Parity Shift thoughts

I guess I've led a sheltered existence. I had never seen so many Parity Shifts in one place as I did at the NAC this last weekend, especially on Day Two. The removal of PTO from play has opened up a significantly wider variety of vamps and decks for tournament play. After seeing the profound effect Parity Shift had on several tables, and the extensive counter-measures other decks had to contain to deal with the possibility of being Shifted, I find myself wondering if it is a good card to keep in the game. Few cards have such a significant swing in pool and decks designed to employ several of them have no problem spending enough pool (and gaining permanent resources) to shift again in a very short time. Has any one else noticed this too? I'm not one for banning cards for a frivolous reason (and I was running 3 Shifts in my deck sunday) but maybe this one has outlived it's usefulness.

[ quoted text not captured ] This is one of those cards that I wish were once per game[OPG]. Ancient Influence Dia de los Muertos Festivo dello Estinto Flaming Candle Fortschritt Library Political Stranglehold Strange Day Are ANY of these more powerful than Parity Shift? I think it's telling that a OPG Parity Shift would *still* be more powerful than Ancient Influence or Political Stranglehold. Can we use these as a precedent for asking the next reprint of Parity Shift to be OPG? Please? :) Kevin M., Prince of Las Vegas "Know your enemy and know yourself; in one-thousand battles you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, *The Art of War* "Contentment...Complacency...Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier Please visit VTESville daily! http://vtesville.myminicity.com/ Please buy my cards! http://shop.ebay.com/kjmergen/m.html

[ quoted text not captured ] Only Strange Day has a requirement, the others require nothing except an MPA, a pool, or whatever. Cards to counter Parity Shift: Direct Intervention Delaying Tactics Confusion of the Eye Vox Domini Or you can have votes. Or block the action. I'll grant you that Parity Shift is right up there with Political Stranglehold, but it would feel wrong to make the strongest card for Princes and Justicars only playable once per game. Maybe it could be once per turn like Spell of Life. I just want more copies of Parity Shift, not to mention DEFLECTION. Brandon

On Oct 6, 9:50 pm, "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] I find this wholly reasonable. Reins of Power came in quite late in creation in comparison, Anarchs set, and has OPG -- and its quite similar to Ancient Influence. Parity Shift had a reprint in CE; could've caught it then. and yes, even as OPG Parity Shift would probably on average be more powerful than Ancient Influence/Reins of Power. sounds like a very reasonable tweak. in fact, doing an errata might alleviate demand issues currently. in a loose analogy, it would be like the errata to Anarch Revolt that suddenly shifted it towards anarch decks (and in a way, less copies) and away from more "table nuking" decks that tried to sport fat stacks of said card in their decks. by the time PS is reprinted, most interest would probably reach manageable levels already served by existing stock. that and i openly favor the newly opened design space that would occur if PS was reworded as such. currently it'd be hard to create new Camarilla vote cards (and lately they are sporting possibly less options than the other sects, iirc -- not counting Praxii, a.k.a Praxisesesess). any new Camarilla vote card, however thematic, will face a brutal comparison to current Parity Shift. with it left as powerful but as a one-shot, it opens design to other scary -- but more balanced -- Camarilla one-shots or general power votes. and whatever gives LSJ and company the breathing room to dream feverishly is likely a good thing. IM (Current) O: re-balances card to less outlier levels, check improves community's general perception, and thus demand and therefore, with AR as precedent, might democratize access, check opens design space in an area needing some new ideas, check. Overall: yes, yes i think i like it.

"Kevin M." <you...@imaspammer.org> writes: [ quoted text not captured ] I like your suggestion. But in my opinion, "once per game" is overkill. I'd prefer the Vox Domini template: "Each Methuselah may play only one Parity Shift each game." That way, the player who first called Parity Shift would not become immune to the Parity Shifts of other players. HG

On Oct 7, 9:14 am, h...@iki.fi (Janne Hägglund) wrote: > But in my opinion, "once per game" is overkill. I'd prefer the Vox Domini > template: "Each Methuselah may play only one Parity Shift each game." > > That way, the player who first called Parity Shift would not become immune to > the Parity Shifts of other players. Yeah. I agree that something should be done about PS, it's just too damn good (especially when combined with all the other goodies cam titled vampires get). But yeah, once per game would be a bit too strict. Once per game per player might be closer to workable. Or some other limiting factor. -Petri

[ quoted text not captured ] I have thought about the same thing, but I have come to conclusion that PS makes some large-cap decks, like the Nosferatu Royalty-decks in various forms, playble. Without PS I would not play any such decks, and that would be sad. Also, there are lots of countermeasures, like DI and DT. Having some very dangerous votes in the game, like PS, forces people to put defensive cards in their decks, and makes them less effective offensively, which I think is a good thing.

"Loughman" <ma...@mentaladventures.com> wrote in message [ quoted text not captured ] *weeps openly* There's simply no need to change it. A metagame heavy in one thing or even one card should not influence a witch hunt imo. It has 3 conditions - 1. It's a vote 2. You have to have less pool 3. It is # of player dependant - diminishing returns These are fine as are the ways in which you can stop it. Consider any good card in large numbers like this and the same question could be asked. eg. Wow! There was a lot of NSftM at X last tourney, it resulted in loads of time outs and a lot of annoyed players banging their heads against walls, is this good for the game? or Man! There was a lot of Judgment: Camarilla Segregation, everyone died real quick and it was "really unfair" toward non-Camarilla decks. I just don't get this sort of reaction from the community constantly picking at what is seen as the top 4-5 cards, even after previous high power cards have been gimped. Where do you stop? I'm all for questions being asked to better the game but why the focus on the things that make the game what it is just because it's powerful, useful and popular? Take that argument to it's conclusion and you end up with a poorer game in my opinion.

[ quoted text not captured ] First, just as a remark to the comprehensive NAC results I posted earlier this week: Although I labeled three of the decks in the NAC final as Parity Shift decks, they are actually not in a narrow sense. That is you spend pool deliberately to be able to play Parity Shift later in a turn. With the label "Parity Shift" for the Ferenc's and Matt's finalist decks I want to tag them as decks that use Camarilla Princes to play votes. Parity Shifts are included in these decks, but there are many other as well. That being said I agree with Mark's observation, that on day 2 Parity Shift was widely played. This may have been a reaction to Day 1 were all sort of bleed decks were dominant, and PS is a very good tool to both hurt your (bleed) predator and regain lost pool from him. The card itself is very powerful yes,. As Mark pointed out the pool swing is second to none, but since I am not a huge fan of "ban this, ban that", the question for me would be how can you restrict the card without making it instant wallpaper? The card already has two requirements: you need a prince and your target has to have more pool than you. A third restriction or weakening the effect might kill the card instantly. Regards, Ralf ==================== http://extrala.blogspot.com

> The card itself is very powerful yes,. As Mark pointed out the pool > swing is second to none, but since I am not a huge fan of "ban this, > ban that", the question for me would be how can you restrict the card > without making it instant wallpaper? The card already has two > requirements: you need a prince and your target has to have more pool > than you. A third restriction or weakening the effect might kill the > card instantly. Is there a "Parity Shift problem" ? In my book, yes in the sense that it is currently by far the best vote available in a setup Vs efficiency ratio (it is much easier to control a Prince and pass a vote than to call succesfully, say, a Revolutionary Council). It is a card which can harm your prey AND let you pool at the same time, which is huge. Now, what can be done to counter this ? - give the Sabbatics a vote that, without being a copycat, will also give them some harming + pooling options - create a counter card for Parity Shift, as Villein is to Minion Tap (would be an elegant solution which, if well balanced, wouldn't wallpaperize the card) - make it "once par game per methuselah" looks like a satisfying solution The last 2 solutions would allow for the creation of new, good cards, less powerful than PS is right now yet useful. The idea of a vote (or vote modifiers �-la-Voter Cap) allowing non-bouncers to survive big bleeders and still harm their prey is good. Now, it has to stay balanced, and the restriction to Cammie titles only hurts the opposition. Hence the necessity to find a balance, either by tuning PS down or tuning the Sabbat voters up. Roger, Roger. Orpheus

"Orpheus" <orpheus....@free.fr> wrote in message >> The card itself is very powerful yes,. As Mark pointed out the pool >> swing is second to none, but since I am not a huge fan of "ban this, >> ban that", the question for me would be how can you restrict the card >> without making it instant wallpaper? The card already has two >> requirements: you need a prince and your target has to have more pool >> than you. A third restriction or weakening the effect might kill the >> card instantly. > > Is there a "Parity Shift problem" ? In my book, yes in the sense that it > is currently by far the best vote available in a setup Vs efficiency ratio > (it is much easier to control a Prince and pass a vote than to call > succesfully, say, a Revolutionary Council). So following that line of argument, what happens if PS is ever altered/powered down? What is next in line? DI? KRC? I mean, after all, KRC requires..... well nothing to do 4 damage, literally nothing if you look at it the same way. Banishment? Personally, I'd like to know what has changed to make PS suddenly in the line of fire? (other than all the other powerful "change this" targets having gone or "a lot of people are playing it" please!) There doesn't seem to be anything different to me other than these two somewhat weak arguments which is a sad reflection of the top down, negative way that a lot players perceive change in games like this one. I think Cam vote fits in just fine in the powercurve nowadays. A lot of the other sects have some major power cards (not necessarily vote) that have worked over the last few years to really address the balance of things. This for me is where positive development lies, not in having a constantly moving blacklist that a lot of people insist on. As an aside, I think mass KRC is far more deadly than mass PS which is self limiting, not to mention horrors like My Kin Against the World and Rev Council. There will always be decks that really go out of the way to make good cards as powerful as possible, that's the game.

Banning a powerful card because it is being used is ridiculous. In that case, we should have banned Blood doll as it was the most powerful master card (still is i think, although reduced in power/use by vessel). I also think Banishment is stronger than parity shift. Parity shift has many requirements: 1. Prince/justicar: From a deckbuilding standpoint, it is much harder to establish votelock with purely those titles than it would be with cardinals, Inner circles or cards such as Legacy of Pander/foundation exhibit etc. This goes with the comparison of Political stranglehold/reigns/ancient which can be called by the 1-cap vampire supporting the fatties. 2. You have to be at lower pool than the target, this means essentially that it is not an ousting mechanism. This also mean it is generally very hard or inconvenient to call more than one per turn. Further, to use parity efficiently, you must be low pool and thus playing dangerously. 3. You cannot target yourself or give pool back to the one who was targeted, making it less flexible. Decks centered around parity shift are not overpowered, and banning it/ making it OPG would destroy them, reducing the variety of the game. Any vote deck using princes would become suboptimal. I really don't like bans or impactful erratas. I beleive if there was really an issue, the way Orpheus is proposing sounds much more interesting (to create other cards to compete); but i really don't think there is an issue.

