Submission - Delusions of Grandeur (anti-villein vote moves back pool to vampires)

Name: Delusions of Grandeur / Careless Claim Cardtype: Political action Choose a ready vampire that is missing 1 or more blood to reach full capacity and from 1 to 3 blood (from 1 to 6 blood if the chosen vampire is titled) of that missing amount in his or her controller pool. Successful referendum means that that pool is moved to the chosen vampire. Art notes: A vampire on a kind of 1 person circular stage illuminated with a spot light. Many vampires stand in the dark around the stage and are raising their hands towards him in praise. The vampire on the stage has a crown, a scepter, a rich mantle and seems quite pleased as if it has received something he deserved. One of the vampire in the dark just in front of us gives some flask of great value with blood in it discreetly to another vampire in the dark (they are members of a conspiracy). World of Darkness reference: none. But powerful vampires may be tempted to claim back things (=pool) for themselves, if "convinced". Game references: Villein, Kine Resources Contested How does this card address a compelling game need?A vote against big-caps vampires that are most of the time free with the help of Villein or Minion Tap. By moving back the blood to the vampire, the other Methuselahs must be careful not to leave their big vampires with little blood. It can also be used to help a cross-table buddy that needs blood. It can do up to 6 pool damage but the pool is not lost (therefore it's less strong than a plain 6 damage). Still 6 can be quite a lot for ousting, but it means bypassing the votes of the other Methuselahs that have titled vampires (otherwise it's no more than 3). Furthermore, if the vampires are not villeined or don't lose blood, the card is less effective. Can be useful in a Brujah fight/vote deck (but doesn't work well with Anathema) or just to counter Villein abuses. Created by: Ankha Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

It make the bishop / primogen title even more a liability than an asset, since they can make you lose 6 pool instead of three if empty. Else, the card seem balanced, since it's multi-usage (you can even do it on your own vampires), and 6 pool damage is a lot but not completely absurd either.

A bit of a wall of text, isn't it? I like the idea, but the implementation seems too complicated. I would rather add requirements (not to give yet another tool to the AAA) and just fill the vampire to capacity. That would make a great Sabbat vote card (I know: too late ) since it also combos with bruise/vote. Thematically, rebelling against the Methuselah also fits well with the Sabbat. Name: Delusions of Grandeur / Careless Claim Cardtype: Political action Requires a Prisucs/Arcbishop/Cardinal/Regent Choose a (younger?) ready vampire. Successful referendum means that that vampire gains enough blood from his controller's pool to reach full capacity. It loses a bit a flexibility (can't really use it to prevent a buddy from hunting) but can potentially do more damage, and the text is twice shorter.

> Non-existant user wrote: > Name: Delusions of Grandeur / Careless Claim > Cardtype: Political action > Requires a Prisucs/Arcbishop/Cardinal/Regent > Choose a (younger?) ready vampire. Successful referendum means that that vampire gains enough blood from his controller's pool to reach full capacity. > I really like this version, although it's probably too strong. In late game, that could amount to a LOT of pool damage. What about: Name: Delusions of Grandeur / Careless Claim Cardtype: Political action Requires a Prisucs/Arcbishop/Cardinal/Regent Choose a (younger?) ready vampire. Successful referendum means that that vampire gains enough blood from his controller's pool to reach half capacity (round up). Amaranth Deck Building Tool : VTES NZ : VTES ANZ Facebook

If it is half capacity only, a younger requirement is definitely not needed.

The "up to full capacity" was the first idea I had, but it's definitively too strong. Think about making Enkidu's controller lose 10 pool. It's even more horrible when choosing vampires with Orun. I also considered something like 'half', but it would be too weak then. Any vampire that gets Villein + Lilith's Blessing will be at 3 blood, and even on a 11-cap vampire, it's a 2 pool damage. About the requirements, sabbat, [dem] or Malkavian could fit, depending on what we want to improve. So yes, it has more lines of text than a plain 'up to full capacity' but it's more balanced and versatile. Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

> Non-existant user wrote: > If it is half capacity only, a younger requirement is definitely not needed. > Agreed, it also make the timing an important and interesting factor. Amaranth Deck Building Tool : VTES NZ : VTES ANZ Facebook

How about... Delusions of Grandeur Requires a titled Sabbat vampire Choose a ready vampire. Successful referendum means that the chosen vampire gains up to 5 blood from his or her controller's pool. Any excess blood gained is moved back to pool instead of blood bank. Jussi Hattara Webmaster Extraordinaire Finnish Politics!

