Short Chain Combat
David Cherryholmes
1) You must confine your combat to being just good enough, not uber.
2) "Good enough" can be defined as doing 3 normal damage or 1 Aggravated
damage with two cards, and foiling at least 1 of the following:
a) Dodge
b) S:CE
c) Hitback
d) Damage prevention
3) More elements (ie moving parts) can and should be included, but any
two should satisfy 1 and 2 above.
If SCC is satisfied, the combat portion of your deck should be
achievable in 30 - 40 cards, yielding about 15 combats or a total table
loss of 45 blood, discounting the rescue costs that may or may not
exist. This leaves about 10 more slots for cards that are good but need
not be played every combat: weapons, concealed/disguised weapon, taste,
provisions, draught of the soul, etc. Alternatively, you may use those
10 slots for light reaction/wake/intercept. Add approximately 20 action
cards and 20 or fewer master cards and you have what should be a
functional combat deck. Also note that the reduced card flow raises the
"gag threshold" of master cards that a combat deck can acceptably play.
Tobias
> 1) You must confine your combat to being just good enough, not uber.
Sounds like advice for a low-combat scene, to me. Nothing wrong with
that, of course.
> 2) "Good enough" can be defined as doing 3 normal damage or 1 Aggravated
> damage with two cards, and foiling at least 1 of the following:
> a) Dodge
> b) S:CE
> c) Hitback
> d) Damage prevention
You may wish to consider the maneuver aspect here as well - or do you
deliberately leave it out?
--
Tobias
Deventer
Colin McGuigan
> Sounds like advice for a low-combat scene, to me. Nothing wrong with
> that, of course.
I'd wager the idea is, if your combat is uber, you've dedicated so many
cards to it that you lack ousting power or defense or (likely) both.
--Colin McGuigan
pallando
news:TKGcnQf6rO_...@speakeasy.net...
Isn't combat some kind of defense? On the one hand it is defense against
other combat decks, on the other hand it makes it easier for you to dispose
of threats and therefore scares people.
To put it in another way: in a very fcoussed combat deck you want to have a
lot of combat cards, maybe 50 or more. That way you can be pretty sure you
won't draw into all non-combat cards if you do several combats in the same
turn.
regards
pallando(at)gmx(dot)at
Colin McGuigan
> Isn't combat some kind of defense? On the one hand it is defense against
> other combat decks, on the other hand it makes it easier for you to dispose
> of threats and therefore scares people.
Scaring people is bad. Scaring people makes them more eager to oust you.
But combat isn't really a defense at all. It doesn't stop you from
being bled or from being harmed by votes. You can use it offensively to
rush your predator, but then you're not ousting your prey, and you're
helping your grandpredator.
> To put it in another way: in a very fcoussed combat deck you want to have a
> lot of combat cards, maybe 50 or more. That way you can be pretty sure you
> won't draw into all non-combat cards if you do several combats in the same
> turn.
The problem with combat is that its a means to an end, not an end in and
of itself (Fame and Tension in the Ranks excepted). Bleeding and voting
are both ends in and of themselves, since they directly help my goal of
ousting. Combat doesn't; it helps if I knock someone into torpor or
burn 'em, but even if I do, I'm no closer to my goal of ousting.
--Colin McGuigan
Daneel
Maybe it is an attempt to make your combat module more reliable and
solid. It goes a long way making the deck more fluent and persistant
by eliminating some of the moving parts. Unfortunately it also makes
it more predictable to adversaries.
I think that while constant performance is important, combat should
also have "falshes". To make the deck unpredictable and/or to allow
moments of peak performance to be able to take down a key minion. In a
Torn/Immortal deck I would probably be more comfortable including some
Sewer Lids to make it unpredictable, and some Disarm/Decapitate to
nuke a vamp if the necessity is absolutely pressing.
Bye,
Daneel
Tobias
Oh, I get the idea of short-chain combat (SCC). However, trying to run
a combat deck just SC alone will get some choice minions killed
whenever you run up against more trumpy combat decks. Thus: in a
combat-light environment, you should get just the reliable combat
performance you need. In a combat-heavy environment, however,
short-chain will just get you dead.
(However, even then there's something to be said. Say you got 5
weenies, running SCC. He's got 2 very choice big minions running
trumpy combat. He wastes 2 of your minions - but in return you damage
him back. He can't come after your remaining 3 guys without his big
guys taking a dive - and there's still the rest of the table for you
both to think about - what to do?).
Still, any combat deck shouldn't hesitate to find that card space for
ousting power - Fame and Tension being the obvious means. Otherwise
it's an exercise in minion removal without chance to win (of course,
tons of bleeds for 1 might be an option - sometimes).
--
Tobias
Deventer
Whose favorite SC is prevent-disarm. Low on slots, and even if it
fails, your guys live to see another night. And the deterring value
alone's worth something.