On Oct 6, 10:57 pm, Loughman <m...@mentaladventures.com> wrote: > I find myself wondering if it is a good card to keep in the game. Oh, it isn't. It is absurd. And singlehandedly makes playing Sabbat themed vote decks mostly pointless. I mean, if it were tweaked down a bit, it would probably be fine (and by "tweaked down", I really mean "remove parity shift from the play environment and replace it with a similar, but less good, version). Say "Blarity Blift: Requires a Prince or Justicar. Target a Methuselah with more pool than you. Steal three pool from them and distrubute among two or more other methuselahs." Such a vote is still highly powerful--your prey loses 3 pool, you gain 2 pool, someone else gains 1 pool (or whatever works). Which is considerably stronger than KRC, but also has a higher cost (you need to be a Prince or Justicar and can't be used in the endgame). But not so powerful that it makes all other votes look pointless. > Has any one else noticed this too? Have you been to the newsgroup for the last 5 years? :-) -Peter

frubeng <fru...@gmail.com> writes: > Banning a powerful card because it is being used is ridiculous. In > that case, we should have banned Blood doll as it was the most > powerful master card (still is i think, although reduced in power/use > by vessel). I also think Banishment is stronger than parity shift. Both Blood Doll and Banishment have already been nerfed... Blood Doll by Vessel like you said, Banishment by adding the "younger vampire" clause. HG

On Oct 7, 7:54 am, "Orpheus" <orpheus.TAKEOU...@free.fr> wrote: > - create a counter card for Parity Shift, as Villein is to Minion Tap (would > be an elegant solution which, if well balanced, wouldn't wallpaperize the > card) To be fair (in the sense that I agree with your general argument on principal), there *are* multiple, generally useful cards that specifically hose Parity Shift--Confusion of the Eye (which essentially says "Reduce a bleed by 1 or cancel a Parity Shift"...) and some wacky Anarch card (IIRC) does something very similar. And Delaying Tactics, which is generally useful. And Poison Pill, which is also generally useful (although not super good against Parity Shift. It just makes it an even more horrifying Con Ag...). -Peter

On Oct 7, 8:13 am, "Rob Treasure" <robtreas...@hotmail.com> wrote: > I'd like to know what has changed to make PS suddenly in the line of fire? Nothing. This argument has been going on for 10 years. And still is. That it wasn't recently reprinted certainly added fuel to the fire, but still. -Peter

"Peter D Bakija" <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote in message news:a2c0d3b4-8fc9-44d9...@p23g2000vbl.googlegroups.com... [ quoted text not captured ] Is there (genuine question here) a valid argument to say that if something has been in circulation for so long and not been changed/altered/banned etc then it's actually fine and sits somewhere in the "important cards of a multi-player, cross table enabled game"? People like a good band wagon to jump on and unfortunately on here, those people seem to always be pretty vocal.

On Oct 7, 8:29 am, h...@iki.fi (Janne Hägglund) wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] My point was that Blood doll is still the most powerful master, and that Banishment is still better than parity shift.

On Oct 7, 8:41 am, "Rob Treasure" <robtreas...@hotmail.com> wrote: > Is there (genuine question here) a valid argument to say that if something > has been in circulation for so long and not been changed/altered/banned etc > then it's actually fine and sits somewhere in the "important cards of a > multi-player, cross table enabled game"? Sure. There is always an argument to be made about anything. Parity Shift has been too powerful since it was introduced. It is a *completely* ridiculous swing card (10 pool? Really?). The designers have, clearly, been trying to ratchet it down for years through anti- tech (Confusion of the Eye, Poison Pill). Which help some. But probably not enough. That it wasn't reprinted in the most recent Camarilla set (likely due to art issues more than anything else, as that seems to be the problem with a lot of reprints) just makes the issue more noticable, as newer players have very limited access to the card which is absurdly powerful. > People like a good band wagon to jump on and unfortunately on here, those > people seem to always be pretty vocal. That is the way of the world. -Peter

Parity Shift is also one of the few characterful things (Aside from Second & Third Tradition) that differentiates Cam Vote, and gives people a reason to play it over 'Vote' in general. I'd hate to see them become more homogenised. Hell, I wish Sabbat / Laibon had an as- useful vote option. I'd also postulate that Parity Shift is popular also because some of other things like Second & Third Tradition. Third because Creation Rites is, relatively difficult to obtain, and Second Tradition because it allows some Clans without innate intercept some defensive options. (Example: Brujah versus !Brujah vote) (Yes, Eternal Vigilence, etc etc, I know, holes in debate)

Loughman schrieb: [ quoted text not captured ] I have noticed this as well and agree on your analysis. The problem with banning this card would be that it would deprecate quite a number of currently popular decks in one move. That could possibly not sit very well with the player base.

Janne H�gglund schrieb: [ quoted text not captured ] Parity Shift as allready been nerfed by Confusion of the Eye.

----- Original Message ----- From: "Peter D Bakija" <pd...@lightlink.com> On Oct 6, 10:57 pm, Loughman <m...@mentaladventures.com> wrote: > I find myself wondering if it is a good card to keep in the game. >Oh, it isn't. It is absurd. And singlehandedly makes playing Sabbat >themed vote decks mostly pointless. Hmm, I've always found that a bizarre POV. If you're talking about a 10 year campaign to "ban PS" I don't think Sabbat vote decks have ever been up there in the highest ranks of what the Sabbat should be about, thematically. They are all about brutal force and if you buy into the game keeping at least a bit themed, that fits. Saying that you can make some fearsome Sabbat decks like !Tor Breed/Boon/Bleed but look! Design smoothes out Breed with cards like Scourge NOT banning cards or LoPander vote which can still be a powerhouse even after an admittedly necessary change :) Referring to your other posts too, I don't find it absurdly powerful for the reasons stated. To make it work and work well (to oust and get game wins) you really need a whole deck tailored around it. Add that to the 2/3 design limitations on the card and sure, it's good but absurdly powerful? Nah. Again, I suppose I'd also say - what next if that's changed? Is there a point where there is no top 5 cards you must change?

On Oct 7, 9:03 am, frubeng <frub...@gmail.com> wrote: > My point was that Blood doll is still the most powerful master, and > that Banishment is still better than parity shift. Hmm. It is difficult to envison a solid argument that makes Banishment better than Parity Shift. But ok. -Peter

[ quoted text not captured ] Parity Shift can only be played by prince/justicar, Banishment can be played by anyone. Parity Shift can only be played if you have less pool, Banishment can be played at any time. Parity Shift loses strength as there are fewer player, Banishment doesn't. Parity Shift can be stopped by confusion of the eye, Banishment cannot. Banishment can techinically do much more indirect damage than Parity. It can prevent a player form using Golconda, minion tap/villein/BD/ vessel, the block(s) that minion could have done, the action(s) it will miss out on, the votes it could cast. It will generally also cost pool to reinfluence the minion, and may also reduce the number of available transfers. I think altogether this is often more than 5 damage. Also, doing this on a minion can be just as defensive as gaining 5 pool. I am generally very dissapointed by bans, and I beleive it is very detrimental to the game.

frubeng <fru...@gmail.com> writes: [ quoted text not captured ] I don't think anyone here is actually advocating *banning* Parity Shift. That would be overkill. It's not like the seat changing votes - if the Powers That Be ever judge it to be too powerful, it can easily be nerfed while still remaining functional and useful. (For example: making it playable once per game per metuselah, like I suggested.) HG

On Oct 7, 9:59 am, h...@iki.fi (Janne Hägglund) wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] > HG- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - That would still destroy many deck archetypes... My point is that it is not overpowered, people just don't defend properly against it, especially in the US. There are plenty of solutions, but the cards can only show you the door, you actuall yhave to put them in your deck.

> Has any one else noticed this too? I'm not one for banning cards for a > frivolous reason (and I was running 3 Shifts in my deck sunday) but > maybe this one has outlived it's usefulness. I think that with existance of "high impact weenies" (weenie vote, weenie pre, weenie dom, weenie dem) that Parity Shift is the ONLY card that keeps large caps competitve. It is the only card in the game that lets you dig yourself out of a hole and survive a high impact weenie predator. The reason that there were so many played at the NAC is because of the prevalence of high impact weenies on EVERY TABLE (Rumor was that Ruben swept a 5 player table on turn 5 in one game). I think there should be a Parity Shift for every sect.

[ quoted text not captured ] I think this is a great point to consider when debating the power of a card that came out in the early life of the game - would they ever make the same card again for a different sect? If no change is in the works for Parity Shift, I agree with Norm that a similar vote which can cause a 4-10 pool swing be created for every sect.

When someone can hit me with a govern/conditioning for a swing of 6+ that I can probably do NOTHING about without dom or Sup Aus on my vampire, I'll gladly take a parity shift that could be voted down/ cancelled/req's specific titles/canot hit me if I'm lower, etc etc. Cam Royalty are a strong decktype but I'm more in favor of buffs to the other sects to level the field rather than focusing on neutering one card at a time that makes creative decks viable. I can't imagine those two Nos Royalties in the final tables without Parity Shifts.

On Oct 7, 6:54 am, "Orpheus" <orpheus.TAKEOU...@free.fr> wrote: > > Is there a "Parity Shift problem" ? In my book, yes in the sense that it is > currently by far the best vote available in a setup Vs efficiency ratio (it > is much easier to control a Prince and pass a vote than to call succesfully, > say, a Revolutionary Council). > > It is a card which can harm your prey AND let you pool at the same time, > which is huge. > > Now, what can be done to counter this ? > I like these ideas: > - give the Sabbatics a vote that, without being a copycat, will also give > them some harming + pooling options > > - create a counter card for Parity Shift, as Villein is to Minion Tap (would > be an elegant solution which, if well balanced, wouldn't wallpaperize the > card) > Potentially, combine them into one card, like: Public Rioting Requires a Sabbat Vampire +1 stealth Political Action Choose a methuselah. Successful referendum means that methuselah loses 2 pool and you gain 2 pool, and you put this card in play. For each Public Rioting in play, Parity Shift costs an additional pool. And then the picture can be guys dressed up like Ben Franklin with signs that say something like "Hell No". =) If it's too strong, you can always tweak the damage/pool gain a little, either by only gaining pool, or by forcing you to split the 2 pool, or by turning it into Finding the Path with an extra Parity Shift clause. I doubt it's too weak as written - might need to require a *titled* Sabbat? I'm not 100% opposed to seeing Parity Shift as once per turn, but it would make a lot of decks less fun...

