Card Idea: Scrawl

Time for a new idea! Scrawl Reaction cost: 1 blood Only usable during referendum, before votes are cast. obf: This reacting vampire gains 3 votes. OBF: As above, and the methuselah of the reacting vampire may change the terms, then the referendum continues. Game development - Currently if you expect to be up against vote decks, you put in some delaying tactics and only delaying tactics for defense (or maybe confusion of the eye?). This card is intended to give some versatility in vote defense. Flavor The obfuscate power scrawl. 'Scrawl: Hide messages in writing legible only to an intended viewer' Balance Could prove better than DT against cards with changeable terms that would pass by a small margin, for example KRC, Parity Shift and Consanguinous Boon, while worse against cards such as Ancient Influence or Political Stranglehold. Since it would not prevent more copies to be played (which could be crucial during a lunge) but could also give turn some referendums in your favor, all in all it's about the same as DT. Competitiveness Moderate. Nothing to rely on yet nothing to scoff at. Cons Messes a little with current mechanics and could lead to even lengthier referendums. Lidingö Scourge

It's a bit like D.R.E. Voting Machine . First, the wording has to be changed a little because you can't gain votes before terms are set. Secondly, changing the terms is very strong, especially if you gain 3 votes at the same time to make it pass according your terms. Should at least have a "younger" clause (reacting vs acting), or not be usable at superior if the acting minion has Auspex. Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

What does it have to do with ? Strong voting effects rather belong to and defence generally does not belong to . It looks a bit like giving them a bounce to me: just wrong.

> Ankha wrote: > Secondly, changing the terms is very strong, especially if you gain 3 votes at the same time to make it pass according your terms. Should at least have a "younger" clause (reacting vs acting), or not be usable at superior if the acting minion has Auspex. > At first I had the inferior and superior separate but changed to an 'As above' in the end. Maybe it's a tad strong but my reasoning was that someone making a vote is most of the time able to pass it alone or setting terms to pass it, hence a change of terms would hardly ever make it still pass. Not gaining the extra votes would make it probably worse than the disciplineless DT. Would 2 votes feel more reasonable? > What does it have to do with ? Strong voting effects rather belong to and defence generally does not belong to . It looks a bit like giving them a bounce to me: just wrong. > Well, for starters there's confusion of the eye. Also vote defence in general is not as tightly connected to a single discipline as acting voting is. Searching for 'Reaction' and 'Referendum' yields 34 cards including cards for Dom, Tem, Guruhi, Chi, Dem, Kiasyd, !Ven and a load of disciplineless ones. There's a lot of weak clans as well (!Nos, !Gang, Samedi, Assamite to name a few) with obfuscate in common that would surely not mind a bit of help, even playing along with a theme they have for another existing card. Lidingö Scourge

Hurr someone plays Parity Shift and negotiates a deal. You play this card and change the terms of the votes so your prey loses 5 and the pool goes wherever it needs to go for the vote to pass. Score! Broken too.

I concur with Izaak. Maybe the idea of changing term is exploitable, but here it's way too easy. Especially since some inner circle like Lutz already have . Also, with such a card, it would mean that vote ousting will not even have the advantage of being "immune" to redirection. I don't think vote is strong enough to warrant lose this advantage. Edit : also, it's cross-table redirection. That can redirect damage to the original minion controller. You cast parity shift, and your predator make parity shift yourself ! By itself, it may remove any pool damage vote from use.

> Louhi wrote: > Game development > - Currently if you expect to be up against vote decks, you put in some delaying tactics and only delaying tactics for defense (or maybe confusion of the eye?). This card is intended to give some versatility in vote defense. > I think versatility in vote defence would be better served by it not being dedicated vote defence. For example: votes at inferior / a good bleed mod at superior; an Anarch three-way with vote defence on a non-Presence discipline; aggresive combat at one level / vote defence at the other. (Not necessarily in Obfuscate.)

I like the effect of somebody else setting of the terms but that card is just too annoying for vote decks and for the game also. I don't also like cards which only work as a good vote defense. Sometimes they don't work at all and when they work they can be too strong and annoying. I would just make it more minor as some vote defense with inferior and something else at superior. Maybe something like: Reaction Only usable when a minion announces a political action. If the action is successful you set the terms of the referendum instead of the acting Methuselah. Acting minion may cancel this card as it is played. If he does so then the acting minion may not vote or play any action modifiers during or after the referendum. Then superior a totally different effect.

I feel like completely changing the terms of a vote is too strong in conjunction with reaction vote push. There are enough reaction vote push and vote negation cards that you can completely take over someone else's vote for yourself. On top of that, it adds more time to the game. Player often discuss the terms of a vote before setting the terms, and if a player plays this card, it forces another discussion on the terms of the referendum. A couple options: A) Let the player take the card back into their hand like a Delaying Tactic if they do not like the new terms for the card. B) Instead of changing the terms, make it pool loss mitigation. Either prevent pool loss from a vote, or force another methuselah to take a certain amount of the pool loss. Independent Futurist. Contrarian (titled, X votes where X is the number of votes as the acting minion.) Target Vitals is always the better combat card.

i like the idea behind it but i think the wording of the superior is conflicting with rules of a referendum. and instead of changing the terms, maybe reducing numbers by half (rounded down) if the referendum passes or if its a vote damaging you, gaining pool equal to how much damage the vote does total (meaning a krc that would hit you and your grand predator for 3 and 1 respectively gains you a total of 1 pool) i like obfuscate making the vote have unforseen consequences/ not doing what the voter intented by deception. but re-arranging terms might be too chimestry from a flavor standpoint.