David Cherryholmes
> Oh, I get the idea of short-chain combat (SCC). However, trying to run
> a combat deck just SC alone will get some choice minions killed
> whenever you run up against more trumpy combat decks.
Sure, and lots of decks flame out against a wall, too. The relevant
point is, if someone wants to throw a deck at "not dying" or "crush that
minion" they can, but it's debatable whether that's really playing to
win. My advice is geared towards producing a combat deck that can win
tables more reliably than combat decks traditionally do, mainly by: A)
having more space to do other stuff (multirush, hack, wake/block, etc)
and B) getting back the master card part of your game that's largely
given up to the necessities of card flow.
> Thus: in a
> combat-light environment, you should get just the reliable combat
> performance you need. In a combat-heavy environment, however,
> short-chain will just get you dead.
If your combat meets the criteria, you should be hitting for 3, minimum,
and foiling something (dodge or prevent would be relevant). What is
"heavy combat"? What's it doing?
> Still, any combat deck shouldn't hesitate to find that card space for
> ousting power - Fame and Tension being the obvious means. Otherwise
> it's an exercise in minion removal without chance to win (of course,
> tons of bleeds for 1 might be an option - sometimes).
SCC doesn't preclude this. In fact, the extra master space lets you
comfortably run, say, 4 Fames instead of 2, giving you *more* ousting power.
Thanks for the feedback!
__
David Cherryholmes
David Cherryholmes
> You may wish to consider the maneuver aspect here as well - or do you
> deliberately leave it out?
Thanks for pointing this out. No, your "rangeness" needs to be folded
in to your two cards. In fact, it was the understanding that long range
Assamite combat is a nutpunch that got me started down this path. A few
examples of ranged combat that I would say meet the criteria:
1) Flash + Lid
2) Crows + Bats
3) Zip Gun + Blur (slightly exceeds SCC)
__
David Cherryholmes
David Cherryholmes
> Maybe it is an attempt to make your combat module more reliable and
> solid. It goes a long way making the deck more fluent and persistant
> by eliminating some of the moving parts. Unfortunately it also makes
> it more predictable to adversaries.
False. Recall:
3) More elements (ie moving parts) can and should be included, but any
two should satisfy 1 and 2 above.
So, mix and match to your heart's content. 4 copies of a pile of
different CEL cards comes to mind.
__
David Cherryholmes
Peter D Bakija
> If your combat meets the criteria, you should be hitting for 3, minimum,
> and foiling something (dodge or prevent would be relevant). What is
> "heavy combat"?
The ability to torporize with impunity.
>What's it doing?
Torporizing with impunity.
Peter D Bakija
pd...@lightlink.com
http://www.lightlink.com/pdb6
"Mr. President, ask not what your rest home can do for you.
Ask what you can do for your rest home."
-Elvis
Ira
from? I never heard it before prior to this thread.
Thanks!
Ira
kushiel
> David Cherryholmes wrote:
>
> > If your combat meets the criteria, you should be hitting for 3, minimum,
> > and foiling something (dodge or prevent would be relevant). What is
> > "heavy combat"?
>
> The ability to torporize with impunity.
>
> >What's it doing?
>
> Torporizing with impunity.
I'm really not trying to be a smartass here, but can you give an example
of a combat decktype that does that? I've never seen combat that wasn't
trumpable, which is a big part of why playing combat decks are so hard,
besides not attacking their prey's pool directly, of course.
John Eno
Prince of Pittsburgh
Tobias
> Tobias wrote:
>
> > Oh, I get the idea of short-chain combat (SCC). However, trying to run
> > a combat deck just SC alone will get some choice minions killed
> > whenever you run up against more trumpy combat decks.
>
> Sure, and lots of decks flame out against a wall, too.
Oh, I wasn't trying to point out rock-papers-scissors scenario's here.
And we've already seen from other posts that SCC could be best server
by being a jumping board to occasional 'lungy' combat smackdown. SCC,
in my mind (I had seen the concept before on path of blood), is 'about
getting the job just about done', where ´the job´ is basically
controlling your opponent´s access to minions (or blood on his minions
to work with), allowing your ousting mechanism to function at maximum
effectiveness.
> The relevant
> point is, if someone wants to throw a deck at "not dying" or "crush that
> minion" they can, but it's debatable whether that's really playing to
> win. My advice is geared towards producing a combat deck that can win
> tables more reliably than combat decks traditionally do, mainly by: A)
> having more space to do other stuff (multirush, hack, wake/block, etc)
> and
Which is what I previously understood, and indicated by 'I get the
idea', however, ...
> B) getting back the master card part of your game that's largely
> given up to the necessities of card flow.
...this one's somewhat new to me (as a primary reason to aim for SCC),
although a logical result of freeing up slots.
> If your combat meets the criteria, you should be hitting for 3, minimum,
> and foiling something (dodge or prevent would be relevant). What is
> "heavy combat"? What's it doing?
Peter's gone into this. I think I agree with him.
