New card idea, sabbat parity shift

So, I've run this idea through the Stockholm playgroup and reactions have been as follows: first "it's too strong" after some discussion "it's too weak". So what does the internet say? Community of Cain Political Card - Worth 1 Vote. Called by any archbishop or Cardinal at +1 stealth. Choose a Methuselah. Sum both your pool and split it evenly among you, if the total amount is odd the split is done to your favor. Flavortext: What? thats communism! - Neonate forced into the communal haven. I'm not totally clear on the wording yet but the idea is there. So some points for the discussion. Parityshift has 5 main points in my opinion: 1. It does not create pool, it only redestributes it. 2. It does not remove pool, it only redestributes it. 3. It is a card that makes for aggressive play, but does not oust in itself very often. 4. It lessens in power as the game progresses. 5. It's often a defensive card used to counter early pooldamage So lets evaluate these cards beside each other. A 5man parityshift does a total pooleffect of 10 (5 lost, 5 gained across table), for this card to have the same total effect it would have to be played at a difference of 10 vs 20 pool for example (ergo not too powerful). The power of a card like this would be conditional, while at the same time very effective in many situations. Normal games don't usually have that large pooldifference between methuselas and it take extremely aggressive play to make this card have a larger effect than parityshift, while at the same time this card would lose power as the game progresses since usually pool sizes decrease during games. Give me your thoughts, have at me Ivan - Maybe this?

Sorry to say but don't like this card at all. It doesn't feel like sabbat vote. Also I think sabbat don't need parity shift just some strong vote which fits for sabbat. My biggest problem with this card is the possible huge game effect with one vote. I can see this vote going to crosstable many times. Crosstable player with 20 pool and you with 5 pool doesn't happen every game but this vote changes the whole table balance with just one action. You can also totally ruin the game for one player with this card. Usually pool sizes decrease during games but not everytime evenly with players and when it doesn't happen evenly this card will mess the table.

I like it. Sabbat needs something like this. Sure, it gets kind of bad if you at 3 pool target someone with 17 pool, especially if it´s crosstable, but I do not think that is a big problem. Let the playtesting begin playtesters! "My strategy? Luck is my strategy, of course."

Super Powerful in a deck with Zubeida (made Cardinal), Scout Youngwood and Dmitra. Careful playtest will prove this to be true.

Should at least limit it to only targeting prey, and add priscus and regent to the list of titles that can be used to call it. Overall though I really don't like this card since it basically punishes people for playing well and rewards you for playing poorly. Like imagine that you have been bled down to 3 pool, crosstable there is a girls deck with 30+ pool. Now do the math.

I'm really not comfortable handing our Parity Shift -like cards to the sects left and right. For example, Sabbat has like tens of different cards requiring Sabbat giving all kinds of nifty abilities and things whereas there's just few odd cards requiring Camarilla. All animals should not be equal. Finnish Politics!

> Klaital wrote: > Should at least limit it to only targeting prey, and add priscus and regent to the list of titles that can be used to call it. Overall though I really don't like this card since it basically punishes people for playing well and rewards you for playing poorly. Like imagine that you have been bled down to 3 pool, crosstable there is a girls deck with 30+ pool. Now do the math. > First: So you don´t like it, but more titles should be able to play it? Second: Parity shift also "punishes people for playing well", by your logic. I tend to think of it as "awarding people for playing well", ie the one who plays aggressively and with good timing. And I think it´s ok to whack that stupid Girls-deck crosstable - those decks are too strong. "My strategy? Luck is my strategy, of course."

> Myrdin wrote: > Give me your thoughts, have at me > It reminds me Dramatic Upheaval where one vote could change the whole table dynamics in an unpredictable way and would force players to play accordingly, ie. very carefully, leading to deadlocks. Like Surreal, I don't like the card at all. Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

> Myrdin wrote: > So, I've run this idea through the Stockholm playgroup and reactions have been as follows: first "it's too strong" after some discussion "it's too weak". > It's both. At times when it works, it would totally turn a table on its head. At other points, it'll just be clogging your hand. There's nothing inherently wrong with cards that can turn out badly for you - lots of cards are like that. But it's the table-on-its-head aspect that you want to examine. Personally, my gut instinct is that when it works, it will probably be off the scale, for my tastes. It's also not that hard to exploit. It seems like it would get decks trying to 'abuse' it with things like Zillah's Valley, Info Highway etc., to bring big vampires out quickly - then steal back pool from its prey who hasn't spent it as quickly. > Ashur wrote: > First: So you don´t like it, but more titles should be able to play it? > Can't comment on Priscus, but adding Regent is a no-brainer. Regents are treated as Cardinals [10.2]. so it's just more explicit card text.

