Reins of Power and Ancient Influence rewording

tl;dr Reins of Power and Ancient Influence should force to choose a vampire if able, probably even the biggest benefit – discuss! So there’s the premise. Problems I’m having with these cards: REINS OF POWER If a player gets killed by Reins of Power, they have the choice of not choosing a vampire (even if they could). The ‘play to win’ rule does not force them to gain the maximum effect. This leads to players giving their prey 6 pool sometimes randomly, sometimes out of spite, sometimes our of lulz, which makes the Meth. playing Reins in great disadvantage compared to a situation where their grand prey would rather be weakened. You could say that this is just a part of the game, sure, but these things happen randomly. Random actions of spite happen, but probably should not be allowed so freely. I mean this is not just something like, “I’m pissed at you so I’ll play Fame backwards and rush!”, which happens. People tilt. That is a counter action, which requires the player to play recklessly with their own cards. This might LEAD to that player losing the table. But it’s at their own discretion. With Reins, you know you’re already dying, so you’re trying to make (often spitefully) your killer’s life harder even if it doesn’t affect your own game anymore. In a sense, it could be argued, that choice is then non-game-related. It’s tournament meta-gaming, one could say. Then again you could say that if you’re gaining already a big benefit out of the oust (1VP and 6(-X) pool), it’s only fine that your next drop would be harder (new prey gaining 6 pool), but that’s not exactly the intended effect of the card, is it? Also, this sort of ‘balancing’ is not evident in any other method of ousting. In a sense just because of this ‘flaw’ Anarchist Uprising becomes even more effective compared. The player knows the effects of the action fully. There’s no random elements involved. ANCIENT INFLUENCE AI is by no means as problematic a card as RoP, as it doesn’t kill players. Unless they’re Imbued, but that’s different. It does share the same template and design space though, only in reverse, so just for consistency I think it should receive the same treatment. SUGGESTED CHANGE Add MUST instead of MAY, and add a clause in parenthesis (if any) to stabilize the effects of these power cards. The new text would read: “Successful referendum means each Methuselah must choose a ready vampire he or she controls (if any).” This way players with both 2 and 11 caps could choose the amount of spite they want to inflict, but it evens the swing out a bit. This still leaves space for discussion. Other idea would be forcing the player to always choose the ready vampire they control with the highest capacity, but that then goes against the social space of VtES where you mostly have the benefit of choice. What are your experiences on these cards? I’ve witnessed from cross table and been on the receiving end of the spite-level of these cards, not often but seen it enough to notice it, and even though I’ve taken it valiantly and like a gentleman (it IS within the rules anyways), I’m not exactly sure if that’s what we want from these cards. > Name: Reins of Power > [Anarchs:C, KMW:PAn, Third:PTr, KoT:C/PV] > Cardtype: Political Action > Successful referendum means each Methuselah may choose a ready vampire he or she controls. Each Methuselah gains 6 pool. Each Methuselah also burns an amount of pool equal to the capacity of his or her predator's chosen vampire. Only one Reins of Power can be played or called in a game. > Artist: Christopher Shy > > Name: Ancient Influence > [Jyhad:C, VTES:C, SW:PT/PV, CE:C, LoB:PG] > Cardtype: Political Action > Successful referendum means each Methuselah may choose a ready vampire he or she controls. Each Methuselah gains an amount of pool from the blood bank equal to his or her chosen vampire's capacity. Each Methuselah then burns 5 pool. Only one Ancient Influence can be played in a game. > Artist: Pete Venters > "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

I think that the vampires chosen should be part of the terms and therefore known when the voting happens. It doesn't force vampires being chosen, but it makes it clear what's going to happen. The problem with these votes is that know one knows what's going to happen until after the vote succeeds. If the caller of Reins would oust his prey, but the prey chooses no vampire, during the terms setting phase, the caller could vote against his own referendum.

