[Report] Spanish Continental Qualifier: Martorell 2005
Damnans
Event Date: 14-May-05
Coordinator: Francesc Ros (Prince of Martorell)
City: Martorell
Format (Constructed/Limited): Contructed
Number of Players: 45
Number of Rounds (including final): 4
Head Judge: Francesc Ros
Assistant Judges: Juan Rodrigo
TOURNAMENT PICTURES:
http://www.vtes.net/novedades/EQ05_fotos.asp
MY 1st ROUND:
-------------
Ally deck with Hesha Ruhadze, Aristotle de Laurent and Marciana Giovanni ->
!Ventrue bleed and intercept deck ->
Me (Kindred Spirits S&B deck) ->
High cap Malkavian Derange deck ->
Toreador vote & bleed deck
-------------
I could hardly bring out 3 vampires (Artemis, Dolphin Black and Claven),
since my predator (!Ventrue) had more minions than I and the lack of
reaction cards in my hand was... disturbing. And to top it all, I had
burnt 6 pool due to 2 Petra Resonance played by my prey (who, by the way
was gaining many pool via Minion Tap).
The Toreador Methuselah ousted the Ally deck sooner than expected. But
thank got, since my predator (!Ventrue) would have a real predator and,
therefore, he would put so much pressure on me.
I deflected some of my predator's bleeds to my prey, whom I ousted a turn
after my predator unblockably attempted to bleed me for 3 (when I only had
3 pool left).
Once the my prey was ousted I chose not to bring out more vampires to
feel safer :-)
I ousted the Toreador vote & bleed deck a couple of turns later. Then I
realized that my library was almost exhausted (there were perhaps about
10-12 cards left in there).
So I chose to play Gambit Accepted and bleed my prey each turn (for 2 or 3)
to reduce his pool make him vulnerable to the Anarch Revolt I had in my
hand and that I played on the turn before I ousted my prey.
So I got the GW and 4 VPs
MY 2nd ROUND
-------------
Kindred Spirits S&B deck (Marco) ->
Beast + Theo Bell rush deck ->
Tzimisce bleed deck with Dominate ->
Me ->
Helena wall deck
-------------
Marco began to bleed his prey like there was no tomorrow, since he
knew that his prey would torporize his vampires given the chance.
My prey brought out Helena after I bled him for 3. But on the
following turn, my alarms went off when I could not block Helena's
action to equip with the Bowl of Convergence. Si I decided not to
take any actions until she got the Assault Rifle (which she did one
turn afterward via Disguised Weapon when in combat with one of
Marco's vampires).
Although Marco's prey had torporized 2 of Marco's vampires, he
could do nothing else but die.
Then I attempted to bleed my prey with Quentin King (ADV) and Jason,
the World's Voice (the only vampires I had in play with superior
Obfuscate), and Helena was not able to block, so I ousted my prey,
and Marco ousted the Tzimisce Methuselah (my predator) and contested
my Quenting King (ADV).
At that time, Marco had more vampires in play than I, But I realized
that his hand was already jammed with stealth cards, so I chose not
to attempt to block anything he did, and bleed him turn after turn.
Once that Marco and I were the only remaining Methuselahs at the
table, I played Victim of Habbit targetting his Kindred Spirits to
increase his pool loss, and ousted him by the skin of my teeth one
turn afterward.
So I got the GW and 3 VPs.
MY 3rd ROUND
-------------
Anneke Toreador wall with Serpentis (Extortion) ->
Malkavian S&B with Dementation ->
Me ->
Obf+Pre+Dom vote and bleed deck ->
Tremere Cryptic Mission deck
-------------
My predator brought out William Biltmore and have him
play a Pulse of the Canaille. I could not believe
I had no bounce cards in my hand (argh!). Then he
bleed me me for 5 with a Kindred Spirits.
