New votethingy suggestion
as...@hotmail.com
Example:
Allocate 5 points between two or more Methuselahs. Successful
referendum means each Methuselah burns 1 pool for each point assigned.
If this referendum is unsuccessful, burn two pool (or burn 1 blood on
each of your vamps, or something like that).
Something for that politics-heavy expansion set I´ve been suggesting
for ages.
What do you think?
Jeroen Rombouts
<as...@hotmail.com> schreef in bericht
news:1170507405.8...@v45g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
New vote cards can have a "high stakes" effect
Example:
Allocate 5 points between two or more Methuselahs. Successful
referendum means each Methuselah burns 1 pool for each point assigned.
If this referendum is unsuccessful, burn two pool (or burn 1 blood on
each of your vamps, or something like that).
What do you think?
nope. A cost shouldn't be as easily circumvented as 'play with Voter Cap,
which you will probably be doing anyway'
as...@hotmail.com
wrote:
> <a...@hotmail.com> schreef in berichtnews:1170507405.8...@v45g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
OK, so a higher drawback then. It was just an example dammit.
LSJ
How does Voter Cap get played on an unsuccessful referendum?
Anyway, Voter Cap seems to be an obstacle to making any balanced PA cards with
costs. The few I've attempted have been backed into the corner of textual
acrobatics like Eldest Command Undeath. Even that is suspect due to the option
of alternating referendums between the costly-ones and the Voter Capped ones.
Voter Cap itself may be the problem.
It is the only card that grants such easy blood gain (repeatable, unblockable,
restrictions amounting only to: if your deck is working in its primary goal in
the first place). And then it compounds the effect with pool gain to boot.
Other comparable effects:
Taste of Vitae: successful combat damage. No pool.
Giant's Blood: MPA, once per game, no pool gain.
Fifth Tradition: P/J, action, 1 blood cost, only 4 blood gained, no pool.
Entrenching: action, 4 blood already, only 4 blood gained, no pool.
Concert Tour: DoC (not many big-cap DoC), action, 1 blood, delay, no pool.
The closest seems to be Taste of Vitae, which is a pretty powerful card, I think
we all agree. It also gives blood for nothing more than "what you were doing
anyhow". It is slightly more cyclable (can be played even when damage is
prevented or not done at all or whatever), but it never gives pool, and it's
harder to get the same range of gain with damage compared to vote margins, and
vote margins don't incur the same risks as combat (and, arguably, "doing what
your deck does" is typically stronger in the "oust your prey" category for vote
decks than for combat decks).
Thoughts?
Peter D Bakija
LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
> The closest seems to be Taste of Vitae, which is a pretty powerful card, I
> think
> we all agree. It also gives blood for nothing more than "what you were doing
> anyhow". It is slightly more cyclable (can be played even when damage is
> prevented or not done at all or whatever), but it never gives pool, and it's
> harder to get the same range of gain with damage compared to vote margins,
> and
> vote margins don't incur the same risks as combat (and, arguably, "doing what
> your deck does" is typically stronger in the "oust your prey" category for
> vote
> decks than for combat decks).
>
> Thoughts?
You might very well be on to something. But then, we have recently
established that I have a crack addled mind, so take that for what it is
worth :-)
Peter D Bakija
pd...@lightlink.com
http://www.lightlink.com/pdb6/vtes.html
Darby Keeney
> Anyway, Voter Cap seems to be an obstacle to making any balanced PA cards with
> costs.
Basically true, if the cost is blood or pool. Less true if the cost
were neither. Here are some examples of alternate costs to consider:
- Only usable as your first non-manatory action of this
turn" (usability restriction)
- Your turns ends immediately at the (successful) conclusion of this
referendum (no discard phase, and maybe no more actions depending on
timing)
- Only usable as your first non-manatory action of this turn.
EFFECT. Your turns (or minion phase) ends immediately at the
(successful) conclusion of this referendum" (restriction, loss of
actions and discard)
- Only usable by a vampire of capacity greater than 3. EFFECT. This
vampire is burned if this referendum is successful"
Alternately, I don't recall pursuing the analog of bleed modifiers for
voting yet.
- No (further) action modifiers may be played during this action.
Just some food for thought.
> Voter Cap itself may be the problem.
>From the tenor of your following comments, I infer that you may
believe Voter Cap is problematic. I wish to offer a different
perspective.
Yes, Voter Cap is quite good. In fact, I would suggest that VC is
often more worthwhile then the vote itself.
Why? Because most vote effects are relatively weak for the effort
involved. That's why all we typically see at the upper level of play
are KRC, PTO and once-per-game votes - they MAY be worth the overhead
of getting them to work (especially in multi-act or Majesty decks).
That seems to be the thrust of the initial post - getting rid of one-
dimensional voting, though I understand how you can be concerned about
creating "very good" votes with the presence of Voter Cap (pun
intended) in the game. Perhaps if those new (powerful) votes employed
the restrictions offered above, a balance might be reached without
"jumping through hoops" - a la Eldest Command Undeath.
Personally, I believe that Voter Cap's strength is well-balanced by
how difficult it usually is to optimally use. Consider:
- You must be playing PRE (OK, that's not a stretch in real voting
decks)
- You must have a vote, or a table vote, to call (KRC, PTO or a once-
per-game vote in tournaments)
- You must not be blocked by 2 people (usually requires some type of
action modifier)
- You must pass the vote (either with lots of big titles minions,
significant overhead in making titles, in-hand action modifiers or
excellent interpersonal skill + intelligent other players)
- You then hope to have the Voter Cap in hand
- You hope that none of this stuff can be Delayed, Eyed or DI'ed
Yes, you can get by with some missing pieces. But if those missing
bits cause even one link in the chain to fail, handjam will quickly
lead to your demise. If you're multi-acting (a good reason to want
blood recursion), you now have another dimension of complexity to
layer in.
I suppose you can call Rumors of Gehenna, name all the voters and
potential blockers and hope they're silly enough to all vote for it
allowing you to VC. Good tables pass your vote by 1 when they see the
voter has [PRE]. If you want big numbers with VS, you must dependably
generate large vote numbers yourself.
To that end, I believe that Awe is more problematic than Voter Cap,
given their synergy.
> Other comparable effects:
> Taste of Vitae: successful combat damage. No pool.
Taste of Vitae enables most of its deck archtypes to work. With the
exception of ranged combat decks, you can't count on a lot of big-
bolus pool gain (Minion Tap) from it. With the exception of Awe-
driven decks, Voter Cap doesn't stricty enable its deck archetype.
They both seem really great, but with greatly different intents to me.
- many ToV = my minions can keep fighting, as my deck requires.
- many VC = I can gain enough pool to not carry a sizable body of
Wakes and bleed bounce, thereby allowing me to fit votes + stealth +
vote mods + Voter Cap in my deck.
> Fifth Tradition: P/J, action, 1 blood cost, only 4 blood gained, no pool.
> Entrenching: action, 4 blood already, only 4 blood gained, no pool.
> Concert Tour: DoC (not many big-cap DoC), action, 1 blood, delay, no pool.
These don't even come close - they require an action - not simply
happening as a by-product of your deck's primary focus.
> Thoughts?
Pretty clear.....
- I would like to see more tournament worthy votes, even if they offer
signiciant non-blood, non-pool costs
- Voter Cap is fine - any deck that carries several must become more
focused on voting to use it well, thereby sacrificing something else.
I look forward to a spirited debate.
Darby
Daneel
> Anyway, Voter Cap seems to be an obstacle to making any balanced PA
> cards with costs. The few I've attempted have been backed into the
> corner of textual acrobatics like Eldest Command Undeath. Even that is
> suspect due to the option of alternating referendums between the
> costly-ones and the Voter Capped ones.
>
> Voter Cap itself may be the problem.
While I'm not a big fan of Political decks, and I do agree they
can indeed be overwhealming if given room to build up, I'm not
sure I agree with the conclusion.
> It is the only card that grants such easy blood gain (repeatable,
> unblockable, restrictions amounting only to: if your deck is working in
> its primary goal in the first place). And then it compounds the effect
> with pool gain to boot.
>
> Other comparable effects:
> Taste of Vitae: successful combat damage. No pool.
> Giant's Blood: MPA, once per game, no pool gain.
> Fifth Tradition: P/J, action, 1 blood cost, only 4 blood gained, no pool.
> Entrenching: action, 4 blood already, only 4 blood gained, no pool.
> Concert Tour: DoC (not many big-cap DoC), action, 1 blood, delay, no
> pool.
I'd probably also mention Renewed Vigor, as that is also fairly repeatable,
and is mainly restricted by the scarce bloodline discipline required to
pull it off.
> The closest seems to be Taste of Vitae, which is a pretty powerful card,
> I think we all agree. It also gives blood for nothing more than "what
> you were doing anyhow". It is slightly more cyclable (can be played even
> when damage is prevented or not done at all or whatever), but it never
> gives pool, and it's harder to get the same range of gain with damage
> compared to vote margins, and vote margins don't incur the same risks as
> combat (and, arguably, "doing what your deck does" is typically stronger
> in the "oust your prey" category for vote decks than for combat decks).
>
> Thoughts?
I think voting is supposed to be harder than combat. Combat: you do a (D)
action, and then whack the opposing minion with almost no possibility of
interference from the other players (barring mostly D.I., which is IMHO
a rather problematic card I wouldn't like to build any argument on). If
you chose the right target - and chances are, at least one of the players
whose whacking is beneficial to your game are susceptible - you can gain
blood pretty easily. With politics, you have 4 potential adversaries,
who - if playing smartly - will make sure your Voter Captivation doesn't
net you much more than a Life in the City would.
Sure, Voter Cap does make it pretty hard to build a cost onto Political
cards, which might be a real pain from a designer point of view, so I
guess that angle does merit some consideration. But outside of this I'm
unconvinced that Voter is the issue, and not, for example, Minion Tap,
Anthelios, ease of getting powerful vampires with a gazillion votes, or
any other aspect of the game.
Anyway, that's my 20 cents. From a player point of view I'm far more
concerned by the continuous strengthening of passive play (e.g. walls)
than by any other phenomenon. A Wall has access to bloat options similar
in power level to Tap+Cap, except it needs more cards for the setup, but
then needs no cards to operate. It also arguably bloats simply by doing
its game. But I digress...
--
Regards,
Daneel
James Coupe
<vte...@white-wolf.com> writes:
>Anyway, Voter Cap seems to be an obstacle to making any balanced PA
>cards with costs. The few I've attempted have been backed into the
>corner of textual acrobatics like Eldest Command Undeath.
It may be helpful to separate two different things here:
1) High Stakes cards, with punishments
2) Straight-forward higher costs.
(Obviously, the two can mingle - a higher cost card that has a
punishment.)
There are two ways of approaching this, that can potentially apply to
both situations.
1) Textual acrobatics. This is not inherently a bad thing, and could
potentially be simplified to something like "The acting minion cannot
play action modifiers on this referendum" or "Action modifiers cost the
acting minion two additional blood" or something - not perfect, but
would cause problems for a Voter Cap heavy deck. Or more targetedly
"Action modifiers requiring Presence cannot be played on this action."
2) Non-pool costs. Note that I am not suggesting the following examples
are super-balanced, but I'm just trying out mechanics. (In some ways,
these are verbal acrobatics, but they're way less direct.) For example:
Hostage Negotiation
Political Action, 1 stealth, 1 vote
Requires a ready vampire with a Bomb.
Choose a ready Methuselah. If this referendum is successful,
that Methuselah takes 3 pool damage. If they control a ready
mortal, they take 4 pool damage instead. If not, this vampire
takes 5 damage and goes to torpor. Burn the bomb at the end of
this action, regardless of how it ends.
So the VC can mitigate some of it (get blood back), but you need a bomb,
you need a get out of torpor if it fails, and so on.
Character Assassination
Political action, 1 stealth, 1 vote
Requires a ready titled vampire
Choose a ready minion. If this referendum is successful, put
this card on the chosen with X Character counters, where X is
the number of votes this acting vampire's title is worth (or 1
if they are a Priscus). If the referendum is not successful,
put this card on the acting vampire with twice as many counters.
If the vampire with this card bleeds for more than 2, the bleed
is capped at 2 (ignore the excess). If the vampire with this
card casts more than 1 vote, they are capped at 1 vote. Remove
a Character counter during your untap phase, and burn the card
when it has zero counters.
VC doesn't really help here at all.
Census
Political action, 1 stealth, 1 vote
Unique
If this action is successful, do not conduct a referendum. Put
this card in play and choose two clans. During your next minion
phase, if you control this acting vampire and he is ready, he
must take an action to call a referendum. If that action is
successful, conduct a referendum; the terms of the referendum
are that you gain pool equal to the number of ready minions in
the game for the two chosen clans. (This second referendum
cannot be called in any other way; this card remains in play
and does not burn, but contributes one vote to this second
referendum.)
Two actions, unique, can get rid of the vampire in between time (as was
attempted with RtoI, for example), blah blah.
Bringing Down The House
Political Action, 1 stealth, 1 vote
You must choose a ready location you control when announcing
this action. If that location was a piece of equipment, it must
be on this acting vampire. Choose a ready Methuselah. If this
referendum passes, each of that Methuselah's ready minions takes
1 damage. If this referendum passes by more than 5 votes, each
of that Methuselah's ready minions takes 2 damage instead. If
any minions leave the ready region because of this, gain a pool.
Burn the location you chose at the end of this action.
VC will let you pay for one, but extra master phases or equip actions,
or whatever.
Defend Thy Own Kinsmen By Smiting Others (Please Turn Over)
Political Action, 1 stealth, 1 vote
Requires a ready Kholo, or a vampire with a title worth at least
3 votes.
Choose a ready vampire with a capacity less than 5 or an ally
with a cost less than 4. If this referendum is successful, burn
the chosen minion and, after the action has finished, burn all
the blood on this vampire. If the referendum is not successful,
remove the acting vampire from the game.
Anti-VC verbal acrobatics (the vampire empties are VC would be played),
and a severe punishment clause.
The All-Night Session
Political Action, 1 stealth, 1 vote
Some devestating referendum ability.
Before the referendum is conducted, put this card on the acting
vampire. The vampire with this card does not untap. If an
effect would untap this vampire, the untap part of the effect is
ignored. Burn this card at the start of your next minion phase.
No Freak Drive, can't trivially act next turn - Rutor's Hand or
Precognizant Mobility or whatever. Or even Metro Underground! Anything
that makes Metro Underground a borderline consideration can't be all
bad...
(Standard disclaimers: All my own work, White Wolf are welcome to use,
etc.)
> Even that is suspect due to the option of alternating referendums
>between the costly-ones and the Voter Capped ones.
With an indirect cost, I don't think that would be significantly
problematic. Yes, VC would mean you could pay more for Bombs or
locations, but you still need them in hand to equip, and so on.
>Voter Cap itself may be the problem.
>
>It is the only card that grants such easy blood gain (repeatable,
>unblockable, restrictions amounting only to: if your deck is working in
>its primary goal in the first place). And then it compounds the effect
>with pool gain to boot.
It's unique in that regard, but uniqueness alone would not be a reason
to act alone.
>Other comparable effects:
>Taste of Vitae: successful combat damage. No pool.
>Giant's Blood: MPA, once per game, no pool gain.
>Fifth Tradition: P/J, action, 1 blood cost, only 4 blood gained, no pool.
>Entrenching: action, 4 blood already, only 4 blood gained, no pool.
>Concert Tour: DoC (not many big-cap DoC), action, 1 blood, delay, no pool.
Festivo dello Estinto: potentially huge amounts of blood, once per game,
multiple actions, available to other Methuselahs.
You also have to factor in that Fifth, Entrenching and Concert Tour do
not require a successful referendum (which can be interrupted with e.g.
Delaying Tactics).
>The closest seems to be Taste of Vitae, which is a pretty powerful
>card, I think we all agree. It also gives blood for nothing more than
>"what you were doing anyhow". It is slightly more cyclable (can be
>played even when damage is prevented or not done at all or whatever),
>but it never gives pool, and it's harder to get the same range of gain
>with damage compared to vote margins, and vote margins don't incur the
>same risks as combat (and, arguably, "doing what your deck does" is
>typically stronger in the "oust your prey" category for vote decks than
>for combat decks).