Seems to me ability to not chose a vampire was an intended effect. NC Russia

I don't see any need for rewording, especially forcing people to do something that the original card do not allow. If a player feels right in giving 6 pool to his prey for free when ousted, he can. But that player is surely a bad player which I won't never trust in a future deal. If that player is a friend, I will take the necessary time to explain to that player that screwing other players game just "for the lulz" it's pretty annoying. Tl;dr: play kine. Lurking in the underground of Bologna, Italy

> kschaefer wrote: > I think that the vampires chosen should be part of the terms and therefore known when the voting happens. It doesn't force vampires being chosen, but it makes it clear what's going to happen. The problem with these votes is that know one knows what's going to happen until after the vote succeeds. > > If the caller of Reins would oust his prey, but the prey chooses no vampire, during the terms setting phase, the caller could vote against his own referendum. > I'm no rules coordinator, but I'm pretty sure with Reins of Power, the vampire's are chosen after the referendum succeeds, after votes have been tallied. That is the way my playgroup has always played it, and in my games on Lackey as well. It is worded differently than KRC. Kine Resources Contested [Political Action] Allocate 4 points among two or more Methuselahs. Successful referendum means each Methuselah burns 1 pool for each point assigned. So you allocate 4 points first. Then you have a referendum. As opposed to Reins of Power: Reins of Power [Political Action] Successful referendum means each Methuselah may choose a ready vampire he or she controls. Each Methuselah gains 6 pool. Each Methuselah also burns an amount of pool equal to the capacity of his or her predator's chosen vampire. Only one Reins of Power can be played or called in a game. and Ancient Influence. Ancient Influence [Political Action] Successful referendum means each Methuselah may choose a ready vampire he or she controls. Each Methuselah gains an amount of pool from the blood bank equal to his or her chosen vampire's capacity. Each Methuselah then burns 5 pool. Only one Ancient Influence can be played in a game This text for Reins and Ancient Influence say that if you have a successful referendum ("successful referendum means.."), then you may choose a ready vampire.... My take is that these two votes are close to being overpowered as is, so definitely don't reword them to make them even better. I personally don't mind when my prey elects not to choose a vampire. I just ended their game, why would they choose to help me right before being ousted? The only further effect they can have on the game is screwing the guy that just ended theirs. I don't blame them for taking that opportunity, I actually expect it. Just don't use Reins of Power to oust. Use it earlier in the game or save it for your next prey. It's an awesome card either way.

> mjvtes521 wrote: > I'm no rules coordinator, but I'm pretty sure with Reins of Power, the vampire's are chosen after the referendum succeeds, after votes have been tallied. > It is. I was offering an alternative to Kraus's wording change, which would require the vampires to be chosen as part of the terms. Sorry it that wasn't clear.

> kschaefer wrote: > The problem with these votes is that know one knows what's going to happen until after the vote succeeds. > ?? In most cases, everyone picks their biggest vampire. For the few remaining cases, the player will usually show signs that he is on tilt, and nothing prevents you from asking before casting your votes. The whole thread just sounds like sore losing to me. Threatening to hit back if one gets ousted is playing to win. Without another way to make the vote fail, it might actually be the only possible move to survive. Don't blame the card. Don't blame your prey. Blame yourself for giving away leverage when you are ready to oust.

I personally don't play the card specifically because of the lack of control and the ambiguity on what will happen on success. If I were the prey and thinking about that move (of not picking a vampire), I'd announce it. In hopes that it scares my predator into voting it down. "You might get me, but I won't pick a vampire. Good luck trying to win the table." That's perfectly good brinkmanship. I think the issue that Kraus is concerned about is a prey that decides too late (after it's successful) to do anything about it. A bad prey who does it out of spite, not as part of a forewarned ploy. Though if I announce I'd do it, you best believe I will if you oust me; make sure you think twice next time we're in that situation.

Considering that cards like Fame, Tradition: Hospitality, and Army of Rats saw serious errata, I could see this change going through, but I have to wonder if it is really worth it... Isn't the potential to 'spite' your predator worth it? Isn't that possible social interaction valuable? Gangrel. Noddist. Camarilla. Once each turn, LivesByProxy may burn 1 blood to lose Protean until the end of the turn and gain your choice of superior Auspex , Obfuscate , or Potence for the current action.