>> Oh, it isn't. It is absurd. And singlehandedly makes playing Sabbat >> themed vote decks mostly pointless. > > Hmm, I've always found that a bizarre POV. If you're talking about a > 10 year campaign to "ban PS" I don't think Sabbat vote decks have > ever been up there in the highest ranks of what the Sabbat should be > about, thematically. They are all about brutal force and if you buy > into the game keeping at least a bit themed, that fits. Saying that > you can make some fearsome Sabbat decks like !Tor Breed/Boon/Bleed > but look! Design smoothes out Breed with cards like Scourge NOT > banning cards or LoPander vote which can still be a powerhouse even > after an admittedly necessary change :) With all due respect, we're talking about vote decks. Cama voters don't "need" any breed strategy or wome funky "bleed boost master" to win. All they need is Parity Shift and a sprinkle of Second Trad. So the question isn't "can Sabbat decks including a few votes win", but "can Sabbat vote decks win", which is a completely different question. My answer : the only real Sabbat vote deck that can win on a regular basis is the Pander vote, because of one funky clan vote and of the mass weenie effect. This doesn't affect Sabbat as a whole. Other regularly winning Sabbat decks with votes include !Tore breed'n'boon, and Lasombra Power boon. Both relying on clan master cards and mass embrace. So, yes, I feel like a good Sabbat vote could change the balance of things and allow us to play, say, !Nosfes or !Brujahs more often. Orpheus

"Orpheus" <orpheus....@free.fr> wrote in message >>> Oh, it isn't. It is absurd. And singlehandedly makes playing Sabbat >>> themed vote decks mostly pointless. >> >> Hmm, I've always found that a bizarre POV. If you're talking about a >> 10 year campaign to "ban PS" I don't think Sabbat vote decks have >> ever been up there in the highest ranks of what the Sabbat should be >> about, thematically. They are all about brutal force and if you buy >> into the game keeping at least a bit themed, that fits. Saying that >> you can make some fearsome Sabbat decks like !Tor Breed/Boon/Bleed >> but look! Design smoothes out Breed with cards like Scourge NOT >> banning cards or LoPander vote which can still be a powerhouse even >> after an admittedly necessary change :) > > With all due respect, we're talking about vote decks. Cama voters don't > "need" any breed strategy or wome funky "bleed boost master" to win. All > they need is Parity Shift and a sprinkle of Second Trad. Really?? I totally disagree there but ok. IME vote decks or rather good vote decks require a lot of infrastructure and some setup to work well. > So the question isn't "can Sabbat decks including a few votes win", but > "can Sabbat vote decks win", which is a completely different question. > > My answer : the only real Sabbat vote deck that can win on a regular basis > is the Pander vote, because of one funky clan vote and of the mass weenie > effect. This doesn't affect Sabbat as a whole. > > Other regularly winning Sabbat decks with votes include !Tore > breed'n'boon, and Lasombra Power boon. Both relying on clan master cards > and mass embrace. > > So, yes, I feel like a good Sabbat vote could change the balance of things > and allow us to play, say, !Nosfes or !Brujahs more often. But maybe there shouldn't be loads of great Sabbat vote decks, just the same as there isn't really much to compare with say KS bleed (mostly !Malk) and a really good Tzi wall. Different archetypes but you see what I mean. I think it's partly an issue with the lack of low-down Archbishop titles, again an indicator that Sabbat have strengths elsewhere surely? But yes, I think maybe another toy or two for Sabbat wouldn't be a terrible thing rather than changing PS. I also think that the sheer range of options to stop votes even before referendum now is such that nothing else is needed, let alone the fact that you actually have to pass the vote in the first place.

frubeng wrote: > On Oct 7, 9:59 am, h...@iki.fi (Janne H�gglund) wrote: >> frubeng <frub...@gmail.com> writes: >>> On Oct 7, 9:24 am, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: >>>> On Oct 7, 9:03 am, frubeng <frub...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>>>> My point was that Blood doll is still the most powerful master, >>>>> and that Banishment is still better than parity shift. >> >>>> Hmm. It is difficult to envison a solid argument that makes >>>> Banishment better than Parity Shift. But ok. >> >>>> -Peter >> >>> Parity Shift can only be played by prince/justicar, Banishment can >>> be played by anyone. It can be played efficiently only by big vampires. It is a restriction, often a big one. A deck including Banishments without at least 8-caps in the deck often loses slots for nothing. >>> Parity Shift can only be played if you have less pool, Banishment >>> can be played at any time. Yes. It's not like a Parity deck can't find ways to lose pool when need be, but your statement is correct. >>> Parity Shift loses strength as there are fewer player, Banishment >>> doesn't. Sure. It goes from enormous to useful. And stays all the time just twice as powerful as Conservative Agitation. >>> Parity Shift can be stopped by confusion of the eye, Banishment >>> cannot. Right. Now, Confusion is usually a slot well used only in OBF decks with at least a few titles (for the "non-titled" part). Having such a marginal counter does not a card less good make, Yoda says. >>> Banishment can techinically do much more indirect damage than >>> Parity. It can prevent a player form using Golconda, minion >>> tap/villein/BD/ vessel, the block(s) that minion could have done, >>> the action(s) it will miss out on, the votes it could cast. It will >>> generally also cost pool to reinfluence the minion, and may also >>> reduce the number of available transfers. I think altogether this >>> is often more than 5 damage. It is very, very rarely a difference of 10 pool, which is what Parity's all about (and yes, still 8 with 4 players left, 6 with 3, 4 with 2). Not to mention all the dealing possibilities or the crosstable help it can provide, although Banishment can give some too. > Also, doing this on a minion can be >>> just as defensive as gaining 5 pool. There is no way this statement can be measured reliably, so let me just disagree with it on my experience's basis. >>> I am generally very dissapointed by bans, and I beleive it is very >>> detrimental to the game. Yet, you seem alone in this, or at least a very small minority compared to those who think that PS is detrimental to the game. Plus, as you insisted upon demonstrating : Banishment is more widely useable than PS, so it doesn't give the advantage to any particular sect (if anything it gives an advantage to bigger vamps, which can't be bad), while PS discourages to play Sabbat vote, and that IS detrimental to the balance of the game. >> I don't think anyone here is actually advocating *banning* Parity >> Shift. That would be overkill. Correct (oh my, I must have some LSJ left over my clothes from last night...). ^^ >> It's not like the seat changing votes - if the Powers That Be ever >> judge it to be too powerful, it can easily be nerfed while still >> remaining functional and useful. (For example: making it playable >> once per game per metuselah, like I suggested.) >> >> HG- Hide quoted text - >> >> - Show quoted text - > > That would still destroy many deck archetypes... > My point is that it is not overpowered, people just don't defend > properly against it, especially in the US. > There are plenty of solutions, but the cards can only show you the > door, you actuall yhave to put them in your deck. The solutions against it are usually solutions against votes. Most decks pack those, and still Parity Shift wins tables. So we get back to my point : either an errata, a hoser or a balancing Sabbat vote are needed (I'm all for the last solution). Roger, Roger. Orpheus

[ quoted text not captured ] I like the idea. It is still a little too weak though, and would be better at a 3/2 or something. Or "choose 1 or more methuselahs ; if the referendum is successful, those methuselahs lose 2 pool and you gain 2 pool". More in the "war all over" theme that Sabbat loves, less in the "I give you bribes" that fits Cammies... Mmm, yes, I like it. Orpheus

[ quoted text not captured ] But what about Imbued vote decks? Have they ever even been in the finals? They can't even play KRC! Seems only fair that Imbued voters get a vote card that is competitive with PS.

[ quoted text not captured ] Hell, they could just errata Parity Shift to say "usable by any vampires with 2 or more votes".

On 7 oct, 14:13, "Rob Treasure" <robtreas...@hotmail.com> wrote: > So following that line of argument, what happens if PS is ever > altered/powered down? What is next in line? DI? KRC? I mean, after all, KRC > requires..... well nothing to do 4 damage, literally nothing if you look at > it the same way. Banishment? Personally, I'd like to know what has changed > to make PS suddenly in the line of fire? (other than all the other powerful > "change this" targets having gone or "a lot of people are playing it" > please!) There doesn't seem to be anything different to me other than these > two somewhat weak arguments which is a sad reflection of the top down, > negative way that a lot players perceive change in games like this one. > > I think Cam vote fits in just fine in the powercurve nowadays. A lot of the > other sects have some major power cards (not necessarily vote) that have > worked over the last few years to really address the balance of things. This > for me is where positive development lies, not in having a constantly moving > blacklist that a lot of people insist on. > > As an aside, I think mass KRC is far more deadly than mass PS which is self > limiting, not to mention horrors like My Kin Against the World and Rev > Council. There will always be decks that really go out of the way to make > good cards as powerful as possible, that's the game. +10 000 To answer to the fisrt post: Why Ancient influence is a OPG card, because called at the second turn if no one has a vampire it makes 20 pool loss at the table, do you really think this is not a good reason? Parity shift don't oust (or in very rare case). If we keep going to ban or make arrata to the next most powerful card in the game, soon we will have ban all. I really don't understand why PS hasn't been reprinted, ebay prices are higher and higher, please reprint PS!

On 7 loka, 18:17, Patrick Benoit <patrick.ben...@gmail.com> wrote: > If we keep going to ban or make arrata to the next most powerful card > in the game, soon we will have ban all. True. Instead we should ban or errata cards that are too powerful. Current candidate: Parity Shift.

"suoli" <suolir...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:5f71dd87-9da5-4432...@j19g2000vbp.googlegroups.com... [ quoted text not captured ] *shakes head* Current candidate... great, just great logic there. Says it all really.

On 7 loka, 18:30, "Rob Treasure" <robtreas...@hotmail.com> wrote: > "suoli" <suoliruse...@gmail.com> wrote in message [ quoted text not captured ] What, you think Parity Shift is the only card that is too powerful in the game? Off the top of my head I could also mention Pentex Subversion and Sensory Deprivation as cards that are worthy of discussion.

"suoli" <suolir...@gmail.com> wrote in message >> >> > On 7 loka, 18:17, Patrick Benoit <patrick.ben...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> If we keep going to ban or make arrata to the next most powerful card >> >> in the game, soon we will have ban all. >> >> > True. Instead we should ban or errata cards that are too powerful. >> > Current candidate: Parity Shift. >> >> *shakes head* >> >> Current candidate... great, just great logic there. Says it all really. > > What, you think Parity Shift is the only card that is too powerful in > the game? Off the top of my head I could also mention Pentex > Subversion and Sensory Deprivation as cards that are worthy of > discussion. No, I would just remove the word *too* in your paragraph.

> The solutions against it are usually solutions against votes. Most decks > pack those, and still Parity Shift wins tables. So we get back to my point : > either an errata, a hoser or a balancing Sabbat vote are needed (I'm all for > the last solution). > > Roger, Roger. > > Orpheus- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - If what you say is true, then people are simply not packing enough vote defense. In my two days at the NAC, i played 8 games and all using vote decks. I was subject to 1 delaying tactics and one scalpel's tongue as vote defense (other than votes on the table). Yes, PS will still win tables. Yes, a deck can win using a card as it's main strategy. That does not make it overpowered. I think too many games are won by bleed for 1 (I'm certain it's more than parity). I say, ban the bleed for one!

