Preston Poulter/Derek Ray email exchange

[Derek Ray]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

This is the first email I received from Preston. It was an email
followup to:

Message-ID: <V_6dnTgFpaM...@giganews.com>
in the Barbed Wire Project - !Ventrue thread.

The above should be sufficient to locate it via Google.

My emails are set off by PGP signature blocks and should be easy to
distinguish. Emails that are not mine are, obviously, Preston's.

- ---------------
Derek Ray wrote:

|> Very, VERY poor play by your prey.

I'm sure the bleed for 11 was a sufficient incentive for him to
remember the next time he's in that situation.

|>
|> Try the 3 Pulse or 2 Pulse version, then. Pulse is an excellent tool
|> for the !Ventrue. Damage prevention is super-common, with all the
|> Fortitude mixing well with permanents. They're going to need Fortitude
|> anyway -- USE IT.
|>
|> | Unfortunately, the !Ventrue don't seem to have that good a toolbox
|> | available at the common level. Fortitude is their only combat
|> | discipline and damage prevention only goes so far. If one is not
|>
|> Silliness. Damage prevention goes QUITE a long way when you use things
|> like Skin of Steel, Rolling with the Punches, Superior Mettle, etc.
|> Back this up with Skin of Rock, Indomitability, and Unflinching
|> Persistence and you should rarely take damage. Give a couple Flak
|> Jackets to them so you don't have to spend a card for EVERY hands-for-1
|> combat, and that should get your guys just about bulletproof.
|> Restoration to put blood back on them.
|>
|> The !Ventrue have one of the best common-toolboxes available: DOM, AUS,
|> and FOR common cards are all excellent, and the disciplines themselves
|> are superb. The problems come in when you start trying to oust people,
|> because they don't come with stealth built-in except for Bonding.
|>
|
|>>> Put a couple .44s in, if you must. Or, Gas-Powered Chainsaw is not the
|
|> best card in the world, but the !Ventrue can use it quite efficiently.
|>

Some weapons would help, but how many combat cards are we talking about
here. Do we include concealed as well? 14 Prevention, 4 Weapons + 4
Conceals + 2 Flak Jackets?

|> The deck you posted was already noticeably better than your Gangrel and
|> Nosferatu versions, neither of which can stand up to even a half-hearted
|> stealth bleed deck. Just keep thinking it through, and assume that your
|> prey will make the BEST move available to him, not the worst, and go
|> from there.

The Gangrel do exactly what all pure combat decks do against stealth
bleed, they rush upstream. The Political Nosferatu just hope to out
race them. All in all, I favor either of those decks over this.

Let's look at the real problem here:
11 Master Cards - could include suddens or blood dolls or not. It
really doesn't make a huge impact on play IMHO

20-24 Combat Cards including weapons and equipment
8 Governs + MIssions
3 Pulses
3 Wakes
6 Bleed Bouncing Cards
5 Vote Defense Cards

Is that your proposed make up?

X-Mozilla-Status: 0001
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00800000
Message-ID: <42BB9383...@yahoo.com>
Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2005 01:00:51 -0400
From: Derek <lor...@yahoo.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.2 (Windows/20050317)
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Preston <preston...@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: Barbed Wire Project- !Venture
References: <1118961852.3...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>
<1118992587.5...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
<1119036702.6...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
<opssi77t...@news.chello.hu>
<1119042263.3...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
<1119156328.9...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
<7Y2dnTr0Ce8...@giganews.com>
<1119196357.4...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>
<V_6dnTgFpaM...@giganews.com>
<1119551568....@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
In-Reply-To: <1119551568....@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
X-Enigmail-Version: 0.89.6.0
X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Preston wrote:
| Derek Ray wrote:
|>Very, VERY poor play by your prey.
|
| I'm sure the bleed for 11 was a sufficient incentive for him to
| remember the next time he's in that situation.