I think Reins of Power is perfectly acceptable as is, your prey is not responsible for your next oust and it does not break the 'play to win' rule. I don't even consider the situation you mentioned to be a 'spite' move. Your prey; when about to be ousted can choose to either help you or their prey in this specific situation. It can be considered 'helping' or 'spite' either way. -1 Strength

Spite is a tactical, tangible thing in vtes when it comes to play to win situations. Typically, if you call any of the three cards like this (political stranglehold is obviously not being mentioned here because it doesn't burn pool) and you have at least taken a moment to consider all possible outcomes to calling the referendum before you turn the acting minion sideways. Ideally, you control the situation and choose Lodin instead of Hardestadt and advertise that up front to your prey who's at 5 pool. Or you have enough dominate to not care. Dealing with your prey is never something your prey can trust, but if they are presented with "I'm calling this and you'll be burning pool until you're at 1, you then have one turn to oust your prey, choose a vamp wisely" then things change. But if you just smile and tell them"good game" as you try to oust with said vote, the price you pay is an additional up to 6 pool on your next prey. I've Archon Investigation on Lutz at 4 pool. Died before my next untap, but knowing they potential exists for someone to ruin your game if you oust them a certain way is part of the social interaction so indicative of VTES. As is the complete bullshit of saying you're going to do something you haven't the cards for. I've threatened to eat Minions with Ariadne but had no amaranth in hand, but fear was enough. I've also toldy prey not to contest DoTs or I'd burn his 7 cap outright on turn 3. He did, so my turn 4, Lucinde bleed, he blocked, and I played Dawn op, weather control, pentient resilience and amaranth. Lying and subsequently negotiating large swings is one of the trademark parts of the game. I'd still play the cards if naming a vamp was mandatory or happened before referendum, but I feel the choice of giving your prey 6 pool was intended, and removing that choice removes something important, even if seldom used, from the card(s). Getting off the soap box now....

> Non-existant user wrote: > > > kschaefer wrote: > > The problem with these votes is that know one knows what's going to happen until after the vote succeeds. > > > ?? In most cases, everyone picks their biggest vampire. For the few remaining cases, the player will usually show signs that he is on tilt, and nothing prevents you from asking before casting your votes. > Pretty much the only case when someone doesn't pick the biggest vampire, is when they are getting ousted to the reins and can sabotage his predators play by not picking a vampire at all. I don't call it "sore losing" when it makes no difference to you personally what happens. Why make things easier for your predator? Are you obliged to co-operate when someone ousts you? I am not a fan of the "play-to-win" rule, but its not being broken in this case. Also since IC vote decks don't need any more buffs in my opinion, I don't support the proposed change. This change would be just a buff to reins. Smoking craters tell no tales. —Tex talks Battletech