I knew I could not survive long enough with that
player as my predator, so I used my Kindred Spirits
to bleed backwards, contested my predator's Dolphin
Black and told my grandpredator to attempt to bleed
with his Anneke and Anson although he was a wall deck
and needed to stay untapped. He agreed, and attempted
to bleed with Anneke, but William Biltmore played
Wake with Evening's Freshness and blocked Anneke, who
was sent to torpor via a Coma.
Then I ousted my predator and rescued Anneke from
torpor (which I should not have done, IMO). In fact,
I think I should have diablerized her although that
meant the destruction of the diablerist, since that
Toreador deck becomes stronger and stronger with
each passing moment without a predator (which was
already happening, since the Tremere player was
under too much pressure by his predator (Arika, Gratiano,
Maris Streck...)
Several turns later, my prey ousted the Tremere Methuselah.
By the time I ousted my prey (the obf+pre+Dom vote deck),
my library was almost exhausted. Besides, my new prey
and predator (The Toreador wall deck) had just played
a Protected Resources, which kept me from ousting him
on the next turn.
So I just got 1 VP here :-) But enough to be in the final.
FINAL ROUND
-------------
High cap Malkavian Derange deck ->
Toreador TGB Turbo Parity Shift ->
Me ->
Nosferatu and !Nosferatu intercept & rush deck ->
Anneke wall deck with Serpentis (who was top seeded)
-------------
My predator brings out Anson. I bring out Dolphin Black. My
prey brings out Nikolaus Vermeulen, my grandprey brings out
Anneke, and my grandpredator brings out Leandro :-)
Anson calls a Parity Shift. The vote passes, so I burnt 5 pool
(nice start).
I play a Blood Doll on Dolphin Black and bleed for 3 with Dolphin Black.
My prey attempts to block but fails. So I bring out Uncle George.
Nikolaus Vermeulen attacks Dolphin Black and torporizes her empty.
On my next turn, I play 1 Blood Doll on Uncle Goerge and move 1 blood to
Dolphin Black. Uncle George rescues her from torpor, and she bleeds for
3 again (with Kindred Spirits + Confusion).
My prey brings out Calebros. My grandprey brings out Tatiana Romanova.
My grandpredator puts Esau in play, and my prey brings out Alexandra.
Leandro plays Derange on Anson. Anson moved that Derange to Alexandra,
so that Alexandra could use her special on him.
A couple of turns thereafter my prey was at 6 pool. So I bled him
for 3 with Dolphin Black (whom Anneke would not dare block, since
she had superior Obfuscate), and attempted to bleed for 3 with Uncle
George whom Anneke obviously attempted to block (because he has
basic Obfuscate). Despite of that, Uncle George got +3 stealth
and I finally ousted my prey (realizing Anneke had a bad hand, with
almost no intercept cards in there). That were good news.
Later, The Methuselah controlling Leandro played Malkavian Dementia
on Alexandra, and used the Parthenon to play Golconda on her.
My predator attempted a Parity Shift that I blocked.
I bled my prey with my two only vampires. And on my prey's turn,
Tatiana Romanova called a Parity Shift (which I blocked), and
Anneke equiped with the Bowl of Convergence (ouch!).
Leandro attempted to bleed my predator for 3 (my predator had
6 pool left at that time), but Anneke played a Second Tradition
to untap and attempt to block (in the hope of blocking him to play
a Majesty and leave her untapped to block me later). So I played
Direct Intervention to that Second Tradition (my prey's face became
an open book to me, where I could only read: "no wakes, no wakes").
On my next turn, my prey's vampires are tapped, so I bled him for
5 and ousted him.
Leandro ousts his prey too, so I chose not to bring out more vampires,
since I needed a pool shield strong enough to deal with Leandro's and
Esau's bleeds.
I played Gambit Accepted, and bled for 2 or 3 with my two vampires
each turn (gaining some pool via Kindred Spirits and Gambit Accepted).
I also played Malkavian Dementia on tapped Leandro to avoid his bleeds,
and I ousted my prey not long afterward.