I don't like it at all, especially for the reasons mentioned by Lonkka and Surreal

I'll try to reply to most comments in this post, I'd spam too much imo if I reply to each person separately. @Surreal Feelings are hard to reason about so I'll just accept your thoughts about the sabbat'esqueness of the card =). As for gamechaging effects, alot of votes have this effect, net gains and net loss for votes are usually quite large. Comaparing the effect of 5 vs. 20 pool, even though imo it's an extreme case it would come up at times. The change would be to put the players at 13 resp 12 pool, a net gain and loss of 7 resp 8 pool. Total change is then 15 pool which is large. As for being game changing I agree but then so are Ancilla Empowerment or Anarchist Uprising, both would in a normal game net as much pooleffect (5 players 3 minions each). The usefulness in these cases are limited though for player strategy, i.e. how low would you need to put yourself to make this play effectively often. It would then be a one-off card which would mean that it's a last minute resort and you can't build around it, you then put a few in "just in case" but the chance of drawing into it at the right moment is minor and it would make the card cornercase. @Ashur It's not only for offensive use mind you, defensively you could feed someone in risk of being ousted at the cost of your own pool =) @Brum If you consider my reasoning above about how "Big Plays" for this card since the net gain and loss requires more extreme pool management and the difficulty of making it work well, much more so than Parity Shift. With the unholy alliance of both though you could shuffle pool around the table quite effectively, that is if you're free to vote as you wish, in which case playing pure KRC's would probably be more efficient. @Klaital First off, by rules regents are always considered cardinals aswell, as for not including prisci, that was a choice I did to limit the playability. I did consider it only affecting prey, but that limits the flexibility of the card in feeding cross table etc. I was considering the early quick impact of parityshift vs the more extreme requirements for gaining the same effects in this card. I will do math to it! Case: 3 pool vs 30 pool girls will net a 17 vs 16 pool split, total of 14 gain and 14 loss for both players, a shift in balance of 28, thats alot. but then, if you willfully plan for this case to happen you are in extreme peril to a DI or delaying tactics. This would be an extreme case, lets take a more common case, 17 vs 15 parity shift earlygame 5 players, net change of 10 putting players at 12 resp 20 pool, that change midgame is much more common. As for punishing good play, i'd rather see it as punishing bloat, which is something that has been increasing alot lately with the mastercards that have become available. @Lönkka I agree that handing out Parityshifts to all sects is going to skew balance, but I for one appreciate the effects of parityshift and want more cards like it to be in the game, since there is only one of them it shifts the power of vote-decks to almost always include or be Camarilla, I very much would like to see a broader range of stable, voting archetypes. Ivan - Maybe this?

> Ankha wrote: > > > Myrdin wrote: > > Give me your thoughts, have at me > > > It reminds me Dramatic Upheaval where one vote could change the whole table dynamics in an unpredictable way and would force players to play accordingly, ie. very carefully, leading to deadlocks. > > Like Surreal, I don't like the card at all. > I do agree that it is reminiscent of Dramatic Upheaval/Kindred Restructure. But I think with a big difference. The main point of why those cards were banned was not only the annoyance of having to move your cards/counters but also that the cards were used to basically "steal" victorypoints, that was the main problem and why people were forced to play defensively, not to protect themselves but to not chip too hard at your prey since an aggressive playstyle would make you lose your victorypoint. I don't think that is a problem with this card. @jamesatzephyr This is a very valid point, the card will be cornercase alot of the game and at times it will have a huge effect. Something we need to tread carefully around and can only really be resolved during playtests imo Ivan - Maybe this?

I can very much see this card turning up in strange ways that allow you to manipulate things like the old "Kindred Restructure" tricks. If my deck can bloat well, I can use this card to push my grand-prey out of reach of my prey (by sharing my pool with my GPrey). This would then allow me to take out my prey and stop them getting their VP. Repeat and rinse with successive prey-GrandPrey combinations until I gain enough VPs to be guaranteed to win. This is just like the old trick of VP sniping by Kindred Restructure, just with a little more pool on the line and a little less reorganising. Retired Baron of Sydney, Australia, 418

Actually, the more I think of it, the more I like the card. Those decks that bloat like hell could use some tricks to play against, and it really doesn't feel too overpowered. Strong, yeah, but compared to Parity Shift? They're different, granted, but aim to achieve a similar goal, both with reasonably different means and equal effect. Liking! And yeah: Sabbat communists are always cool enough to warrant stuff like this. "Oh, to the Hades with the manners! He's a complete bastard, and calling him that insults bastards everywhere!" -Nalia De-Arnise garourimgazette.wordpress.com/ www.vekn.net/forum-guidelines

Don't fit the theme of sabbat and have awful design. Sabbat.Black Hand Shakar: Lech loathe ranged weapons. Once each action, he may burn 1 blood to become Camarilla Prince of Krakow until the end of the action.

