Your deck isn't original.
Orpheus
you've changed a few cards from the tournament winning archetype, or from
the strange abstract concept you found on the net, a vampire here, a master
there. So what ? It's still exactly the same. Same concept, same tactics,
same results. And it's only a slight variations from decks you've played
yourself a zillion times already. Shame on you.
Mean Orpheus
henrik
Kinda like your post, then.
gra...@hotmail.com
Same with nearly every deck than.... really, I mean - how many
original decks are there?
--> J
grail_pbem "at" hotmail.com
http://www.geocities.com/grail_j
Orpheus
As the previous "your deck" posts, this one is a joke. BUT it does underline
a concern of mine, which is : trying to make "new" decks, or at least
personal versions. It is really hard, and seldom achieved. I might have
really "created" 2 or 3 working decks in 10 years, and of course by this I
mean that I hadn't seen the idea posted or played anywhere, not that I'm
sure no one ever played those vampires with those cards !
The only sure thing for me is that copying a posted decklist is totally
devoid of interest, except maybe when you want to "learn how it's done"
(even then, when I played my first NCL tournie and tried my version of
Jeff's Lasombra Pre, I chose many very different options). I just don't
understand experienced players who don't make the effort of making their own
personal decks (which of course doesn't exclude listening to other people's
advice).
--
Orpheus
gra...@hotmail.com
> > original decks are there?
>
> As the previous "your deck" posts, this one is a joke.
I know it's a joke. I was having a dig at you still though, because
your joke was kinda lame, and the "like your post" dig had already
been taken.
--> J
Orpheus
>>> Same with nearly every deck than.... really, I mean - how many
>>> original decks are there?
>>
>> As the previous "your deck" posts, this one is a joke.
>
> I know it's a joke. I was having a dig at you still though, because
> your joke was kinda lame,
Not lamer than any other.
> and the "like your post" dig had already
> been taken.
Twice. Now thrice.
And the concern behind the joke is real.
henrik
> > and the "like your post" dig had already
> > been taken.
>
> Twice. Now thrice.
>
> And the concern behind the joke is real.
Is it common that people just copies deck straight of the internet? I
think I can count the times I've seen it on one hand, and the most
recent ones was me doing it to understand why/how a certain deck
worked (and even then I changed a couple of cards).
What's your concern, really?
Orpheus
>
> Is it common that people just copies deck straight of the internet? I
> think I can count the times I've seen it on one hand, and the most
> recent ones was me doing it to understand why/how a certain deck
> worked (and even then I changed a couple of cards).
It happens often enough. Most of the times you'll see copycats of Tier1s,
with listings taken from the TWDA and very few cards changed.
> What's your concern, really?
Are you trying to understand my PoV or doubting my intents ?
This game is great because it offers many options. Unluckily some decks are
much better than others, and some people just go for the easy stuff. I hate
to play the same things over again, or the things that everyone knows can
work (f.i. the Tier1 list). And in serious tournaments in the past years
you'd mostly see those, unoriginal and of proven efficiency, and start with
a disadvantage if you didn't take one ; this didn't prevent me from making
very good results with more personal decks, but it was a very hard challenge
; I even succumbed to unoriginality once or twice to see how it felt, and...
it felt much less rewarding for me than trying different ways.
I'm glad enough of the recent opening in winning strategies, there are some
good new concepts out there, but still we see AAA, Shamblings and weenies
all over the place. I just want to encourage players to try different takes
even at known winning strategies (different crypts, variant tactics etc.).
Orpheus
henrik
> > What's your concern, really?
>
> Are you trying to understand my PoV or doubting my intents ?
Not sure. A bit of both, I guess. Could throw in "questioning your
findings" as well.
I do agree that new concepts/decks are much more fun to play with and/
or against though.
> This game is great because it offers many options. Unluckily some decks are
> much better than others, and some people just go for the easy stuff. I hate
> to play the same things over again, or the things that everyone knows can
> work (f.i. the Tier1 list). And in serious tournaments in the past years
> you'd mostly see those, unoriginal and of proven efficiency, and start with
> a disadvantage if you didn't take one ; this didn't prevent me from making
> very good results with more personal decks, but it was a very hard challenge
> ; I even succumbed to unoriginality once or twice to see how it felt, and...
> it felt much less rewarding for me than trying different ways.
If people would move away from tried decks, that would remove some of
the "many options" though.
> I'm glad enough of the recent opening in winning strategies, there are some
> good new concepts out there, but still we see AAA, Shamblings and weenies
> all over the place. I just want to encourage players to try different takes
> even at known winning strategies (different crypts, variant tactics etc.).
Difference between us seems to be that I think I see those different
crypts and variant tactics. Sure, at larger tournaments there's bound
to be a certain number of players that goes for a "classic" deck due
to it's proven strength. Those players doesn't always do good though,
since it takes a lot more to win than just having a strong deck.
And, well, some decks/concepts can't be changed much since they've
been near perfected at this time. You can't do much with the crypt of
a speedshambler deck etc. At least not much that would make it better.
Same goes for AAA.
I think more anti-"classic deck" tech is the best answer. Strategies
that works alone, but at the same time trumps a bunch of the classics.
It's harder to get it working on larger tournaments, but influencing
the local metagame shouldn't be too hard.
Orpheus
> On Apr 6, 10:58 am, "Orpheus" <orpheus.TAKEOU...@free.fr> wrote:
>
>>> What's your concern, really?
>>
>> Are you trying to understand my PoV or doubting my intents ?
>
> Not sure. A bit of both, I guess. Could throw in "questioning your
> findings" as well.
Well, I'm sincere in my assertions, I'll thank you not to doubt that.
> I do agree that new concepts/decks are much more fun to play with and/
> or against though.
Ok.
>> This game is great because it offers many options. Unluckily some
>> decks are much better than others, and some people just go for the
>> easy stuff. I hate to play the same things over again, or the things
>> that everyone knows can work (f.i. the Tier1 list). And in serious
>> tournaments in the past years you'd mostly see those, unoriginal and
>> of proven efficiency, and start with a disadvantage if you didn't
>> take one ; this didn't prevent me from making very good results with
>> more personal decks, but it was a very hard challenge ; I even
>> succumbed to unoriginality once or twice to see how it felt, and...
>> it felt much less rewarding for me than trying different ways.
>
> If people would move away from tried decks, that would remove some of
> the "many options" though.
Sure. But in any creative field (music, scenarios, acting) I like it when
people renew their art instead of repeating the one thing they know is
working. I hate if when an album contains 12 times the "same" song, or when
an actors plays the same role in every movie. And I hate it when every
player plays stuff that I've seen over again in every tournament.
>> I'm glad enough of the recent opening in winning strategies, there
>> are some good new concepts out there, but still we see AAA,
>> Shamblings and weenies all over the place. I just want to encourage
>> players to try different takes even at known winning strategies
>> (different crypts, variant tactics etc.).
>
> Difference between us seems to be that I think I see those different
> crypts and variant tactics.
I see some (and play lots) in casual games. But I now live in Paris, players
are very competitive and we see the "same old" often enough. But the worse
is the "swiss school", where in 10 players and over 3+ years I have only
seen the following played :
- Nosfe Royalty
- Edward Vignes
- Speed Shambling
- AAA
- Annabelle Triabel
(and maybe Palla Grande ? Dem bleed ? Not sure)
over and over again. Boooooring !!
> Sure, at larger tournaments there's bound
> to be a certain number of players that goes for a "classic" deck due
> to it's proven strength. Those players doesn't always do good though,
> since it takes a lot more to win than just having a strong deck.
I agree on that account. It's still boring though.
> And, well, some decks/concepts can't be changed much since they've
> been near perfected at this time. You can't do much with the crypt of
> a speedshambler deck etc. At least not much that would make it better.
> Same goes for AAA.
That's a part of the problem for me. I'd like to see some new cards come out
that offer alternative options for, say, the Toreador. I've been struggling
lately with a G3-G4 Tore deck ; I fast enough concluded that it would be
better in G2-G3, and although it *might* be better in G1-G2 (even without
Anson, just for the +1 bleed of the other Prince) even in my less-than-usual
version, I'm not tempted to go that way because it's sooo redundant ! But
let's face it : despite the power surge in vampires, AAA are still much
better than anything that came out in that clan since.
Same with voting Brujahs : I tried the new crypt, but with all the bleeders
we have around nowadays (lots of new players) deflection is a must-have, so
it's the Euro-way or no way. :(
As for Giovanni, for the "main" strategies (not using an outside discipline,
and possibly not too much Pot) the old crypt is still much better than the
alternatives.
So maybe the creative team need to find other incentive to play new vampires
than just power surge or "old IC hosers". Harder, but feasible IMHO.
> I think more anti-"classic deck" tech is the best answer. Strategies
> that works alone, but at the same time trumps a bunch of the classics.
> It's harder to get it working on larger tournaments, but influencing
> the local metagame shouldn't be too hard.
Yes. Like what ? The classic decks include many variables : some play
weenies, a few play fatties, lots play allies... Do you have anything
particular in mind ?
Orpheus
as...@hotmail.com
> Let's face it. What you're doing has been done before. Lots of time.
Yes, that is true. I think it´s both good and bad. Good because "new"
and "original" concepts tend to be things like Brinksmanship,
Baltimore Purge and turbo-combo-shit, which are boring and best suited
for people which did not get enough attention from their parents.
Orpheus
lol
I would be curious to hear the reasoning behind that psychological
conclusion.
But yes, some concepts are left far from the hands of most players. As are
wall or even rush decks, which in the hands of beginners just screw tables
up.
henrik
> henrik wrote:
> > On Apr 6, 10:58 am, "Orpheus" <orpheus.TAKEOU...@free.fr> wrote:
>
> >>> What's your concern, really?
>
> >> Are you trying to understand my PoV or doubting my intents ?
>
> > Not sure. A bit of both, I guess. Could throw in "questioning your
> > findings" as well.
>
> Well, I'm sincere in my assertions, I'll thank you not to doubt that.
Assertions = findings? Not sure what the word means, and from what the
dictionary told me findings was the closest (of the three things I
said I doubted).
It's probably just because I see quite a good mix of new and old stuff
in my playgroup. Granted, much of it could be traced back to a few
classic/strong decks but people here are at least trying to powerbleed/
parity shift/whatever with new vampires.
> > If people would move away from tried decks, that would remove some of
> > the "many options" though.
>
> Sure. But in any creative field (music, scenarios, acting) I like it when
> people renew their art instead of repeating the one thing they know is
> working. I hate if when an album contains 12 times the "same" song, or when
> an actors plays the same role in every movie. And I hate it when every
> player plays stuff that I've seen over again in every tournament.
It's a bit boring, yeah. I don't think it's reasonable to compare deck
building to music/acting or so though. Musicians and actors are
selling their creations, so they should indeed create new things if
they want to sell a new record etc. But vtes-players aren't creating
decks for others to watch, but rather to win. It's a kinda big
difference imo.
> > Difference between us seems to be that I think I see those different
> > crypts and variant tactics.
>
> I see some (and play lots) in casual games. But I now live in Paris, players
> are very competitive and we see the "same old" often enough. But the worse
> is the "swiss school", where in 10 players and over 3+ years I have only
> seen the following played :
> - Nosfe Royalty
> - Edward Vignes
> - Speed Shambling
> - AAA
> - Annabelle Triabel
> (and maybe Palla Grande ? Dem bleed ? Not sure)
>
> over and over again. Boooooring !!
