Card Idea: Ambush Defence

Ohlmann wrote: Well, as other have said the deck can't play the superior version at all. So, the card will only be a +1 intercept for 1 blood for a lot of very nasty action. It will be efficient against, say, a kyaside S&B, but you will still be mind raped / spirit marionneted, and just avout anything that work against redirection.

spirit marionette & mind rape .... shit happens, those cards exist !
i never saw a mind rape deck in finals in Paris, oh, sorry once but the player play it for bleed because it's better to kill your prey. bleeds are the only real action against you. OMG entincement (bleed before?).
Like said Louhi : you are bypassing one of the fundamental mechanics in the game, stealth and intercept That's true. i deseagree with a lot of cards givin intercept in all discipline or stealth in pot (why not) but it's even better than that.

Perhaps the double-superior could benefit the combat instead of expanding the actions for which the cars was usable.

[CEL][PRO] As above, and this vampire gains an optional press and an optional maneuver in the initial combat.

Then it would be an anti-bleed non-bounce card that punishes decks who disregard combat defense.

Perhaps the double-superior could benefit the combat instead of expanding the actions for which the card was usable.

[CEL][PRO] As above, and this vampire gains an optional press and an optional maneuver in the initial combat.

Then it would be an anti-bleed non-bounce card that punishes decks who disregard combat defense.

"Feral Impulse"

1
+1 intercept against a action.
as above with an optional maneuver or press.
On;y usable during a bleed action. This vampire enters combat with the acting minion and is considered the acting vampire during combat. If the opposing minion is ready at the end of the combat the action continues as if unblocked and the reacting vampire may not play reaction cards.

I made the inferior version protean because it seemed to make more sense. I felt that entering combat as a reaction was such a huge benefit that the reacting vampire should play their cards first. Call it a tax on "bending the rules.

You might consider including "This card may be canceled by the acting vampire by burning a blood."

direwolf wrote: You might consider including "This card may be canceled by the acting vampire by burning a blood."

You do understand that a card that allow either to burn a blood or to survive a combat to be completely canceled is so weak it would be somewhere between eye of the dead and twisting the knife ?

Compare to crocodile Tongue for a quick example. Who does not cost blood, and cancel directly the block if it's not paid.

Ohlmann wrote:

direwolf wrote: You might consider including "This card may be canceled by the acting vampire by burning a blood."

You do understand that a card that allow either to burn a blood or to survive a combat to be completely canceled is so weak it would be somewhere between eye of the dead and twisting the knife ?

Compare to crocodile Tongue for a quick example. Who does not cost blood, and cancel directly the block if it's not paid.

I would agree if it were an ACTION to enter combat, but it is not. You want a vampire without intercept to enter combat as a reaction? You bet your ass there has to be restrictions. What I offered as a suggestion was an after-thought, and you treat it like it was in print.

You could offer something along the lines of "Costing a blood to cancel the card is comparable to Crocodile's Tongue which doesn't cost a blood, so maybe this card shouldn't cost a blood as well."

That is the difference from constructive criticism and otherwise.