On Parity Shift

This is the fifth poll about the "problematic" cards. After we had a decent discussion about Parity Shift now comes the poll. There were arguments against the card and for the card. Please read through those arguments (you find them in the Expansion Sets & Card Ideas subforum) and make your decision about wether and in what way the card should be changed in your opinion. Parity Shift Cardtype: Political Action prince or justicar. Choose a Methuselah who has more pool than you do. Allocate X of his or her pool between 1 or more of the other Methuselahs (including you), where X is the number of Methuselahs in the game. Successful referendum means the chosen Methuselah loses that pool, and it is allocated as you announced. The poll is up for three weeks from now on. Please tell everybody about it so we can get a most significant result out of a broad participation. Please keep in mind that the result however is the opinion of all participants which does not mean it is that of all players. Furthermore the outcome of this poll does not necessarily mean something changes or stays the same. Baron of Frankfurt

Just a quick comment about my vote in this poll: I have chosen an option to change the card, but I feel all the other change options would be bad choices. Food for thought when analyzing the results. When you are anvil, be patient; when a hammer, strike. pckvtes.wordpress.com @pckvtes

There are still only 45 votes cast, unbelievable. I thought this card is highly contested. It seems many people don't see Parity Shift as a problem or in danger of an errata. Am I wrong with that impression? Baron of Frankfurt

Yes, Many People dont see any problems in any cards... We spoken lately with some polish players and everyone said that: 1. None of changes (exept the change with Villein and Minion tap) should be made. 2. None of the cards are overbalanced or something. Every single card has own good/bad possibilities and none of them are giving more vp, gw, or something 3. The day when someone ban or change cards like parity s, athelios, lilith blessing etc etc will the the worst day in our lifes (and maybe the last for some players because this process wont stop, there always will be some voices against some cards and if we give the precedent...) 4. We should focus on players/tournaments more than ban/change some cards. We dont need to do such a things. Bonus from that actions will be more/less like zero (0). Therer will be no new players from that, and maybe we will lost some of the goldie-oldie This is my private opinion and as a NC. Regards Szewski

> Szewski wrote: > 2. None of the cards are overbalanced or something. Every single card has own good/bad possibilities and none of them are giving more vp, gw, or something > And yet, if people maintained this view in the face of Return to Innocence or Pulled Fangs doing aggrivated damage or Protect Thine Own, the game would suck a lot more than it does now. So perhaps there is some wiggle room.

> This is my private opinion and as a NC. > So your private opinion is the opinion shared by all players for your country? Or are you just adding the NC-thing in a vain attempt to give your opinion more weight?

> Izaak wrote: > > > This is my private opinion and as a NC. > > > So your private opinion is the opinion shared by all players for your country? > > Or are you just adding the NC-thing in a vain attempt to give your opinion more weight? > Both. First - personally I think that nothing's wrong in every cards discussed here. Second - as a NC I spoke with many polish players and the most of them (almost 90%) think that nothings wrong in "theese" cards. One big problem is (was) MT vs Villein and now its done by simply rulling Second problem is that some of cards are not available for most players...but as far as I remember VtES always has a collectible aspect of game and for now we cannot do anything with the lack of some expansions... Third, if we will look closer to some cards we find a few to change but not because overpowered or sth but because the mechanic which doesn't fits into the vtes world (means gives no interaction). We was talking about 2 cards: Antonio D'Erlette and Piper. Theese cards are really broken because the dont fits into mechanic of vtes (recruiting ally'ies I mean) We have some similar thoughts about ashur tablets - were thinking do they fits? But we've had conclusion that ashurs are balancing on the thin line between vtes mechanic and no-vtes mechanic So, I hope that now I've spoken clearly and everything what I wanted to say, I've said Regards Szewski p.s. BTW when the PTO was banned I was completely disagree with that. But it was a decision form "above" and I had to accept this. Nothing more, nothing less. But today we discuss on 8 cards (I think) and another still to come I suppose (for example pentex sub. or I jus missed sth? ) Regards again

And one last thing. I checked the polls and I see that many players (bot ofc not so many) share the same visions about those cards. The "no changes" option for now is "winning"

I don't think i share that opinion Szewski. Last time i checked i was from your country. Anthelios also create no-interaction when used to recruit again and again Jack Washington (hunter). 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: > I don't think i share that opinion Szewski. Last time i checked i was from your country. Anthelios also create no-interaction when used to recruit again and again Jack Washington (hunter). > Yes, and You can also use Ath to cycle sudden rev. on and on and on...wtf? I dont expect that You will share my opinion because as I remember we spoken maybe once in last 2 years (in Cracow, when You appeared for the first time since very very long time...) But if You want I will write names of polish players who share Regards

