prince rush when contesting city titles, but star vamps are currently fine;

Pentex is nerfed, every is packing Zillahs and Villein, cog is attainable, and the most broken thing in the game is still spamming master cards at you leisure with little minion interaction.
Fatties are fine.
Only way they'd be better is if we unbanned LB and just let MMPAs run amuk.....

We're all perpetually a table away from all getting matching tattoos of Arika.

Fatties are fine. If someone contests Maryanne Blair, I start discussing who each of us needs to have a game.

Compare to 2 idiots contesting Ferox, neither of them had a game to begin with.

I've played a table where at least 3 players flipped Salubri as the star. That third one was one expensive Saulot...

Regarding Peter's idea from ages back, it helps some decks and obliterates others. If my cross table and I have out Goratrix contesting, and each of our predators have Arika, we both lose and the predators will win.

I figured out one more option:

- during each untap phase, any contesting methuselah can choose to pay 1 pool to bring into play one of his contested minions - take out of play any copies controlled by other methuselahs. A minion brought into play in this way cannot be taken out of play by other methuselahs until the end of the controlling methuselah's turn.
- any contested minion that is out of play at the beggining of the controlling methuselah's master phase is removed from the game.

This way ensures one copy of each vampire is always available (for targetting with rushes, Pentex(tm) Subversion, Fame, etc).

It also makes the 'Arika vs Goratrix' scenario more even: each Goratrix player can choose to bring their own copies into play in their predator's untap phase (and it remains in play during their own turn, at no extra cost), and each Arika player can guarantee his own copy in play during their own turn.

It only really breaks down on a 3-player table - in that situation the Goratrix-prey will be prevented from having his copy available for defense during his predator's turn, but this is still a much better scenario than the current rules.

skimflux wrote:

...

It only really breaks down on a 3-player table - in that situation the Goratrix-prey will be prevented from having his copy available for defense during his predator's turn, but this is still a much better scenario than the current rules.

Pardon me for asking but how is a lopsided situation that benefits one player over another based on their seating arrangement better then the current mirrored situation? The way I see it ends up being good for the contesting predator at the expense of their prey due to the prey being forced to go forward or be a passive in the contest, a situation that benefits the predator even more. In the current format the predator is being incentivised not to perform needless contests without oust in sight as failed contest plays only result in third player sweeping the table. Meanwhile for prey, depending on the disciplines, paying total of 16 pool in a game (10 for goratrix, 6 turns of contest) could be preferable, even a rational outcome compared to Enkil Cog bleeding Rutor Goratrix that also deflects/catches the Fame.

From this we arrive to the wonderful spot where we find out it's different whether a active or reactive vampire is being contested and due to their nature, any form of "allowed back to play" that is not a symmetrical effect will give short stick to someone. Someone who in turn can feel that the game is "not fun" because of that tendency to favor some position over another. Incidentally the "not fun" being key issues quoted that the changes try to correct.

Now my viewpoint on contesting is less about the mechanical side where unique cards are just string of letters, capacity, disciplines, keywords and one or more abilities. I feel that part has received quite lot of for and against over the years and I do not feel I can add to it in any meaningful way. My viewpoint has to do with lore and themes of us humans putting value to unique things over those of abundance. Sand has very little value in most places of Sahara, but on a beachhead on certain landings in the world, it suddenly has in part quantifiable and in other part unfathomable emotional value attached to it. Or it's still just sand if you're not attached to it and don't find it unique. Anyone of us could most likely point out something we believe to be "unique" and claim it therefore has higher inherit value compared to something mass produced. We live in a world where there are dozens upon dozens of conflicts with some even having a human cost attached to them over unique properties, be they regions, properties, ideological or social in nature. All tragic tales with themes of greed, folly and stubborness when looked from outside perspective, all oh so important and ever consuming when looked at the inside. To a point where our online forum prohibit even discussing some of those due to human nature. There are high stakes running on anything that is Unique, because we value those things.

In that sense, it's not a wonder that in a game thematically taking place in World of Darkness, where costs drawn are high and often end in tragedy, a mechanic of contesting something unique is not a fun activity for those taking part in it. I might even be so bold to claim that it's too impactful to the game when it happens to be just "happenstance" as opposed to being by design. You're encouraged *not* to contest via having ability to deck build from large pool of cards. And if you take part in one, you do not just happen to stumble on it accidentally, you've by choice built the deck with cards that can be contested and chosen the crypt that follows suite. A Person weights the risks they're willing to take when building their deck, then when sitting at the table and eventually if there is a contest, on when to pay or not. Those choices might result in a game that is not fun for you, but at the same time, you've made the choices that led to that point multiple times. It's true to life itself when it comes to unique things. It's fair to be critical of that as a design flaw on a fun game, but that also omits the fact that fun comes in so many shapes and forms, some enjoy a good tragedy every now and then, especially if they're in safe environment as opposed to real life personal experience. Experiencing the catharsis from succesful contest gamble is felt regardless of who is the player pulling it off. Or well, at least I can enjoy others succeeding in those rare occassions.

If one wishes to enjoy things that are not unique, where experience is fun because of that fact, there most likely are measures that can be taken on personal or group level that ensure that experience, even with VTES. Forcing others who might enjoy all the above and earlier mentioned effects, or this thematical side I point out to conform could be justified with enough arguments. Thus far, I'm personally not seeing enough to justify that "true to life" theme, at the same time I'm fully aware I'm not in position to decide for anyone but myself. If people wish to play game where cards are just bunch of letters, with capacity, disciplines, keywords and abilities, they can already do just that. They just have to give up on the uniqueness.

Somewhat of a solemn note but however I recommend people take the initiative and play their games as they want to play them, truly. To cherish those unique moments by having fun in the way they have fun. There's nothing wrong with homebrewing things up.