QUALIFIED PLAYERS:
1 Gines Quiñonero (Damnans)
2 Francisco Ramirez
3 Ivan Zaldivar
4 Danilo Rodriguez
5 Juan Ortiz
6 David Fraile
7 Kevin Esteban
8 Miguel Pascual
9 Alejandro Rodriguez
10 Jordi Samper
11 Miguel Angel Ramos
TOURNAMENT WINNING DECK
=======================
Deck Name: Kindred Spirits S&B
Created By: Damnans
Crypt: (12 cards, Min: 16, Max: 31, Avg: 5,91)
----------------------------------------------
1 Jason for AUS DEM OBF 8 Malkavian
1 Anatole dom for AUS DEM OBF 8 Malkavian
1 Korah ani AUS DEM OBF 7 Malkavian Antitribu
1 Quentin King III (ADV) cel pre AUS DEM OBF 7 Malkavian
1 Dolphin Black AUS DEM OBF 6 Malkavian Antitribu
1 Artemis aus cel for DEM OBF 6 Malkavian Antitribu
1 Persia aus obf DEM 5 Malkavian
1 Uncle George aus dom obf DEM 5 Malkavian Antitribu
1 Claven aus dem obf 4 Malkavian Antitribu
1 Adelaide Davis aus dem obf 4 Malkavian
1 Midget obf pre DEM 3 Malkavian Antitribu
1 Rodolfo pro AUS DEM OBF 8 Malkavian Antitribu
Library: (90 cards)
-------------------
Master (15 cards)
2 Blood Doll
1 Dreams of the Sphinx
1 Malkavian Dementia
1 Anarch Revolt
1 Pentex Subversion
1 Anarch Troublemaker
1 Secure Haven
1 Barrens, The
1 Storage Annex
1 Sudden Reversal
1 Fear of Mekhet
1 Gambit Accepted
2 Direct Intervention
Action (18 cards)
13 Kindred Spirits
3 Madman`s Quill
1 Restructure
1 Victim of Habit
Action Modifier (32 cards)
3 Eyes of Chaos
3 Faceless Night
3 Cloak the Gathering
4 Lost in Crowds
7 Confusion
3 Mind Tricks
3 Domain of Evernight
3 Spying Mission
3 Elder Impersonation
Reaction (18 cards)
4 My Enemy`s Enemy
9 Wake with Evening`s Freshness
5 Telepathic Misdirection
Combat (2 cards)
2 Zip Gun
Combo (5 cards)
3 Swallowed by the Night
2 Deny
STANDINGS
Final Rank First Name Last Name City Prelim GWs Prelim VPs Final VPs TPs
1 Gines Quiñonero 2 8 4 162
2 Francisco Ramirez 2 6 1 144
3 Ivan Zaldivar 2 9 0 174
4 Danilo Rodriguez 2 9 0 156
5 Juan Ortiz 2 8 0 168
6 David Fraile 2 6 138
7 Kevin Esteban 2 5 144
8 Miguel Pascual 1 6,5 144
9 Alejandro Rodriguez 1 6 138
10 Jordi Samper 1 5 108
11 Miguel Angel Ramos 1 4 138
12 Alex Vallet 1 4 120
13 David Gimenez 1 4 108
14 Edgar Fondevila 1 3 126
15 Nick Mozo 1 3 102
16 Iñaki Jimenez 1 3 96
17 Roberto Amestoy 1 3 90
18 Carlos Martinez 0 5 144
19 Jordi Renom 0 3,5 138
20 Antonio Merino 0 3 120
21 Ferran Badenas 0 3 114
22 Armando Vicioso 0 3 108
23 Alex Casals 0 2,5 114
24 Tomas Lopez 0 2 108
25 Linus Garriga 0 2 102
25 Sergi Matalonga 0 2 102
27 Pablo Picon 0 2 96
28 Joan Montserrat 0 2 90
28 Marco Cortijo 0 2 90
30 Paolo Pasqualini 0 1,5 102
31 Nicolas Moscoso 0 1 96
31 Sergi Miralles 0 1 96
31 Ramon Mozo 0 1 96
34 Quim Miquel 0 1 90
35 Fco Jose Guerra 0 1 78
35 Pablo Diaz de Greñu 0 1 78
37 David Martinez 0 0,5 84
38 Fransesc Miquel 0 0 78
38 Jon Lopez Dicastillo 0 0 78
40 Xavier Bibiloni 0 0 72
40 Oscar Ramirez 0 0 72
42 Jordi Tomás 0 0 66
42 Adria Jordana 0 0 66
42 Ricard Diaz 0 0 66
45 Marc Casado 0 0 60
--
Damnans
http://www.almadrava.net/damnans
http://www.vtes.net
http://es.groups.yahoo.com/group/vteshispania/
Johannes Walch
> Me (Kindred Spirits S&B deck) ->
Sad to see that in many cases even the best and most creative players
rely on playing S&B to qualify. Without doubt a qualification system
makes sense, but the current one creates very good incentives to play
S&B if you don´t want to go to more than one qualifier. Same picture in
the german qualifier where 3 heavy bleeders made the finals and among
the qualified players we also had far more than 50% of S&B.