You're missing the point, which is that your success in that instance
isn't indicative of how the deck will actually perform. Why isn't it?
Your prey made a mistake that every player only makes once; that of
ignoring DOM on his predator's minions. If your prey plays that well,
you lose one minion, have to rescue, and then spend a lot of time
digging out of a hole... and your prey has 11 more pool. Everyone makes
mistakes, and it's good to take advantage of them... but major
game-losing blunders like that are going to be few and far between.

When you're trying to evaluate a deck's quality, you must assume that
your prey is not going to voluntarily leave himself completely
defenseless, and that your predator is going to try to kill you. This
has been the same point I've been hammering on for some time, and I'm
not sure you're getting the picture yet.

Your posts tend to assume that these BW decks will be facing
similarly-constructed opposition... when in fact it's probably not true
even right now (your playgroup has identified stealth/bleed, and is
scared of it), and it certainly won't be true a month from now when your
playgroup is noticeably more skilled. New players learn quickly.
Bright new players learn even more quickly. People are going to put
some nastiness together, and buy more cards, and put more nastiness
together, and decks that don't have a solid foundation in the basics are
going to get crushed like a grape... making them a poor choice to use to
introduce someone to the game.

The goal when acquiring players isn't to have them win; they won't be
able to given the design restrictions on these decks. The goal is to
have them do some things successfully, maybe even get a VP and feel like
they got to actually play, even when they lose.

| Some weapons would help, but how many combat cards are we talking about
| here. Do we include concealed as well? 14 Prevention, 4 Weapons + 4
| Conceals + 2 Flak Jackets?

Well, there's no need to limit yourself to 60 cards, for one. If you
need to go to 65 or 70 (and many decks will), go to 70. Decks that flow
a lot of cards in a given turn... and !Ventrue decks tend to... can
handle having more cards in them, and you'll still see the ones you need.

Concealed is useless for Gas-Powered Chainsaw and not all THAT useful
for .44s in this deck. I'd lean more towards Chainsaws just because
they're only 1 pool, but a .44 or two can make a single minion
effectively invincible against many decks which can't maneuver back.

|>The deck you posted was already noticeably better than your Gangrel and
|>Nosferatu versions, neither of which can stand up to even a half-hearted
|>stealth bleed deck. Just keep thinking it through, and assume that your
|>prey will make the BEST move available to him, not the worst, and go
|>from there.
|
| The Gangrel do exactly what all pure combat decks do against stealth
| bleed, they rush upstream. The Political Nosferatu just hope to out
| race them. All in all, I favor either of those decks over this.

Your Gangrel can't hurt this deck; claws have to be played before
prevention, and you've got more damage prevention in this (even before I
modify it) than your Gangrel deck has claws. The Nossies would get
smeared by the big bleed long before they can get their politics in
gear, due to the size of the minions you'll need to get out to obtain votes.

When you build the Malkavian deck, you'll rapidly discover just how easy
it is to avoid Gangrel eye-poke... your basic combat defense package is
going to completely trump the Gangrel, and the inherent Malk bleed will
run them over. Rush decks that HAVE to go upstream usually lose, which
is what all of us who played Rush decks for so long know. You want to
look intimidating and scary... but if you have to use your actions
dunking all your predator's minions, you're in a losing battle. You may
kill one predator, but the next one will bury you.

| Let's look at the real problem here:
| 11 Master Cards - could include suddens or blood dolls or not. It
| really doesn't make a huge impact on play IMHO

OK, this is where you're being stubborn and not listening to what some
very, very good players (not just me) are telling you. Blood Dolls are,
in fact, THAT good; in the vast majority of decks, blood on minions is
worth far less than pool, because empty minions can hunt if necessary,
and there is no cardless "gain 1 pool" action. Sudden Reversal isn't
absolutely mandatory, but having one handy can save your butt... and it
can break the back of a prey who was relying on a late-game Minion Tap.

