Card idea: Crisis and Riots

Name: Crisis and Riots Cardtype: Event Any Methuselah may burn 2 pool as a master phase action to burn this card and make each Methuselah (going clockwise) choose up to 2 allies he or she controls then burn the rest, and burn equipments, locations, and retainers the same way. "I took all I could save. Leonardo didn't make it I fear." - Isabel Giovanni Is the card balanced? Is the card interesting? I don't care whether we "need" the card or not Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

Admins: Please move this post to 'Expansion Sets & Card Ideas'. Thank you. Kevin M., Prince of Las Vegas "Know your enemy and know yourself; in one-thousand battles you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, *The Art of War* "Contentment...Complacency...Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier Please visit VTESville daily! vtesville.myminicity.com/ Facebook: www.facebook.com/groups/129744447064017

Can't Take It With You for Allies, Equipment, Locations and Retainers? Seems a touch rediculous really. Who is going to play this when they could play Peace Treaty and Can't Take It With You in a single turn? I'm not sure why you have this vendetta against decks using something other than vampires without permanents. Is there something going on in your metagame that can't be fixed by say... Canine Hordes or Broken Armaments or Fast Hands... or even just Drawing Out the Beast??? Retired Baron of Sydney, Australia, 418

> Juggernaut1981 wrote: > Can't Take It With You for Allies, Equipment, Locations and Retainers? > > Seems a touch rediculous really. Who is going to play this when they could play Peace Treaty and Can't Take It With You in a single turn? > I've never seen anyone play either one of them. (Imho they're not worth the slot). So playing both in the same turn seems to have 0% chance to happen. But I would be likely to play Crisis and Riot in some decks (some rush decks for instance). > Juggernaut1981 wrote: > I'm not sure why you have this vendetta against decks using something other than vampires without permanents. Is there something going on in your metagame that can't be fixed by say... Canine Hordes or Broken Armaments or Fast Hands... or even just Drawing Out the Beast??? > What vendetta? There's nothing wrong with my environment, I don't design card because I was bled by a stealth bleed last night. I design card for the braimstorming and gaming pleasure it procures. Cards shouldn't be designed to fix things, but to add new interesting options to the game. If you need to fix things, fix the rules or the existing cards. But you didn't tell me if you found the card balanced or interesting (and why). And with arguments, please. Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

> KevinM wrote: > Admins: Please move this post to 'Expansion Sets & Card Ideas'. Thank you. > Yeah, sorry. The thing is that I use the New Topic button while browsing the 'Expansion Sets & Card Ideas' section, but the default section is always 'News And Announcement'. If one forget to set it, it goes to the wrong section. I hope it would be fixed. Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

It seems very uninteresting. It's a 'punisher'-type card. It doesn't promote a new form of play, it penalises other archetypes (particularly allies and/or equipment-heavy decks). It doesn't create a new form of play. Consequently, I find it about as interesting as Vicissitude Poisoning, Detection, Cultivated Blood Shortage, Nosferatu Putrescence, Brujah Frenzy, Artistically Inept, Obsession, Tragic Love Affair... or need I go on? If it was a card that promoted a certain strategy rather than penalising as many as it possibly could, I'd have fewer problems. There are a limited number of cards that I think need pulling back into line, and that is because I think they have enhanced certain strategies too far (particularly Villein under its current ruling on the word 'move' and Voter Cap in general). So I'd be interested in cards that for example: - Enabled pure combat to be a potentially faster ousting method (or at least have more viable defence). - Enhanced fringe strategies such as Trophies-Red List - Diversify existing strategies by effectively creating viable variations to existing strategies (e.g. Cryptic Mission variation, Increase viability of Black Hand, enhance Sabbat-only voting, etc) Retired Baron of Sydney, Australia, 418

> Ankha wrote: > Is the card balanced? > Pun intended?

> Ankha wrote: > Name: Crisis and Riots > Cardtype: Event > Any Methuselah may burn 2 pool as a master phase action to burn this card and make each Methuselah (going clockwise) choose up to 2 allies he or she controls then burn the rest, and burn equipments, locations, and retainers the same way. > "I took all I could save. Leonardo didn't make it I fear." - Isabel Giovanni > > Is the card balanced? > No It is a single card which simultaneously screws over a number of deck types at minimal cost to you, and with little chance of anyone preventing it (can't be blocked, suddened, etc) > > Is the card interesting? > No It harms diversity in the game. > > I don't care whether we "need" the card or not > I do, we don't See post by Juggernaut for other things I agree with.

