More political actions like Dramatic Upheaval?

Could we get some more cards such as those? It bothers me that so many of the Political Actions are basically wall-paper or uninspired, weak pool burn cards. Here is a quick breakdown: There are 167 Political Actions. 23 Crusade Cards. 26 Praxis Seizure. 7 Justicar Cards. 4 Acceptance Cards, Ravnos, Setite, Giovanni, Assamite (Revocation of Tyre) ~11 Other Title Cards. Alastor, Archon, Cardinal Benediction, Hierophant, Imperator, Investiture (Priscus), Overseer, Persona Non Grata, Sabbat Inquisitor, Seraph, Templar. 4 Lose Title Cards. Command of the Harpies. Excommunication. Patsy. Wrath of the Inner Council. 24+ Burn Pool Cards. 13 Gain Pool Cards. Some of these overlap with the Pool Burn cards. 1 Banishment. That's ~75 cards that just mess with vampire titles. Of the 24 pool burn cards, the two that really matter are Kine Resources Contested and Parity Shift. Ancient Influence, Reins of Power, Ancilla Empowerment & Anarchist Uprising (which are functionally the same card???), Reckless Agitation & Conservative Agitation, all get an honorable mention, but they're all competing with KRC and Parity Shift. Of the ~100 Political Cards I listed, only a few seem to promote (in my opinion) the kind of political gameplay VTES wants / needs. Dramatic Upheaval, Reversal of Fortunes, Year of Fortunes, Kindred Restructure, Political Flux, Disputed Territory, Brinksmanship, Rumors of Gehenna, Ancient Influence, Reins of Power, Banishment. I am thoroughly flummoxed that Red List was not a Political Action card. Very strange design choice. And I understand that cards like Dramatic Upheaval were banned because tournament time-limits, but cards like that would make casual games very fun and interesting. There is also only one Political Action card that I'm aware of that plays with contesting: Praxis Solomon. More cards which alter the way in which cards are contested would be very cool IMO. Here is an example: Behind Closed Doors Political Action Successful referendum means this card is put into play. While this card is in play, instead of paying the cost to contest a card, each Methuselah contesting a card or title with another Methuselah secretly bids an amount of pool. The highest bidder burns that much pool and the contesting Methuselah yields that title or card. (In case of a tie, the card remains contested.) Any vampire may call a referendum to burn this card as a +1 stealth action. Other cards to mix up table politics: The Tides Turn Political Action Successful referendum means each Methuselah’s prey becomes the person to their right. (The person to each player’s left is now their predator.) What Tangled Webs... Political Action Successful referendum means this card is put into play. If a Methuselah’s predator would be ousted, he or she gains the victory point instead of that Methuselah’s predator. Any vampire may call a referendum to burn this card as a +1 stealth action. The Price We Pay Political Action Successful referendum means this card is put into play. The first time each turn that a Methuselah plays plays a card to grant stealth to a vampire, he or she must burn 1 pool or lock that acting vampire. Any Methuselah may burn 2 pool as a Master Phase Action to burn this card. IDK, just some thoughts. I look through the list of Political Actions and they just seem very uninspired and, quite frankly, boring. I am sure you all think I'm crazy. 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.

> LivesByProxy wrote: > Could we get some more cards such as those? > ... > I am sure you all think I'm crazy > In order: please no, yes. > LivesByProxy wrote: > I am thoroughly flummoxed that Red List was not a Political Action card. > Trumped-Up Charges Political Action Requires a titled non-Red List vampire. Choose a ready non-Red List minion. If this referendum succeeds, put this card on that minion. This minion is now Red List. In this referendum, the chosen minion's controller gets 2 additional votes for every Red List minion in play. Any titled vampire may call a referendum to burn this card as a +1 stealth political action. Burn this card if the minion is no longer Red List. Be careful when you fight the monsters, lest you become one. -Friedrich Nietzsche brandonsantacruz.blogspot.com/

> LivesByProxy wrote: > And I understand that cards like Dramatic Upheaval were banned because tournament time-limits > It was banned because it "undermined the prey-predator relationship". And still would. Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