I live in Sweden, and the meta in my group is very competative as
well, one of the sleaziest I've heard of.
It depends a bit on what one considers to be "new" as well, I suppose.
Currently I have 2 dementation bleed decks put together, but they're
rather different from the standard KS weenie even if both include
Jackie and a fair amount of KS.
Vignes can be played with a bunch of different crypts as well. And the
swiss player's doesn't play here so that doesn't really concern me.
> > Sure, at larger tournaments there's bound
> > to be a certain number of players that goes for a "classic" deck due
> > to it's proven strength. Those players doesn't always do good though,
> > since it takes a lot more to win than just having a strong deck.
>
> I agree on that account. It's still boring though.
It'd be boring to meet 2-3 of those decks at each table, but I don't
do that. Even at tournaments. And as long as they're not swarming the
tournament scene I'm not too much bothered by them.
> > And, well, some decks/concepts can't be changed much since they've
> > been near perfected at this time. You can't do much with the crypt of
> > a speedshambler deck etc. At least not much that would make it better.
> > Same goes for AAA.
>
> That's a part of the problem for me. I'd like to see some new cards come out
> that offer alternative options for, say, the Toreador. I've been struggling
> lately with a G3-G4 Tore deck ; I fast enough concluded that it would be
> better in G2-G3, and although it *might* be better in G1-G2 (even without
> Anson, just for the +1 bleed of the other Prince) even in my less-than-usual
> version, I'm not tempted to go that way because it's sooo redundant ! But
> let's face it : despite the power surge in vampires, AAA are still much
> better than anything that came out in that clan since.
Meaning there hasn't really been a power surge?
> Same with voting Brujahs : I tried the new crypt, but with all the bleeders
> we have around nowadays (lots of new players) deflection is a must-have, so
> it's the Euro-way or no way. :(
Archon Investigation? 2nd Tradition and Lost in Translation aren't
that bad either, unless you're facing 10cap bleeders.
> As for Giovanni, for the "main" strategies (not using an outside discipline,
> and possibly not too much Pot) the old crypt is still much better than the
> alternatives.
Which is good, imo. If the new crypt was good at the same things as
the old crypt, there'd be no reason to buy the new crypt. Kinda.
> So maybe the creative team need to find other incentive to play new vampires
> than just power surge or "old IC hosers". Harder, but feasible IMHO.
I agree with that. The new Brujah's are great though, Lutz as well.
I've got a deck with Santaleous which could become decent with some
tweaking.
I think KoT brought lots of new stuff to build around, both vampire
and library cards, so the creative team (LSJ <3) has done a
great job there at least. If every expansion was as well made as that,
I couldn't ask for more.
> > I think more anti-"classic deck" tech is the best answer. Strategies
> > that works alone, but at the same time trumps a bunch of the classics.
> > It's harder to get it working on larger tournaments, but influencing
> > the local metagame shouldn't be too hard.
>
> Yes. Like what ? The classic decks include many variables : some play
> weenies, a few play fatties, lots play allies... Do you have anything
> particular in mind ?
Depends on which of the decks you face most, or have the most trouble
with?
There was an increased amount of Parity Shifting around here just
after KoT was released. I started playing more Delaying Tactics,
Confusion of the Eye, Bruce de Guy etc.
It'll be hard if every table are composed of you vs 4 "standard power
decks" though, but I'm hoping it's not that bad. And if it is, you
should kick your playgroup in the nuts.
gra...@hotmail.com
kind of deck concepts that lots of people will 'come up with'. Just
because there is something similar out there doesn't mean that someone
has netdecked a deck if it includes AAA. I mean, lets face it - they
are a potent combination. Same with lots of other concepts.
I've never netdecked in my life. I never will. The most I ever look
at other decks is to browse them quickly, just to get a general feel
for it. I've built decks that are similar in concept to others out
there though. Does that mean I'm unoriginal?
I think when you start making claims like this, you've got to qualify
it quite well.
as...@hotmail.com
> as...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > On 5 Apr, 11:39, "Orpheus" <orpheus.TAKEOU...@free.fr> wrote:
> >> Let's face it. What you're doing has been done before. Lots of time.
>
> > Yes, that is true. I think it´s both good and bad. Good because "new"
> > and "original" concepts tend to be things like Brinksmanship,
> > Baltimore Purge and turbo-combo-shit, which are boring and best suited
> > for people which did not get enough attention from their parents.
>
> lol
>
> I would be curious to hear the reasoning behind that psychological
> conclusion.
Players who need all the attention on the table. Una-equip-decks are
the worst. Pure solitaire.
> But yes, some concepts are left far from the hands of most players. As are
> wall or even rush decks, which in the hands of beginners just screw tables
> up.
Agreed.
Orpheus
> On 6 Apr, 13:19, "Orpheus" <orpheus.TAKEOU...@free.fr> wrote:
>> as...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>> On 5 Apr, 11:39, "Orpheus" <orpheus.TAKEOU...@free.fr> wrote:
>>>> Let's face it. What you're doing has been done before. Lots of
>>>> time.
>>
>>> Yes, that is true. I think it´s both good and bad. Good because
>>> "new" and "original" concepts tend to be things like Brinksmanship,
>>> Baltimore Purge and turbo-combo-shit, which are boring and best
>>> suited for people which did not get enough attention from their
>>> parents.
>>
>> lol
>>
>> I would be curious to hear the reasoning behind that psychological
>> conclusion.
>
> Players who need all the attention on the table. Una-equip-decks are
> the worst. Pure solitaire.
lol. A newbie girl and friend was handed a Una deck in a tournament. Think
she did 2 VPs total. And her turn at my table took 45 minutes. Then a
Sensory killed her. It was the worst game I ever played, except for the
satisfaction of destroying that deck. B]
>> But yes, some concepts are left far from the hands of most players.
>> As are wall or even rush decks, which in the hands of beginners just
>> screw tables up.
>
> Agreed.
Orpheus
Orpheus
> There are a few strategies and vampires that lend themselves to the
> kind of deck concepts that lots of people will 'come up with'. Just
> because there is something similar out there doesn't mean that someone
> has netdecked a deck if it includes AAA. I mean, lets face it - they
> are a potent combination. Same with lots of other concepts.
If you read my previous posts, you'll see that I don't speak only of
netdecking but also of just copying concepts seen everywhere ; then, more
often then not, such players will also browse the forums and / or TWDA to
see how many of each cards should be included. But not always of course.
> I've never netdecked in my life. I never will.
Good. But then you're not on trial, are you ?
> The most I ever look
> at other decks is to browse them quickly, just to get a general feel
> for it.
So have I, and most times I end up thinking that they wouldn't fit me at
all.
After all, we're all individuals, and that's good, and that's why we should
each make our own decks (or variations of).
> I've built decks that are similar in concept to others out
> there though. Does that mean I'm unoriginal?
Yes, see my initial post, we're all unoriginal. ;)
But seriously it totally depends on what you mean by "similar in concept".
I'm currently building whole bunches of Shamblings decks. But they include
Harbingers, with some walling, sometimes Spirit marionette (I didn't "invent
the concept", a friend of mine played his version although I never saw it),
etc. I used to LOVE the G2 Giovanni crypt, but I've played it and I've seen
it played way too much. It's just sad that for the 3 main current winning
concepts (Shamblings, bleed and Khazar) it's the only viable crypt. Sure, a
change in crypt isn't exactly originality, but it could be a first step
(dusting an old concept at least).
> I think when you start making claims like this, you've got to qualify
> it quite well.
I wouldn't speak of it if I didn't know players who do it. Including very,
very good players, here and elsewhere.
Orpheus
librarian
> as...@hotmail.com wrote:
>> On 6 Apr, 13:19, "Orpheus" <orpheus.TAKEOU...@free.fr> wrote:
>>> as...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>> On 5 Apr, 11:39, "Orpheus" <orpheus.TAKEOU...@free.fr> wrote:
>>>>> Let's face it. What you're doing has been done before. Lots of
>>>>> time.
>>>> "new" and "original" concepts tend to be things like Brinksmanship,
>>>> Baltimore Purge and turbo-combo-shit, which are boring and best
>>>> suited for people which did not get enough attention from their
>>>> parents.
>>> lol
>>>
>>> I would be curious to hear the reasoning behind that psychological
>>> conclusion.
>> Players who need all the attention on the table. Una-equip-decks are
>> the worst. Pure solitaire.
>
> lol. A newbie girl and friend was handed a Una deck in a tournament. Think
> she did 2 VPs total. And her turn at my table took 45 minutes. Then a
> Sensory killed her. It was the worst game I ever played, except for the
> satisfaction of destroying that deck. B]
>
>>
One reason folks continue to play Una decks is exactly because they hate
them - they want Una either depowered or banned.
best -
chris
Orpheus
>>
>>>> Are you trying to understand my PoV or doubting my intents ?
>>
>>> Not sure. A bit of both, I guess. Could throw in "questioning your
>>> findings" as well.
>>
>> Well, I'm sincere in my assertions, I'll thank you not to doubt that.
>
> Assertions = findings? Not sure what the word means, and from what the
> dictionary told me findings was the closest (of the three things I
> said I doubted).
Affirmation.
> It's probably just because I see quite a good mix of new and old stuff
> in my playgroup. Granted, much of it could be traced back to a few
> classic/strong decks but people here are at least trying to
> powerbleed/ parity shift/whatever with new vampires.
Yeah, we try it too, but then in tournies you'll see Arika, Anson, Isabel
etc.
>>> If people would move away from tried decks, that would remove some
>>> of the "many options" though.
>>
>> Sure. But in any creative field (music, scenarios, acting) I like it
>> when people renew their art instead of repeating the one thing they
>> know is working. I hate if when an album contains 12 times the
>> "same" song, or when an actors plays the same role in every movie.
>> And I hate it when every player plays stuff that I've seen over
>> again in every tournament.
>
> It's a bit boring, yeah. I don't think it's reasonable to compare deck
> building to music/acting or so though. Musicians and actors are
> selling their creations, so they should indeed create new things if
> they want to sell a new record etc. But vtes-players aren't creating
> decks for others to watch, but rather to win. It's a kinda big
> difference imo.
I'll grant you that. I just feel the same about it, is all. See, I've had
some big results with some decks, but once I've done that I need to move on
to other concepts or I get bored. When I see the same players showing 3
years in a row to a championship with the same decktype I just a) wonder how
they can do it without being bored to death and b) find it the easy solution
of the guy who is afraid to try something new.
>>> Difference between us seems to be that I think I see those different
>>> crypts and variant tactics.
>>
>> I see some (and play lots) in casual games. But I now live in Paris,
>> players are very competitive and we see the "same old" often enough.
>> But the worse is the "swiss school", where in 10 players and over 3+
>> years I have only seen the following played :
>> - Nosfe Royalty
>> - Edward Vignes
>> - Speed Shambling
>> - AAA
>> - Annabelle Triabel
>> (and maybe Palla Grande ? Dem bleed ? Not sure)
>>
>> over and over again. Boooooring !!
>
> I live in Sweden, and the meta in my group is very competative as
> well, one of the sleaziest I've heard of.
lol.
> It depends a bit on what one considers to be "new" as well, I suppose.
> Currently I have 2 dementation bleed decks put together, but they're
> rather different from the standard KS weenie even if both include
> Jackie and a fair amount of KS.
I'd be curious to hear the changes.