Rob Treasure wrote: > "Loughman" <ma...@mentaladventures.com> wrote in message >> I guess I've led a sheltered existence. I had never seen so many >> Parity Shifts in one place as I did at the NAC this last weekend, >> especially on Day Two. The removal of PTO from play has opened up a >> significantly wider variety of vamps and decks for tournament play. >> After seeing the profound effect Parity Shift had on several tables, >> and the extensive counter-measures other decks had to contain to deal >> with the possibility of being Shifted, I find myself wondering if it >> is a good card to keep in the game. Few cards have such a significant >> swing in pool and decks designed to employ several of them have no >> problem spending enough pool (and gaining permanent resources) to >> shift again in a very short time. >> >> Has any one else noticed this too? I'm not one for banning cards for a >> frivolous reason (and I was running 3 Shifts in my deck sunday) but >> maybe this one has outlived it's usefulness. > > *weeps openly* > > There's simply no need to change it. A metagame heavy in one thing or even > one card should not influence a witch hunt imo. > > It has 3 conditions - > > 1. It's a vote > 2. You have to have less pool > 3. It is # of player dependant - diminishing returns > And let's not forget the Prince/Justicar requirement. Maybe people need to run more Command of harpies... best - chris

Peter D Bakija wrote: > On Oct 7, 8:13 am, "Rob Treasure" <robtreas...@hotmail.com> wrote: >> I'd like to know what has changed to make PS suddenly in the line of fire? > > Nothing. This argument has been going on for 10 years. And still is. > That it wasn't recently reprinted certainly added fuel to the fire, > but still. > Agreed. I think one reason we are seeing lots of PS is because the vamps/library cards from Keepersr of Tradition are starting to come out in force. Although KoT came out a while ago, it takes a while for the decks that are being developed with those cards to reach maturity and type 1 status. best - chris

[ quoted text not captured ] Not anymore, as the clan disciplines are now the same all over. And '94 Obf/Dom Malks still works... > and a really good Tzi wall. Different archetypes but > you see what I mean. I do but we're straying from the path here. We're talking about votes, remember ? Not discipline combinations. Yes, there are some one-sect clans with BigEye, there's a Laibon clan too, that hasn't anything to do with our discussion here. > I think it's partly an issue with the lack of low-down Archbishop > titles, again an indicator that Sabbat have strengths elsewhere > surely? Where ? > But yes, I think maybe another toy or two for Sabbat wouldn't > be a terrible thing rather than changing PS. I also think that the > sheer range of options to stop votes even before referendum now is > such that nothing else is needed, let alone the fact that you > actually have to pass the vote in the first place. Well, we seem to agree on both counts then. ;-) R, R. Orpheus

[ quoted text not captured ] lol. Still, vote defense will work even better on less powerful votes (as you'll need to pass more to make a difference). And there are some defense-against-vote-defense cards out there (Approximation of Loyalty springs to mind). R, R. Orpheus

Peter D Bakija wrote: > On Oct 6, 10:57 pm, Loughman <m...@mentaladventures.com> wrote: >> I find myself wondering if it is a good card to keep in the game. > > Oh, it isn't. It is absurd. And singlehandedly makes playing Sabbat > themed vote decks mostly pointless. I mean, if it were tweaked down a > bit, it would probably be fine (and by "tweaked down", I really mean > "remove parity shift from the play environment and replace it with a > similar, but less good, version). Say "Blarity Blift: Requires a > Prince or Justicar. Target a Methuselah with more pool than you. Steal > three pool from them and distrubute among two or more other > methuselahs." Nice, looks a little like the proposition I tweaked somewhere else in this thread. Could even require "a vampire with at 2 or more votes" if PS was tuned down to 1/meth/game. > Such a vote is still highly powerful--your prey loses 3 pool, you gain > 2 pool, someone else gains 1 pool (or whatever works). Which is > considerably stronger than KRC, but also has a higher cost (you need > to be a Prince or Justicar and can't be used in the endgame). But not > so powerful that it makes all other votes look pointless. Agreed. It seems like we are of one mind on that subject. Maybe you're my soul mate. Would you marry me ? We'd have lots of little vote cards... Just kidding, I prefer zombies anyway. R, R. Orpheus

[ quoted text not captured ] lol. And besides, the current candidate would be Voter Cap, anyway.

[ quoted text not captured ] Yeah, because both Nosfie Princes decks packed so many of them, right ? ;-)

From a new player's perspective Parity Shift is both a very strong card and hard to get a hold of. If the card is not banned or changed then it needs to be reprinted. By itself Parity Shift is great in the early part of the game, but can be dead weight at times in the late game (not always true of course). If one to errata the card then it could potentially be nerfed if even more requirements were added. One per Methuselah per game could be ok, but it will also change Cam vote decks and some of the focus immediately. Is that a bad thing though? Was it not refreshing to see a Guruhi deck do well at NAC? If one provides the Sabbat with a similar card it only amplifies the problem. And if it is banned then the Cam deserve a reprint of some sort (at least in my mind) that perhaps is more like a KRC with a pool swing of 3 perhaps. No one should deny Parity Shift as one of the most powerful vote cards as an effective swing of 10 pool is huge. And again if it is restricted to one per game per Methuselah then needless to say Prince decks may likely be less interesting for people to focus on for vote. Should that serve as an indicator for how powerful the card really is? If it were so easy to deal with and provide a good replacement, solution, etc. then it would have already been done. That being said I would be surprised if something didn't change January 1st, 2010 as this is the only card I ever hear bout being so powerful.

> > Has any one else noticed this too? I'm not one for banning cards for a > frivolous reason (and I was running 3 Shifts in my deck sunday) but > maybe this one has outlived it's usefulness. Agreed. It looked liked most players were playing either princes or auspex (or both). It was not a very diverse environment. Its the strength of Parity Shift that draws so many players to play princes. The only reason contesting was such an issue is because the Nos princes are so good. Pentex Subversion is the other card that dominated every game. My superstar deck get tagged with that 4 times. And this didn't really surprise me. The moral is don't bother trying superstar decks. With these 2 cards dominating the top tier, I would say they are doing more harm than good, and contributing to deck-type clumping and game stagnation. -Ben Swainbank

On 7 loka, 19:30, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > And besides, the current candidate would be Voter Cap, anyway. Would it? The current topic suggests that the current candidate currently under discussion is Parity Shift.

You're only seeing so many parity shifts now because players have a truckload of new princes and justicars to play them. I don't really have a dislike of any card apart from anthelios which comes under my 'no fun' category. There are lots of ways to hurt cap, shift, pentex etc but still limited to get rid of anthelios.

squidalot wrote: > You're only seeing so many parity shifts now because players have a > truckload of new princes and justicars to play them. No, it's been going on for years. You're right only for places with lots of new players. > I don't really have a dislike of any card apart from anthelios which > comes under my 'no fun' category. It is on top of my current ban / errate list (Parity isn't, as there are other options). > There are lots of ways to hurt cap, shift, pentex etc but still > limited to get rid of anthelios. Yes.

suoli <suolir...@gmail.com> writes: [ quoted text not captured ] But LSJ does not design and maintain VTES based on whatever happens to be today's favorite discussion on Usenet. Besides, we only see what annoys us as players. We have no knowledge about the cool and elegant ideas LSJ has had to trash because of the existence of Voter Cap. And yes, I can see the problem with Voter Cap. Kindred Spirits or Legal Manipulations only give you one pool if your bleed succeeds. Perfectionist gives you only one blood per succesful action. But Voter Cap can fill your almost empty fattie to the brim - and it makes the huge cost of cards like Awe completely irrelevant. HG

On 7 loka, 22:00, h...@iki.fi (Janne Hägglund) wrote: > suoli <suoliruse...@gmail.com> writes: > > On 7 loka, 19:30, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > > > And besides, the current candidate would be Voter Cap, anyway. > > > Would it? The current topic suggests that the current candidate > > currently under discussion is Parity Shift. > > But LSJ does not design and maintain VTES based on whatever happens to be > today's favorite discussion on Usenet. I am not saying that LSJ is or should be considering anything, I am saying that the current topic is about Parity Shift and whether it's too strong or not.

On 7 oct, 04:57, Loughman <m...@mentaladventures.com> wrote: > After seeing the profound effect Parity Shift had on several tables, > and the extensive counter-measures other decks had to contain to deal > with the possibility of being Shifted, I find myself wondering if it > is a good card to keep in the game. we are talking about a card from '1994 first edition of the game... Come on ! :)

On Oct 7, 12:21 pm, "Orpheus" <orpheus.TAKEOU...@free.fr> wrote: > And there are some defense-against-vote-defense cards out there > (Approximation of Loyalty springs to mind). Except that for Approx. of Loyalty to be viable, you need Presence. At which point, the fact that AoL says "no further action mods" means no Voter Cap. So, really, not so great. - D.J.

In my opinion there is nothing wrong with Parity Shift. It is used in majority of prince/justicar based decks - that's right, but if you are so afraid of that card and it bacame so popular you should simply be prepared for everyone "shifting" around... That's simple - put some anti-political cards in your deck and you should be fine. I don't think that banning particular cards improves the game. The main problem is that there are some players who just simply cycle their hand without any concept for the game. "I have a PS on my hand so I'll play it agains you, as you are the only person who was more poll then me". This is a problem. If you would like to improve the game, ban such players :).

"wargrim" <watras...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:591e225b-2a12-47ed...@d34g2000vbm.googlegroups.com... > In my opinion there is nothing wrong with Parity Shift. It is used in > majority of prince/justicar based decks - that's right, but if you are > so afraid of that card and it bacame so popular you should simply be > prepared for everyone "shifting" around... That's simple - put some > anti-political cards in your deck and you should be fine. > > I don't think that banning particular cards improves the game. Oh, man, it definitely depends on the card. Banning The Return to Innocence improved the game. Fred

D.J. wrote: > On Oct 7, 12:21 pm, "Orpheus" <orpheus.TAKEOU...@free.fr> wrote: >> And there are some defense-against-vote-defense cards out there >> (Approximation of Loyalty springs to mind). > > Except that for Approx. of Loyalty to be viable, you need Presence. Did you notice that many good voters use Presence ? The Nosferatu are an exception of sorts, but then they multi-act a lot... > At which point, the fact that AoL says "no further action mods" means > no Voter Cap. So, really, not so great. Great enough in my book. And in several TW decks too. R, R. O.

[ quoted text not captured ] If you only read subject lines, perhaps, If you follow threads, ...

On Oct 7, 12:24 pm, "Orpheus" <orpheus.TAKEOU...@free.fr> wrote: > It seems like we are of one mind on that subject. Maybe you're my soul mate. > Would you marry me ? We'd have lots of little vote cards... Pretty much. I think I'm saving myself for Clooney, however. -Peter

On Oct 7, 3:38 pm, wargrim <watrasmar...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I don't think that banning particular cards improves the game. > Really? I think all the bannings that have happened thus far have improved the game. -Ben Swainbank

On Oct 7, 4:31 pm, "Orpheus" <orpheus.TAKEOU...@free.fr> wrote: > D.J. wrote: > > On Oct 7, 12:21 pm, "Orpheus" <orpheus.TAKEOU...@free.fr> wrote: > >> And there are some defense-against-vote-defense cards out there > >> (Approximation of Loyalty springs to mind). > > > Except that for Approx. of Loyalty to be viable, you need Presence. > > Did you notice that many good voters use Presence ? Yep, that was clear... but that's really due to vote-push and to Voter Cap. > > At which point, the fact that AoL says "no further action mods" means > > no Voter Cap. So, really, not so great. > > Great enough in my book. And in several TW decks too. *Shrug* might be. I've always been very, very unimpressed with AoL when I've tried it - the "no more mods" clause is a killer. I can't imagine playing a PRE-heavy voter and not planning to Cap most votes, but I suppose mileages may vary. For my money, it's been best used to say "No, no bounce, thanks." I suppose maybe it's that Boston's metagame tends toward other anti-vote measures - blocking, vote power, etc - rather than reactions, and I just haven't seen AoL used to good effect... - D.J.

