Submission: At the gates

Name: At the gates Cardtype: Political action Cost: - Capacity: - Discipline: - Clan: - Requires a titled sabbat vampire. If this referendum passes, place this card on a ready vampire. The vampire with this card cannot perform directed actions or hunt. Burn this card at beginning of your next untap step. Flavor text: "Dear Lord", Gainesmil whispered in awe at the recitation as he slouched in his seat. "The barbarians are at the gate." -The fall of Atlanta Art notes: A motorized sabbat war party on final approach to a large US city via a motorway, with the citys skyscrapers ruling the skyline. World of Darkness reference: The flavor of the card is intended to depict a situation where a vampire is cut off from rest of the world by a sabbat war party and forced to go into hiding or full defense. Specifically, it refers the great Sabbat offensive across the eastern US seaboard in 1999, as depicted in the Clan novel saga. How does this card address a compelling game need?: This card is intended to enable new strategies and ways to build a sabbat vote deck. Sabbat-specific voting is really lacking in my opinion. The synergy with another sabbat-specific but seldom used vote card 'Deploy the hand', is intentional. I believe there are a great deal of other possible synergies with cards that either burn blood off vampires, or require directed actions(or edge) to remove. Or combat, which would thematically suit Sabbat. On the other hand, the card removes itself to prevent it from becoming too powerful a lock. Also the vampire with this card is still allowed to block, so the player can still in theory defend him/herself from further votes. The idea is that he can't do offensive (directed) actions. This card could also allow hindering a perceived table threat across the table, without being too punishing. Created by: Juha Laukkanen Smoking craters tell no tales. —Tex talks Battletech

I really like this idea, but maybe it is better to change "vampire" to "minion" because it can also happen, that an ally is separeted and it can rescue you from a visit from a war ghoul or other nice guys for a round or more if you play enough of "At the Gates"

> Bloodartist wrote: > ... > If this referendum passes, place this card on a ready vampire. ... > I would prefer a "choose" phrase before the referendum, like the wording of "Banishment". Maybe: "Choose a vampire (minion?). Successful referendum means, that this card is placed on (attached to?) that vampire (minion?)." National Coordinator Germany nc [dot] germany [at] magenta [dot] de

> Hakuron wrote: > I would prefer a "choose" phrase before the referendum, like the wording of "Banishment". > Maybe: "Choose a vampire (minion?). Successful referendum means, that this card is placed on (attached to?) that vampire (minion?)." > Perhaps, but I chose the wording in order to be as concise and clear as possible, to minimize the wordcount. I am not terribly fond of repeating old mistakes in card wording tbh... Even though there is no actual mistake in Banishment's wording, its not as concise as it could be. (EDIT: I guess I should've used the word 'put' and not 'place'.) Besides, the wording I used has already been used in several political actions. For example several crusade s. > ur_vampire wrote: > I really like this idea, but maybe it is better to change "vampire" to "minion" because it can also happen, that an ally is separeted and it can rescue you from a visit from a war ghoul or other nice guys for a round or more if you play enough of "At the Gates" > Sure, why not. I'm not opposed to improving the card. I didn't want to go overboard on my first go However, thematically I'd imagine allies to be less troubled by Sabbat occupation since they usually can act during the day. (Maybe not War ghouls..) Smoking craters tell no tales. —Tex talks Battletech

> Bloodartist wrote: > > > Hakuron wrote: > > I would prefer a "choose" phrase before the referendum, like the wording of "Banishment". > > Maybe: "Choose a vampire (minion?). Successful referendum means, that this card is placed on (attached to?) that vampire (minion?)." > > > Perhaps, but I chose the wording in order to be as concise and clear as possible, to minimize the wordcount. I am not terribly fond of repeating old mistakes in card wording tbh... Even though there is no actual mistake in Banishment's wording, its not as concise as it could be. (EDIT: I guess I should've used the word 'put' and not 'place'.) > > Besides, the wording I used has already been used in several political actions. For example several crusade s. > > > ur_vampire wrote: > > I really like this idea, but maybe it is better to change "vampire" to "minion" because it can also happen, that an ally is separeted and it can rescue you from a visit from a war ghoul or other nice guys for a round or more if you play enough of "At the Gates" > > > Sure, why not. I'm not opposed to improving the card. I didn't want to go overboard on my first go However, thematically I'd imagine allies to be less troubled by Sabbat occupation since they usually can act during the day. (Maybe not War ghouls..) > The difference with the Crusade is that there's no choice involved: you put the card on the acting vampire. Banishment (or At the gates) requires to set some terms before the referendum is called, hence the "Choose..." part. That would give: Requires a titled Sabbat vampire. Choose a ready vampire. Successful referendum means that this card is put on the chosen vampire. The attached vampire cannot perform directed actions or hunt. Burn this card during your unlock phase. I would probably add a "younger" clause. Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