Shortened version: Name: Delusions of Grandeur / Careless Claim Cardtype: Political action Choose a ready vampire that is missing 1 or more blood to reach full capacity. Successful referendum means that 3 blood (6 if the chosen vampire is titled) is moved from the chosen vampire's controller's pool to the chosen vampire (but no more than the missing amount). Attachment delusions.png not found Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

> jhattara wrote: > How about... > > Delusions of Grandeur > > Requires a titled Sabbat vampire > Choose a ready vampire. Successful referendum means that the chosen vampire gains up to 5 blood from his or her controller's pool. Any excess blood gained is moved back to pool instead of blood bank. > Nice and elegant — although maybe factor in capacity. Amaranth Deck Building Tool : VTES NZ : VTES ANZ Facebook

it seems like a good idea, but it feels like this card gets really strong in the late game, being able to blow up to six pool off of your prey at a rip. but then again, my vampires tend to run low on blood in the later stages of the game. What is the primary purpose of this card: to put blood on a vampire, or to burn pool? in either case, i might consider changing the wording to something like: "Choose a ready vampire that has less blood than its capacity. That Vampire gains up to three blood from the blood bank until it reaches full capacity. If the selected Vampire is Titled, she gains up to five blood instead. That vampire's controller burns one pool for each blood gained in this way." the concept is pretty easy to grasp but finding a good way to word it that isn't universally confusing is deceptively tough.

> jhattara wrote: > How about... > > Delusions of Grandeur > > Requires a titled Sabbat vampire > Choose a ready vampire. Successful referendum means that the chosen vampire gains up to 5 blood from his or her controller's pool. Any excess blood gained is moved back to pool instead of blood bank. > my god, it's full of stars. wonderfully worded.

> Ke. wrote: > Agreed, it also make the timing an important and interesting factor. > I am not sure this change anything regarding timing ; half or not, you're gonna wait that the vampire is empty enough, and vampires don't fill themselves easily except with Salubri help. Half capacity maximum seem to castrate the card too much. Don't forget the damages may very well be undone by the next master phase of your prey ; also, it make the card definitively useless under cap 8 at the very least.

> jhattara wrote: > How about... > > Delusions of Grandeur > > Requires a titled Sabbat vampire > Choose a ready vampire. Successful referendum means that the chosen vampire gains up to 5 blood from his or her controller's pool. Any excess blood gained is moved back to pool instead of blood bank. > I'm a fan of this as well. Well worded, makes things simple and easy, and is still usable by a bishop. Great job. "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

But then, it work against everything for more than a KRC. (but not permanent). It remove the anti-'emptied big cap' aspect, which was the admitted goal, so it's a different card objective.

Maybe you missed the last sentence? > > Any excess blood gained is moved back to pool instead of blood bank. > I am a fan of jhattara's version too. Still not sure whether bishops should play it or not, but maybe they deserve some love after all.

> Non-existant user wrote: > Maybe you missed the last sentence? > Without trying to make fun of you, how it is supposed to change the fact it work against everything ? > Non-existant user wrote: > I am a fan of jhattara's version too. Still not sure whether bishops should play it or not, but maybe they deserve some love after all. > Quite frankly, the only difference with the original is that it is sabbat-only and work against everything instead of just titled vampires. I tend to prefer the original, if only because it won't stomp as hard on thoses people who try to have 2-4 mid cap in play as on those who try to have 2-4 Inner Circle

> Ke. wrote: > Nice and elegant — although maybe factor in capacity. > What do you mean by this? Do you think it should be able to target only younger vampires? Jussi Hattara Webmaster Extraordinaire Finnish Politics!

