[PLAY THEORY] Combat Decks & "The 3 Player Principle"
Juggernaut1981
of the Sydney game. Most decks have decent levels of combat, even
fairly bleedy-decks have a moderate combat package (even if it is a
wad of S:CE).
Myself and another player here have been periodically discussing an
idea on playing Combat Decks that I've nicknamed the 3 Player
Principle.
Simply, combat decks should do whatever it takes to get a table down
to 3 players, crosstable rushes, predator rushing, etc, etc, etc until
the table has 3 players. From there it should be able to win by
beating up every other vampire on the table and taking the win by
"default" (bleeding out the remaining 2 players for a total of 3VPs).
Often this will rely on permanent rush, built-in rush, transient rush
and potentially baiting players (for the more "wall oriented" combat
decks).
I also strongly suspect that Combat Walls (Tzimisce Wall, Tremere
Wall, Osebo Wall, etc) should also adopt this general kind of tactic.
I also don't know if this kind of theorising is generally done, but I
think it may be a way to think about difficult archetypes and
determine how they should win games and tournaments.
So, feel free to expand/comment/critique etc on this idea. I want to
see what others think of this principle.
Kevin M.
> Myself and another player here have been periodically discussing
> an idea on playing Combat Decks that I've nicknamed the 3 Player
> Principle.
>
> Simply, combat decks should do whatever it takes to get a table
> down to 3 players, crosstable rushes, predator rushing, etc, etc,
One of the most important things that happened to improve my game was
a discussion that Matt Morgan and I had a few years back regarding
5-player tables and how important it is to have someone, anyone, die
as fast as possible for the other players to be able to avoid timing
out, since that is the most likely result at a 5-player table.
While I would like that first oust to be MY prey, if it just isn't
going to happen then I don't do anything to stop it, and now I'm in
a much better situation with much less chance of a timeout. Even if
a timeout does happen, hopefully I'm the guy with 2 at that point and
I still win the table.
Regarding combat decks, I have come to believe that combat decks which
are able to tool-up, hand-optimize via discarding, hunt, and bleed for
one a bunch, and go for that first torporization LATER are much more
likely not to be considered the table threat and therefore be given
enough lattitude to win the table.
In other words, try not to go nuclear, just because you can. Unless
you're a one-trick pony, of course. If that's the case, do whatever
you like, obviously. ;)
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/
Please buy my cards! http://shop.ebay.com/kjmergen/m.html
Please attend my qualifier! http://members.cox.net/vtesinlv/index.htm
midirr
I agree with the 3 player principle as stated, though for a rush deck
it is as much about choosing who is going to be in the three player as
it is just getting there. Setting up the table if you are a rush deck
is what makes them quite difficult to play.
As for combat walls, the baiting tactic is a 2 edge sword. Baiting
the entire table is never good as you spend to much resources, baiting
ones prey is always good though as they are really the ones you want
to be in combat with. Thus things like army or rats is useful as it
gives your prey a reason to come after you which saves on your eagle
sights.
Not sure if you should be classing combat walls and rush in the same
theory as to a large extent different tactics are used due to their
ability to interact with the rest of the table, though both will excel
in the three player situation.
midirr
>
> Regarding combat decks, I have come to believe that combat decks which
> are able to tool-up, hand-optimize via discarding, hunt, and bleed for
> one a bunch, and go for that first torporization LATER are much more
> likely not to be considered the table threat and therefore be given
> enough lattitude to win the table.
>
> In other words, try not to go nuclear, just because you can. Unless
> you're a one-trick pony, of course. If that's the case, do whatever
> you like, obviously. ;)
>
> 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/
> Please buy my cards!http://shop.ebay.com/kjmergen/m.html
> Please attend my qualifier!http://members.cox.net/vtesinlv/index.htm
While I agree that for a combat deck to go completely nuclear from the
get go, I have often found that it helps a lot to get an early torpor
so there is a threat but as long as you don't go nuts with it that you
don't become a true table threat. In my experience it is the early
fight that lets you get a lot of free actions to bloat/tool up in
which time the focus of the table often shifts to someone else as the
real threat leaving you in a strong position to make a move later.
Dr.Mafrune
Agree 100%. Until there are 3 players, rushers mission is to play "
the sheriff " on the table, controlling minion growth rate, erasing in
the process any deck which aims to fill the table with minions
(breeding, allies) and many times his predator, if he doesn´t
acknoledge he has not to be a threat for his prey.
Prey- your first victim.
Allies deck - enemy.
Breeding deck- enemy.
Weenie deck- enemy.
Bleeder- secret ally, because he makes the table come to three players
faster, before someone can build-up. If he is your prey erase him. He
is a perfect target for rushing, because no one takes care of a
bleeder, and your will hardly get table hate for doing this.
Politician- double edged sword. Can be your best ally and your fearest
foe.
Rusher- Ally until the end.... like the Highlanders, you know only one
can survive.
Blocker- Ally or on good terms at least, because both target for a
three player table. Keep an eye on him, because on end games blockers
are very strong.
orianice
are different and I don't see combat decks as having to go 3-way as
soon as they can. The things clear for me are:
- whenever there is somebody you are sure you can kill whenever you
want, keep him in the game
- whenever you can kill somebody you will not be able to kill after,
go for it
- whenever there is somebody you cannot kill at the table, keep
somebody who can kill him alive
Demnogonis Saastuttaja
I oust my prey and don't get ousted myself. The other players are
casualties, not allies nor targets for responsible bleeding or
whatever. Then, though, a full sweep is always tastier than a 3VP GW.
Anyway, with combat decks it's more pronounced behaviour, destroy your
prey, preferably fast and let the others die eventually. I think it
isn't necessary to defend Smiling Jack the entire game, just as long
as some damage is done in order to make everyone weaker.
However as friendly games don't have time limits I don't know exactly
how it affects this kind of gameplay, and don't remember the last time
I have been at a tournament game which time-outed.
orianice
> I oust my prey and don't get ousted myself.
Lol
> Anyway, with combat decks it's more pronounced behaviour, destroy your
> prey, preferably fast and let the others die eventually.
Lol
>I think it
> isn't necessary to defend Smiling Jack the entire game, just as long
> as some damage is done in order to make everyone weaker.
Lol
> However as friendly games don't have time limits I don't know exactly
> how it affects this kind of gameplay,
Lol
> and don't remember the last time
> I have been at a tournament game which time-outed.
Lol
where do you live by the way?
Ruben Feldman
Lol
Peter D Bakija
> Simply, combat decks should do whatever it takes to get a table down
> to 3 players, crosstable rushes, predator rushing, etc, etc, etc until
> the table has 3 players.
Yeah, I don't know that this is that good of an idea, really.
Especially the "crosstable rushes" part.
When playing a rush deck, there is certainly something to be said for
either:
A) Go nuts, kill your first prey as fast as possible, get a VP, 6
pool, and then hunker down and survive till the 1 on 1 and win with
3VP.
This works if it works. If you are a weenie POT deck and your prey is
a soft and squishy S+B deck or something, this can be amazingly
effective. Kill them quickly with impunity, and then start back
rushing to survive. That being said, it doesn't always work.