> Szewski wrote: > > > Lech wrote: > > I don't think i share that opinion Szewski. Last time i checked i was from your country. Anthelios also create no-interaction when used to recruit again and again Jack Washington (hunter). > > > Yes, and You can also use Ath to cycle sudden rev. on and on and on...wtf? > > I dont expect that You will share my opinion because as I remember we spoken maybe once in last 2 years (in Cracow, when You appeared for the first time since very very long time...) > But if You want I will write names of polish players who share > > Regards > Please do so. As far as I know, no poll has ever been made about it and you're just pulling a statistic from your ass really. Sorry, but no. You may THINK that is the case, but that's just your opinion, the reality might be way different than you expect. Pulling the "I'm the NC and speak for everyone" card is not even funny, obviously you don't speak for everyone and - obviously - everyone is entitled to have his / her own opinion and to voice it.

> dude_PL wrote: > > > Szewski wrote: > > > > > Lech wrote: > > > I don't think i share that opinion Szewski. Last time i checked i was from your country. Anthelios also create no-interaction when used to recruit again and again Jack Washington (hunter). > > > > > > > > Yes, and You can also use Ath to cycle sudden rev. on and on and on...wtf? > > > > I dont expect that You will share my opinion because as I remember we spoken maybe once in last 2 years (in Cracow, when You appeared for the first time since very very long time...) > > But if You want I will write names of polish players who share > > > > Regards > > > Please do so. > > As far as I know, no poll has ever been made about it and you're just pulling a statistic from your ass really. Sorry, but no. You may THINK that is the case, but that's just your opinion, the reality might be way different than you expect. Pulling the "I'm the NC and speak for everyone" card is not even funny, obviously you don't speak for everyone and - obviously - everyone is entitled to have his / her own opinion and to voice it. > I know what I wrote: "Second - as a NC I spoke with many polish players and the most of them (almost 90%) think that nothings wrong in "theese" cards." So, where I wrote "I speak for EVERYONE"???? And please, stay away from my ass...

You're the one adding "I speak as a national NC" as if that somehow makes your opinion more important than that of those who are not NC. > I know what I wrote: "Second - as a NC I spoke with many polish players and the most of them (almost 90%) think that nothings wrong in "theese" cards." > That's interesting, because it's there for everyone to read and yet you, the author of it, doesn't know what it says. > So, where I wrote "I speak for EVERYONE"???? > Right here: > Szewski wrote: > > > Izaak wrote: > > So your private opinion is the opinion shared by all players for your country? > > > > Or are you just adding the NC-thing in a vain attempt to give your opinion more weight? > > > Both. >

ok, I step down. My english is very bad. But I will try to explain Using the term "NC" was very clumsy. My opinion is worth as much as everyone opinion (even inactive players I assume) And ofc I overlook the most important part from Your post Izaak my Post (answer to Yours) should stays like this: "Second - as a NC I spoke with many polish players and the most of them (almost 90%) think that nothings wrong in "theese" cards." I remember at least: Izi, Behemoth, Vermin, Migalart, klocek, Mike, Gali, Alek, Toy, Santh, warGrim, Pączek, Kaszuba... Those "talking" were made after several rumours about some cards (even before the poll on vekn forum) during last year - during the tournaments, regular plays, EC... And after the "polling" some of us was quite surprised about the cards put in discussion. (I said something about this when I was talking about Athelios I guess) but this doesnt matter... Thats all. Sorry for mess. Regards Szewski

As a non-Polish native-English-speaking player, I will just comment that I understood Szewski's comments to mean something to the effect that "As national coordinator, I come in contact with many people and the overwhelming majority of Polish players whom I've talked to agree that no change to Parity Shift is necessary." Back to the vote at hand, I find it interesting that right now, with 60 people casting votes, that *NO ONE* has voted to ban the card. That says volumes about its perceived power. Very strong, but not game-breaking. When you are anvil, be patient; when a hammer, strike. pckvtes.wordpress.com @pckvtes

> Jeff wrote: > Back to the vote at hand, I find it interesting that right now, with 60 people casting votes, that *NO ONE* has voted to ban the card. That says volumes about its perceived power. Very strong, but not game-breaking. > I don't know that it says anything other than "this card can be made reasonable with minimal changes"; I think Parity Shift is one of the top contenders for making the game less good than it can be. It is one of the 3 cards in the game that I think need to be fixed more than any other. If the only way to fix that would be to ban, it, I'd be happy with it being banned. That being said, I didn't select "ban Parity Shift" from the above selections, as making it once per game would be a sufficient fix, for example. Banning is what you do to a card when you can't errata it. As this poll is completely hypothetical anyway, there is no need to vote to ban it when voting to change it will fix the issues at hand. Direct Intervention I'd vote to ban, as there is a much more reasonable version already in existence (Dark Influence). Parity Shift being made a once per game card would be a totally reasonable fix.