> Mael wrote: > > > Ankha wrote: > > Name: Crisis and Riots > > Cardtype: Event > > Any Methuselah may burn 2 pool as a master phase action to burn this card and make each Methuselah (going clockwise) choose up to 2 allies he or she controls then burn the rest, and burn equipments, locations, and retainers the same way. > > "I took all I could save. Leonardo didn't make it I fear." - Isabel Giovanni > > > > Is the card balanced? > > > No > It is a single card which simultaneously screws over a number of deck types at minimal cost to you, and with little chance of anyone preventing it (can't be blocked, suddened, etc) > We should ban all Gehenna events if we follow your logic. Tell me the difference between Crisis and Riots and Veil of Darkness or Slow Withering then (and the latter last until game ends, which is worse). Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

Veil of Darkness and Slow Withering don't absolutely screw every deck. They hamstring the decks, they make it harder for them to operate. Those Events don't OBLITERATE other strategies. It's a VERY unbalanced card (particularly in the way it works on everyone's strategy). Retired Baron of Sydney, Australia, 418

> Mael wrote: > It is a single card which simultaneously screws over a number of deck types at minimal cost to you, and with little chance of anyone preventing it (can't be blocked, suddened, etc) > Veil of Darkness also "screws over a number of deck types at minimal cost to you, and with little chance of anyone preventing it (can't be blocked, suddened, etc)". > Juggernaut1981 wrote: > Those Events don't OBLITERATE other strategies. It's a VERY unbalanced card (particularly in the way it works on everyone's strategy). > This is more radical. (BTW, Centralized Background Check "obliterates" Concealed Guns deck, but no one complains. And those decks are still played.) I don't think the card "obliterates" other strategies (see below). Even if it were the case, is it bad? It will not make any deck become predominent, and would reduce the number of deck relying on too many copies of the same 1 card, leading to other decks less monomaniac. I don't think it would reduce the diversity of decks, not more than Peace Treaty or Kindred Segregation do. And with fewer cards in play, the game should run more smoothly For most decks, this card will have no effect. You'll rarely have more than 2 allies (say Carlton and Mylan), more than 2 location (let's say a Hunting Ground), more than 2 equipments (Bowl + Ivory?) etc. A Shambling deck would be left with 2 of them, which can be a pain but can be triggered by the player itself, before playing some more. Some decks will be hurt more badly: - a Nephandus deck will lose much more cause they cost pool - so would be a War Ghoul deck - an animalism wall - a full-camera phone deck - an imbued - a Guillaume Giovanni deck The card can be nerfed a bit if you find it too effective. For example: Name: Crisis and Riots Cardtype: Event During each Methuselah's untap phase, he or she must choose X allies he or she controls then pay X-2 pool and burn the rest. Burn equipments, locations, and retainers the same way. During your master phase, burn this card if a total of 5 cards or more have been burned or 10 pool or more have been paid this way. "I took all I could save. Leonardo didn't make it I fear." - Isabel Giovanni Anyway, I understand some people wants new cards that doesn't affect their current decks but opens new strategies (but I think it's a very conservative approach). Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

> Ankha wrote: > > > Mael wrote: > > It is a single card which simultaneously screws over a number of deck types at minimal cost to you, and with little chance of anyone preventing it (can't be blocked, suddened, etc) > > > We should ban all Gehenna events if we follow your logic. Tell me the difference between Crisis and Riots and Veil of Darkness or Slow Withering then (and the latter last until game ends, which is worse). > "Do not replace as long as this card is in play" is a significant cost. "Do not replace until a vampire commits diablerie." is slightly less harse, but is often not something you can control. The slow withering also "Requires at least one other Gehenna card in play." which is not an insignificant opportunity cost. And speaking of opportunity cost, both of those cards are ones that will seriously hamper your own deck unless you build it specifically to avoid that. You can't just throw them into any vote, stealth bleed, or rush combat deck without making massive changes to the deck. You can with your card. + what Juggernaut said.

> Mael wrote: > > > Ankha wrote: > > > > > Mael wrote: > > > It is a single card which simultaneously screws over a number of deck types at minimal cost to you, and with little chance of anyone preventing it (can't be blocked, suddened, etc) > > > > > We should ban all Gehenna events if we follow your logic. Tell me the difference between Crisis and Riots and Veil of Darkness or Slow Withering then (and the latter last until game ends, which is worse). > > > "Do not replace as long as this card is in play" is a significant cost. "Do not replace until a vampire commits diablerie." is slightly less harse, but is often not something you can control. The slow withering also "Requires at least one other Gehenna card in play." which is not an insignificant opportunity cost. > So it's only a cost issue? (2 pool are not an insignificant cost neither.) > Mael wrote: > And speaking of opportunity cost, both of those cards are ones that will seriously hamper your own deck unless you build it specifically to avoid that. You can't just throw them into any vote, stealth bleed, or rush combat deck without making massive changes to the deck. > I found your deckbuilding genius staggering. I've always played cards that would hurt or kill me in my decks. I should remove those Scourge of the Enochians from my Palla Grande. > > Mael wrote: > You can with your card. > Wait, you'll play it in a swarm Nephandus deck? Brilliant. It means that either it is harmless even against swarm <allies-equipments-retainers-locations>, or that it has a real purpose. In both case, why do you complain? Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

