At the start of the influence phase, before any transfers be spent.
If a player have at least 1 counter in a unique crypt card that is already in play
They can pay 1 pool, remove this card from the game ( show to everyone ) and move all counters to another card with the same age or younger.
This can solve the main random contest issue ( 2 inactive players for several rounds ) and still holds back star vampires as they still are unreliable if someone else bring it first you will suffer to use it too and the table talk will be very differente since you could have other choice.
Archbishop of Itaocara
Prince ID #510
Interesting suggestion; I like it a lot. Though I don't see the need to add the same age or younger restriction. It's not like you gain transfers on an older vampire by using this method; there's no way to "game" it.
> kschaefer wrote:
> Interesting suggestion; I like it a lot. Though I don't see the need to add the same age or younger restriction. It's not like you gain transfers on an older vampire by using this method; there's no way to "game" it.
>
Keith moody uses Govern the unaligned in a Anarch convert, its a unique, you then remove it from the game to bring Antonio derlette a 5 cap vampire that could not get transfers from the Keith Govern.
Archbishop of Itaocara
Prince ID #510
> Sambomb wrote:
>
> > kschaefer wrote:
> > Interesting suggestion; I like it a lot. Though I don't see the need to add the same age or younger restriction. It's not like you gain transfers on an older vampire by using this method; there's no way to "game" it.
> >
> Keith moody uses Govern the unaligned in a Anarch convert, its a unique, you then remove it from the game to bring Antonio derlette a 5 cap vampire that could not get transfers from the Keith Govern.
>
Then, don't allow excess blood on the source vampire to be moved. Perhaps wordier, but better in the long run.
I really like this idea, so thinking about it more. Here's my proposed wording for the Mask-of-1000-Faces, contestation-rule update. First sentence is from the rulebook as it exists, the second is the addition. Note that revealing a crypt card automatically causes the excess to drain off.
During the influence phase, if that stack [of blood counters] equals or exceeds his blood capacity, you can reveal the vampire and place him in the ready region. (see Play Area, sec. 2.3). If the revealed vampire would contest a card in play, then you may burn 1 pool to transfer the blood from him to another uncontrolled vampire and burn him instead.
Is also a viable option.
My wording is to avoid some cards interaction of when it enter game, and make "midcap" contest more costly then high cap.
You will still need to contest that neighbor jhon, but you can avoid a Lazverinus contest
Archbishop of Itaocara
Prince ID #510
> Sambomb wrote:
> At the start of the influence phase, before any transfers be spent.
> If a player have at least 1 counter in a unique crypt card that is already in play
> They can pay 1 pool, remove this card from the game ( show to everyone ) and move all counters to another card with the same age or younger.
>
> This can solve the main random contest issue ( 2 inactive players for several rounds ) and still holds back star vampires as they still are unreliable if someone else bring it first you will suffer to use it too and the table talk will be very differente since you could have other choice.
>
I like it. This makes the game better.
> Sambomb wrote:
> At the start of the influence phase, before any transfers be spent.
> If a player have at least 1 counter in a unique crypt card that is already in play
> They can pay 1 pool, remove this card from the game ( show to everyone ) and move all counters to another card with the same age or younger.
>
> This can solve the main random contest issue ( 2 inactive players for several rounds ) and still holds back star vampires as they still are unreliable if someone else bring it first you will suffer to use it too and the table talk will be very differente since you could have other choice.
>
I really like this idea it for sure improves things, but this is not a main issue with contesting, Main issue is that you don't have a vampire you build your deck around.
> Tadori wrote:
> I really like this idea it for sure improves things, but this is not a main issue with contesting, Main issue is that you don't have a vampire you build your deck around.
>
So for you, the main problem with contesting is that someone who bases their entire game on a single card will not be able to play if contesting occurs?
Unbelievable! Really, I don't know what to say, how to answer this if you don't see for yourself the problem in what you're talking about.
