Name: Server Intrusion
Cardtype: Action modifier
[aus] Only usable when a bleed would be successful. The bleed burns no pool; it is unsuccessful. Instead, look at the hand of the target Methuselah and discard up to X cards among them, where X is the bleed amount.
[AUS] As above, but you choose and discard the cards one by one (the target Methuselah replaces immediately after each discard; you don't see the last card replaced).
World of Darkness reference: Bleeding is conceptually the act of "paying bribes, changing bank records, spreading rumors, etc." This card burns cards instead of burning pool.
Game references: Revelations, Spying Mission.
How does this card address a compelling game need? Even though it's usually better to burn pool than discarding cards, there are some cases where cards in hand are more important than pool (eg. your prey is at 20 pool and you just need to discard his combat cards). It can be used on a harmless looking bleed for 1 but also if the bleed is redirected.
Created by: Ankha
Prince of Paris, France
Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director
> Ankha wrote:
> Cardtype: Action modifier
> +1 stealth action.
>
I think it's a leftover of another iteration of the card.
Apart from that, I can't really say I think something of this card. It's Revelation by another name, and sometime more, especially with Inner Circle.
Hum... you will end discarding cards from the wrong player... it might be good... you might be helping your ally by discarding junk that he does not need...
I would prefer something like:
[aus] Only usable after a successful bleed. The target player burn x cards from the top of his library where x is the amount of the bleed.
[AUS] As above, but the cards are not burned but removed from the game instead.
> wesile wrote:
> Hum... you will end discarding cards from the wrong player... it might be good... you might be helping your ally by discarding junk that he does not need...
>
Is that a problem? I think not.
> wesile wrote:
> I would prefer something like:
>
> [aus] Only usable after a successful bleed. The target player burn x cards from the top of his library where x is the amount of the bleed.
> [AUS] As above, but the cards are not burned but removed from the game instead.
>
Burning cards from the top of the library is awfully weak (except in only one type of deck). Affecting cards in hand is much more interesting. Don't forget you're forfeting a successful bleed action. If the alternative to burning pool is crappy, the card will never be played.
Prince of Paris, France
Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director
> Ankha wrote:
>
> > wesile wrote:
> > Hum... you will end discarding cards from the wrong player... it might be good... you might be helping your ally by discarding junk that he does not need...
> >
> Is that a problem? I think not.
>
> Burning cards from the top of the library is awfully weak (except in only one type of deck). Affecting cards in hand is much more interesting. Don't forget you're forfeting a successful bleed action. If the alternative to burning pool is crappy, the card will never be played.
>
Well in my option I was not forfeiting the bleed...
The problem I see here is that if you bleed for more than 1 you will find yourself bleeding someone else... On the short term does not look like a sound strategy.
Imagine this:
Jost Werner is bleeding for 4 with palla grande and intimidation.
your prey declares "No Block".
You increase with Aire of elation for + 2.
Your prey places a deflection on the table and the bleed is now on your ally.
Will you use your own judgement on what to discard or will you be talking to him?
On the other hand...
Now instead of Jost lets pick a guy with dementation.
So lets bleed my predator to remove the cards that are messing my game.
Wesile, I don't understand what you're trying to say. Could you be clearer?
> wesile wrote:
>
> > Ankha wrote:
> >
> > > wesile wrote:
> > > Hum... you will end discarding cards from the wrong player... it might be good... you might be helping your ally by discarding junk that he does not need...
> > >
> > Is that a problem? I think not.
> >
> > Burning cards from the top of the library is awfully weak (except in only one type of deck). Affecting cards in hand is much more interesting. Don't forget you're forfeting a successful bleed action. If the alternative to burning pool is crappy, the card will never be played.
> >
> Well in my option I was not forfeiting the bleed...
>
Ok, I missed that. Milling decks is not very interesting but why not.
> wesile wrote:
> The problem I see here is that if you bleed for more than 1 you will find yourself bleeding someone else...
>
What are you trying to say there? That bleed for more than 1 are always deflected so it's pointless to bleed for more than 1?
>
> wesile wrote:
> On the short term does not look like a sound strategy.
>
I can't see where there is a problem.
> wesile wrote:
> Imagine this:
>
> Jost Werner is bleeding for 4 with palla grande and intimidation.
>
> your prey declares "No Block".
>
> You increase with Aire of elation for + 2.
>
> Your prey places a deflection on the table and the bleed is now on your ally.
>
> Will you use your own judgement on what to discard or will you be talking to him?
>
Both I guess. But at least my grandprey doesn't lose 6 pool. And discarding is optional ("up to")
> wesile wrote:
> On the other hand...
>
> Now instead of Jost lets pick a guy with dementation.
>
> So lets bleed my predator to remove the cards that are messing my game.
>
That's a clever move. Where is the problem?
Prince of Paris, France
Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director
I like the idea but I am afraid the superior will be a time sink. How about something simpler?
: as above, and the discarded cards are not replaced until the end of the turn.
> Non-existant user wrote:
> I like the idea but I am afraid the superior will be a time sink. How about something simpler?
>
> : as above, and the discarded cards are not replaced until the end of the turn.
>
Yeah, I like this version better. If they have a jammed hand, you might end up helping then by discarding 1-3 cards, even if you choose which cards to discard.
> Ankha wrote:
> Name: Server Intrusion
> Cardtype: Action modifier
>
You are playing to much android:netrunner sir...
beside this i don't think the card is really good : it will trump interesting decks with fragile mecanisms and have little impact on already awful ones who rely on same old 2 cards combos.
"I discard 2 carrion crows and 1 aid from bats. oh, you replace with 2 more and an Ashur... ok..."
versus
" I discard your political struggle, your unique copy of Seattle committee and your Libertas". :/
Yes, I already know the stoning is incoming (but you can't say one deck is more interesting blahblah), but I wrote what I had to.
Imagination is our only weapon in the war against reality -Jules de Gaultier
How about:
"Inception"
Only usable on a successful bleed.
Reduce your bleed by 1. The target Methuselah's hand is reduced by 1 until his or her minion phase.
The target of your bleed does not lose pool. Your prey's hand is reduced by X until his or her minion phase where X is the amount of this vampire's bleed.
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.
> Both I guess. But at least my grandprey doesn't lose 6 pool. And discarding is optional ("up to")
>
Hum... haven't noticed the "Up to"...
Yes, that way is a far better option.