I've played Dem bleed in Turino 2006 day1, with good success (made 2nd),
just to try it because I never played it before. It was interesting to do it
once, but I would find it boring to do it again except if I find a new angle
(I've thought of For but the crypt just isn't good enough...).
> Vignes can be played with a bunch of different crypts as well.
A "Vignes" deck is pretty much always the same, though.
> And the
> swiss player's doesn't play here so that doesn't really concern me.
They're just an example, because they're the extreme in the "optimsed and
unoriginal" tendency.
>>> Sure, at larger tournaments there's bound
>>> to be a certain number of players that goes for a "classic" deck due
>>> to it's proven strength. Those players doesn't always do good
>>> though, since it takes a lot more to win than just having a strong
>>> deck.
>>
>> I agree on that account. It's still boring though.
>
> It'd be boring to meet 2-3 of those decks at each table, but I don't
> do that. Even at tournaments. And as long as they're not swarming the
> tournament scene I'm not too much bothered by them.
I understand that.
>>> And, well, some decks/concepts can't be changed much since they've
>>> been near perfected at this time. You can't do much with the crypt
>>> of a speedshambler deck etc. At least not much that would make it
>>> better. Same goes for AAA.
>>
>> That's a part of the problem for me. I'd like to see some new cards
>> come out that offer alternative options for, say, the Toreador. I've
>> been struggling lately with a G3-G4 Tore deck ; I fast enough
>> concluded that it would be better in G2-G3, and although it *might*
>> be better in G1-G2 (even without Anson, just for the +1 bleed of the
>> other Prince) even in my less-than-usual version, I'm not tempted to
>> go that way because it's sooo redundant ! But let's face it :
>> despite the power surge in vampires, AAA are still much better than
>> anything that came out in that clan since.
>
> Meaning there hasn't really been a power surge?
I was wondering about that. But when I do a search for discipline combos,
they are almost always better in G3+ than before. That is the general rule.
But some G1 and G2 vampires are just so much stronger than average that they
still are the best nowadays (maybe the game as a whole is better balanced
now, which is good ; I don't hope for more power surge, though).
>> Same with voting Brujahs : I tried the new crypt, but with all the
>> bleeders we have around nowadays (lots of new players) deflection is
>> a must-have, so it's the Euro-way or no way. :(
>
> Archon Investigation?
Dummy Corp, and before you bleed Protected Ressources. Sure. Good. But not
enough.
> 2nd Tradition
I've been bled by a Vignes deck and between his DT on my Parity, his first
bleed in Seduction and his second salve with a Pentex I lasted 3 turns. This
is a "worst case" scenario, of course, but it happens.
> and Lost in Translation aren't
> that bad either, unless you're facing 10cap bleeders.
Lost is very expensive, and yes, sometimes Arika bleeds too.
Also, I played the fighty version of the deck, and without a permanent
rusher like Theo it's harder to make the red cards flow. So my conclusion is
that the current crypt is good only in stealth vote + Pre, for which I
wouldn't choose Brujahs (at least, not only) and therefore New Carthage
isn't as good as it should be... So this great new tool is in fact mainly
great for an old good deck, rather than useful for a new concept. As is
Warsaw Station for the Nosfe Royalty (who already had access to untap but
this is even better).
>> As for Giovanni, for the "main" strategies (not using an outside
>> discipline, and possibly not too much Pot) the old crypt is still
>> much better than the alternatives.
>
> Which is good, imo. If the new crypt was good at the same things as
> the old crypt, there'd be no reason to buy the new crypt. Kinda.
Kinda, sure. But it kinda could be nearly as good as the previous one, and
it isn't. As for the new options (like Pro), I'm working on them but let's
just say they're cornercase...
>> So maybe the creative team need to find other incentive to play new
>> vampires than just power surge or "old IC hosers". Harder, but
>> feasible IMHO.
>
> I agree with that. The new Brujah's are great though, Lutz as well.
> I've got a deck with Santaleous which could become decent with some
> tweaking.
> I think KoT brought lots of new stuff to build around, both vampire
> and library cards,
Agreed
> so the creative team (LSJ <3) has done a
> great job there at least. If every expansion was as well made as that,
> I couldn't ask for more.
Sure. As you might know I found some cards to be lacking in background
justification, or to go too far for the used discipline, but they're good
(sometimes too good ?).
>>> I think more anti-"classic deck" tech is the best answer. Strategies
>>> that works alone, but at the same time trumps a bunch of the
>>> classics. It's harder to get it working on larger tournaments, but
>>> influencing the local metagame shouldn't be too hard.
>>
>> Yes. Like what ? The classic decks include many variables : some play
>> weenies, a few play fatties, lots play allies... Do you have anything
>> particular in mind ?
>
> Depends on which of the decks you face most, or have the most trouble
> with?
> There was an increased amount of Parity Shifting around here just
> after KoT was released. I started playing more Delaying Tactics,
> Confusion of the Eye, Bruce de Guy etc.
What crypt do you use with Bruce ? I could write a whole article on the
difficulties of crypt compatibility for the Lasombras...
> It'll be hard if every table are composed of you vs 4 "standard power
> decks" though, but I'm hoping it's not that bad. And if it is, you
> should kick your playgroup in the nuts.
lol. I'll do that. ;)
Thanks for your inputs,
Orpheus
Orpheus
> hate them - they want Una either depowered or banned.
Kinda like the Succubus, some friends of mine abused it in big tournies
mainly for that purpose !
But Una doesn't grant a win ; what she does grant (in her turno decks) is
boring games for everyone, though...
henrik
> > It's probably just because I see quite a good mix of new and old stuff
> > in my playgroup. Granted, much of it could be traced back to a few
> > classic/strong decks but people here are at least trying to
> > powerbleed/ parity shift/whatever with new vampires.
>
> Yeah, we try it too, but then in tournies you'll see Arika, Anson, Isabel
> etc.
I see more of them, yeah. But I'm not surprised or anything about
that. I count on it and optimize my decks for that. And I usually take
a more tested and stable deck as well, so I can't really blame the
others for doing the same thing.
> > And the
> > swiss player's doesn't play here so that doesn't really concern me.
>
> They're just an example, because they're the extreme in the "optimsed and
> unoriginal" tendency.
I wouldn't agree 100% to them being unoriginal. They play the same
decks a lot, but they built them first as well. Anthelios, Sudario and
all that. At least they were the ones teaching us swedes how to use
those cards. And we're thankful to them for that.
> > Archon Investigation?
>
> Dummy Corp, and before you bleed Protected Ressources. Sure. Good. But not
> enough.
> > 2nd Tradition
> > and Lost in Translation aren't
> > that bad either, unless you're facing 10cap bleeders.
>
> Lost is very expensive, and yes, sometimes Arika bleeds too.
Indeed, they're all second hand choices when it comes to dealing with
bleeds. Archon Investigation is about teaching people not to
powerbleed though, and I think it's getting to work in my group now.
> Also, I played the fighty version of the deck, and without a permanent
> rusher like Theo it's harder to make the red cards flow. So my conclusion is
> that the current crypt is good only in stealth vote + Pre, for which I
> wouldn't choose Brujahs (at least, not only) and therefore New Carthage
> isn't as good as it should be... So this great new tool is in fact mainly
> great for an old good deck, rather than useful for a new concept. As is
> Warsaw Station for the Nosfe Royalty (who already had access to untap but
> this is even better).
Group 4/5 Brujah's got a crazy crypt for using New Carthage and vote/
bleed. Starting with 3-4 x Dmitra and going lower, doubling the
princes, and you've got a party.
Fighting didn't work too good around here, either though. But yeah,
it's mainly an old deck getting better. I think it was rather needed
though.
> > There was an increased amount of Parity Shifting around here just
> > after KoT was released. I started playing more Delaying Tactics,
> > Confusion of the Eye, Bruce de Guy etc.
>
> What crypt do you use with Bruce ? I could write a whole article on the
> difficulties of crypt compatibility for the Lasombras...
Well.. A rather bad one, tbh. Jesse Menks and Ladislas are good
though, Polly Kay isn't horrible either. It's mainly a Bruce-deck, and
in progress still so it's not working too good yet. Except for the
part where he votes something and uses his special, which is the key
part about him. In the meta that has evolved since KoT was released,
he's awesome. I haven't had a single vote against his referendums in
the games.
> > It depends a bit on what one considers to be "new" as well, I suppose.
> > Currently I have 2 dementation bleed decks put together, but they're
> > rather different from the standard KS weenie even if both include
> > Jackie and a fair amount of KS.
>
> I'd be curious to hear the changes.
>
> I've played Dem bleed in Turino 2006 day1, with good success (made 2nd),
> just to try it because I never played it before. It was interesting to do it
> once, but I would find it boring to do it again except if I find a new angle
> (I've thought of For but the crypt just isn't good enough...).
Here's a deck I tried out at a tournament due to rumours of a Derange/
Dementia deck showing up. Playing anti-malks seemed like a good
choice.
It didn't really work at the tournament though (and the Derange deck
never showed up). After some tweaking it's been getting decent results
though, and it's really fun to play.
Louhi's special, together with the other reaction cards (Touch of
Clarity is aces in a Dom-heavy meta) works really well.
Crypt (12 vampires) Capacity min: 3 max: 10 average: 6
------------------------------------------------------------
4x Louhi 10 ANI AUS DEM OBF THA pro cardinal !
Malkavian:4
3x Jackie 3 DEM !
Malkavian:4
2x Midget 3 DEM obf pre !
Malkavian:3
1x Morel 6 AUS DEM OBF
Malkavian:4
1x Tony 6 AUS DEM dom obf
Malkavian:3
1x General Perfidio D 5 AUS dem obf bishop !
Malkavian:3
Library (75 cards)
------------------------------------------------------------
Action (14)
14x Kindred Spirits
Action Modifier (23)
2x Cloak the Gathering
8x Confusion
2x Elder Impersonation
5x Eyes of Chaos
2x Faceless Night
2x Lost in Crowds
2x Mind Tricks
Action Modifier / Reaction (3)
3x Touch of Clarity
Action Modifier/Combat (4)
4x Deny
Master (13)
2x Archon Investigation
1x Coven, The
2x Direct Intervention
4x Dreams of the Sphinx
1x Giant's Blood
1x Pentex(TM) Subversion
2x Villein
Reaction (18)
2x Confusion of the Eye
2x Delaying Tactics
3x Eyes of Argus
2x My Enemy's Enemy
2x On the Qui Vive
4x Telepathic Misdirection
3x Wrong and Crosswise
librarian
I heard the same complaint about Imbued too...
best -
chris
Orpheus
I've seen Imbued win, a lot. But events decks tend to do that : they hinder
everyone and attract table hate, then die, and the game has succombed to
chaos.
Orpheus
> bleed. Starting with 3-4 x Dmitra and going lower, doubling the
> princes, and you've got a party.
Of course. Good crypt. It's the disciplines that are more problematic...
> Fighting didn't work too good around here, either though. But yeah,
> it's mainly an old deck getting better. I think it was rather needed
> though.
When I said that i meant that the Eurobrujahs, an already working deck,
became better. Not the classical Brujahs. Granted, they now can be played
too, and Presence helps (included for stealth now...) but Dom would help
more...
>>> There was an increased amount of Parity Shifting around here just
>>> after KoT was released. I started playing more Delaying Tactics,
>>> Confusion of the Eye, Bruce de Guy etc.
>>
>> What crypt do you use with Bruce ? I could write a whole article on
>> the difficulties of crypt compatibility for the Lasombras...