Just adding {other} here: [...]where X is the number of {other} Methuselahs in the game.[...] Would fix the card for me. No need for lengthy errata, and power of ps would be considerably decreased bringing it more in line with other cards in the game. @Szewski, true, majority of good players may consider those cards ok. I don't (except for villein, it was ok before errata too). 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.

> bakija wrote: > > > Jeff wrote: > > Back to the vote at hand, I find it interesting that right now, with 60 people casting votes, that *NO ONE* has voted to ban the card. That says volumes about its perceived power. Very strong, but not game-breaking. > > > I don't know that it says anything other than "this card can be made reasonable with minimal changes"; (...) > Hm? How come 63.5% voting that the card is ok turns into "this card can be made reasonable with minimal changes". We don't know each other, but from what I see and hear about you, I'm confused. I understand your opinion of the card, although I don't agree with it. My reasoning is that to play with a Parity Shift deck one must really know what one's doing. And the table can always adjust to defend against it. I'm still saying that Reckless Agitation allows for a setup easier to build and to defend. No need to get low on pool, you can use Minion Tap + Voter Cap... heck, you can even deflect bleeds. And you have more minions to choose from, can hurt more than one player... Oh and there's no "I'm sorry dear ally, but I'm really desperate and need to take the pool from you, otherwise I'll be ousted..."

> Szewski wrote: > Yes, Many People dont see any problems in any cards... > > We spoken lately with some polish players and everyone said that: > 1. None of changes (exept the change with Villein and Minion tap) should be made. > 2. None of the cards are overbalanced or something. Every single card has own good/bad possibilities and none of them are giving more vp, gw, or something > 3. The day when someone ban or change cards like parity s, athelios, lilith blessing etc etc will the the worst day in our lifes (and maybe the last for some players because this process wont stop, there always will be some voices against some cards and if we give the precedent...) > 4. We should focus on players/tournaments more than ban/change some cards. We dont need to do such a things. Bonus from that actions will be more/less like zero (0). Therer will be no new players from that, and maybe we will lost some of the goldie-oldie . > If these points are true for your community it would be most important to let the others know. Exactly for those people who made up their minds are these polls. They are not necessarily for people who want a change of cards. I just want a clear statement of the VEKN-members (as many as possible). Please tell your guys to just hit the "let the card unchanged"-button so the rest of the world knows of your opinion. Of course they should also let the world know if they want a change and which one. Baron of Frankfurt

I don't think it breaks the game, but I do think it breaks voting.

> Brum wrote: > Hm? How come 63.5% voting that the card is ok turns into "this card can be made reasonable with minimal changes". > Where did anyone say that? Jeff was pointing out that no one voted for the specific choice of "ban Parity Shift" in the above poll, and indicated that he felt that this specific fact meant something. i was indicating that it probably didn't mean what he thinks it means. If I felt the only way to fix Parity Shift was to ban it, I would have voted to ban it. I don't think that is the only way to fix Parity Shift, so I didn't vote to ban it. That doesn't mean that I don't think it is an incredibly broken card. As I do. I just don't think that banning it is the only way to deal with it. I was in no way attempting to say anything about the people who voted "don't do anything to Parity Shift". > We don't know each other, but from what I see and hear about you, I'm confused. > I understand your opinion of the card, although I don't agree with it. > My reasoning is that to play with a Parity Shift deck one must really know what one's doing. > And the table can always adjust to defend against it. > Tables can adjust to defend against *anything*. That doesn't make broken cards less broken. A card that is incredibly broken, yet requires deep understanding to truly abuse is still incredibly broken.

> Brum wrote: > My reasoning is that to play with a Parity Shift deck one must really know what one's doing. > And the table can always adjust to defend against it. > (As I've previously stated, I'm of the opinion that Parity Shift is pretty much the very top end of my tolerance for card power, and I don't particularly want to change it. However...) Obviously, a table can potentially do a lot of things. However, if a deck is so powerful or so disruptive that the table has to gang up to do something about it, it's generally either: the Nergal storyline event a problem When creating Jyhad, Richard Garfield has explicitly written (it's in the White Wolf book) that it was intended to be a game in which every player had a set of different and competing incentives. That, for example, is why it's not a last man standing game and why you don't get a VP or pool for ousting someone cross-table. I want to oust my prey because it gives me that VP or pool - why do you want to oust him? Perhaps it gives you vote lock, perhaps it stops you contesting key cards - but it also benefits me, and you'll want to oust me later too. If a table devolves into a situation where everyone's overriding incentive is "Oust that deck, or everything goes to hell", that fundamental staple aspect of the game is quite heavily undermined. It's why, for example, Anarch Revolt raised itself to the level of needing errata - on many tables, everyone had to do their best to oust the player stacking 3 Anarch Revolt a turn (and Delaying Tactics, Elder Kindred Network etc.) so that the rest of the game could continue 'normally'. Problematic. Which is to say, if you think the best recourse for handling a particular card is that tables must co-operatively oust the deck (or neuter it very hard), then there's a good chance the card is a significant problem that is undermining the table dynamics that are supposed to be there. (Except in fun events like the Nergal storyline.) Me? I personally don't think Parity Shift generally requires that behaviour. But you seem to be suggesting it does.