> jhattara wrote: > > > Ke. wrote: > > Nice and elegant — although maybe factor in capacity. > > > What do you mean by this? Do you think it should be able to target only younger vampires? > What may be hilarious would be to be able to target only older vampires. Think of it as an underling that point out you don't have what you should have. An Inner circle also seem to be someone more likely to be affected than a random primogen

> jhattara wrote: > What do you mean by this? Do you think it should be able to target only younger vampires? > I was thinking along the lines of trying limit the pool damage done, ie. when targeting an 8-cap (4 pool max), 6 cap (3 pool max) — but disregard, I prefer the simplicity of 5 pool damage and less if it's a low cap or mid cap with blood... Amaranth Deck Building Tool : VTES NZ : VTES ANZ Facebook

> Kraus wrote: > > > jhattara wrote: > > How about... > > > > Delusions of Grandeur > > > > Requires a titled Sabbat vampire > > Choose a ready vampire. Successful referendum means that the chosen vampire gains up to 5 blood from his or her controller's pool. Any excess blood gained is moved back to pool instead of blood bank. > > > I'm a fan of this as well. Well worded, makes things simple and easy, and is still usable by a bishop. Great job. > yes it's well worded, but Anson's controller woh just lost 5 pool can just play minion tap or villein again, or even shift his prey, while a standard rush/combat deck who plays his game on low pool will certainly be ousted. On other words : in most of cases it does not harm the type of deck it's supposed to harm :/ Imagination is our only weapon in the war against reality -Jules de Gaultier

> Reyda wrote: > yes it's well worded, but Anson's controller woh just lost 5 pool can just play minion tap or villein again, or even shift his prey, while a standard rush/combat deck who plays his game on low pool will certainly be ousted. > > On other words : in most of cases it does not harm the type of deck it's supposed to harm :/ > The caveat : he can do that only if the vote don't oust him. It's kind of "oust your prey at 5 or less pool" (or 6 in the Ankha version), which admitely is useful. And if your prey have, say 2 near-empty inner circle out, then you can play two of them and make him lose 12 pool - pretty mean Still, writing this post made me understand two important problem in card design with this card : * first, putting thoses aforementioned multi-IC deck behind 12 pool may not be all that easy, which mean despite the potential of using multiples of this vote to damage them, they may be less impacted. * and then, a vote against deck that put multiples IC in play ? You may still pass your votes, but they have a built-in defense called "I have 9 permanent votes"

> Reyda wrote: > while a standard rush/combat deck who plays his game on low pool will certainly be ousted. > The only difference with a KRC in that case is that the vote "deals" 2 more damage, so if you're rush/combat deck is on low pool, you're probably dead anyway. But yes, I agree that it shouldn't be a plain 5 damage, but more if the target is titled, less if if not (so non-voting decks don't get trumped) > Reyda wrote: > yes it's well worded, but Anson's controller woh just lost 5 pool can just play minion tap or villein again, > ... instead of Villein his brand new Alexandra or Anneke. That's a good thing to make it spend his Minion Taps for nothing. > Reyda wrote: > or even shift his prey > Same thing with any pool damage, you have to be careful. Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

> Ohlmann wrote: > It's kind of "oust your prey at 5 or less pool" (or 6 in the Ankha version), which admitely is useful. > Putting back the pool of the vampire, even if it doesn't oust his controller, means he won't be able to spend that pool resource immediately (by influencing new vampires or playing pool costing cards) which is a major complication. > Ohlmann wrote: > * first, putting thoses aforementioned multi-IC deck behind 12 pool may not be all that easy > And isn't that necessary. Getting him back from 21 to 9 makes his oust much more easy and slows him down a lot. > > Ohlmann wrote: > * and then, a vote against deck that put multiples IC in play ? You may still pass your votes, but they have a built-in defense called "I have 9 permanent votes" > Pushing, Closed Sessions, making vampire abstain or simply getting the support of your allies makes thing much easier. Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

> Ankha wrote: > And isn't that necessary. Getting him back from 21 to 9 makes his oust much more easy and slows him down a lot. > But you do have the very real chance that the vote do nothing on the long run. It will work as intended if the prey was able to use every Villein he draw optimally without this vote. It will stop working (as in, the work you have done will be entirely undone) as soon as he have both a spare (trifle) MPA and a spare villein / minion tap.

