Change in the crypt contest rule

Palamedes wrote:

William_Feitosa wrote:

I would like to propose a change in the contest rule, specifically (and only) in the crypt contest.

No, no, and no. That's a terrible idea! There is a reason why this rule exists.
Do you really want to see in game more then one Stanislava, The unnamed, Lutz or any other star vampire on the same table??
Imagine the situation: Two Enkidu fight each other, while other vampires try to block it.
Please stop this kind of nonsense. If you want to play such a game, switch to Magic: The Gathering. There are flying giant worms in boots and things like that.

2 Enkidu fight,that be realy good too see!!!!!!! then both player can see witch Enkidu is beter!
I beleive this rule be more fun,for players and generali for game

Aproach, that some vampires are balanced only with the possibility to randomly lose because of contest is terrible.

If some star deck is perfectly fine in a situation when it loses an additional pool each turn, than it's a problem with a relative power level of the vampires, not with the contest rule.

beslin wrote:

You forgot to say how you lose 10 pool for Unnamed,lose 3 turns to bring him out. and then what? leave contest and lose this 10 pool,or continue with contest and lose every turn 1 pool and dont playing game,very boring!
About ashur and girls deck,only 1 ashur will win and gain only 3 pool when play 3rd ashur,you pay contest every turn.
Much changes in VTES are mades in last time,maybe if players give this topic more suport this bad rule also be changed.

That are exactly your options. Its a risk you take, and in my opinion adds the extra spice to the game. Its a strategy game after all. And playing powerful vampires that are contested often comes at a cost. As I Said, its NOT a flaw of the game.

kylynx wrote:

That are exactly your options. Its a risk you take, and in my opinion adds the extra spice to the game. Its a strategy game after all. And playing powerful vampires that are contested often comes at a cost. As I Said, its NOT a flaw of the game.

But you anyway need to play contest with this rule,only is diferent that to you can use this vampire. with curent rule: you lose 3 turns to put vampire in play,lose 10-11 pool to pay for him,lose in every unlock 1 more pool,lose this vampire in play,is very boring for player. and than not work bad only for star vampire,one time I contest weenie animalism vampires,you can imagine how is boring that too.

But isn't that one of the things that makes the game interesting? I mean to see different ideas and ways to play the concept with specialties and nuances in every deck.

Im not arguing about the fact that contesting every vampire, or a star in a certain deck and game is completely boring. (what are the odds for this to happen anyway?).

What im however arguing is that without that rule, the game including the deck building, and evaluating/predicting the meta, is loosing a key ingredient, when I don't need to worry about contesting vampires.

The Contesting Rule, like every other rule in the game, has the potential to be changed by playing cards which effect it. But presently there are few such cards: Democritus, Betrayer, Praxis Solomon...

There could be cards that change the Contesting Rule:

o) To a blind bid (of pool) for control of the vampire.

o) To a open bid (of pool) for control of the vampire, starting with 1 and increasing.

o) To a race for control of that vampire via "three +1 stealth actions" or something.

But @William_Feitosa: your proposal of burning the loser's contested vampire seems really harsh, but having both players have control of the same minion could work so long as that minion could not enter combat or block itself.

And I will say something for the present Contesting Rules that allow a player to tactically conceding the contest (for now) - leaving the vamp in their uncontrolled region - and then trying to bring that vamp out again at an opportune time, restarting the contest and potentially stifling your prey or grand-prey as they are now down 1 minion (due to the contest).