> Ankha wrote: > So it's only a cost issue? (2 pool are not an insignificant cost neither.) > No it isn't, I pay as much for a hunting ground. > > > Mael wrote: > > And speaking of opportunity cost, both of those cards are ones that will seriously hamper your own deck unless you build it specifically to avoid that. You can't just throw them into any vote, stealth bleed, or rush combat deck without making massive changes to the deck. > > > I found your deckbuilding genius staggering. I've always played cards that would hurt or kill me in my decks. I should remove those Scourge of the Enochians from my Palla Grande. > It is stating the bleeding obvious I know, but it's a bleeding obvious point that you seem to be ignoring with your card design. > > > Mael wrote: > > You can with your card. > > > Wait, you'll play it in a swarm Nephandus deck? Brilliant. It means that either it is harmless even against swarm <allies-equipments-retainers-locations>, or that it has a real purpose. In both case, why do you complain? > Please reread what I've written. In what way is a swarm Nephandus deck a "vote, stealth bleed, or rush combat" deck?. Ignoring whether I think the card is a good idea or not, what would I do to balance it? Something like: Name: Crisis and Riots Cardtype: Event Do not replace until your prey is ousted. During each Methuselah's untap phase, he or she must choose half (rounded up) of the allies he or she controls. For each chosen ally either burn the ally or pay 1 pool. Repeat this process with equipment, locations, and retainers. Any Methuselah who has burned 2 or more cards or paid 2 or more pool for this effect during a single untap phase is immune to this effect for the remainder of the game. Do I think it's a good card? No How is the above more balanced than your version? 1) It has a moderate difficulty do not replace clause. 2) By also hitting people with a just a single Hunting Ground, Ecoterrorists, etc it becomes less of an 'auto include' and more a card you have to make definite choices for in deckbuilding. 3) It is still strong, as killing 5 out of 10 allies/locations/etc is still a useful benefit.

Ankha, Not to be rude, but you seem to be intent on ignoring people's objections to this card. I for one have grown tired of trying to explain why this card does little to help the game. You appear to have developed an obsession with creating cards to specifically punish deck-types rather than creating cards with the potential to create new strategies within the game. Retired Baron of Sydney, Australia, 418

I'm not ignoring your objections nor Mael's (since it's a 3-person discussion), but the arguments they're based on seem wrong or not enough detailed. If I give the impression that that reject all your objections, it is that I need to dig in what you say, be the devil's advocate to extract useful pieces of informations, or highlight some contradictions. Yeah, it's tedious for me too. To give my way of thinking about general considerations about card conception A card isn't bad because it punishes a deck or another. I know you'd prefer a card giving new options, but it doesn't make the others bad. There are many cards that don't help the game. Think of all the wallpaper. Think of cards such as Into thin Air (blah! another stealth card -- still, I find it interesting). Or Anarchist Uprising. We already had Ancilla Empowerment. There are many cards that wouldn't have made the cut because of the arguments you give. Just think of Scourge of the Enochians. Or Shepherd's Innocence.) They both punish decks. Good detailed arguments would have been: "the card is too effective. It can cause a loss of 10-pool worth allies to a Nephandus deck, 5 for a Garou (they usually have 3 in play), and 6 for WG. An animalism deck can lose 3 or 4 Raven Spy. It doesn't seem in line with other cards (such as cards that remove 1, max 2 allies, or make repay each. Those are wallpaper, so the card can be a little more powerful. Ex: make it chose 1 kind of cards (not all) by the predator of each methuselah". or "It really hurts a Guillaume Giovanni deck. On the other hand, both are quite unlikely to see play at the same time. Still, making it pay pool to keep the locations would be nice because GG isn't overpowered and is not a no-brainer deck." or "The "balance" effect the card wants to achieve seems overpowered. The bar should be raised to 3 permanents. It should require also some requirement such as "2 Inconnu" card to avoid an autoinclude effect, force more elaborated deckbuilding and allow players to see it coming." Saying you don't like the card for reasons you don't detail isn't a good way of proceeding. If I suggest the following card: "Lost in the Dark. Action modifier. obf +5 stealth. OBF : +10 stealth", I'd like to hear it's not in line with other cards, that it should cost 5 blood, or be free and produce less stealth, at which point it would become useless because it would be the same as Lost In Crowd. Your and Mael's arguments were: "Can't Take It With You for Allies, Equipment, Locations and Retainers? Seems a touch rediculous really. Who is going to play this when they could play Peace Treaty and Can't Take It With You in a single turn?" Tell me what I should do with this kind of remark? You don't tell what wrong. How it would affect the game with examples. "It is a single card which simultaneously screws over a number of deck types at minimal cost to you, and with little chance of anyone preventing it (can't be blocked, suddened, etc)" No example given. Could say the same of Scourge of the Enochians, VoD etc. "Veil of Darkness and Slow Withering don't absolutely screw every deck." Nor does CAR. "It harms diversity in the game. " How? Which decks? Would it not make the deck and game evolve? Maybe the forum isn't a right place to discuss card ideas. Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