Why can't it just target a vampire with a villein? Its permanent. I think this cards a good concept, but dangerous due to the amount of pool it can move.

why not simply make it an action ? like: D action. Unique Put this card on a titled vampire of the same sect. during his untap phase, the vampire with this card gains 5 blood from his methuselah's pool. Any blood in excess of his capacity goes back to that methuselah's pool. this card is then removed from the game/burned would it be more balanced ? Imagination is our only weapon in the war against reality -Jules de Gaultier

Low and mid caps don't need any more reasons to be better. Let the pool slough off into the blood bank. Personally I'd like more minion card ways to gain/regain pool. And something within discipline for votes would be nice, so as the PRE stranglehold can eventually be loosened. If you keep this "Gird Minion" direction make it an act mod or reaction and throw it into an aggro discipline. Death Threats Reaction pot: If this referendum will effect you or cards you control, the acting minion's methuselah must move two blood onto their own minions from their pool otherwise this referendum fails. Each methuselah may only play one Death Threats per referendum. POT: As above, but the acting minion's methuselah must move five blood from their pool to their own minions otherwise this referendum fails. Only one Death Threats at superior may be played during a referendum.

> Azel wrote: > Low and mid caps don't need any more reasons to be better. Let the pool slough off into the blood bank. > Concerning mid cap, I am of the opposite opinion completely. That's linked to metagame and personnal taste, but it does color opinions. > Azel wrote: > Personally I'd like more minion card ways to gain/regain pool. > Well, pool gain is more out of control (and too stacked on narrow strategy) than too weak for me. A bit is fine, because 11 cap are near impossible to play if you pay them 11 pool. > Azel wrote: > And something within discipline for votes would be nice, so as the PRE stranglehold can eventually be loosened. If you keep this "Gird Minion" direction make it an act mod or reaction and throw it into an aggro discipline. > The only presence card that really is lacked by non presence voter is Voter Captivation (and the presence combo card like Scalpel tongue, but they are less needed). Nerfing (to 4 blood for example) or banning it would be way easier and less risky. Also, your example does not help at all voter without presence ; it's more a discipline anti-voter, something that already exist in a lot of discipline (Confusion of the eye spring to mind). > Azel wrote: > > Death Threats > Reaction > pot: If this referendum will effect you or cards you control, the acting minion's methuselah must move two blood onto their own minions from their pool otherwise this referendum fails. Each methuselah may only play one Death Threats per referendum. > POT: As above, but the acting minion's methuselah must move five blood from their pool to their own minions otherwise this referendum fails. Only one Death Threats at superior may be played during a referendum. > The card seem fine (maybe weak even, but it need test), but I am not too sure of what the theme is supposed to be.

I see that Jhattara's version affecting only titles vampires. That way Hukros wouldn't be owned by the card, but with some in-game politics and a wee bit of vote push (would be great with bribes!) Anson might find some hard time. I don't know if I like the Potence version. It's reactive instead of active or pre-emptive. Seems too conditional and weakish. But the concept is worth investigating. I'm liking Hattara's vote version with a restriction that it affects only titled vampires best. "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

> jhattara wrote: > How about... > > Delusions of Grandeur > > Requires a titled Sabbat vampire > Choose a ready vampire. Successful referendum means that the chosen vampire gains up to 5 blood from his or her controller's pool. Any excess blood gained is moved back to pool instead of blood bank. > Delusions of Grandeur Requires a titled Sabbat vampire Choose a ready vampire. A successful referendum means that the chosen vampire gains half of its capacity in blood from his or her controller's pool. Any excess blood is moved to his or her controller's pool instead of the blood bank. Best of both worlds. Scales against large caps, works reasonably on weenies, isn't excessively penalising, could be used as a Quasi Gird Minions (especially in a vote deck which could basically refill two vampires for a relatively low pool cost (i.e. Voter Cap could pay back 2 of the pool moved). Retired Baron of Sydney, Australia, 418

^, but you only need to clarify whether to round up or down.

> Juggernaut1981 wrote: > Best of both worlds. Scales against large caps, works reasonably on weenies, isn't excessively penalising, could be used as a Quasi Gird Minions (especially in a vote deck which could basically refill two vampires for a relatively low pool cost (i.e. Voter Cap could pay back 2 of the pool moved). > I don't see it as better than the original 3/6 blood ; it's basically more complicated without visible gain for me, and it make the card more difficult to play.