> LivesByProxy wrote: > Successful referendum means this card is put into play. While this card is in play, instead of paying the cost to contest a card, each Methuselah contesting a card or title with another Methuselah secretly bids an amount of pool. The highest bidder burns that much pool and the contesting Methuselah yields that title or card. (In case of a tie, the card remains contested.) Any vampire may call a referendum to burn this card as a +1 stealth action. > Contesting happens sufficiently rarely that playing this is largely random. So people wouldn't generally choose to play it, except in rare situations. > LivesByProxy wrote: > Successful referendum means each Methuselah’s prey becomes the person to their right. (The person to each player’s left is now their predator.) > This is terrible for the same reason that Dramatic Upheaval is terrible - one player, through absolutely no fault of their own, gets to have two predators smacking them at once, with the second predator ready to swoop in with Dramatic Upheaval. This isn't 'mixing up table politics', it is 'making one player's life hell, at random'. This is bad for the game, just as it was bad for the game when Dramatic Upheaval saw regular play. > LivesByProxy wrote: > Successful referendum means this card is put into play. If a Methuselah’s predator would be ousted, he or she gains the victory point instead of that Methuselah’s predator. Any vampire may call a referendum to burn this card as a +1 stealth action. > Again, this makes another player's life hell, at random, because their predator is trying to oust them, and their prey is trying to oust them, and then plays this just before they do. This is bad for the same reason that Dramatic Upheaval is bad. > LivesByProxy wrote: > Successful referendum means this card is put into play. The first time each turn that a Methuselah plays plays a card to grant stealth to a vampire, he or she must burn 1 pool or lock that acting vampire. Any Methuselah may burn 2 pool as a Master Phase Action to burn this card. > So, I start an action, locking the vampire. Then I play Lost in Crowds and... lock the vampire who is already locked, so that's fine. > LivesByProxy wrote: > I am sure you all think I'm crazy. > Suggesting cards that reintroduce V:TES's mistakes that have since been addressed, without explaining how and why you are avoiding those mistakes (and taking no steps to address those mistakes), is crazy, yes. There are potentially issues that politics can be a bit stale. But reintroducing mechanics that hurt V:TES is bad.

More creative political action cards: Yes, please. Any switch places/change order of play cards ever again: No, hopefully never. "My strategy? Luck is my strategy, of course."

So, on what James is saying: Cards that do interesting and relevant things that are also playable are potentially good ideas, but reiterating junk makes junk and reiterating mistakes are mistakes. The design space exists for all sorts of Interesting political actions that are solid. The last one that comes to mind would be Lily Prelude, where you have a Discipline based vote, so DoC are the only ones who can do it, but they have access to presence as well, and aren't printed with titles often, so the Anarch route is all I've typically seen tried with it. But its not a bad card. Political actions are tricky to design well because they are unplayable or too playable easily based upon what has access to them. Finding relevant territory is key though.

As other have already said, political actions are probably THE space for design where you can do all sorts of super weird things that break the rules of the game, like Reversal of Fortunes and stuff. But never bring Dramatic Upheaval up again as a real suggestion. We already know it was a horrible thing in competitive play. No reason to dig it up. But, on the other hand, I think we already know roughly how to do political actions with numbers. KRC, Ancilla Empowerment, Parity Shift and Reckless already lay down foundations for a good numerical political action. Anything beyond that power creeps them, which is not a thing we want, I'd guess. Even though Eat The Rich was excellently designed and still has numbers, Lily Prelude in a sense is kinda boring as it's yet another way of doing 4 damage across the table. A needed addition to card pool, no question there, and surprisingly interesting in actual games, but ultimately not inspiring. Banishment is super powerful, probably the most powerful pol. action in the game, and does numbers indirectly. Reversal of Fortunes is kinda cool and (but?) makes for one of the most oppressive and stupid decks in the game. They are interesting designs. But, do not touch the VP distribution. There's unlimited potential for vote designs. Balancing is super tricky with them. As already stated, they're often either unusably bad or break the game. In particular VP distribution should not be touched. Just... don't do it. Especially in votes. Or make it unbearably complicated to pull off. I know votes make for a tempting area for such effects, but really, don't do it. That said... I'd kill for more non-numeric effects for political actions. It's just super duper tricky to design them properly. "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