Sort of. But Taste is also disciplineless where - perhaps? - the
comparison is supposed to be Bribes.
Also, Taste is usable in almost every combat deck, whereas Voter
Captivation is only usable in PRE decks - which is a lot of vote decks,
but the bigger problem is the synergy Presence has with vote push. Awe
was designed after Voter Captivation by people who didn't know what they
were doing, which makes one of the most powerful vote push packages in
the game. Aside from Theft decks and Ally combat, pretty much every
combat deck in the game can (and very possibly should) use Taste -
whereas there are a wide range of non-Presence vote decks, which do
okay.
One option might be a possible Event that fiddled with politics, or some
other hoser that was disproportionately heavy on Presence.
>Thoughts?
I'm not sure I'd like to see Voter Captivation undermined by a rewrite.
It's very good, but I don't think it's too good. That is, I'd probably
write it differently if I were writing it now - perhaps put it in play
with those counters, and get everything at the start of your untap phase
(so that a combat deck has an easier time hitting a mostly empty vampire
etc., and if the VC were *on* the vampire, it could stop everything with
a burn...).
But I'm not sure it's a place where errata would be appropriate. I'd
rather see alternative costs, and potential extra cards for non-Presence
vote strategies so that Presence isn't *quite* so far ahead of
everything else.
--
James Coupe
PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D YOU ARE IN ERROR.
EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 NO-ONE IS SCREAMING.
13D7E668C3695D623D5D THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.
James Coupe
<ja...@zephyr.org.uk> writes:
>Or even Metro Underground! Anything that makes Metro Underground a
>borderline consideration can't be all bad...
Wait. I'm on drugs. Move along.
CthuluKitty
> costs. The few I've attempted have been backed into the corner of textual
> acrobatics like Eldest Command Undeath. Even that is suspect due to the option
> of alternating referendums between the costly-ones and the Voter Capped ones.
>
> Voter Cap itself may be the problem.
This strikes me as a fairly reasonable conclusion given the overall
power level of the blood/pool gain in combination with the successful
use of votes. The claim that political actions are generally lower in
power level than their difficulty justifies, and that Voter
Captivation is necessary to balance this, is absurd in my view. While
bleeding may have a higher payoff per action, it too is susceptible to
risks including aggressive bounce and Archon Investigation. Votes
also allow flexibility due to cards like Disputed Territory,
Banishment, Consanguineous Boon, and others. Combat is well behind
both, much to my continual chagrin.
I'd also like to suggest that a possible result of in some way nerfing
Voter Cap would be a reduction in game-crippling table talk in fairly
common tournament situations. The whole process of trying to let
votes pass by the minimum amount, and the mental arithmetic involved
in figuring out how much a vote is passing by (as opposed to simply is
it passing or not) can stall the game, and I'd expect fewer time outs
if Voter Cap were either less frequently played or somehow altered.
One possible proposal to fix both problems would be to assign a fixed
number to the blood/pool gain on Voter Cap. Such a solution would
reduce the time spent handling referdenda, and would curtail the most
abusive uses of Tap n Cap without completely nerfing the card, or PRE
vote in general.
For example:
Voter Captivation
action modifier, pre
Only usable when a referndum called by the acting vampire is passing.
pre: The acting vampire gains 2 blood.
PRE: The acting vampires 3 blood, up to 2 of which you may move to
your pool.
Comments?
as...@hotmail.com
> Jeroen Rombouts wrote:
> > <a...@hotmail.com> schreef in bericht
I do not think the strenght of Voter Cap should prevent you from
making fun, balanced political action-cards. Is it really so now?
Derek Ray
Hash: SHA1
LSJ wrote:
> Anyway, Voter Cap seems to be an obstacle to making any balanced PA
> cards with costs. The few I've attempted have been backed into the
> corner of textual acrobatics like Eldest Command Undeath. Even that is
> suspect due to the option of alternating referendums between the
> costly-ones and the Voter Capped ones.
>
> Voter Cap itself may be the problem.
>
> Thoughts?
...We've all known that to be true since Sabbat was the "latest" set?
Voter Captivation was one of the first cards I spent a great deal of
effort sorting through boxes, trading, etc., for. It was not
accidental, and it is one of the primary reasons that vote decks are
distinguished into two types: Presence-based and non-Presence based.
Put another way: How good a card would Awe be without VC?
- --
Derek
insert clever quotation here
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFFxPqKtQZlu3o7QpERAm9yAKCtg+4u7J222M4G9FoFl46quXcHAQCg188q
Ogyu7B0g/C/wDFQFtlqIioc=
=FrRk
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
John P.
"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message
news:x%1xh.6667$zH1....@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net...
> Anyway, Voter Cap seems to be an obstacle to making any balanced PA cards
> with costs. The few I've attempted have been backed into the corner of
> textual acrobatics like Eldest Command Undeath. Even that is suspect due
> to the option of alternating referendums between the costly-ones and the
> Voter Capped ones.
>
> Voter Cap itself may be the problem.
>
> It is the only card that grants such easy blood gain (repeatable,
> unblockable, restrictions amounting only to: if your deck is working in
> its primary goal in the first place). And then it compounds the effect
> with pool gain to boot.
<<Snippage>>
> Thoughts?
Personally I would cry few tears if voter Captivation either had the pool
gain stripped off
or had the blood gain limited in some way. Locally voter captivation is the
reason people
play vote decks, for the oh so lovely pool gain. I suspect it is the reason
no one ever
plays with consang boon anymore. Why not do some other vote and get your
pool
from this convenient action modifier instead.
(But really is there anything funnier than having a fat vampire spend all
his blood on Awe
only to have his voter cap DI'd or the vote failed by some other means?
John P.
d
something like:
Tales from the Crypt
+1 stealth political action
Requires: Nosferatu
Allocate 3 points among any number of methusalehs. If successful, the
chosen Methuselahs may (or must?) draw the allocated number of crypt
cards (no cost is paid).
Gangrel Consensus
Requires: Gangrel (duh!)
+1 stealth political action
Choose a sect. If this referendum is successful, all Gangrel in play
must change to that sect or burn 1 blood. Put this card in play. Any
Gangrel entering play may choose to change their sect to the chosen
sect. If the chosen sect was independent, any untapped ready
independent Gangrel may burn 1 blood to become Anarch when this
referendum passes. Votes by non-gangrel minions and effects which do
not require Gangrel each count for 1 less vote in this referendum.
Changing the Wheels
Requires: Malkavian
+1 stealth political action
If this referendum is successful, put this card in play. When another
methusaleh calls a referendum with terms, you may burn this card to
set the terms of the referendum and gain 3 votes in that referendum.
Only one Changing the Wheels can be used this way in a game.
[I like this restriction over 'one played per game' because it is
slightly more useable and cycleable if you then choose to put 2 of
them in your deck ]
Apportioning an Old One
Requires: Tremere antitribu
+1 stealth political action
If this referendum is successful, the acting vampire gains two blood
and every Methuselah may search his or her library for a Master:
Discipline card and place it on a vampire the same age or younger
than the acting vampire.
I'd like to hear other ideas for these clans and more. Staying
topical, start with the clans who don't have PRE as a common
discipline. Important voty Lasombra have pre, and so do some
Assamites and Tscimisce, so think about that when coming up with card
costings if any are needed in addition to the clan requirement.
I think the Ventrue and (!)Tor should get boring votes like:
If successful, put this card in play, you may tap it when it is ( is
not) your turn to gain 1 vote.
And as far as Voter Cap, I would hate to see it altered, as I consider
it one of the fundamental cards of the game (although I hardly ever
build decks with it, honestly). If it wasn't around, I'd build even
fewer political decks.
And a word on some of the suggestions that have come up in this
thread, I certainly like some of the ideas in the suggested cards.
I would just put this out there to consider though: especially
powerful effects should be balanced with costs and opportunity
restrictions, but wildly powerful cards with very high costs/play
restrictions arent especially fun. (Not fun to be so difficult to
play, and not fun to be completely hosed by one play even if it was
difficult to pull off). Going too far in that direction just makes the
game erratic and unpredictable rather than Strategic. For instance,
the initial card suggested - allocate 5 points KRC style - is probably
just overpowered no matter what it costs. And the game doesn't really
need more KRC/ConAg style effects.
Well to be more precise, there is no margin between when that kind of
card is overpowered and when the cost to play it is so high it makes
it wallpaper.
Peter D Bakija
as...@hotmail.com wrote:
> I do not think the strenght of Voter Cap should prevent you from
> making fun, balanced political action-cards. Is it really so now?
In a design sense, making Political Actions cost blood or pool is mostly
irrelevant, because of Voter Cap--the most effective vote decks are
already using Presence (for Bewitching, Awe, and, ya know, Voter Cap),
so if a vote is made to cost a blood or two blood or a pool or whatever,
that cost is virtually a non issue--you call the vote, you push the vote
through however is necessary, and then Voter Cap to get the blood and/or
pool you spent back. The result is that presumably, when designing a
political action card, if they want it to have a cost in blood or pool,
they either need to:
A) Make the cost absurdly high (like, say, a minimum of 3 pool, so that
the Voter Cap doesn't just make it a wash, in which case the card is
likely to be completely unplayable in non Presence based vote decks).
B) Use ad-hoc "you can't use Voter Cap" on this vote wording, like on
Eldest Command Undeath.
Voter Cap also makes cards like Awe much more powerful than likely
necessary--Awe is already powerful, in that it can allow you to push
through pretty much any vote you want against pretty much any reasonable
opposition. The cost of this is supposed to be that it costs a lot of
blood. But 'cause every blood you spend gets you 2 votes (at PRE), you
can spend all your blood for a ton of votes, and Voter Cap it all back
and then some. Yeah, once and a while, someone will DI the voter cap, or
Delaying Tactics the cote after all the blood is spent, but most of the
time, Voter Cap just makes Awe a total no brainer.
Chris Berger
>
> Voter Cap itself may be the problem.
>
>
> Thoughts?
Voter cap is certainly overpowered. But is the question as to whether
or not there should be errata or MRP changes to Voter Cap? That might
be a little extreme, as Voter Cap has been around since day one, and I
don't recall any changes ever being considered to it before. Granted,
Majesty and Form of Mist were changed fairly recently... maybe they
were considered more egregious?
If you're considering changing Voter Cap, I wouldn't want it be too
extreme. Nothing like Solving the Misdirection Equation again, I
don't think. I do kind of like the idea of "if the vote passes gain 2
blood, etc...", but that would definitely but a crimp into some
Presence vote decks.
Blooded Sand
> In article <1170534950.197763.244...@h3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
You dan DT after votes are cast? thought it was at beggining of
action...
Peter D Bakija
"Blooded Sand" <sand...@gmail.com> wrote:
> You dan DT after votes are cast? thought it was at beggining of
> action...
I'm pretty certain you can (although I certainly could be wrong)--DT is
played "during a referendum", and casting votes during a referendum
don't seem to be a cut and dry sorta thing--you can cast some votes, see
what happens, cast some more votes, see what happens, and then someone
can, after it seems that the vote is going in a way that you don't like,
play Delaying Tactics to foil it.
Pat
news:pdb6-A73062.1...@news-server.stny.rr.com...
> In article <1170603563.5...@a75g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>,
> "Blooded Sand" <sand...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> You dan DT after votes are cast? thought it was at beggining of
>> action...
>
> I'm pretty certain you can (although I certainly could be wrong)--DT is
> played "during a referendum", and casting votes during a referendum
> don't seem to be a cut and dry sorta thing--you can cast some votes, see
> what happens, cast some more votes, see what happens, and then someone
> can, after it seems that the vote is going in a way that you don't like,
> play Delaying Tactics to foil it.
>
Yep. The best time to play DT is just after Arika with 4 blood plays Awe
with X=4. :)
- Pat
LSJ
> In article <1170603563.5...@a75g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>,
> "Blooded Sand" <sand...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> You dan DT after votes are cast? thought it was at beggining of
>> action...
>
> I'm pretty certain you can (although I certainly could be wrong)--DT is
Game show time!
> played "during a referendum", and casting votes during a referendum
> don't seem to be a cut and dry sorta thing--you can cast some votes, see
> what happens, cast some more votes, see what happens, and then someone
> can, after it seems that the vote is going in a way that you don't like,
> play Delaying Tactics to foil it.
Correct.
Wookie813
> Anyway, Voter Cap seems to be an obstacle to making any balanced PA cards with
> costs. The few I've attempted have been backed into the corner of textual
> acrobatics like Eldest Command Undeath. Even that is suspect due to the option
> of alternating referendums between the costly-ones and the Voter Capped ones.
>
> Voter Cap itself may be the problem.
> Thoughts?
Voter Cap is akin to these theoretical cards:
Bleeder Cap
Action Mod
Only usable when a bleed is successful.
[dom] The acting vampire gains blood equal to the amount of Pool lost
from the bleed.
[DOM] As above, and up to of the blood gained may be taken to your
pool.
Beater Cap
Combat
[pot] Only usable at the end of a round of combat. Not usable by a
vampire being burned or going to torpor.
This vampire gains an amount of blood equal to the amount lost by the
opposing vampire to damage during this round of combat. A vampire may
play only one Beater Cap each round.
[POT] As above, but up to two of the blood gained may be taken to your
pool.
With Voter Cap, all of these cards provide refill and pool gain to
their respective strategies within a discipline that provides free
acceleration of that strategy. I don't think anybody would like to see
Bleeder Cap printed, but I'd guess there would be some cheering for
Beater Cap, followed by some groaning as to how it should have been a
QUI card.
Voter cap makes a poli-act an action to:
1.) Gain two pool
2.) Fill your vampire
3.) generate one presumably desired effect from among many, many,
possibilities.
It IS too powerful, but it still doesn't out perform hyper-bleed, so
it has to stay.
I think the superior should lose the "As above" stipulation, and
simply provide refill at basic OR Pool gain at Superior.
Anyone got change for a Nickel?
as...@hotmail.com
> In article <1170534950.197763.244...@h3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
>
> the Voter Cap doesn't just make it a wash, in which case the card is
> likely to be completely unplayable in non Presence based vote decks).
Or you could make the "cost" something else than blood or pool. Also, I
´m not sure I agree that high blood/pool cost don´t matter - with a
high cost, Vote cap is NEEDED to play the card (like it is NEEDED to
play Awe).
> B) Use ad-hoc "you can't use Voter Cap" on this vote wording, like on
> Eldest Command Undeath.
Actually I have nothing against this.
> Voter Cap also makes cards like Awe much more powerful than likely
> necessary--Awe is already powerful, in that it can allow you to push
> through pretty much any vote you want against pretty much any reasonable
> opposition. The cost of this is supposed to be that it costs a lot of
> blood. But 'cause every blood you spend gets you 2 votes (at PRE), you
> can spend all your blood for a ton of votes, and Voter Cap it all back
> and then some. Yeah, once and a while, someone will DI the voter cap, or
> Delaying Tactics the cote after all the blood is spent, but most of the
> time, Voter Cap just makes Awe a total no brainer.
I think Awe sucks. For those reasons you mention (DI, DT etc.). BO is
usually "enough" good in my experience.
Peter D Bakija
as...@hotmail.com wrote:
> Or you could make the "cost" something else than blood or pool. Also, I
> 惴 not sure I agree that high blood/pool cost don愒 matter - with a
> high cost, Vote cap is NEEDED to play the card (like it is NEEDED to
> play Awe).
You could make the cost something other than blood/pool, but that is a
more difficult thing to balance (and fit on the card...) than simply
giving it a blood/pool cost. Due to Voter Cap, the ability to balance
out a PA card with a blood/pool cost (which is a simple and obvious way
to balance most cards) is mostly taken out of the realm of
possibilities. Which is a problem, in a design sense.
> Actually I have nothing against this.
Sure. But it is kind of klunky--if there is a card out there that makes
it so whenever you design something, you have to write "This card
circumvents the effect of that other card" on it, something is probably
amiss.
> I think Awe sucks. For those reasons you mention (DI, DT etc.). BO is
> usually "enough" good in my experience.
Uhh, ok? I'll gladly take all those Awes you have cluttering up your
collection. Drop me an e-mail, and I'm sure we can invent a deal...