This is just another proof that the existing rule is not a problem, but the problem is that some people want to play the game in some deviant way, and then they are bored if someone disturbs their game.
Thanks for clarifying this.
> Palamedes wrote:
>
> > Tadori wrote:
> > I really like this idea it for sure improves things, but this is not a main issue with contesting, Main issue is that you don't have a vampire you build your deck around.
> >
> So for you, the main problem with contesting is that someone who bases their entire game on a single card will not be able to play if contesting occurs?
>
> Unbelievable! Really, I don't know what to say, how to answer this if you don't see for yourself the problem in what you're talking about.
>
> This is just another proof that the existing rule is not a problem, but the problem is that some people want to play the game in some deviant way, and then they are bored if someone disturbs their game.
>
> Thanks for clarifying this.
>
You understand how star decks work right ?
> Tadori wrote:
>
> > Sambomb wrote:
> > At the start of the influence phase, before any transfers be spent.
> > If a player have at least 1 counter in a unique crypt card that is already in play
> > They can pay 1 pool, remove this card from the game ( show to everyone ) and move all counters to another card with the same age or younger.
> >
> > This can solve the main random contest issue ( 2 inactive players for several rounds ) and still holds back star vampires as they still are unreliable if someone else bring it first you will suffer to use it too and the table talk will be very differente since you could have other choice.
> >
> I really like this idea it for sure improves things, but this is not a main issue with contesting, Main issue is that you don't have a vampire you build your deck around.
>
If your star vampire got a sensory deprivation, you will not use it.
There is a lot of ways that you cant just lose your vampire turn 1...
And remember, after the "contesting" vampire leaves the table you can use yours.
If your deck cant play without a specific vampire, the problem is your deck, not the rules and you can still just contest and see what happens.
Archbishop of Itaocara
Prince ID #510
> Sambomb wrote:
> If your star vampire got a sensory deprivation, you will not use it.
>
With your star vampire: Play intercept. Play wakes or unlock cards. Or even play a DI.
> Sambomb wrote:
> There is a lot of ways that you cant just lose your vampire turn 1...
>
Combat? With your star vampire: Play combat. A vote? With your star vampire: Play Delaying Tactics or votes.
> Sambomb wrote:
> And remember, after the "contesting" vampire leaves the table you can use yours.
>
A contest? Play ... well... Clio's Kiss? You just need another vampire with Temporis superior, they go in all decks.
Or kill the other Methuselah that is contesting with you! Of course, you'll need other vampires, and maybe some crosstable firepower, while surviving.
I don't understand how you put contest on the same level as the rest.
Prince of Paris, France
Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director
> Ankha wrote:
> I don't understand how you put contest on the same level as the rest.
>
Playing without any intecept, DI, combat, vote or Delaying Tactics, etc. is similar to basing an entire game on one vampire.
You had the choice to put 12 different vampires in the crypt. You could have put at least 2 different useful ones, but you didn't, and besides, you don't have any backup plan, so your game is over. And where is the flaw? Rules or your deck?
Instead of allowing them to play that way, let them deal with the situation. Players who play so risky should be punished.
And you know, if you really think something needs to be done, it is not necessary to change the rules for this situation. Just design a new card.
Example:
Master
Out-of-turn.
If another copy of a vampire you control with the capacity 9 or more comes into play, there is no contest. Instead, remove the new copy from the game and return the blood to the controller's pool.
or
Master
Put this card on a vampire with the capacity 9 or more in your uncontrolled region. When this vampire goes to your ready region, if there is any other copy with the same name under the control of another player, add "II" to the name of your vampire.
> Ankha wrote:
> I don't understand how you put contest on the same level as the rest.
>
I didn't say its at the same level.
I just said that you can lose your vampire at turn 1 and its a valid strategy to use at least another vampire at your decks for those kind of corner cases.
And thats the point of my proposal, that you can open another option instead of be stucked at a contest.