Of course S&B is a valid and good strategy to win, I would even say the
most basic one in the game. But the "one-shot" qualifying system makes
it just too tempting to play S&B, because it´s usually now or never.
But then again the qualifiers account for the majority of international
tournaments with high attendance and high playing level. Quite bad for
the diversity of the game that you see mainly S&B among the good players
who want to qualify there (and probably the Arika Vote and very heavy
intercept).
As the situation was not allready bad before the banning of DU and KR
caused another swing to S&B because now you didn´t need to fear the vote
deck ousting the player that the S&B deck bled heavily before. This made
S&B even more popular AND focused (=better) because know it´s possible
not to include D.I and D.T in the deck.
Of course I don´t want to start another rant about the rules changed or
something alike, but I feel that on the one hand more and more cards for
combat strategies are printed but on the other hand the games
environment discourages the use of such decks in big tournaments.
--
johannes walch
Damnans
> Damnans wrote:
> > Me (Kindred Spirits S&B deck) ->
>
> Sad to see that in many cases even the best and most creative players
> rely on playing S&B to qualify. Without doubt a qualification system
> makes sense, but the current one creates very good incentives to play
> S&B if you don´t want to go to more than one qualifier. Same picture
in
> the german qualifier where 3 heavy bleeders made the finals and among
> the qualified players we also had far more than 50% of S&B.
Truth be told, this has been the first time I played a S&B deck to
qualify :-)
In 2001, I qualified with a Ventrue Law Firm vote deck.
In 2002, I qualified with a 13-15 Derange !Malk deck (with a very
limited bleeding ability).
In 2003, I did not even try to qualify, since I was co-organizing the
EC :-)
In 2004, I qualified with an Omaya wall deck.
> Of course S&B is a valid and good strategy to win, I would even say
the
> most basic one in the game.
And, therefore, the most easily counterable strategy.
[...]
Luis Duarte - Powerbase:Lisbon
Johannes Walch wrote:
> Damnans wrote:
> > Me (Kindred Spirits S&B deck) ->
> Sad to see that in many cases even the best and most creative players
> rely on playing S&B to qualify.
Shame on you Ginés... :-)
Of course you could explain that the first action each vampire was to
transform himself in an Anarch just to minimize the situation!!
>(...)
> I feel that on the one hand more and more cards for
> combat strategies are printed but on the other hand the games
> environment discourages the use of such decks in big tournaments.
I agree totally with you. I feel that it's getting more and more
interesting to play combat decks, where the winning support it's better
than ever (Dragonbound, Fame, Tension in the Ranks).
IMO what's missing is some improvement in the defence against bleed, to
avoid to do the stupid thing in a combat deck that is to act against
your predator instead of your prey (where is the protection on the
relation predator-prey that caused DU to be banned?) to defend
yourself. Maybe more quality mid-caps with dominate or superior Auspex
could do it or just another a new celerity/animalism/potence Anarch
card that could reduce a Ginés bleed by 3, strike for +2 and maneuver!