> Lech wrote: > Don't fit the theme of sabbat > Which is? > Lech wrote: > and have awful design. > Why do you thinks so? "My strategy? Luck is my strategy, of course."

> Ashur wrote: > > > Lech wrote: > > Don't fit the theme of sabbat > > > Which is? > Sabbat have multiple themes, communism is not one of them. Fighting with Ancients, violence, freedom, clergy ties are among them. > Lech wrote: > and have awful design. > Why do you thinks so?[/quote] Community of Cain Political Card - Worth 1 Vote. Called by any archbishop or Cardinal at +1 stealth. Choose a Methuselah. Sum both your pool and split it evenly among you, if the total amount is odd the split is done to your favor. Flavortext: What? thats communism! - Neonated forced into the communal haven. Require titled vampires. Useful only if he have more pool, pool swing is likely lower than 10 so it's worse than parity shift and than krc most of the times, so it's wallpaper. Sabbat.Black Hand Shakar: Lech loathe ranged weapons. Once each action, he may burn 1 blood to become Camarilla Prince of Krakow until the end of the action.

> Lech wrote: > Don't fit the theme of sabbat and have awful design. > Feel of themes is always an issue when regarding cards, as a reference let me snip from the WOD wiki: "The Code of Milan was created to be the modern constitution of the Sabbat, the general gist of which is to foment peace and mutual aid among all members of the Sabbat. It also deals with the punishment of cowards and traitors (by blood hunt and execution), uphold traditions of brotherhood and hospitality," <snip> Also consider things like the fact that Sabbat are known to reside in communal havens and do rites like The Vaulderie which involves "simple blood-sharing practice overbuilt with excessive ceremony.<snip> but in its most basic form, all vampires of the pack spill a good portion of their blood (at least 1 Blood Point's worth, in game terms) into a communal bowl. Once all members have done this, the blood is mixed and passed around again, so that each member may drink and share a sort of group-wide Blood Bond." Extrapolate this and you get the card background. Ivan - Maybe this?

Myrdin is correct. Suggested reading: Players Guide to the Sabbat WW2055 1-56504-042-2 Storytellers Handbook to the Sabbat WW2225 1-56504-045-6 Guide to the Sabbat WW2303 1-56504-263-8 Require titled vampires? Yes of course - it is the Sabbat Parity Shift! Read Myrdins response about swing. "My strategy? Luck is my strategy, of course."

I think the card is worth playtesting although it lacks the inherit barganing power of Parity Shift Prince of Lidingö

> Juggernaut1981 wrote: > I can very much see this card turning up in strange ways that allow you to manipulate things like the old "Kindred Restructure" tricks. > > If my deck can bloat well, I can use this card to push my grand-prey out of reach of my prey (by sharing my pool with my GPrey). This would then allow me to take out my prey and stop them getting their VP. Repeat and rinse with successive prey-GrandPrey combinations until I gain enough VPs to be guaranteed to win. > > This is just like the old trick of VP sniping by Kindred Restructure, just with a little more pool on the line and a little less reorganising. > This is a tactic that would be easily doable today aswell, with Parity shift or bloat+lifeboon. Although I believe the tactic to be subpar and not tournament worthy. Ivan - Maybe this?

Parity shift is one of the most boring cards in the game in my opinion. A 10 pool shift of pool is not something to aspire to or even compare against. It is way to powerful. No matter what theorizing brings up in terms of usability or opportunity cost you cannot create too powerful cards and just increase the cost. People will find a way to work around the cost and then it'll be bad. Even if you limit the steal of pool to say, 4, I still think it would need some other restriction in my opinion. Among the most frustrating things that can happen in a game of V:tES is to be cross-table ousted by a parity shift because that other player "needs those 5 pool". Not because he actually want you ousted, he might even find it strategically bad to see you go. But he'll still do it because it's so easy and it's still worth it, 5 pool is too much to pass up on. It would need something like "only usable on prey" or "not usable unless another methuselah votes in favor". I'm actually kinda on Lönkka's train of thought for this one. Just creating another (slightly modified) Parity Shift is not that fun. We should be able to innovate a bit more than that. The Sabbat have some nifty tricks already, even though arguably they're not as strong as the Camarilla's. But it's not an emergency, if there's an imbalance it's minor. Also, thematically I'm fine with the Camarilla being more votey than the Sabbat. Adam Esbjörnsson, Prince of Örebro