I don't want Parity Shift to change. Majority people seem to feel the same, still the very few active participants make it like there is so much fuss and sudden need to change the damn card. However, if you want to change it let it be playable by corresponding sabbat titles as well, not making it once per game or once per Meth. Off course, I got many of them, paid a lot of cash for them and don't want to lose both money and playability with them being wallpapered.

err

While many people don't want change, large amount of players want to change the card. I don't think that decreasing pool swing by 1 would make the card better balanced, yet still extremely powerful. 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: > While many people don't want change, large amount of players want to change the card. > Hm, apparently not. Until now at least. There is a clear 63%-majority of leaving the card as it is. If there are people around who want a change they should really let us now. I can't see any "large amounts" which want a change. Baron of Frankfurt

> Joscha wrote: > Hm, apparently not. Until now at least. There is a clear 63%-majority of leaving the card as it is. If there are people around who want a change they should really let us now. I can't see any "large amounts" which want a change. > I can see 37% (a third) as being a large amount, but I agree that it is not a majority. Don't forget that the poll is not supposed to be the only factor ; thoses who want (or do not want) change may want to put some arguments in the PRO/CON thread. After all, I suppose that VEKN would be willing to risk a change not supported by the poll if they are dead sure it will do good to the game. And vice versa.

> Lech wrote: > While many people don't want change, large amount of players want to change the card. I don't think that decreasing pool swing by 1 would make the card better balanced, yet still extremely powerful. > I think that what You said is some kind of misuse. In total poll there is about 70players total. This is not even the total number of polish players... There is no majority in this thread. Only a few people. I know that in democracy a few can reign the rest but vtes is not like democracy. Please, remember about that

> Väinämöinen wrote: > I don't want Parity Shift to change. Majority people seem to feel the same, still the very few active participants make it like there is so much fuss and sudden need to change the damn card. > There is nothing remotely sudden about this. Discussion about Parity Shift being overpowered has been going on for 15+ years. Clearly, I think Parity Shift is too powerful and warps the game (by making non Camarilla vote strategies seem wildly under effective in comparison). But that is me. I realize that not everyone thinks this is the case. I just think they are wrong. > However, if you want to change it let it be playable by corresponding sabbat titles as well, not making it once per game or once per Meth. > That is certainly an option. But then it is still a wildly overpowered card. > Off course, I got many of them, paid a lot of cash for them and don't want to lose both money and playability with them being wallpapered. > See, that isn't actually a legitimate reason for objecting to making the game work better. Any more than "I don't like errata" is. If the game needs fixing, the game needs fixing. I'm not expecting that everyone is going to side with me on initiative "Parity Shift needs fixing to make the game better", but if enough people were convinced of this, I don't think it would be rational to not fix the game in the name of people who spent money on Parity Shifts. I mean, yeah, I realize that these are both not insignificant motivators to decision making, but they shouldn't be. As the game being a better game is infinitely more important than a few people being cranky 'cause the cards they paid too much for are suddenly less good. Yeah, errata is a pain in the ass. And no one likes it. But objecting to all changes based on "I don't like errata" is going to result in nothing ever getting fixed; I suspect the inconvenience of the Villein errata is less damaging to the game than the improvement 'caused by the errata.