> Kraus wrote: > If a player gets killed by Reins of Power, they have the choice of not choosing a vampire (even if they could). The ‘play to win’ rule does not force them to gain the maximum effect. This leads to players giving their prey 6 pool sometimes randomly, sometimes out of spite, sometimes our of lulz, which makes the Meth. playing Reins in great disadvantage compared to a situation where their grand prey would rather be weakened. > > You could say that this is just a part of the game, sure, but these things happen randomly. Random actions of spite happen, but probably should not be allowed so freely. I mean this is not just something like, “I’m pissed at you so I’ll play Fame backwards and rush!”, which happens. People tilt. That is a counter action, which requires the player to play recklessly with their own cards. > None of this happens randomly. It happens based on specific decisions made by players. Can the acting Methuselah control those decisions? No. That doesn't mean it's random. V:TES politics is supposed to represent the political struggles of a world which is subtle, cut-throat, devious, nuanced and ancient. It is not supposed to be Gideon Fontaine issuing diktats and controlling every last element of it - that politics can often be a little too straightforward for its own good is a flaw in the execution of V:TES. From a design point of view, making people pick known vampires isn't a good thing. Ancient Influence and Reins of Power have the ability to create or destroy more counters than most votes can - even Parity Shift. Yes, there are options like Consanguineous Boon or Revolutionary Council, but those generally require much more significant investment in resources and strategy, whereas these are literally just "I'm playing a politics decks where this won't excessively hurt me most of the time, so I'll toss a copy in." (Tossing either into your weenie vote deck, not so much.) Having things be potentially unpredictable - though not random - is a useful way of giving the acting Methuselah an extremely powerful tool, but one they need to be careful with. If the vampire choice is out of spite, consider what that means. If it's based on an out-of-game consideration, then obviously call a judge. If it's based on an in-game consideration, then what was it that caused it? Did a deal get broken, and now there are repercussions to that? Consider that a player make seek revenge on you next time you break a deal. Is a player in a lost position, with no reasonable chance at any more VPs, and so they can choose to lose in any form they want? Consider helping the player so that they aren't in a lost position and can still reasonably play the game, right until you move in for the kill. Is the player seeking to maximise their Tournament Points from this round by doing something you didn't initially expect? That's something they're allowed to do (but not compelled to do) under Play to Win, and is not at all random. The bottom line is that you're playing a multiplayer game, and other players' choices may be to their benefit (or what they see as their benefit, since they are not psychic and may not make the same decisions you would regardless). Mechanically again, I've already mentioned Parity Shift, and it's worth thinking about it. Parity Shift is one of the best cards in the game, I don't think anyone would doubt that. If you can play Ancient Influence and/or Reins of Power and predict the outcomes infallibly, you can potentially cause several massive pool shifts - which can then be followed up with Parity Shift(s). Why wouldn't I want to get the maximum amount of pool out of Ancient Influence? Because my copy of Lutz vs your cheaper Princes puts me in range of your Parity Shift. So I'd rather choose one of my smaller vampires, get less pool, but then not have it stolen from me and given to you. Then obviously you say "Well, sometimes it'll go the other way and the consequences will help someone else more than it helps me, the Methuselah playing it, and might stop me playing the Parity Shift at all!" Yes, that's certainly possible - you look at the table and know your predator will do really well out of it assuming everyone makes the most obvious decisions. But as the Methuselah whose card it is, you have the choice to play it or not: a) you help yourself but help someone else more and accept that as the price of doing business, for whatever reason; b) you delay until a later point, at the cost of keeping the card in your hand; or c) you decide it's not going to be worth your while, so you pitch the card somehow (on a cardless referendum, discard phase, The Barrens, whatever). But: large, completely predictable pool swings can make Parity Shift much better, using resources such decks have in abundance - the ability to pass votes. So a double whammy: 1) the acting Methuselah gets much more control of what happens because they know who will be chosen if the action is successful, and 2) that control can help you line up Parity Shift, potentially for more than one Methuselah because you're affecting the pool totals of everyone on the table. If a proposal potentially makes Parity Shift better, that's not usually a good thing.

> jamesatzephyr wrote: > If the vampire choice is out of spite, consider what that means. If it's based on an out-of-game consideration, then obviously call a judge. > Even when play-to-win rule is not broken? Smoking craters tell no tales. —Tex talks Battletech

> Bloodartist wrote: > > > jamesatzephyr wrote: > > If the vampire choice is out of spite, consider what that means. If it's based on an out-of-game consideration, then obviously call a judge. > > > Even when play-to-win rule is not broken? > Judges can check for other rule violations too. Playing spitefully based on out-of-game considerations may violate the sportsmanslike conduct rule generally. Play-to-win is one aspect of sportsmanship - it wasn't originally codified separately (but now is). If a player is trying to harm you because of out-of-game considerations, it is certainly something many judges would want to be aware of - it may in fact (in their opinion) violate the requirements for sportsmanlike conduct now, or if not it might be something the judge bears in mind later on if they see a pattern of such behaviour emerging, but felt at this point it was a bit sketchy.

Additionally, trying to affect spite by changing two cards is a Sisyphean task. The same player could try to oust you by choosing you as the target of Deflection, not the more obvious choice of his prey. A vampire could bleed you cross-table with a variety of bleed cards. They could Mind Rape your vampire and yank its blood. If there is a problem with titled players doing things spitefully, changing two cards is like trying to stop a tsunami by putting on galoshes.

> jamesatzephyr wrote: > > > Bloodartist wrote: > > > > > jamesatzephyr wrote: > > > If the vampire choice is out of spite, consider what that means. If it's based on an out-of-game consideration, then obviously call a judge. > > > > > > > > Even when play-to-win rule is not broken? > > > Judges can check for other rule violations too. > > Playing spitefully based on out-of-game considerations may violate the sportsmanslike conduct rule generally. Play-to-win is one aspect of sportsmanship - it wasn't originally codified separately (but now is). If a player is trying to harm you because of out-of-game considerations, it is certainly something many judges would want to be aware of - it may in fact (in their opinion) violate the requirements for sportsmanlike conduct now, or if not it might be something the judge bears in mind later on if they see a pattern of such behaviour emerging, but felt at this point it was a bit sketchy. > The play to win rule is only violated if the spite move is from old spite. If your demise is certain, hurting a prey who broke a deal or your predator who wouldn't negotiate are factors in a calculated risk they took. Your choice is you maximizing your 0 vp as you see fit. Obviously, " you kindred spirits bled me for an oust cross table at a continental championship 3 years ago" is an out of game reason, but something that happened in that table your being ousted from is all part of what led to your oust potentially.