>
> Well.. A rather bad one, tbh. Jesse Menks and Ladislas are good
> though, Polly Kay isn't horrible either. It's mainly a Bruce-deck, and
> in progress still so it's not working too good yet. Except for the
> part where he votes something and uses his special, which is the key
> part about him. In the meta that has evolved since KoT was released,
> he's awesome. I haven't had a single vote against his referendums in
> the games.
I would have thought you'd use an Obt crypt. The !Ventrue have an ok crypt,
you can even add Ladislas Toth ; the trouble would be more : how to pass
your actions ?!
> Here's a deck I tried out at a tournament due to rumours of a Derange/
> Dementia deck showing up.
Funny to choose a deck because of only one other deck, which isn't the most
frightening I've heard of, not to mention it was a rumor...
> Playing anti-malks seemed like a good
> choice.
> It didn't really work at the tournament though (and the Derange deck
> never showed up). After some tweaking it's been getting decent results
> though, and it's really fun to play.
> Louhi's special, together with the other reaction cards (Touch of
> Clarity is aces in a Dom-heavy meta) works really well.
(snip)
Well yes, it's a Dem bleed with Louhi. A friend of mine had great success
playing that. And Touch of Clarity + Hide the Mind is just hideous. So are
Wrong and Crosswise + Confusion of the Eye, for that matter !
As if the Malks needed more help against bounce... Now you *really* have to
pack Archons !
Orpheus
henrik
> > Group 4/5 Brujah's got a crazy crypt for using New Carthage and vote/
> > bleed. Starting with 3-4 x Dmitra and going lower, doubling the
> > princes, and you've got a party.
>
> Of course. Good crypt. It's the disciplines that are more problematic...
> became better. Not the classical Brujahs. Granted, they now can be played
> too, and Presence helps (included for stealth now...) but Dom would help
> more...
Dominate will kinda always help more. Which I think is part of what
brings us back to your original post. It's very hard to do something
that's better than a select few decks. There are no points for
originality (except for maybe a couple of posts on the newsgroup).
> I would have thought you'd use an Obt crypt. The !Ventrue have an ok crypt,
> you can even add Ladislas Toth ; the trouble would be more : how to pass
> your actions ?!
Still working a bit on that part, but Crocodile Tongue and Kiss of Ra
is the plan at the moment. Gonna see how it works out.
First thought was to use obt, but the titled vampires told me
otherwise.
> > Here's a deck I tried out at a tournament due to rumours of a Derange/
> > Dementia deck showing up.
>
> Funny to choose a deck because of only one other deck, which isn't the most
> frightening I've heard of, not to mention it was a rumor...
Yeah, it was most that the rumor was the only thing we (kinda) knew
was coming. And the Louhi deck seemed decent and fun as well (at least
better than the originally planned Anatole blocker had been).
> > Playing anti-malks seemed like a good
> > choice.
> > It didn't really work at the tournament though (and the Derange deck
> > never showed up). After some tweaking it's been getting decent results
> > though, and it's really fun to play.
> > Louhi's special, together with the other reaction cards (Touch of
> > Clarity is aces in a Dom-heavy meta) works really well.
>
> (snip)
>
> Well yes, it's a Dem bleed with Louhi. A friend of mine had great success
> playing that. And Touch of Clarity + Hide the Mind is just hideous. So are
> Wrong and Crosswise + Confusion of the Eye, for that matter !
I find it fun, and surprisingly strong. Against trimmed 60card decks,
cancelling just 2-3 actions can ruin an entire game. And even if it's
got 14 KS and 8 Confusion, it doesn't feel as dirty as the "real" KS
weenie.
librarian
Event decks |= Imbued Decks.
Sometimes they go together, but I would class each in their own category.
best -
chris
Orpheus
>>>> decks) is boring games for everyone, though...
>>>>
>>>>
>>> I heard the same complaint about Imbued too...
>>
>> I've seen Imbued win, a lot. But events decks tend to do that : they
>> hinder everyone and attract table hate, then die, and the game has
>> succombed to chaos.
>>
>
>
> Event decks |= Imbued Decks.
>
> Sometimes they go together, but I would class each in their own
> category.
My point exactly. Imbued don't unbalance whole tables without mass events
(they're just pains in the ass of prey and pred).
Yours,
Orpheus
Juggernaut1981
>
> - Show quoted text -
Personally, I don't NetDeck. I've playing Magic:The Fleecing where
NetDecking is basically called having good skills/deckbuilding. It
also often involved being willing to blow $400 on ebay singles
purchasing.
If you want to discourage people playing certain deck archetypes, than
build a "counter-archetype" deck. A player at my local group tends to
play an !Tor-Vote'n'Bloat. Tends to win by having a Presence Vamp
push the absolute be-jeebus out of a vote (Con Boon is common) and
then Voter Cap. Classic, fairly reliable, often has the punch to get
vote-lock on its own actions but not generally around the table. To
counter this I built one deck in particular and have another deck that
can both cause it issues and often I play them for the fun of trying
to coerce this player to change decks (or at worst borrow mine).
My !Ven voting deck is nicknamed the "Did I say you could vote?"
Deck. Quentin, Demonstration, Telepathic Vote Counting, etc, etc,
etc. Basically if you want to vote at all, you need to ask my deck
first... or it cancels your acting minions votes, drops 2 loyalties
and feels amused with itself before GtU+Foreshadowing Destruction my
prey after flicking them 2 or 3 bleeds. It will pass a vote with
about 7 votes tabled, no vote-gaining action mods and just cancelling
everybody elses votes. When around a "Vote'n'Bloat" Con-Boon Presence
machine... you just tap Demonstration to target the acting vampire and
then watch the other deck collapse in a pile of poo (and choke on vate
modifiers). Then if it's a Sabbat vampire I ditch a couple of
Loyalty, gain a bit of blood and enjoy asking "So, you're going to
nominate Ventrue-Antitribbu for your Con Boon this time right?"...
The other is "Martin Frankel Says No". Martin Blocks, he Bursts of
Sunlight, he bounces back out of torpor later! Or Plan B (for the
Presence Voters) Oliver Thrace Rushes with Blood Rage/Fury in hand...
"No Mr Ventrue, your Fortitude doesn't work... oh and No Majesty For
You (TM)" plus the rest of the whole "Wall + Dominate" shennanigans
(GtU + Foreshadowing + Command of the Beast + Conditioning... sure
Valois Sang might explode to an Archon, but if you don't...)
Curevei
> If you read my previous posts, you'll see that I don't speak only of
> netdecking but also of just copying concepts seen everywhere ; then, more
> often then not, such players will also browse the forums and / or TWDA to
> see how many of each cards should be included. But not always of course.
Okay, you see the same crap all of the time and it bores you. I can
believe it ... as a regional phenomenon. That's not a general problem
with the game. Also, being the best player is a lot more useful than
having the best deck.
> Good. But then you're not on trial, are you ?
Who is?
Maybe, instead of worrying about other people playing known decks, you
could spend your time devising tech to get the percentages in your
favor, to the extent that there is such a thing in this game as
getting the percentages in your favor.
> > The most I ever look
> > at other decks is to browse them quickly, just to get a general feel
> > for it.
>
> So have I, and most times I end up thinking that they wouldn't fit me at
> all.
> After all, we're all individuals, and that's good, and that's why we should
> each make our own decks (or variations of).
>
> > I've built decks that are similar in concept to others out
> > there though. Does that mean I'm unoriginal?
>
> Yes, see my initial post, we're all unoriginal. ;)
>
> But seriously it totally depends on what you mean by "similar in concept".
>
> Orpheus
Is Jeff Kuta's recent Malk94 deck http://thelasombra.com/decks/twd.htm#2k9alacrity2bc
original because it uses Asher Tablets or unoriginal because it's Dom/
Obf stealth bleed?
Is a library of Auspex intercept & bounce, Dominate bleed & bounce,
and Necromancy evasion original because the crypt includes Augustus,
Raful, et al or is it unoriginal because all of the card effects (if
not the cards, see Eyes of Argus) have been around for years and the
deck plays much like a Giovanni powerbleed deck (well, with absurd
amounts of wake + bounce)?
The concepts in the game don't change much, especially at the highest
levels of card quality, sure. Would the game be better if each new
set *required* everyone to rebuild all of their decks, which is
frequently the case with other CCGs?
Is it interesting to change only 5 cards out of 60-90 - swap out
Minion Taps for Villeins, say? Is it interesting to see whole set
mechanics ignored by one's local group? Not particularly, but, then,
why are these people even playing the game? Why not play a CCG with
cash prizes? What's really gained by winning at this game?
If I understood my metagame, I'd try to break it. Because that's
fun. Doesn't matter whether I succeed at breaking it. YMMV, where
you want to see yours successfully broken, though it's not clear by
whom.
But, I don't have a clear meta to break. Nor is it clear to me what
the crossregional US meta is like from event to event. The last major
I played in saw !Gangrel vote http://thelasombra.com/decks/twd.htm#2k9lvq
win.
This result should, again, point out that people spend far too much
time worrying about decks and not enough about how to play better.
Rather than looking at the decks of the successful players, figure out
how to play like the successful players. Or, don't and be a loser.
Knight
So if a deck has made it on to the TWDA it can never be played again?
We're going to start running out of deck possibilities here pretty
soon. People play the top tier decks because they work. But you can
still beat an idiot playing a top tier deck because he has no idea how
to use it. I've played in the top 16 (last day) of World
Championships for Star Trek twice before, at that level, everyone has
a perfectly tuned deck. You are playing against the other player.
So, if your decks are not good enough to beat a teir 1 deck, then you
need a better deck, or you need to become a better player.
If there is a tier 1 deck you are seeing a lot, learn how to beat it,
That's called a Metagame. If you can't win simply because you refuse
to adapt to what other people are doing, you deserve to lose.
Juggernaut1981
>
> - Show quoted text -
The "Hidden Golden Rule" of VTES...
There is more than one way to skin a prey...
So seriously, if you've got issues with seeing the same deck-type time
and time again... build a deck designed to NERF that deck archetype
fast. Wall decks are often good for that... or you can just go for
S&B Sleaze-Cheez (G1 Malks w/Dom, Obt-Dom Powerbleed, Obf-Dem Bleed-
Cheez) or a Power-Voter (Weenie Pre-voter, Ventrue Lawfirm/Royalty)
Kevin M.
> "Orpheus" <orpheus.TAKEOU...@free.fr> wrote:
>> Let's face it. What you're doing has been done before. Lots of time.
>> archetype, or from the strange abstract concept you found on the
>> net, a vampire here, a master there. So what ? It's still exactly
>> the same. Same concept, same tactics, same results. And it's only
>> a slight variations from decks you've played yourself a zillion times
>> already. Shame on you.
>
> Same with nearly every deck than.... really, I mean -
> how many original decks are there?
Well, I've made what I believe to be original decks based on:
- merging Alan Sovereign and using Protracted Investment(!) to
get free AK-47s then rushing with aus/obf weenies
- using Soul Of The Earth w/Tupdog to get *lots* of Rock Cats for
only 1 pool and have them go beating up the table
- using Goratrix to intercept and then Conquer the Beast/
Song Of Serenity/Thoughts Betrayed
- using 24 Cryptic Mission without Society of Leopold support
- using 24 Kindred Spirits with *86* no-cost cards, which is 7 for 8
in Game Wins, which I consider to be a new sub-archetype
- the 4-caps w/dominate Derek Ray archetype, but using 3-caps
- the old Embrace text with the 12 sabbat 2-caps, which I believe
to be (one of) the reason(s) that Embrace got its text changed
- Mata Hari abusing almost every voting mechanic in the game
Sure, for these eight original(?) decks, I probably have 30 or 40
less-original or more-derivative decks, but most of the better
players who I have played with have several original decks.