> brandonsantacruz wrote: > > > LivesByProxy wrote: > > I am thoroughly flummoxed that Red List was not a Political Action card. > > > Trumped-Up Charges > Political Action > Requires a titled non-Red List vampire. > Choose a ready non-Red List minion. If this referendum succeeds, put this card on that minion. This minion is now Red List. In this referendum, the chosen minion's controller gets 2 additional votes for every Red List minion in play. Any titled vampire may call a referendum to burn this card as a +1 stealth political action. Burn this card if the minion is no longer Red List. > So Trumped-Up Charges is what Red List should've been in the 1st place. But oddly they were both printed in the same set... > Ankha wrote: > > > LivesByProxy wrote: > > And I understand that cards like Dramatic Upheaval were banned because tournament time-limits > > > It was banned because it "undermined the prey-predator relationship". And still would. > Don't most cards undermine some aspect of the game? Does not Zillah's Valley or Govern The Unaligned undermine the cost/time to influence out vampires? My guess is that they do, but they feel more 'fair' than Dramatic Upheaval, judging from these comments. > jamesatzephyr wrote: > > > LivesByProxy wrote: > > Successful referendum means each Methuselah’s prey becomes the person to their right. (The person to each player’s left is now their predator.) > > > This is terrible for the same reason that Dramatic Upheaval is terrible - one player, through absolutely no fault of their own, gets to have two predators smacking them at once, with the second predator ready to swoop in with Dramatic Upheaval. > > This isn't 'mixing up table politics', it is 'making one player's life hell, at random'. This is bad for the game, just as it was bad for the game when Dramatic Upheaval saw regular play. > > > LivesByProxy wrote: > > Successful referendum means this card is put into play. If a Methuselah’s predator would be ousted, he or she gains the victory point instead of that Methuselah’s predator. Any vampire may call a referendum to burn this card as a +1 stealth action. > > > Again, this makes another player's life hell, at random, because their predator is trying to oust them, and their prey is trying to oust them, and then plays this just before they do. This is bad for the same reason that Dramatic Upheaval is bad. > James, how do you read either of these as two predators smacking the same target? There are only a few cards that allow players to bleed outside the normal prey targeting restrictions. When I 'made' these cards, I looked at them like defensive cards. Your predator giving you a hard time? Call the vote to see if you're no longer his prey (becoming his predator). Or play the other card to get him off your back - if he ousts you, he gives his grand-prey 1 VP instead. I looked at them like cards that buy you a turn or two, and in a casual environment, I thought they'd be pretty fun. I guess in a competitive environment, they could be used like you imagine, to team up on and snipe particular players, but then I wonder why the meta wouldn't adapt to include more high-caps for votes or that each deck would have a 'vote package' similar to how each deck has a combat or master package. @Ashur, ReverendRevolver, Kraus: I really just want to see cool creative political cards, and I thought Dramatic Upheaval was one of the more interesting ones. It just bums me that so many political cards are for granting titles, and burning pool (boring). I mean, the main entire win condition of 'political decks' is KRC more often than not. The game that's meant to be THE multiplayer political card game has moved away from (or under-developed) the political aspect. Maybe I am crazy, but when I think of what a political deck should be, I think of passing 'laws' that slowly strangle and cripple your prey & predator's ability to function, trapping them in so much red-tape. (And that the way to do this is more than just burning them out.) 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.

> LivesByProxy wrote: > I guess in a competitive environment, they could be used like you imagine, to team up on and snipe particular players, but then I wonder why the meta wouldn't adapt to include more high-caps for votes or that each deck would have a 'vote package' similar to how each deck has a combat or master package. > There has been a time when they were legal in tournament, you know. And people used to put at least 4 Delaying Tactics to counter it. But there are some times where you don't have the counter in hand, and you snipe a VP. The reasons for banning this card are still the same today. Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

> LivesByProxy wrote: > James, how do you read either of these as two predators smacking the same target? There are only a few cards that allow players to bleed outside the normal prey targeting restrictions. > You're creating political cards and then only talking about bleed actions. Either you're being completely and utterly disingenuous, or you understand literally nothing about V:TES. Why would a political deck be in any way hampered by the directability of bleed actions, when a political deck can play political actions that work cross-table? Does the fact that bleeds target my prey stop my Legacy of Pander vote deck hitting its predator with KRC and taking the VP for the oust? Does the fact that bleeds target my prey stop my Prince deck throwing Parity Shift and ConAg at my predator and taking the VP for the oust? No, nothing stops that. So my predator gets his actual predator trying to take him out, and his fake predator (me) doing that too. > LivesByProxy wrote: > I guess in a competitive environment, they could be used like you imagine, to team up on and snipe particular players, but then I wonder why the meta wouldn't adapt to include more high-caps for votes or that each deck would have a 'vote package' similar to how each deck has a combat or master package. > That's exactly why Dramatic Upheaval was banned, because that's exactly what people did. If the defence to something that is fundamentally awful is "Well, players could completely rework their decks as the only reasonable defence to it", then enormous flashing lights with deafening sirens should be going off around you. When the only way to deal with a strategy is to have everyone rework their deck specifically to counter it, that's a sign you've created a broken card.