Peter D Bakija
LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
> Game show time!
Man. We need a theme song now...
> Correct.
Yaa! I'm not on crack!
CthuluKitty
>
> > Correct.
>
> Yaa! I'm not on crack!
I do Cocaaaaaaaainnne!
Rehlow
>
> For example:
> Voter Captivation
> action modifier, pre
> Only usable when a referndum called by the acting vampire is passing.
> pre: The acting vampire gains 2 blood.
> PRE: The acting vampires 3 blood, up to 2 of which you may move to
> your pool.
>
> Comments?
This is much better than my thought to just cap the amount gained. It
is a big nerf to Voter Cap, so I am somewhat concerned about this
change. I was thinking maybe, 2/4 gain, but is gaining 4 for a vote
that passes by 1 too much? It would definately speed up vote polling,
since it now only matters if the votes passes, not by how much.
It bugs me when someone casts all their votes in favor when the
referendum can pass without those votes, enabling a larger Voter Cap,
just because they are a nice person. Its hard to explain to them how
they are making a poor play when they are just trying to be nice
(sometimes they actually make it pass by more for some sort of deal or
favor, which is fine to do). I'd appreciate if that became a non-
issue, but that alone does not warrant a card text change.
Later,
~Rehlow
Ben Swainbank
> On Feb 3, 8:38 am, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
>
> > Anyway, Voter Cap seems to be an obstacle to making any balanced PA cards with
> > costs.
I don't really see why. Taste of Vitae hasn't been an obstace to
balancing the cost of combat cards.
> Personally, I believe that Voter Cap's strength is well-balanced by
> how difficult it usually is to optimally use.
Agreed. Voter Cap is yet another moving part in a deck type that
already has a lot of factors that can go wrong for it. It's strong,
but not overwhelmingly so relative to its opportunity cost.
> - I would like to see more tournament worthy votes, even if they offer
> signiciant non-blood, non-pool costs
> - Voter Cap is fine - any deck that carries several must become more
> focused on voting to use it well, thereby sacrificing something else.
>
Agreed. I do think the vote aspect of V:tes is one of the more
stagnant parts of the game. Vote decks and technology, and the vote
meta-game hasn't changed much since Ancient Hearts. Most vote decks we
see today could have been built 10 years ago. This is a area that
could use a shake-up and some designer love.
Part of the problem is the Jyhad votes (KRC, Con Agg, Con Boon, Parity
Shift) are so strong that anything stronger would be broken. And
anything weaker is DOA.
(Old combat cards -- .44 Magnum, Torn Signpost, Carrion Crows have
similar dominance in the combat space).
Fuctional vote decks are so space intensive that casual vote and
toolbox vote don't really work. The votes must be the main offensive
weapon. Votes that don't lead to the ousting of your prey don't tend
to be worth the effort.
Options for changing the vote game dynamic:
Weaken older cards (KRC - divide 3 point points... )
Create more non-Presence voter-cap like effects, and sucesssful vote
rewards
Create cards that invite use because they are flexible or overcome
typical Vote-deck problems (Votes with +2 stealth, or worth 2-3 votes)
Or action mods that provide stealth and/or votes (or allow muliple
Political Cards with a single action?).
-Ben Swainbank
LSJ
> On Feb 3, 12:52 pm, "Darby Keeney" <darby.kee...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Feb 3, 8:38 am, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Anyway, Voter Cap seems to be an obstacle to making any balanced PA cards with
>>> costs.
>
> I don't really see why. Taste of Vitae hasn't been an obstace to
> balancing the cost of combat cards.
That would be because of the difference in the two.
Increasing the cost of combat cards makes it less likely that the combatant will
meet the restrictions on Taste. Increasing the cost of a PA doesn't have that
effect, since the cost of the PA is mostly unrelated to the prospects of passing
the referendum.
> Agreed. I do think the vote aspect of V:tes is one of the more
> stagnant parts of the game. Vote decks and technology, and the vote
> meta-game hasn't changed much since Ancient Hearts. Most vote decks we
> see today could have been built 10 years ago. This is a area that
> could use a shake-up and some designer love.
Perhaps because the design is hampered by the existence of Voter Cap.
> Part of the problem is the Jyhad votes (KRC, Con Agg, Con Boon, Parity
> Shift) are so strong that anything stronger would be broken. And
> anything weaker is DOA.
With Voter Cap as-is, perhaps.
With a more sedate Voter Cap, it is easier to make viable alternatives that
don't represent overall escalation over the PAs you cite (increased cost for
increased effect).
> (Old combat cards -- .44 Magnum, Torn Signpost, Carrion Crows have
> similar dominance in the combat space).
The brokeness of Torn Signpost is left for another thread...
> Fuctional vote decks are so space intensive that casual vote and
> toolbox vote don't really work. The votes must be the main offensive
> weapon. Votes that don't lead to the ousting of your prey don't tend
> to be worth the effort.
>
> Options for changing the vote game dynamic:
>
> Weaken older cards (KRC - divide 3 point points... )
> Create more non-Presence voter-cap like effects, and sucesssful vote
> rewards
> Create cards that invite use because they are flexible or overcome
> typical Vote-deck problems (Votes with +2 stealth, or worth 2-3 votes)
> Or action mods that provide stealth and/or votes (or allow muliple
> Political Cards with a single action?).
Or the main: weaken Voter Cap.
Peter D Bakija
"Ben Swainbank" <bswai...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> I don't really see why. Taste of Vitae hasn't been an obstace to
> balancing the cost of combat cards.
Keep in mind that Taste *has* been nerfed in recent history (only one
per round, only at the end of the round, neither of which used to be the
case--you used to be able to strike, Taste, gain some blood, Blur,
strike, Taste, gain some blood, strike again, Taste a third time if you
really wanted to). It seems likely that Taste was downpowered
specifically for this reason.
> Agreed. Voter Cap is yet another moving part in a deck type that
> already has a lot of factors that can go wrong for it. It's strong,
> but not overwhelmingly so relative to its opportunity cost.
Well, it's opportunity cost is "Play your deck". Yeah, once and a while,
someone will DI the Voter Cap you were relying on to refill your vampire
after a greedy Awe or something, but most of the time, if your deck is
going (i.e. you get to call and pass votes, even if once and a while,
you get blocked or voted down), the opportunity cost of Voter Cap is
pretty insignificant.
This being said, I don't think that Voter Cap needs a tremendous nerf or
anything. Maybe limit the blood/pool gain (like was done with 5th
Tradition) to a fixed number (maybe at inferior, gain 2 blood and at
superior, gain 2 blood and 2 pool or something). Or limit the number
that can be played per turn (only 1 Voter Cap per turn or something).
Peter D Bakija
LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
> Or the main: weaken Voter Cap.
So what are possible hypothetical ideas you are kicking around?
LSJ
> In article <rqKxh.52340$QU1....@newssvr22.news.prodigy.net>,
> LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
>
>
>> Or the main: weaken Voter Cap.
>
> So what are possible hypothetical ideas you are kicking around?
Only usable after resolving a successful referendum.
[pre] The acting vampire gains X blood from the blood bank, where X is the
number of votes by which the referendum passed, up to a maximum of 2.
[PRE] As above, but up to a maximum of 4.
Only usable when referendum passes by at least 2 (after resolving the referendum).
[pre] Gain 2 blood.
[PRE] Gain 2 pool.
Only usable after resolving a successful referendum.
[pre] Gain 2 blood.
[PRE] Gain 2 pool.
The last one opens up VC to auto-pass votes as well, which it currently fizzles on.
witness1
> > LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
>
> >> Or the main: weaken Voter Cap.
>
> > So what are possible hypothetical ideas you are kicking around?
>
> Only usable after resolving a successful referendum.
> [pre] The acting vampire gains X blood from the blood bank, where X is the
> number of votes by which the referendum passed, up to a maximum of 2.
> [PRE] As above, but up to a maximum of 4.
Perhaps it could be "maximum 4" at both levels, but allow up to 2 to
move to your pool at superior (to suggest a less drastic change).
> Only usable when referendum passes by at least 2 (after resolving the referendum).
> [pre] Gain 2 blood.
> [PRE] Gain 2 pool.
I don't like the idea of making it jam a player's hand more often (by
requiring the vote to pass by 2 instead of just one) _in addition_ to
nerfing the card.
> Only usable after resolving a successful referendum.
> [pre] Gain 2 blood.
> [PRE] Gain 2 pool.
>
> The last one opens up VC to auto-pass votes as well, which it currently fizzles on.
I'd support this just to reduce the number of times one of my "allies"
miscalculates the amount by which I can vote-push and throws all his
votes against a referendum that we both want to succeed, resulting in
both no successful referendum and no Cap. It also has the benefit of
increasing the card's usability in exchange for a reduction in its
effectiveness, which may make the change easier for players to swallow
overall.
witness1
-believe the lie.
LSJ
> On Feb 5, 1:56 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
>> Peter D Bakija wrote:
>>> In article <rqKxh.52340$QU1.13...@newssvr22.news.prodigy.net>,
>>> LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
>>>> Or the main: weaken Voter Cap.
>>> So what are possible hypothetical ideas you are kicking around?
>> Only usable after resolving a successful referendum.
>> [pre] The acting vampire gains X blood from the blood bank, where X is the
>> number of votes by which the referendum passed, up to a maximum of 2.
>> [PRE] As above, but up to a maximum of 4.
>
> Perhaps it could be "maximum 4" at both levels, but allow up to 2 to
> move to your pool at superior (to suggest a less drastic change).
Where "less drastic" becomes blurred with "inconsequential".
>> Only usable when referendum passes by at least 2 (after resolving the referendum).
>> [pre] Gain 2 blood.
>> [PRE] Gain 2 pool.
>
> I don't like the idea of making it jam a player's hand more often (by
> requiring the vote to pass by 2 instead of just one) _in addition_ to
> nerfing the card.
Free pool is not generally an effect to be placed in the "nerfed" column.
Peter D Bakija
LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
> Only usable after resolving a successful referendum.
> [pre] The acting vampire gains X blood from the blood bank, where X is the
> number of votes by which the referendum passed, up to a maximum of 2.
> [PRE] As above, but up to a maximum of 4.
Not bad, but probably uses too many words for what could be a simple
card (not that the words are used to a bad effect, but I suspect that
one of the following two is likely the way to go).
> Only usable when referendum passes by at least 2 (after resolving the
> referendum).
> [pre] Gain 2 blood.
> [PRE] Gain 2 pool.
Good. But again, the next one is probably best.
> Only usable after resolving a successful referendum.
> [pre] Gain 2 blood.
> [PRE] Gain 2 pool.
I think this is probably the best option. Doesn't use a lot of words.
Nice, simple card. Doesn't encourage that horrible phase in every
referendum that is the "make sure the vote passes by as few votes as
possible to foil a Voter Cap, even if you are my pal and I want the vote
to pass" phase. Does open up the card, as noted, to auto pass votes
(which is a minor boon for opportunity cost to partially balance the
overall nerf).
witness1
> witness1 wrote:
> > On Feb 5, 1:56 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
> >> Peter D Bakija wrote:
> >>> In article <rqKxh.52340$QU1.13...@newssvr22.news.prodigy.net>,
> >>> LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
> >>>> Or the main: weaken Voter Cap.
> >>> So what are possible hypothetical ideas you are kicking around?
> >> Only usable after resolving a successful referendum.
> >> [pre] The acting vampire gains X blood from the blood bank, where X is the
> >> number of votes by which the referendum passed, up to a maximum of 2.
> >> [PRE] As above, but up to a maximum of 4.
>
> > Perhaps it could be "maximum 4" at both levels, but allow up to 2 to
> > move to your pool at superior (to suggest a less drastic change).
>
> Where "less drastic" becomes blurred with "inconsequential".
Possibly. I was more thinking about VC as "that card that fills up
your 10-cap and gives you 2 pool" and reducing the effect by about the
same amount as Fifth Tradition was eventually reduced (i.e. from X
down to 4). Except that even my suggestion could still be viewed as a
more drastic change than 5th tradition, since VC as it exists can gain
X blood plus 2 pool, instead of 4 total, divided among the two.
In any event, I'm not (yet) trying to argue that one suggestion or the
other is inherently "better" for whatever purposes. I'm merely noting
that the proposition you gave is a pretty drastic change for a card
that's been pretty much unchanged since Jyhad. If the game's done well
with the card as it exists now, perhaps less drastic changes can be
considered.
> >> Only usable when referendum passes by at least 2 (after resolving the referendum).
> >> [pre] Gain 2 blood.
> >> [PRE] Gain 2 pool.
>
> > I don't like the idea of making it jam a player's hand more often (by
> > requiring the vote to pass by 2 instead of just one) _in addition_ to
> > nerfing the card.
>
> Free pool is not generally an effect to be placed in the "nerfed" column.
It was previously able to generate a huge amount blood and 2 pool. Now
it's one or the other, limited to 2 total. I suppose some of the
connotations of the word "nerf" may be inappropriate here; I simply
meant that the general effect of the card seems to be lessened overall
by the change. As I mentioned above, the game seems to have survived
just fine with VC as it is now, so I like the last version, which has
much less of an effect in optimum conditions, but improves the card in
the less optimal cases. To me, that makes it seem approximately
balanced with the current effect of VC, while reducing the amount of
bookkeeping and discussion that results from current VC.
In fewer words: w1nn3r.
witness1
-believe the lie
Ben Swainbank
> In article <1170697995.545888.271...@v45g2000cwv.googlegroups.com>,
> "Ben Swainbank" <bswainb...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I don't really see why. Taste of Vitae hasn't been an obstace to
> > balancing the cost of combat cards.
>
> Keep in mind that Taste *has* been nerfed in recent history (only one
> per round, only at the end of the round, neither of which used>
Wasn't that more a clarity change (get rid of the post-strike "Taste"
phase. Make sure you can't tasted the same damage 3 times etc...)? The
power change was relatively minor - especially compared to the
proposed Voter Cap changes.
> if your deck is
> going (i.e. you get to call and pass votes, even if once and a while,
> you get blocked or voted down), the opportunity cost of Voter Cap is
> pretty insignificant.
>
If you assume the opportunity cost has already been met, then yes, its
pretty insignificant at that point.
My Voter Cap inner monologue tends to something like: There's a Voter
Cap. Good. I need the pool and blood. Now I need to find a vote. Ok.
Got a vote card. Hmm.. going to need some stealth to get this off.
Crap. My prey just brought up another Prince. How can I talk this vote
through to get my Voter Cap off...
That's one reason I don't play vote decks so much. And only run Voter
Cap in some of them.
I play a lot more combat decks and always play with Taste of Vitae,
which is much easier to cycle, and tends to provide a very useful
effect (even if you don't "win" the combat round).
-Ben Swainbank
Ben Swainbank
> > In article <rqKxh.52340$QU1.13...@newssvr22.news.prodigy.net>,
> > LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
>
> >> Or the main: weaken Voter Cap.
>
> > So what are possible hypothetical ideas you are kicking around?
> >
> Only usable after resolving a successful referendum.
> [PRE] Gain 2 pool.
>
I could get behind that.
My main concern is the thinking in this thread may be along the lines
of creating votes that do more damage than KRC, with pool and blood
cost, and nerfing votes cap to balance them. I don't see more, or
stronger, pool damaging votes as something the game needs.
I would rather see new votes that do less pool damage (or none) or
provide less pool gain than current options. But they can be balanced
by mechanisms to reduce the opportunity costs (stealthier, easier to
pass, untap if sucessfull etc...).
If weakening Voter cap opens the door to that kind of change (and I
can see how it could) then I'm all for it.
-Ben Swainbank
dome
> Only usable after resolving a successful referendum.
> [pre] The acting vampire gains X blood from the blood bank, where X is
> the number of votes by which the referendum passed, up to a maximum of 2.
> [PRE] As above, but up to a maximum of 4.
> Only usable when referendum passes by at least 2 (after resolving the
> referendum).
> [pre] Gain 2 blood.
> [PRE] Gain 2 pool.
> Only usable after resolving a successful referendum.
> [pre] Gain 2 blood.
> [PRE] Gain 2 pool.