> Ankha wrote: > I would probably add a "younger" clause. > Oh, that would be a huge downgrade... and might not achieve the results I was hoping to get with this card. I think it would be too weak then to build decks around, but its not my choice of course... You already need to push this through the voting, which probably requires considerable investment, especially when facing an inner circle. I was hoping to give midcaps some manner of tools. Like the winner of the recent local tourney here said: "Bored of 'villein for 11, giants blood, superior govern, freak drive, scouting mission, freak, mindrape, freak, Banishment on your deflecter+push+cap+freak, bleed for 5+.'-games?" Come on, give the midcaps some love. The flavor is intended to depict a large group of militant (but younger) sabbat vampires trouble older and entrenched vampires. Also its not the voter who orders the attack who does the heavy lifting here. Smoking craters tell no tales. —Tex talks Battletech

So basically Cicatriz can shut down Enkidu every turn? Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

> Ankha wrote: > So basically Cicatriz can shut down Enkidu every turn? > Sensory deprivation, anyone? Making it younger only kills plenty of the flavor and utility. Even if it were as laid out at the moment id be surprised if it saw any play. The idea is fair though, and I don't have ideas for it just now. "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

> Bloodartist wrote: > Come on, give the midcaps some love. > As it stands with no restriction at all, I would be worried about a weenie Legacy of Pander deck with some Crusades thrown in. e.g. something a little like this: www.secretlibrary.info/index.php?deck=view&id=2713 Many Pander, a bunch of Legacy of Pander, and some Crusades which further solidify vote lock. The addition of a couple of Private Audience is amusing. So while helping midbies might be fun, I think the proposed implementation has potential to help weenies more. However, I would personally be tempted to go about balancing it a slightly different way. Rather than younger, I would be tempted to make it so that you can't keep locking the same vampire down, and have to give it some respite. e.g. make the card burn at a different time, and limiting a vampire/minion/whatever to only having one of them at once, so you can't keep playing it over and over. There could be other ways to limit it, so that the vampire gets to do some stuff occasionally, but that's the route I would personally consider heading.

> jamesatzephyr wrote: > > As it stands with no restriction at all, I would be worried about a weenie Legacy of Pander deck with some Crusades thrown in. e.g. something a little like this: www.secretlibrary.info/index.php?deck=view&id=2713 > Well, you had an idea about a sabbat vote deck, which is exactly what I was trying to accomplish However, I'm not at all sure this card needs to be balanced further. In the case you describe, I feel that there are a lot moving parts for something that doesn't actually progress your win condition. Ie. I'm not sure its a good idea. You don't see IC vote decks run 10-15 banishments, do you? (and that card has a technically stronger effect). The key here is that the card doesn't actually make you win (burn pool), it merely sets it up or alters the game state to a more favorable position. I don't think its a good idea to spend too many cardslots for such a plan. It seems like a beginner idea. Especially since you need to be pushing this card through every turn to lock ONE vampire out. I don't really see it happening without something like Undele (who can't play the card himself). Besides, if there were a horde of voting pander like you describe, they could just as well vote KRC to actually oust their prey instead of trying to achieve an some kind of lock, right? I'm not convinced that this card would make the deck too strong, even if it would definitely(hopefully?) be playable. In the example, its the horde of pander thats the scary thing, imo. Maybe I'm wrong and I underestimate this, but this is my opinion. My own ideas involved locking a vampire from hunting for couple turns while burning blood with something like deploy the hand, society of leopold, Impundulu etc. There are a lot of cards that could synergize with At the gates, which was my aim. > Ankha wrote: > So basically Cicatriz can shut down Enkidu every turn? > Well, there are already great many ways to lock a lone 'star vampire' down, but none of them are sabbat political cards... I should know since I like playing star vampire decks.. Besides there is always direct intervention, something all star vampire decks should run imo. Smoking craters tell no tales. —Tex talks Battletech