> bakija wrote: > Clearly, I think Parity Shift is too powerful and warps the game (by making non Camarilla vote strategies seem wildly under effective in comparison). But that is me. I realize that not everyone thinks this is the case. I just think they are wrong. > Certainly, it can dwarf many other vote strategies, and it is very attractive when you think about building a vote deck. (I think certain forms of breed-boon are still attractive, because of their relative resilience to the votes screwing up by turning into swarm decks.) However, it doesn't seem like every tournament is being torn up by Parity Shift decks. Going back to the start of October in the TWD, I find roughly 45 decks and 6 of them using Parity Shift. 3 of those are fairly substantial political decks, the other three have a small number (2-5) political actions. Parity Shift in all cases is low in number - no more than 3, often 2. Over the same time period, I find roughly 6 or 7 reasonably substantial political decks that aren't using Parity Shift - mostly using a bunch of KRC, with perhaps Banishment, Political Strangehold, Ancient Influence and other similar cards in smaller numbers. So, 3 out of 10 reasonably political decks are using Parity Shift, 6 out of 13 or so if you include all the Parity Shift decks. That does seem to be over-representing the Camarilla somewhat, if you make the (obviously naive) assumption that Camarilla and Sabbat should be roughly equal, with a bit of other sects too. So we might reasonably make the argument that Parity Shift is too good, relative to other votes. We might also make the argument that Parity Shift is sufficiently good that any deck that can reasonably include a copy or two does include a copy or two. But Parity Shift, and politics generally, doesn't seem to me to be too good relative to other strategies. 6 Parity Shift winners out of 45 decks isn't that much to me. Over the same time period, there's a lot of intercept-y combat-y walls, quite a bit of bounce, quite a lot of Wakes (of various sorts). That certainly seems to be one direction the game is going. Grindy walls with a small clutch of bleed increasers (actions, action mods or whatever) seems to be very popular. And the grindy walls with bleed modifiers do point out one problem with just counting up copies of Parity Shift. For example, one grindy deck is based on Harbingers and has 8 Trochomancy. Another deck has Heart of the City and Mr Winthrop. The Imbued have Convictions. Dominate has half a dozen options. Parity Shift can be used by any Camarilla clan and is the same for all of them. If Parity Shift was (say) three subtly different cards for Ventrue, Toreador and Brujah, you might well see the Tournament Winning Deck Archive having a split of all three cards. I suspect that Parity Shift attracts attention against, say, grindy-wall decks or stealth-bleed decks because the power is on the Parity Shift - but it uses the backup of the vote modifier etc. too. By contrast, stealth-bleed has smaller parts that combine to form a whole - without a single card that is as obviously "Ow" as Parity Shift. Parity Shift plus Perfect Paragon can do significant damage - but so can Govern the Unaligned plus Conditioning, and it's not like it's hard to cycle a medium-long chain of cards onto a single bleed action if you choose to, with little worry of horrible hand jam. So, overall, 1) it does seem to be doing better than a raw divvying up of political deck wins might suggest. But, 2) it doesn't seem to be creating an overpowering number of wins for itself (like, say, Return to Innocence did). The first point suggests it's stronger than other political options - not to the point that it's the only way to play politics, but certainly it's a strong one. But point two seems to me to suggest that it's not dominating the game as a whole. At which point, isn't the right answer to make other political options more viable? A small expansion next year might well allow for (say) a decent political action, politically motivated master card, and/or action modifer for Sabbat titles that could boost Sabbat representation somewhat.

I see Peter's point about Parity Shift creating a wild swing that he doesn't like. Personally I think that there are going to be some very powerful cards in the game, and I'm not against Parity Shift. Perhaps that's just because I don't see a lot of decks using it around LA nowadays. It has been a very long time since I lost 5 to Parity Shift. I agree more with Peter's objection that Parity Shift makes non-Prince/Justicar vote decks less attractive. Princes & Justicars got insane amounts of goodies from Jyhad. Obviously Primogen were ignored, and Sabbat did not give anything close as good to Sabbat-titled vampires. It does make the environment more boring, since you see Prince and Justicar crypt cards so often, and that would be my main objection to Parity Shift. The reason I don't see it as a major problem in today's environment is the proliferation of titles on the table and the weakness of weenie vote. One thing the Sabbat did was greatly up the number of potential "passive" votes on the table with the introduction of the Priscus title. Then Villein encouraged the playing of big-cap vampires, who usually have 2 or more votes. I think Darby Keeney has an article about this on his blog. It's just not that easy to pass votes anymore. And I rarely see weenie vote decks anymore that might use Parity Shift, probably because of the threat of No Secrets from the Magaji and the popularity of combat/wall decks, which of course also discourage voting. So, I like Parity Shift, but when added to the Traditions, it gives too much to Princes/Justicars, thus making the environment less interesting (I voted to give it to Primogen). But I don't see it abused much because of the general difficulties of voting in general.

> Aaron wrote: > It does make the environment more boring, since you see Prince and Justicar crypt cards so often, and that would be my main objection to Parity Shift. > I would also add that Inner circle have no sabbat equivalent and may contribute to the phenomen. They represent a lot of votes, are +1 or +2 bleed (alway pretty useful) and especially the Jyhad one have powerful passives traits that does not need much setup to be useful (for example, Arika or Leandro vs Elimelech or Enkidu)

There will always be a "most powerful" political action. Currently, Parity Shift holds that title. The Prince/Justicar restriction should be viewed as a restriction, rather than an enabling ability for those titles. Inner Circle members can't use it, but their inherent votes lead to more predictability, especially for a badass like Lutz. Go ahead and fight the good fight for change if you still want to. It's kind of moot right now since the new rulings were released. Maybe next October to November it will be time to fan the flames of insurrection again. When you are anvil, be patient; when a hammer, strike. pckvtes.wordpress.com @pckvtes

> Jeff wrote: > Go ahead and fight the good fight for change if you still want to. It's kind of moot right now since the new rulings were released. Maybe next October to November it will be time to fan the flames of insurrection again. > Note that the result of theses consultation can lead to ad hoc card in the upcoming expansion. For example, if the conclusion of the parity shift is that Parity shift should be allowed to sabbat, a vote of similar power may be introduced in the expansion instead of errating the card.