Kevin M., Prince of Las Vegas
"Know your enemy and know yourself; in one-thousand battles
you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, *The Art of War*
"Contentment...Complacency...Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier
Please visit VTESville daily! http://vtesville.myminicity.com/
Orpheus
> On Apr 6, 11:07 am, "Orpheus" <orpheus.TAKEOU...@free.fr> wrote:
>> If you read my previous posts, you'll see that I don't speak only of
>> netdecking but also of just copying concepts seen everywhere ; then,
>> more often then not, such players will also browse the forums and /
>> or TWDA to see how many of each cards should be included. But not
>> always of course.
>
> Okay, you see the same crap all of the time and it bores you. I can
> believe it ... as a regional phenomenon. That's not a general problem
> with the game.
The problem with the game (that I feel less than, say, a year back) is when
such few decks are really competitive that all the competitive players play
them. What it tells about regions is just how much they're into the
tournament competitiveness or not.
> Also, being the best player is a lot more useful than
> having the best deck.
Yes and no. At equal skills the best deck wins. To beat a good or excellent
player who plays a Tier1 with a less optimised deck takes much skill. I've
done it on occasion, but it requires much more energy than what most players
are willing to put.
>> Good. But then you're not on trial, are you ?
>
> Who is?
No one, is what I was pointing out.
> Maybe, instead of worrying about other people playing known decks, you
> could spend your time devising tech to get the percentages in your
> favor, to the extent that there is such a thing in this game as
> getting the percentages in your favor.
Maybe you shouldn't presume about what I'm doing besides pointing out what I
dislike.
>>> The most I ever look
>>> at other decks is to browse them quickly, just to get a general feel
>>> for it.
>>
>> So have I, and most times I end up thinking that they wouldn't fit
>> me at all.
>> After all, we're all individuals, and that's good, and that's why we
>> should each make our own decks (or variations of).
>>
>>> I've built decks that are similar in concept to others out
>>> there though. Does that mean I'm unoriginal?
>>
>> Yes, see my initial post, we're all unoriginal. ;)
>>
>> But seriously it totally depends on what you mean by "similar in
>> concept".
>>
>> Orpheus
>
> Is Jeff Kuta's recent Malk94 deck
> http://thelasombra.com/decks/twd.htm#2k9alacrity2bc
> original because it uses Asher Tablets or unoriginal because it's Dom/
> Obf stealth bleed?
Interesting. Well, both : the crypt is profoundly unoriginal but the take is
interesting and renewing. That's ok in my book. Also, you really don't see
'94 malks anymore, people tend to play Dem a lot more nowadays (here at
least).
> Is a library of Auspex intercept & bounce, Dominate bleed & bounce,
> and Necromancy evasion original because the crypt includes Augustus,
> Raful, et al or is it unoriginal because all of the card effects (if
> not the cards, see Eyes of Argus) have been around for years and the
> deck plays much like a Giovanni powerbleed deck (well, with absurd
> amounts of wake + bounce)?
Well, first it doesn't look like a very good deck. ;) If you've made one
that works really well I'd be glad to see the list.
Then, of course it would be if not innovative at least "original" in the
sense that absolutely nobody plays that.
But then there's also the "trend" thing, or the "been there, done that"
thing. In modern art, there were innovations at one time, that had no
"artistic" value except for the novelty of the concept : doing such a thing
first was great, following the trend not-so-great, and doing the same thing
20 years later is just lazy (especially with monochromes).
For example, I don't know anyone who played (even less played succesfully)
an Ignazio deck G2-G3 before me (or even after, for that matter) ; now
Ignazio G3-G4 has been done over. It's not the concept you'll see most
often, especially in big tournaments, so it's still not cheesy to do it,
it's just not original anymore.
Then of course you have the "personal" criteria : if you have never played
something, it's still new for you. So why not. But new and original are 2
very different things.
> The concepts in the game don't change much, especially at the highest
> levels of card quality, sure. Would the game be better if each new
> set *required* everyone to rebuild all of their decks, which is
> frequently the case with other CCGs?
No, but for instance KMW is such an extension : as I said when we saw the
cards, it includes so many good cards that a continuing player "has" to have
some if he wants his decks to stay on top (at least for Camarilla
disciplines). Another such game-changing card is Target Vitals, which
clearly affects many deck concepts (and makes several previous cards,
including Pot combat cards, sort of obsolete / redundant).
> Is it interesting to change only 5 cards out of 60-90 - swap out
> Minion Taps for Villeins, say? Is it interesting to see whole set
> mechanics ignored by one's local group? Not particularly, but, then,
> why are these people even playing the game? Why not play a CCG with
> cash prizes? What's really gained by winning at this game?
Precisely. We're not playing for any money, right ? So what's the interest
of playing over and over a deck we know can win in our hands ? Just the sake
of winning ? An ego thing ? A tribute to unoriginality ? I can understand
trying an unoriginal winning deck concept from time to time. Heck, I've done
it and probably will again. But once you've achieved what you wanted with
it, you can move on and try more personal stuff.
> If I understood my metagame, I'd try to break it. Because that's
> fun. Doesn't matter whether I succeed at breaking it. YMMV, where
> you want to see yours successfully broken, though it's not clear by
> whom.
>
> But, I don't have a clear meta to break.
Nor do I, because a) fortunately not everyone plays Tier1 and b) even those
vary in respect to the ways to counter them - say, a weenie bleed, an Arika
and an Animalism wall all have very different nemesis.
> the crossregional US meta is like from event to event. The last major
> I played in saw !Gangrel vote
> http://thelasombra.com/decks/twd.htm#2k9lvq
> win.
lol. Surprising. And interesting. I guess the player was either very good,
very lucky, or both.
But then, I know at least a player besides myself, and much better than
myself (although he never won the title I did, but he's currently 5th french
player) who always makes great results in tournaments with personal,
original and most of the time not-so-good decks. He's an exception, of
course, but he proves that you can win with your own concepts / tweaks, and
that's for me the right direction in a game without money prizes.
> This result should, again, point out that people spend far too much
> time worrying about decks and not enough about how to play better.
This goes in the same direction of my thoughts really. I would say : people
should worry more of playing the decks they like and they can play well
rather than just decks that "work" in general. And this leaves more place
for imaginative deckbuilding.
> Rather than looking at the decks of the successful players, figure out
> how to play like the successful players. Or, don't and be a loser.
Well, I don't feel concerned here, given the results I've had and the decks
I've had them with, so I'll assume you're speaking generally.
And I agree with your point, except for the "be a loser" part, because I'll
respect more a player who gets averagely good results with personal decks
than one who wins tournies with always the same hyper-optimised,
non-original Tier1 decks. Of course, winning with personal decks is better,
and I've always found it much more rewarding.
Yours,
Orpheus
Orpheus
> gra...@hotmail.com wrote:
>> "Orpheus" <orpheus.TAKEOU...@free.fr> wrote:
>>> Let's face it. What you're doing has been done before. Lots of time.
>>> Sure, you've changed a few cards from the tournament winning
>>> archetype, or from the strange abstract concept you found on the
>>> net, a vampire here, a master there. So what ? It's still exactly
>>> the same. Same concept, same tactics, same results. And it's only
>>> a slight variations from decks you've played yourself a zillion
>>> times already. Shame on you.
>>
>> Same with nearly every deck than.... really, I mean -
>> how many original decks are there?
>
> Well, I've made what I believe to be original decks based on:
Ok, if you allow me I'll rate the originality based on my personal
experience, like so :
0 - perfectly unoriginal
1 - nothing new here
2 - not seen too often, or not seen to win
3 - never seen before in real situation
4 - never heard of the concept, never thought of it !
Of course, all joke apart, that doesn't mean you don't have the "right" to
play them if I rate them badly, especially if you've never done it before
yourself. So let's see :
> - merging Alan Sovereign and using Protracted Investment(!) to
> get free AK-47s then rushing with aus/obf weenies
3. Never seen one in action. I'm toying with the concept of Alan + Giovanni
(for Swiss Cut) myself, didn't do it yet though.
> - using Soul Of The Earth w/Tupdog to get *lots* of Rock Cats for
> only 1 pool and have them go beating up the table
2. Has been done already much, just not with tupdogs, but it's mainly the
same. Courageous on your part, though, seeing the cost of Tuppies...
> - using Goratrix to intercept and then Conquer the Beast/
> Song Of Serenity/Thoughts Betrayed
1,5. Seen this a loooooong time ago, planned to do one too but never had
enough Gory base. Still, never saw one in high-level tournies.
> - using 24 Cryptic Mission without Society of Leopold support
lol. 1. Taking a card out doesn't change a concept.
> - using 24 Kindred Spirits with *86* no-cost cards, which is 7 for 8
> in Game Wins, which I consider to be a new sub-archetype
I just really don't understant that sentence or the 24 + 86 concept. Care to
explain ?
> - the 4-caps w/dominate Derek Ray archetype, but using 3-caps
0. Dom weenies has never been original, never will be no matter tha
variations in crypt. But whatever turns you on.
> - the old Embrace text with the 12 sabbat 2-caps, which I believe
> to be (one of) the reason(s) that Embrace got its text changed
lol. Wasn't here at the time, so I couldn't tell. Maybe you were the first
to abuse the card like that ?
> - Mata Hari abusing almost every voting mechanic in the game
2. Seen if often enough (first time on JOL).
> Sure, for these eight original(?) decks, I probably have 30 or 40
> less-original or more-derivative decks, but most of the better
> players who I have played with have several original decks.
Original I don't know, but it looks at least like they all have a personal
touch, which from a realistic PoV is better than nothing.
Yours,
Orpheus
Orpheus
Certainly not. But just going on the TWDA and copying, say, an Imbued or
speed-whatever list is a no-brainer.
> We're going to start running out of deck possibilities here pretty
> soon.
Wrong. The new cards offer new possibilities and even allow to revisit old
decks from a new angle (Target Vitals by itself does that a lot).
> People play the top tier decks because they work. But you can
> still beat an idiot playing a top tier deck because he has no idea how
> to use it.
Agreed.
> I've played in the top 16 (last day) of World
> Championships for Star Trek twice before, at that level, everyone has
> a perfectly tuned deck. You are playing against the other player.
You are comparing with a duel game (if I'm not mistaken). Dual card games
tournies often end up with 2 decktypes : the most popular / best current
concept and the one which counters it. This is why I won't practice such a
game (I play Heroclix but figurine strategy is different, AND it's a game
where you can make up construction rules for each events ; in constructed
restricted format you always see the same figs over and over and it's boring
as hell).
> So, if your decks are not good enough to beat a teir 1 deck, then you
> need a better deck, or you need to become a better player.
>
> If there is a tier 1 deck you are seeing a lot, learn how to beat it,
> That's called a Metagame. If you can't win simply because you refuse
> to adapt to what other people are doing, you deserve to lose.
I see you don't know me : neither the type of decks I play nor the results I
obtain with them. Therefore it could be good not to make such judgemental
judgements (even if I'm well aware that, taken at the first degree, my
initial post could be something of a troll).