> > Still, any combat deck shouldn't hesitate to find that card space for
> > ousting power - Fame and Tension being the obvious means. Otherwise
> > it's an exercise in minion removal without chance to win (of course,
> > tons of bleeds for 1 might be an option - sometimes).
>
> SCC doesn't preclude this. In fact, the extra master space lets you
> comfortably run, say, 4 Fames instead of 2, giving you *more* ousting power.
Agreed.
So, would you say the following deck lives up to your SCC
requirements?
Deck Name: Serial Killer (VNV)
Crypt: (12 cards, Min: 9, Max: 19, Avg: 3,50)
---------------------------------------------
1 Arnold Simpson pot 2, Brujah:3
1 Paul DiCarlo pot 2, Giovanni:2
1 Cristofero Giovanni nec pot 3, Giovanni:2
1 Mario Giovanni nec pot 3, Giovanni:2
1 Cameron dom pot 3, Lasombra:2
1 Chas Giovanni Tello DOM POT 4, Giovanni:2
1 Banjoko obt pot DOM 5, Lasombra:3
1 Wah Chun-Yuen cel dom pre POT 5, Brujah antitribu:3
1 Isabel Giovanni DOM NEC pot 5, Giovanni:2
1 Hugo POT pre vic 4, Brujah Antitribu:2
1 Agatha obf POT 4, Nosferatu Antitribu:2
1 Mitchell obt pot 2, Pander:2
Library: (90 cards)
-------------------
Master (13 cards)
1 Anarch Troublemaker
1 Barrens, The
2 Blood Doll
3 Fame
2 Haven Uncovered
1 Morgue Hunting Ground
3 Potence
Action (20 cards)
8 Bum's Rush
5 Computer Hacking
4 Govern the Unaligned
1 Graverobbing
2 Harass
Action Modifier (3 cards)
3 Conditioning
Reaction (8 cards)
5 Deflection
3 Wake with Evening's Freshness
Combat (45 cards)
4 Disarm
9 Immortal Grapple
4 Increased Strength
5 Taste of Vitae
6 Thrown Sewer Lid
7 Torn Signpost
10 Undead Strength
Ally (1 cards)
1 Leonardo, Mortician
UniqueMaster
news:6f98ce2a.04051...@posting.google.com...
Nothing is untrumpable (especially thanks to DI, etc.), but there are deck
types that narrow the range.
Dawn Op/Skin of Night/Weather Control (LessonsInTheSteel for insult)
THA/POT - TornSignpost/Thaumaturgy manuevers/IG/Blood Fury
Dog Pack/Trap/Crows/DotB/Prevent
multiple Thoughts Betrayed loadouts (two favorites: Blood Sweat, and
Trap/Dodge/multiple Zombies)
Tariq/Ghoul Retainer/RowanRing
Agg/Rotshreck
Hidden Lurker/Fast Reaction loadouts (Coma is good here)
Aid From Bats/Blur/Aid From Bats/Aid From Bats/ 3 Presses
GreatBeast TEM/THA - Lapse/Blood Fury/Taste
THAN/obf/pot - Trap/BehindYou!/IG/Withering
Ride the Snake - Ser/Mind Rape/Rush/Mummify
Telepathic Tracking/Spawning Pool
Mind of a Child/StealthRush
Cailean and 7 Raptors
OOT Watenda/DI
Dawn Op/Skin of Night/Alejandro Aguirre
numerous Dragos loadouts
--
Mike Ooi
"You have left the world. Click to continue."
David Cherryholmes
> So, would you say the following deck lives up to your SCC
> requirements?
> Crypt: (12 cards, Min: 9, Max: 19, Avg: 3,50)
> Combat (45 cards)
> 4 Disarm
> 9 Immortal Grapple
> 4 Increased Strength
> 5 Taste of Vitae
> 6 Thrown Sewer Lid
> 7 Torn Signpost
> 10 Undead Strength
I would say it does not. You will need three cards from your list to
satisfy SCC, whereas the goal is two. This is far from a bad deck,
though, since you have both the Weenie Advantage and the Dominate
Advantage working for you.
__
David Cherryholmes
David Zopf
"Ira" <ira...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:500e74e.04051...@posting.google.com...
Dave Cherryholmes coined the phrase to describe the strategy he espouses.
DaveZ
Atom Weaver
David Cherryholmes
> Dave Cherryholmes coined the phrase to describe the strategy he espouses.
Actually, I didn't. I mean, I laid out the theory, but Aramis coined
the phrase. And I believe it is derived, at least in part, from Ben
Peal's "Short Leash Bleed" strategy.
It also may or may not be necessary to point out that I'm not suggesting
this is a "one true way" approach, so much as a clarification and
quantification that may aid in deck construction.
__
David Cherryholmes
Colin McGuigan
> What does the phrase "Short Chain Combat" mean? Where does it come
> from? I never heard it before prior to this thread.
"Combat" is obvious. =P
"Chain" are the cards that are chained together to obtain the result.