> Xaddam wrote: > Among the most frustrating things that can happen in a game of V:tES is to be cross-table ousted by a parity shift because that other player "needs those 5 pool". Not because he actually want you ousted, he might even find it strategically bad to see you go. But he'll still do it because it's so easy and it's still worth it, 5 pool is too much to pass up on. > Eh? Isn´t this just bad playing? And isn´t it just to play the same vote defense you would play fearing Parity Shift? > Xaddam wrote: > I'm actually kinda on Lönkka's train of thought for this one. Just creating another (slightly modified) Parity Shift is not that fun. We should be able to innovate a bit more than that. > I´m really worried about innovation in VTES. I´m more for variation and balance. We got all the innovation we needed with NoR > Xaddam wrote: > The Sabbat have some nifty tricks already, even though arguably they're not as strong as the Camarilla's. But it's not an emergency, if there's an imbalance it's minor. > I don´t agree at all. There are still a bunch of Sabbat clans that is nowhere near tournament play, and the best Sabbat cards (Abbot, Black Forest Base, Eternal Vigilance?) are nowhere near 2nd Tradition and Parity Shift. > Xaddam wrote: > Also, thematically I'm fine with the Camarilla being more votey than the Sabbat. > Funny how theme always is very important in some cases, not important at all in some cases I´m all for theme, but game balance is also very nice! "My strategy? Luck is my strategy, of course."

> Xaddam wrote: > Parity shift is one of the most boring cards in the game in my opinion. A 10 pool shift of pool is not something to aspire to or even compare against. It is way to powerful. No matter what theorizing brings up in terms of usability or opportunity cost you cannot create too powerful cards and just increase the cost. People will find a way to work around the cost and then it'll be bad. > > Even if you limit the steal of pool to say, 4, I still think it would need some other restriction in my opinion. Among the most frustrating things that can happen in a game of V:tES is to be cross-table ousted by a parity shift because that other player "needs those 5 pool". Not because he actually want you ousted, he might even find it strategically bad to see you go. But he'll still do it because it's so easy and it's still worth it, 5 pool is too much to pass up on. It would need something like "only usable on prey" or "not usable unless another methuselah votes in favor". > > I'm actually kinda on Lönkka's train of thought for this one. Just creating another (slightly modified) Parity Shift is not that fun. We should be able to innovate a bit more than that. The Sabbat have some nifty tricks already, even though arguably they're not as strong as the Camarilla's. But it's not an emergency, if there's an imbalance it's minor. Also, thematically I'm fine with the Camarilla being more votey than the Sabbat. > I'm thinking that what we need for the player driven expansion is a manifest, a vision on what we want to achieve with the new cards. At the moment I believe that the tier1 decks are limited to a few disciplines and sects and also that the game often is too slow since bloating has become alot more common with the addition of villein and ashur tablet recursion with liquidation. Most tables I sit down at these days during tournaments basically starts with me trying to beat the clock, some tables are faster but on the whole the clock is the greatest opponent. Creating powerful cards is not bad in itself if they are on par with other already existing powerful cards, as I stated earlier, more viable tier1 decks are needed, and having a sub-par sect/clan etc just means they are not played as much if you want to min/max. Most cards I see created are defensive atm, I don't know if this is what we need or just a knee-jerk reaction in v:tes in general since it's seen often with backousting-walling-bloating and timing out in general. Personally I believe we need more active cards that create ousts i.e. more governs, more conditionings and more aggresive votes. I'm unsure we're able to create a more creative set of cards for this first expansion, they will probably be iterations of already existing cards since it's easier and more accessible for players, once trust of the design team has been solidified we can have more interesting cards, maybe even cards that create a new ousting mechanism? My own personal snoozecard is probably Govern the Unaligned, it's just too much imo, but it's needed, there is no card that can compare to it. Ivan - Maybe this?