Archbishop of Itaocara
Prince ID #510
I like this suggestion, but it occurs to me that we need to be able to have the player with a vampire on the board be able to do something in response (immediately or during his unlock). Otherwise, it's only the second Methuselah that gets a choice.
> kschaefer wrote:
> I like this suggestion, but it occurs to me that we need to be able to have the player with a vampire on the board be able to do something in response (immediately or during his unlock). Otherwise, it's only the second Methuselah that gets a choice.
>
Yes, the reason is to avoid contest based on the "new" influence rules where you dont need to turn your vampire up unless you can and WANT.
Archbishop of Itaocara
Prince ID #510
> Sambomb wrote:
>
> > Tadori wrote:
> >
> > > Sambomb wrote:
> > > At the start of the influence phase, before any transfers be spent.
> > > If a player have at least 1 counter in a unique crypt card that is already in play
> > > They can pay 1 pool, remove this card from the game ( show to everyone ) and move all counters to another card with the same age or younger.
> > >
> > > This can solve the main random contest issue ( 2 inactive players for several rounds ) and still holds back star vampires as they still are unreliable if someone else bring it first you will suffer to use it too and the table talk will be very differente since you could have other choice.
> > >
> > >
> > I really like this idea it for sure improves things, but this is not a main issue with contesting, Main issue is that you don't have a vampire you build your deck around.
> >
> If your star vampire got a sensory deprivation, you will not use it.
> There is a lot of ways that you cant just lose your vampire turn 1...
> And remember, after the "contesting" vampire leaves the table you can use yours.
>
> If your deck cant play without a specific vampire, the problem is your deck, not the rules and you can still just contest and see what happens.
>
All of thing you talk about create an interaction, so you have a chance to defend yourself by actually using cards. There is no such possibility with contest.
OFC you can play without a start vamp but why you have to be punished with a random factor (sitting) for playing the game. This kind of games will always deep down be a negative experience.
> Sambomb wrote:
> If your star vampire got a sensory deprivation, you will not use it.
>
Taking this discussion to a new tangent and nitpicking a bit, but this is fake news!
Getting the star vamp Sensory Depped is indeed a bummer, but it necessary doesn't stop you from using it. It WILL make using extremely difficult but it is possible.
At one local final my only vampire (Stanislava) was SD'd but I still managed to play with her/it. And came very close to winning the game. Granted, it was extremely annoying and hard to play as whenever I wanted to do something I had to make darn sure that I had a) enough stealth to do the action successfully and b) an untap/-lock to follow or it would've been lights out for me. (my predator should've waited for me to have finished my turn with a tapped/locked Stani instead...)
But his is sheer nitpicking, in vast majority of instances you would not be able to use that vamp! (well, just once if it was untapped to begin with)
And now we can resume the normal conversation!
Finnish Politics!
> Lönkka wrote:
>
> > Sambomb wrote:
> > If your star vampire got a sensory deprivation, you will not use it.
> >
> Taking this discussion to a new tangent and nitpicking a bit, but this is fake news!
>
> Getting the star vamp Sensory Depped is indeed a bummer, but it necessary doesn't stop you from using it. It WILL make using extremely difficult but it is possible.
>
> At one local final my only vampire (Stanislava) was SD'd but I still managed to play with her/it. And came very close to winning the game. Granted, it was extremely annoying and hard to play as whenever I wanted to do something I had to make darn sure that I had a) enough stealth to do the action successfully and b) an untap/-lock to follow or it would've been lights out for me. (my predator should've waited for me to have finished my turn with a tapped/locked Stani instead...)
>
> But his is sheer nitpicking, in vast majority of instances you would not be able to use that vamp! (well, just once if it was untapped to begin with)
>
> And now we can resume the normal conversation!
>
If you are locked at that time its much harder to pull it off.
And sure, if you are infernal you can get away with it too...
But you get the point, you can "lose" your vampire quickly not only by contest.
Archbishop of Itaocara
Prince ID #510