> jamesatzephyr wrote: > You're creating political cards and then only talking about bleed actions. Either you're being completely and utterly disingenuous, or you understand literally nothing about V:TES. Why would a political deck be in any way hampered by the directability of bleed actions, when a political deck can play political actions that work cross-table? Does the fact that bleeds target my prey stop my Legacy of Pander vote deck hitting its predator with KRC and taking the VP for the oust? Does the fact that bleeds target my prey stop my Prince deck throwing Parity Shift and ConAg at my predator and taking the VP for the oust? > > No, nothing stops that. > > So my predator gets his actual predator trying to take him out, and his fake predator (me) doing that too. > It would seem that the problem you have against those cards (my hypothetical card ideas, which no one ever said were perfect) is a function of KRC et al. The ability to burn pool via political cards is, IMO, pretty lame and not what political cards should be about. > jamesatzephyr wrote: > > > LivesByProxy wrote: > > I guess in a competitive environment, they could be used like you imagine, to team up on and snipe particular players, but then I wonder why the meta wouldn't adapt to include more high-caps for votes or that each deck would have a 'vote package' similar to how each deck has a combat or master package. > > > That's exactly why Dramatic Upheaval was banned, because that's exactly what people did. > > If the defence to something that is fundamentally awful is "Well, players could completely rework their decks as the only reasonable defence to it", then enormous flashing lights with deafening sirens should be going off around you. When the only way to deal with a strategy is to have everyone rework their deck specifically to counter it, that's a sign you've created a broken card. > But that's not the only way to defend against that card... The card gives you the option to burn it as an action (maybe the burn action could be at +2 stealth or more, who knows?) and the referendum has to pass, meaning you need stealth and anyone with moderate intercept could block it. And then there are other cards that hinder it as well, like Delaying Tactics. And of course, the people at the table would have some incentive to intervene, rather than let the political deck player snipe VPs. I thought part of the appeal of VTES was that 'broken' cards and combinations were off-set by the players at the table. Reworking a deck is one thing, but I wouldn't call adding a few copies of Delaying Tactics, or Dread Gaze, or Irregular Protocol, or Wrong & Crosswise, and such, 'reworking'. People put cards in their deck for defense vs combat, and defense vs bleed, why should defense vs politics be any different? And even if it is banned from competitive play, what about supporting casual play with such cards? WotC realizes that they have different player psychographics and different formats, and they print cards for all different types of players and cards that are competitive in one format but not another. Casual is a format just as valid as competitive, not every card needs to be a tournament staple. Interestingly, Game of Malkav and Malkavian Game, are very fun 'casual' cards, clearly meant for kitchen table-top games, but they've seen tournament play. 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.

> It would seem that the problem you have against those cards (my hypothetical card ideas, which no one ever said were perfect) is a function of KRC et al. The ability to burn pool via political cards is, IMO, pretty lame and not what political cards should be about. > Okay, to me it seems like you're reading in between the lines and finding what you want to find. I get it that you don't personally, on a theoretical basis (since you have very limited play experience), like KRC types of votes. That doesn't mean that anything James said means that KRC is why your suggestions don't work. It's more multi dimensional than that, and I'm pretty sure you understand this. > But that's not the only way to defend against that card... The card gives you the option to burn it as an action (maybe the burn action could be at +2 stealth or more, who knows?) and the referendum has to pass, meaning you need stealth and anyone with moderate intercept could block it. And then there are other cards that hinder it as well, like Delaying Tactics. And of course, the people at the table would have some incentive to intervene, rather than let the political deck player snipe VPs. I thought part of the appeal of VTES was that 'broken' cards and combinations were off-set by the players at the table. > Which card are you talking about? Dramatic Upheaval and its problems have been on the table here, and it doesn't have a burn clause. If you're talking about your own suggested cards, there are plenty of problems with this: if you're already planning on passing them, you have the vote lock already in most cases. Others burning it is not that effective of a downside, since you can protect them with your own votes. Anyways, none of that really matters. Mostly, you're being told by tournament veterans that your reasoning for deck diversity through these sorts of cards and adding defenses against them will not make for more enjoyable games. Dramatic Upheaval has been tried and tested, and your suggestions aim for more or less the same effect. "People will adapt!" is not a reasonable or a good argument when you want to realistically plan cards, especially when people with more experience and know-how have arguments against it. Even better: based on real life data. About kitchen tables: really, there already is a number of fun, not so powerful cards being printed even today for kitchen tables. Casual is a format the casuals uphold. I'm putting in a handful of my 2-cents for that Blessed Blade (Lost Kindred) will never see competitive play. It's still there to fill a melee weapon !Salubri play style for those who really enjoy it; that is, in kitchen tables. Also, if you're enjoying Dramatic Upheaval, NOTHING is preventing you from enjoying it with your friends. Tournaments are different of course. If you're designing cards for casuals, please make it very clear in the opening post that those cards are not intended for tournament play. As for tournaments? VP sniping isn't a 'cool strategy' 'for toolbox decks' that are 'countered by variety in defensive card slots'. In casuals it could be. In competitive it isn't, really. You just have to trust us in this. It's been done. It wasn't fun. VtES has a tiny, tiny amount of banned cards. Each was banned for a reason. "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