B) Lay low, tool up, survive, wait for the table to destabilize on its
own, and then start killing. This keeps you under the radar for a
while, and if you don't have an insanely aggressive predator, it can
work just fine.
This is also a viable plan that works well, but often results in you
starting to go nuts just when someone is about the sweep the table,
which often means you just die along with everyone else.
I don't think crosstable rushing is virtually *ever* a good idea, even
when it seems like a perfect idea (i.e. you are about to oust your
prey and want to rush your grand prey to get a head start--inevitably,
you will somehow fail to oust your prey, your grand prey will be
filled with spite, and then you'll have *three* people gunning for
you...) Like, yeah, once and a while, a crosstable rush is going to
save you or make you win or something, but this happens *far* less
likely than "Well, I rushed someone crosstable 'cause I thought it was
going to make me win. And then I lost."
-Peter
orianice
librarian
Great post, thank you.
best -
chris
brandonsantacruz
> Please buy my cards!http://shop.ebay.com/kjmergen/m.html
> Please attend my qualifier!http://members.cox.net/vtesinlv/index.htm
I haven't had great luck with rush decks. The best one I made is a
Janni + friends WWS diversion deck. It doesn't lay low too well,
unless you mean bleed for 1 a lot. It can be pretty disheartening to
play with a pred/prey who won't let you do anything and insist on
torporing all of your minions so a sort of proportional response and
"wait and see" approach is probably best.
Brandon
echia...@yahoo.com
> Simply, combat decks should do whatever it takes to get a table down
> to 3 players, crosstable rushes, predator rushing, etc, etc, etc until
> the table has 3 players. From there it should be able to win by
> beating up every other vampire on the table and taking the win by
> "default" (bleeding out the remaining 2 players for a total of 3VPs).
> Often this will rely on permanent rush, built-in rush, transient rush
> and potentially baiting players (for the more "wall oriented" combat
> decks).
>
> I also strongly suspect that Combat Walls (Tzimisce Wall, Tremere
> Wall, Osebo Wall, etc) should also adopt this general kind of tactic.
Yes, many other deck types (such as intercept wall) want fewer players
ASAP. Sometimes, packing in My Enemy's Enemy can be useful for this
purpose. (Ideally you want your prey out. If not, then *someone* out
whether it be your predator, or your grandpredator due to MEE. Plus
when you use MEE you can "apologize" claiming that you don't have a
choice who to bounce it to).
The main challenge I've found when trying to collapse the game to just
three players (where you can then dominate the table), is that if
you're too antagonistic or too manipulative, you can piss off the
remaining two players. If you've screwed them over too much, your
predator (who is your grandprey) may be tempted to just let his
predator (your prey) oust him, rather than letting you get the 3VP's.
If I'm your predator (of the 3 remaining players) and you've
torporized all of my vampires and I can't do anything at all, I'd be
tempted to self-oust (which could possibly result in no Game Win if
there's a 2-2 or 2-2-1 tie). So carefully managing the table without
stepping on too many toes, is the hardest part, in my experience.
Salem
> I don't think crosstable rushing is virtually *ever* a good idea, even
> when it seems like a perfect idea (i.e. you are about to oust your
> prey and want to rush your grand prey to get a head start--inevitably,
> you will somehow fail to oust your prey, your grand prey will be
> filled with spite, and then you'll have *three* people gunning for
> you...) Like, yeah, once and a while, a crosstable rush is going to
> save you or make you win or something, but this happens *far* less
> likely than "Well, I rushed someone crosstable 'cause I thought it was
> going to make me win. And then I lost."
i love the way you throw good solid actual experience into the mix of
theoretical strategies to bring people down to earth a bit.
I quite agree. the cross-table rush might look good at the time, but
usually ends up backfiring in a big way.
--
salem
(I'm looking at YOU, Eugene. I'm looking at YOU!)
Juggernaut1981
wrote:
Demno> Our playgroup tends to time-out games, usually because if we
don't we can get 6hr epics happening. And while periodically
craploads of fun, they can get HORRIDLY tedious.
Juggernaut1981
> On Dec 15, 7:49 pm, Juggernaut1981 <brasscompo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Simply, combat decks should do whatever it takes to get a table down
> > to 3 players, crosstable rushes, predator rushing, etc, etc, etc until
> > the table has 3 players.
>
> Yeah, I don't know that this is that good of an idea, really.
> Especially the "crosstable rushes" part.
>
> When playing a rush deck, there is certainly something to be said for
> either:
>
> A) Go nuts, kill your first prey as fast as possible, get a VP, 6
> pool, and then hunker down and survive till the 1 on 1 and win with
> 3VP.
>
> This works if it works. If you are a weenie POT deck and your prey is
> a soft and squishy S+B deck or something, this can be amazingly
> effective. Kill them quickly with impunity, and then start back
> rushing to survive. That being said, it doesn't always work.
>
> B) Lay low, tool up, survive, wait for the table to destabilize on its
> own, and then start killing. This keeps you under the radar for a
> while, and if you don't have an insanely aggressive predator, it can
> work just fine.
>
> This is also a viable plan that works well, but often results in you
> starting to go nuts just when someone is about the sweep the table,
> which often means you just die along with everyone else.
> -Peter
Regarding "tooling up" rush decks.
Honestly I have not seen any really significantly threatening "tool
up" rush decks. Wall decks like to tool up, Enkidu's Raptors likes to
tool up but I honestly don't see many other rush-based decks that
spend serious time tooling up. They are usually, disciplines ready
out of the box, red-cards in hand... wait for Haven or Rush card.
>
> I don't think crosstable rushing is virtually *ever* a good idea, even
> when it seems like a perfect idea (i.e. you are about to oust your
> prey and want to rush your grand prey to get a head start--inevitably,
> you will somehow fail to oust your prey, your grand prey will be
> filled with spite, and then you'll have *three* people gunning for
> you...) Like, yeah, once and a while, a crosstable rush is going to
> save you or make you win or something, but this happens *far* less
> likely than "Well, I rushed someone crosstable 'cause I thought it was
> going to make me win. And then I lost."
>
The value in the cross-table rush is about picking who you can kill
when you don't have the resources later. Rush decks are card
intensive. They can frequently run out of cards, or jam, or run out
of steam (i.e. blood/minions). Ashur Tablets are making the life of a
rush deck easier, but they still have those issues.
Decks I would consider cross-table rushing out of the game:
Majesty-Bleeders (particularly if they are GPred)
Fortitude-Bleeders (particularly if they are GPred)
Voters (a lot of rush decks are bad with aggressive voters. Nos
Princes may be an exception. Brujah Rush tends not to be vote-heavy.
Tremere Princes tend to be "wall-ish" rather than Rush-ey)
Rotchreckers/Perma-Agg (Tzi-Rot-Cheese, Protean Rot-Cheese, DBRs,
Burst of Sunlight)
Decks I would RARELY consider cross-table smashing:
Potence Rush (duking it out later isn't a big issue)
S&B (GPrey position. Smash their prey -GPred- and hand away the VP so
you can kill the S&B deck later and get more pressure on your pred
now)
Bloat-Voter (AAA-type deck or a Eurayle + Minion Tap a 10-cap type)
Peter D Bakija
> Regarding "tooling up" rush decks.
