Stock Market Manipulation

The suggestion of making Investments into Trifles got me thinking about alternative ways to empower Investments. So, basic idea: Stock Market Manipulation Event. Government. Once per turn, a Methuselah can spend a discard phase action to move a blood counter from an Investment they control to their pool. Good for everyone? No, I think a trade-off between card cycling and pool gain is typically not going to be a no-brainer. But for a deck that lacks blood gain (for Villein, Doll etc.), would this give you slightly better pool gain options? (That, of course, could include Imbued.) Does it need some sort of exhaustion clause? Stock Market Manipulation Event. Government. Put this card in play with X broker counters on it, where X is the number of Methuselahs currently in the game. Once per turn, a Methuselah can spend a discard phase action to move a blood counter from an Investment they control to their pool. Whenever an Investment is burned, burn a broker counter from this card. Burn this card if it has zero broker counters. Does using a discard phase action cost too much that you wouldn't consider playing it? Could it just move a counter once per turn for free, or would that be too much? (The tier 1 VoterCap/Villein deck is probably still playing a clutch of Villeins and not this, right?) Anyway, have at it.

The exhaustion clause seem useless to me, because emptying completely more investment than the number of player (i.e., at the very least two) just seem unlikely. Power-level wise, even the first version don't seem outrageous to me, because discard phase action are even harder than master phase to come by ; gaining one or two pool per turn ain't all that useful, and unlike villein it's slow and predictible, even if you were able to get the same amount of pool with both. The card, however, would make any additional way to get discard phase a lot more powerful than intended, since there is a critical mass of discard phase action which make this card pass from "meh" to "overpowered".

Wouldn't be spending influence better? Say 2 influence to get back 1 pool (once per turn). A DPA is costly all game long. Using influence would prevent from transfering back 2 pool and gaining 1 pool from an investement. That being said, the Stock Market Manipulation you proposed shouldn't have an "exhaustion" clause. Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

> Ankha wrote: > Wouldn't be spending influence better? Say 2 influence to get back 1 pool (once per turn). > Mmm... interesting. Would you limit its usage, or just as many as you can afford per turn? In the mid-to-late game, Ingrid Rossler + SMM would turn Short-Term into not quite "Gain 2 pool". Ventrue Investment is very likely "Gain 2 pool", and Ingrid/Info highway can improve that. I'm not sure any of that's a problem, just thinking out loud. Mapatano Utando would be interesting in that context, too. You could Secret Horde to get in range of a Parity Shift, and then fairly rapidly bring the SH pool back. That might be more annoying but, again, thinking out loud.

Since the proposition is once per turn, Secret Horde won't be all that quick. At best 2 pool per turn, one for the master phase, one for 2 transfer. Without the once per turn clause, it can lead to insanely fast pool gain.

> jamesatzephyr wrote: > > > Ankha wrote: > > Wouldn't be spending influence better? Say 2 influence to get back 1 pool (once per turn). > > > Mmm... interesting. Would you limit its usage, or just as many as you can afford per turn? > I would limit it, otherwise you could gain 3 pool per turn (1 for a MPA, 2 for 4 transfers) with no other requirement almost for free. On the other hand, if we keep your idea (using a DPA to transfer 1), then unlimiting it may not be an issue (DPA being more expensive than transfers). Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

> Ankha wrote: > I would limit it, otherwise you could gain 3 pool per turn (1 for a MPA, 2 for 4 transfers) with no other requirement almost for free. > And a deck would be able to gain 4 or 5 pool in one turn with a bit of setup. In other word, a dedicated deck could become un-oustable without Conditionning or a lot of IC, which seem a bad idea for the game. (of course, it's somewhat already possible to create a nearby unoustable deck, but the general idea is to combat that kind of deck, not add more option to do them) > Ankha wrote: > On the other hand, if we keep your idea (using a DPA to transfer 1), then unlimiting it may not be an issue (DPA being more expensive than transfers). > Let's say harder to come by, and less generaly useful. I have nothing against making Unmada a little bit more powerful, but it mean that card that add DPA would need to be much more checked if that kind of use for DPA exist.

> jamesatzephyr wrote: > The suggestion of making Investments into Trifles got me thinking about alternative ways to empower Investments. > Is there any other reason to be interested in Investments besides the fact that they're currently terrible? The mechanic is basically about paying non-minion related resources for the option to pay non-minion related resources to gain non-minion related resources. I mean, does anyone think that Ascendance is actually an interesting card?

> Suoli wrote: > Is there any other reason to be interested in Investments besides the fact that they're currently terrible? > Yes, they can be a way to pay for more minion without spending blood on your vampire, I.E. letting deck that actually use a lot of blood on their vampire recouping vampire cost. 'cause let's face it : we are talking about making investment variant of blood doll which cost various ressources other than blood.

I liked it. Second option is much better and balanced. I am death. Paul Kersey, Death Wish

Really, id rather just see investments as trifles. Dpa is hard ro get more of, and Unmada becomes better. But im still not sure losing a card cycle is worth slow investment poolgain.

> jamesatzephyr wrote: > > Stock Market Manipulation > Event. Government. > Once per turn, a Methuselah can spend a discard phase action to move a blood counter from an Investment they control to their pool. > > Good for everyone? ..... > > Does it need some sort of exhaustion clause? ....... > I would use it. With or without the exhaustion clause. It would work really well with Powerbase: Los Angeles. I have a deck that pulls 3 - 4 counters off investments a turn. This would make it 4-5 a turn. I would use it for this deck but not any other deck I have. In any other deck, I think the discard phase action might be too steep.

> Suoli wrote: > Is there any other reason to be interested in Investments besides the fact that they're currently terrible? > Investments specifically, no. But - with one or two obvious exceptions (say, breed boon) - a lot of pool gain options at the moment really rely on blood gain, to be churned back into pool from Doll, Villein, Vessel etc. A number of less competitive deck styles, outside the rampant tier 1 type decks, have issues with using blood like that because their cards are expensive and/or their blood gain options aren't amazing. So, my thinking is a combination of: a) can we get improved pool gain for them, b) can we do it in a way that's different from Dolls and Villein etc., with a possible c) unwallpapering existing cards is nice too.

I like it, and I would play it. I think it would be more interesting to use the discard phase action, since that would make a few less popular vampires - Cicatriz, Silas, Cagliostro, and Ulugh Beg (along with the popular Unmada) - more playable.