> Bloodartist wrote: > However, I'm not at all sure this card needs to be balanced further. In the case you describe, I feel that there are a lot moving parts for something that doesn't actually progress your win condition. Ie. I'm not sure its a good idea. You don't see IC vote decks run 10-15 banishments, do you? > Generally, no. They may have other things to be doing, possibly more powerful things. The fact that the younger clause is on there makes it somewhat less attractive, because decks often have a range of vampires (even if quite big). It's uncommon to see people playing a deck that's just 11 caps - and even if they are, there's still the possibility of coming up against another 11 cap you can't hit with it. Also, people building Camarilla vote decks are often more focused on Princes and/or Justicars, because of the raw power of Parity Shift, Second Tradition, sometimes First Tradition etc., so Inner Circle are often not the central vampires in such decks. When Banishment didn't say younger (which it didn't when first printed), you did see weenie decks taking out a lot of big vampires out, because being able to use a 2 cap with Presence to smack down a 10 cap was problematic - unbalanced, and unfun for the players on the receiving end. Learning from V:TES's mistakes may be helpful. > Bloodartist wrote: > Well, you had an idea about a sabbat vote deck, which is exactly what I was trying to accomplish > Sadly, I'm thinking about a weenie vote deck doing unbalanced things with inappropriately powerful cards.

> Kraus wrote: > > > Ankha wrote: > > So basically Cicatriz can shut down Enkidu every turn? > > > Sensory deprivation, anyone? > > Making it younger only kills plenty of the flavor and utility. Even if it were as laid out at the moment id be surprised if it saw any play. > > The idea is fair though, and I don't have ideas for it just now. > Ankha, is right. I have been doing some testing. It is way more powerful to deny D-actions. The card would either need a higher cost, limitations, a lesser effect, or some combination of those effects. Think about it this way. I Pentex Subversion one vampire and at the Gates the other. If you wanted to that with Banishment your vampire has to be older but you don't have that restriction with At the Gates.

> jamesatzephyr wrote: > > When Banishment didn't say younger (which it didn't when first printed), you did see weenie decks taking out a lot of big vampires out, because being able to use a 2 cap with Presence to smack down a 10 cap was problematic - unbalanced, and unfun for the players on the receiving end. Learning from V:TES's mistakes may be helpful. > 100% agree.

Ok. I assume you are correct and it is too strong. My problem is that any additional disadvantages might either require you to run a very specific crypt (something like Sha-Ennu) if you wanted it to work reliably - or be so weak nobody bothered to include it in decks. How about: - Increase title requirement to say, archbishop and above? This could be circumvented with crusades in weenie decks, but that would require yet more cards that aren't part of plan A and a single vampire can be more easily dealt with? - Introduce a minimum cap requirement rather than a 'younger' clause? Something like, 'requires a titled sabbat vampire with capacity 8 or more'? > Ankha wrote: > The difference with the Crusade is that there's no choice involved: you put the card on the acting vampire. > > Banishment (or At the gates) requires to set some terms before the referendum is called, hence the "Choose..." part. > I see. I hadn't realized that the wording implied exact timing for choosing a target, even if it makes perfect sense now that I think about it. In casual/tournament games I play there is usually a huge discussion even before any blocking is attempted, which obscures when the choice actually has to be made. Smoking craters tell no tales. —Tex talks Battletech