Something like that... ;-)
On the other hand i see a decrease in weenie decks...
.- Luis Duarte
Johannes Walch
> Truth be told, this has been the first time I played a S&B deck to
> qualify :-)
People always get busted on the first occacsion, hehe ;-)
>>Of course S&B is a valid and good strategy to win, I would even say
>
> the
>
>>most basic one in the game.
>
>
> And, therefore, the most easily counterable strategy.
Obviously it wasn´t too easy to counter for your preys :-)
--
johannes walch
Damnans
Johannes Walch wrote:
[...]
>>> Of course S&B is a valid and good strategy to win, I would even say
>>> the most basic one in the game.
>>
>> And, therefore, the most easily counterable strategy.
>
> Obviously it wasn´t too easy to counter for your preys :-)
That may have been dued either to bad luck or to poor deckbuilding,
since I only brought out two vampires in the final round (who
were enough to get 3 VPs).
Jeroen Rombouts
"Damnans" <damna...@ono.com> schreef in bericht
news:1116952288.4...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Johannes Walch wrote:
> Damnans wrote:
> > Me (Kindred Spirits S&B deck) ->
>
> Sad to see that in many cases even the best and most creative players
> rely on playing S&B to qualify. Without doubt a qualification system
> makes sense, but the current one creates very good incentives to play
> S&B if you don´t want to go to more than one qualifier. Same picture
in
> the german qualifier where 3 heavy bleeders made the finals and among
> the qualified players we also had far more than 50% of S&B.
Truth be told, this has been the first time I played a S&B deck to
qualify :-)
In 2001, I qualified with a Ventrue Law Firm vote deck.
In 2002, I qualified with a 13-15 Derange !Malk deck (with a very
limited bleeding ability).
In 2003, I did not even try to qualify, since I was co-organizing the
EC :-)
In 2004, I qualified with an Omaya wall deck.
I remember you playing a dem bleeder in Vienna too :p bleeding backwards on
helpless potence weenies who were getting their head kicked in by a Gargoyle
predator. Forshame ;)
Damnans
Jeroen Rombouts wrote:
But that was not a Continental Qualifier, but the European Championship :-)
So it is still true that it's been the first time I have used a S&B deck to qualify >:-)
carl
"Jeroen Rombouts" <jeroen....@NOSPAMtelenet.be> wrote
> I remember you playing a dem bleeder in Vienna too :p bleeding backwards
on
> helpless potence weenies who were getting their head kicked in by a
Gargoyle
> predator. Forshame ;)
That doesn't sound very fair...
Jeroen Rombouts
"carl" <mist...@hotmail.com> schreef in bericht
news:CJOle.3479$U4.4...@news.xtra.co.nz...
jeff...@pacbell.net
> Damnans wrote:
> > Me (Kindred Spirits S&B deck) ->
>
> Sad to see that in many cases even the best and most creative players
> rely on playing S&B to qualify.
>
> caused another swing to S&B because now you didn´t need to fear the vote
> deck ousting the player that the S&B deck bled heavily before. This made
> S&B even more popular AND focused (=better) because know it´s possible
> not to include D.I and D.T in the deck.
>
> Of course I don´t want to start another rant about the rules changed or
> something alike, but I feel that on the one hand more and more cards for
> combat strategies are printed but on the other hand the games
> environment discourages the use of such decks in big tournaments.
CAN WE HAVE OUR DISCIPLINELES BLEED-BOUNCE CARD YET???
Jeff
David Cherryholmes
> Leandro attempted to bleed my predator for 3 (my predator had
> 6 pool left at that time), but Anneke played a Second Tradition
> to untap and attempt to block (in the hope of blocking him to play
> a Majesty and leave her untapped to block me later). So I played
> Direct Intervention to that Second Tradition (my prey's face became
> an open book to me, where I could only read: "no wakes, no wakes").
Another example of the hideous power of DI. It definitely got you a VP,
and probably the win.
--
David Cherryholmes
LSJ
How's that?