But beating top players with top decks that they've been playing forever
requires to be exceptionally good, and that isn't something that everyone
can do, especially with more personal decks. Still, it's always a great
pleasure when you succeed at doing so.
If I had a wish concerning the direction of the game, it could be summed up
in 2 requests, one for the players and one for the conceptors :
- to the players : try to find new ways of doing things, heck, try to find
*your* way. That is, ultimately, the best way, if not by far the easiest.
- to the conceptors : give us more viable and interesting crypt alternatives
so we don't see Anson / Arika / Donal / Isabel et al in every major
tournament. There are ways to do that and ideas have already been posted on
this forum. Others can be if needed.
Yours,
Orpheus
Kevin M.
> Players who need all the attention on the table.
> Una-equip-decks are the worst. Pure solitaire.
This, more than any other angry statement you have made,
proves to me that you are not a high-level player.
Thanks for confirming what I have long thought.
Kevin M.
> One reason folks continue to play Una decks is exactly because
> they hate them - they want Una either depowered or banned.
...even though Una isn't the problem, Freak Drive is the problem. Sigh.
Orpheus
> as...@hotmail.com wrote:
>> Players who need all the attention on the table.
>> Una-equip-decks are the worst. Pure solitaire.
>
> This, more than any other angry statement you have made,
> proves to me that you are not a high-level player.
>
> Thanks for confirming what I have long thought.
Care to develop that harsh judgement on another player (you apparently don't
know) ?
Orpheus - nor judge nor jury
Orpheus
> librarian wrote:
>> One reason folks continue to play Una decks is exactly because
>> they hate them - they want Una either depowered or banned.
>
> ...even though Una isn't the problem, Freak Drive is the problem.
> Sigh.
Sure. But FD costs blood, except for Una, you know fully well that's why
this particular vamp is the issue.
O.
Kevin M.
> Kevin M. wrote:
>> - using 24 Cryptic Mission without Society of Leopold support
>
> lol. 1. Taking a card out doesn't change a concept.
Orpheus, I ask you: Does *anyone* play a CM deck without it? ;)
If not, then I say that it is "original". Not necessarily awesome, or
great, or groundbreaking, although it might be any or all of these, and
possibly foolish, but I'd say that it certainly is original to try such a
thing.
>> - using 24 Kindred Spirits with *86* no-cost cards, which is
>> 7 for 8 in Game Wins, which I consider to be a new sub-archetype
>
> I just really don't understant that sentence or the 24 + 86 concept.
> Care to explain ?
I meant a KS deck, with 24x KS, with 86 of the 90 cards being free.
>> - the 4-caps w/dominate Derek Ray archetype, but using 3-caps
>
> 0. Dom weenies has never been original, never will be no matter tha
> variations in crypt. But whatever turns you on.
If you say so. I had seen people do the 4-cap and 2-cap version, as
well as a generic weenie version, but I had never seen anyone believe
that the 4-cap or 2-cap versions were able to be improved upon, so I
made the 3-cap version, which I believe is the best version of the three.
Again: never been tried before = original.
>> - the old Embrace text with the 12 sabbat 2-caps, which I believe
>> to be (one of) the reason(s) that Embrace got its text changed
>
> lol. Wasn't here at the time, so I couldn't tell. Maybe you were the
> first to abuse the card like that ?
I asked around at the time, and have continued to ask over the years,
and as far as I know I was the only one who played that deck with
tremendous regularity, simply to get Embrace changed. I even spied
LSJ playing a version of the deck at WoN1, if I remember correctly.
>> - Mata Hari abusing almost every voting mechanic in the game
>
> 2. Seen if often enough (first time on JOL).
I made the first version of the deck (and had the original Mata Hari art)
before KMW was released to the public, so I can at least say that I had
the JOL players beat.
First version of the deck = original.
Although... I will concede that something so obvious shouldn't
be considered original, so I take this one back. ;)
>> Sure, for these eight original(?) decks, I probably have 30 or 40
>> less-original or more-derivative decks, but most of the better
>> players who I have played with have several original decks.
>
> Original I don't know, but it looks at least like they all have a
> personal touch, which from a realistic PoV is better than nothing.
Well, thanks for the backhanded compliment, I guess. :P
Orpheus
> Orpheus wrote:
>> Kevin M. wrote:
>>> - using 24 Cryptic Mission without Society of Leopold support
>>
>> lol. 1. Taking a card out doesn't change a concept.
>
> Orpheus, I ask you: Does *anyone* play a CM deck without it? ;)
lol. Not that I can recall.
> If not, then I say that it is "original". Not necessarily awesome, or
> great, or groundbreaking, although it might be any or all of these,
> and possibly foolish, but I'd say that it certainly is original to
> try such a thing.
But what more does it bring, except the fact that it brings.. less ? Is it
just "the same but harder to pull" ? As would be non-Anson TGB ?
>>> - using 24 Kindred Spirits with *86* no-cost cards, which is
>>> 7 for 8 in Game Wins, which I consider to be a new sub-archetype
>>
>> I just really don't understant that sentence or the 24 + 86 concept.
>> Care to explain ?
>
> I meant a KS deck, with 24x KS, with 86 of the 90 cards being free.
Ok, and the 7 for 8 part ? You win 7 games out of 8 with it ?
This being said, most of the Dem / Obf cards don't cost blood. Telepathic
Misdi does, but then I guess you didn't use much of those, did you ?
>>> - the 4-caps w/dominate Derek Ray archetype, but using 3-caps
>>
>> 0. Dom weenies has never been original, never will be no matter tha
>> variations in crypt. But whatever turns you on.
>
> If you say so. I had seen people do the 4-cap and 2-cap version, as
> well as a generic weenie version, but I had never seen anyone believe
> that the 4-cap or 2-cap versions were able to be improved upon, so I
> made the 3-cap version, which I believe is the best version of the
> three.
I don't understand why those would need to be played separately ? I mean,
you could get some 2-Cap, some 3 and some 4, no ? Or is there something I'm
missing in the deck concept ?
> Again: never been tried before = original.
>
>>> - the old Embrace text with the 12 sabbat 2-caps, which I believe
>>> to be (one of) the reason(s) that Embrace got its text changed
>>
>> lol. Wasn't here at the time, so I couldn't tell. Maybe you were the
>> first to abuse the card like that ?
>
> I asked around at the time, and have continued to ask over the years,
> and as far as I know I was the only one who played that deck with
> tremendous regularity, simply to get Embrace changed. I even spied
> LSJ playing a version of the deck at WoN1, if I remember correctly.
Well done then.
>>> - Mata Hari abusing almost every voting mechanic in the game
>>
>> 2. Seen if often enough (first time on JOL).
>
> I made the first version of the deck (and had the original Mata Hari
> art) before KMW was released to the public, so I can at least say
> that I had the JOL players beat.
>
> First version of the deck = original.
Granted ! ;)
> Although... I will concede that something so obvious shouldn't
> be considered original, so I take this one back. ;)
lol. Not so obvious, because you might think vote locs + her 2 votes
wouldn't be enough to pass much (which is usually true in the beginning of
the game)
>>> Sure, for these eight original(?) decks, I probably have 30 or 40
>>> less-original or more-derivative decks, but most of the better
>>> players who I have played with have several original decks.
>>
>> Original I don't know, but it looks at least like they all have a
>> personal touch, which from a realistic PoV is better than nothing.
>
> Well, thanks for the backhanded compliment, I guess. :P
lol. You're welcome. :D
O.
Kevin M.
FD has been the issue since Jyhad, when it was the core of an abusive
old-Fame deck. FD has been the issue by making the stupid Ventrue
better than they should have been, and allowed them to *COMPLETELY*
DOMINATE* the Camarilla clans until CE. FD has been the issue since
it is believed to be *THE*ONLY*WAY* that some players will play
9-, 10-, or 11-caps, i.e. if they are FD-capable.
FD has *always* been a problem. It will always *be* a problem.
Some stupid vampire with the ability to use FD for free, who has never
won a tournament, who, as far as I know, has only ever come close
to winning one tournament (albeit a big one), is *clearly* not the problem.
Previous discussion:
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/7c1d98ac8cc9318e
and its thread.
Orpheus
> Orpheus wrote:
>> Kevin M. wrote:
>>> librarian wrote:
>>>> One reason folks continue to play Una decks is exactly because
>>>> they hate them - they want Una either depowered or banned.
>>>
>>> ...even though Una isn't the problem, Freak Drive is the problem.
>>> Sigh.
>>
>> Sure. But FD costs blood, except for Una, you know fully well that's
>> why this particular vamp is the issue.
>
> FD has been the issue since Jyhad, when it was the core of an abusive
> old-Fame deck.
Those days are over now...
> FD has been the issue by making the stupid Ventrue
> better than they should have been, and allowed them to *COMPLETELY*
> DOMINATE* the Camarilla clans until CE.
Their absence of stealth hinders them (although multiple untaps help). Only
the Ventrue Obf really rule because of this card.
> FD has been the issue since
> it is believed to be *THE*ONLY*WAY* that some players will play
> 9-, 10-, or 11-caps, i.e. if they are FD-capable.
9+ Caps should have inherent advantages like included untaps. FD makes some
of them playable, and a few of them abuseable. So does that make FD bad, or
the Fatties-without-For/Tha bad ?
> FD has *always* been a problem. It will always *be* a problem.
Not enough of a problem to deserve errata at this point IMHO.
> Some stupid vampire with the ability to use FD for free, who has never
> won a tournament, who, as far as I know, has only ever come close
> to winning one tournament (albeit a big one), is *clearly* not the
> problem.
It isn't a problem warranting errata. It is, like several other cards
(Baltimore and co) the core of a deck which can screw tables up - and
player's pleasure in the game - although not necessarily win much.
> Previous discussion:
> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/7c1d98ac8cc9318e
> and its thread.
Nothing conclusive seems to come from that thread - as could have been
predicted.
Orph
Kevin M.
When Ashur posts here, he's often an ass. So, I wonder why that
is. Now I know: it's because he feels insecure here.
Orpheus, have you ever even SEEN The Una Deck? Seriously?
It seems like you -- and the other players who seem to think that
it's an easily-piloted or solitaire deck -- have absolutely no clue how
many truly difficult decisions are involved in playing the deck.
The Una Deck has, as far as I know, never won a tournament. It
has, as far as I know, only come close to winning one tournament.
A tournament which wasn't won since the player who was playing the
deck at the time didn't properly play the deck, even though he is a
consistently good player. I just think he hadn't played the deck enough.
There are decks like The Una Deck (the 'Turbo' decks,fr.ex.) which,
once you play them, and then you see other players proclaim them
'solitaire' or some other perjorative, you are able to easily state that
those players are Not Good Yet. That, or just Dum(TM).
> Orpheus - nor judge nor jury
You really make yourself look silly by throwing down the gauntlet and
then saying you aren't judging me and aren't going to be the jury of my
response.
If you have the balls to make the accusation, don't wimp-out with some
contradictory .sig. Don't worry, we can still be friends afterword. :)
Kevin M.
> Kevin M. wrote:
>> Orpheus wrote:
>>> Kevin M. wrote:
>>>> - using 24 Cryptic Mission without Society of Leopold support
>>>
>>> lol. 1. Taking a card out doesn't change a concept.
>>
>> Orpheus, I ask you: Does *anyone* play a CM deck without it? ;)
>
> lol. Not that I can recall.