> LivesByProxy wrote: > > > jamesatzephyr wrote: > > You're creating political cards and then only talking about bleed actions. Either you're being completely and utterly disingenuous, or you understand literally nothing about V:TES. Why would a political deck be in any way hampered by the directability of bleed actions, when a political deck can play political actions that work cross-table? Does the fact that bleeds target my prey stop my Legacy of Pander vote deck hitting its predator with KRC and taking the VP for the oust? Does the fact that bleeds target my prey stop my Prince deck throwing Parity Shift and ConAg at my predator and taking the VP for the oust? > > > > No, nothing stops that. > > > > So my predator gets his actual predator trying to take him out, and his fake predator (me) doing that too. > > > It would seem that the problem you have against those cards (my hypothetical card ideas, which no one ever said were perfect) is a function of KRC et al. The ability to burn pool via political cards is, IMO, pretty lame and not what political cards should be about. > But... I don't have a problem with those cards. Why? Because Dramatic Upheaval and your cards don't exist in the game. KRC works just fine as it is, and doesn't cause problems. Your card would cause problems - which we know, because the rest of us are paying attention to the fact that sniping VPs caused massive problems in the past. which you are handwaving away because you literally don't understand V:TES - so... let's not introduce your card, eh? Additionally, if you don't think that political actions should be about what they've been about for the last 24 years - KRC, ConAg, Parity Shift are all in the base Jyhad set - you are playing the wrong game. This is like sitting down with a deck of Magic and saying that those silly colours and land cards shouldn't be what the game is about. Do you sit down with a chess board and rewrite who knights move, because jumping over pieces is pretty lame and not what chess should be about? You are playing the wrong game. V:TES is not the game you want it to be. Votes can cause damage. That's how the game works. You are playing the wrong game.

> LivesByProxy wrote: > Maybe I am crazy, but when I think of what a political deck should be, I think of passing 'laws' that slowly strangle and cripple your prey & predator's ability to function, trapping them in so much red-tape. > What you describe doesn't sound at all fun. In the end, this is still a game and people are supposed to enjoy playing it. (ps. I admit I was wrong suggesting the card "at the gates" some time ago... It shouldn't be printed. Its a bad idea for the same reasons. ) Smoking craters tell no tales. —Tex talks Battletech

James, I plainly stated the point of those cards was not sniping VP, but being defensive options: 'I need to switch places with someone to avoid being ousted.' (Dramatic Upheaval), 'I need to get my predator off my back' (The Tides Turn), 'I need to stop that one player from taking out his prey who only has 2 pool left' (What Tangled Webs...). Granted, these ideas aren't perfect. The desired result is not the one we would get (as you and the others state, they'd lead to sniping VP, and the meta being warped around OP political decks, and I agree that is bad.) I never said sniping VP was a good thing or desirable thing. I never said my designs were perfect. My issue isn't even with KRC or Parity Shift and 'pool burn' political actions. My issue is 2-fold: that when people say 'Political deck' or 'Political win-con' they really mean 'my KRC deck' and that the game has too many weak pool burn political cards that are rightly called 'wall-paper'. I think that we need more interesting, unique, cool political effects. Apparently Dramatic Upheaval is not the kind of effect we need, fine. The ideas I proposed would have consequences I didn't foresee, and would therefore need serious changes or not to be printed, that's fine too. Maybe I don't understand VTES as well as I would like, I admit I haven't been playing the game for 20+ years, nor do I have any tournament experience. I still think cool political cards that are not wall-paper, are not 'give-vamp-a-title', and are not 'like-KRC-but-worse' would be desirable and good for the game. Also, about Magic and what Magic was and should be: the game was initially about casting spells that did stuff. Even though Creatures were considered 'spells', early Magic was about Sorceries, Instants, Enchantments, and Artifacts. The Creatures were drastically underpowered 95% of the time, comparatively. Eventually, WotC realized that Creature-to-Creature interaction was more exciting and a better selling point than the other card types, and has been increasing the power-level of Creatures for the past decade. Which is evident when you look at the different formats. Standard and Modern (tournaments featuring cards from the past 3 years and the past decade, respectively) are much more Creature focused, while the Legacy and Vintage formats (which feature all cards from the earliest days of Magic) are much more Sorcery, Instant, Enchantment, & Artifact focused. BloodArtist, I mean Political Cards that 'tax' players in some regard. Android:Netrunner is largely based around how the Corp taxes the Runner. The Runner is never strictly denied options, but the Corp makes the Runner really work for their win. The Runner has to make tough decisions and similar cards already exist in VTES. Do you 'waste' an action to burn that Political Card that is taxing you? Or do you pay the tax, ignoring it for now, to focus on developing your board and ousting your prey? Emergency Police State Political Action Choose three or more Methuselah's in the game. Successful referendum means this card is put into play. While this card is in play, each of the chosen Methuselahs has -1 transfer during their Influence Phase. Any Methuselah can burn this card by spending 1 transfer and 1 pool during their Influence Phase. Burn this card after six Influence Phases. 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 that your problem is with the game mechanics itself. You see, simplifying, the game have few mechanics: burn blood/pool, gain blood/pool, bleed, enter combat and block/stealth, and influence vampires/recruit minions, plus esotheric things such as prey, predator, positioning and round order. If we know that changing the prey/predator is bad, changing table position is bad, and round order us already affected by reversal of fortune, we would be relegated to regular non-political effects, such as burning pool, minions or entering combat, or creating a whole "new" mechanic, like briksmanship or agaitas ability, and, in the end, whenever you create a deck, you have to define a win condition, and unless you create a new one, that would mean burning pool. Now, again, the problem here is that to win, you have to burn pool. Either your political actions burn pool (ergo KRC-likes) or only do shenanigans because you are not a pure political deck and have another win condition (like bleed or combat). Either way you cannot go much further without having to create a new mechanic. I don't know, you could add a "steal vp" mechanic, but that would devolve into "I play krc plus this broken thing".