On Oct 7, 3:38 pm, wargrim <watrasmar...@gmail.com> wrote: > I don't think that banning particular cards improves the game. Return to Innocence? Edge Explosion? Madness of the Bard? > The main problem is that there are some players who just simply cycle > their hand without any concept for the game. "I have a PS on my hand > so I'll play it agains you, as you are the only person who was more > poll then me". Yeah, see, that isn't actually a problem. If there is a problem, it is that Parity Shift is, and always has been, too strong. It should be less overwhelmingly good. If it was printed today, I'm confident that it would be. -Peter

D.J. wrote: > On Oct 7, 4:31 pm, "Orpheus" <orpheus.TAKEOU...@free.fr> wrote: >> D.J. wrote: >>> On Oct 7, 12:21 pm, "Orpheus" <orpheus.TAKEOU...@free.fr> wrote: >>>> And there are some defense-against-vote-defense cards out there >>>> (Approximation of Loyalty springs to mind). >> >>> Except that for Approx. of Loyalty to be viable, you need Presence. >> >> Did you notice that many good voters use Presence ? > > Yep, that was clear... but that's really due to vote-push and to > Voter Cap. Of course ! My point being that they also have that tool available. >>> At which point, the fact that AoL says "no further action mods" >>> means no Voter Cap. So, really, not so great. >> >> Great enough in my book. And in several TW decks too. > > *Shrug* might be. I've always been very, very unimpressed with AoL > when I've tried it - the "no more mods" clause is a killer. I can't > imagine playing a PRE-heavy voter and not planning to Cap most votes, > but I suppose mileages may vary. Midcap voters can use one and not the other. But I can tell you the decklists of the AAA of some of the best players available include a whole bunch of them. It's both a "Seduction" and a vote protection card. And if your vote doesn't pass, your Voter Cap will stay in your hand anyway, so you might as well pass your vote ! > For my money, it's been best used to > say "No, no bounce, thanks." I suppose maybe it's that Boston's > metagame tends toward other anti-vote measures - blocking, vote power, > etc - rather than reactions, and I just haven't seen AoL used to good > effect... Local mileages do vary, yes.

On Oct 7, 4:25 pm, brandonsantacruz <brandonsantac...@yahoo.com> wrote: > On Oct 6, 9:50 pm, "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote: > > > > > Loughman wrote: > > > I guess I've led a sheltered existence. I had never seen so many > > > Parity Shifts in one place as I did at the NAC this last weekend, > > > especially on Day Two. The removal of PTO from play has opened up > > > a significantly wider variety of vamps and decks for tournament play. > > > After seeing the profound effect Parity Shift had on several tables, > > > and the extensive counter-measures other decks had to contain to deal > > > with the possibility of being Shifted, I find myself wondering if it > > > is a good card to keep in the game. Few cards have such a significant > > > swing in pool and decks designed to employ several of them have no > > > problem spending enough pool (and gaining permanent resources) to > > > shift again in a very short time. > > > > Has any one else noticed this too? I'm not one for banning cards for > > > a frivolous reason (and I was running 3 Shifts in my deck sunday) but > > > maybe this one has outlived it's usefulness. > > > This is one of those cards that I wish were once per game[OPG]. > > > Ancient Influence > > Dia de los Muertos > > Festivo dello Estinto > > Flaming Candle > > Fortschritt Library > > Political Stranglehold > > Strange Day > > > Are ANY of these more powerful than Parity Shift? I think it's telling > > that a OPG Parity Shift would *still* be more powerful than Ancient > > Influence or Political Stranglehold. > > > Can we use these as a precedent for asking the next reprint > > of Parity Shift to be OPG? Please? :) > > > Kevin M., Prince of Las Vegas > > "Know your enemy and know yourself; in one-thousand battles > > you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, *The Art of War* > > "Contentment...Complacency...Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier > > Please visit VTESville daily!http://vtesville.myminicity.com/ > > Please buy my cards!http://shop.ebay.com/kjmergen/m.html > > Only Strange Day has a requirement, the others require nothing except > an MPA, a pool, or whatever. Cards to counter Parity Shift: > Direct Intervention > Delaying Tactics > Confusion of the Eye > Vox Domini > > Or you can have votes. Or block the action. > > I'll grant you that Parity Shift is right up there with Political > Stranglehold, but it would feel wrong to make the strongest card for > Princes and Justicars only playable once per game. Maybe it could be > once per turn like Spell of Life. I just want more copies of Parity > Shift, not to mention DEFLECTION. > > Brandon There are other cards: Poison Pill Irregular Protocol (to screw those Pre-Super-Push voters) Using Poison Pill may not help your own case, but it certainly punishes them for trying...

I remember a similar discussion about 5th tradition some years ago, before it got nerfed. 5th was dominating the tournament scene, a boring type of deck, bla bla bla and !Malks with derange (a really expensive card) seemed like the only way to beat them. At first there was some complains about the errata, but in long run the game improved. I belive that we can live without parity shift. With both 5th and 2nd erratum, PTO and Parity Shift banned the cammy could use some reinforcements to their sects card (even though Alastor was a great addition). I would like some cards that involve the primogen. Perhaps some cards that are good if you control a prince, and great if you also control a primogen. I trust that LSJ will find a solution. People are still playing blood dolls.

Orpheus wrote: > squidalot wrote: >> You're only seeing so many parity shifts now because players have a >> truckload of new princes and justicars to play them. > > No, it's been going on for years. You're right only for places with lots of > new players. > >> Disagree. 3 decks in continental finals feature PS? It's because the new P & J's are shiny. I for one am very happy to see NosRoyalty becoming a very popular decktype (as opposed to mildly popular that they used to be). Would like to see other Nos archetypes move up, but will settle for what there is now. best - chris

agzocgud wrote: > I remember a similar discussion about 5th tradition some years ago, > before it got nerfed. 5th was dominating the tournament scene, a > boring type of deck, bla bla bla and !Malks with derange (a really > expensive card) seemed like the only way to beat them. At first there > was some complains about the errata, but in long run the game > improved. I belive that we can live without parity shift. > > With both 5th and 2nd erratum, PTO and Parity Shift banned the cammy > could use some reinforcements to their sects card Why not just leave PS so that they don't need those reinforcements? best - chris

On Oct 7, 7:40 am, Drace <chrysanthemumdr...@gmail.com> wrote: > When someone can hit me with a govern/conditioning for a swing of 6+ > that I can probably do NOTHING about without dom or Sup Aus on my > vampire, I'll gladly take a parity shift that could be voted down/ > cancelled/req's specific titles/canot hit me if I'm lower, etc etc. > Cam Royalty are a strong decktype but I'm more in favor of buffs to > the other sects to level the field rather than focusing on neutering > one card at a time that makes creative decks viable. I can't imagine > those two Nos Royalties in the final tables without Parity Shifts. this isn't the first time someone mentioned that PS helps them survive weenie hordes, especially if the deck has no reliable bounce option. i think that's telling. we are trying to converse about power issues in an environment still deeply imbalanced from previous problems, ones that have been there for over a decade now. the corrections are slow, but i think the complaints about why they should not be corrected in fact end up reinforcing the argument that things should be done to readdress these other tangential problems.-- and hoser cards suck, btw -- (just had to throw that in there) it really returns to the issue how bounce should be democratized and how weenies really shouldn't have mass access to cards like KRC, GtU, or Conditioning without an altered environment to respond to them. i think the easiest solution would then be to alter the environment by providing the requests that have been asked for years. 1. create a bounce (or equivalent: reduce bleed to zero, deal damage somewhere else on table) card for Celerity, Obfuscate, Animalism. you then cover most of the clans that currently have bounce issues. 2. then drop that "over X cap" clause currently on Overseer (and on Fee Stakes) upon every Praxis/Crusade. 3. lastly, take a strong look at what to do about Legacy of Pander vote decks (like, make it work like Army of Rats instead, no stacking). WotC was all over the map in VtES expansion sets -- it's perfectly fine to go back and correct cracked out thinking.

Azel wrote: > 3. lastly, take a strong look at what to do about Legacy of Pander > vote decks (like, make it work like Army of Rats instead, no > stacking). Like, it currently works like Army of Rats. It doesn't stack.

[ quoted text not captured ] Does it say anything about Parity Shift that 1 Poison Pill won't even make the player calling it flinch? You need at least 2 to possibly self-fail the vote. Proof that Parity Shift is twice as good as anything else in the game. Scalpel Tongue is another great versatile card that can protect against super-vote-push. Which is actually my personal pet peeve concerning votes, as I think AWE is ridiculous and unbalancing. Gaining 21 votes with one card really removes the political aspect of the game sometimes. It's funny how many times I've seen someone DI a parity shift, just for the same vampire to immediately play a second copy. this happened several times at the NAC, of course. maybe we'll see more people switch over to the new Dark-I for their defensive needs?

[ quoted text not captured ] And you know what... if you have the DI, Nerf the VoterCap and see how happy THAT camper is... Super-Push voting has been around for ages, it isn't that overpowered... Parity Shift isn't THAT over-powered... I suspect this is all a knee-jerk reaction to a day where everyone cracked out their KoT Prince Decks...

extrala wrote: > The card itself is very powerful yes,. As Mark pointed out the pool > swing is second to none, but since I am not a huge fan of "ban this, > ban that", the question for me would be how can you restrict the card > without making it instant wallpaper? The card already has two > requirements: you need a prince and your target has to have more pool > than you. A third restriction or weakening the effect might kill the > card instantly. How would once per game/methuselah stop one copy from being played in every deck that now contains multiples? If that'd stop someone, then they aren't as good a player as they thought they were. [ quoted text not captured ]

Rob Treasure wrote: > Personally, I'd like to know what has changed > to make PS suddenly in the line of fire? I will not take credit for any of the current PS hate, but a while back I had lauded the non-reprinting of PS as a de facto-ban, which I liked more than the reprinting of the card as-is. Then, Fred Scott took me to task for a bunch of things I wasn't saying or advocating and we had a somewhat large thread about it. There was a thread before that, as there is before every new set, about what cards are going to be reprinted, which could be changed, etc., and PS was a staple of the conversation. Or, as Bakija has said, Parity Shift's power has been discussed here for a long, long time. :) [ quoted text not captured ]

"Kevin M." <you...@imaspammer.org> wrote in message news:ziczm.238431$cf6....@newsfe16.iad... > Rob Treasure wrote: >> Personally, I'd like to know what has changed >> to make PS suddenly in the line of fire? > > I will not take credit for any of the current PS hate, but a while > back I had lauded the non-reprinting of PS as a de facto-ban, > which I liked more than the reprinting of the card as-is. Yup. Great ban there, Kevin. I take it none of the people who played at the NAC who were the targets of Parity Shifts actually had to take any damage, then. Because, you know, Kevin said Parity Shift was de facto banned. Here, I said there was no such thing as a de facto ban. But you said, "No, Fred. It's de facto banned now!" So I suppose it _really_ wasn't in any of those deck lists which claimed to have it. None of those guys in the NAC Finals played any Parity Shifts. Couldn't have - because you said it was gone. Now, I'm a little bit amazed you would bring this up again as it looks to me like the so called "de facto ban" must not be in effect, yet, to look at Jeff's deck lists. But maybe I just don't understand what a "de facto ban" actually is. Maybe it's another one of those things that's "obvious" to all the newsgroup people here who undoubtably can easily be identified by all the longtime r.g.t-c.jyhad readers again. ("Hello, Kevin's voices!") But fuck me, I'd have thought a de facto banned card just wouldn't be around any more. Stupid, STUPID Fred! > Then, > Fred Scott took me to task for a bunch of things I wasn't saying > or advocating and we had a somewhat large thread about it. Suffice it to say I disagree with characterizing the debate this way. Without dreging it all back up. Fred

On Oct 6, 10:57 pm, Loughman <m...@mentaladventures.com> wrote: > Has any one else noticed this too? I'm not one for banning cards for a > frivolous reason (and I was running 3 Shifts in my deck sunday) but > maybe this one has outlived it's usefulness. My only problem with Parity Shift is that I didn't even bring any, much less play any. That's one of those 'forgotten cards' for me (It's a vote, requires P/J) whose decks can get stomped by anything looking like intercept or table votes or rush combat. The card seems to make a lot of sense for an NAC metagame, however.