> Kiddo wrote: > ^, but you only need to clarify whether to round up or down. > Round down would be too weak. But I want to trump a Circle of Doom deck, not a 11-star deck, so dropping the titled part is not a good idea. Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

> Kraus' wrote: > Delusions of Grandeur > > Requires a titled Sabbat vampire > Choose a ready [titled] vampire. A successful referendum means that the chosen vampire gains half of its capacity [(rounding up)] in blood from his or her controller's pool, [not to exceed his capacity]. > I'm just wondering if the last sentence should be what Jugger suggested, or "not to exceed his/her capacity", just for the sake of cleaning up the text. Or is that vague in any chance? I'm liking that the card only works against tiled vampires. It narrows down it's use, yes, but makes it trickier to use, and most of the worst vampires handle are titled anyways. This way the card should strike home. The next question, however, is if it's better than Kine Resources Contested. Probably not, if there's a titled restriction in the target. Maybe someone could make a printable card out of it and play test? It's a rather situational card, and all the restrictions possibly worsen it too much from the original idea. "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

> Kraus wrote: > The next question, however, is if it's better than Kine Resources Contested. > I'd say it's not even close to KRC, as it is now. With all those requirements (playable by a titled vamp (which I don't mind), only playable on a titled vamp (which i think is too restricting)) and considering that it is at max a 5 pool loss, which can be retrieved...i like the card, but truth be told, I'd just rather play even more KRCs instead of this one. Don't make another Auto-da-Fe card - nice concept, not worth it.

> Kiddo wrote: > > > Kraus wrote: > > The next question, however, is if it's better than Kine Resources Contested. > > > I'd say it's not even close to KRC, as it is now. > > With all those requirements (playable by a titled vamp (which I don't mind), only playable on a titled vamp (which i think is too restricting)) and considering that it is at max a 5 pool loss, which can be retrieved...i like the card, but truth be told, I'd just rather play even more KRCs instead of this one. Don't make another Auto-da-Fe card - nice concept, not worth it. > Yeah, I thought so too after I last typed in the target restriction... A picture of a KRC flashed through my eyes, and I felt a bit numb. A KRC would be just better. Sad. "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

> Kraus wrote: > Yeah, I thought so too after I last typed in the target restriction... A picture of a KRC flashed through my eyes, and I felt a bit numb. A KRC would be just better. Sad. > What about the original version? Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

> Ankha wrote: > But I want to trump a Circle of Doom deck, not a 11-star deck > Why? What makes you think that Augustus Giovanni deserves to be hit for full but not Enkidu? Why Anson but not Nana? Why Zayyat the Sandstorm but not the Girls or Huitzilopchtli? With your tiled requirement, you leave aside some of the worst Villein abusers and you still hit a lot a of terrible vampires. There are good vampires and there are bad vampires. There are good big cap vampires and there are bad big cap vampires. There are good titled big cap vampires and there are bad titled big cap vampires. There are good untitled big cap vampires and there are bad untitled big cap vampires. Your card is not the place to fix such unbalances: bad vampires will not suddenly become good just because they are not affected. But even if it was, you would not fix anything unless you list the targets by names. Don't add a random requirement that is just making things more complicated.

> Non-existant user wrote: > Why? What makes you think that Augustus Giovanni deserves to be hit for full but not Enkidu? Why Anson but not Nana? Why Zayyat the Sandstorm but not the Girls or Huitzilopchtli? With your tiled requirement, you leave aside some of the worst Villein abusers and you still hit a lot a of terrible vampires. > Oh, because it's well known that the main target are not the titled one. Stop the hypocrisie one moment : the worse one are almost all titled, and the Inner Circle are significantly worse on average. Yes, it may also hit bad titled vampires. Too bad for them.

> Non-existant user wrote: > > > Ankha wrote: > > But I want to trump a Circle of Doom deck, not a 11-star deck > > > Why? What makes you think that Augustus Giovanni deserves to be hit for full but not Enkidu? Why Anson but not Nana? Why Zayyat the Sandstorm but not the Girls or Huitzilopchtli? With your tiled requirement, you leave aside some of the worst Villein abusers and you still hit a lot a of terrible vampires. > Your question is "why titled vampires"? I had to chose a subset of vampires because you can't remove 6 pool without any condition. So why did a chose the "titled" subset? Because 1/ many Villein abuses are performed on titled vampires (IC for instance) 2/ they are more apt to defend themselves against the vote (which makes the card more balanced). So yes, there will be collateral damage, but it's better than not restricting it at all. Another option would be to choose a Methuselah that controls 2 or more vampires of capacity 8 or more, and move 3 pool all vampires of capacity 8 or more he or she controls (kind of reversed Political Stranglehold) Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