> Honestly I have not seen any really significantly threatening "tool
> up" rush decks.
I don't mean a specific "tooling up" kind of rush deck. Just, ya know,
biding your time, getting some guns or whatever, getting out some
minions, bleeding for 1 regularly, and defending yourself. A lot of
fight decks (especially if they have some bounce in them) can do this
quite well--get set up, wait for the table to start tipping over, and
then attack your prey. As opposed to going nuts out of the gate (which
also can work, but doesn't always).
> The value in the cross-table rush is about picking who you can kill
> when you don't have the resources later.
Oh, I know the theory. But in practice, more often than not, cross
table rushing in the name of pre-emptive killing a threat or
something, results in you just making someone else win and you lose.
Expending resources on someone cross table makes someone else's life
easier (who isn't you, and is either your prey or your predator), and
unless you result in them getting immediately ousted or crushed beyond
recognition, also results in you having a 3rd spiteful opponent who is
now gonna do stuff like hit you cross table with vote damage, bounce
bleeds into you, and SR/DI your stuff, just to screw you.
Once and a while, does rushing cross table pay off? Sure. But it is
far and away the exception and not the rule.
-Peter
brandonsantacruz
I see far too many games where people play decks, and part of it may
be just part of how they play, where they don't meaningfully interact
with the rest of the table. There's a table threat, they don't
respond, he crushes the table. I have brought rush decks to
tournaments specifically for this reason. What often happens, as you
observed, is that you become a "king maker." I really want to find
ways to avoid that situation that don't involve super wall decks. I do
not want to allow someone to run the table, nor do I want to cause
someone other than myself to win(generally). The three-player thing
Jug is talking about does not make a good rule, but it seems like it
could potentially work out. What are some good resources for those
interested in rush decks?
Brandon
Mercuriel Monitor
> On Dec 16, 9:25 pm, Juggernaut1981 <brasscompo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Regarding "tooling up" rush decks.
> > Honestly I have not seen any really significantly threatening "tool
> > up" rush decks.
>
> I don't mean a specific "tooling up" kind of rush deck.
snip
> Once and a while, does rushing cross table pay off? Sure. But it is
> far and away the exception and not the rule.
>
> -Peter
I've never won with a combat rush deck that didn't tool up or breed.
My Saulot deck didn't want anyone at the table, at all to die, for the
first 60% of the game. I'd rush my predator as soon as I felt like
removing his bleediest minion, but after that I'd basically just
bloat, wall up with permanents, and only fight when my combat hand was
too awesome not too. 30 mins before the game ends, (and I have to
work on the timing of this), I'd try and go full throttle and sweep
the table.
I'm all for cross table rushing when your playing non camarilla
biggies, and they have an inner circle, or when cross table is about
to get vote lock and become your only obstacle.
My Adonai rush deck would do the same thing, except with more Brothers
in Arms. Either way I'd be trying to slow the table down while I
built, and then I'd rush forward full speed. I guess that deck could
go forward sooner though, and it would have no choice but to rush
forward once every !Salubri was out.
-Mercuriel
Demnogonis Saastuttaja
How does that happen, everyone's playing Imbued and taking 15min
turns?
A rush deck (the kind of deck I don't really have experience on
playing) should try to have the means to grab a quick (or not so quick
just as long as your prey doesn't get any) VP, and after that it can
go counter-clockwise, or do anything to survive, since the remaining
players can't win the game just as long as you are there. Or, I don't
know, make a deck with what it's not entirely unreasonable to oust a
few people.
TTC
>
> How does that happen, everyone's playing Imbued and taking 15min
> turns?
>
it is very classical to have games time-out, especially in
tournaments. I have played almost everywhere in the world and there
are more or less timeouts everywhere.
that's why I was asking what is your playgroup
Demnogonis Saastuttaja
Only in tournaments, since friendly games don't use time-outs, and
it's not necessary, either, since most often they clock under 2 hours
and rarely so much over two hours a time-out would have made it
better. I'm playing in Turku, Finland, and often in Pori. I was asking
since over three hours must be a crazy exaggeration. And I really
don't remember time-outing in tournaments other than when playing a
classic Rötschreck Tzimisce deck and some people stalled on purpose
the whole game, other than that it's pretty much do or die for me.
TTC
I am sorry but everywhere I went, from USA to Sweden to Japan,
friendly games used time limit 2h
I'm playing in Turku, Finland, and often in Pori.
Oh that's good, I was in Rauma last year but could not play.
So I was not aware of finnish players not doing timeout in friendly
but I would say that among all players I know, the way Finnish play is
indeed the less giving chances leading to go to timeout.
"Play, don't talk" right?
And I really
> don't remember time-outing in tournaments other than when playing a
> classic Rötschreck Tzimisce deck and some people stalled on purpose
> the whole game, other than that it's pretty much do or die for me.
Well, I recall time outing with finnish players more than once. You
cannot decide what happens on the table every time.
Peter D Bakija
wrote:
> I see far too many games where people play decks, and part of it may
> be just part of how they play, where they don't meaningfully interact
> with the rest of the table.
I'd never claim that not interacting meaningfully with the rest of the
table is a good idea. But in years and years and years of playing this
game, all experience and indications are that:
Messing with someone cross table is far more likely to make someone
else win than it is to make you win.
Far and away. Cross table rushing the "table threat" or the "guy you
want to get next" (to make this discussion far more wide ranging, feel
free to change "cross table rushing" into "cross table vote killing"
or "cross table eagle's sight blocking" or whatever) is sooooo
unlikely to pay off in a beneficial way for you that it is generally a
bad idea. Once and a while, does it save the day? Sure. But unless you
are positive that it will save the day, it probably won't. And will
probably just make someone else win.
> There's a table threat, they don't respond, he crushes the table.
Or, conversely, "There's a table threat, you respond, and someone else
other than you crushes the table."
> I have brought rush decks to
> tournaments specifically for this reason. What often happens, as you
> observed, is that you become a "king maker."
Sure. And rarely is the King you (i.e. the King Maker rarely gets to
be King). Bringing rush decks to tournaments just to make sure some
decks *don't* win is an occasionally attractive idea (trust me, I
know), but planning on being a King Maker in competition is generally
not a good way to actually win games. Just make other people win
games.
> The three-player thing
> Jug is talking about does not make a good rule, but it seems like it
> could potentially work out. What are some good resources for those
> interested in rush decks?
They are certainly around on the internet and in the player's guide
from a few years back. But my good rule of thumb resource for today
is:
"Don't cross table rush people. It isn't going to help you win."
-Peter
quickbeam
> Juggernaut1981 wrote:
> > Myself and another player here have been periodically discussing
> > an idea on playing Combat Decks that I've nicknamed the 3 Player
> > Principle.
>
> > Simply, combat decks should do whatever it takes to get a table
> > down to 3 players, crosstable rushes, predator rushing, etc, etc,
> > until the table has 3 players.
