Name: Protect Thine Own
Cardtype: Political Action
Cost: 0 blood
Requires a justicar or Inner Circle member.
Choose a younger Red List vampire with capacity below 6 or a Red List ally. If the acting vampire is a member of the Inner Circle, you can choose a younger Red List vampire instead. If this referendum is successful, this vampire burns X blood to burn that minion, where X is the capacity of the chosen vampire or the cost of the chosen ally.
Thoughts?
Prince of Paris, France
Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director
It seems really interesting as it gives a very strong boost to red list and trophy (which is needed).
But you have to be carefull.
Other cards with this kind of text comes with a strong draw back :
both Eldest command undeath and veles' Hunt work on prey only, VH is very fragile facing DT (and is limited to a clan without easy acces to ) and ECU has a built in anti-voter captivation.
What you propose has some kind of drawback : you have to play red list or trump-up charge (I guess TUC would be the card of choice in this situation).
But, with a crypt featuring Adana, Lutz, Raphael and Dmitra (which are by themselves very good in PRE/OBF vote deck), you just have to mixx a good combination of TUC, PTO and VC to have a killing machine.
And now, Enkidu (to some extent) and Mata Hari are unplayable
This card won't trigger trophies.
Enkidu is quite safe as it would require a 12-capacity inner circle wih 11 blood to burn him.
Prince of Paris, France
Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director
> Ankha wrote:
> This card won't trigger trophies.
> Enkidu is quite safe as it would require a 12-capacity inner circle wih 11 blood to burn him.
>
If it doesn't trigger trophies, I don't see the point of it (except unbanning a card).
And i really don't see how with the card you propose lutz capa 11 with 11 bloods could not burn Enkidu ?
Protect Thine Own
Requires a justicar or Inner Circle member. Choose a Sabbat or Anarch vampire with a capacity below 6. If this referendum is successful, burn that vampire. If that vampire was not controlled by your prey, burn 4 pool. A methuselah can only play one pto each game.
Fixed?
> Timo wrote:
> And i really don't see how with the card you propose lutz capa 11 with 11 bloods could not burn Enkidu ?
>
Because I stupidly removed the "younger" close
Prince of Paris, France
Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director
There's a little card called RED LIST that makes this fix still stupid, because Arika still burns almost every vampire in the game, at stealth, with nearly zero possibility of being able to stop her. Just like before.
A courageous try, though, if I've ever seen one.
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
> KevinM wrote:
> There's a little card called RED LIST that makes this fix still stupid, because Arika still burns almost every vampire in the game, at stealth, with nearly zero possibility of being able to stop her. Just like before.
>
> A courageous try, though, if I've ever seen one.
>
Of course there is !
But it is a good try and I guess something along this line could be "acceptable" (but I would like it to be able to trigger trophies which could be written on the card)
but it is wrong to say Arika could burn anybody at the table. It cost actually a lot of blood !! And you know what ? Ayo Igoli can allready do it without the red list part !
It seems the only way to properly errata a card with such an effect is to load it with conditions and costs to the point it is practically unplayable anyway. So in the end, why bother ?
> FrançoisV wrote:
> It seems the only way to properly errata a card with such an effect is to load it with conditions and costs to the point it is practically unplayable anyway. So in the end, why bother ?
>
Agreed. So why not just go:
Protect Thine Own
Political Action
Cost: 1 blood
Requires a justicar or Inner Circle member.
Choose a non-Camarilla Red List vampire with a capacity below 6. If the acting vampire is a member of the Inner Circle, you may choose any non-Camarilla Red List vampire instead. If this referendum is successful, burn that vampire.
It´s still wallpaper though. The "non-Camarilla"-clause make it suck, but removing it would make it stupid.
Anyway, my fundamental approach to errata is to keep it as simple as possible, or don´t do it at all.
"My strategy? Luck is my strategy, of course."
Actually I'd just not bother having it errata'ed and keep it banned. With just an additional Red List condition one could (and will) argue that it's still too easy to pull off. Well, there are already such concerns with an additional Red List condition and a younger clause and a huge cost in blood; really, if that card can be both broken (meaning "too powerful") and broken (meaning "unplayable") there is no way this card can be errated in a satisfying way.
Or maybe with "burn that vampire and the acting vampire". (I'm not really serious, just keep it banned )
> FrançoisV wrote:
> Actually I'd just not bother having it errata'ed and keep it banned. With just an additional Red List condition one could (and will) argue that it's still too easy to pull off. Well, there are already such concerns with an additional Red List condition and a younger clause and a huge cost in blood; really, if that card can be both broken (meaning "too powerful") and broken (meaning "unplayable") there is no way this card can be errated in a satisfying way.
>
> Or maybe with "burn that vampire and the acting vampire". (I'm not really serious, just keep it banned )
>
What about using the Eldest Command Undeath terms, and making it usable only for prince and justicar? I believe this is nearer than the original to WoD lore.
Vitor Hugo
Sabbat. Vitor gets +1 vote against any referendum of a political action.