Eg, Torn Signpost + Immortal Grapple is a short chain. Torn Signpost +
Drawing Out the Beast + Immortal Grapple + Blur + Skin of Steel is a
longer chain. The shorter chain is easier to trump and not as
effective, but it is much easier to pull of reliably.
"Short" means, of course, the preference of short chains to long ones.
--Colin McGuigan
Daneel
Any two. Meaning, like, what? With POT:
Immortal (avoids SCE and dodge)
Torn Signpost (does 3 damage)
Relentless Pursuit (defeats dodge)
Disarm (it isn't exactly 1 aggravated damage, but it may be considered
similar)
Now, Immortal + Relentless does not do 3 damage, Torn + Disarm does
not avoid defences. I'm sure I'm not sure how this is supposed to
work...
Bye,
Daneel
David Cherryholmes
> Now, Immortal + Relentless does not do 3 damage, Torn + Disarm does
> not avoid defences. I'm sure I'm not sure how this is supposed to
> work...
Torn + grapple seems to fit perfectly. WWS + Disarm might work. But it
may be that the philosophy doesn't adapt well to mono-pot combat.
__
David Cherryholmes
Izaak
"David Cherryholmes" <david.che...@duke.edu> schreef in bericht
news:2ghisqF...@uni-berlin.de...
There aren't too many 2 card-combo's that deal 3 damage and foil either
SCE, dodge or prevent. I don't think "hitback" is really something to
foil, as you have Taste around to deal with just that. Combat that just
trumps hitback, is combat defense.
Flash/Lid comes to mind as something that only "foils" hitback, but only
if your opponent doesn't pack ranged. It's also unreliable at best with
JUST those two cards. Yet, they're not considered that hot at all.
Thoughts Betrayed + some strike gets rid of SCE and dodge, but is
expensive and requires DOM + a combat skill that can hit for 3 in one
strike. Not easy to get, methinks.
Any maneuver + taste of death fits your demands, but isn't really
working. Same goes for any maneuver + bloodsweat. Now that I think of
it, Assamites have pretty strong two card combo's considering this
philosophy.
Signpost Grapple is 3 and actually foils dodge AND combat ends, so it's
pretty good in this philosophy. Most of the the time, I think, it's a
two card combo that you do with a specific vampire that's reliable.
Hell, Movement of the Mind / Theft almost fits the description and
that's used as a defensive tool in Tha decks. Foils prevent and hitback
and actually gains you blood.
Fatima w/ Assault rife only needs two cards two be scary. Psyche and
Pursuit will foil SCE, Dodge, hitback and probably prevent too with
Psyche's press. That's why it's so good a deck. It hurts a lot, requires
few cards and is not easily circumvented. It does need the Assault Rifle
setup though.
Lazverinus with Grapple and Flash of Marble foils dodge, SCE and
hitback.
Oliver Thrace with Apportation and Blood Fury foils SCE, prevent and
maneuver to wrong range, which is a pretty common combat defense
actually.
While I kinda like the idea, I don't think it's actually going to work
that well from a rush point of view. For a rush deck, you need hardcore
combat. You know, the kind that torporizes pretty much anything if the
cards flow right. Now, if you're talking about combat "light" and
something else (say, bruise 'n bleed) then yes, it's a great philosophy.
Colin McGuigan
> While I kinda like the idea, I don't think it's actually going to work
> that well from a rush point of view. For a rush deck, you need hardcore
> combat. You know, the kind that torporizes pretty much anything if the
> cards flow right. Now, if you're talking about combat "light" and
> something else (say, bruise 'n bleed) then yes, it's a great philosophy.
Once played against a deck that was more or less like this:
Wynn + some other vampires
12 Immortal Grapple
12 Drawing out the Beast
12 Skin of Rock
12 Carrion Crows
12 Trap
12 Taste of Vitae
<freaks, fame, blood dolls, other masters>
Combat was pretty obvious, of course.
1) Wynn would do four damage a round: 1 strength, 2 carrion crows, 1
drawing out the beast.
2) Dodging didn't really matter, since it would only prolong the trap
combat. IG as a backup.
3) IG to foil the S:CE -- even if there weren't enough IGs to knock the
vamp into torpor, that was still 4 damage a round they'd taken.
4) Wynn could taste for 4 in most rounds, and had some damage prevention
against hitback (but mostly against aggropoke).
5) Damage prevention would only draw out the combat longer. Even with
something like Apparation, they'd be taking two damage a round.
Sure, there was _some_ combat that could beat it, but none on this
table. Nevertheless, it took 2 VPs and then lost. Why? Decked itself.
So, the moral, in a roundabout way, is that hardcore combat is all fine
and good, but it just requires too many cards, and it doesn't oust.
--Colin McGuigan
David Zopf
"Izaak" <i.hav...@SPAMklg.nl> wrote in message
news:c807rs$lra$1...@reader13.wxs.nl...
