Contestation

Does anyone else seem to be contesting alot? I have had 4 Contestations on a lynchpin vampire recently (4 different vampires Tariq, Ambrogino Giovanni, Muaziz, and Henri Lavent). What would be a simple change that would be effective. A) A Bidding system that occurs right there. B) Elimiating Contesting for Vampires (still can't play with 2 of them in your own ready region) C) Making it so that you only get control of them every other turn (i.e. pass the vampire to the right when you untap them from being tapped) D) Making it so that both get control of the same vampire (i.e. pass the vampire to the left) Anyone else think of any other ideas? Comments Welcome, Norman S. Brown, Jr XZealot Archon of the Swamp

Norm wrote: > Does anyone else seem to be contesting alot? I have had 4 > Contestations on a lynchpin vampire recently (4 different vampires > Tariq, Ambrogino Giovanni, Muaziz, and Henri Lavent). What would be a > simple change that would be effective. Play with different vampires. ;) - Ben

[ quoted text not captured ] play with existing cards such as Praxis:Solomon, Thanks for the Donation and Clio's Kiss and turn the situation to your advantage.

[ quoted text not captured ] I always felt the penalty for vampire contestation was horrid. At low levels or late in the game, it's not so bad (or likely), but early on, it can just suck. And that they're locked. That's just as bad. At the least, you should be able to transfer off these vampires. My list of potential changes would be... a) Pool for vampire contestation comes from the vampire, but transfers can be made to the vampire from pool. b) Pool for the vampire contestation comes from pool, but transfers can be made from the vampire to pool. c) Methuselah giving up contestation gains pool equal to half blood on the vampire they own. Just something. The "I spend X pool AND X transfers to influence out Arika/Marcus/Cailean, and get nothing" is too harsh. Especially if it's your first vampire and have any kind of predator. Morgan Vening

Morgan Vening wrote: > Just something. The "I spend X pool AND X transfers to influence out > Arika/Marcus/Cailean, and get nothing" is too harsh. Especially if > it's your first vampire and have any kind of predator. Well, if it's Arika, it's not too harsh. She deserves it. :-) Anyway, contesting doesn't happen by accident. If you've put someone in the position where "getting nothing" themselves (by spending X to bring out the vampire to contest yours) that early in the game is playing to win, well, that would be odd.

[ quoted text not captured ] I've seen it happen on accident... At least for the first turn... How about a master card... Dooperganger Master Place this card on the contested vampire you control, and return it into play. You are still contesting this vampire. You may not yield the contest of this vampire. The One and Only Master Place this card on the vampire you control. When a second vampire that would contest this vampire, burn the second vampire instead of contesting this vampire. Burn all copies of this vampire from your Crypt and uncontrolled area, this vampire gains X blood and 1 capacity, where X number of copies burnt this way.

kula...@gmail.com wrote: > On Jun 13, 10:55 am, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: >> Morgan Vening wrote: >>> Just something. The "I spend X pool AND X transfers to influence out >>> Arika/Marcus/Cailean, and get nothing" is too harsh. Especially if >>> it's your first vampire and have any kind of predator. >> Well, if it's Arika, it's not too harsh. She deserves it. :-) >> >> Anyway, contesting doesn't happen by accident. >> >> If you've put someone in the position where "getting nothing" themselves (by >> spending X to bring out the vampire to contest yours) that early in the game is >> playing to win, well, that would be odd. > > I've seen it happen on accident... At least for the first turn... I doubt if that is playing to win. How difficult is it to follow along with game play for the first turn? But OK. Retstated: contesting doesn't happen by chance.

[ quoted text not captured ] Okay, I asked for that, but who else plays a Tariq, Ambrogino Giovanni, Muaziz, and Henri Lavent deck? It's the new Malk '94! [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] Does anyone really plan for this? I've built a contestation deck, based around Thanks for the Donation, Democritus, and Political Seizure. Trust me, as exciting and dynamic of a strategy as it sounds, it wasn't great. [ quoted text not captured ]

XZealot wrote: > On Jun 13, 11:58 am, stan...@hotmail.com wrote: >> On Jun 13, 12:30 pm, XZealot <xzea...@cox.net> wrote: >>> Does anyone else seem to be contesting alot? >> play with existing cards such as Praxis:Solomon, Thanks for the >> Donation and Clio's Kiss and turn the situation to your advantage. > > Does anyone really plan for this? If it happens "a lot", it might be something to plan for.

[ quoted text not captured ] that was exactly my point, you say you see it happening a lot, go with those cards. 1 card might be a vote card so that can alawys be difficult to pass, but 3 of 4 vampires you mention have dominate so chances are that others might as well.

[ quoted text not captured ] same here it was those ones and clio's kiss, the deck was called Kiss the Baby you know political stuff, Clio's Kiss. But yeah it wasn't the strongest strategy.