This is relevant to other types of decks as well. Ben Swainbank wrote
some good articles about it in 2002, under the Malkavian Newsletter
heading.
This one:
http://www.thelasombra.com/newsletter/malkavian_february_2002.htm
and to a greater extent, this one:
http://www.thelasombra.com/newsletter/malkavian_june_2002.htm
It applies to combat, but having played a lot of combat, and a lot of
three player games, I think it applies generally.
> One of the most important things that happened to improve my game was
> a discussion that Matt Morgan and I had a few years back regarding
> 5-player tables and how important it is to have someone, anyone, die
> as fast as possible for the other players to be able to avoid timing
> out, since that is the most likely result at a 5-player table.
Absolutely true.
> While I would like that first oust to be MY prey, if it just isn't
> going to happen then I don't do anything to stop it, and now I'm in
> a much better situation with much less chance of a timeout. Even if
> a timeout does happen, hopefully I'm the guy with 2 at that point and
> I still win the table.
>
> Regarding combat decks, I have come to believe that combat decks which
> are able to tool-up, hand-optimize via discarding, hunt, and bleed for
> one a bunch, and go for that first torporization LATER are much more
> likely not to be considered the table threat and therefore be given
> enough lattitude to win the table.
Darby wrote some things about this as well, archived here:
http://www.thelasombra.com/combat_by_darby.txt
> In other words, try not to go nuclear, just because you can. Unless
> you're a one-trick pony, of course. If that's the case, do whatever
> you like, obviously. ;)
>
> 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
-dc
Demnogonis Saastuttaja
> > Only in tournaments, since friendly games don't use time-outs,
>
> I am sorry but everywhere I went, from USA to Sweden to Japan,
> friendly games used time limit 2h
>
much.
> I'm playing in Turku, Finland, and often in Pori.
>
> Oh that's good, I was in Rauma last year but could not play.
> So I was not aware of finnish players not doing timeout in friendly
> but I would say that among all players I know, the way Finnish play is
> indeed the less giving chances leading to go to timeout.
> "Play, don't talk" right?
>
Maybe, I tend to babble a lot but nobody listens, and it doesn't seem
the actual table-talk ever takes very long. Personally I often like
ridiculing the other player's propositions more than trying to
actually argue. Anyway, I don't know if they time-out outside where I
play.
> And I really
>
> > don't remember time-outing in tournaments other than when playing a
> > classic Rötschreck Tzimisce deck and some people stalled on purpose
> > the whole game, other than that it's pretty much do or die for me.
>
> Well, I recall time outing with finnish players more than once. You
> cannot decide what happens on the table every time.
Sure, though outside of stalling I still don't see what would usually
take so long. Many wall decks, Imbued and such, maybe? I'm just
curious, that's all.
Matthew T. Morgan
> I see far too many games where people play decks, and part of it may
> be just part of how they play, where they don't meaningfully interact
> with the rest of the table.
This is one extreme. Table cop is the other. I come across people who do
what you suggest below at the expense of taking VPs and/or letting the
game end. Your first and only responsibility is to yourself, not the
table.
> There's a table threat, they don't
> respond, he crushes the table.
If there isn't a table threat, then nobody at the table is playing
properly.
> I have brought rush decks to
> tournaments specifically for this reason. What often happens, as you
> observed, is that you become a "king maker." I really want to find
> ways to avoid that situation that don't involve super wall decks.
The solution is to bring a strong deck that can take the table. If you
aren't able to establish dominance and pull a table win but instead can
only try to "balance" the table, then I suggest you are playing to the
wrong goal.
I don't mean specifically you. I haven't played with you. But some of
the things you're saying here have in some of my past games been used to
justify stupid actions. Stuff like:
Me: Why are you rushing me? You can kill your prey right now!
Him: You are too strong. I have to trim you back. Also, you're about to
oust your prey.
Me: But you could have a VP right now and you'd be strong too!
Him: I can't let you run the table.
Me: Your prey just influenced a 10 cap and you know he's got another
Minion Tap. You need to kill him now or you never will.
Him: If I do that, you'll take the table.
> I do
> not want to allow someone to run the table, nor do I want to cause
> someone other than myself to win(generally).
Of course not, but sometimes someone else will run the table. It happens.
Sometimes you can't stop it. Take your VP and shake the guy's hand. This
is better than winding up with nothing because you rushed cross-table and
either "balanced" the table so it went to time or getting ousted because
you happen to be sitting as prey to someone who knows an opportunity when
he sees one.
In short: killing your prey is worth 1 VP. Stopping a "table threat" is
worth nothing.
> The three-player thing
> Jug is talking about does not make a good rule, but it seems like it
> could potentially work out. What are some good resources for those
> interested in rush decks?
It's pretty tough to win competative vtes games with rush decks. The
Bakija method is to kill your prey really fast, then kill anyone who's
dangerous. It can work, but the "kill your prey really fast" part can be
tricky. If you don't pull it off, your grandprey will be in a commanding
position. Really your best bet is that your predator is cowed by your big
fist or is lying in wait and doesn't pull the right hand to lunge or you
get your VP quicker than he thought or something. When that happens, you
might have a shot, but you need to keep pulling consistent good hands of
combat and rush or eventually someone will sense your weakness and then
it's all over. Or someone will be playing 20 Carrion Crows, which is
really bad for Koko and Lupo (acknowledging that weenie potence isn't the
only rush deck).
I think part of what Jug is saying that's good is that it's okay, good
even, to let people die on the table. I'm not sure about any two. Rush
decks tend not to make much pool so if your prey isn't one of the two, you
could have a hard time finishing things off. Or maybe you sit on your
hands until it's a 3-way and the other guys are playing only 10 caps that
are totally vulnerable to combat. I suppose that could work, provided
your predator doesn't transfer out.
But the principle of letting people die on the table is a good thing to
keep in mind for any strategy. You almost never make 5 VPs unless you're
playing a really fast deck and everything lines up just right. Sitting
down with the intent of taking 5 VPs is foolish. So when your
grandpredator is on death's door and begs you to give him all 5 Parity
Shift pool, say no. Try to get something small off his predator in
exchange for not saving him. Keeping the guy around will just prolong the
game. The clock is your enemy. Timeouts will rob you VPs. The game win
is all that is important.
TTC
The key factor of everything Matt says is "adaptability"
learn to make the difference between a prey playing ravnos carnival
and doubling minions every turn and malkavian 1/2 Stealth/bleed that
is going to be crunchy any turn you play your frontal assault.
Kushiel
wrote:
> I'm all for cross table rushing when your playing non camarilla
> biggies, and they have an inner circle,
You don't need to do that any more. PTO has been banned.
John Eno
XZealot
> interested in rush decks?
>
> Brandon
3 words....Basilia Multi-Rush
Peter D Bakija
> It's pretty tough to win competative vtes games with rush decks. The
> Bakija method is to kill your prey really fast, then kill anyone who's
> dangerous. It can work, but the "kill your prey really fast" part can be
> tricky.
(Snipping out all the other stuff Matt wrote that I completely 100%
agree with).