> Ohlmann wrote: > > > Azel wrote: > > Low and mid caps don't need any more reasons to be better. Let the pool slough off into the blood bank. > > > Concerning mid cap, I am of the opposite opinion completely. That's linked to metagame and personnal taste, but it does color opinions. > > That's nice, but my Anarch experience finds most of them are generally solid and even w/o Anarch-ness they help round out crypts. Large caps either have outstanding members or members that stand outside of decks; far more hit or miss for construction. Besides, as game directions go, slowing the game down from weenie spam is a direction I'm OK with. > > > Azel wrote: > > Personally I'd like more minion card ways to gain/regain pool. > > > Well, pool gain is more out of control (and too stacked on narrow strategy) than too weak for me. A bit is fine, because 11 cap are near impossible to play if you pay them 11 pool. > > You're talking about its current metagame strength with cards that are questionable for the environment as it stands. I'm talking about democratizing out the mechanic into Minion cards so as to liberate the outrageous competition for Master slots. > > We likely agree on the same few problem cards for pool gain/regain. And I think a ban hammer would help bring some clarity and diversity to the field. I'm namely looking at recursion abuse, as I suspect you are as well. But that's another topic that could drown out this one. Besides, VTES community screeches like a stuck pig on any little change; if you're going to remove one favorite pacifier (gross recursive poolgainers) you better be able to offer a consolation prize -- and still prepare for the whinging whirlwind. > > > Azel wrote: > > And something within discipline for votes would be nice, so as the PRE stranglehold can eventually be loosened. If you keep this "Gird Minion" direction make it an act mod or reaction and throw it into an aggro discipline. > > > The only presence card that really is lacked by non presence voter is Voter Captivation (and the presence combo card like Scalpel tongue, but they are less needed). Nerfing (to 4 blood for example) or banning it would be way easier and less risky. > > You have far more optimism about VEKN making clean metagame decisions like that than I do. When LSJ introduced more bounce, within the same primo bounce discipline no less, I knew the ban hammer on the WotC bounce 4 (Deflect, TM, Redirect, MEE) was no longer in the works. Not that it'd have made for a better game given the prolific availability of big bleed, but whatever. > > Voter Cap seems here to stay. Might as well offer alternative viability until the design team picks a direction. Besides, this is all theoretical, not much of this stuff ends up in print. Just look at the existence of Pallid, Mundane, The Oath, etc. for design slots tossed aside instead of digging through community creativity. Yes, I'm very jaded. > > Also, your example does not help at all voter without presence ; it's more a discipline anti-voter, something that already exist in a lot of discipline (Confusion of the eye spring to mind). > > This was on purpose. I'm trying to keep to the main topic about using a forced "Gird Minions" effect to hamper bloat exploitation. Though I have a tangential argument, messing with someone else's topic is not my place to make that argument. I just would personally find that rude is all. > > > Azel wrote: > > > > Death Threats > > Reaction > > pot: If this referendum will effect you or cards you control, the acting minion's methuselah must move two blood onto their own minions from their pool otherwise this referendum fails. Each methuselah may only play one Death Threats per referendum. > > POT: As above, but the acting minion's methuselah must move five blood from their pool to their own minions otherwise this referendum fails. Only one Death Threats at superior may be played during a referendum. > > > The card seem fine (maybe weak even, but it need test), but I am not too sure of what the theme is supposed to be. > Again, the theme relates back to the topic of moving pool back onto vampires, as per main topic. As Gird Minions is there to protect controlled assets through reinvestment, Death Threats would test a methuselah's attachment to said assets during a vote: if you want to continue your referendum, be prepared to shore up your agents. Basically it's a contribution to design topic instead of threadcrap or topic drift. It works best on full minions, of course, as excess goes to the blood bank. However a combat deck (or deck with potence threat) would like to move pool onto minions during an antagonists minion phase. And more than one meth can get in on the fun, like Poison Pill, making the vote not worth it. Also since it must resolve in order for the referendum to pass it fills up other vampires before any successful referendum and post-referendum effects go off. This can make it too deadly to continue with end game votes. Also Voter Cap goes after so this partly undoes bloating like Villein, there's a net wash if there's only one vampire Tap Cap (er, now Villein Cap) bloating. The most immediate improvement I'd make would narrow the target to only move pool onto the acting minion. But that might be too strong against other vote decks and favor Voter Cap decks even more.