>
>> If not, then I say that it is "original". Not necessarily awesome,
>> or great, or groundbreaking, although it might be any or all of
>> these, and possibly foolish, but I'd say that it certainly is
>> original to try such a thing.
>
> But what more does it bring, except the fact that it brings.. less?
> Is it just "the same but harder to pull" ? As would be non-Anson TGB?
It is more difficult to win with, yes. But I wanted to experiment with the
concept of mass-CM without SoL. Which I thought was the original part.
>>>> - using 24 Kindred Spirits with *86* no-cost cards, which is
>>>> 7 for 8 in Game Wins, which I consider to be a new sub-archetype
>>>
>>> I just really don't understant that sentence or the 24 + 86 concept.
>>> Care to explain ?
>>
>> I meant a KS deck, with 24x KS, with 86 of the 90 cards being free.
>
> Ok, and the 7 for 8 part ? You win 7 games out of 8 with it ?
> This being said, most of the Dem / Obf cards don't cost blood.
> Telepathic Misdi does, but then I guess you didn't use much of those,
> did you ?
Nope. That is one of several original elements in the deck which I had
never seen before. No bounce, no 'wake', no intercept, no The Call,
no Midget, no non-KS pool gain, and a willingness to oust cross-table.
>>>> - the 4-caps w/dominate Derek Ray archetype, but using 3-caps
>>>
>>> 0. Dom weenies has never been original, never will be no matter tha
>>> variations in crypt. But whatever turns you on.
>>
>> If you say so. I had seen people do the 4-cap and 2-cap version, as
>> well as a generic weenie version, but I had never seen anyone believe
>> that the 4-cap or 2-cap versions were able to be improved upon, so I
>> made the 3-cap version, which I believe is the best version of the
>> three.
>
> I don't understand why those would need to be played separately?
> I mean, you could get some 2-Cap, some 3 and some 4, no? Or is
> there something I'm missing in the deck concept ?
I played with 12x 3-caps with dominate. Never been done before.
>> Again: never been tried before = original.
>>
>>>> - the old Embrace text with the 12 sabbat 2-caps, which I believe
>>>> to be (one of) the reason(s) that Embrace got its text changed
>>>
>>> lol. Wasn't here at the time, so I couldn't tell. Maybe you were the
>>> first to abuse the card like that ?
>>
>> I asked around at the time, and have continued to ask over the years,
>> and as far as I know I was the only one who played that deck with
>> tremendous regularity, simply to get Embrace changed. I even spied
>> LSJ playing a version of the deck at WoN1, if I remember correctly.
>
> Well done then.
>
>>>> - Mata Hari abusing almost every voting mechanic in the game
>>>
>>> 2. Seen if often enough (first time on JOL).
>>
>> I made the first version of the deck (and had the original Mata Hari
>> art) before KMW was released to the public, so I can at least say
>> that I had the JOL players beat.
>>
>> First version of the deck = original.
>
> Granted ! ;)
>
>> Although... I will concede that something so obvious shouldn't
>> be considered original, so I take this one back. ;)
>
> lol. Not so obvious, because you might think vote locs + her 2 votes
> wouldn't be enough to pass much (which is usually true in the
> beginning of the game)
That's why I run four copies of Legendary Vampire in a 60-card deck!
Kevin M.
> Kevin M. wrote:
>> Orpheus wrote:
>>> Kevin M. wrote:
>>>> librarian wrote:
>>>>> One reason folks continue to play Una decks is exactly because
>>>>> they hate them - they want Una either depowered or banned.
>>>>
>>>> ...even though Una isn't the problem, Freak Drive is the problem.
>>>> Sigh.
>>>
>>> Sure. But FD costs blood, except for Una, you know fully well that's
>>> why this particular vamp is the issue.
>>
> as could have been predicted.
...except the fact that someone disagrees with your hypothesis. Just
sayin'.
Orpheus
>> as could have been predicted.
>
> ...except the fact that someone disagrees with your hypothesis. Just
> sayin'.
I don't really have an hypothesis. ;) But on the thread several people seem
to have diverging opinions, which doesn't prove anything in and by itself.
And LSJ seems to come to the conclusion that nothings has to be fixed.
O.
Orpheus
> Orpheus wrote:
>> Kevin M. wrote:
>>> as...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>> Players who need all the attention on the table.
>>>> Una-equip-decks are the worst. Pure solitaire.
>>>
>>> This, more than any other angry statement you have made,
>>> proves to me that you are not a high-level player.
>>>
>>> Thanks for confirming what I have long thought.
>>
>> Care to develop that harsh judgement on another player (you
>> apparently don't know) ?
>
> When Ashur posts here, he's often an ass. So, I wonder why that
> is. Now I know: it's because he feels insecure here.
>
> Orpheus, have you ever even SEEN The Una Deck? Seriously?
Yes, now I have.
> It seems like you -- and the other players who seem to think that
> it's an easily-piloted or solitaire deck --
Did I EVER say it was easily-piloted ? Solitaire it is, because a turn which
lasts 45 mn doesn't involve much the rest of the table, does it ? But I
never pretended it was easy to play? Proof is that the player who played it
wasn't skilled enough and did shite with it.
> have absolutely no clue
> how many truly difficult decisions are involved in playing the deck.
Well, I don't fit into your category, and I do realize that.
> The Una Deck has, as far as I know, never won a tournament. It
> has, as far as I know, only come close to winning one tournament.
> A tournament which wasn't won since the player who was playing the
> deck at the time didn't properly play the deck, even though he is a
> consistently good player. I just think he hadn't played the deck
> enough.
Do you mean that in the hands of a consistent good player with real training
it would become game-breaking ?
> There are decks like The Una Deck (the 'Turbo' decks,fr.ex.) which,
> once you play them, and then you see other players proclaim them
> 'solitaire' or some other perjorative, you are able to easily state
> that those players are Not Good Yet. That, or just Dum(TM).
Turbo decks are usually not fun for players around. They usually have to be
stopped early on or they might become unstoppable. They also can be screwed
up by missing cards in their combo. They do add some random element to the
table. That's about all I can say about them.
>> Orpheus - nor judge nor jury
>
> You really make yourself look silly by throwing down the gauntlet and
> then saying you aren't judging me and aren't going to be the jury of
> my response.
I won't dignify this by instulting you back. You obviously didn't understand
me, though.
What gauntlet do you think I threw ?
I wasn't the target of your attack. I asked you what was behind it because
it was rather judgemental, and I don't recall having ever told a player he
had no clue and should therefore shut up, that's not how I see things. So I
simply stated that I didn't want to be judge or jury against Ashur, just
that I wanted to know what could possibly justify such an attack. See ? No
one's silly here.
> If you have the balls to make the accusation, don't wimp-out with some
> contradictory .sig.
I guess you're talking about the initial "accusation" of the thread ? Not
wimping out here. I just find it unnecessary to make directed attacks on
other posters.
> Don't worry, we can still be friends afterword.
> :)
> Kevin M., Prince of Las Vegas
Yeah, I'm beginning to know you. Which doesn't mean that I condone your way
of slipping easily into taunts or insults. See, that's just too easy, and
easy is sooooo unoriginal !! :p
Orph
Salem
> The Una Deck has, as far as I know, never won a tournament. It
> has, as far as I know, only come close to winning one tournament.
> A tournament which wasn't won since the player who was playing the
> deck at the time didn't properly play the deck, even though he is a
> consistently good player. I just think he hadn't played the deck enough.
I think _an_ Una deck won the Australian Championships one year, played
by Dom (the guy's name, not the discipline). Which earned him the reward
of being the model for Cedric the gargoyle.
But I may be mistaken. It was definitely in the finals though (I was the
judge, but it was a few years back and my memory is a bit fuzzy).
--
salem
(replace 'hotmail' with 'gmail' to email)
Orpheus
I found lots of Una in the TWDA.
Most of them were in Govern the UNAligned, more than a few AkUNAnse, some
spanish comments, a few CommUNAl Heaven, LUNAtic Eruptions, UNAcceptable
Appearance...
As for the real Una, a player had one in an Aksinya deck, another had 2...
At lest this winning deck qualifies as an Una deck :
-------
Left for Dead #2 - Betrayer
Mini-qualifier
Los Angeles, CA
February 16, 2008
12 players
2R + F
Tournament winning deck by Dennis Lien
Unariffic!!!
Crypt: 12 (avg=4.5)
Una x 5
-------
And that's all I could find really. But it proves that Kevin's statement was
wrong, for what it's worth.
Orph
as...@hotmail.com
> as...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > Players who need all the attention on the table.
> > Una-equip-decks are the worst. Pure solitaire.
>
> This, more than any other angry statement you have made,
> proves to me that you are not a high-level player.
>
> Thanks for confirming what I have long thought.
First: I never claimed to be a "high-level player". Second: What do
you want? Really? What is your problem with me? Have I insulted you by
saying Una-decks are played by people who need attention? By saying
they are solitaire decks?
as...@hotmail.com
they should have been"? What do you know about how good the Ventrue
should have been in Jyhad? Isn´t this just opinions?
LSJ could at any time make cards that make big vamps without for more
worth playing. But he choose not to (except some stuff, like Monastery
of Shadows). Don´t blame Freak Drive.
Knight
> > So if a deck has made it on to the TWDA it can never be played again?
>
> Certainly not. But just going on the TWDA and copying, say, an Imbued or
> speed-whatever list is a no-brainer.
>
guarantee that it will be within 4-5 cards of another deck on the
TWDA, simply because that is the most efficient build.
> > We're going to start running out of deck possibilities here pretty
> > soon.
>
> Wrong. The new cards offer new possibilities and even allow to revisit old
> decks from a new angle (Target Vitals by itself does that a lot).
>
True, but as soon as someone wins with it, if I then try it, I'll be
NetDecking.
> > I've played in the top 16 (last day) of World
> > Championships for Star Trek twice before, at that level, everyone has
> > a perfectly tuned deck. You are playing against the other player.
>
> You are comparing with a duel game (if I'm not mistaken). Dual card games
> tournies often end up with 2 decktypes : the most popular / best current
> concept and the one which counters it. This is why I won't practice such a
> game (I play Heroclix but figurine strategy is different, AND it's a game
> where you can make up construction rules for each events ; in constructed
> restricted format you always see the same figs over and over and it's boring
> as hell).
http://www.trekcc.org/tournament/index.php?mode=view&tournamentID=104
The deck lists from the last Trek Worlds, See if you can pick out the
"Most Popular" and the "Counter" decks out of the 16 there :-).
It might seem like its all the decks, and is some games, where there
are expectionally broken card(s) or a busted power curve, that is
true. But in a balanced game such as Star Trek and Vampire that is
not the case. I've played Star Trek since its inception 15 years
ago. It took 8 years for me to become a good enough player to compete
at the world level. I am still not a good enough Vampire player to
compete at the World level after 10 years (mostly because I am no
longer able to travel for large tournaments). Yet, having reached
that level in another game, I can tell you with certainty that with
Good players and a balanced game the deck has little to do with who
wins.
> - to the conceptors : give us more viable and interesting crypt alternatives
> so we don't see Anson / Arika / Donal / Isabel et al in every major
Well, the new ICs were designed to hurt Arika and Alexandria pretty
badly. Remember that the new Ventrue and Toreador ICs automatically
win when they contest. Meaning, it is a real risk to play with the
old ones now, as you could very well find yourself 4 votes short. I
already have a deck build with Haaaarrrdd stat, because he is quite
good. I totally expect to see the new Tor IC as well regularly.