>
> While I kinda like the idea, I don't think it's actually going to work
> that well from a rush point of view. For a rush deck, you need hardcore
> combat. You know, the kind that torporizes pretty much anything if the
> cards flow right. Now, if you're talking about combat "light" and
> something else (say, bruise 'n bleed) then yes, it's a great philosophy.
>
expense of big damage), you can lower the combat card count in the deck,
and get space to do other stuff (bleed, vote, use your master phase,
whatever) which can apply more directly to the goal of ousting your prey...
DaveZ
Atom Weaver
Peter D Bakija
> I'm really not trying to be a smartass here, but can you give an example
> of a combat decktype that does that? I've never seen combat that wasn't
> trumpable, which is a big part of why playing combat decks are so hard,
> besides not attacking their prey's pool directly, of course.
All combat is trumpable. There is no combat deck that can't be foiled by
something if someone puts their mind to trumping combat. But if you are
really combat trumpy, you aren't going to win many VPs, in all likelyhood,
so most decks just aren't that combat trumpy. In blind, large tournaments,
there is decidedly little combat trumpiness--in the last Qualifier I was at
(about 40 people), there were countless soft, combat defense limited decks
and very few significant combat decks. Had someone been playing a serious
combat deck, they probably would have done pretty well. But no one was
(including me), really--Josh was playing a pretty significant combat
offense, but in the game I was in with him, he stalled out mid game and
fialed to draw Rush and died (probably 'cause he was playing a deck that
wasn't *that* combat intensive, and was more akin to the "short chain
combat" type-a deal presented here).
A combat deck that can kill with impunity is one that can reliably get into
combat (i.e. enough Rush actions that you are unlikely to stall) and enough
combat such that, barring significant combat trump, you can kill pretty much
any vampire you attack. The ability to reliably play IG and then hit for 5+
and press is a pretty good start. Yeah, sometimes you run into a lot of
Fortitude or Protean or someone else with Potence or something. But most of
the time not so much (in large, blind tournaments). And when you don't, you
kill well.
The "trumpiness" aspect of combat decks is pointless to worry
about--sometimes you'll get hosed by table position. But then sometimes you
are playing a S+B deck and your prey has 16 Deflections. In large, blind
tournaments, however, the likelyhood of being trumped in combat is pretty
small. So it is worth playing decks that can torporize with impunity. Maybe
one game in three you'll be shut down by table position. But in the other 2
games, you are perfectly likely to get table wins with a pure combat Rush
deck (likely small cap Potence with support from, like, Obfuscate, Celerity,
or Dominate possibly).
Izaak
"David Zopf" <david...@snet.net> schreef in bericht
news:qmQoc.1659$bM....@newssvr32.news.prodigy.com...
Exactly. I think this SCC thing is just perfect for the bruise/bleed
decks. On the other hand, it's nothing new in that case. I've been doing
Movement of the Mind/Theft for ages now. Heck, playing so much Tremere
has forced me into "good enough" combat simply by lack of choice.
Grapple/Signpost has been a mainstream way to power presence bleed or
vote with Brujah.
I like the theory, but it can't really be applied to true rush combat.
If you want to oust your prey by being a fullblown rush deck, Fame and
Computer hacks are the way to go. Also note that if you're playing small
to midcap rush, you often end up with 4-5 minions and there are *very*
few decks that can handle being bled for 4 or 5 per turn.
It was my understanding that this idea was to be applied to rush decks
(you know, it coming from the uncrowned king of (multi)rush decks mr
DC). In that context I think it's bad. If you're going the 40 red cards
route (to generate 15 "good enough" combats backfilled with Taste and
some random tricks), you've left the terrain of rushing and are entering
the domain for bruise + something else.
I'll stress again that it's perfect for bruise + something, but nothing
new.
David Cherryholmes
> It was my understanding that this idea was to be applied to rush decks
> (you know, it coming from the uncrowned king of (multi)rush decks mr
> DC). In that context I think it's bad. If you're going the 40 red cards
> route (to generate 15 "good enough" combats backfilled with Taste and
> some random tricks), you've left the terrain of rushing and are entering
> the domain for bruise + something else.
Fatima is, if not the ultimate SCC, pretty close. Assault Rifle is 0
card combat, which foils hitback for the most part. Add one card, say a
single pursuit or a single Psyche, and it becomes more robust. Two
cards and it's nuts. My main application of tight combat is to make
room for the Freak Drives and contingency cards neccessary for the
support of single vampire decks. Using the space for things like
reactions or computer hacks remain a possibility, but I've applied it
mainly to rush. +1 Str/CEL also fits the model nicely. I also think
that it's getting overlooked that you don't *have* to keep your combats
at two cards (remember item #3), but you have the capacity to float the
deck in a restrained and effective fashion, yet retain the option to go
nuclear when it is truly necessary.
__
David Cherryholmes
kushiel
> Nothing is untrumpable (especially thanks to DI, etc.), but there are deck
> types that narrow the range.