> Aaron wrote: > Perhaps that's just because I don't see a lot of decks using it around LA nowadays. It has been a very long time since I lost 5 to Parity Shift. > David Litwin won a tournament in L.A. with a ridiculous Parity Shift deck in September: www.thelasombra.com/decks/twd.htm#2011fitblac 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! vtesville.myminicity.com/ Facebook: www.facebook.com/groups/129744447064017

Ah, I only played in one of those four tournaments, and never (thankfully*) against Mr. Litwin. *He's scary

> Jeff wrote: > There will always be a "most powerful" political action. Currently, Parity Shift holds that title. > Oh, sure. But for my money it is the most powerful by leaps and bounds--nothing else is even close in terms of it's impact. The basic building block vote cards are all powerful, but reasonably so; KRC is very strong, but reasonably strong (and is a reasonably measuring stick for everything else in the game, really--one action card doing 3 damage that requires support [other cards or vote infrastructure] to make work); Con Ag *can* do 4 damage to your prey at one time but at the cost of spending much of the game doing 2 or 1 damage to your prey at one time; Con Boon can get you a lot of pool quickly; Reckless Agitation can do a lot of damage to your prey very quickly, but is surprisingly difficult to make work consistently and stops working all together in the end game. Parity Shift is way, way streets ahead of these other cards in terms of power and effect. It isn't just "the best vote card". It is amazingly, wildly over the top the best vote card. > Go ahead and fight the good fight for change if you still want to. It's kind of moot right now since the new rulings were released. Maybe next October to November it will be time to fan the flames of insurrection again. > Absolutely. I'm not, like, expecting anything to happen here. Apparently, most people paying attention to this discussion disagree with me. Which is fine. Just for my money, I imagine that the game would become considerably more interesting (and more balanced) if Parity Shift got a kick in the teeth.

> Aaron wrote: > It has been a very long time since I lost 5 to Parity Shift. > <sidenote> I lost 15 to Parity Shift in a single game at the EC. My predator that did all that damage didn't win though, his grand-predator did. </sidenote>

Ouch!

> bakija wrote: > > > Jeff wrote: > > There will always be a "most powerful" political action. Currently, Parity Shift holds that title. > > > Oh, sure. But for my money it is the most powerful by leaps and bounds--nothing else is even close in terms of it's impact. > I humbly disagree. Banishment is more reliable and has more impact in the mid and end-game (whereas Parity Shift is weaker). But anyway, it's a little boring to hear the same statement again and again, even if you're convinced of it. > bakija wrote: > But the Camarilla ones with Parity Shift are always going to be generally better and more successful. > > bakija wrote: > are Parity Shift, Pentex Subversion, and Direct Intervention. As they are both overpowered > > bakija wrote: > Parity Shift was a horrible idea when it was printed. It is a horrible idea now. It is insanely overpowered. > > bakija wrote: > 9. Parity Shift. > It is just stupidly too good and always has been > > bakija wrote: > As Parity Shift is insanely powerful. > > bakija wrote: > to Parity Shift (easily one of the best actions in the game?). > > bakija wrote: > And yet, again, Parity Shift is a consistently incredibly powerful card that you can rely on to oust folks and win games. > > bakija wrote: > But Parity Shift is going to be among them. As it is the best Political Action in the game. Far and away. > > bakija wrote: > And is more powerful than any other vote in the game in any reasonable situation, by a significant margin. > > bakija wrote: > What it is is an incredibly (over) powerful card > > bakija wrote: > I don't think that anyone can justifiably argue that Parity Shift is not one of the most powerful cards in the game. > > bakija wrote: > Parity Shift has always been insanely overpowered. Since day 1. > This looks like spam. Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

> Väinämöinen wrote: > if they make a change not supported by a majority they risk that players in playgroups that oppose the change disregard the changes and thus VEKN would eventually lose authority and that would further cripple the game. > Well, what I wanted to say was that if a change is really for the better, even if unsupported, people will at least try it, and then support it (since it is a good change). We are here to help the VEKN by giving an opinion. GOod change can be completely unsupported by players at first, but are unlikely to. So, this poll is a tool for them, not an absolute thing to follow. (didn't gave a minus)

> Ankha wrote: > I humbly disagree. Banishment is more reliable and has more impact in the mid and end-game (whereas Parity Shift is weaker). But anyway, it's a little boring to hear the same statement again and again, even if you're convinced of it. > If you find it boring, don't read it. It isn't like this is showing up at your breakfast table--you went out of your way to come to this website, go to this sub forum, and then open this particular thread just so you could read something you think is boring so you could complain about it? Man. That takes some doing. > This looks like spam. > If you'd like, I can go and cut apart your posts and thread them together to make them look like spam too. Oh, wait. I don't go out of my way to read things that I think are boring just so I can complain about them being boring. Never mind. I'll pass.