> Kiddo wrote: > > > Kraus wrote: > > The next question, however, is if it's better than Kine Resources Contested. > > > I'd say it's not even close to KRC, as it is now. > > With all those requirements (playable by a titled vamp (which I don't mind), only playable on a titled vamp (which i think is too restricting)) and considering that it is at max a 5 pool loss, which can be retrieved...i like the card, but truth be told, I'd just rather play even more KRCs instead of this one. Don't make another Auto-da-Fe card - nice concept, not worth it. > The idea is entertaining, but there's no pro-active reason to play it. At best it's a stalling tactic that requires too many conditions for too little effect. At the very least it should slough off blood into the blood bank. Unless you can follow up with a rush, or other blood removal card, Free State Rants achieves more. If you can pass a vote, why would you pass this? (which is one of the reasons I made Death Threats reactive, though it is way too focused and could use a non-vote use.) I prefer it hurting weenies more. I also hate rounding and undefined values; give it a clear number. Besides, 1/2 cap just screws Orun more, which is not a real threat compared to what you want to target. I also like the idea of giving pool to vampires in torpor... just amuses me is all. Delusions of Grandeur Requires a titled Sabbat vampire Choose a vampire with a capacity less than five not at full capacity, or a methuselah. Successful referendum means that the chosen vampire gains 4 blood from his or her controller's pool, or the chosen methuselah burns 2 pool. Has a switch effect so it isn't a dead draw. Also the effect is focused so as to not incur excess table talk, which is what I'd associate with Sabbat politics.

> Azel wrote: > > > Kiddo wrote: > > > > > Kraus wrote: > > > The next question, however, is if it's better than Kine Resources Contested. > > > > > I'd say it's not even close to KRC, as it is now. > > > > With all those requirements (playable by a titled vamp (which I don't mind), only playable on a titled vamp (which i think is too restricting)) and considering that it is at max a 5 pool loss, which can be retrieved...i like the card, but truth be told, I'd just rather play even more KRCs instead of this one. Don't make another Auto-da-Fe card - nice concept, not worth it. > > > The idea is entertaining, > Which idea? Which version? > Azel wrote: > I prefer it hurting weenies more. I also hate rounding and undefined values; give it a clear number. Besides, 1/2 cap just screws Orun more, which is not a real threat compared to what you want to target. I also like the idea of giving pool to vampires in torpor... just amuses me is all. > > Delusions of Grandeur > > Requires a titled Sabbat vampire > Choose a vampire with a capacity less than five not at full capacity, or a methuselah. Successful referendum means that the chosen vampire gains 4 blood from his or her controller's pool, or the chosen methuselah burns 2 pool. > > Has a switch effect so it isn't a dead draw. Also the effect is focused so as to not incur excess table talk, which is what I'd associate with Sabbat politics. > There are plenty of weenie-hate vote, starting with Neonate Breach which is strictly better than the version you propose above. Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

How about: "Delusions of Grandeur" Divide X points amongst any number of vampires with a Villein, Vessel or Blood Doll attached, where X is half the capacity of the acting vampire (rounded up.) Vampires with Vessel or Blood Dolls may only be assigned 1 point. Each Methuselah with a chosen vampire moves pool equal to the points assigned to the chosen vampires he or she controls. Maybe there is a better way to word it, but the idea is as original suggested to reverse the effects of villein and/or vessel/blood doll without completely hosing them. It's kinda like a reverse "Free States Rant." EDIT: I don't think there should be a requirement that the vampire be at less than capacity. If a vampire has a villein, vessel or blood doll, and would receive more blood than capacity: congratulations, you've removed counters from the game, likely from someone who was bloating to begin with. 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.