>
> Dawn Op/Skin of Night/Weather Control (LessonsInTheSteel for insult)
Beaten by your predator's vampires (Dawn Op).
> THA/POT - TornSignpost/Thaumaturgy manuevers/IG/Blood Fury
Beaten by anything that beats regular Potence, save Fortitude.
> Dog Pack/Trap/Crows/DotB/Prevent
Beaten by presses. Is anyone actually trying to win using this type of combat,
anyway?
> multiple Thoughts Betrayed loadouts (two favorites: Blood Sweat, and
> Trap/Dodge/multiple Zombies)
Beaten by CEL/guns, CEL/+1 strength. Admittedly, this is one of the better ones,
but expensive (and zombies can't actually play Thoughts Betrayed, unless I
missed some errata somewhere).
> Tariq/Ghoul Retainer/RowanRing
Beaten by S:CE.
> Agg/Rotshreck
Beaten by having more than one minion.
> Hidden Lurker/Fast Reaction loadouts (Coma is good here)
Beaten by access to maneuvers, wasted minion effiency on your part.
> Aid From Bats/Blur/Aid From Bats/Aid From Bats/ 3 Presses
Beaten by S:CE.
> GreatBeast TEM/THA - Lapse/Blood Fury/Taste
Beaten by...never mind, this one is cool, even if I'm still not really
impressed. :)
> THAN/obf/pot - Trap/BehindYou!/IG/Withering
Pretty good, but there's no way anyone will play this.
> Ride the Snake - Ser/Mind Rape/Rush/Mummify
This one is officially fantastic. I like it.
> Telepathic Tracking/Spawning Pool
Beaten by multiple S:CE (and people generally have a bunch).
> Mind of a Child/StealthRush
Beaten by stealth (to remove Mind) or intercept (to block Mind).
> Cailean and 7 Raptors
Beaten by improbability of setup.
> OOT Watenda/DI
I fail to see how this wins any fights.
> Dawn Op/Skin of Night/Alejandro Aguirre
Same as Dawn Op/Skin of Night/Weather Control, above.
> numerous Dragos loadouts
Beaten by S:CE.
So, like, most of these "uber" combat strategies are themselves beaten by
very common strategies that other people are likely to be playing. Most of
these are only going to see play in casual games, in which people are
probably playing less focused decks, which means more anti-combat.
Tobias
Does that mean you think SCC is hard to apply outside single-vampire
decks? +1 Str/CEL is already somewhat outside the one-trick pony
range, but of course you'll still not be getting out 5 minions easily.
UniqueMaster
news:<8sSdnSQoJbq...@texas.net>...
> > Nothing is untrumpable (especially thanks to DI, etc.), but there are
deck
> > types that narrow the range.
Nice job finding most of the trumps; let's go over them, shall we? Although
I think the emphasis of this section of the thread was more about "Can you
dunk this guy right now?" instead of "Can you win the game?"
"Torporize with Impunity" does not equal "Win Game".
> > Dawn Op/Skin of Night/Weather Control (LessonsInTheSteel for insult)
>
> Beaten by your predator's vampires (Dawn Op).
Are we assuming everyone at the table is playing combat? Otherwise it's
probably more accurate to say, "Trumpable when reacting". And the crypt for
this deck has DOM and/or AUS, so you have other defensive options. But
they're big vamps, so the deck has other problems. But the combat combo is
hard to stop when it's in gear.
> > THA/POT - TornSignpost/Thaumaturgy manuevers/IG/Blood Fury
>
> Beaten by anything that beats regular Potence, save Fortitude.
I'm guessing you are referring to FleshOfMarble, Apparition, etc.? Yes,
other things prevent, but out of the Prevention genre, I'm sure Fortitude is
played the most.
> > Dog Pack/Trap/Crows/DotB/Prevent
>
> Beaten by presses. Is anyone actually trying to win using this type of
combat,
> anyway?
How many non-combat decks have you run across that routinely pack presses?
Those weenie presence Open Grate decks chap my hide!
Can you play Open Grate when your Beast has been drawn out?
> > multiple Thoughts Betrayed loadouts (two favorites: Blood Sweat, and
> > Trap/Dodge/multiple Zombies)
>
> Beaten by CEL/guns, CEL/+1 strength. Admittedly, this is one of the better
ones,
> but expensive (and zombies can't actually play Thoughts Betrayed, unless I
> missed some errata somewhere).
No missed errata, but the Zombies are retainers on Giovanni vampires.
Nothing beats the Army of Darkness deck! Well, maybe stealth
bleed/PTO/weenie vote/weenie bleed/...
And including the CEL argument means we have to start discussing amount of
blood on minions, the strike loadout of a particular TB deck, etc., which is
much more of a situational trump than a deck composition one.
> > Tariq/Ghoul Retainer/RowanRing
>
> Beaten by S:CE.
Yep. Assuming being matched manuever for manuever, etc., that's pretty much
it, in a single combat. Better have it in your hand ; )
> > Agg/Rotshreck
> Beaten by having more than one minion.