Short Term Investments are a lousy way to gain 2 pool; Ascendance is
roughly equivalent, but comes with a lot less risk up front and doesn't
force you to choose between a critical Master card in-hand and pool
gain. Ascendance is a great card to include in decks like this, because
it's a simple card, everyone has 8,000 to spare, and it provides a
visible benefit... key for a new player.

11 Master cards is _barely_ enough for a 60-card deck. You really want
to have 14 or so, which gives you a reasonable assurance of having one
in hand for every Master phase. Remember, Master cards are some of the
most powerful cards in the game -- wasting your Master phase on "I gain
a pool from the STI" is usually a poor second to what could be happening.

| 20-24 Combat Cards including weapons and equipment
| 8 Governs + MIssions
| 3 Pulses

Need 3x Restoration at least to cover these. Pulse is expensive.

| 3 Wakes
| 6 Bleed Bouncing Cards
| 5 Vote Defense Cards
|
| Is that your proposed make up?

First, we need to look at your crypt again; the ratio of wakes-to-bounce
is going to change depending on how likely you are to have guys
untapped. If you've got a mostly weenie crypt, then 3/6 is fine. I
remember that you had mostly too-large guys, which means you need 1 wake
for every Deflection -- your guys are going to HAVE to act every turn or
you won't ever oust anyone. The amount of DOM you have is also going to
affect how many Governs go in, and the amount of FOR you have will
affect which combat cards and equipment show up.

Second, you need some Bonding to give you at least a LITTLE stealth.
And 2x Conditioning will make people fear the guys without a Pulse (or
be a nice surprise, which is just as good). I'd throw out all but 1 of
the vote defense cards (Loyalist is nice), and I'd include 4x Spirit's
Touch in their place; you'll either need intercept or bounce, and you
can discard whichever you don't need. Voters often can be foiled by +1
intercept as well, so that's kind of handy.

After you have the crypt together, we can sit down and look at what's
happening. Deckbuilding isn't a "category" type of thing like you've
laid out above; it all has to fit together in a coherent whole. If you
have a bunch of AUS/FOR minions who don't have superior Dominate, for
example, all those Governs and Scouting Missions are pretty much
worthless and should be replaced by Conditionings. I know you're going
to prefer to go with DOM here for the pool-gain/acceleration aspect of
Govern, so we're going to end up looking at a mix of DOM/FOR and
AUS/DOM. Billy is probably going to be your #2 minion in most games, as
he makes a good Pulser -- with the skill card you'll end up giving him,
he can get FOR and protect himself adequately.

- - --
Derek

insert clever quotation here

- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (MingW32)

iD8DBQFCu5OCtQZlu3o7QpERAu3XAJ90bfrMEiSbsmalQORMwQGXFn1CfQCgycCz
SjOmWA1rbw5jltJ8ykxl/Zo=
=X4ym
- -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

- ---

Derek,

We seem to have some basic disagreement about the play value of certain
decks and certain concepts. This is really not a bad thing as
differences of opinion in CCGs allows for greater variation in strategy
and deck composition. My guiding philosophy in regards to CCGs is that
"the proof of the pudding is in the eating." I judge things based on how
they play for me, and all other feedback is secondary as far as I am
concerned. For instance, Blood Doll plays to me as rather mediocre in
most decks, so I don't play it much.

That being said, I am not really sure what it is you want from me. It
appears that you would like me to come to some agreement with you about
what cards/deck builds are good (i.e. you want me to say, "Yes, Blood
Dolls are amazing!") In regards to the BWP, it seems that you are trying
to tell me that I am doing a dis-service to new players by giving them
sub-par decks. Obviously, I don't agree. I feel that, at a bare minimum,
BWP decks are more focused and competitive than a deck made of two
starter decks combined- which would seem to be the most common starting
point. Furthermore, as players take decks and find out what works or
what doesn't they can take the deck and modify it to their own
perceptions and, by doing so, grow as players.