Exactly--the "Nuke your first prey as fast as possible, get 6 pool and
a VP, and then stay alive till the end of the game by whatever means
necessary!" is a viable way for (weenie) rush to work. But it is
difficult. And often your prey will be very uncooperative, i.e. lots
of Carrion Crows or Fortitude or Ag hands or whatever. But if you can
pull it off,it can work. If you can't, it won't. Also, as noted in one
of my previous posts, the Mergen plan of "bide your time and wait for
the table to fall apart before the killing" also can work, but
generally needs some other defensive technology other than killing
people to be something you can pull off. But also, if it works, it
works.
> I think part of what Jug is saying that's good is that it's okay, good
> even, to let people die on the table.
Oh, absolutely--I find the whole concept of "Don't let anyone oust
anyone! They will become too powerful!" to be kind of insane--much
like I generally feel that cross table rushes/votes/blocks/bleeds/
whatever tend to shoot you in the foot far more often than than they
help you, the cross table DI/block/whatever to keep someone from being
ousted just in the name of keeping someone from being ousted is also
often a horrible idea that tends to see *wayyy* too much play in this
game. I mean, yeah, if keeping someone alive directly and specifically
benefits you *now*, use the DI on that ousting action. But if it is
just sort of a "Huh. I can't possibly stand by and let someone oust
someone! The table will be unbalanced! Someone will be a table
threat!" kind of saving, don't do it.
-Peter
brandonsantacruz
it out in the endgame. I'm open to trying new strategies in VTES, so
that may be a good place to start. We're having a tournament this
Sunday, so we'll see how that goes.
Brandon
Juggernaut1981
wrote:
Matt & Peter,
One of the core elements we thing to winning with combat is less about
"maximising your own VPs directly" but "minimising others to less than
yours". GWs require you to have 2 VPs and more than anyone else
(AFAIRemember).
So yes, if your prey's VPs are dangling in the wind so to speak...
*play Rocky Music* Go For Gold.
If they aren't, then make sure that someone, somewhere is dying.
Because really, you want to get 2 VPs by killing 2 other players, you
don't care which 2 in the end. By collapsing a table to 3 players
(and helping to make sure that those players at the end are the LEAST
likely to destroy you) it becomes a matter of ensuring your predator
can't die/transfer out before you kill your prey. It's not the
easiest trick in the world for sure, but in the end Combat decks
should ideally aim at a VP split of 3/1/1 or 2/1/1/1 on a 5play and
2/1/1 or 3/1 on a 4play. It's PTW (you are trying to maximise your
VPs).
The "classic" Combat technique is also used by Kindred Spirits decks
with "flicky preys". The Salmon Method. You see that river flowing
towards you from your predator... Go Up Stream. Backwards Oust; the
hardest way to win a tournament table. Wall decks can also do a
variation on the Salmon Method: The Immovable Object (all of your
predators crash on the Immovable Object and die).
I'd be interested in having people who are keen to play nasty
aggressive combat, potentially on JOL but also in RL tournaments, to
test out this theory in practice.
Peter D Bakija
> One of the core elements we thing to winning with combat is less about
> "maximising your own VPs directly" but "minimising others to less than
> yours".
Yeah, see, I don't think that is true. Every time I win games with
combat decks, and have won tournaments with combat decks, it isn't
through anything other than "Kill your prey. Be the last guy left that
the table." Trying really hard to minimize other's abilities to get
VPs is just asking for other people to win.
> GWs require you to have 2 VPs and more than anyone else
> (AFAIRemember).
So you get 3VPs. Kill your prey. Then survive. That works.
> If they aren't, then make sure that someone, somewhere is dying.
Well, sure. But I don't think encouraging that dying by crosstable
rushing and spending your resources to make someone else stronger is
often the way to do that.
> I'd be interested in having people who are keen to play nasty
> aggressive combat, potentially on JOL but also in RL tournaments, to
> test out this theory in practice.
I'm keen to play aggressive combat in RL tournaments. Sometimes I do
well. Sometimes not. But I have never done well by spending effort and
resources crosstable rushing folks.
-Peter
XZealot
> I'd be interested in having people who are keen to play nasty
> aggressive combat, potentially on JOL but also in RL tournaments, to
> test out this theory in practice.
The way to enhance a combat deck's effectiveness is with bounce.
The way to do this is to make your bleedy predator panic by beating up
his vampires.
His bleeds are deflected, which helps you oust your prey.
Matthew T. Morgan
> One of the core elements we thing to winning with combat is less about
> "maximising your own VPs directly" but "minimising others to less than
> yours". GWs require you to have 2 VPs and more than anyone else
> (AFAIRemember).
Yeah, that's right - 2 VPs and more than anyone else, but I think you're
making it all a bit too complicated. Your combat deck wants to focus on
having a VP, not dying and then ending the game without dying. Rushing
cross-table because "I need to get the table down to three players"
doesn't seem particularly advisable to me. I think you're looking at a
case where a combat deck is maybe likely to win and trying to artificially
recreate it.
The real key for me is to be able to continue doing what you do well.
Combat decks can get into real trouble when they run out of rushes for a
while or run out of immortal grapples (I have certainly lost a game
because of critical IG failure) or run into a minion who can hit back
better (not real common, but animalism can be a problem).
So you should get a VP in whatever time it takes (depending on your deck,
you might not have to smush your prey instantly) because if you aren't
getting a VP then you have no business at that table. After that, just
survive and make sure the game ends. I think these are the only real
principles you have to keep in mind. Of course it applies very nicely to
non-combat decks as well.
Matthew T. Morgan
Amazing. Someone who actually takes advice in the spirit it was intended?
It seems like most of the people around here read "you might try this
strategy..." as "your mother is a whore!"
Obviously there are always exceptions. Certain decks have to be stopped.
My point is that you should never fall on your sword to deny a GW. 1 for
you and 4 for him is way better than any less than 1 for you, no matter
how the other veeps fall. Anyone who tells you differently doesn't
understand vtes.
Peter D Bakija
> Rushing
> cross-table because "I need to get the table down to three players"
> doesn't seem particularly advisable to me. I think you're looking at a
> case where a combat deck is maybe likely to win and trying to artificially
> recreate it.
Just to further clarify--I have played combat at tournaments *a lot*.
I have won some small tournaments with rush decks. I have won some big
tournaments with rush decks. It is a lot harder to do well with combat
decks in the last few years than it used to be (due to either people
being wise to it or people playing more combat defense than they used
to or maybe just me sucking more than I used to...), but I still try,
and still get VPs and occasional game wins in tournament play with
aggressive, proactive combat (ooh! I got 1GW/6VP in the most recent 3R
JOL tournament with a weenie POT thrown junk rush deck). And really,
when I do well, I do well by virtue of killing my prey as a primary
goal, and then surviving to be the last guy at the table.
Pretty much every game win I have ever gotten with a rush deck has
been the result of killing my prey (sometimes quickly and brutally,
sometimes a bleed of 1 at a time) and then staying alive to be the
last guy at the table. In rare situations, I'll be in a great seat,
and I can get 4 or even 5 VP from a game, but that is very few and far
between. Focusing on your prey, getting that 1VP, and then going
upstream as necessary is a totally viable way to go about things.