> Bloodartist wrote: > I am not a fan of the "play-to-win" rule, but its not being broken in this case. > PTW was cvcreated for a purpose. Try playing, say in the Last Chance Qualifier of EC in a table where you have three buddies from same country. perhaps one of them is not qualified yet. You might be encvountering quite a lot of kingmaking in a table such as that without PTW... Finnish Politics!

> Lönkka wrote: > > > Bloodartist wrote: > > I am not a fan of the "play-to-win" rule, but its not being broken in this case. > > > PTW was cvcreated for a purpose. > > Try playing, say in the Last Chance Qualifier of EC in a table where you have three buddies from same country. perhaps one of them is not qualified yet. You might be encvountering quite a lot of kingmaking in a table such as that without PTW... > Agreed. It is like saying "I am not a fan of fair-play." or "I am not a fan of respecting my opponents". The object of the game is: "Your goal is to accumulate the most victory points". The play-to-win rule is the application of this object in tournament rules. If you don't follow this guideline, you are not playing the same game as the other players, which means you are going to spoil the fun of everybody. Back to the topic, I am not convinced by the arguments in favor of changing Reins of Power or Ancient Influence. Say you are calling Reins of Power that is going to kill your prey. Your prey controls a 6-cap vampire and an 11-cap vampire With the current wording, you can expect the player to choose 1/ nobody 2/ the 6-cap vampire 3/ the 11-cap vampire. In any case, you have to consider the 3 options, including the worse case scenario (no vampire chosen). This scenario is known from the start, before you play Reins of Power. If you still call Reins (your choice, your strategy) then you know your next prey will perhaps gain pool. If it is a bigger problem than gaining a VP, don't call the vote. Or play other votes such as KRC. In any case, with the proposed cardtext, if your prey controls also a 1-cap vampire, you could be screwed anyway. Is it against the PTW not to choose a vampire? No, since the prey is getting ousted whatever his or her choice is. Is it fair for the player calling the Reins? It really depends on the game. I have seen players choosing a neutral vampire because they thought it was fair (even if they were ousted). I have seen players choosing no one to be fair for the prey that tried to help them. Or to balance the duel etc. (But it is not fair to help someone based on an out-of-game consideration that would be collusion). Once again, playing Reins in that case is playing risky -- and one must accept it. Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

> Lönkka wrote: > > > Bloodartist wrote: > > I am not a fan of the "play-to-win" rule, but its not being broken in this case. > > > PTW was created for a purpose. > > Try playing, say in the Last Chance Qualifier of EC in a table where you have three buddies from same country. perhaps one of them is not qualified yet. You might be encountering quite a lot of kingmaking in a table such as that without PTW... > You mean the French? Sorry, i just had to tho

> Blooded wrote: > You mean the French? > > Sorry, i just had to tho > HEY! I didn't name any nationalities. Could be any... Finnish Politics!

> Lönkka wrote: > > > Blooded wrote: > > You mean the French? > > > > Sorry, i just had to tho > > > HEY! > I didn't name any nationalities. > Could be any... > This may have been true maybe 15 years ago with players long retired now. Nowadays, you would be amazed to see how we (French people) are our bitterest enemies on a table. Also, I remember the EC 2013 final with Romain and me on the table. Romain was playing Reversal of Fortune and he had an opportunity to start the combo (Otso's Goratrix being Pentexed IIRC). But his vote failed because I discarded a vote from my hand against it, despite all his promises. Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

Yeah, I know. Just yanking your chain... Finnish Politics!

I have certainly been witness to deals being made during the voting procedure about the targets of AI, something that would be watered down and sort of lost if targets are chosen before the vote. No need to take further table talk and surprises out of the game.