You guys really should take into account that politicans are a tad
expensive. To get table domination, you will probably be spending 20ish
pool and really a lot of turns to get a IC/justicar or similar out. And
you can relatively easily get your 11 pool worth 4 votes hammered by a
5-cap with ANI/POT or CEL/POT. Or simply get a govern + conditioning in
the second/third turn with no vampires of your own to defend yourself.
Voter cap is a bit strong, but politicians usually don't have a lot of
stealth if they want to be sure to pass those referendums and gain blood
/pool. A measly 1-2 intercept usually stops them. And they're extremely
voulnerable to combat, and to delaying tactics, or irregular protocol if
they use mass awe+voter.
I don't think it's smart to do such drastic nerfs to voter, or we'll be
seeing weenie pre/PRE decks with 10 praxis seizures and 12 KRC's and 20
voter cap's instead of the usual pretty normal politic decks.
A nerf, perhaps, but nerfing voter to the ground is gonna make politics
extremely unattractive.
dome
> Only usable after resolving a successful referendum.
> [pre] Gain 2 blood.
> [PRE] Gain 2 pool.
My suggestion is that voter cannot be used on political actions that
cost blood, or political actions that cause methuselah's to burn pool.
I think the only overwhelming part of the voter captivation is the
extremely annoying thing of bloating and going forward in the same time.
Peter D Bakija
"Ben Swainbank" <bswai...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Wasn't that more a clarity change (get rid of the post-strike "Taste"
> phase. Make sure you can't tasted the same damage 3 times etc...)?
Very possibly, as the Jyhad version of Taste is wildly confusing (i.e.
based on the wording, what happens if you play 3 at the same time, which
lead to a lot of rulings on the card, which eventually ended up with the
new wording).
> The
> power change was relatively minor - especially compared to the
> proposed Voter Cap changes.
It was less minor than you probably think--the change in *when* Taste
happened had a huge impact on non Celerity combat (in the old days, the
Nosferatu could fight the Brujah toe to toe with excessive use of Taste,
as you could Taste *before* additional strikes). Now you need to survive
the whole round to play Taste. Which is no small nerfing.
> If you assume the opportunity cost has already been met, then yes, its
> pretty insignificant at that point.
I mean, like, you are correct in that *voting* as a strategy has a
pretty high opportunity cost (i.e. if you get blocked or can't pass your
votes, your deck is mostly dead cards). But assuming you can play your
deck (i.e. you can generally get through unblocked and generally pass
votes, even though either of these might not happen occasionally), Voter
Cap is little more than another greasy wheel.
> My Voter Cap inner monologue tends to something like: There's a Voter
> Cap. Good. I need the pool and blood. Now I need to find a vote. Ok.
> Got a vote card. Hmm.. going to need some stealth to get this off.
> Crap. My prey just brought up another Prince. How can I talk this vote
> through to get my Voter Cap off...
Sure. But that is the same for pretty much *all* cogs in a vote deck.
"Hey! I have this cool vote card. Now I need a stealth card to get it
past that blocker. And then a Bewitching to make it pass." Or "Hey! I
have a Bewitching, an Awe and a Voter Cap! If only I had a vote to
call..." One of the costs of vote decks in general is that they tend to
have a lot of moving parts that need to all be in the right place at the
right time. Voter Cap is just another part that needs to be factored in.
> I play a lot more combat decks and always play with Taste of Vitae,
> which is much easier to cycle, and tends to provide a very useful
> effect (even if you don't "win" the combat round).
Sure. Taste is really good. But as LSJ pointed out earlier, Taste has a
pretty significant opportunity cost ( which I would claim is more
restrictive than Voter Cap due to the inherent risks of combat i.e. you
need to get into a fight and survive till the end of the round and do
damage to your opponent) that balances it out. And it doesn't nullify
the cost of combat cards in the same way that Voter Cap nullifies the
cost of, say, Awe--I generally don't play, like, Pushing the Limit in
combat decks specifically 'cause the 1 blood cost makes it that much
more likely that you'll get torped and not get to play Taste. I don't
have such reservations about Awe.
Peter D Bakija
wrote:
> You guys really should take into account that politicans are a tad
> expensive. To get table domination, you will probably be spending 20ish
> pool and really a lot of turns to get a IC/justicar or similar out.
Or, ya know, playing with little guys with PRE pushing all of your votes
through with Bewitching/Awe and getting all the Awe blood back with
Voter Cap.
> I don't think it's smart to do such drastic nerfs to voter, or we'll be
> seeing weenie pre/PRE decks with 10 praxis seizures and 12 KRC's and 20
> voter cap's instead of the usual pretty normal politic decks.
We already see those decks, and they already abuse the heck out of Voter
Cap (why spend 20 pool on 2 vampires when you can spend 20 pool on 5
vampires and still push your votes through with that big pile of Awe you
shelled out for, when the cost is nullified by Voter Cap).
Nerfing Voter Cap will have an effect on big vampire vote decks, yeah,
but it'll mostly just require a bit of adjustment being built in (i.e.
extra blood gain). And might very well open the way to things like votes
that fill up your vampires or something.
> A nerf, perhaps, but nerfing voter to the ground is gonna make politics
> extremely unattractive.
Seems unlikely. Even if you get to either just gain 2 blood or gain 2
pool, Voter Cap would still be pretty solid (i.e. free pool gain, just
for showing up). It would require a bit of strategy tweaking and maybe
some new cards. But vote decks still likely would be just as beefy as
before.
Damnans
[...]
> Voter Cap seems to be an obstacle to making any balanced PA cards with
> acrobatics like Eldest Command Undeath. Even that is suspect due to the option
> of alternating referendums between the costly-ones and the Voter Capped ones.
>
> Voter Cap itself may be the problem.
I think political actions could have other requirements/costs instead
of a blood cost to make them balanced.
For example:
Pool cost
Tapping another vampire you control
Keeping the acting vampire from playing further action modifiers
during this action
ETC, ETC, ETC...
So there is no need to change Voter Captivation.
--
Damnans
http://www.almadrava.net/damnans
http://www.vtes.net
http://es.groups.yahoo.com/group/vteshispania/
CthuluKitty
> pretty significant opportunity cost ( which I would claim is more
> restrictive than Voter Cap due to the inherent risks of combat i.e. you
> need to get into a fight and survive till the end of the round and do
> damage to your opponent) that balances it out. And it doesn't nullify
> the cost of combat cards in the same way that Voter Cap nullifies the
> cost of, say, Awe--I generally don't play, like, Pushing the Limit in
> combat decks specifically 'cause the 1 blood cost makes it that much
> more likely that you'll get torped and not get to play Taste. I don't
> have such reservations about Awe.
Also note that Taste is limited in blood gain to the amount of blood
posessed by the opposing vampire. Voter Captivation is only limited
by the number of votes you can generate, and is likely to yield
consistently higher margins in any but the votiest of environments.
Peter D Bakija
"Damnans" <damna...@ono.com> wrote:
> I think political actions could have other requirements/costs instead
> of a blood cost to make them balanced.
Sure, but giving them a blood/pool cost is the most obvious (and
logical) way to balance out a card, and the existence of Voter Cap
pretty much completely removes this tool from the arsenal of the card
designers in regards to Political Actions.
> For example:
>
> Pool cost
Unless the Pool cost is high enough to counteract the pool gain from the
Voter Cap, it is, like a blood cost, mostly irrelevant. And giving a
card a pool cost that balances out the card with Voter Cap is likely to
make the card wildly unplayable by non Presence vote decks. For example,
how good would a PA card have to be to justify a 3 pool cost? And how
good would it have to be to justify using it in a non Presence vote deck
at a 3 pool cost? Likely pretty good. Which would probably make it
either too good to put in a Presence vote deck, or not good enough to
put into a non Presence vote deck.
> Tapping another vampire you control
> Keeping the acting vampire from playing further action modifiers
> during this action
Both of these are reasonable, but likely require a lot more testing and
balancing than simply enabling the designers to add a blood/pool cost to
a PA card that they currently can't realistically do.
Damnans
> In article <1170712110.586026.162...@l53g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
>
> "Damnans" <damnansv...@ono.com> wrote:
> > I think political actions could have other requirements/costs instead
> > of a blood cost to make them balanced.
>
> Sure, but giving them a blood/pool cost is the most obvious (and
> logical) way to balance out a card, and the existence of Voter Cap
> pretty much completely removes this tool from the arsenal of the card
> designers in regards to Political Actions.
>
> > For example:
>
> > Pool cost
>
> Unless the Pool cost is high enough to counteract the pool gain from the
> Voter Cap, it is, like a blood cost, mostly irrelevant. And giving a
> card a pool cost that balances out the card with Voter Cap is likely to
> make the card wildly unplayable by non Presence vote decks.
If you want to create a political action playable by non Presence vote
decks then have them require a Clan or a vampire without Presence. Do
not just change Voter Captivation as the easiest solution.
[...]
> > Tapping another vampire you control
> > Keeping the acting vampire from playing further action modifiers
> > during this action
>
> Both of these are reasonable, but likely require a lot more testing and
> balancing than simply enabling the designers to add a blood/pool cost to
> a PA card that they currently can't realistically do.
Exactly, it requires a lot more testing and balancing than simply
changing Voter Captivation because of lack of imagination.
James Coupe
A number of WW non-political cards have had some quite unusual costs and
requirements, or tinkering with same. Examples:
- Eye of Hazimel and Polaris Coach have an upkeep cost
- a whole new class of cards (Events) was invented and balanced with a
new basic mechanic, and many cards operate based on the number
of (some) other Events already in play
- Mata Hari (principally, but also Kemintiri and Tatiana Stepanova) lets
you completely dick with clan requirements
- many bloodlines discipline cards are more powerful AND have fallback
levels
- Anarch three-ways spice up inferior disciplines
- Auto-da-Fe introduces a use for Inquisitor
- pretty much all of Nights of Reckoning uses a completely batshit new
cost system, relative to anything ever seen before
I don't think the Design Team + Playtesters feel they can't try out
interesting requirements and balance them, and I'm not sure why they
couldn't do the same with political actions, if they chose to.
--
James Coupe
PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D YOU ARE IN ERROR.
EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 NO-ONE IS SCREAMING.
13D7E668C3695D623D5D THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.
LSJ
> I don't think the Design Team + Playtesters feel they can't try out
> interesting requirements and balance them, and I'm not sure why they
> couldn't do the same with political actions, if they chose to.
There is no "choose" for political actions, since Voter Cap removes the choice.
So-called "interesting" requirements are the only option, so not really a matter
of "choice" at all.
But if:
1) Voter Cap is overly powerful
and
2) The existence of overly-powerful VC unnecessarily limits design
then the obvious course of action is to fix VC.
Damnans
> James Coupe wrote:
> > I don't think the Design Team + Playtesters feel they can't try out
> > interesting requirements and balance them, and I'm not sure why they
> > couldn't do the same with political actions, if they chose to.
>
> There is no "choose" for political actions, since Voter Cap removes the choice.
> So-called "interesting" requirements are the only option, so not really a matter
> of "choice" at all.
Scott, didn't the whole Voter Captivation suggested change start
because you thought VC is an obstacle to making balanced PA cards with
costs?
QUOTE:
"Voter Cap seems to be an obstacle to making any balanced PA cards
with
costs. The few I've attempted have been backed into the corner of
textual
acrobatics like Eldest Command Undeath. Even that is suspect due to
the option
of alternating referendums between the costly-ones and the Voter
Capped ones."
/QUOTE
Costs/requirements and effects are the only options that should be
taken into account when designing new political actions (along with
game balance, of course).
I am sure you can come up with enough innovative or not so innovative
requirements for new political actions.
Peter D Bakija
"Damnans" <damna...@ono.com> wrote:
> If you want to create a political action playable by non Presence vote
> decks then have them require a Clan or a vampire without Presence. Do
> not just change Voter Captivation as the easiest solution.
It isn't just that it is the easiest solution. Voter Cap is, in and of
itself, arguably too powerful. As noted earlier, compare it to Taste and
5th Tradition (both of which have been significantly altered since their
original introduction, unlike Voter Cap which is still the same),
Giant's Blood (which has a significant limitation from day 1), Concert
Tour and Entrenching (which have both been designed recently, and have
significant limits built into them). Voter Cap is a wildly powerful card
that somehow has managed to avoid the tweaks that hit most similar cards
of the same era.
> Exactly, it requires a lot more testing and balancing than simply
> changing Voter Captivation because of lack of imagination.
Lack of imagination isn't really the issue here (see Eldest Command
Undeath--not an elegant solution, and not one that I would like to see a
lot of. But certainly imaginative)--if a standard paradigm of card
design (i.e. making a card cost blood/pool for increased effect) is cut
off due to a single, arguably overpowered card, and fixing that card
will both make it less overpowered *and* restore that tool to the
designers, the solution seems obvious. At least to me.
Kevin M.
> In article <W7pxh.1567$gj4...@newssvr14.news.prodigy.net>,
> LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
>
>> Game show time!
>
> Man. We need a theme song now...
http://www.lyricsfreak.com/e/eric+clapton/cocaine_20051236.html
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
Derek Ray
Hash: SHA1
It's probably worth noting that the more significant problem with VC, as
reflected in "why isn't it worthwhile to make vote cards cost
something", is its ability to refill the calling vampire, as opposed to
the "gain 2 pool" aspect. Given the ease of pool recursion in this game
(Blood Doll, Minion Tap), it's important to consider that ANY card which
grants blood to a vampire is only one step away from actually granting
pool to that vampire's controlling Methuselah.
Given the above...
LSJ wrote:
> Only usable after resolving a successful referendum.
> [pre] The acting vampire gains X blood from the blood bank, where X is
> the number of votes by which the referendum passed, up to a maximum of 2.
> [PRE] As above, but up to a maximum of 4.
This still reads "Gain 4 pool".
> Only usable when referendum passes by at least 2 (after resolving the
> referendum).
> [pre] Gain 2 blood.
> [PRE] Gain 2 pool.
As another poster noted, this doesn't speed up the "do math during the
referendum to prevent Voter Cap" step any, and possibly increases the
number of stumbling blocks to actually running a vote deck unnecessarily.
> Only usable after resolving a successful referendum.
> [pre] Gain 2 blood.
> [PRE] Gain 2 pool.
>
> The last one opens up VC to auto-pass votes as well, which it currently
> fizzles on.
In general, I like this, though the auto-pass quirk will certainly make
it interesting. However, it might lead to more use of auto-pass vote
tech overall (something often avoided because of the inability to play
Voter Cap, interestingly), and possibly even lead to the idea of things
like Praxis Seizure seeing play again in a midcap voter deck as the TAIL
end of an autopass vote, instead of as an innocuous run-up.
If nothing else, it should speed up the "do math" stage of the
referendums; either you like the outcome or you don't, and it also will
remove the "why won't you vote in favor so I can Voter Cap for more"
whining stage, something I was heartily sick of well over four years ago.
- --
Derek
insert clever quotation here
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFFx8vKtQZlu3o7QpERAoNDAJ4xhoWvvHgSZHCBCTfrytgKNs5rCgCg3nXc
mEDRmZ4cGO/47dn8AqKF8M8=
=natK
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
ira...@gmail.com
> restrictions amounting only to: if your deck is working in its primary goal in
> the first place). And then it compounds the effect with pool gain to boot.
Yes. It seems incredibly good for all vote decks with PRE as
currently written.
> Other comparable effects:
> Taste of Vitae: successful combat damage. No pool.
> Giant's Blood: MPA, once per game, no pool gain.
> Fifth Tradition: P/J, action, 1 blood cost, only 4 blood gained, no pool.
> Entrenching: action, 4 blood already, only 4 blood gained, no pool.
> Concert Tour: DoC (not many big-cap DoC), action, 1 blood, delay, no pool.
Maybe these were already mentioned, but also consider Renewed Vigor,
Restoration, and Regeneration.
> Thoughts?
Ooh, LSJ asking for design input - I love it! This game is so great,
and LSJ is awesome. It's really incredible that the CCG designer is
asking for open input from players.
My thoughts:
- I agree that Voter Cap is overpowered.
- I like the idea of simplifying the card to work whenever the vote
passes, regardless by how much (or at least 2.)
A specific card idea that requires minimal change is:
- Play before any votes are cast. If the referendum is successful...