> jblacey wrote: > > > jamesatzephyr wrote: > > > > When Banishment didn't say younger (which it didn't when first printed), you did see weenie decks taking out a lot of big vampires out, because being able to use a 2 cap with Presence to smack down a 10 cap was problematic - unbalanced, and unfun for the players on the receiving end. Learning from V:TES's mistakes may be helpful. > > > 100% agree. > 100% agree. Then let's do something about the highly lacking power level of Public Vilification. It would possibly enable some strategies if it didn't have the 'younger' clause. Now it does, and it's nigh unplayable since it's power just doesn't compare to Banishment. Banishment's effect is horrendous. Having 2-caps play that sort of an effect on 11-caps would be bonkers broken (and, it was it seems). At the Gates proposed effect is far from anything like that, and doesn't really compare well to real shut down cards like Sensory Deprevation and Nightmare Curse. And those don't require you to have a vote lock. As a one turn pseudo lock-down this vote does not cut it in any kind of a deck. If it were to get a 'younger' clause it would break the flavor and instantly compare it to the vastly more powerful Banishment. Rather, I'd really love to reinforce the weenie/midcap vote deck archetype that is supposed to be really Sabbat-y. To up the power here, I'd love to add a bunch of things here: At the Gates Requires a titled Sabbat vampire. Choose X unlocked Sabbat vampires you control and X+1 other vampires (only one of which can have a city title). Successful referendum locks all chosen vampires and they cannot play action or action modifier cards until your next unlock phase. Or something to similar effect. I was thinking of something like: -cannot play non-combat cards that require disciplines -don't unlock during their next unlock phase -cannot take D actions or block undirected actions -restrict only action cards -anything like that sorta Any pseudo lock down could work. At least it has power, instead of what's proposed now, and reinforces the brutal War Party theme better I'd think. That's sorta the direction I'd take the card. "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

> Bloodartist wrote: > - Increase title requirement to say, archbishop and above? This could be circumvented with crusades in weenie decks, but that would require yet more cards that aren't part of plan A and a single vampire can be more easily dealt with? > Weenie vote decks typically have no problem stacking many Praxis Seizures out to wreak havoc with Parity Shift. Here's a random example I found from tournament winning decks on Secret Library: www.secretlibrary.info/index.php?deck=view&id=15609 16 weenies, and 16 Praxis Seizures. Weenie vote decks that want to cause havoc and exploit titles do not, in general, put titles on a single vampire. At least, not decks constructed by decent players because that would obviously be a huge vulnerability for the deck. Even if you use the title relatively sparingly, just having the title can also help give you or solidify vote-lock. Getting multiple static titles onto the table by the end of turn 2 or 3 is handy, if you lack reliable vote-push. In some such decks that lack Presence, turn 2 can be about having one vampire to bleed to get the edge, giving you two votes on your Praxis Seizure. It may require a little good fortune. There are equally a bunch of weenie vote decks out there that pack some Presence (not necessarily on everyone). Some similar-ish decks would throw in a relevant clan Justicar, if they were built around a clutch of vampires of an appropriate clan. (Not necessarily exclusively - just a large bunch of the same clan.) Handy where possible, because the extra votes on the Justicar vote are useful.

> Kraus wrote: > > Then let's do something about the highly lacking power level of Public Vilification. It would possibly enable some strategies if it didn't have the 'younger' clause. Now it does, and it's nigh unplayable since it's power just doesn't compare to Banishment. > You are over-simplifying the issue. The real problem isn't older vs younger but the actual card effect. Banishment didn't become a horrible card because it now says "younger". Similarly, Public Vilification doesn't become an amazing card if it doesn't say "younger". > Banishment's effect is horrendous. Having 2-caps play that sort of an effect on 11-caps would be bonkers broken (and, it was it seems). > It was, but the real reason can be explained by Game Theory section at the bottom of this post. > At the Gates proposed effect is far from anything like that, and doesn't really compare well to real shut down cards like Sensory Deprevation and Nightmare Curse. And those don't require you to have a vote lock. > Sensory Deprivation and Nightmare Curse are very powerful cards. However both are actions, neither are at stealth, both are actions, both only prevent unlock (which can be circumvented with unlock cards), both have a clause to have their card effects removed, Sensory Deprivation requires 3 blood and for the lock mechanism and Nightmare Curse for the inability to unlock requires 2 blood and AND . where as At the gates, is at +1 stealth, indirect (meaning cards that provide intercept on actions can't be used), doesn't require any blood expenditure, no discipline requirements, merely requires a title Sabbat vampire, and perhaps most importantly doesn't provide a clause to have it's effect end early. > As a one turn pseudo lock-down this vote does not cut it in any kind of a deck. > I think you are missing the bigger picture. Anyone that runs this vote isn't running one copy. Anyone that can block votes or has the ability to vote themselves aren't the ones that will be punished by this card. Consider this scenario, what if you could consistently play this card on every turn? You would effectively be taking a vampire out of the game, right? Now imagine if you made it really painful if they can't take actions for example: Brainwash. Now imagine if you played a bunch of small vampires (vote push, combat defense, multi-action, votes) which used At the Gates and Brainwash in the same deck. You might even be able to find room for Pentex Subversion and the Parthenon. It is quite possible that your prey may never get an action the entire game. Now switch places. How fun do you think that deck would be to have as your predator? Here are some Game Theories that I think may apply. 1) A good card creates more interactions, not less. This card can be removed by a action. *Good* This card can no longer do actions. *Bad* 2) A good card creates obstacles that can be overcome. This card can not do this action, unless they burn a blood. *Good* This card can not do this action. *Bad* 3) A good card has a natural foil. +1 Stealth, +1 Intercept. *Good* This card can no longer play a specific card type. *Bad* 4) A good card provides more benefit if it is game mechanically more expensive. My expensive card has more/better options than your less expensive card. *Good* My cheaper card has more/better options than your more expensive card. *Bad* Using those rules, here is an idea. At the Gates Requires a titled Sabbat vampire. Choose a vampire. If the referendum is successful, attach this card to the chosen vampire. The attached vampire locks and burns a blood during their Methuselah's discard phase. Any vampire can call a referendum to burn this card as a +1 stealth political action. Bonus Points: If this card works with Public Vilification.