In terms of cross table rushes, as I have mentioned a lot in this
discussion, I try to avoid that as often as possible. I'm not the
table cop--it isn't my job to try and stop someone from sweeping. It
is to get a VP and then try and win. I can't think of any games I have
ever won as the result of rushing cross table, but I can think of
plenty of games that I have lost and I was involved in cross table
rushing, usually as the result of reactionary spite; someone
crosstable decides I'm "Table threat" and does some cross table vote
or something to "slow me down", which screws me and results in me
jumping on them cross table. The end result of which is inevitably
that we both lost the game. There is probably something to be gleaned
there.
-Peter
Matthew T. Morgan
> It is a lot harder to do well with combat
> decks in the last few years than it used to be (due to either people
> being wise to it or people playing more combat defense than they used
> to or maybe just me sucking more than I used to...)
I've observed the same thing. I think it's a mix of not being completely
flummoxed by how to handle combat (oh no, my 10 cap got killed - I'd
better buy another) and the fact that there are a lot of hybrid decks
around that can either hit you back pretty good or at least be pretty
tough to put down.
Anyway, I don't think it's all you sucking. :)
Peter D Bakija
> I've observed the same thing. I think it's a mix of not being completely
> flummoxed by how to handle combat (oh no, my 10 cap got killed - I'd
> better buy another) and the fact that there are a lot of hybrid decks
> around that can either hit you back pretty good or at least be pretty
> tough to put down.
Yeah, I run into a lot more combat defense/hit back than I used to
back in the day (when I did well :-)--a lot more, like, Carrion Crows
and fortitude (see: !Ventrue being gold these days) and whatever.
Like, in recent Origins events where I was playing Rush, I'd run into
things like Cock Robin with Carrion Crows and fortitude and/or weenie
Undead Persistence and celerity guns and crap. Heck, at a NY Qual one
year, I was playing a totally solid weenie ANI deck, and ran into not
one, but *two* prey's playing Carrion Crows/Sewer Lids? What is up
with that?
But yeah, really, I think it is mostly people being more comfortable
with packing hit back/combat defense (other than Majesty), and people
just understanding combat more than they used to (oh, for the days
where I had to explain what IG did before I torpped someone...)
> Anyway, I don't think it's all you sucking. :)
And yet, still, I regularly suck :-)
-Peter
brandonsantacruz
> with packing hit back/combat defense (other than Majesty), and people
> just understanding combat more than they used to (oh, for the days
> where I had to explain what IG did before I torpped someone...)
It's funny how often you sit next to exactly the wrong deck. I was
playing a DOM/POT rush/bleed deck at a tournament and my prey was
playing a Ariadne and friends block, agg, and amaranth deck. My prey
in the previous game was playing a Nocturn deck, which I would not
have had a chance of getting through without Ruben's help(my grand
prey).
Brandon
Kevin M.
Due to the continuing proliferation of combat defense as well as the
combat deck's ousting mechanisms not having been updated for 10+
years, I think we can safely say that combat decks are no longer Tier1.
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/
Please buy my cards! http://shop.ebay.com/kjmergen/m.html
Please attend my qualifier! http://members.cox.net/vtesinlv/index.htm
Peter D Bakija
> Due to the continuing proliferation of combat defense as well as the
> combat deck's ousting mechanisms not having been updated for 10+
> years, I think we can safely say that combat decks are no longer Tier1.
Well, to be fair, there has been *some* amount of increase in combat
ousting mechanisms--Dragonbound and Tension (that was more recent than
10 years ago, right? :-) certainly have been helpful (although to be
fair, due to the significant downsides of both, I rarely use them). I
have gotten some mileage out of Perpetual Care. That wacky Anarch card
(where you make someone lose 2 pool when they go to torpor), while not
great, is something. But yeah, really, still, the best ousting
mechanisms for combat decks, *still* are:
A) Fame.
B) Computer Hacking.
C) Grafted on Dominate.
See, I agree that Combat as a strategy has been mostly at a stand-
still for a decade (although there are now a lot more ways to be
*almost* effective that there used to be, to be sure) and combat
defense/hit back has become a lot easier and prevalent (WWS and Target
Vitals alone pushed the hit back defense a million miles up, as now
*any* deck can be reasonably effective in combat with minimal card
space). But I don't know that making Combat much more effective at
ousting now than it is would be that good for the game overall. But
somewhat more would be nice :-)
-Peter
Kevin M.
Sure, I didn't mean to say that there have been ZERO cards made for
the combat deck's ousting mechanisms, as there obviously have been.
I meant that there has been so LITTLE updating of the combat deck's
ousting mechanism's -- especially in relation to bleed and vote --
that you might as well round it down to zero. Which is why I said
"not". Clearly, that "not" isn't correct, but isn't that what we all
think? :P
Let's take Dragonbound. Why couldn't it have been 2 damage?
Seriously, I use Dragonbound A LOT and it rarely helps me. But as
it is one of the few unique ousting mechanisms which I can use, I'm
forced to use it. Would it have been wrecking tournaments if it had
been 2 damage?
And with the ubiquitousness of Fame, why haven't we gotten any cards
that do more damage, or give you a maneuver to short, or allow you
to untap after torp'ing some guy, if that minion has been chosen for
that Methuselah's Fame? Why hasn't this happened in FIFTEEN YEARS???
Why did Tension in the Ranks have to have such any easy removal
mechanism? Why did it have to have ANY removal mechanism?
And Frontal Assault -- who thought that it was in any way fair that
your prey should lose the same amount of pool for you doing something
very DIFFICULT (topr'ing/burning) when they can do the same damage
to you for doing something so EASY (preventing)?
Perpetual Care blows. Hell-for-Leather is efficient, but you might
as well bleed as that's likely MORE efficient, even in a combat deck.
Monster is ridiculously good, but it's only one card.
Whether this non-attention to the combat deck's ousting mechanisms
has been intentional or not, we'll probably never know.
Peter D Bakija
> Sure, I didn't mean to say that there have been ZERO cards made for
> the combat deck's ousting mechanisms, as there obviously have been.
Oh, I know--just keeping to conversation moving. Like we are on a talk
show!
But I certainly do agree that the ousting upgrades for combat
strategies have been still fairly underwhelming compared to, like,
Conditioning.
> I meant that there has been so LITTLE updating of the combat deck's
> ousting mechanism's -- especially in relation to bleed and vote --
> that you might as well round it down to zero. Which is why I said
> "not". Clearly, that "not" isn't correct, but isn't that what we all
> think? :P
Oh, sure--I tend to agree with your rounding assessment. Like, the two
really significant upgrades to ousting in the last, uh, decade, have
been Dargonboned and Tension. Both of which have a significant
downside--Dargonboned costs a hand slot in decks that really need the
hand slot and also shoots you in the foot as much as anyone else if
things go badly; Tension is easy to get rid of and just like Dargon,
shoots you in the foot when things go awry. In my experience, I have
done *far* more damage to myself with either of these cards than my
prey, historically speaking. I mean, yeah, this might be due to my
sucking, but still :-)
> Let's take Dragonbound. Why couldn't it have been 2 damage?