That way, if the vote fails or is delayed, you've wasted it. I think
that makes for a bit more interesting interactions between DT and vote
cancellations, too.
To weaken it even more, it could be played when the vote action is
announced, and then people would know to block it.
If I were designing, I would make it most similar to Restoration, and
would choose:
Play during a referendum before any votes are cast.
[pre] If this referendum passes, gain two blood.
[PRE] If this referendum passes, gain three blood.
I think the pool gain aspect is the biggest issue, so that's what I
would remove.
If that seems too weak, then perhaps:
Play during a referendum before any votes are cast.
[pre] If the vote passes, the acting vampire gains X blood from the
blood bank, where X is the number of votes by which the referendum
passed, up to a maximum of 2.
[PRE] As above, but up to a maximum of 4.
If pool gain seems appealing, then I would pick:
Play during a referendum before votes are cast.
[pre] If the vote passes, the acting vampire gains 2 blood.
[PRE] as above, and gain 1 pool.
Making this change also encourages non-presence based vote decks; as
things stand now, I have to have very strong reasons not to include
PRE and voter cap in a vote deck.
For any of the above texts, I would still play with the card (I
think), but not as many.
Ira
tigernat1
Please do NOT weaken Big Cap Vamps by hosing this card too much. Big
Cap Vamps already have it tough when compared to weenies!
All the suggestions so far do NOT affect weenie voters as much as they
hurt big cap vampires.
Suggestions:
What about adding a capacity requirement to the card? Only playable
by 6 cap or above?
Base the amount of blood/pool gained on the capacity of the vampire
(capacity minus 3 or capacity minus 4?)
Please be careful redesigning this card!
Are you having trouble designing bleed cards? Perhaps you should look
at redesigning Govern the Unaligned?
Vegas gNat
Derek Ray
Hash: SHA1
ira...@gmail.com wrote:
> My thoughts:
> - I agree that Voter Cap is overpowered.
> - I like the idea of simplifying the card to work whenever the vote
> passes, regardless by how much (or at least 2.)
>
> A specific card idea that requires minimal change is:
> - Play before any votes are cast. If the referendum is successful...
I wouldn't play this card.
> To weaken it even more, it could be played when the vote action is
> announced, and then people would know to block it.
I wouldn't play that card, either.
> If I were designing, I would make it most similar to Restoration, and
> would choose:
>
> Play during a referendum before any votes are cast.
> [pre] If this referendum passes, gain two blood.
> [PRE] If this referendum passes, gain three blood.
I'd use maybe 2 copies of this card at the most. For only 3 blood that
I have to pull off manually, I have better things to include in a deck.
> I think the pool gain aspect is the biggest issue, so that's what I
> would remove.
See other post. The blood gain is the biggest problem.
For example, if you suddenly made, say, PTO cost 4 blood to call, and
turned Voter Cap into a 1-pool/2-pool card, is there now a significant
cost to calling and passing PTO? Obviously, there is; especially if you
need to use a card like Awe.
Contrast with existing VC, where you refill the vampire _and_ possibly
still gain 1/2 pool.
> If that seems too weak, then perhaps:
> Play during a referendum before any votes are cast.
I wouldn't play this card.
> If pool gain seems appealing, then I would pick:
> Play during a referendum before votes are cast.
I wouldn't play this card. You may have noticed a theme here; when you
force people to throw out a big ol' "This vote should not be allowed to
pass" before votes are cast, then you force them to create table
hostility. Sure, right now everyone still reflexively assumes that
someone is going to Voter Cap, but the card's sheer strength makes it
worthwile to do it anyway and just include enough push to make sure it
always passes, table hostility be damned.
If you weaken the card, however, you make it less likely that 8 have
been automatically included in the deck -- and as such you provide an
opportunity for people to just Play The Game, instead of feeling like
they have to anti-vote just to cut down on the Voter Cap. Forcing the
card to be played before votes are cast removes the uncertainty.
- --
Derek
insert clever quotation here
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFFx9S5tQZlu3o7QpERAn87AJ9Ygm23Qlo4elbgL9Y0Dtye9W8N4ACgtcQ3
BCSaMQ7B/CgswHxUkn8R/jo=
=p8sl
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Darby Keeney
52350$QU1....@newssvr22.news.prodigy.net...
> Where "less drastic" becomes blurred with "inconsequential".
Scott, you seem fixated on how overpowered Voter Cap is. I empathize
with your concerns in finding consistent ways to create cost/value
relationships, but I'm still hazy about how overpowered the card is.
Question: Is Voter Captivation really that dominant in a competitive
environment?
Analysis: I did a quick word search on Lasombra's TWDA, with the
following results for occurrences of the following phrases:
Blood Doll 503
Minion Tap 230
Govern the Unaligned 188
Majesty 160
Kine Resources Contested 134
Taste of Vitae 120
Freak Drive 118
Voter Captivation 86
Kindred Spirits 45
Perfectionist 36
Voter Captivation and most of the associated tournament-worthy votes
have been around since Dark Sovereigns. Yet only 65% of the decks
that employ KRC employ Voter Captivation. Voter Cap is much less
"abused" in winning decks than Govern the Unaligned. Taste of Vitae
shows up more often. Given this trend, I fail to see how Voter
Captivation creates a dominant game-winning deck archetype.
So the perception of "overpoweredness" most come from something other
than the competitive environment.
I'll extrapolate - and I believe it comes from two issues:
- the creation of a powerful pool gain loop (with some pool reward
for actually passing the vote)
- a preconception that the cost/benefit of a card must be derived
from blood spent by the acting vampire. Therefore Voter Cap, which
negates that cost (and to lesser extents Ancara Citadel and
Perfectionist) are overpowered.
I understand that 5th Tradition was nerfed for that first reason
alone. But 5th Traditon/Forgotten Labyrinth was much easier to pull
off than Vote/Forgotten Labyrinth/Awe (table-talk)/Voter Cap - so I
expect a greater reward from Voter Cap than 5th Tradition. Yes, I
maintain this despite claims that Voter Cap is a "freebie" because you
can play it when your deck does what it is supposed to - pass votes.
It's not a freebie. When one uses Cap extensively, one sees the high
opportunity cost this card represents - when things go wrong, you're
stuck with a crapload of in-vote cards and nothing else. Then, you
die. High (hidden) cost, high reward profile. Sounds OK to me.
As for that second point, yeah that's tricky and a pain in the hind
end from a designer's viewpoint. Hence I can understand your
conviction that Voter Cap is a problem actor. But there have been a
plethora of other cost options discussed that might serve to alleviate
your angst. I encourage you to explore some of them.
My fear remains that your proposals will turn a staple card that
encourages voting into something that most of us would never put in a
competitive deck. Even worse, until new high-quality votes are
offered, it will completely neuter the already-difficult-to-design-and-
play vote decks, rendering them unworthy of tournament play. And yes,
I maintain that votes decks that do something other than Praxis/KRC/
Cap at 1 stealth (e.g., the good decks) are difficult to build and
play.
So, as you consider possible "fixes" - remember that your nerfbat is
much heavier than you might think. 5th Trad certainly knows this -
it's cornercase/wallpaper these days.
Looking forward to even more interesting dialog,
Darby
Kevin M.
> itself, arguably too powerful. As noted earlier, compare it to Taste
> and 5th Tradition (both of which have been significantly altered
> since their original introduction, unlike Voter Cap which is still
> the same),
> Voter Cap is a wildly powerful card that somehow has managed
> to avoid the tweaks that hit most similar cards of the same era.
We should consider the possibility that Voter Cap avoided the tweaks
because it isn't TOO powerful. Powerful, true, but not overpowered or
undercosted, certainly not enough to justify a change based on (what I
believe to be) only the design team's issues in designing new votes, a
valid issue, regardless.
oldTaste of Vitae required only combat, and it could be played at multiple
times during the round -- a 1-card "combo". old5th Tradition required
only a Prince/Justicar and (probably) some stealth -- only a 2-card combo.
These were cards with powerful effects that were arguably overpowered
and/or undercosted.
Voter Captivation requires a vampire with pre/PRE, then:
1. a vote card
2. (probably) some level of stealth
3. an Awe or Bewitching Oration
4. success in the referendum
5. the Voter Cap
So, a conditional 4-card combo, and G-d forbid that you're trying to vote
with non-stealthy presence voters. To compare it to old5th and any
version of Taste is to not understand the level of difficulty of pulling
off the Voter Cap, not to mention the fact that voting decks, like
dedicated-Combat decks, are incredibly card-intensive, and very careful
consideration should be taken to determine whether or not changing one of
their important cards, lest you make those decks significantly less
playable.
Have dedicated-Combat decks been so weak that Alastor, Dogs of War,
Perpetual Care, Dragonbound, Carver's Meat Packing, Frontal Assault,
Haqim's Law: Judgement, Yawp Court, Red List and Trophies, and all the new
'Action: (D) may enter combat' cards needed to be created to enhance their
effectiveness, and dedicated-Vote decks are so strong that Voter
Captivation all by itself needs to be changed? I don't see it.
LSJ
> "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:nxLxh.
> 52350$QU1....@newssvr22.news.prodigy.net...
>> Where "less drastic" becomes blurred with "inconsequential".
>
> Scott, you seem fixated on how overpowered Voter Cap is.
No. Just discussing it.
> I empathize
> with your concerns in finding consistent ways to create cost/value
> relationships, but I'm still hazy about how overpowered the card is.
That's what my initial post was about.
> Question: Is Voter Captivation really that dominant in a competitive
> environment?
[...]
> So the perception of "overpoweredness" most come from something other
> than the competitive environment.
Yes. See my initial post. Bloat, both in blood and pool, as needed, is,
inherently, strong. The easier the bloat, the stronger it is. VC bloat is ease
personified. Namely: do nothing extra, just play the card whenever your deck is
working at all.
> I'll extrapolate - and I believe it comes from two issues:
> - the creation of a powerful pool gain loop (with some pool reward
> for actually passing the vote)
> - a preconception that the cost/benefit of a card must be derived
> from blood spent by the acting vampire. Therefore Voter Cap, which
> negates that cost (and to lesser extents Ancara Citadel and
> Perfectionist) are overpowered.
>
> I understand that 5th Tradition was nerfed for that first reason
> alone. But 5th Traditon/Forgotten Labyrinth was much easier to pull
> off than Vote/Forgotten Labyrinth/Awe (table-talk)/Voter Cap - so I
> expect a greater reward from Voter Cap than 5th Tradition. Yes, I
> maintain this despite claims that Voter Cap is a "freebie" because you
> can play it when your deck does what it is supposed to - pass votes.
That last sentence is at odds with the preceding.
5th/FL is a sideline - and end unto itself. It takes away resources from the
primary goal of the deck (primarily the action).
Vote/Fl/Awe is the deck, not the bloat. Not a sideline.
The VC is the freebie that tags bloat onto that.
> It's not a freebie. When one uses Cap extensively, one sees the high
> opportunity cost this card represents - when things go wrong, you're
> stuck with a crapload of in-vote cards and nothing else. Then, you
> die. High (hidden) cost, high reward profile. Sounds OK to me.
I have seen VC used extensively enough to see that it is freebie bloat.
The hidden costs of VC are not high. When they are high, they amount to scarcely
more than nothing (kicking the legs out from under a dead horse doesn't slow the
horse down).
> As for that second point, yeah that's tricky and a pain in the hind
> end from a designer's viewpoint. Hence I can understand your
> conviction that Voter Cap is a problem actor. But there have been a
> plethora of other cost options discussed that might serve to alleviate
> your angst. I encourage you to explore some of them.
Angst? What angst?
Encouragement to exploration is not needed. I have explored them, as has been
noted already, and will continue to do so, as should be obvious.
Moreover, I would also like to explore the more direct costing facilities
available to every other aspect of the game.
> My fear remains that your proposals will turn a staple card that
> encourages voting into something that most of us would never put in a
> competitive deck. Even worse, until new high-quality votes are
> offered, it will completely neuter the already-difficult-to-design-and-
> play vote decks, rendering them unworthy of tournament play. And yes,
> I maintain that votes decks that do something other than Praxis/KRC/
> Cap at 1 stealth (e.g., the good decks) are difficult to build and
> play.
I have seen much evidence to the contrary. Unless you classify all good decks as
being difficult to design and play (which I'd grant, in general).
But even so, one too-weak card is better than one too-powerful one.
The too weak ones can be ignored when building and playing decks.
> So, as you consider possible "fixes" - remember that your nerfbat is
> much heavier than you might think. 5th Trad certainly knows this -
> it's cornercase/wallpaper these days.
The weight of the nerfbat is infinite. The question is of aim and precision.
Chris Berger
>
> Options for changing the vote game dynamic:
>
> Weaken older cards (KRC - divide 3 point points... )
> Create more non-Presence voter-cap like effects, and sucesssful vote
> rewards
> Create cards that invite use because they are flexible or overcome
> typical Vote-deck problems (Votes with +2 stealth, or worth 2-3 votes)
> Or action mods that provide stealth and/or votes (or allow muliple
> Political Cards with a single action?).
>
I don't think this post should be dismissed out of hand when the other
option is nerfing a long-standing, often-played card. And
specifically a card that, in many ways, makes voting worth doing at
all. Not saying that VC definitely should stay the way it is, but
what about some other options?
Maybe new cards that will make Voter Cap less useful (a bit of a
tangent to Ben's post)... sure, this is like the "DI Defense" that
says that nothing is broken because you can always DI it. You would
actually have to play with the VC hosers in order for VC to actually
be any less powerful, and the hoser cards would have to be useful in
other ways, too. A few ideas:
Strangulation
Reaction
Requires a ready Anarch vampire
tha: The acting vampire may not gain blood during this action. Any
blood he or she gains goes to the blood bank instead.
qui: The acting vampire may not gain blood during this action. Any
blood he or she gains goes to the blood bank instead.
pot: The acting vampire takes 1 damage. If this causes the acting
vampire to go to torpor, the action fails. No cost is paid.
Anarch Threat
Event
Non-anarch vampires may not gain blood except by hunting, or from
Hunting Ground cards. Any blood they gain goes to the blood bank
instead. During each methuselah's untap phase, that methuselah may
move one blood from any of his or her vampires to this card. Burn
this card when there are 5 blood counters on it.
Heated Debate (preferably a picture of a vampire with blood dripping
from its fangs and hands)
Reaction. Frenzy, played on this reacting vampire.
Requires a ready vampire. Only usable during a political action
before votes are cast. If the referendum passes, the acting vampire
takes X damage, where X is the number of votes by which the referendum
passed.
And regardless of whether or not VC is nerfed, or whether some other
course of action is taken, I definitely do like the idea of some votes
with additional benefits. Something like a 3-point KRC that is called
with +2 stealth or that gives you +2 votes. Free States Rant is also
a good example of a vote card that changed the voting scene to a
certain degree - very nice vote that is called by an Independent
vampire (who is likely to be untitled), and reduces the value of
titles and increases the value of the Edge. I certainly wouldn't mind
seeing more creative votes along the lines of FSR.
Damnans
> In article <1170715462.617681.267...@h3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
>
> "Damnans" <damnansv...@ono.com> wrote:
> > If you want to create a political action playable by non Presence vote
> > decks then have them require a Clan or a vampire without Presence. Do
> > not just change Voter Captivation as the easiest solution.
>
> It isn't just that it is the easiest solution. Voter Cap is, in and of
> itself, arguably too powerful. As noted earlier, compare it to Taste and
> 5th Tradition (both of which have been significantly altered since their
> original introduction, unlike Voter Cap which is still the same),
You are not taking into account that as some cards get powered down
(such as Fitfh Tradition: Hospitality), other cards with similar
effects become the most powerful ones in that field. But this does not
necessarily mean that these still unchanged cards are too powerful.
> Giant's Blood (which has a significant limitation from day 1), Concert
> Tour and Entrenching (which have both been designed recently, and have
> significant limits built into them). Voter Cap is a wildly powerful card
> that somehow has managed to avoid the tweaks that hit most similar cards
> of the same era.
Voter Captivation has allowed high capacity vampires to be playable in
vote decks. Do you have any other suggestion to make them still viable
with the current VTES cards, except Voter Captivation?