A few specific notes in response to your email:
1. You may use Concealed Weapon to equip a Gas-Powered Chainsaw
2. The Nosferatu and Gangrel decks both have Rat's Warnings which allow
them a decent level of bleed defense. I played the Gangrel deck itself
head-to-head against a dominate weenie deck that typically beats most
constructed decks and the Gangrel deck won. Again, for me, the proof of
the pudding is in the eating.
3. In regards to the !Ventrue deck, I have abandoned that deck as a BWP
candidate. But, if you would like, I can put you in touch with the
player who submitted it and you two can collaborate. I welcome new BWP
submissions.

Warmest Regards,
Preston Poulter

- ---

X-Mozilla-Status: 0001
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00800000
Message-ID: <42BDEBEF...@yahoo.com>
Date: Sat, 25 Jun 2005 19:42:39 -0400
From: Derek <lor...@yahoo.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.2 (Windows/20050317)
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Preston Poulter <preston...@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: Barbed Wire Project- !Venture
References: <BAY105-F34CD94A7A...@phx.gbl>
In-Reply-To: <BAY105-F34CD94A7A...@phx.gbl>
X-Enigmail-Version: 0.89.6.0
X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Preston Poulter wrote:
| Derek,

It would be appreciated if you would bother to quote things you're
responding to. It helps maintain the thread of discussion, and keeps
everyone involved clear as to exactly what's being said at any given
point in time.

| We seem to have some basic disagreement about the play value of certain
| decks and certain concepts. This is really not a bad thing as
| differences of opinion in CCGs allows for greater variation in strategy
| and deck composition.

However, not all variations tend to win... especially when faced with
opposing players who are trying to win.

You and I can choose to agree about it or not. It makes it no less true.

| My guiding philosophy in regards to CCGs is that
| "the proof of the pudding is in the eating." I judge things based on how
| they play for me, and all other feedback is secondary as far as I am
| concerned. For instance, Blood Doll plays to me as rather mediocre in
| most decks, so I don't play it much.

Have you ever considered that your play style is at fault, rather than
the card?

Given that you are relatively new to the game, and have a playgroup that
is also relatively new, I can assure you that taking such a stubborn
approach to advice is going to slow your own development as a player.
Members of your playgroup who don't willfully blind themselves to
alternate concepts will learn faster than you, and you will start
losing... a lot. And then the proof of the pudding WILL be in the
eating, won't it?

I'm not trying to be rude... I'm trying to point out that frankly,
you're just plain wrong about a number of your ideas. There's a great
deal of complexity to this game. You are not going to absorb it all and
become a master in a year. It's a shame you won't get a chance to play
with the New York guys; it probably would've been quite an eye-opener
for you, as they have some quite talented players there.

| That being said, I am not really sure what it is you want from me. It

Well, I'm trying to help you. I'd like you to at least TRY to have an
open mind. So far, you are absolutely certain that you're right about
everything you say, and you pretty much reject every suggestion with
"But that doesn't work for me" -- and I'll guess that you have not tried
even one-fifth of the suggestions you've received.

Dismissing things without trying them is the mark of a person who's
determined to make mistakes.

| appears that you would like me to come to some agreement with you about
| what cards/deck builds are good (i.e. you want me to say, "Yes, Blood
| Dolls are amazing!") In regards to the BWP, it seems that you are trying

You can play whatever cards you want in your own decks, and follow
whatever personal handicaps you want when you do so. But when you give
decks to try to recruit new players, you need to be giving them
something that lets them have fun and actually DO SOMETHING in the game.
~ It's no fun for someone to sit down and get smash-ousted immediately,
or for someone to never actually get their deck up and running, to feel
like they're DOING something.

Some of your decks provide the player a means to DO something; take some
actions, do well in combat, defend against your predator, etc. Several
don't. The !Ventrue happen to be a clan that are great at DOING
something. Winning games is a bit harder... but for a brand new player,
they're a great clan. Lots of simplicity, the feeling that you're
PLAYING... etc.

| to tell me that I am doing a dis-service to new players by giving them
| sub-par decks. Obviously, I don't agree. I feel that, at a bare minimum,
| BWP decks are more focused and competitive than a deck made of two
| starter decks combined- which would seem to be the most common starting

You can feel that all you like, but have you ever TRIED mixing two
starter decks together and playing them? Be honest, now... it's easy to
tell that you haven't. See, this is where your blind assertions get
met with open laughter from people... because that particular assertion
is obviously just wrong, as you would've rapidly discovered if you had
tried it.