Fine, I'll give you a detailed explanation. #1: The card is bad because it does not promote NEW options, but merely punishes existing options (for example, War Ghoul Decks, Nephandus Decks, Cel-Gun Walls with Media Locations, etc) #2: Its effect is too strong for something that has few ways to interfere with it. Most other effects that may do similar are: a) blockable and/or b) require a referendum. This makes this card significantly more of a 'fait accompli' than the usual ones. This being an event card means it cannot be easily prevented from entering play and cannot be easily removed from play before being triggered. #3: It has a more dramatic crippling effect on other strategies than the cards you have listed (namely Veil of Darkness and Slow Withering). Veil of Darkness only works once per vampire per minion phase. Slow Withering requires another Gehenna in play and only increase blood consumption. Neither of these cards destroy the potential strategy of a deck (e.g. Cel Guns, Shamblers, War Ghouls, Nephandus,etc) by removing key technology from the ready region indiscriminantly. Veil & Withering make the deck run slower, not stop functioning altogether. So there are my three main arguments, I have not seen anything in the card to dissuade me from this opinion. It is a card specifically aimed at crippling 'working strategies' to help weaker strategies. I would much prefer to spend time and effort debating ways for making weaker strategies competitive by enhancing the weak ones, instead of just crippling the strong ones. Retired Baron of Sydney, Australia, 418

> Ankha wrote: > I'm not ignoring your objections nor Mael's (since it's a 3-person discussion), but the arguments they're based on seem wrong or not enough detailed. > If I give the impression that that reject all your objections, it is that I need to dig in what you say, be the devil's advocate to extract useful pieces of informations, or highlight some contradictions. Yeah, it's tedious for me too. > If you read correctly what I write, you shouldn't find any contradictions (unless I change my mind in a later post, I can sometimes be convinced by reasonable argument). If there is anything that appears contradictory it is only because I have not explained myself well, I can clarify any such points if you tell me which they are. You will also probably find that myself and Juggernaut do not agree 100% with each other, so his arguments will not always be the same as mine. You say our arguments are "wrong". Wrong how? Please elaborate. > > Saying you don't like the card for reasons you don't detail isn't a good way of proceeding. > I agree, this is why I gave detailed reasons when you asked for them. I would also be interested to know why you think this is a good card. For balance, you haven't responded to my version of your card, which I think covers all the cost related problems I have with the card. For whether or not the card should exist, I don't think we'll come to an agreement. > > "It is a single card which simultaneously screws over a number of deck types at minimal cost to you, and with little chance of anyone preventing it (can't be blocked, suddened, etc)" > No example given. > Actually I did give examples of costs both in game play and deckbuilding cost. You chose to completely ignore the point in that post. > "It harms diversity in the game. " > How? Which decks? Would it not make the deck and game evolve? > How I think this harms diversity was already covered in detail in your other card's thread, so I didn't think it needed repeating. To put it briefly, I don't really like hoser/spoiler type cards unless there's a need for them. Any such card should have an appropriate cost for its effect. Scourge of the Enochians: I have included it in a Khazars Diary deck to burn my own 1 caps. Not a good idea and it was removed from later versions, but it is not just a hoser card. Even when played only to kill other decks, it can kill a maximum of 1 vampire per round of the table. That's two pool off someone, not always off the same person, and not everyone will want to make use of it. Despite all that I don't really like the card. Veil of Darkness: This and Slow Withering helped discipline-less decks (including both ally and weenie style decks). So it increased diversity by making those decks more playable. As you said yourself: Cards shouldn't be designed to fix things, but to add new interesting options to the game. I can't see how this card adds new interesting options. Is there a deck archetype that this card helps? All I can see from it is hindering specific other decks. And I really don't believe you need anyone to tell you "Which decks?", as it seems to be deliberately designed with that purpose.