I don't want to see the game evolve into something where no one plays
old vampires because they are no longer any good. Yes, Isabel and
Donal are good vampires, but so are Dmitra Ilyanova and Guillaume
Giovanni, or god forbid Petrodon, OBF, DOM Justicar, no that's not
powerful. Heck, I am in the process of figuring out what deck I want
to run in our upcoming Imperator Storyline, I build both an Old Brujah
and a New Brujah deck because I couldn’t decide which was better, I’m
going to let some test games decide. The new Vampires certainly do
not suck, and I have deck ideas for them.
> - to the players : try to find new ways of doing things, heck, try to find
> *your* way. That is, ultimately, the best way, if not by far the easiest.
>
That's all well and good; a player can bring whatever deck he likes to
a tournament. There is no law saying he has to play Arika. Most
casual players and some Good players bring "Fun" decks to tournaments
regularly. However, when the Qualifier rolls around, people want to
win. So they bring a deck that has a chance of that.
When I was about 13-14 years old (damn was it that long ago, I'm
old). I went to my first Provincial Championships for Star Trek. I
had been playing with the group for some time by that point. I had a
couple fun decks that did decently well when played against the other
fun decks that a good number of the players there played regularly.
However, to my dismay I lost every game. Everyone who usually played
kooky fun decks had brought far more powerful and focused decks. When
I complained to the Ambassador about how everyone was playing cheesy
he said to me: "What do you expect, this is Provincials".
So while I might bring my kooky True Brujah deck to a tournament to
see how it does, when I go to the Qualifier this year, I will be
taking a proven deck, and if any of the players there wine about how
cheesy it might be, or how it’s been done before, I'll tell them:
"What do you expect, this is the Qualifier".
Knight
> > then saying you aren't judging me and aren't going to be the jury of
> > my response.
>
> I won't dignify this by instulting you back. You obviously didn't understand
> me, though.
>
Wow, he must really be on the Higher ground guys !!! :-)
Kevin M.
> At lest this winning deck qualifies as an Una deck :
> -------
> Left for Dead #2 - Betrayer
> Mini-qualifier
> Los Angeles, CA
> February 16, 2008
> 12 players
> 2R + F
>
> Tournament winning deck by Dennis Lien
>
> Unariffic!!!
>
> Crypt: 12 (avg=4.5)
> Una x 5
> -------
> And that's all I could find really. But it proves that Kevin's
> statement was wrong, for what it's worth.
Ok, it has won a tournament. I was wrong.
jason...@iinet.net.au
> But I may be mistaken. It was definitely in the finals though (I was the
> judge, but it was a few years back and my memory is a bit fuzzy).
I don't think it won from memory. It dominated during the day, top
seeding it into the finals, but iirc Una got dunked by a Retribution
and diablerised in the final. I think.... not 100% though.
Issues with Freak Drive aside, Una is not a problem because she
dominates tournaments. She's a problem because she makes any game she
is part of *incredibly* boring. The fact that Una decks are tricky to
play isnt really in dispute - it certainly can require a great deal of
focus to run one effectively. The problem is that while you're taking
your 30+ actions in a single round and thinking about how to play your
cards to best effect, etc, you're probably not interacting with many
other players for most of those plays.
The comparison between una and the Imbued is spurious btw. Nobody who
has played against a lot of Una and imbued decks can honestly say that
the Hunters are even comparible in the solitaire stakes.
Anyway, back to the festivities...
jase
Orpheus
>>>>>> they hate them - they want Una either depowered or banned.
>>>>>
>>>>> ...even though Una isn't the problem, Freak Drive is the problem.
>>>>> Sigh.
BTW, Muaziz with The Ankara Citadel, Turkey, could do the same as Una but
better, no ?
Orpheus
gra...@hotmail.com
> better, no ?
>
> Orpheus
No.
Una is an Archbishop and has ANI, which opens up the ability for some
perma pool defense. Namely, Raven Spy, Raptor, Eternal Vigiliance.
Una also has FOR which is useful if Una is blocked, because she can
still freak drive, but Muaziz's turn ends.
--> J
Orpheus
True.
Instead, Muaziz has +1 included stealth, access to Rutor's Hand too, Magic
of the Smith to get anything at +4 total stealth, and with her multi-acting
she can diablerize with remorses...
Anyway, I'll never own enough FDs to make that deck either ! lol
Orpheus
Frederick Scott
news:49d87c64$0$9716$426a...@news.free.fr...
> Let's face it. What you're doing has been done before. Lots of time. Sure, you've changed a few cards from the tournament winning
> archetype, or from the strange abstract concept you found on the net, a vampire here, a master there. So what ? It's still exactly
> the same. Same concept, same tactics, same results. And it's only a slight variations from decks you've played yourself a zillion
> times already. Shame on you.
Another in the ongoing series of "spaghetti western" posts. They're no
longer fresh. But they still entertain. And Clint Eastwood is probably
available to star in the movie version!
tigernat1
> grai...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > "Orpheus" <orpheus.TAKEOU...@free.fr> wrote:
> >> Let's face it. What you're doing has been done before. Lots of time.
> >> Sure, you've changed a few cards from the tournament winning
> >> archetype, or from the strange abstract concept you found on the
> >> net, a vampire here, a master there. So what ? It's still exactly
> >> the same. Same concept, same tactics, same results. And it's only
> >> a slight variations from decks you've played yourself a zillion times
> >> already. Shame on you.
>
> > how many original decks are there?
>
> Well, I've made what I believe to be original decks based on:
> - merging Alan Sovereign and using Protracted Investment(!) to
> get free AK-47s then rushing with aus/obf weenies
> - using Soul Of The Earth w/Tupdog to get *lots* of Rock Cats for
> only 1 pool and have them go beating up the table
> - using Goratrix to intercept and then Conquer the Beast/
> Song Of Serenity/Thoughts Betrayed
Thief!!!!
Vegas gNat
> - using 24 Cryptic Mission without Society of Leopold support
> - using 24 Kindred Spirits with *86* no-cost cards, which is 7 for 8
> in Game Wins, which I consider to be a new sub-archetype
> - the 4-caps w/dominate Derek Ray archetype, but using 3-caps
> - the old Embrace text with the 12 sabbat 2-caps, which I believe
> to be (one of) the reason(s) that Embrace got its text changed
> - Mata Hari abusing almost every voting mechanic in the game
>
> Sure, for these eight original(?) decks, I probably have 30 or 40
> less-original or more-derivative decks, but most of the better
> players who I have played with have several original decks.
>
librarian
Cardano's better than Muaziz to replicate an Una deck.
best -
chris
librarian
Blondie, you bast.....! [wha - wha - whaaaaaaa]
Orpheus
If we're looking for a "strict" replication, sure. But Una can be hindered
by intercept + fight early on, that's why I like Muaziz ; also, Mumu can
diablerize, which neither of the others can do without risk.
Orpheus
Johann von Doom
> Mumu can
> diablerize, which neither of the others can do without risk.
Una normally gets a Templar, doesn't she? So Cardano's analogue would
be getting an Archon, at which point he can diablerize safely.
John Eno
Kevin M.
> On Apr 7, 1:28 am, "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote:
>> grai...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>> "Orpheus" <orpheus.TAKEOU...@free.fr> wrote:
>>>> Let's face it. What you're doing has been done before. Lots of
>>>> time. Sure, you've changed a few cards from the tournament winning
>>>> archetype, or from the strange abstract concept you found on the
>>>> net, a vampire here, a master there. So what ? It's still exactly
>>>> the same. Same concept, same tactics, same results. And it's only
>>>> a slight variations from decks you've played yourself a zillion
>>>> times already. Shame on you.
>>
>>> Same with nearly every deck than.... really, I mean -
>>> how many original decks are there?
>>
>> Well, I've made what I believe to be original decks based on:
>> - merging Alan Sovereign and using Protracted Investment(!) to
>> get free AK-47s then rushing with aus/obf weenies
>> - using Soul Of The Earth w/Tupdog to get *lots* of Rock Cats for
>> only 1 pool and have them go beating up the table
>> - using Goratrix to intercept and then Conquer the Beast/
>> Song Of Serenity/Thoughts Betrayed
>
> Thief!!!!
>
> Vegas gNat
You disowned the deck, if I remember correctly. ;)
Juggernaut1981
> "Orpheus" <orpheus.TAKEOU...@free.fr> wrote in message
[Whistles] *doo-ee-oo-ee-ooo doo doo doooooo*
*Steps out of bedroom wearing jeans, a tshirt with a revolver on it, a
white card box and a VTES 10th Anniversary tin*
I'm a callin yeuuuuw owwwwwt!
Orpheus
Gotta pass the votes, which is far from granted in such a deck with a 9-Cap
minion and 2 votes (other voters will have more votes out by then).
Orpheus
Johann von Doom
> Gotta pass the votes, which is far from granted in such a deck with a 9-Cap
> minion and 2 votes (other voters will have more votes out by then).
Doesn't Una manage to make herself a Templar somehow? That's no harder
or easier than Cardano doing the same with an Archon.
John Eno
Orpheus
Well, she might try, not sure how she passes it. ;)
Maybe Dia ? In which case Cardano can't do it.
Orpheus
gra...@hotmail.com
> seeding it into the finals, but iirc Una got dunked by a Retribution
> and diablerised in the final. I think.... not 100% though.
Close
It didn't dominate on the day, it went into the final 4th seed with
only 1 Game win. I went in as top seed with 2 GW and 9VP. I sat as
it's prey and got screwed over by only drawing 2 combat ends out of
about 18 cards. There were 25/75 combat ends in the deck (Earth Meld
Wall). I was ousted quick enough because my vamps got binned. Then,
yes - Una got Retributed into torpor (even though Dom saw the card in
Shane's hand)..
Peter Rophail won this event - through more good luck than good
management (not taking anything away from Peter - but when his prey
just effectively killed his own game by being silly, it just fell into
Peter's lap.
--> J
Johann von Doom
> Well, she might try, not sure how she passes it. ;)
> Maybe Dia ? In which case Cardano can't do it.
Yeah, I don't know if she passes it, having never seen this kind of
deck in action. I could be wrong about it even being in the deck at
all.
John Eno
librarian
Una rushes (or threatens too) all voters who would be opposed into
torpor...?
best -
chris
Juggernaut1981
Oh no, don't poke me right in the MAJESTY...
wedge
> Oh no, don't poke me right in the MAJESTY...
Blessing of Chaos...
tupausm...@gmail.com
> Close
> It didn't dominate on the day, it went into the final 4th seed with
> only 1 Game win. I went in as top seed with 2 GW and 9VP. I sat as
> it's prey and got screwed over by only drawing 2 combat ends out of
> about 18 cards. There were 25/75 combat ends in the deck (Earth Meld
> Wall). I was ousted quick enough because my vamps got binned. Then,
> yes - Una got Retributed into torpor (even though Dom saw the card in
> Shane's hand)..
>
> Peter Rophail won this event - through more good luck than good
> management (not taking anything away from Peter - but when his prey
> just effectively killed his own game by being silly, it just fell into
> Peter's lap.
Ah fair enough. My memory was pretty hazy - in fact, in hindsight I
don't even think I was at the Nats that year, and have just heard
chinese whispers about it (which explains why my recollection was
kinda hazy :) )
Why on earth did Dom bleed when he saw the Retribution? An attack of
the stupids?