By that logic, every VP is gotten by a single card/action (rather
than the work that went before to get to that position).
The Anneke deck had a focussed defense -- leading to a weak point that
could be exploited. That same focussed defense is very powerful in general,
so that balances out in some way.
--
LSJ (vtesr...@TRAPwhite-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep (remove spam trap to reply)
Links to V:TES news, rules, cards, utilities, and tournament calendar:
http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/
James Coupe
<vtesr...@TRAPwhite-wolf.com> writes:
>The Anneke deck had a focussed defense -- leading to a weak point that
>could be exploited. That same focussed defense is very powerful in general,
>so that balances out in some way.
Indeed.
The same problem could have been caused with, for example, Call of the
Hungry Dead or Elder Impersonation.
--
James Coupe
PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D YOU ARE IN ERROR.
EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 NO-ONE IS SCREAMING.
13D7E668C3695D623D5D THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.
David Cherryholmes
> By that logic, every VP is gotten by a single card/action (rather
> than the work that went before to get to that position).
I see your point, and I vaguely recall a discussion with Fred where I
was arguing your exact position. However, there are critical junctures
in the game, and DI's broad applicability lets it collapse just about
whatever needs collapsing at any time. And, I do not think a strategy
has to be particularly focused for DI to crush it. I don't think the
Anneke deck's defenses were particularly focused. And even if it was,
once the 2nd is clipped, that means he'd also have to have a wake and
probably intercept, possibly two cards of intercept, to recover. I'm
just saying that's a lot of cards to have in hand to come back from
getting the 2nd DI'd. Basically, my experience shows DI's tilting the
game at critical cusps, more or less directly creating VP's and GW's.
This doesn't seem like a radical opinion to me, but YMMV.
--
David Cherryholmes
LSJ
Oh, I wasn't correcting your conclusions, just the road you choose to
travel in order to reach them.
Against some decks, some focussed and some toolbox, DI is largely
worthless. Against others, it is merely too expensive. And against
others, it can be used strategically at a few junctures each game (or
even each turn, depending on the deck) (against a Freak Drive or a
Second Tradition, for example) to disrupt the deck for a turn or at
least for a minion. Occassionally those critical cusps will occur near
a VP window as well.
But many cards can, against some class of decks, be played at
well-chosen critical cusps to more or less directly create VP's and
GW's. Some cards do not even need to wait for "well-played" strategy or
critical cusps. DI perhaps has a larger set of decks against which it
can be played, but it also has a greater cost, in general.
Daneel
I think you somewhat underrate DI. It is a very powerful card. You can
use it against many toolbox decks (to cancel a high opportunity cost,
high effect card). You can use it against many focused decks (to cancel
a critical cog in a multi-card combo). By the mid- endgame you can
usually cancel a card played from a focused deck and have a decent
chance there is no immediate replacement. And most importantly, it
works cross-table.
Q: How do you build a tournament deck?
A: Take any deck and add Direct Intervention to it.
--
Bye,
Daneel
quetzalcoatl
Daneel wrote:
> I think you somewhat underrate DI. It is a very powerful card. You can
> use it against many toolbox decks (to cancel a high opportunity cost,
> high effect card). You can use it against many focused decks (to cancel
> a critical cog in a multi-card combo). By the mid- endgame you can
> usually cancel a card played from a focused deck and have a decent
> chance there is no immediate replacement. And most importantly, it
> works cross-table.
>
> Q: How do you build a tournament deck?
> A: Take any deck and add Direct Intervention to it.
>
I think the real answer is a mid-road thing. D.I. is wonderful AT THE
RIGHT TIME. However its general utility is not the ultimate winner.
As David C stated, if you play it at the right moment versus an Anneke
deck when the Second is played, then it can be a VP winner. However it
has to be at the right moment. You cannot play a D.I. and get a VP, you
must play the D.I. "just right".
Decks that are generally not affected by a D.I. are those that don't
rely on combos to do their work. Most of my tournament decks don't rely
on combos, rather they rely on cards that perform the same function. My
social decks, D.I. can shut them down in the middle of a combo run
quite easily, you just have to guess which card the combo hinges on.