There are quite a few political actions already but only very few of them ever see play. Something to be learned perhaps? Finnish Politics!

> Lönkka wrote: > There are quite a few political actions already but only very few of them ever see play. > > Something to be learned perhaps? > For sure. I'd imagine a rare few would say that new, powerful political actions that shake up the rules/balance/flow of the table wouldn't be welcome. Especially those that don't deal with pool/numbers directly. My Kin Against the World, Banishment and 1st Tradition are good examples of unique, powerful effects. The thing is you'll have to stretch the limits of what has already been done, and be very creative with the design. Kudos to OP for trying, so there's that, but these particular effects are not welcome or good for the game. That much has already been said. New cards would require bold, new ways of thinking though. There's only so much that can be done with KRC+ effects (Reckless, Conservative Agitation, you get the idea). Just my 2 cents though. "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

Thinking more about it, and following the statement from Lönkka, I think that the issue is that political actions, as a whole, are as if they were 1 discipline, and so they are competing with themselves. The same reason you usually see govern+conditioning as a bleed pack with dominate, you will see KRC for pool burn on political decks. I feel the way would be adding specific cards for specific sects/clans/disciplines. What makes disciplines interesting even when they are kind of "optimized" is the mix with other disciplines, as you won't plan your dominate equally if you are running a dominate + obfuscate crypt, a dominate + fortitude deck, or a dominate + auspex. Right now for political cards you either go Prince/Justicar for KRC+Parity, DoC for KRC/Lily Prelude, and, to a lesser extent, anarch with their own political cards. Also, another option is adding new "burn" cards that add some extra value with them. As presence have "bleed plus do stuff", and dementation has "bleed whoever plus gain some pool", you could add a "Burn 2 pools from someone and do 1 damage on 2 of their minions", or "Sabbat pol act, enter combat with a minion, and if the minion ends the combat as a strike or isn't ready at the end of the combat, it's controller burns 2/3 pools". An option for a weenie deck could be "Revealing secrets: Select a Mathuselah. If the referendum passes, send this acting minion to torpor, and put this card in play. Each minion bleeding the chosen mathuselah can burn 1 blood/life to gain +1 bleed that doesn't count against the limit. The chosen mathuselah can pay 1 pool during their unlock phase to burn this card". More options: "Dead or Alive: Choose a minion with capacity above 6. If the referendum passes, attach this card to that minion. Any minion can enter combat with this minions as a action. If this minion leaves the ready region while in combat with another minion, the controller of the opposing minion steals 2 pools from this minion's controller. Any minion can burn this card as a +1 stealth political action". "Sourvellance: Choose an untitled minion. If the referendum passes, attach this card to that minion. The attached minion cannot act as normal. At the start of any minion phase, their controller can burn 1 pool to ignore the effects of this card until the end of that minion phase. During their unlock phase, they can lock this minion to put 1 counter on this card. Whenever this card has 3 counters on it, burn it.". "Sabbat Rule: Requires a titled sabbat. If the referrendum passes, attach this card to this acting minion. Emplying allies cost 2 additional pools (for every mathuselah). Any minion can burn this card as a +1 political action. Burn this card if this minion goes to torpor" "Anarchist pest: Requires an anarch vampire. During this political action, anarch minions gain +1 vote, and non-anarch titles are worth 1 less vote. If this referendum passes, put this card in play. After a political action is announced, any player can lock any number of anarch minions to burn 1 blood from the acting vampire if the action is succesful. The acting vampire can choose to fail the action after this. Burn this card at the end of your predator's discard phase." "Drawing attention. Requires a non-camarilla vampire. If the referendum passes, put this card in play. Every hunt action cost 1 additional pool. After 5 pool are payed this way, burn this card"