LSJ wrote: > Rob Treasure wrote: >> "suoli" <suolir...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> Patrick Benoit <patrick.ben...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> If we keep going to ban or make arrata to the next most powerful >>>> card in the game, soon we will have ban all. >>> True. Instead we should ban or errata cards that are too powerful. >>> Current candidate: Parity Shift. >> >> *shakes head* >> >> Current candidate... great, just great logic there. Says it all really. > > lol. > > And besides, the current candidate would be Voter Cap, anyway. No, the current candidate is DIRECT INTERVENTION. ;) [ quoted text not captured ]

Frederick Scott wrote: > "Kevin M." <you...@imaspammer.org> wrote: >> Rob Treasure wrote: >>> Personally, I'd like to know what has changed >>> to make PS suddenly in the line of fire? >> >> I will not take credit for any of the current PS hate, but a while >> back I had lauded the non-reprinting of PS as a de facto-ban, >> which I liked more than the reprinting of the card as-is. > > Yup. Great ban there, Kevin. I take it none of the people who played > at the NAC who were the targets of Parity Shifts actually had to take > any damage, then. Incorrect. Strike 1. > Because, you know, Kevin said Parity Shift was de facto banned. While I did say THOSE WORDS, in the context which I said them they DID NOT mean what you are trying to say they meant. Strike 2. > Here, I said there was no such thing as a de facto ban. But you > said, "No, Fred. It's de facto banned now!" So I suppose it > _really_ wasn't in any of those deck lists which claimed to have > it. None of those guys in the NAC Finals played any Parity > Shifts. Couldn't have - because you said it was gone. Incorrect. I never said that. Strike 3. You lose. Again. > Now, I'm a little bit amazed you would bring this up again as it > looks to me like the so called "de facto ban" must not be in > effect, yet, to look at Jeff's deck lists. But maybe I just > don't understand what a "de facto ban" actually is. Maybe it's > another one of those things that's "obvious" to all the newsgroup > people here who undoubtably can easily be identified by all the > longtime r.g.t-c.jyhad readers again. ("Hello, Kevin's voices!") > But fuck me, I'd have thought a de facto banned card just > wouldn't be around any more. Stupid, STUPID Fred! Ok, I'll agree. You're acting stupid. >> Then, >> Fred Scott took me to task for a bunch of things I wasn't saying >> or advocating and we had a somewhat large thread about it. > > Suffice it to say I disagree with characterizing the debate this > way. Without dreging it all back up. Of course you do. Since you AGAIN misstated my position to justify YET ANOTHER one of your incessant, insane ramblings. [ quoted text not captured ]

"Kevin M." <you...@imaspammer.org> wrote in message news:amdzm.25765$tG1....@newsfe22.iad... > Frederick Scott wrote: >> "Kevin M." <you...@imaspammer.org> wrote: >>> Rob Treasure wrote: >>>> Personally, I'd like to know what has changed >>>> to make PS suddenly in the line of fire? >>> >>> I will not take credit for any of the current PS hate, but a while >>> back I had lauded the non-reprinting of PS as a de facto-ban, >>> which I liked more than the reprinting of the card as-is. >> >> Yup. Great ban there, Kevin. I take it none of the people who played >> at the NAC who were the targets of Parity Shifts actually had to take >> any damage, then. > > Incorrect. Strike 1. > >> Because, you know, Kevin said Parity Shift was de facto banned. > > While I did say THOSE WORDS, in the context which I said them > they DID NOT mean what you are trying to say they meant. Strike 2. This is the problem, Kevin. You never admit to _any_ context that makes any sense. If that's not what a de facto ban implies, PLEASE enlighten us as to what the hell you DID mean by any of that? The point that removing a card from recent printings fails to stop it from being played in tournaments is exactly and precisely my point. There is no such thing as a de facto ban in collectible card tournaments. If a card is worth playing, it'll get played. End of story. >> Here, I said there was no such thing as a de facto ban. But you >> said, "No, Fred. It's de facto banned now!" So I suppose it >> _really_ wasn't in any of those deck lists which claimed to have >> it. None of those guys in the NAC Finals played any Parity >> Shifts. Couldn't have - because you said it was gone. > > Incorrect. I never said that. Strike 3. You lose. Again. You said not reprinting a card amounted to a de facto ban. Sure you'll admit to that - or I'll go find the post and quote you. Parity Shift hasn't been printed in well over 7 years. How long before you believe this "de facto ban" you posit will ever take effect? How long before there's anything like a real effective ban on the card - so no one ever sees one in play? What is the benefit of this concept supposed to be if a 7-year-old card is all over the NAC? Doesn't look to me like we're going to see any meaningful effect any time soon. >> Suffice it to say I disagree with characterizing the debate this >> way. Without dreging it all back up. > > Of course you do. Since you AGAIN misstated my position to justify > YET ANOTHER one of your incessant, insane ramblings. The problem with your form of argumentation is that you make these declarations about something or other and then when anyone tries to pin you down on what actually _mean_, you duck behind the nearest piece of furniture and deny you ever said anything. If you don't want to be misunderstood or misquoted, give us some clue: what the hell does a "de facto ban" actually *MEAN*?!? Fred

Frederick Scott wrote: > "Kevin M." <you...@imaspammer.org> wrote: >> Frederick Scott wrote: >>> "Kevin M." <you...@imaspammer.org> wrote: >>>> Rob Treasure wrote: >>>>> Personally, I'd like to know what has changed >>>>> to make PS suddenly in the line of fire? >>>> >>>> I will not take credit for any of the current PS hate, but a while >>>> back I had lauded the non-reprinting of PS as a de facto-ban, >>>> which I liked more than the reprinting of the card as-is. >>> >>> Yup. Great ban there, Kevin. I take it none of the people who >>> played at the NAC who were the targets of Parity Shifts actually >>> had to take any damage, then. >> >> Incorrect. Strike 1. >> >>> Because, you know, Kevin said Parity Shift was de facto banned. >> >> While I did say THOSE WORDS, in the context which I said them >> they DID NOT mean what you are trying to say they meant. Strike 2. > > This is the problem, Kevin. You never admit to _any_ context that > makes any sense. Strike 4. > If that's not what a de facto ban implies, PLEASE > enlighten us as to what the hell you DID mean by any of that? Re-read the thread in-question. I'm sure you'll get it, eventually. > The point that removing a card from recent printings fails to stop it > from being played in tournaments is exactly and precisely my point. Ok, good point. Too bad that wasn't the point I was making, in that previous thread. >>> Here, I said there was no such thing as a de facto ban. But you >>> said, "No, Fred. It's de facto banned now!" So I suppose it >>> _really_ wasn't in any of those deck lists which claimed to have >>> it. None of those guys in the NAC Finals played any Parity >>> Shifts. Couldn't have - because you said it was gone. >> >> Incorrect. I never said that. Strike 3. You lose. Again. > > You said not reprinting a card amounted to a de facto ban. Sure > you'll admit to that - or I'll go find the post and quote you. If quoting out-of-context quotes is what gets you off, feel free. > Parity Shift hasn't been printed in well over 7 years. How long > before you believe this "de facto ban" you posit will ever take > effect? How long before there's anything like a real effective > ban on the card - so no one ever sees one in play? What is the > benefit of this concept supposed to be if a 7-year-old card is all > over the NAC? Doesn't look to me like we're going to see any > meaningful effect any time soon. Nope, probably not. >>> Suffice it to say I disagree with characterizing the debate this >>> way. Without dreging it all back up. >> >> Of course you do. Since you AGAIN misstated my position to justify >> YET ANOTHER one of your incessant, insane ramblings. > > The problem with your form of argumentation is that you make these > declarations about something or other and then when anyone tries > to pin you down on what actually _mean_, you duck behind the > nearest piece of furniture and deny you ever said anything. I get accused of being a jerk, or being too forceful, or swearing too much, or being factually wrong once in a while, but getting accused of running away and hiding and denying, LOLL, well, it is interesting to note that no one accuses me of this, except for you. I mean, do you even KNOW me? :) Oh, strike 5. > If you don't want to be misunderstood or misquoted, give us some > clue: what the hell does a "de facto ban" actually *MEAN*?!? You know what annoys ME? When people have a personal issue and they use 'we' and 'us' instead of 'me' and 'I' to cover up their personal issues and lend some credence to their POV. I think WE are done here. ;) [ quoted text not captured ]

"Kevin M." <you...@imaspammer.org> wrote in message news:7lezm.78072$4t6....@newsfe06.iad... > Frederick Scott wrote: >> "Kevin M." <you...@imaspammer.org> wrote: >>> Frederick Scott wrote: >>>> "Kevin M." <you...@imaspammer.org> wrote: >>>>> Rob Treasure wrote: >>>>>> Personally, I'd like to know what has changed >>>>>> to make PS suddenly in the line of fire? >>>>> >>>>> I will not take credit for any of the current PS hate, but a while >>>>> back I had lauded the non-reprinting of PS as a de facto-ban, >>>>> which I liked more than the reprinting of the card as-is. >>>> >>>> Yup. Great ban there, Kevin. I take it none of the people who >>>> played at the NAC who were the targets of Parity Shifts actually >>>> had to take any damage, then. >>> >>> Incorrect. Strike 1. >>> >>>> Because, you know, Kevin said Parity Shift was de facto banned. >>> >>> While I did say THOSE WORDS, in the context which I said them >>> they DID NOT mean what you are trying to say they meant. Strike 2. >> >> This is the problem, Kevin. You never admit to _any_ context that >> makes any sense. If that's not what a de facto ban implies, PLEASE >> enlighten us as to what the hell you DID mean by any of that? > > Re-read the thread in-question. I'm sure you'll get it, eventually. No I won't - there isn't anything there to get. It's another tactic to pretend to be saying something while not actually saying anything. If you said anything concrete, you'd have to defend it. This way you can just make a pretense that you have a position. >> The point that removing a card from recent printings fails to stop it >> from being played in tournaments is exactly and precisely my point. > > Ok, good point. Too bad that wasn't the point I was making, > in that previous thread. Yep. I get it. There wasn't any point you were making in the previous thread. >> The problem with your form of argumentation is that you make these >> declarations about something or other and then when anyone tries >> to pin you down on what actually _mean_, you duck behind the >> nearest piece of furniture and deny you ever said anything. > > I get accused of being a jerk, or being too forceful, or swearing too much, > or being factually wrong once in a while, but getting accused of running > away and hiding and denying, LOLL, well, it is interesting to note that > no one accuses me of this, except for you. Perhaps not. Maybe I'm the only one who cares to figure out just what you are saying. I don't think you're a jerk or too forceful and I sure don't think you swear too much (?). I do think you have some frustrating habits you engage in when posting and it's starting to appear to me that all of them amount to not wanting to plant a flag in the ground and delinate what you actually think except in very broad terms. > I mean, do you even KNOW me? :) I know you from your posts. You want to post your opinions on Usenet, you become known by them. > Oh, strike 5. (And your silly propensity to count "strikes" whenever you encounter something you don't care for.) >> If you don't want to be misunderstood or misquoted, give us some >> clue: what the hell does a "de facto ban" actually *MEAN*?!? > > You know what annoys ME? When people have a personal issue > and they use 'we' and 'us' instead of 'me' and 'I' to cover up their > personal issues and lend some credence to their POV. Fine. Point taken. At least I don't refer to an "obvious" response to something someone else said and try to pretend everybody else on the newsgroup knows what it is. It's another tactic for pretending to say something without actually saying anything. > I think WE are done here. ;) Sure. Fred