Again, I think the emphasis of this section of the thread was more about
"Can you dunk this guy right now?" instead of "Can you win the game?" This
combo used to be one of the best, until the rulings on Psyche and TeleTrack
took it down a notch.
It's still on a very high notch.
> > Hidden Lurker/Fast Reaction loadouts (Coma is good here)
>
> Beaten by access to maneuvers, wasted minion effiency on your part.
See above. Also, if you're packing Hidden Lurker, you've got access to
manuevers. Aus is another story.
> > Aid From Bats/Blur/Aid From Bats/Aid From Bats/ 3 Presses
>
> Beaten by S:CE.
I fail to see your point.
> > GreatBeast TEM/THA - Lapse/Blood Fury/Taste
>
> Beaten by...never mind, this one is cool, even if I'm still not really
> impressed. :)
I'm sure people who actually own enough Great Beasts to make decks with it
have come up with better ; )
> > THAN/obf/pot - Trap/BehindYou!/IG/Withering
>
> Pretty good, but there's no way anyone will play this.
Outside consideration of the discussion. We all know the Samedi can't defend
their pool. And that NONE of them start with pot. But if you had the minions
(and it is possible), this could actually trump almost any other combat.
> > Ride the Snake - Ser/Mind Rape/Rush/Mummify
>
> This one is officially fantastic. I like it.
Glad you like it. Mummify is definitely one of those "Useful when in combat
using someone else's minion" cards, as is Mercy For the Weak. Now if I could
just get enough Mind Rapes from Noal...
> > Telepathic Tracking/Spawning Pool
>
> Beaten by multiple S:CE (and people generally have a bunch).
You might want to re-read Spawning Pool.
> > Mind of a Child/StealthRush
>
> Beaten by stealth (to remove Mind) or intercept (to block Mind).
If you're playing StealthRush, you're using stealth. Again, can this minion
be dunked right now? Do you have any combat trumps for this one? I can think
of at least 2. Otherwise, it's similar to IG/Withering.
> > Cailean and 7 Raptors
>
> Beaten by improbability of setup.
People do play this. Some people work all their lives to get the card ratios
right. Although nowadays they get PTO'ed cross-table.
> > OOT Watenda/DI
>
> I fail to see how this wins any fights.
You can cancel 2 cards in the combat! 2 cards! This one is for players who
can find the linchpins in another player's combo! Whee! Totally fucks a
Carrion Crows deck.
> > Dawn Op/Skin of Night/Alejandro Aguirre
>
> Same as Dawn Op/Skin of Night/Weather Control, above.
See Dawn Op/SkinOfNight/WC above.
> > numerous Dragos loadouts
>
> Beaten by S:CE.
Which Dragos loadout are you referring to? Dragos pot stops S:CE. Dragos tha
uses TeleTrak and Blood to Water which (thankfully now) stops most S:CE.
Before Sabbat War, Dragos and-another-discipline was a popular deck-building
challenge. Now I never see the poor bastard.
> So, like, most of these "uber" combat strategies are themselves beaten by
> very common strategies that other people are likely to be playing.
But most of the "uber" strategies narrow the range to only a select few
trumps.
>Most of these are only going to see play in casual games, in which people
are
> probably playing less focused decks, which means more anti-combat.
True, I would play most of these in casual games as a way to figure out "Can
I really DO THIS to a minion? Yes, yes I can!".
I don't quite understand what you mean about less focus = more anti-combat.
Unless you mean more focus = less room for combat answers. My tournament
decks have to pack answers, as I got tired of the possibility of being nuked
all day long.
Yes, none of these combos are unstoppable. Neither is a Spiridonas Deck. But
being on the receiving end when you don't have the answer...
David Cherryholmes
> Does that mean you think SCC is hard to apply outside single-vampire
> decks? +1 Str/CEL is already somewhat outside the one-trick pony
> range, but of course you'll still not be getting out 5 minions easily.
I think it's most applicable with either CEL or a good special to build
around. And I have a name for people who get five minions out easily:
cheaters. ;)
__
David Cherryholmes
David Cherryholmes
> Okay, I see what you're getting at here. Rather than have this devolve into a
> "focused vs. toolbox" argument, I'll just nod and accept that you're playing
> paper-rock-scissors with this sort of strategy, as all focused decks do. I had
> assumed that Cherryholmes was attempting to use SCC as a means of having
> room in a deck for doing something in addition to combat, therefore making
> the deck less focused and more toolboxy, and that discussion of SCC would
> revolve around that. I think that's probably the crux of the dispute here,
> rather than trying to come up with more useful mini-combat blocks. Am I
> totally missing the point here, Dave?