> Seriously, I use Dragonbound A LOT and it rarely helps me. But as
> it is one of the few unique ousting mechanisms which I can use, I'm
> forced to use it. Would it have been wrecking tournaments if it had
> been 2 damage?
Maybe? Probably not. It's still hard to play and use effectively. I
don't think I've ever seen a Dargonboned get good play in a
traditional (weenie) rush deck. My buddy Dave would occasionally get
it in play and oust people, but generally in really tenuous, difficult
to set up, incredibly slow decks that teamed up, like, Enkidu with
Aksina Daclau (for the bounce) that crashed and burned as often as
not.
> And with the ubiquitousness of Fame, why haven't we gotten any cards
> that do more damage, or give you a maneuver to short, or allow you
> to untap after torp'ing some guy, if that minion has been chosen for
> that Methuselah's Fame? Why hasn't this happened in FIFTEEN YEARS???
See, I still think there is something to be said for the separation of
powers here, in theory. If combat is *too* good at ousting folks, then
that is all the game will be--the horrible rush-o-tron show. But the
increases we have gotten have been, in retrospect, a bit too cautious.
Like, maybe a Potence card that is something like "1 blood. pot: if
you send an opponent's minion to torpor or the incapacitated region,
that minion's controller burns 1 pool. POT: As above, but they burn 2
pool." I mean, *maybe* this would be too powerful. But probably not.
And adds yet another card in the already long and complicated chain of
cards needed to successfully beat someone down.
> Why did Tension in the Ranks have to have such any easy removal
> mechanism? Why did it have to have ANY removal mechanism?
For my money, it is so I can get rid of it after I play it, 'cause my
prey is killing me with Carrion Crows and Sewer Lids :-)
> And Frontal Assault -- who thought that it was in any way fair that
> your prey should lose the same amount of pool for you doing something
> very DIFFICULT (topr'ing/burning) when they can do the same damage
> to you for doing something so EASY (preventing)?
Heh. Just last night, Asif played a fantastically effective Frontal
Assault that ousted his prey (it was combined with Fame). But then as
soon as his prey was ousted, we realized that at the end of the turn,
it counted his *next* prey (me) who had 6 minions in play. Which
resulted in him ousting his prey, getting 6 pool, losing 6 pool, and
losing the game. But it was hilarious and spectacular. So yeah,
Frontal Assault (much like all the other neo-combat powerups) tend to
shoot you in the foot as often as not.
> Perpetual Care blows. Hell-for-Leather is efficient, but you might
> as well bleed as that's likely MORE efficient, even in a combat deck.
I'll defend Perpetual Care as not actually that bad. I mean, yeah, ok,
really, it is probably better off as just a KRC in terms of
opportunity cost and expected damage, but in that !Brujah Dogs of War
deck with the Repo Man I got going, I periodically get to hit with
Perpetual Care for, like, 6 pool damage. I'd never claim that
Perpetual Care is an A list card or anything, but it isn't totally
unplayable or anything.
> Monster is ridiculously good, but it's only one card.
Ooh. Yeah, it is. But still. Costs blood. Which isn't insignificant.
> Whether this non-attention to the combat deck's ousting mechanisms
> has been intentional or not, we'll probably never know.
Nah--I don't think it is non-attention. I think it is intentional
separation of powers. Keeping combat from becoming *too* good at
ousting by doing what it is going to do anyway. Much like I brought up
in the Bleed Defense thread, Too Much Defense makes the game not work.
I suspect that the not completely unfounded fear is that if combat
gets much better at ousting by doing what it was doing anyway, it'll
make the game fall apart as *every* game becomes a nightmare of gore. S
+B decks, as much as they are a pain to be the 1st prey of one, need
to be viable for the game to work overall. If the Rock that is combat
becomes too dominant, the game probably screeches to a halt. That
being said, I'd still like to see *some* kind of good, doesn't shoot
you in the foot, and isn't preposterously difficult to pull off,
improved ousting mechanism for combat.
-Peter
suoli
> Whether this non-attention to the combat deck's ousting mechanisms
> has been intentional or not, we'll probably never know.
I personally prefer to think of rush combat as a form of block/bounce
denial. Winning combats doesn't have to be a goal in itself if you can
make a logistically viable rush/bleed deck. Ashur Tablets, Deep Song,
Steely Tenacity and Resist the Earth's Grasp are a big boost in that
regard.
Drain
I wholeheartedly agree with Peter's perception of the design team's
intent.
If people want additional rewards for torporing minions (something
already very debilitating in and of itself), then you need to
seriously ponder the consequences.
I could envision something able to drive combat decks to some new
focus, something like a vampire/master card that gives your minions
permanent bleed penalties but that rewards your dunks or something
akin to Alamut, that keys off your bleeds (maybe reducing them in the
process) and then awards 2x that amount in pool damage when next you
dunk.
Drain
Kevin M.
[snip my and Bakija's perceptions on combat]
> I wholeheartedly agree with Peter's perception of the
> design team's intent.
>
> If people want additional rewards for torporing minions
> (something already very debilitating in and of itself), then
> you need to seriously ponder the consequences.
Yes, the consequences are that bleed and vote decks win.
Which is why there should be more fighty-cards to balance.
Matthew T. Morgan
> I'll defend Perpetual Care as not actually that bad. I mean, yeah, ok,
> really, it is probably better off as just a KRC in terms of
> opportunity cost and expected damage, but in that !Brujah Dogs of War
> deck with the Repo Man I got going, I periodically get to hit with
> Perpetual Care for, like, 6 pool damage. I'd never claim that
> Perpetual Care is an A list card or anything, but it isn't totally
> unplayable or anything.
My problem with Perpetual Care (in addition to opportunity cost, which is
pretty apparent) is there already can be such a fine line between trimming
back your predator a little and totally backousting him, this card just
makes that worse. You are beating your prey down a lot. You beat down
your predator's justicar. Now you can pass your Perpetual Care, which
takes your prey down to the point where you can probably get him next
turn. But oops, it'll also do 6 to your predator because of those two
other guys you had to bin and that drops him to 2 pool and actually your
grandpredator's Crows/Lid deck looks like exactly the kind of deck you
don't want to have to deal with in the endgame....
Peter D Bakija
> My problem with Perpetual Care (in addition to opportunity cost, which is
> pretty apparent) is there already can be such a fine line between trimming
> back your predator a little and totally backousting him, this card just
> makes that worse.
Oh, sure--you can't, like, use it willy-nilly. All success I have
gained from Perpetual Care is by playing it as a finishing card--have
a couple in the deck, and when you play it, you play it to win the
game. Or at least oust your prey while aiming to do minimum collateral
damage. I wouldn't ever consider using, like, 6 Perpetual Cares in a
deck and throw them around like KRC or anything. When you play the
Perpetual Care, you play it to oust someone, not to hit them for 4
when they are at 10.
Again, I'd never defend Perpetual Care as anything other than fringey.
But it can be reasonably good in the right circumstances.
-Peter
Kevin M.