> Myrdin wrote: > I'm thinking that what we need for the player driven expansion is a manifest, a vision on what we want to achieve with the new cards. At the moment I believe that the tier1 decks are limited to a few disciplines and sects and also that the game often is too slow since bloating has become alot more common with the addition of villein and ashur tablet recursion with liquidation. Most tables I sit down at these days during tournaments basically starts with me trying to beat the clock, some tables are faster but on the whole the clock is the greatest opponent. Creating powerful cards is not bad in itself if they are on par with other already existing powerful cards, as I stated earlier, more viable tier1 decks are needed, and having a sub-par sect/clan etc just means they are not played as much if you want to min/max. > Sure. That's a valid interpretation. This suggestion, though, is sometimes just as good as the most powerful cards in the game. Sometimes it will be even stronger. In some cases maybe even twice as strong. This is my biggest problem with the card. Even if that situation is rare, the possibility shouldn't even be there, in my opinion. > Most cards I see created are defensive atm, I don't know if this is what we need or just a knee-jerk reaction in v:tes in general since it's seen often with backousting-walling-bloating and timing out in general. Personally I believe we need more active cards that create ousts i.e. more governs, more conditionings and more aggresive votes. > I think the problem with timing tables and defensive cards are person-oriented, not game design-oriented. People simply do not want to die. The notion that 0.5vp or 1vp is a good score is so wide-spread that I'm quite sure I'm stepping on some peoples' toes just by mentioning it. Giving people more time, less time, better defense or better offense (within reason) will change the game and will change the kind of decks which wins. But it will not change the fact that a player who wants to will time-out any table. As we learn more about this game and more players realize that anything short of a game win is a loss I think tables will stop timing out. Adam Esbjörnsson, Prince of Örebro

@Myrdin You're missing the point. Parity Shift can ONLY be played when your pool is less than another player. This card can be played when I have the MOST pool on the table. This card can also be used to hand a big pile of pool to a cross-table to screw your prey (e.g. I have 15 pool, my GPrey has 3 pool at the other end we will both have 9 pool) making it basically a VP-denial card if people designed a deck to exploit this. If you can bloat significant amounts of pool then you can pick people to keep in the game during your turn by just sharing the bloat and denying players VPs?? How is this not the basic reason that Dramatic Upheaval/Kindred Restructure got banned? AFAIK reseating cards were banned entirely because people VP-sniped. This is barely more than a VP-snipe in reverse (VP-denial) Retired Baron of Sydney, Australia, 418

> Xaddam wrote: > As we learn more about this game and more players realize that anything short of a game win is a loss I think tables will stop timing out. > What do you mean? I fight for every vp. Of course, if I notice that my only chance in a game is to get 1, only 1, vp, I will play for get that 1 vp. (Also, I always try to play decks that has a chance for a sweep. I HATE players who don´t do this. I think new cards should designed so that more different decks has a chance for a sweep.) "My strategy? Luck is my strategy, of course."

> Ashur wrote: > What do you mean? I fight for every vp. > Then I'm not talking about you. I can't even remember the amount of times I have had to say to the remaining other players "ok, now we all need to hurry up if anyone of us are going to win this game". They all agree and start playing faster. I'm sure others' have had similar experience with players who actually don't play with the time limit in mind. I can only imagine that this is due to inexperience and that they will learn given enough practice. Adam Esbjörnsson, Prince of Örebro

> Juggernaut1981 wrote: > This card can also be used to hand a big pile of pool to a cross-table to screw your prey (e.g. I have 15 pool, my GPrey has 3 pool at the other end we will both have 9 pool) making it basically a VP-denial card if people designed a deck to exploit this. > But Anneke and Aus-weenie denies people vp´s all the time. And various rush decks, when played well. And Parity Shift. And so on. I always try to deny people vps. I want them all. You still need the votes and bypassing any vote defense. And we talked about a Parity Shift equivalent for the Sabbat, because the Sabbat suck. A Sabbat vote deck do not have the same strategic options as a Camarilla vote deck. I want to see more different decks that can win, preferebly by aggressive play. "My strategy? Luck is my strategy, of course."

> Xaddam wrote: > > > Ashur wrote: > > What do you mean? I fight for every vp. > > > Then I'm not talking about you. I can't even remember the amount of times I have had to say to the remaining other players "ok, now we all need to hurry up if anyone of us are going to win this game". They all agree and start playing faster. I'm sure others' have had similar experience with players who actually don't play with the time limit in mind. I can only imagine that this is due to inexperience and that they will learn given enough practice. > Well off course people don´t want to die! Because to win you have to not die. As long as you are in the game, you can win, if so only by 0,5 vps, everybody knows that. Very natural, very thematically correct But if you want to be good at vtes, and win tournaments, you must play a deck that can beat all the defensive strategies, to beat every deck even if it curles up like a porcupine, to beat all the newbies that have no offense at all. And that is why we see less and less imbued decks and other block decks in tournament games - and that is a GOOD thing! "My strategy? Luck is my strategy, of course."

> Xaddam wrote: > Parity shift is one of the most boring cards in the game in my opinion. A 10 pool shift of pool is not something to aspire to or even compare against. > Then again, in the endgame it is only 4 pool shift... And compared to straight damage votes requires you to manipulate your pool to lower than the intended target which might cause hair raising moments. But you knew all that already... Finnish Politics!