Okay, I'm a bit confused here to be honest... Are we really talking about the same card proposal? Because either you guys are missing something, or I'm totally missing something, or we're actually talking about different things. It really might be me missing something 'cause I'm reading the other moment, and taking fivers to write the replies, so it's on me if I'm really missing something crucial. Yeah, it was me who brought up Nightmare Curse and Sensory Deprevation, so I'll take the fall for that. Of course they're really vampire- and strategy specific cards, and we really don't need more of their ilk in the game. It's a good thing they exist, but their power level shouldn't be matched. Neither should Banishment. All I'm saying the OP suggestion is underpowered to fault. You're suggesting a 'remove' clause but it already has one - your next unlock phase. Basically the lock down effect is a 'vamp for a vamp', so to be honest Banishment isn't even that good a comparison. Mind Numb or Total Insanity are a lot better comparison points here. Both are okay cards, where the former acutally sees play since it's easy to combo with both offense and other cards, and the latter sees next to no play (for it's cost and restrictions). So I mean, I'll take the fall for bringing Sensory Dep into the discussion, since it's not exactly that relevant in this case. So if you spam this, you'll have to survive the whole of the table (votes and cross-table hate if it seems too dominating), commit your actions to defense instead of offense (wouldn't you KRC for a VP instead?), have card slots commited to it (which could be KRC), have a minion commited to it... Yeah, I know it's kind of dull and over simplyfing if you always compare to KRC, but that's basically what you kinda sorta have to do if you're discussing a weenie voter strategy. If you manage to build a board state where you're not hated out but still have a decent say in the game, you could probably play one or two, but I dunno. I just don't see the power here. At least it's far, far from broken. As for the interaction specifics, I couldn't agree more: reinforcing the synergistic parts of the game mechanics is always what should be done. In a sense I like what @jcblacey suggests here, but it doesn't fit the theme of the card as well as the other proposals. It could work as a different card though. Still as good as Deploy the Hand, which really isn't played? Dunno rly. I'm kinda liking the theme of the card, and I'd love to see an effect peeps could agree on and that would recreate the feel of an oppressive Sabbat horde locking down a whole town. "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