> Again, I'd never defend Perpetual Care as anything other than fringey.
Why put fringey cards in your deck?
Salem
> Peter D Bakija wrote:
>> Again, I'd never defend Perpetual Care as anything other than fringey.
>
> Why put fringey cards in your deck?
>
>
if 'fringey' means 'few times when you want to play it', you have your
standard probability-type formula:
probability * effect = Y
if your probability is low, you want a corresponding high effect to get
an overall Y that is a some abstract level where you'd include it in
your deck.
so i'd say in peter's case, either:
a) he thinks the high effect compensates for the low probability of it
being worth playing in a given game.
b) he doesn't just want to play a super-optimised Vignes deck. ;)
--
salem
(replace 'hotmail' with 'gmail' to email)
Matthew T. Morgan
> Peter D Bakija wrote:
>> Again, I'd never defend Perpetual Care as anything other than fringey.
>
> Why put fringey cards in your deck?
You crack me up, Kevin. In one thread you harangue Orian about playing
the Vignes deck and here you're wondering why Peter would play a crap
card. You're so hard to please!
Peter D Bakija
> Why put fringey cards in your deck?
By "fringey" I mean "on the fringe of useful". I wouldn't put
Perpetual Care in a lot of decks. I wouldn't put a lot of Perpetual
Care in the decks I'd use it in. But in cases where you have a deck
that it will be good in, you put in a couple and play them when they
are good to play.
Is Perpetual Care as good as KRC? No. Would I use Perpetual Care like
I'd use KRC? No. But having a couple in a deck that can torporize
minions and pass votes? Totally reasonable. As once and a while,
you'll pass one, make your prey lose 6-8 pool, and you'll be a winner.
-Peter
Kevin M.
Nice apples-to-oranges comparison there, Matt.
But I admire your tenacity. ;)
Matthew T. Morgan
> Matthew T. Morgan wrote:
>> On Sun, 20 Dec 2009, Kevin M. wrote:
>>> Peter D Bakija wrote:
>>>> Again, I'd never defend Perpetual Care as anything other than
>>>> fringey.
>>>
>>> Why put fringey cards in your deck?
>>
>> You crack me up, Kevin. In one thread you harangue Orian about
>> playing the Vignes deck and here you're wondering why Peter would
>> play a crap card. You're so hard to please!
>
> Nice apples-to-oranges comparison there, Matt.
I'm afraid I don't follow. It seems like you don't like it when a good
player plays good cards in a good deck and you don't like it when a bad
player plays bad cards in a bad deck. So should good players play good
cards in bad decks or should good players play bad cards in good decks?
Kevin M.
> Kevin M. wrote:
>> Matthew T. Morgan wrote:
>>> Kevin M. wrote:
>>>> Peter D Bakija wrote:
>>>>> Again, I'd never defend Perpetual Care as anything other than
>>>>> fringey.
>>>>
>>>> Why put fringey cards in your deck?
>>>
>>> You crack me up, Kevin. In one thread you harangue Orian about
>>> playing the Vignes deck and here you're wondering why Peter would
>>> play a crap card. You're so hard to please!
>>
>> Nice apples-to-oranges comparison there, Matt.
>
> I'm afraid I don't follow. It seems like you don't like it when a
> good player plays good cards in a good deck and you don't like
> it when a bad player plays bad cards in a bad deck.
I know Orian a little. I like him as a person and as a player,
I think he's one of the best players in the world, and I see it as
boring when a player like that plays a strong deck like that over and
over again, just to win.
Of course, there could be a dozen reasons why he does that, I dunno.
As also stated, it's weird and disturbing that this deck keeps
winning. :)
And I don't think Peter's deck is bad, just not Tier1. But in his
deck, Perpetual Care looks seriously fringey, enough so that it would
be better as something else. But I see a lot of his decks as fun and
experimental as well as trying to be good, so Perpetual Care probably
fits that style.
> So should good players play good cards in bad decks or should good
> players play bad cards in good decks?
I think if Orian (or some other high-level) player builds and plays
a deck like Vignes in the future, I will just be silently disappointed
rather than get the newsgroup smackdown. ;)
Peter D Bakija
> And I don't think Peter's deck is bad, just not Tier1.
Oh, certainly not. I mean, it is ok and kinda fun, but I'd hardly
expect it to be sweeping tables left and right. I just sat down with
it in a game of JOL, and my predator got out Volver the Puppet Prince
as his first minion (i.e. votes and celerity...). I'm totally hosed.
> But in his
> deck, Perpetual Care looks seriously fringey, enough so that it would
> be better as something else.
I don't know that it is really worse than anything else that could be
in that slot, given that the deck already is what it is. The deck can
(and does) torporize minions, and can pass votes, but not that often.
So having 2 Perpetual Cares in the deck strikes me as completely
reasonable, and not at all undereffective--either I draw one early and
ditch it (or pitch for a defensive vote or if I luck out, put in the
Storage Annex), or I draw one late and if I can pass a vote, I can
whack my prey for 6+ pool damage for an oust (which is how the card
has worked out so far). Yeah, they could be KRCs (which tend to do
less damage but are more likely to do that damage), but two KRCs
aren't likely to win me the game, and are no more or less likely to
pass than the Perpetual Cares. So in terms of vote offense in 2 card
slots, what else is going in there? Can't use Reck Ag or Parity Shift.
Con Ag isn't any better than KRC. So I have a couple slots in the deck
invested in a high risk (i.e. might not really be playable) but high
pay off (often 6+ damage) ousting strategy. Seems totally reasonable,
for my money.
> But I see a lot of his decks as fun and
> experimental as well as trying to be good, so Perpetual Care probably
> fits that style.
Heh. In another JOL game I just started, having gotten sick of not
doing real well with fringey decks, now I'm playing DOM/For Sudden
Reversal tech. Unsurprisingly, I've already ousted my first prey. In,
like, 4 turns. Stupid Dominate...
-Peter
John P.
> Heh. In another JOL game I just started, having gotten sick of not
> doing real well with fringey decks, now I'm playing DOM/For Sudden
> Reversal tech. Unsurprisingly, I've already ousted my first prey. In,
> like, 4 turns. Stupid Dominate...
>
> -Peter
Come back to the One True Way Peter. Dominate will eat your soul! :)
John P.
Peter D Bakija
> Come back to the One True Way Peter. Dominate will eat your soul! :)
I know. I feel dirty.
-Peter
Juggernaut1981
Peter,
As a card carrying member of the "Wacky Sorta-Competitive Decks" Club,
not only did I completely shock my playgroup with Lasombra Bazooka
Bleeds (because that deck type doesn't see extensive play in Sydney)
but also because it was in my hands. There is a "trick" element, but
that's just using Animalism to fully untap during a bleed so I can
flick the rest of the bleeds with fewer untaps. Oh, and Pushing the
Limit/Earthshocks as "combat protection" instead of Obedience. But
yeah, from my more standard "bleed for 2 at 1s sometimes w/ smackdown"
type decks... I tossed out "bleed for 7 @ 3 stealth and burn a blood
to try block you no-Obten loser"
Result: Clean sweep...