And you forgot other blood gain ways such as Renewed Vigor and
Baltimore Purge plus Diablerie (which is totally broken).
> > Exactly, it requires a lot more testing and balancing than simply
> > changing Voter Captivation because of lack of imagination.
>
> Lack of imagination isn't really the issue here
Yes, it is ;-)
> (see Eldest Command
> Undeath--not an elegant solution, and not one that I would like to see a
> lot of. But certainly imaginative) [...]
Not so imaginative, since there is still a blood cost involved.
Peter D Bakija
> You are not taking into account that as some cards get powered down
> (such as Fitfh Tradition: Hospitality), other cards with similar
> effects become the most powerful ones in that field. But this does not
> necessarily mean that these still unchanged cards are too powerful.
Sure. But in Voter Cap's instance, it probably is too powerful.
> Voter Captivation has allowed high capacity vampires to be playable in
> vote decks. Do you have any other suggestion to make them still viable
> with the current VTES cards, except Voter Captivation?
How is it that Voter Cap is the mechanism that allows high capacity
vampires in vote decks? I mean, yeah, it is handy and all, but why is
*it* the card? 'Cause you can Minion Tap/Refil/repeat? 'Cause you get
2 pool every time you play a vote? There are perfectly viable vote
decks that use high capacity vampires and not Voter Cap. How is it
that those decks are viable *without* Voter Cap?
-Peter
olivier...@gmail.com
Voter capt is a good card but it's not so powerful.
To play you need:
1 - to do an action that won't be blocked.This action is undirected
and can be easely blocked by your prey or your predator.
2 - to have the vote lock alone... or to be able to convince the
people how has vote.
3 - then you need to pass the vote. It mean not take a delaying
tactic, posin pill, confusion of the eye. I don't know all metagame.
But in France and in Switzerland ther is a minimu of 4 deleying
tactics in each deck without vote....
4 - then you need to play voter capte and don't take a direct on it...
So let's see your hand befor the vote:
one vote
two stealth card to be able to passe it
one voter captivation...
So it's 4 card's...
Voter Captivation got a lot of flaw... you can't cicle it without
passing vote.... I think that's enough.
And the argument of the "Eldest Commnd Undeath" is bad. This card is a
complete wall paper. Even if you where able to gain blood it won't be
a good card. Makimum a kinder card I will say. Vote are suppose to be
able to give you table controle... this card is only to hurt your
prey... Crap.
And to finish the card that is really strong with voter capt is Minion
Tap. Voter capte is nothing without it...
If you really wan't to change the game banish blood doll and minion
tap... then you will see a big difference.
olivier...@gmail.com
Olivier Perez
olivier...@gmail.com
in 1 hour ther is 2 pages of: don't change the card on the french
forum... I am sorry but I can't resume it right know becaus I must go
to work.
Damnans
> On Feb 6, 4:33 am, "Damnans" <damnansv...@ono.com> wrote:
>
> > You are not taking into account that as some cards get powered down
> > (such as Fitfh Tradition: Hospitality), other cards with similar
> > effects become the most powerful ones in that field. But this does not
> > necessarily mean that these still unchanged cards are too powerful.
>
> Sure. But in Voter Cap's instance, it probably is too powerful.
Too powerful for what?
> > Voter Captivation has allowed high capacity vampires to be playable in
> > vote decks. Do you have any other suggestion to make them still viable
> > with the current VTES cards, except Voter Captivation?
>
> How is it that Voter Cap is the mechanism that allows high capacity
> vampires in vote decks? I mean, yeah, it is handy and all, but why is
> *it* the card? 'Cause you can Minion Tap/Refil/repeat? 'Cause you get
> 2 pool every time you play a vote?
Both, but those combos are not automatic. There are some requirements
involved (e.g., you don't get 2 pool every time you play a vote).
Sometimes your votes get blocked, or don't pass, etc.
The fact that bringing out a high capacity vampire is a big pool
investement, means that you need effective ways to get that pool back,
if you want to bring out more vampires and take more actions per turn.
> There are perfectly viable vote decks that use high capacity vampires and not Voter Cap.
Such as?
Jozxyqk
> > There are perfectly viable vote decks that use high capacity vampires and not Voter Cap.
> Such as?
Orlando Oriundus!
Peter D Bakija
> Too powerful for what?
Too powerful compared to other cards that refil your vampires. Most
other cards the refil your vampires are:
-Limited in effect (only give you a small amount, like 1-4)
-Highly conditional (only work in a small number of situations)
-Limited in use (only once per game)
-Take an action (that action does nothing but give you blood)
Voter Cap isn't like this. You gain a lot of blood (combined with Awe,
you refil completely) *and* some pool. All while taking an action that
is probably injuring your prey anyway (KRC?). It doesn't require an
action that doesn't hurt your prey. It can happen multiple times per
turn. It works if your deck is working at all. Its effect is only
limited by the number of Awes you own. It is a highly unrestricted,
unlimited, hardly conditional card that happens while your deck is
doing what it wants to be doing anyway.
> Both, but those combos are not automatic. There are some requirements
> involved (e.g., you don't get 2 pool every time you play a vote).
> Sometimes your votes get blocked, or don't pass, etc.
Sure. But as mentioned before, if your deck is doing what it is meant
to be doing (i.e. calling votes and passing votes), the additional
cost to play Voter Cap is insignificant (i.e. have one in your hand.
Yeah, sometimes you get blocked. And sometimes you get voted down. But
that is an issue with vote decks as a whole, and isn't actually a
problem for Voter Cap. If your deck is going, you can play Voter Cap.
> The fact that bringing out a high capacity vampire is a big pool
> investement, means that you need effective ways to get that pool back,
> if you want to bring out more vampires and take more actions per turn.
So you Minion Tap and get blood back in ways that other non Presence
enabled big vampire decks do (Giant's Blood; Entrench/Freak;
whatever). Other decks use big vampires. That don't use Voter Cap. And
they survive.
> Such as?
Nosferatu Royalty--there are multiples of these in the TWDA (mind you,
my version that is in the TWDA has Presence in it :-). Sabbat
Cardinal. Non presence backed All IC decks. They exist. And are
playable. And don't have Voter Cap. And I don't think there is any
discussion here of eliminating Voter Cap, just reducing its effect.
And if it is hard to pull off Voter Cap for a reasonable amount as you
seem to think it is, isn't making it just give you 2 blood or 2 pool
on any successful vote (like the best candidate for the change) an
*improvement*?
-Peter
Peter D Bakija
> Stop Changing card!!!
When was the last time a card got changed?
> Voter capt is a good card but it's not so powerful.
> To play you need:
> 1 - to do an action that won't be blocked.This action is undirected
> and can be easely blocked by your prey or your predator.
This is a cost of voting. Not Voter Cap.
> 2 - to have the vote lock alone... or to be able to convince the
> people how has vote.
Or, ya know, a handfull of Awe.
> 3 - then you need to pass the vote. It mean not take a delaying
> tactic, posin pill, confusion of the eye. I don't know all metagame.
> But in France and in Switzerland ther is a minimu of 4 deleying
> tactics in each deck without vote....
Again, a cost of voting, not Voter Cap.
> 4 - then you need to play voter capte and don't take a direct on it...
Really, the cost of Voter Cap is:
-Playing the game you intended on playing anyway.
-Having one in your hand.
-Not getting DIed.
If you were playing the game you were intending on playing anyway,
this isn't much of a cost. Having one in your hand is the same cost
for any card. Not getting DIed is the same cost for any card.
> And the argument of the "Eldest Commnd Undeath" is bad. This card is a
> complete wall paper.
Only 'cause PTO exists. But that is a whole other discussion.
> And to finish the card that is really strong with voter capt is Minion
> Tap. Voter capte is nothing without it...
> If you really wan't to change the game banish blood doll and minion
> tap... then you will see a big difference.
Have you been following this discussion? No one is trying to banish
anything. Just possibly downpower Voter Cap as:
A) It is arguably too powerful as it is.
B) It makes designing other vote cards really difficult.
-Peter
news.qwest.net
> Darby Keeney wrote:
>> Scott, you seem fixated on how overpowered Voter Cap is.
>
> No. Just discussing it.
>> So, as you consider possible "fixes" - remember that your nerfbat is
>> much heavier than you might think.
>
> The weight of the nerfbat is infinite. The question is of aim and
> precision.
Whatever the changes might occur, thanks for discussing in the playbase
before reaching a decision.
D.
Damnans
> On Feb 6, 8:33 am, "Damnans" <damnansv...@ono.com> wrote:
> > Too powerful for what?
>
> Too powerful compared to other cards that refil your vampires. Most
Have you wondered why Voter Captivation is an issue now, after so many
years (since 1994)?
And the fact VC is powerful does not mean it needs a card text change.
> > Both, but those combos are not automatic. There are some requirements
> > involved (e.g., you don't get 2 pool every time you play a vote).
> > Sometimes your votes get blocked, or don't pass, etc.
>
> Sure. But as mentioned before, if your deck is doing what it is meant
> to be doing (i.e. calling votes and passing votes), the additional
> cost to play Voter Cap is insignificant (i.e. have one in your hand.
> Yeah, sometimes you get blocked. And sometimes you get voted down. But
> that is an issue with vote decks as a whole, and isn't actually a
> problem for Voter Cap. If your deck is going, you can play Voter Cap.
OK, we agree VC is not automatic.
[...]
> So you Minion Tap and get blood back in ways that other non Presence
> enabled big vampire decks do (Giant's Blood; Entrench/Freak;
> whatever). Other decks use big vampires. That don't use Voter Cap. And
> they survive.
>
> > Such as?
>
> Nosferatu Royalty--there are multiples of these in the TWDA (mind you,
> my version that is in the TWDA has Presence in it :-). Sabbat
> Cardinal. Non presence backed All IC decks. They exist. And are
> playable. And don't have Voter Cap. And I don't think there is any
> discussion here of eliminating Voter Cap, just reducing its effect.
Nosferatu Royalty are viable because of Parity Shift. A political
action only princes and justicars can call, which gives them pool at
the same time they deal pool damage to its target.
> And if it is hard to pull off Voter Cap for a reasonable amount as you
> seem to think it is, isn't making it just give you 2 blood or 2 pool
> on any successful vote (like the best candidate for the change) an
> *improvement*?
How do you think, say, a Free States Rant deck with high capacity
vampires can survive without Voter Captivation?
CthuluKitty
> B) It makes designing other vote cards really difficult.
Don't forget:
C) The current text leads to irritating and time consuming table talk
and mental arithmetic that can easily cause games to time out, or
worse, become dreadfully boring.
I think this is actually a better reason to change the card than the
power considerations being discussed. Although it's a bad example due
to the scale of its ridiculousness, Madness of the Bard was banned
because of its disruptive elements rather than its power. The same
argument could be extended for Succubus Club, though not necessarily
successfully.
Huruem
is it?
first of all, is voter capt overly powerful?
I don't know, in my decks, the fewer I have voter cap, the better it
is. Why? First, Because to be able to play a voter capt, you need a
succesful political action, and most of the time, the action in itself
is more interresting than the VC. secondly, you usually need other
cards to make sure that the action will be succesful, like stealth, or
cards to male sure that if you're blocked, you're vampire won't be
crushed by a panzer. Then again, you will probably need some other
cards to make sure that it will work. And once again, VC is secondary.
Because a voter to be really interresting, you need to play a minion
tap and a big vampire.
And now, in which kind of decks are we playing voter cap?
Obviously in deck using vampires with presence, which are mainly?
Toreador, ventrue. Sethites also, to a certain extent.But mostly
toreador and ventrue. 2 powerful clans, but 2 clans which lacks of
stealth in general, so they're actions are in general, not working all
the time. VC is only giving them a better defense, which is something
that they don't really have for the Ventrue, and it's even worse for
the setites. The toreador, are probably stronger in that respect, they
have much more different ways to handle problems I think, thanks to...
Anson mainly...
We also use voter capt in Lasombra grp 2-3 deck which is also a
powerful deck, and only thanks to voter capt this time I think. But I
don't think it is as strong as a toreador/ventrue deck.
All this is just to say that I don't think that VC is such a powerful
card, and I don't think that it needs to be fixed. My biggest fear is
that by changing voter capt, you would weaken decks too much.
LSJ
> On Feb 6, 12:33 am, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
>> James Coupe wrote:
>>> I don't think the Design Team + Playtesters feel they can't try out
>>> interesting requirements and balance them, and I'm not sure why they
>>> couldn't do the same with political actions, if they chose to.
>> There is no "choose" for political actions, since Voter Cap removes the choice.
>> So-called "interesting" requirements are the only option, so not really a matter
>> of "choice" at all.
>>
>> But if:
>> 1) Voter Cap is overly powerful
>> and
>> 2) The existence of overly-powerful VC unnecessarily limits design
>>
>> then the obvious course of action is to fix VC.
>
> is it?
Yes.
> first of all, is voter capt overly powerful?
Note: you are questioning the assumptions, not the conclusion (in contrast to
your "is it?" query above, which questions he conclusion given that the
assumptions are true).
> I don't know, in my decks, the fewer I have voter cap, the better it
> is. Why? First, Because to be able to play a voter capt, you need a
> succesful political action, and most of the time, the action in itself
> is more interresting than the VC. secondly, you usually need other
> cards to make sure that the action will be succesful, like stealth, or
> cards to male sure that if you're blocked, you're vampire won't be
> crushed by a panzer. Then again, you will probably need some other
> cards to make sure that it will work. And once again, VC is secondary.
> Because a voter to be really interresting, you need to play a minion
> tap and a big vampire.
>
> And now, in which kind of decks are we playing voter cap?
> Obviously in deck using vampires with presence, which are mainly?
> Toreador, ventrue. Sethites also, to a certain extent.But mostly
> toreador and ventrue. 2 powerful clans, but 2 clans which lacks of
> stealth in general, so they're actions are in general, not working all
> the time. VC is only giving them a better defense, which is something
> that they don't really have for the Ventrue, and it's even worse for
The Ventrue vote decks don't have defense?
They have untap and intercept, bounce, obedience, damage prevention, and combat
ends. What do you see as lacking in their defensive capability? Bloat? They
still have 5th Trad, Entrenching, Minion Tap, Con Boon, Parity Shift, and so on
if they need it (that is, if all their primary defenses fail).
> the setites. The toreador, are probably stronger in that respect, they
> have much more different ways to handle problems I think, thanks to...
> Anson mainly...
>
> We also use voter capt in Lasombra grp 2-3 deck which is also a
> powerful deck, and only thanks to voter capt this time I think. But I
> don't think it is as strong as a toreador/ventrue deck.
A lot of issues addressing political decks, but nothing really about Voter
Captivation.
Sure, the tautology that a deck which relies on or makes moderate use of a card
whose power is weakened will be weaker if the deck is left untouched still
holds. But that isn't the same as saying that the card is balanced to begin with.
> All this is just to say that I don't think that VC is such a powerful
> card, and I don't think that it needs to be fixed. My biggest fear is
> that by changing voter capt, you would weaken decks too much.
The idea is that the "fix" to Voter Cap would be chosen so as to not weaken
decks that should be viable "too much".
Janne Hägglund
> And now, in which kind of decks are we playing voter cap?
> Obviously in deck using vampires with presence, which are mainly?
> Toreador, ventrue. Sethites also, to a certain extent.But mostly
> toreador and ventrue. 2 powerful clans, but 2 clans which lacks of
> stealth in general, so they're actions are in general, not working all
> the time.
You have totally forgotten everyone's favourite vamp: Arika.
And her Ventrue-with-obfuscate friends. One of the strongest deck types in
the whole game.
> VC is only giving them a better defense, which is something
> that they don't really have for the Ventrue, and it's even worse for
> the setites.
I agree for the Setite part, but - Ventrue don't have defense??
You're definitely smoking something much worse than crack.
> My biggest fear is that by changing voter capt, you would weaken decks too
> much.
Any rules change that weakens Arika has my full support. ;-)
--
hg@ "If you can't offend part of your audience,
iki.fi there is no point in being an artist at all." -Hakim Bey
Olivier_PEREZ
to play voter capt you need to have Presence.
The reason why this discipline is the vote discipline is because there
is combat end's and voter capt and push bleed.