XZealot schrieb: >> Has any one else noticed this too? I'm not one for banning cards for a >> frivolous reason (and I was running 3 Shifts in my deck sunday) but >> maybe this one has outlived it's usefulness. > > I think that with existance of "high impact weenies" (weenie vote, > weenie pre, weenie dom, weenie dem) that Parity Shift is the ONLY card > that keeps large caps competitve. > > It is the only card in the game that lets you dig yourself out of a > hole and survive a high impact weenie predator. > > The reason that there were so many played at the NAC is because of the > prevalence of high impact weenies on EVERY TABLE (Rumor was that Ruben > swept a 5 player table on turn 5 in one game). True. By playing Last Stand and recycling it 3 times he ousted everybody in one turn which was turn 5. It was a very high risk - high yield play though, one more wake, Delaying whatever hickup would have been very bad for him. Still very impressive. Last Stand was certainly key here, it is a highly underrated card. > I think there should be a Parity Shift for every sect. That is a very good idea IMHO. Although I would like to see something that fits with the background of the sect.

librarian wrote: > Orpheus wrote: >> squidalot wrote: >>> You're only seeing so many parity shifts now because players have a >>> truckload of new princes and justicars to play them. >> >> No, it's been going on for years. You're right only for places with >> lots of new players. >> > > Disagree. 3 decks in continental finals feature PS? It's because the > new P & J's are shiny. Including the old Nosfes ? Those decks have made it big in Europe for, like, 4 years. Nothing new, even if the new Princes shine. > I for one am very happy to see NosRoyalty becoming a very popular > decktype (as opposed to mildly popular that they used to be). See above. But maybe that wasn't the case where you're playing. > Would > like to see other Nos archetypes move up, but will settle for what > there is now. And !Nos would be nice, but we'd neeed a good Sabbat vote... ;) Orph

agzocgud wrote: > I remember a similar discussion about 5th tradition some years ago, > before it got nerfed. 5th was dominating the tournament scene, a > boring type of deck, bla bla bla and !Malks with derange (a really > expensive card) seemed like the only way to beat them. At first there > was some complains about the errata, but in long run the game > improved. I belive that we can live without parity shift. > > With both 5th and 2nd erratum, PTO and Parity Shift banned Not yet lol. the cammy > could use some reinforcements to their sects card (even though Alastor > was a great addition). I would like some cards that involve the > primogen. Perhaps some cards that are good if you control a prince, > and great if you also control a primogen. great idea ! Something for the Bishops would be nice too. > I trust that LSJ will find a solution. People are still playing blood > dolls. Ah, such faith...

On Oct 7, 11:28 pm, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: > Yup. Great ban there, Kevin. I take it none of the people who played > at the NAC who were the targets of Parity Shifts actually had to take > any damage, then. To be fair to Kevin here, I suspect his point was that by not reprinting it, it is kind of a half assed ban that only affects the new people. And if one were to follow the logical path set up by not reprinting it, it should be actually banned, so that the new people who don't have it aren't vastly disadvantaged compared to the people old people who do have it. As noted, I for one, don't need to see it banned in an absolute sense. Although to be fair, if it *isn't* reprinted real soon like, it should be just on the "make the game fair for new players" level. That being said, if banning Parity Shift would enable a new replacement Parity Shift (see: my earlier example of Blarity Blift, which stole 3 pool and you had to give it to at least 2 players) that was far more reasonable, ban away. I don't think the *idea* of Parity Shift is a bad one. I just think the actual implementation is way over the top. I mean, if you just make X a maximum of 3, you have a totally reasonable card. Or just make X 3. Or something. 'Cause the added cost (P or J and target with more pool) while stiff, doesn't really justify making your target lose 5 pool when the standard vote action makes them lose 3 *and* give you 5 pool at the same time. The swing is just too huge. And on a conceptual front as an aside, I'm not sure why the Camarilla get to Parity Shift and the Sabbat don't. What is it about taking pool from you and giving it to me that is Camarilla specific? -Peter

So I wasn't at the NAC, I didn't see the horror of Parity Shift, but I would be very sad if they card were banned. I think there is precedence to make it once per game when compared to the other cards which are OPG as listed above by Kevin M. Personally I think it would be more interesting to alter the vote as: Choose a Methuselah who has more pool than you, distribute 1 pool from the chosen Methuselah to each Methuselah who has less pool than the chosen Methuselah. That change really helps I think, it can have the drastic hit people love it for, but it doesn't give all the benefit to you, it also stops some of the silly pool reduction tricks that make the card abusive. Again I wasn't there. David Wilson

IMHO, no ban needed, just errata. I kinda like the "Once per turn" approach.

[ quoted text not captured ] It's a totally different card you're speaking of. Nice, though. At least, it would be a nice card without Parity Shift, or if PS was once/game/player. See, the diversity would be better served by tuning down PS. Orph

On Oct 8, 3:34 am, Johannes Walch <johannes.wa...@vekn.de> wrote: > > True. By playing Last Stand and recycling it 3 times he ousted everybody > in one turn which was turn 5. Ruben recycled Last Stand 3 times to sweep the table on turn 5? I didn't hear that part of the story. Wow. Ruben is totally broken. And that's an awesome play. -Ben Swainbank

On Oct 7, 8:43 pm, Juggernaut1981 <brasscompo...@gmail.com> wrote: > And you know what... if you have the DI, Nerf the VoterCap and see how > happy THAT camper is... The Shifting player will still be very happy, as he'll have managed a swing of ten pool. Voter Cap is generally unnecessary, and quite possibly actively counterproductive, in decks that focus on Parity Shift. John Eno

On Oct 7, 6:32 pm, librarian <aucti...@superfuncards.com> wrote: > Disagree. 3 decks in continental finals feature PS? It's because the > new P & J's are shiny. Two of those three weren't using the new princes and justicars, though, so I'm not sure how your argument here is supposed to make sense. John Eno

On Oct 7, 6:43 pm, Juggernaut1981 <brasscompo...@gmail.com> wrote: > I suspect this is all a knee-jerk reaction to a day where everyone > cracked out their KoT Prince Decks...- Hide quoted text - And we have a winner!!!!!!!!! Show me that Parity Shift was frequently played (and dominated) the full WoN tournament environment (or any tournament environment, for that matter) and I'll consider the case that the card is overpowered and requires some attention. Since I don't think I saw more than 1 Parity Shift played Monday- Saturday (though I know they were in the frequently-seen Mary Anne Blair decks), I find it hard support any case that Parity Shifting is equivalent to god-mode. I will agree that the card is on the top of the power curve, but far more games were won by the late game [DOM]-waddle than by any amount mid-to-late game Parity Shifting. It's in NAC day 2 that voting decks appear - the mad "VP to qualify" rush is over, decks that take longer to develop are more viable and titles/voting become more prevalent. It's been that way every year since the 2-day format was introduced. D.

On Oct 8, 9:28 am, Ben Swainbank <bswainb...@gmail.com> wrote: > Ruben recycled Last Stand 3 times to sweep the table on turn 5? I > didn't hear that part of the story. Wow. Ruben is totally broken. And > that's an awesome play. It is solid. I also say him play the SAME Pentex twice in a turn and still have a master phase left to use (Pentex - Wash, Anthelios for Pentex, Pentex via Rumors of Gehenna, 1 Master action remaining with untapped Parthenon). Uncoiling In Every Deck

Wow.... just wow.... sometimes when I read these threads it seems more like a verbal assault fest or argument of sorts.... Although I do understand having different opinions or point of views. I just wish rather than being rude, harsh, or using verbal diarrhea that people would be more considerate of others and ask for clarification or simply be more mature. Not name calling and we are all human, but it sort of takes the thread off topic and discourages more constructive conversation. Parity shift is the singular most powerful vote card bar none due to it's 10 pool swing. While others are strong, they are usually only strong in a given scenario. What I don't get as a new player is why doesn't White Wolf either ban the card or reprint it so newer players don't suffer (plus who likes high priced cards so we can relate it to our Magic days as teenagers?). To errata the card would nearly take the card out of the game (or maybe 1 per game isn't a bad idea). I find it hard enough to try and get old crypt cards let alone old uncommons and rares (ie. Deflection). Speaking of which I would love it if they would reprint the old Sabbat cards like they did for Camarilla in Blood Shadowed Court. Well, .... no matter what White Wolf does I hope they do it soon. -Rodd

On Oct 9, 8:24 pm, RoddPrime <roddpr...@gmail.com> wrote: > What I don't get as a new player is why > doesn't White Wolf either ban the card or reprint it so newer players > don't suffer (plus who likes high priced cards so we can relate it to > our Magic days as teenagers?). LSJ has said that there were legal issues surrounding reprints of some older cards. Something to do with the artwork. John Eno

On Oct 9, 8:24 pm, RoddPrime <roddpr...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Parity shift is the singular most powerful vote card bar none due to > it's 10 pool swing. While others are strong, they are usually only > strong in a given scenario > -Rodd Parity Shift does require a given scenario. You must have a prince or justicar, less pool than the player you're targeting, able to push the action through, able to push the vote through and have it be a five player table for the 10 pool swing. A con ag does one less pool damage with the added flexibility of not requiring to meet two of the four requirements and the added flexibility of assigning pool damage.

Drace wrote: > On Oct 9, 8:24 pm, RoddPrime <roddpr...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> Parity shift is the singular most powerful vote card bar none due to >> it's 10 pool swing. While others are strong, they are usually only >> strong in a given scenario >> -Rodd > > Parity Shift does require a given scenario. You must have a prince or > justicar, less pool than the player you're targeting, able to push the > action through, able to push the vote through and have it be a five > player table for the 10 pool swing. A con ag does one less pool > damage with the added flexibility of not requiring to meet two of the > four requirements and the added flexibility of assigning pool damage. 1 less point on your prey, twice less pool swing. There is just no possible comparison, requirements or not. Orph

"Orpheus" <orpheus....@free.fr> wrote in message [ quoted text not captured ] Erm, yes there is and he made a pretty good one :) Also consider that you can follow one with another, often a very easy thing to do when you know no intercept, vote lock etc. Often not the case with Parity Shift due to the limits of the card. Means extra cycling, extra cards, extra dead prey.

On Oct 10, 8:55 am, Johann von Doom <invisibleking...@gmail.com> wrote: > LSJ has said that there were legal issues surrounding reprints of some > older cards. Something to do with the artwork. > > John Eno I don't see how it would be difficult to get new artwork for those older cards. It's not like WW don't need to get new artwork for every new card they create, so a few extra wouldn't be too hard. I know at least one person has volunteered to make new artwork for such cards completely free of charge. In fact, I think if WW started a competition among VtES players, called "Do you want to make the new artwork for Parity Shift?", there would be plenty of people who would put together artwork worthy of its place on a card. So I think, if artwork issues are the only hindrance in this matter we should be able to expect reprints fairly soon. Which I believe is a good thing.