With Daneel's comments that during the mid-game it has a higher impact.
That is only true if they haven't stacked the cards in. For example a
dedicated I.G. deck will have 8 or 9 of them. D.I. for just one may
save a vampire at a crucial moment, however most of those decks can
rush the same vampire on the same turn thus the D.I. was pretty much
useless. Of course that one action delay could mean a chance at a VP
but it doesn't give it to you with a nice ribbon.
There is no arguing that D.I. is a great card, however it will
inevitably be the good player that uses it effectively as opposed to
just playing it and gaining a VP.
D
Daneel
> Daneel wrote:
>
>> I think you somewhat underrate DI. It is a very powerful card. You can
>> use it against many toolbox decks (to cancel a high opportunity cost,
>> high effect card). You can use it against many focused decks (to
>> cancel
>> a critical cog in a multi-card combo). By the mid- endgame you can
>> usually cancel a card played from a focused deck and have a decent
>> chance there is no immediate replacement. And most importantly, it
>> works cross-table.
>>
>> Q: How do you build a tournament deck?
>> A: Take any deck and add Direct Intervention to it.
>
> I think the real answer is a mid-road thing. D.I. is wonderful AT THE
> RIGHT TIME. However its general utility is not the ultimate winner.
If you build a deck that has a reasonable chance to oust, you are
likely labouring with a significant portion of your deck to approach
that "right time". If you indeed succeed in doing so, holding DI can
really help. I'm not saying DI gives you the VP, but it can cement
the efforts of previous rounds.
On a tangential note, I've been experimenting with specific defence
cards like Emergency Preparations and Not to Be (I considered them a
necessity because some G. cards turn the game upside down, so you need
defences against them to be able to play normally). My experience was,
the occasional "just in case" copies were never in the hand at the
right time. Similar effect with Resilient Mind and The Diamnond
Thunderbolt: even though I included both in a deck, any dedicated
Temptation deck could ignore them safely.
You can, however, safely include up to like 4 copies of DI in any deck.
Well, most decks, anyway; Master slots are precious. But even if you
include only a single DI, it will likely come in handy, because it
greases your deck. Canceling a stealth card is like adding Intercept,
etc.
> As David C stated, if you play it at the right moment versus an Anneke
> deck when the Second is played, then it can be a VP winner. However it
> has to be at the right moment. You cannot play a D.I. and get a VP, you
> must play the D.I. "just right".
I missed that point from the original post. To clarify: I'm not arguing
that DI always gives you VPs. You need an apt deck to do that. But DI is
one of the more successful ways apt decks can further their goals.
> With Daneel's comments that during the mid-game it has a higher impact.
> That is only true if they haven't stacked the cards in.
I'm referring to examples where selective exhaustion of one's hand has
lead to one strategically plentiful resource becoming tactically scarce.
A stealth bleeder may have lots of stealth and lots of bleed, but when
you haven't been blocking for turns, and they end up discarding stealth,
and start bleeding with no cards, you have a chance to cancel a
Conditioning and not get hit by another one during the immediate next
action.
Sure, if decks can play in their own pace, they likely stack up on
resources that may be needed for a plunge (or to deal with a plunge).
But if the struggle is intense, that may not be an option.
--
Bye,
Daneel
quetzalcoatl
> likely labouring with a significant portion of your deck to approach
> that "right time". If you indeed succeed in doing so, holding DI can
> really help. I'm not saying DI gives you the VP, but it can cement
> the efforts of previous rounds.
>
> On a tangential note, I've been experimenting with specific defence
> cards like Emergency Preparations and Not to Be (I considered them a
> necessity because some G. cards turn the game upside down, so you need
> defences against them to be able to play normally). My experience was,
> the occasional "just in case" copies were never in the hand at the
> right time. Similar effect with Resilient Mind and The Diamnond
> Thunderbolt: even though I included both in a deck, any dedicated
> Temptation deck could ignore them safely.