The segond best vote decks are using obtenebrate that bring stealth
and combat ends...
If you want to balance vote between vampires then bring combat ends in
a discipline that is use by some voters...
v.ri...@gmail.com
> Voter Cap is akin to these theoretical cards:
>Bleeder Cap
>[Makes you gain pool on a successful bleed action.]
The main difference is that bleeding doesn't require any card. You're
less likely to jam with such a card.
Peter Bajika said:
>Unless the Pool cost is high enough to counteract the pool gain from the
>Voter Cap, it is, like a blood cost, mostly irrelevant. And giving a
>card a pool cost that balances out the card with Voter Cap is likely to
>make the card wildly unplayable by non Presence vote decks. For example,
>how good would a PA card have to be to justify a 3 pool cost? And how
>good would it have to be to justify using it in a non Presence vote deck
>at a 3 pool cost? Likely pretty good. Which would probably make it
>either too good to put in a Presence vote deck, or not good enough to
>put into a non Presence vote deck.
I think you're wrong considering that Voter Cap "negates" the pool
cost. A vote that costs 2 pool
1) makes me lose pool, whether it is successful or not, and even
before I can play VC.
2) won't allow me to bloat in pool with a VC since at best I don't
gain nor I lose pool.
Whether you play VC or not, the card has cost you 2 pool. There are
many ways to gain back pool, and VC is one of them.
Let's face it. VC allows you to bloat, it is what it was designed for.
I think it's even harder nowadays to use VC at his full capacity, with
all these "recent" cards introduces to weaken deck votes: Yawp court,
Scalpel Tongue, Vox Domini, Poison Pill etc.
Of course, Delaying Tactics and DI are still the most popular with
good reason.
Now, is VC "broken" ? The only thing I'm sure of is that it has a
potentially a "stronger" effect than Art Scam or Entrenching, as long
as you manage to get your vote pass by more than 2. But it's also
harder to play.
Take a look at a vote such as :
KRCExtra
Cost: 2 pool
Allocate 5 points among one or more Methuselahs. Successful referendum
means each Methuselah burns 1 pool for each point assigned.
Does it absolutely require a VC to be "playable"? I'd say no. I would
mix it with KRC because it can give an extra acceleration when
required to the deck. VC would allow you maybe to play some more, but
it would become quite dangerous.
Peter D Bakija wrote:
>Too powerful compared to other cards that refil your vampires. Most
>other cards the refil your vampires are:
>Limited in effect (only give you a small amount, like 1-4)
As is VC.
-Highly conditional (only work in a small number of situations)
Far less conditional than VC. They are self-sufficient, and doesn't
require more than 1 of the following: a discipline, a title, or a
simple condition (4 blood for Entrenching).
-Limited in use (only once per game)
Only Giant's Blood is.
-Take an action (that action does nothing but give you blood)
Right, that's why they're usually not played. Does it mean VC should
become as useless?
>Voter Cap isn't like this. You gain a lot of blood (combined with Awe,
>you refil completely) *and* some pool. All while taking an action that
>is probably injuring your prey anyway (KRC?). It doesn't require an
>action that doesn't hurt your prey. It can happen multiple times per
>turn. It works if your deck is working at all. Its effect is only
>limited by the number of Awes you own. It is a highly unrestricted,
>unlimited, hardly conditional card that happens while your deck is
>doing what it wants to be doing anyway.
*ironic* Right, VC is totally broken. I wonder why it's not in all
winning decks, though. I wonder even how the hell can anyone design a
winning vote deck without presence.
Huruem
> They have untap and intercept, bounce, obedience, damage prevention, and combat
> ends. What do you see as lacking in their defensive capability? Bloat? They
> still have 5th Trad, Entrenching, Minion Tap, Con Boon, Parity Shift, and so on
> if they need it (that is, if all their primary defenses fail).
Well, ventrue don't have any intercept, so to me, they have to
compensate it with bloat.
In that respect 5th tradition and Entenching are not really
interresting actually, too many requirement, and not that efficient
compared to VC. Parity shift is a bloody good bloat/damage card to
me, much more interresting. The pool gain is immediate, not a long
term action like entrenching and 5th trad and it also makes damages !
But above all there to bloat there is Consanguinous boon => mid cap/
swarm/weenies decks. By "fixing" VC, you would probably make low caps
decks more interresting than high caps ones. And FFS I don't want to
see more weenie presence, I've had anough ! lol
High caps decks are not interresting in general, they have far too
much weaknesses. like Pentex temptation of greater power, combat in
general,... And they have very few ways to handle a good midcap/low
cap deck, if not by bloating thanks both aspects of VC, large blood
gain + pool gain.
What is also interresting with VC is that it is also a key card in
Free state rant decks, which are pretty weak compared to camarilla
decks. VC is their only strength with the FSR vote in itself.
Huruem
Can't really find a way out for a compromise here...
preac...@gmx.at
> Have you wondered why Voter Captivation is an issue now, after so many
> years (since 1994)?
We do not know if it wasn't an issue for the Design Team before.
> And the fact VC is powerful does not mean it needs a card text change.
Return to Innocence was powerful.
Temptation of Greater Power was powerful.
Majesty was powerful.
They were judged powerful enough by the DT to warrant a change.
> > Sure. But as mentioned before, if your deck is doing what it is meant
> > to be doing (i.e. calling votes and passing votes), the additional
> > cost to play Voter Cap is insignificant (i.e. have one in your hand.
> > Yeah, sometimes you get blocked. And sometimes you get voted down. But
> > that is an issue with vote decks as a whole, and isn't actually a
> > problem for Voter Cap. If your deck is going, you can play Voter Cap.
>
> OK, we agree VC is not automatic.
If the PRE vote deck is running, VC is quite automatic. It's a no
brainer. If you play PRE voting you include VC, no matter what
capacity your vampires have because it is utterly playable if your
strategy pulls off. It is just icing on the cake, so to speak, not a
means to enable the deck per se.
Sure, VC can be countered.
- DI
- Delaying Tactics
I remember folks saying RTI is not broken, it can be countered by
- DI (similarity?)
- Archon Investigation
- Deflection/Redirection/Telepathic Misdirection/My Enemies Enemy
Do you get the comparison? :)
> > Nosferatu Royalty--there are multiples of these in the TWDA (mind you,
> > my version that is in the TWDA has Presence in it :-). Sabbat
> > Cardinal. Non presence backed All IC decks. They exist. And are
> > playable. And don't have Voter Cap. And I don't think there is any
> > discussion here of eliminating Voter Cap, just reducing its effect.
>
> Nosferatu Royalty are viable because of Parity Shift. A political
> action only princes and justicars can call, which gives them pool at
> the same time they deal pool damage to its target.
I strongly disagree. I have a quite effective Nos voting deck, relying
on princes and praxis seizures for vote dominance. However, no single
Parity Shift or KRC or ConAg is used. Instead it amasses pool by
breeding and ConBoon. It ousts with 1st Traditions(!).
Believe me, decks not using Presence are viable. ConBoon, Ancient
Influence, Political Stranglehold, Reins of Power make them playable.
(And to a lesser extent Diversity, Anarch Salon, Elder Influence,
Autarkis Persection, Finding the Path, etc.)
I just had to jump in here. People are waaaaay too much relying on
Voter Captivation. I think that's bad for the game.
> > And if it is hard to pull off Voter Cap for a reasonable amount as you
> > seem to think it is, isn't making it just give you 2 blood or 2 pool
> > on any successful vote (like the best candidate for the change) an
> > *improvement*?
>
> How do you think, say, a Free States Rant deck with high capacity
> vampires can survive without Voter Captivation?
Just like any other deck with high capacity vampires. Voting gives
them additional options (see above). Anarch Salon is actually quite
useable.
If you need pool, generate it with master cards and/or blood
generating actions (many have already been mentioned).
VC is a no brainer and it is just a tad too powerful, which warrants a
nerfing down of the card in one of the ways LSJ has already
suggested.
I particulary like the 2 blood / 2 pool version. Plain and simple.
Elegant. You just have to like it. :)
Carl
Peter D Bakija
> Have you wondered why Voter Captivation is an issue now, after so many
> years (since 1994)?
The answer is obvious and has been explained already--that Voter Cap
greatly hinders the design of other political cards. This probably
indicates that it is a problem card.
> And the fact VC is powerful does not mean it needs a card text change.
Not necessarily. But sometimes cards are too powerful and need
changing.
> OK, we agree VC is not automatic.
I never said it was. But it's cost is insignificant if your deck is
doing what it is going to be doing anywah.
> Nosferatu Royalty are viable because of Parity Shift. A political
> action only princes and justicars can call, which gives them pool at
> the same time they deal pool damage to its target.
Umm, you asked for examples of non Presence based, large vampire vote
decks that don't rely on Voter Cap. I provided an example. Why are you
now trying to explain how it is somehow not a valid example?
> How do you think, say, a Free States Rant deck with high capacity
> vampires can survive without Voter Captivation?
By Minion Tapping and refilling its vampires in a way other than with
Voter Cap? With bleed bounce ot votes that give it pool? Is this some
sort of trick question?
-Peter
Olivier_PEREZ
> On Feb 6, 7:50 am, olivier.eni...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > Stop Changing card!!!
>
> When was the last time a card got changed?
Just go one the right page and you will see how much card's are
changing it's hell for new players.
>
> > Voter capt is a good card but it's not so powerful.
> > To play you need:
> > 1 - to do an action that won't be blocked.This action is undirected
> > and can be easely blocked by your prey or your predator.
>
> This is a cost of voting. Not Voter Cap.
>
> > 2 - to have the vote lock alone... or to be able to convince the
> > people how has vote.
>
> Or, ya know, a handfull of Awe.
How is a cheat card... no use... look how much hw you will find in
vote deck that make 1st at tournement.
You use a really bad argument my freind.
Just have a look at blood doll... it's use in 60% of deck. Its got
million of use, and million of way to cicle it.
Have a look at aqnother card like lost in the crowd. U can use it to
do a milion action it will be easely cicle... You can even ask somone
to try to blok a stupide action to help you to cicle it....
Voter capt need a vote that is passing.... It's nearly impossible to
cicle it.
I think this card is perfectly balance.... that's why it has never
bring problem to the last 10 years of the game.
If you wan't vote that cannot be used with voter captivation just make
it playable by vampire with no access to presence....
If Ventrue Antitribe had acesse to special vote card, we will see new
game emerge... If you change voter captivation you will see a lot of
game die...
I'm sorry to tell you. I'm for new deck. Not sanctonning the
interesting one.
Huruem
wrote:
> "Huruem" <Huruem_cate...@hotmail.com> writes:
> > And now, in which kind of decks are we playing voter cap?
> > Obviously in deck using vampires with presence, which are mainly?
> > Toreador, ventrue. Sethites also, to a certain extent.But mostly
> > toreador and ventrue. 2 powerful clans, but 2 clans which lacks of
> > stealth in general, so they're actions are in general, not working all
> > the time.
>
> You have totally forgotten everyone's favourite vamp: Arika.
> And her Ventrue-with-obfuscate friends. One of the strongest deck types in
> the whole game.
>
> > VC is only giving them a better defense, which is something
> > that they don't really have for the Ventrue, and it's even worse for
> > the setites.
>
> I agree for the Setite part, but - Ventrue don't have defense??
> You're definitely smoking something much worse than crack.
well when I'm thinking about defense I take 3 things into account :
intercept/strong offensive combat/bloat. Ventrue have bloat, which
should we suppress that?
>
> > My biggest fear is that by changing voter capt, you would weaken decks too
> > much.
>
> Any rules change that weakens Arika has my full support. ;-)
Weakening is not a solution for me, impoving other strategies is one.
LSJ
>> They have untap and intercept, bounce, obedience, damage prevention, and combat
>> ends. What do you see as lacking in their defensive capability? Bloat? They
>> still have 5th Trad, Entrenching, Minion Tap, Con Boon, Parity Shift, and so on
>> if they need it (that is, if all their primary defenses fail).
>
> Well, ventrue don't have any intercept, so to me, they have to
> compensate it with bloat.
Second Tradition is a lot of intercept. But even letting that go, bounce
vote-back, prevent, and obedience cover the bases nicely.
> In that respect 5th tradition and Entenching are not really
> interresting actually, too many requirement, and not that efficient
> compared to VC.
VC efficiency is what makes it seen as too powerful, so yes, I would hope other
effects of a similar nature as less efficient.
Malone
contrary it is simple and straightforward. I don't think it even
suffers from the appearance of having to work around a single other
card (although, apparently, that was the situation) because it also
prevents blood gain from Guru or Perfectionist, for example. If a
card's design wants a blood cost that can't easily be offset, what's
wrong with adding a few words that say so? That a vampire can still
get back the cost by alternating ECU one turn, KRC with Voter Cap next
turn is not a bad thing. If you can call and pass a referrendum by 8
votes every turn, and have VC on hand when you need it, you deserve to
be full of blood!
(2) Comparison to action cards or master cards that say "gain X" or
"fill to capacity" is not germaine, as VC is an action modifier that
requires things to have happened other than (but including) not being
blocked.
Taste, on the other hand seems an apt analogy. Yes, combat is
much riskier than a referrendum, but blood gain is more immediately
helpful to a fighter than to a voter. And Taste can 'pay' for combat
cards that cost blood almost as well as VC 'pays' for votey cards that
cost blood. (Sure, Taste is less likely to generate windfall profits
because inflicting 10 damage doesn't generally return 10 blood. But
excepting Awe, which I believe is the actual problem, it's easier to
inflict 10 damage than to pass a referrendum by 10 votes.) The
biggest difference seems to be that Taste is disciplineless. If the
restriction of VC to Presence is a problem, neutering VC is not really
a solution.
(3) Voter Cap + Minion Tap: This has been with the game since day 1,
and I like it.
(4) Voter Cap + Awe: This is obviously broken, and easy to fix. Add
a "no further action modifiers" clause to Awe.
The longer a card has been around, and the more common it is in
the hands of beginners and casual players, the worse the trouble
caused by functional changes to its wording.
(5) The awkwardness and delay of wrangling over how much a vote will
pass by when it's clear enough that it will pass is the only strong
argument for changing VC, and not a sufficient one in my opinion.
Huruem
Second tradition is only for the camarillas, what about the other
sects ?!!
v.ri...@gmail.com
VC doesn't require any change. It's not stronger today than it was few
years ago. I haven't heard of any dominance of vote decks (based on
presence or not). All the contrary, vote decks are imho becoming
weaker with the new anti-vote cards. Limit VC to a simple blood gain,
and I bet you won't see it in any deck.
VC doesn't "negate" pool cost of political cards. If your deck uses VC
to gain pool, then the penalty of the pool cost will hinder you
anyway.
Peter D Bakija
> Let's face it. VC allows you to bloat, it is what it was designed for.
So was 5th Tradition.
> Now, is VC "broken" ? The only thing I'm sure of is that it has a
> potentially a "stronger" effect than Art Scam or Entrenching, as long
> as you manage to get your vote pass by more than 2. But it's also
> harder to play.
The only thing that is being claimed here is that A) Voter Cap is
possibly too powerful and B) Voter Cap makes it difficult to design
other vote cards.
> As is VC.
It is only limited in it effect by the number of Awes you own. Yeah,
sometimes Voter Cap will only get you 1 blood. Other times it will get
you 11 blood and 2 pool. The upper limit of the effect of Voter Cap is
infinite (bounded only by the size of your vampire).
> -Highly conditional (only work in a small number of situations)
> Far less conditional than VC. They are self-sufficient, and doesn't
> require more than 1 of the following: a discipline, a title, or a
> simple condition (4 blood for Entrenching).
>
> -Limited in use (only once per game)
> Only Giant's Blood is.
Yes. And it it the only one that can completely refil a vampire,
regardless of the size of the vampire. It seems likely that there is a
reason for that.
> -Take an action (that action does nothing but give you blood)
> Right, that's why they're usually not played. Does it mean VC should
> become as useless?
No one is saying it should become useless. Just less useful.
> *ironic* Right, VC is totally broken. I wonder why it's not in all
> winning decks, though. I wonder even how the hell can anyone design a
> winning vote deck without presence.