> Ankha wrote: > > > bakija wrote: > > > > > Jeff wrote: > > > There will always be a "most powerful" political action. Currently, Parity Shift holds that title. > > > > > Oh, sure. But for my money it is the most powerful by leaps and bounds--nothing else is even close in terms of it's impact. > > > I humbly disagree. Banishment is more reliable and has more impact in the mid and end-game (whereas Parity Shift is weaker). But anyway, it's a little boring to hear the same statement again and again, even if you're convinced of it. > so you're saying we should have a poll on Banishment to get it banned or changed? 1/3 of the poll wants to change Parity Shift, and if Banishment is stronger I'm sure that number would be even higher! (joking) well, Parity Shift is a lot more reliable than Banishment if you're running 6-cap princes. and even in the 2p endgame it's still twice as good as KRC.

> Haze wrote: > . and even in the 2p endgame it's still twice as good as KRC. > I think in the 2p endgame it is worse than KRC. KRC does 3 damage, all the time. PS does 2, maybe. Yes you pay one too, but making that oust is important. Especially against a bleed deck.

> johannes wrote: > I think in the 2p endgame it is worse than KRC. KRC does 3 damage, all the time. PS does 2, maybe. Yes you pay one too, but making that oust is important. Especially against a bleed deck. > In a 2 player endgame, KRC does 3 to your opponent and 1 to you. Parity Shift does 2 to your opponent and gains you 2. KRC is slightly more likely to oust someone (net increase of 1 pool damage to your opponent). Parity Shift is significantly more likely to keep you from getting ousted (net increase of 3 pool gain to you). Given that ousting your prey is important, I'll call it mostly a wash.

> johannes wrote: > > > Haze wrote: > > . and even in the 2p endgame it's still twice as good as KRC. > > > I think in the 2p endgame it is worse than KRC. KRC does 3 damage, all the time. PS does 2, maybe. Yes you pay one too, but making that oust is important. Especially against a bleed deck. > still cornercase and situational though. you're doing 1 less pool damage to gain 3 more pool (counting the -1 hit that KRC gives you). that's a really good trade, except once in a while that 1 extra pool damage wins/loses the game... but it's far far more likely that having 3 more pool saves you from being ousted. it's like saying Threats is better than Conditioning because your vampires might be low on blood in the endgame. it's possible, but... slightly unrelated: even in the 3 player game, KRC is a double-edged sword. 3 to prey, 1 to predator, could mean you get 2 VPs in a row, or it could mean your prey gets a VP faster. and putting it on yourself could mean you get ousted faster if something unexpected happens. Parity Shift avoids this problem entirely by letting you give pool to your predator if you wish. man, it's still so good. if your prey has less pool than you so you can't play Parity Shift, you're probably winning anyway. KRC vs Con Ag vs Domain Challenge vs Anarchist Uprising vs Neonate Breach. all of these have different outputs and it's situational which one might be the most useful. they're all well balanced. yet, by the numbers alone, Parity Shift is miles above all of these.

> bakija wrote: > > > Ankha wrote: > > I humbly disagree. Banishment is more reliable and has more impact in the mid and end-game (whereas Parity Shift is weaker). But anyway, it's a little boring to hear the same statement again and again, even if you're convinced of it. > > > If you find it boring, don't read it. It isn't like this is showing up at your breakfast table--you went out of your way to come to this website, go to this sub forum, and then open this particular thread just so you could read something you think is boring so you could complain about it? Man. That takes some doing. > I don't come to this forum to read you stating for the 13th time that Parity Shift is "overpowered", but your repetitive statements pollutes the thread (that's spam -- things you don't want to read but that pop up again and again). Now, if you think that the one who writes the more often the same sentence is the more persuasive, think again. Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

> Haze wrote: > if your prey has less pool than you so you can't play Parity Shift, you're probably winning anyway. > Unless your predator plays some combat and doesn't care being at less pool than you. So you'll basically watch your vampires being crushed with useless PS in hand. Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

> Ankha wrote: > I don't come to this forum to read you stating for the 13th time that Parity Shift is "overpowered", > Apparently, you do. As otherwise you wouldn't be going out of your way to read these statements, hunt them down, and repost them. > but your repetitive statements pollutes the thread (that's spam -- things you don't want to read but that pop up again and again). > People bring up the same points. I respond to them. This is a discussion thread specifically for discussing whether or not a given card is too powerful. It makes sense that people will do that here. If you realize that you think this is boring, why subject yourself to it when it is very easy to avoid? > Now, if you think that the one who writes the more often the same sentence is the more persuasive, think again. > As opposed to the one who goes out of his way to hunt them down, copy them, and repost them, simply because he is bored by them?