On Oct 10, 4:57 am, "Rob Treasure" <robtreas...@hotmail.com> wrote: > "Orpheus" <orpheus.TAKEOU...@free.fr> wrote in message [ quoted text not captured ] Reply to Rob Treasure: There may be requirements of Parity Shift, but it is so strong of a card people are willing to make it work and base it as the main vote card. I would say given the NAC finals that it worked out just fine for many players. Regardless most of the people on this thread can agree it is a very powerful card (I am not trying to say it should be banned as I trust White Wolf in whatever they do, but it obviously is a hot topic). And thanks for the tip on the legalities John. Hopefully White Wolf comes up with something (similar new card, ban, reprint, etc.). If they want to do something I am sure they can as Viking pointed out.

The problem seems to be that, since Parity Shift has been out of ciculation since CE, while some of the later players are obviously aware of the card, it's not something that they prepare for in their normal casual/ semi-casual metagame. There hasn't been a hard focus on the Camarilla for several years either, between CE and KoT. In that time, without Parity Shift and without the Cam vampires available (well, I haven't played for a while to know if BSC made an impact), players wouldn't sit at tables with 3-4 Cam princes decks and wouldn't need to really prepare for it to enjoy their games. This is a card that has been a part of the game since the very beginning. It's a little surprising that people still see it as a problem that needs a fix. If it truly needed to be fixed, wouldn't it have been fixed already at some point in the past 12+ years? Practically every decktype has some available answer to Parity Shift, be it intercept, action cancel, vote cancel, votes, rush, etc... You can also play around Parity Shift, if you are the prey, by trying to keep under your predator. It's an action that the prince/ justicar must take himself, opening himself to intercept and combat, possibly being burned. The player must make a significant pool investment to get things running and is in trouble if unpleasantry befalls that investment. A 7-10 pool investment that needs some stealth and some way of surviving a fight. Parity Shift vs. the weenies is a significant balance issue that needs to be addressed by those who see the card as a problem. The exclusivity of Parity Shift to Camarilla is not a concerning issue. A 1 cap can call a KRC for 4 pool damage. Parity Shift needs a likely 7+ cap prince/ justicar to do 5 pool damage, but is also contingent on so many other factors and perhaps can't target the players you want to target, and you will seldom be able to call so many on the same target. If a 1 cap is removed, any other vampire can call that KRC. If your prince is removed or loses his title, your vote, your stealth, your vote push and your vote cap all sit in your hand. Cheers, Dai

Dai wrote: > This is a card that has been a part of the game since the very > beginning. It's a little surprising that people still see it as a > problem that needs a fix. If it truly needed to be fixed, wouldn't it > have been fixed already at some point in the past 12+ years? Not necessarily.

"RoddPrime" <rodd...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:ea8fc540-7315-4e0e...@j39g2000yqh.googlegroups.com... > Parity shift is the singular most powerful vote card bar none due to > it's 10 pool swing. While others are strong, they are usually only > strong in a given scenario. What I don't get as a new player is why > doesn't White Wolf either ban the card or reprint it so newer players > don't suffer (plus who likes high priced cards so we can relate it to > our Magic days as teenagers?). The issue of why a card is or isn't reprinted kind of boils down to reading the minds of people at White Wolf who make these decisions. I've noticed they seldom ever talk about what leads them to ever make any individual reprint-or-not-reprint decision so we have to speculate about them. I think some of it boils down to that they don't really want to reprint every card because it undercuts the collectibility of older sets (and hence a current set's collectibility - since it will someday become an "older set") and because the more work you spend reprinting older cards, the less time you have to spend on newer cards - which are what sell the most. So if they don't want to reprint all cards, some of them have to not be reprinted. Which ones are those? You'd think they'd reprint all the real important cards but they don't always seem to. Again, this may be to avoid undercutting the collectibility of older sets. If you're guranteed that every card of importance will always be reprinted, you don't need to work that hard to get an older copy. You can just kick back and wait until they reprint it. But if you're not really sure, then maybe you'd better work on getting a copy now before the existing supply gets even older and harder to find. Or maybe they will reprint it - but not anytime soon, in which case making the choice to wait will cause you to have to do without for an unknown period of time. All of these factors will cause players to value older sets more than if White Wolf reprints every significant card on a timely basis. Another reason could be simply that it's very hard to make these decisions without leaving out an important candidate for repriting from time to time. Are they really so organized about their reprint decisions that they're aware when a card like Parity Shift is passing through the net? Quite possibly not. Or maybe they're in process of evaluting the card. It's not much of a stretch to think Parity Shift is on the "watch list" of cards to consider banning or altering. If so, they may be reluctant to reprint it just before it's a about to be changed or banned. Or maybe the problem is the artwork. Although not being able to use the existing artwork ultimately doesn't prevent them from reprinting a card, getting new artwork that's appropriate to the card may be a P-I-T-A and tend to cause them to hold back on reprinting it in any particular set. Other problems are also possible. One would have expected Parity Shift to get reprinted in Keepers of Tradition and maybe it had been slated to be reprinted in that set - then got scrubbed at the last minute due to any number of technical problems. The bottom line is, there's all sorts of possible reasons. We may never know which ones apply unless Parity Shift is banned in December for next year or reprinted in Heirs to the Blood. And even then, I doubt we'll know that much more. *shrug* > To errata the card would nearly take > the card out of the game (or maybe 1 per game isn't a bad idea). That depends on the errata. I always hate it when they reprint a card like Tomb of Ramses III to go from overpowered to pretty much total dreck. On the other hand, I'm not that keen when they errata a card in a way that really doesn't mean very much - like the blood cost to untap in Second Tradition. That just means the older copies of Second Tradition don't have the right card text but, at the same time, the errata didn't accomplish much of anything. The best errata I've ever seen (apart from WwEF) is Mind Rape. They took a truly overpowered card and turned it into something that's still quite interesting and useful but much more reasonable. Fred

Perhaps we should make Parity Shift Justicar-only, instead of Justicar/ Prince.

On Oct 10, 3:28 am, Drace <chrysanthemumdr...@gmail.com> wrote: > Parity Shift does require a given scenario. You must have a prince or > justicar, less pool than the player you're targeting, Not true. There only needs to be *someone* on the table with less pool than your target. That's not often a difficult qualification to meet. > able to push the > action through, able to push the vote through Often, this is made possible without the use of any other cards, by simply using the vote to give pool away to other players with votes. I'm not arguing that Parity Shift is too powerful, because I'm not convinced that it is. But I think it's much more easily used than you're making it seem. John Eno

On Oct 7, 10:46 am, "Orpheus" <orpheus.TAKEOU...@free.fr> wrote: > My answer : the only real Sabbat vote deck that can win on a regular basis > is the Pander vote, because of one funky clan vote and of the mass weenie > effect. This doesn't affect Sabbat as a whole. Big cap Lasombra with PRE has always seemed pretty viable to me. They've got the usual DOM/OBT powerful bleed going on, and Tap/push/VC to bloat as well as anything else in the game. Granted, they are usually throwing "vanilla" votes like KRC, but "Govern at stealth" is pretty vanilla, too. Still damn effective, though. -- David Cherryholmes

On Oct 8, 6:13 am, "Orpheus" <orpheus.TAKEOU...@free.fr> wrote: > And !Nos would be nice, but we'd neeed a good Sabbat vote... ;) Just springboarding off your comment, but I'd like to see some cards that might lend some impetus to bully-vote. If the Sabbat were going to have a "style" of voting, I'd like to see something like that. "I call this vote. If you step in the way of it, I will wreck you." I think Truth of Blood is an excellent example of a card that gives bully-bleed a bit of a boost. Maybe there could be something like that for a vote. Heck, now that I think about it, just copy that and print a vote that says "if this vote is blocked, the controller of the blocking minion discards two cards at random from his hand." And make it Sabbat. -- David Cherryholmes

"Johann von Doom" <invisibl...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:692288cd-d4b2-4326...@o41g2000yqb.googlegroups.com... On Oct 10, 3:28 am, Drace <chrysanthemumdr...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Parity Shift does require a given scenario. You must have a prince or > > justicar, less pool than the player you're targeting, > > Not true. There only needs to be *someone* on the table with less pool > than your target. That's not often a difficult qualification to meet. Huh? I'm trying to figure this comment out. If the target has equal to or less than the pool of the person calling the vote, he can't be the target of the vote. Are you understanding Parity Shift incorrectly or am I? > > able to push the > > action through, able to push the vote through > > Often, this is made possible without the use of any other cards, by > simply using the vote to give pool away to other players with votes. That part is right, on the other hand. As long as you can target the guy you want to target, you can give his pool as bribes to people for voting with you. Of course, then you don't get the pool so it's not as good. Fred

Johann von Doom <invisibl...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Oct 10, 3:28�am, Drace <chrysanthemumdr...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Parity Shift does require a given scenario. �You must have a prince or > > justicar, less pool than the player you're targeting, > Not true. There only needs to be *someone* on the table with less pool > than your target. That's not often a difficult qualification to meet. You've got it backwards, John. There needs to be someone on the table with more pool than *you* when the action is announced, and someone on the table with more pool than you when the action is unblocked. They need not be the same Methuselah (and sometimes you might be _forced_ to switch targets). If the action is legal at announcement but there are *no* legal targets at "unblocked", then it fizzles.

On Oct 11, 11:13 am, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: > Huh? I'm trying to figure this comment out. If the target has equal > to or less than the pool of the person calling the vote, he can't be > the target of the vote. Are you understanding Parity Shift incorrectly > or am I? On Oct 11, 11:28 am, Jozxyqk <jfeue...@eecs.tufts.edu> wrote: > You've got it backwards, John. > There needs to be someone on the table with more pool than *you* when the > action is announced, and someone on the table with more pool than you > when the action is unblocked. They need not be the same Methuselah (and > sometimes you might be _forced_ to switch targets). If the action is > legal at announcement but there are *no* legal targets at "unblocked", then > it fizzles. Oh, you guys are still using the OLD version of Parity Shift rather than the one I had LSJ write up for me at the NAC. I guess you should've come to the event to get your own copies of the new-and- improved. John Eno

On Oct 11, 9:04 am, dcherryholmes <david.cherryhol...@gmail.com> wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] Here here! I like the idea of Bruise-Vote... For Example: Political Militia Action Mod Requires Archbishop, Priscus, Cardinal or Regent Only usable before votes are cast on a political action. May be played before the referendum. After the resolution of this political action, this vampire may enter combat with a minion that cast 1 or more votes against this referendum. Or, this vampire may burn 1 blood to allow another younger Sabbat vampire you control to enter combat with a minion that cast 1 or more votes against this referendum. If this political action failed, the minion entering combat gains an optional press during the first round of combat.

On Oct 11, 5:31 pm, Juggernaut1981 <brasscompo...@gmail.com> wrote: > Political Militia > Action Mod > Requires Archbishop, Priscus, Cardinal or Regent > Only usable before votes are cast on a political action. > May be played before the referendum. > After the resolution of this political action, this vampire may enter > combat with a minion that cast 1 or more votes against this > referendum. Or, this vampire may burn 1 blood to allow another > younger Sabbat vampire you control to enter combat with a minion that > cast 1 or more votes against this referendum. If this political > action failed, the minion entering combat gains an optional press > during the first round of combat. Pretty sweet idea. Could be combined with my idea, too, for a pretty intimidating referendum. -- David Cherryholmes