No, I'd say you are right on the money. Peter's approach is just as
valid, but it presumes being on the opposite end of the spectrum from
where I'm sitting and thinking about deckbuilding. Whereas my signature
deck may be Fatima Multirush, his is Weenie Potence, and they are very,
very different decks. Any weenie deck can afford to be more focused,
since it has the inherent advantages of its weeniness -- diffused
targets, pool defense via conservation, strength through iteration (ie
"do it, and do it again until their pants are down"), and disposable
minions. Decks built around non-disposable vampires need card slots to
defend that investment, something which traditionally card-intensive
combats make difficult. The SCC is a means to an end; my particular end
is space for single vampire hoser defense and freak drives (Peter and I
both agree that the only effective rush deck is one that can generate a
lot of actions), but in theory the space could be used for whatever you
want, hence my inclusion of many toolboxy options in the list of
possiblities.
__
David Cherryholmes
David Zopf
"Izaak" <i.hav...@SPAMklg.nl> wrote in message
>
> I'll stress again that it's perfect for bruise + something, but nothing
> new.
Picking examples of SCC out of old, proven concepts might lead one to
believe so. However, using SCC as an organizing concept by which to build
decks is fairly innovative, and IMO useful. It gives you a clear metric by
which to measure if the combat aspect of your 'Bruise + X' deck is going to
be viable. The 'newness' comes in when someone uses it to discover a novel,
efficient combat combo...
DaveZ
Atom Weaver
Peter D Bakija
> Okay, I see what you're getting at here. Rather than have this devolve into a
> "focused vs. toolbox" argument, I'll just nod and accept that you're playing
> paper-rock-scissors with this sort of strategy, as all focused decks do.
Pretty much. I look at focused combat as very Rock. Sure, sometimes
you get shut down, but every deck sometimes gets shut down. Most of
the time, you do ok. In a local play environment, if everyone is meta
gaming to bust up combat strategy, you aren't going to get anywhere,
as enough decks in circulation that come with enough Flesh of Marble
or Skin of Steel, and you completely go nowhere. But in blind
competition, where there actually is some Paper, Scisor, Rock action,
you'' do just fine overall.
> Ihad
> assumed that Cherryholmes was attempting to use SCC as a means of having
> room in a deck for doing something in addition to combat, therefore making
> the deck less focused and more toolboxy, and that discussion of SCC would
> revolve around that.
I'd assume so. I'm not debating that point--I see where Cherryholmes
is going, and I agree that it is more of a toolboxy idea. Not
necessarily one that I would adhere to, myself, but he certainly has
valid points. I general prefer focus to not, myself--I'd rather do one
thing well, and occasionally get totally shut down than do a lot of
things ok, and often hot have the right stuff in hand. But then I like
focused decks and not so much the toolbox decks.
-Peter
Darky
> 1) You must confine your combat to being just good enough, not uber.
>
> 2) "Good enough" can be defined as doing 3 normal damage or 1 Aggravated
> damage with two cards, and foiling at least 1 of the following:
> a) Dodge
> b) S:CE
> c) Hitback
> d) Damage prevention
>
> 3) More elements (ie moving parts) can and should be included, but any
> two should satisfy 1 and 2 above.
This line extremely limits the kind of cards you can play, as even:
10 torn
20 grapple
10 undead str
doesn't qualify for SSC, as (included in 'any two elements')
torn/undead foils none of the points mentioned at (2)
Basically this line limits SSC to playing 2 different kind of combat
cards, where variety is needed.
I think you should make it something more like this:
you play a basic 2 card combo (torn/grapple)
ratio should be 1:1 (torn:grapple)
add variety to interchange either torn with something else (undead
str), or grapple with something else (acrobatics), keeping ratios
equal.
so something like:
10 Torn
10 Grapple
10 Acrobatics
10 Undead str
would qualify as SSC.
Or you could say something like: you have a 'base combat card' which
deals 3 damage or more (interchangable only with cards that still dead
3 damage when used together with any of your 'foiling combat cards').
The 'foiling combat cards' are there to foil at least one of (2) in
combination with any of your base combat card.
Ratio Base:Foil = 1:1
Also SSC should somehow include discipline ratio's on your vampires.
Something along the lines of: 5caps and higher should be able to
execute the full combo. Every 4cap should be able to do 3 damage w/o
any foil, or foil and 2 damage, 3cap and lower should be able to foil
and 1 damage, or 2 damage w/o any foil.
anything better is, of course, better :)
or something similar, but maybe that's pushing it.
> If SCC is satisfied, the combat portion of your deck should be
> achievable in 30 - 40 cards, yielding about 15 combats or a total table
> loss of 45 blood, discounting the rescue costs that may or may not
> exist. This leaves about 10 more slots for cards that are good but need
> not be played every combat: weapons, concealed/disguised weapon, taste,
> provisions, draught of the soul, etc. Alternatively, you may use those
> 10 slots for light reaction/wake/intercept. Add approximately 20 action
> cards and 20 or fewer master cards and you have what should be a
> functional combat deck. Also note that the reduced card flow raises the
> "gag threshold" of master cards that a combat deck can acceptably play.
I hope my comments were clear :)
-Bram Vink