> Ankha wrote: > I had to chose a subset of vampires because you can't remove 6 pool without any condition. > Maybe that is the root of the problem. There are very few ways to do 6 damage with a vote. Even Parity Shift and Reckless Agitation cap at 5, and they both have a requirement on the acting vampire and on the game state. If you cap it at 5 instead of 6, I don't think you need any more conditions than the blood hole to be there (and the requirement on the acting vampire). > > Another option would be to choose a Methuselah that controls 2 or more vampires of capacity 8 or more, and move 3 pool all vampires of capacity 8 or more he or she controls (kind of reversed Political Stranglehold) > That sounds much closer to your intended target: one with so many big caps must have some bloating going on. And it scales up with the the amount of bloating, kind of like an Ancilla Empowerment.

Ahh, forgot about Neonate Breach, good card, good card. Perhaps we are looking at the idea wrong from trying to just "reverse the flow" of Villein without any way to hold the blood there. And making it a pool damager is too hard as the field is already crowded. Maybe look at a way to "Gird Minions" followed by a counter that needs to be burned off? Fits the Sabbat theme of 'votes that create counters'. Delusions of Grandeur Requires Sabbat Since two of your previous minion phases, target up to two vampires who moved their blood to their controller's pool during a master phase. Those vampires' controllers return an equal amount of pool back to the target vampires. Put a counter on these vampires; these vampires may not move blood to their controller's pool while they have this counter. These vampires may remove this counter as a +1 stealth action that costs 2 blood. That first clause "since two of your previous minion phases" was a bear to recreate. But the inspiration is from L5R's current arc's new clauses, some of which I find quite steal-able. Undoes master bloat, adds more delay thru action tax, and technically does have the power to kill a meth who borrowed and spent.

> Azel wrote: > > Requires Sabbat > Since two of your previous minion phases, > NO. keeping track of the state of the game as it was 2 turns ago ? Bad Card Design. Imagination is our only weapon in the war against reality -Jules de Gaultier

> Reyda wrote: > > > Azel wrote: > > > > Requires Sabbat > > Since two of your previous minion phases, > > > NO. > keeping track of the state of the game as it was 2 turns ago ? > Bad > Card > Design. > Yeah, I seriously stopped reading there as well. I'll ponder on the matter more later. It's a nice tech that needs some extra brain into it. Maybe even play testing with a version or two. About the possible usage of this card? It's actually dealing a lot of damage to a careless player - Villein Alexandra for 8, play Monastery of Shadows (3 pool) and transfer down 4 pool. A successful Delusions of Grandeour (depending on which version we use, of course) would leave the player at -5 pool from where he/she started. That's loads more voulnerable than what she intended. Note that there's little chance they could be Parity Shifted with using the pool so much, and a KRC would hurt only for 3. I could see this vote giving combat oriented rush/voters a bonus. Still can't say if it should hit only titled vampires or not. It's really true that a card like this should be made a bit stronger than the best case scenario would suggest; there is already, as has been pointed out, a restriction in its effectiveness printed there. It's not automatic damage by all means. Maybe taking off the target restriction would be okay anyways? Thematically it shouldn't have any restrictions to begin with, I think. Making it Sabbat just gives them a wee bit of an edge in game balance - kinda. "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

It's the latest rage in several top tier CCGs... but we are a calcified community, though.

> Azel wrote: > It's the latest rage in several top tier CCGs... > yeah, and 3/4 CL is the latest rage in several top tier CCG and LCG. Imagination is our only weapon in the war against reality -Jules de Gaultier

Thank you all for your thoughts and suggestion. I will stick to the original version (slightly reworded). My opinion is that the card can't target only titled vampires (=> hosers are wallpaper), must have a conditional power-up (can't move inconditionaly 3 blood (too weak) or 6 blood (too strong)). Moving half the capacity is an interesting option, but the target scope is too wide (all the big-cap vampires). I prefer to target *titled* vampire (because low-cap titled vampires won't be affected often, eg. Volker needs to be empty for a 5 pool damage). I added a FSR-like sentence to make it more efficient against massive voting big-cap. Finally, for flavor (but it could be dropped), I added the Sabbat requirement. Hence: Name: Delusions of Grandeur / Careless Claim Cardtype: Political action Requires a Sabbat vampire. Choose a ready vampire. Successful referendum means that the chosen vampire gains 3 blood (6 if he or she is titled) from his or her controller's pool; blood in excess of the capacity isn't moved. In this referendum, non-priscus titles are worth 1 fewer vote each. Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director