And yet there are multiple people in this thread claiming that without
Voter Cap, vote decks will be dead. Is the issue here that Voter Cap
isn't a big deal (so it shouldn't be changed) or that Voter Cap is the
only thing that keeps the otherwise totally feeble vote strategy alive
(so it shouldn't be changed)?
No one is claiming that Voter Cap is totally broken. Just that A)
Voter Cap is possibly too powerful and B) Voter Cap makes it difficult
to design other vote cards. As fixing it would address both of these,
it is probably a good idea.
-Peter
Peter D Bakija
> Just go one the right page and you will see how much card's are
> changing it's hell for new players.
Uh, I don't understand this scentence. Please. Provide examples of the
last cards that were changed. Umm, a couple cards got banned from
competetive play recently (Succubus Club and Dramatic Upheaval, which
was a totally good move for competetive play). Ooh! I know--Anarch
Revolt! I think that was the last card that got changed. 3 years ago?
And that was also completely better for the game.
> How is a cheat card... no use... look how much hw you will find in
> vote deck that make 1st at tournement.
Uhh, again, I don't understand you. I'm not, like, trying to make fun
of your English. But you need to make some more sense here. Awe is a
very strong card. Especially when combined with Voter Cap.
> You use a really bad argument my freind.
> Just have a look at blood doll... it's use in 60% of deck. Its got
> million of use, and million of way to cicle it.
The argument here is that A) Voter Cap is arguably too powerful and B)
it makes designing other political cards difficult. Changing it would
likely fix both of these. Is it necessarily too powerful? No. But it
might be. And it certainly does hinder the designing of other
political cards.
> I think this card is perfectly balance.... that's why it has never
> bring problem to the last 10 years of the game.
Ok. But the lead game designer might very well disagree with you.
-Peter
paladin_brand
> But if:
> 1) Voter Cap is overly powerful
> and
> 2) The existence of overly-powerful VC unnecessarily limits design
>
> then the obvious course of action is to fix VC.
Having digested this whole thread, I must say, I haven't seen anything
said that (IMO) counters or contradicts either the assertions or the
conclusion of this simple syllogism. I'm a n00b, but the above logic
makes good sense to this n00b.
Thus demonstrating that I do have at least two pennies to rub
together, if nothing else.
-Jason
LSJ
Ventrue is a Camarilla clan.
atomweaver
news:xe2yh.16168$zH1....@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net:
Meh. I wanted you to stop changing card function back on Tomb of
Rameses III, so you know where I stand on this ;-). There's a big
enough burden of entry on this game in terms of card text, without
having continued functional changes to cards. If you decide VC is
_that_ bad, just ban it, don't skunk it with a reduction in power. Re-
writes are already at the level of "Damned Nuisance", as far as
attracting new players to the game goes. Please, don't make it worse.
Also IMO, VC isn't bad enough to warrant a re-write or down-grade. VC
scales in magnitude of effect with the capacity of the minion that uses
it. High cap = high risk => high reward, and thats the way it should
be. VC does me little good in my Ventrue Law firm if'n I sit next to a
wall deck or rush combat, and if people make sensible use of their
Delaying Tactics (apply post-Awe, people), the bloat angle has a
reasonable range of in-game controls possible. Nerfing VC will add fuel
to the motivation towards weenie vote tactics, and away from larger cap
concepts (IMO, not the preferred direction of change).
DaveZ
Atom Weaver
Damnans
> On Feb 6, 10:09 am, "Damnans" <damnansv...@ono.com> wrote:
>
> > Have you wondered why Voter Captivation is an issue now, after so many
> > years (since 1994)?
>
> The answer is obvious and has been explained already--that Voter Cap
> greatly hinders the design of other political cards. This probably
> indicates that it is a problem card.
As I already mentioned, it may not Voter Captivation, but the Design
Team's lack of imagination what hinders the design of other political
actions.
[...]
> > Nosferatu Royalty are viable because of Parity Shift. A political
> > action only princes and justicars can call, which gives them pool at
> > the same time they deal pool damage to its target.
>
> Umm, you asked for examples of non Presence based, large vampire vote
> decks that don't rely on Voter Cap. I provided an example. Why are you
> now trying to explain how it is somehow not a valid example?
Because you gave an example most clans without presence cannot use.
> > How do you think, say, a Free States Rant deck with high capacity
> > vampires can survive without Voter Captivation?
>
> By Minion Tapping and refilling its vampires in a way other than with
> Voter Cap?
And still be effective? LOL
> With bleed bounce or votes that give it pool?
Neither Setites nor Baali nor Ravnos nor Assamites (for instance) have
either bleed bounce cards (provided by in-clan disciplines) or
political actions that give them pool (other than Consanguineous
Boon).
Damnans
> On Feb 6, 11:32 am, v.rip...@gmail.com wrote:
> The only thing that is being claimed here is that A) Voter Cap is
> possibly too powerful and B) Voter Cap makes it difficult to design
> other vote cards.
You forgot C) Lack of imagination ;-)
> > As is VC.
>
> It is only limited in it effect by the number of Awes you own.
The number of copies of a given card a player owns is irrelevant when
discussing about game balance.
> > -Highly conditional (only work in a small number of situations)
> > Far less conditional than VC. They are self-sufficient, and doesn't
> > require more than 1 of the following: a discipline, a title, or a
> > simple condition (4 blood for Entrenching).
>
> > -Limited in use (only once per game)
> > Only Giant's Blood is.
>
> Yes. And it it the only one that can completely refil a vampire,
> regardless of the size of the vampire. It seems likely that there is a
> reason for that.
No, VC does not refill a vampire per se. Renewed Vigor does.
[...]
> No one is claiming that Voter Cap is totally broken. Just that A)
> Voter Cap is possibly too powerful and B) Voter Cap makes it difficult
> to design other vote cards. As fixing it would address both of these,
> it is probably a good idea.
And you forgot C) again: Lack of imagination >:-)
LSJ
> On Feb 6, 5:40 pm, "Peter D Bakija" <p...@lightlink.com> wrote:
>> On Feb 6, 10:09 am, "Damnans" <damnansv...@ono.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Have you wondered why Voter Captivation is an issue now, after so many
>>> years (since 1994)?
>> The answer is obvious and has been explained already--that Voter Cap
>> greatly hinders the design of other political cards. This probably
>> indicates that it is a problem card.
>
> As I already mentioned, it may not Voter Captivation, but the Design
> Team's lack of imagination what hinders the design of other political
> actions.
Note that the ability to get around an obstacle is not the same as there being
no obstacle.
All of the designs you imagine the Design Team overlooking are no less possible
with the obstacle removed than with it in place, and there's no indication that
they are being overlooked; quite the contrary.
Whether the Design Team imagines them is not in question, nor is that quesrtion
useful toward reaching a conclusion about the question of VC being problematic.
Damnans
> Damnans wrote:
> > On Feb 6, 5:40 pm, "Peter D Bakija" <p...@lightlink.com> wrote:
> >> On Feb 6, 10:09 am, "Damnans" <damnansv...@ono.com> wrote:
>
> >>> Have you wondered why Voter Captivation is an issue now, after so many
> >>> years (since 1994)?
> >> The answer is obvious and has been explained already--that Voter Cap
> >> greatly hinders the design of other political cards. This probably
> >> indicates that it is a problem card.
>
> > Team's lack of imagination what hinders the design of other political
> > actions.
>
> Note that the ability to get around an obstacle is not the same as there being
> no obstacle.
Well, I made clear that I see no obstacle ;-)
Peter D Bakija
> Because you gave an example most clans without presence cannot use.
You asked for a type of vote deck that didn't use Voter Cap and had
big vampires. That was a successful archetype. I gave you one. Should
I come up with more?
> And still be effective? LOL
Yep.
> Neither Setites nor Baali nor Ravnos nor Assamites (for instance) have
> either bleed bounce cards (provided by in-clan disciplines) or
> political actions that give them pool (other than Consanguineous
> Boon).
And Political Stranglehold and Ancient Influence and various other
pool gaining votes. The Settites and Baali have Stealth built in
(which is a plus over non stealth related Pre clans). The Ravnos and
Assamites don't have Pre, so aren't really an issue here (i.e. they
aren't in any way hindered by nerfing Voter Cap).
And no one is indicating that Voter Cap shouldn't exist. Just that it
should be downpowered some.
-Peter
>
> --
> Damnans
>
> http://www.almadrava.net/damnanshttp://www.vtes.nethttp://es.groups.yahoo.com/group/vteshispania/
LSJ
> On Feb 6, 7:34 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
>> Damnans wrote:
>>> On Feb 6, 5:40 pm, "Peter D Bakija" <p...@lightlink.com> wrote:
>>>> On Feb 6, 10:09 am, "Damnans" <damnansv...@ono.com> wrote:
>>>>> Have you wondered why Voter Captivation is an issue now, after so many
>>>>> years (since 1994)?
>>>> The answer is obvious and has been explained already--that Voter Cap
>>>> greatly hinders the design of other political cards. This probably
>>>> indicates that it is a problem card.
>>> As I already mentioned, it may not be Voter Captivation, but the Design
>>> Team's lack of imagination what hinders the design of other political
>>> actions.
>> Note that the ability to get around an obstacle is not the same as there being
>> no obstacle.
>
> Well, I made clear that I see no obstacle ;-)
Perhaps it's a lack of imagination, then. >:->
Damnans
> On Feb 6, 1:25 pm, "Damnans" <damnansv...@ono.com> wrote:
>
> > Neither Setites nor Baali nor Ravnos nor Assamites (for instance) have
> > either bleed bounce cards (provided by in-clan disciplines) or
> > political actions that give them pool (other than Consanguineous
> > Boon).
>
> And Political Stranglehold and Ancient Influence and various other
> pool gaining votes.
Specific exceptions, and therefore, non-valid excuses.
> The Settites and Baali have Stealth built in
> (which is a plus over non stealth related Pre clans).
So do Assamites and Ravnos. But stealth does not automatically give
them bounce cards or pool gaining political actions.
> The Ravnos and
> Assamites don't have Pre, so aren't really an issue here (i.e. they
> aren't in any way hindered by nerfing Voter Cap).
Yes they are. You are overlooking that there are a few Assamites and
some Ravnos who have Presence and can therefore benefit from Voter
Captivation in Free States Rant decks (as they do).
> And no one is indicating that Voter Cap shouldn't exist. Just that it
> should be downpowered some.
I suggest that you play Presence Free States Rant decks without Voter
Captivation as it currently is; or in the case you cannot, that you
try to exercise your imagination ;)
gpett...@gmail.com
> Costs/requirements and effects are the only options that should be
> taken into account when designing new political actions (along with
> game balance, of course).
>
> I am sure you can come up with enough innovative or not so innovative
> requirements for new political actions.
>
Jumping through hoops is not the same as being creative. See also Card
Limits.
--
- Gregory Stuart Pettigrew
dome
> But if:
> 1) Voter Cap is overly powerful
> and
> 2) The existence of overly-powerful VC unnecessarily limits design
>
> then the obvious course of action is to fix VC.
Voter cap is overly powerful when abused. Every good card in this game
can and will be abused in the tournament environment. I consider tupdog
decks with 13 torns and 13 IG's more broken than voter. And they don't
need nearly the setup the politicians need, nor do they suffer the same
amount of vulnerability to combat, intercept and so on.
It's really hard to stay focused in a discussion the size of this one,
but lets try.
We should firstly study the 2 most common archetypes that use voter.
1) weenie pre
2) big cap pre
Whatever you do to voter cap, weenie pre will still overly benefit from
it. even if it goes to the gain blood/gain pool text.
big cap pre we have only 2 real politicians : ventrue and toreador.
the so much times mentioned problem with real big cap politics is the 4+
steps needed to get the blood gain from voter
1) have a political action in your hand
2) get to the referendum
3) have vote dominance
4) voter cap
now, by these 4 steps, we should analyse how important voter cap is for
the big cap politics.
firstly, how to get to the referendum
Toreador: Alacrity (very expensive), Creepshow Casino, Crocodile's
tongue, toreador grand ball.
Ventrue : Seduction (100% works), Creepshow Casino, Kiss of Ra (the
action fails, but most of the time you will be getting rid of a nasty
blocker if used properly)
secondly, vote dominance
Toreador: BO, Awe, Under the skin, Scalpel tongue, Scorn, Closed session
Ventrue: BO, Awe, Closed session, Ventrue Headquarters
After these 2 things, they seem balanced. Toreador has more options to
gain vote dominance, Ventrue gets to the referendum more efectively and
more easily (taking in account they can untap via freak drive + change
of target and majesty while toreador dont have fortitude for all you
guys who will tell me i forgot about the miracolous number of untaps
both can do)
But, as there always is a but, the real difference is in the
vampires/disciplines.
Firstly let's check out ventrue. FOR DOM PRE. A bit sterile, but killer
for a politician. Nothing, and I mean nothing can touch them. FOR for
those guys who will IG them, PRE for assamites and other wannabe-combat
clans. The occasional tremere with thoughts betrayed will suck them dry,
but they won't be burning them because the 2R agg is preventable. And
when they don't have an anti-combat hand, they will just plainly
obedience you. And, on top of all that, they have awesome group 1 mid
cap princes. I mean, arika, and 7-7-8 for 10 votes without modifiers? Or
on the other hand you have a slightly bigger crypt with OBF to ensure
you you will get to those referendums. And they can Govern the Unaligned
for a faster start, or sick bleeds, whichever comes first. And on top of
that they can voter captivate, and they can restorate. Ok, in case of
ventrue, voter cap IS broken.
Toreador on the other hand, has got celerity and auspex.
Their only combat defense is maneuvers and S:CE. And those two things
don't come near to Obedience or fortitude. If you thought betray him,
he's a sitting duck. Toreador, to have enough votes, has to go get
Alexandra/Anneke. That's 21 pool worth of vampires. Play a master card
here/there and he's on 5 pool. Minion tap, and you have an empty
Alexandra or Anneke. I can explicitly confirm that in this point of the
game, if their political action is blocked, or yawp courted, or they
don't pull the card that helps them to actually SURVIVE, voter cap,
they're dead meat in 80% of the cases. I mean, who can pack enough
masters, political actions, political modifiers, second traditions,
telepathic misdirections, combat ends, AND on top of that celerity, in a
90 card deck, for it to work? No one.
So, the sum of the things is - The toreador is much more vulnerable to
combat, has larger vampires, and voter isn't broken to them. The
toreador politicians need it to survive.
Oh, and heres a few cards everyone is forgetting to mention in this
thread that cancel voter cap:
Denial of Aphrodite's Favor
Type: Combat/Reaction
Requires: Dominate & Fortitude
[dom][for] Cancel an action card a younger vampire plays that requires
Presence [pre] as it is played. No cost is paid. Do not tap the acting
vampire; that vampire cannot attempt the same action again this turn.
[DOM][FOR] Cancel an action modifier or combat card a younger vampire
plays that requires Presence [pre] as it is played. No cost is paid.
Rarity: BL:R1
Iron Heart
Type: Reaction
Requires: Potence & Presence
Cost: 1 blood
[pot][pre] Cancel an action modifier that requires Presence [pre] as it
is played. That card has no effect. No cost is paid.
[POT][PRE] As [pot][pre] above, but cancel an action modifier that
requires Dominate [dom].
Rarity: BL:R1
If you nerf voter cap, in a way you are suggesting in the earlier posts,
you will be directly killing toreador politics.
And encouraging the weenie stuff. Which, I personally, hate.
lovre
> Awe is a very strong card. Especially when combined with Voter Cap.
> -Peter
>
all this topic peter u have been telling: awe, awe, awe...
is this a change VC or a change awe topic?
Peter D Bakija
> all this topic peter u have been telling: awe, awe, awe...
> is this a change VC or a change awe topic?
Awe is an example of a card that *should* be perfectly reasonable (it
has a significant cost for a significant effect). But because of Voter
Cap, the cost of Awe is likewise insignificant (pay X blood for 2X+1
votes, and then play Voter Cap to get back 2X+1 blood...)--if Voter
Cap was tweaked, Awe would become a totally reasonable card. That is
why I am bringing up Awe. 'Cause it is a perfect example of the
collateral damage that Voter Cap causes.
-Peter