I don't see any problems with parity shift: - it can be blocked, or delayed - the target need to have more pool than you - lesser players, lesser gain - it makes loose 5 pool at maximum

> Marcus wrote: > I don't see any problems with parity shift: > - it can be blocked, or delayed > - the target need to have more pool than you > - lesser players, lesser gain > - it makes loose 5 pool at maximum > I totally agree with you point of view, in addition: -u cant make your deck only around of parity shift (maybe nos royality), becouse this card cant kill your prey(in most of cases) and can kill you(if your parity shift was canceled by delaying tactics when you had low amount of pool). Ihmo this card is good support in many deck, but no core card, its well balanced(req title, req less pool).

> Haze wrote: > still cornercase and situational though. you're doing 1 less pool damage to gain 3 more pool (counting the -1 hit that KRC gives you). that's a really good trade, except once in a while that 1 extra pool damage wins/loses the game... but it's far far more likely that having 3 more pool saves you from being ousted. > it's like saying Threats is better than Conditioning because your vampires might be low on blood in the endgame. it's possible, but... > It is certainly situational, you rate the probabiliy low, therefore cornercase, I rate it higher (from my experience). Often I am heads up with massive damage output decks like DOM bleed and the fact to kill them one turn earlier means a lot more than having 2-3 more pool since they are bleeding you for 15 anyway. Or like Vincent argued a rush deck which will kill all your guys next turn. > Haze wrote: > slightly unrelated: even in the 3 player game, KRC is a double-edged sword. 3 to prey, 1 to predator, could mean you get 2 VPs in a row, or it could mean your prey gets a VP faster. and putting it on yourself could mean you get ousted faster if something unexpected happens. Parity Shift avoids this problem entirely by letting you give pool to your predator if you wish. man, it's still so good. > > if your prey has less pool than you so you can't play Parity Shift, you're probably winning anyway. > > KRC vs Con Ag vs Domain Challenge vs Anarchist Uprising vs Neonate Breach. all of these have different outputs and it's situational which one might be the most useful. they're all well balanced. yet, by the numbers alone, Parity Shift is miles above all of these. > I agree, Parity Shift is the most powerful vote. However it has a certain requirement (Prince, Justicar) which is not easily met (every 1 cap pander can call KRC). I was just arguing that in a 2P situation PS is not strictly better than KRC, in my opinion even worse.

> johannes wrote: > I was just arguing that in a 2P situation PS is not strictly better than KRC, in my opinion even worse. > Oh, sure--in the 2 player end game, Parity Shift is about a wash with KRC, but certainly not strictly better than KRC, in terms of effect. But in the 5 player, 4 player, and 3 player portions of the game, Parity Shift is a billion times better than KRC, in terms of effect. That it is mostly a wash with KRC in the 2 player end game is a reasonable exchange.

> bakija wrote: > > > johannes wrote: > > I was just arguing that in a 2P situation PS is not strictly better than KRC, in my opinion even worse. > > > Oh, sure--in the 2 player end game, Parity Shift is about a wash with KRC, but certainly not strictly better than KRC, in terms of effect. But in the 5 player, 4 player, and 3 player portions of the game, Parity Shift is a billion times better than KRC, in terms of effect. That it is mostly a wash with KRC in the 2 player end game is a reasonable exchange. > Yes. If you scroll down my post you will see that I pointed out that I think PS is the most powerful vote out there. It is not a billion times better, it generates a 10 pool swing as opposed to a 4 pool swing which is 2,5 times better in the best case.

Well, I don't want to beat too much a dead horse, but 5 pool gain and 5 pool damage can't be added in a "pool swing". That mean nothing. WOuld a card that damage a single methuselah for 10 be as powerful as Parity shift ? No, it would be WAY better. Even a 7-pool damage card or a 10-pool gain vote would be better. The pool gain will not alway help you, the pool damage will not alway be useful. Both are useful, but on different part of the games. You should compare it to Consanguineous boon + KRC in one card, not to 2.5 KRC.

> Ohlmann wrote: > WOuld a card that damage a single methuselah for 10 be as powerful as Parity shift ? No, it would be WAY better. > We don't have to imagine this. It was called Return to Innocence.

> Ohlmann wrote: > The pool gain will not alway help you, the pool damage will not alway be useful. Both are useful, but on different part of the games. You should compare it to Consanguineous boon + KRC in one card, not to 2.5 KRC. > True. I was just trying to put some form of measurement to the comparison to show that PS is not incredibly more powerful but at most 2.5 times. So a worst case scenario if you want ...