Interesting to see a change of perspective considering your take in this thread: http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/browse_frm/thread/e03a36f377649b7c Time to revisit the idea? I am not going to reread the other thread, but here are some ideas which have come to me (which might be repeats). * Contested vampires are NOT out of play, but they may not act or cast votes. They could react, block, or play combat cards however. * Meths have the option to pay for contested vampires using pool or any blood on the vampire. * During your influence phase, if another Methuselah controls a unique vampire you have in your uncontrolled region, you may remove this vampire from the game and redistribute all the blood from this vampire to others in your uncontrolled region. * During your untap phase, *ANY* Methuselah may pay 1 pool to contest a card on your behalf. Others? Jeff [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] We haven't seen contestation happen often, I'll admit. But most contestations happen thusly. Turn 1. Player 3 : Influence 3 to their Vampire A. Player 5: Influence 4 to their Vampire B. Turn 2 : Player 2 : Influence 4 to their Vampire A. Player 5: Influence 4 to their Vampire B. Turn 3 Player 2 : Influence 3/4 to Vampire A. Vampire A comes into play. Player 5 : Aww, dagnabit! Nothing intentional. But one player (at least) is going to get spanked. A player investing his first 2 turns and 6-8 pool on a vampire he either has to transfer off, or influence out, can't use (contestation RFP), hurts two players one of which will be hurt majorly, and is just plain screwed. And can be majorly concerning if there's at least one faster deck behind the players contesting. It's one thing to choose to contest as a calculated opportunity. It's another to just get screwed with placement. Happens enough already with bad matchups (Tariq behind Imbued, Large-Vote behind Weenie Intercept). When it happens crosstable too, it's meh. And for the record, had one 4-player game go Player 3: 3 On Arika. Player 4: Dreams, 5 on Arika. Player 3: 4 on Arika for total 7, plays Dreams to contest. Player 4: Zillahs, 6 on Arika, Arika in play. 2 on Marcus. 1 contest. Player 3: 4 on Marcus. 1 contest. Player 4: Govern to Marcus, 7 on Marcus. 1 contest. Player 3: 4 on Marcus. 1 contest. Player 4: Govern to Marcus, Marcus in play. Gives up contest DotS. Player 3 had a real fun time, given he had a mid-cap deck behind him. I was lucky. I was player 4. Morgan Vening

On 13 jun, 22:42, Jeff Kuta <jeff.k...@gmail.com> wrote: > Interesting to see a change of perspective considering your take in > this thread: > > http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/browse_f... [ quoted text not captured ] > > Archon of the Swamp- Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht niet weergeven - > > - Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht weergeven - I just played a game where Wes and i came to an agreement: I would play a temptation on his Saqqaf (both mine and his star) and he would leave him low on blood. That way we could both play him... I am starting to dislike the current contesting rules for vampires more and more... Yeah, ofcourse i could have played other (sub-par) vampires to be sure i don't contest,... but the chances are rather slim that i will contest, so that's not a good enough reason to do so. But if it DOES happen, you are fcked, and just wasted about an hour on a lost game, because someone else came to the table with your vamp. I mean, the chances are small, but if it happens to an important vampire of your deck you lost just because someone by accident plays the same vamp. And you didnt just lose, but you also lost the option to play the game, and instead are set into "wait out this game, and hope everyone feels like playing another one". I would like to see a contestation rule that is harsh, but at least lets you play the game. Pay 2 pool per turn, but be able to use your vamp? i like the option of having the vamp from your untap until your preys untap or something like that, W

<Jab...@gmail.com> wrote > > I just played a game where Wes and i came to an agreement: > I would play a temptation on his Saqqaf (both mine and his star) and > he would leave him low on blood. That way we could both play him... That was actually a very interesting scenario; the Temptation let us both play with Saqqaf, and we both had an incentive to keep him alive and in good shape. I liked that we were forced to work together, and yet both had good reasons to mess with each other in the long run. Made for an intriguing Prisoner's Dilemma of sorts. Making the rules such that a permanent Temptation-like effect was in play would make for a much more satisfying, albeit harsh, alternative to the current rules for contestation. Here's the link to the game, if anyone wants to see how it worked out: http://deckserver.net:8080/jol3/jt2007c6 (I've already been ousted by Colin at this point, unfortunately.) > Yeah, ofcourse i could have played other (sub-par) vampires to be sure > i don't contest,... I don't think too many people even play with Saqqaf. We're both just woefully unlucky whenever we sit down at a table together, heh. Cheers, WES

XZealot a écrit : > Does anyone else seem to be contesting alot? I have had 4 > Contestations on a lynchpin vampire recently (4 different vampires > Tariq, Ambrogino Giovanni, Muaziz, and Henri Lavent). What would be a > simple change that would be effective. I have to say i really like the way vapires do contest. It's part of the game and should not be changed. Players can talk before influencing (which happen often in my playgroup), but they can also keep the information for themselves and influence out vampire on purpose to thwart their prey/predator's plans ! It' s sometime a blessing to be able to contest your prey's vamp with all the equipment/abbot stuff on him :) > A) A Bidding system that occurs right there. A That would be a nice proposition, since it does not actually changes the contesting game and create a pool loss for keeping the vamp. > B) Elimiating Contesting for Vampires (still can't play with 2 of them > in your own ready region) B i vote against ^^ > C) Making it so that you only get control of them every other turn > (i.e. pass the vampire to the right when you untap them from being > tapped) > D) Making it so that both get control of the same vampire (i.e. pass > the vampire to the left) C&D this sounds like crap :/ what if the vamp is banished ? bought via hostile takeover ? too many questions will arise, and some loopholes will certainly abused :/ The bidding system may be cool ! I imagine something like : when you influence the vamp to contest it, flip both vamps face down, and you pay one pool. The other methuselah can then also pay 1 to keep it. You can pay one more... and so on. The first to decline to pay will lose the vamp. But as usual, a deck with quick pool gain like "i tap for 5, kine / minion tap" will have the advantage over a fighter. So it's still unfair. The old method is quite annoying, but providing you are not contesting an 11 cap, you have plenty of time to find a solution like gaining pool or ganging on the contesting methuselah. Anyway, i'd rather leave the system as it is. r.

[ quoted text not captured ] Thing is, you generally dont contest the weenies. Its almost always 7 cap or larger. And if its cross table, it screws the game up badly. It is something that i agree could be done in a better way, but i have no idea how. The idea of only being unable to contest with yourself is good, but what happens if Meth A & B both have Arika, and she mind rapes herself? Does she implode in a paradoxical puff of sunshine?