How do you value archbishops and prisci?

Archbishops are better than Prisci because they can make Inquisitors. It all makes sense now

Amenophobis wrote: This is just food for thought, but I thought I'd put the question here.

If you had the choice (and for the sake of the argument we focus only on the title, not capacity/disciplines), would you rather control an archbishop or a priscus?
And if you could control 2 of each, would you lean more to ab's, or prisci? And what if the number you control is further increasing?

I think answers this question is meaningless without more context.

It's often useful to have incidental votes in a non-vote deck. It ensures you aren't the easy sink for stray damage for a KRC, gives you a negotiating position in poltical action debates and so forth. In decks like that, I'd prefer prisci to archbishops (all other considerations being equal). The benefits of the prisci title are at least as good or better than the archbishop, and the downsides irrelevant.

The difference in the cards that prisci and archbishops enable is pretty uninteresting (with the exception of Papillion), so there's nothing much to choose there.

In a dedicated vote deck, however, there is a benefit to controlling multiple distinct titles, and then archbishops are an advantage, but even there, I would favour 1 prisci and 1 archbishop over 2 archbishops.

This is before looking at capacities and disciplines, which is a frankly unrealistic restriction to place on the comparison. The prisci are often cheaper than archbishops (14 prisci with capacities 8 or less (which includes Gratiano), while there are only 9 archbishops), and often have better discipline spreads than comparable archbishops (compare Korah and Marie Faucigny, for example), which is a further point in favour of prisci.

Ankha wrote: The worst case scenario is when your cross-table buddy and you each control Prisci against a third player who controls an Inner Circle.
The prisci block will be worth 3 votes, no matter how many prisci are in play and will lose again the IC, whereas archbishops would have made a difference.

In worse case scenario, you contest title with your cross table buddies too. And archbishop are shared with camarilla vampires and throught group, while justicar are arguably more popular now than any single priscuses.

Can you really say with all seriousness when including a priscus "oh, no, if a crosstable buddy play a priscus too I will have less vote than an archbishop. Let's completely play an archbishop of the same size instead, it will make me much more likely to pass vote !" ?

The worse thing is, unlike unique title, the popularity of priscuses (?) don't affect their value, because if a lot of priscus are played, you are as likely to see them against you than with you. So it make even less sense than avoiding Lucian in your deck because Unmada and Marie Streck are very popular.

Lech wrote:

KevinM wrote: Well, Una is spectacular!


Having a Priscus usually gives a player three votes. Having Gratiano with a Cardinal Benediction is fantastic, as he becomes Godtiano.

Having an Archbishop gives a player 2 votes and Eternal Vigilance. Nearly no one uses Creation Rites, Private Audience, or Templar, and the other Archbishop cards are garbage.

Papillon isn't garbage, sigh.

Papillon isn't an Archbishop card.

The discussion is about Priscus and Archbishops, not titled vampires.