@Ratadin: All of those (while not being cards I think are needed, just basis for potential cards) touch on the old First Tradition style politics, where voting for or against depends on how it specifically impacts your game at that time and overall, which is an interesting thing. Now, I'm seeing livesbyproxy keep defending himself by stating the idea is a "Defensive Card". I can honestly say it is not, regardless of intent, ever going to be such. Anytime something could be in the "ok" level but with almost no effort goes to being broken, it will just become broken. Girls Decks took some cards that on their own were between "OK" and "Good". Villein helps make fatties less of a liability, LB enables that, so if you wanted a B tier deck with Saulot, Fakir, Hardestadt, and Eleimelech, you could. Tablets, Anthelios, Liquidation, and extra MPAs all were used in decks to recur important cards, draw certain things fast, or even in combat decks to put red cards back in the deck. Now, all that together with a free bounce by pitching a master, 2 minions and 1 master all granting extra MPAs, and being able to recur DI, Sudden, Pentex, or even secure haven broke every card HARD. Anthelios being banned unintentionally hurt decks that used it to meet the 1 other gehenna card in play requirement on stuff, but stopped nonsense that needed stopped. LB was never used to get a skill card and became a way to pay 0 pool for 11 caps, so it went away. Villein is finally fixed, and that's great, since it adds playability to the game. No matter how much you argue that LB is to get Fortitude on 2 9-cap !malks in a potence dementation deck(which was my argument) its going to be used to get Nana, Cybele, Aksynia, and later Enkidu out for free. You vote being "defensive " doesn't matter, its usage for an easy vp will be used more, because it wins games. That's how life works in a competitive environment, the argument that goes back to complaints from competitive Street Fighter arcade fights over "cheap wins".

I agree that they compete with each other. There are plenty of variations possible on lose pool or steal blood or whatever, but that's not superinteresting. Could have more steal effects, like steal ally or retainer or whatever that had "or" clauses to give you 2 pool instead so that they weren't as narrow. I wanted to put Permanent Vacation in a deck recently, but it didn't justify itself. Could have "Choose any number of Methuselahs. If the referendum is successful, each chosen Methuselah discards four cards from their hands or, if unable, their entire hands." and the like to play around with what exists - I could see choosing yourself a reasonable amount of time. Could have a Victim of Habit style vote that does more than one pool damage that attacks recursion. And, so on, in terms of components of the game that exist without just doing different versions of existing cards or having incredibly griefy effects. If you wanted to get dangerous, "Politics Is Broken may only be played once per game. If the referendum is successful, your predator gains 6 pool, all of your predator's minions are unlocked, and your predator must skip their next turn." Not sure what happens when predator is attempting to withdraw, but withdrawing should just be removed from the game, anyway, because Brinksmanship really isn't as cool as it sounds. Traveller Card Game

> ICL wrote: > ..... > > If you wanted to get dangerous, "Politics Is Broken may only be played once per game. If the referendum is successful, your predator gains 6 pool, all of your predator's minions are unlocked, and your predator must skip their next turn." Not sure what happens when predator is attempting to withdraw, but withdrawing should just be removed from the game, anyway, because Brinksmanship really isn't as cool as it sounds. > It's a meat shield vote. Not without possibility, but skipping a turn is huge. Protected resources style limits would be more appropriate "Your predators minions cannot bleed you for more than one during their next turn, and cannot cause you to burn more than 2 pool during a political action until your next untap phase." Then they gain pool and maybe untal a minion of their choice? Brinksmanship should say: Brinksmanship [Action]Action [3 Pool] +1 stealth action Requires a Harbinger of Skulls with capacity greater than 6. Put this card in play. Any Methuselah who has exhausted his or her library and begins his or her untap phase with less than a full hand must attempt to withdraw. On that Methuselah's next untap phase, if the withdrawal fails, that Methuselah is ousted. If any Methuselah successfully withdraws, you are ousted. There. I fixed it. Let's print.