>
Well I own a total of ONE D.I. from a !Brujah starter. That's it. So my
ability to survive and make finals doesn't seem affected by the card.
In fact it has never afffected my own game when played on me.
Watenda has been more a pain in the rear than D.I. with his limited
D.I. ability.
I have however been trying to experiment withe the xxx's Hold cards.
They are effectively D.I.'s with limited scope, but with nice side
effects. For example Regarghan's Hold. The 2nd Tradition costs 2 to
play for an untap and block, and they have to spend 2 master phase
actions to get rid of it.
D
Frederick Scott
"David Cherryholmes" <david.che...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:119ondq...@corp.supernews.com...
> And, I do not think a strategy has to be particularly focused for DI
> to crush it.
Huh? Explain?
I would think that the particularly focused deck is _less_ likely to
be affected by DI than the toolbox deck. One of theories about why
I'm less impressed with DI than some: I tend to play decks that are
much more focused than toolboxy.
Fred
Frederick Scott
"Daneel" <dan...@eposta.hu> wrote in message
news:opsrnun0...@news.chello.hu...
> I think you somewhat underrate DI. It is a very powerful card. You can
> use it against many toolbox decks (to cancel a high opportunity cost,
> high effect card). You can use it against many focused decks (to cancel
> a critical cog in a multi-card combo).
Ah - terminolgy nit: a focused deck is one in which the same card or cards
are used over and over many times. They can use card combinations but if
they do, they won't tend to be vulnerable to the loss of any one card.
That is, if you're trying Disguise out a Flamethrower, the "focused deck"
will have (say) eight Disguised Weapon cards and 10 Flamethrowers in order
to greatly increase the likelyhood of both of them coming up together.
A combo-based deck that is much more vulnerable to D.I. would be a many-
moving-part type deck, like Huitzie, his Fortitude card, his Soul Gem
of Etrius, his Daring the Dawn, and his handy-dandy Great Beast whistle.
I wouldn't call that "focused".
> Q: How do you build a tournament deck?
> A: Take any deck and add Direct Intervention to it.
Hmmm. Sounds like the formula for getting master-card-jammed to me.
Fred
Jeroen Rombouts
"Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> schreef in bericht
news:bzyne.14954$7p.9294@fed1read06...
duplicate EVERY action modifier? Fr.ex., it used to be that a D.I. could
completely destroy a multirusher's turn, by DI-ing the first Freak Drive.
Now you can pack Forced March and/or Dual form. But it kind of unfocusses
the deck, IMO
Jeroen Rombouts
>> Q: How do you build a tournament deck?
>> A: Take any deck and add Direct Intervention to it.
>
> Hmmm. Sounds like the formula for getting master-card-jammed to me.
>
If you take it that literally, it would probably make for a 93 card deck. I
think Daneel means: change a few master cards for DI's.
James Coupe
<nos...@no.spam.dot.com> writes:
>A combo-based deck that is much more vulnerable to D.I. would be a many-
>moving-part type deck, like Huitzie, his Fortitude card, his Soul Gem
>of Etrius, his Daring the Dawn, and his handy-dandy Great Beast whistle.
>I wouldn't call that "focused".
Or one with inherent limitations to certain cards. e.g. "Only playable
once per round" in a combat, or something similar.
James Coupe
Rombouts <jeroen....@NOSPAMtelenet.be> writes:
>It all depends on WHAT your focus is. For actions, sure. But can you
>duplicate EVERY action modifier? Fr.ex., it used to be that a D.I. could
>completely destroy a multirusher's turn, by DI-ing the first Freak Drive.
>Now you can pack Forced March and/or Dual form. But it kind of unfocusses
>the deck, IMO
The "what DI screws up" thing is kinda interesting.
I was thinking about combat, for instance, and a DI against a solid,
repetitive defensive deck wouldn't do a whole lot. For instance, a deck
with 12 Majesties (an arbitrary, large, but not-quite-jamming amount,
alter to taste) would play one, DI, play another. It's not restricted
from repeating them.