> jblacey wrote: > Using those rules, here is an idea. > > At the Gates > Requires a titled Sabbat vampire. Choose a vampire. If the referendum is successful, attach this card to the chosen vampire. The attached vampire locks and burns a blood during their Methuselah's discard phase. Any vampire can call a referendum to burn this card as a +1 stealth political action. > Isn't this card more dangerous than my original suggestion? Since now - you can't remove it yourself, because: - you require votes for removing which you can't have or the card would not have been attached in the first place (the original referendum would have just been voted to fail unless the player using it had vote-lock or enough allies who want you to have it) - It actually burns blood now - You can't block without wakes or untaps, in my suggestion you could - Nothing prevents said deck from putting lots of these into the deck just the same as before, only now its harder, and most likely impossible to remove (since it doesn't remove itself and you require votes for removal). This means that if the table which includes a vote deck, wants to screw you over, they will. - Worst thing in my opinion: theres a high chance that this card does literal nothing (imagine a powerbleed deck that taps out REGARDLESS. - It can be too easily countered by a single blood doll to pay the blood from pool. - The suggestion is not unique and cannot be removed except by voting, so if the sabbat deck spams these on vampires, they are burning boatloads of blood and I'm pretty sure the situation is much much worse than in my suggestion. So the chances are extremely high that it either does literal nothing, or you are completely locked out of the game by it(if said vampire is empty they are locked into endless hunt/burn blood loop). This is precisely the kind of card I DON'T want released. I don't want extremes, I want the midroad. I want a card that has discernible effect, that's not brokenly good, and that enables sabbat voting plans in a way thats not the generic "prey burns x pool thing". If a weenie vote deck spams your suggestion, I'm pretty darn sure that it would be far worse than my original suggestion. My suggestion at least doesn't have a stackable effect. Multiple "can't do this" do nothing extra, At the very least above suggestion needs "a vampire can have only one at the gates placed on it" clause. Even with it I think it would be stronger than my suggestion. In my suggestion I didn't go for the "requires d-action to remove" route, because I think it would've made the card stronger in general and I tried to keep the card strength level medium. Its also I think easier for the deck using these cards to prepare for that eventuality (if it can be removed with a d-action) and have an effectively harder lock. I made the card remove itself to keep its power level down and have less probability of a lock. You can't assume you always have the cards you need in your hand. I honestly think that cards that are only effective one turn are FAR weaker than cards that stay unless they are removed with an action. > jamesatzephyr wrote: > stuff > I noticed you didn't comment on my suggestion of a minimum cap requirement, what do you think of that? It would automatically cut weenie decks out of contention, while still retaining the cards functionality? Smoking craters tell no tales. —Tex talks Battletech

On topic (my posts are getting obtusely large so I made another post) Thematically it might be suitable to remove the card with a d-action that's directed at the player who played At the Gates. This would be akin to running a blockade, sneaking or dashing through the siege of sabbat vampires. If any player could do the d-action, it could be likened to an outsider helping the blockaded vampire to escape. This action should probably cost blood. Voting At the Gates out wouldn't suit thematically unless it was a sabbat-only vote. I mean, a camarilla prince wouldn't come to a sabbat war party and say "Hey you, lift this siege!". However, I have specific reasons I didn't write the card this way. Prime reason being that such cards, which individually require actions to remove and can be spammed, are in my opinion considerably stronger than a card that removes itself and doesn't benefit from stacking. For example, I have been trying to build combat decks for last few months as a project. I've noticed that anarch revolts make pretty good win conditions for such a deck, even though any vampire can call a vote to remove it, and I would likely be unable to block such a vote from across the table. Reason being that I noticed players across the table are usually unwilling to expend that action to help their cross-table ally. Actions are a precious commodity, and people generally want to use them to either set up or oust their prey. Said players would more likely spend one action to turn anarch (and counter all anarch revolts) and leave my prey to die to the revolts. My prey/predator actions I could block. Therefore, I tried to write my submission in a way that would increase CARD interactions, instead of table interactions.(actions to perform and block) This should be kept in mind. I think there are many ways to combo my suggested At the gates with other cards, those that require d-actions to remove or burn blood. Not putting these in the same card lessens the power level since you require more cards. Now if weenie votes are the only fear, my suggested minimum cap requirement to play this should handle the problem, yes? Include "requires a titled sabbat vampire with capacity of 8 or more" for example? ps. Im fully behind Peetu (Kraus) on what he wrote. I also think that my suggestion is far weaker than people make it sound like. Smoking craters tell no tales. —Tex talks Battletech

> Bloodartist wrote: > > > jamesatzephyr wrote: > > stuff > > > I noticed you didn't comment on my suggestion of a minimum cap requirement, what do you think of that? It would automatically cut weenie decks out of contention, while still retaining the cards functionality? > That's true. It could work. Maybe something reasonable like "requires a titled sabbat vampire with capacity of 6 or more". They aren't weenies, but neither are they big caps. Anarch barons require 5 or more, as does Reckless Agitation. "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

> Bloodartist wrote: > > Isn't this card more dangerous than my original suggestion? > It would have to be tested. Several easy changes if it is too powerful, but the goal was to provide an example. > I don't want extremes, I want the midroad. > Then you need a cap limit for the acting vampire or a younger vampire restriction. Otherwise you won't be able to prevent weenies from using the vote.