Well I'm glad this discussion evolved into talking about Political Cards and not just how terrible my ideas are. That said, a couple of thoughts: Ratadin, if I'm understanding you correctly, you would like to see Political Cards require disciplines (among other things?) I've had that thought before, and there is precedence for that sort of thing ( ) but I thought it was one of the crazier ideas. I for sure would like to see referendums requiring disciplines, and, if the disciplines were taken to be more abstract in nature (which I think they should be), we could even have and Political Actions. Surveillance State Political Action If the referendum is successful, put this card into play. Each minion gets -1 stealth. Door-To-Door Political Action If the referendum is successful, starting with your prey, each vampire must Art: A armed police task force is breaking down apartment doors. I also think that decking / milling someone should just be an automatic ousting condition. You can't draw a card because your deck is gone? You lose. Withdrawing is archaic IMO and Brinkmanship is way to much work to be a viable win-con. Having 2 Brinksmanship / Slaughterhouse decks in the TWD is nice, but it isn't an archetype... yet. I also think that the keywording / phrasing of referendums could be streamlined. Referendum is a long word (a lot of card space) and so is "If this referendum is successful, put this card into play." That's 10 words, two of which are long words. I think we could simply this to be: "If successful, enact this as law." 'Laws' would be be 'referendums that stay in play', 'enacted' means 'put this card into play'. We don't need to reference the referendum when referring to success, IMO. A referendum has two chances to fail, the first when you attempt to call it, requiring stealth/intercept, and the second when you need the votes to pass it. Also, fun card I thought up: Entomb Political Action Choose a vampire. If successful, the chosen vampire is put on the bottom of its owner's crypt. The controller of that vampire may distribute any blood, equipment, or retainers on that vampire among his or her ready vampires. Flavor Text: There are some fates worse than death... 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 also think that decking / milling someone should just be an automatic ousting condition. You can't draw a card because your deck is gone? You lose. Withdrawing is archaic IMO and Brinkmanship is way to much work to be a viable win-con. Having 2 Brinksmanship / Slaughterhouse decks in the TWD is nice, but it isn't an archetype... yet. > Now, see, now you're not talking about political actions anymore. Now you're talking about the base mechanics. And I couldn't disagree more with the above statement: withdrawing may be only clutter in the game at this point, but focusing on decking=ousting mind set is archaic as well. It has served a purpose in games to give a game a definite ending point so that they won't drag to infinity. A:NR ends the game if corp deck runs out, but doesn't if runner deck runs out. V:TES already has the definite end point in 2h in tournament games. There is no -need- for this. And even if that were up to debate, it has nothing to do with political actions. And changing naming conventions has nothing to do with political actions. Could we please talk about THIS game, and the game you'd rather want in another [website] altogether? "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

> LivesByProxy wrote: > Ratadin, if I'm understanding you correctly, you would like to see Political Cards require disciplines (among other things?) I've had that thought before, and there is precedence for that sort of thing ( ) but I thought it was one of the crazier ideas. I for sure would like to see referendums requiring disciplines, and, if the disciplines were taken to be more abstract in nature (which I think they should be), we could even have and Political Actions. > Nope, not what I meant What I meant was that political actions, as a whole, should be understood as a single discipline, because that is what they are: what limits them is your ability to cast votes, the same way Enchant Kindred is limited by your ability to play Presence cards. And, because we can understand Political Actions as a whole as an single discipline, we should treat each individual political card as if they were discipline cards when it comes to comparing them (I'm thinking about your take on KRC) or developing new cards. To elaborate, and going along my example on my original post, on Dominate you have Govern the Unaligned and Conditioning, which are 2 really good bleed cards. You cannot create new bleeding action and a new bleeding modifier to replace those two without either having a power creep, or having a "worse bleed" but paired with some gimmick. A good example for this would be Confusion and Eyes of Chaos: one of them gives you more bleed, but the other gives you something else that you would consider. If to this we add that, even though it can be boring, the game is won by burning your opponent's pool, it would be no surprise (nor problematic) to see most dominate heavy decks packing some governs and some conditionings, because it is a good winning condition for a deck that can afford it. You can pair it with other stuff, but unless you have a better bleeding/pool burning option, you will pack them. So, knowing this, and treating Political Actions as a discipline, it is logical, and not that problematic, that KRC is packed on most political decks, because, unless you have a better pool burning options (like lily prelude or parity shift), that's your best bet. Now, we could, and should, have more political actions that burn pool and have some gimmick with them besides burning pool, but in the end we will still having KRC around because that's what happens when you have 25 years of cards legal in all tournaments: you'll end up with the most optimized cards available.

Ratadin is entirely correct, but fear not; We still get new ART on old cards occasionally.