I and many other people, on the other hand, HAVE tried it. The
resulting constructs are quite functional against tier-1 decks. It
won't win its fair share of games against them, because tier-1 decks
have the entire card pool to choose from and are highly tuned. But it
will certainly stand up to them for awhile, and a skilled player can
even win if things go well. Two starter decks allow you to tune your
crypt, give you a prime selection of useful Master cards, and a great
deal of the commons, uncommons, and rares for that particular clan. In
70-80 cards, you can have something that's quite a solid beginning
against ANY deck.

You seem to believe that we're just out there blathering at random. I
started playing in mid-'98. Many others were playing well before this.
~ 7 years' experience playing against the best players in the world goes
a long way in this particular game. Getting offended and saying "well,
it works for me and it doesn't have to work for you" just isn't going to
cut it, nor will it change the truth.

| point. Furthermore, as players take decks and find out what works or
| what doesn't they can take the deck and modify it to their own
| perceptions and, by doing so, grow as players.

They can do the same thing with two starter decks mixed together, and
they'll have a much better base to start from. If they're perpetually
trying to make Short Term Investment work, though, they'll be forever
stuck in the rut of denying themselves valuable Master Phase actions,
and not having enough pool gain to survive.

It's not good to pawn off crappy cards on people and pretend they don't
suck.

| A few specific notes in response to your email:
| 1. You may use Concealed Weapon to equip a Gas-Powered Chainsaw

True. I forgot that "3 damage" was the threshold, not "2 damage". It's
2 pool. I'm still not sure I would use Concealed Weapons in that deck,
but that's got room for discussion.

| 2. The Nosferatu and Gangrel decks both have Rat's Warnings which allow
| them a decent level of bleed defense. I played the Gangrel deck itself

See, this is where you have made a demonstrably false statement.
Neither deck has any reliable intercept -- believing that Rat's Warning
by itself is any sort of effective bleed defense is delusional. The
basic stealth/bleed deck that you will create for the Malkavians will
crush both these decks.

| head-to-head against a dominate weenie deck that typically beats most
| constructed decks and the Gangrel deck won. Again, for me, the proof of
| the pudding is in the eating.

A head-to-head 2-player game is NOT a valid test of any deck. In this
situation, the Gangrel deck has a significant advantage as every
torporized minion counts as both predator and prey -- combat decks
increase sharply in quality in a head-to-head situation.

Sit as the prey of the dominate weenie in a 4- or 5-player game... the
true test. I figure that deck is ousted in 5 turns, tops.
Sit as the prey of a stealth/bleed deck in the same game. Again, I'd
say 5-6 turns.
Sit as the predator of either. Your prey has a great chance to sweep
the table, because your deck is simply not very good at forward pressure.

| 3. In regards to the !Ventrue deck, I have abandoned that deck as a BWP
| candidate.

Of course, they are one of the best clans to do this sort of thing with,
for reasons I mentioned in the prior email.

Do you disagree? If so, why?

| But, if you would like, I can put you in touch with the
| player who submitted it and you two can collaborate. I welcome new BWP
| submissions.

I'm not going to do your work for you. If you are not interested in
learning, then you are the worst possible teacher for any new player...
they would do better simply picking up the cards on their own and
throwing them together. Right now, you are teaching people inferior
strategies and painting them as superior; you're giving them a handicap
they may never get out of.

So, if you are interested in actually DISCUSSING any of this, we can go
on. But if you're simply going to sit there with your blinders on and
refuse to consider that perhaps other people know better than you
(because we do), then I will simply continue to respond to your
newsgroup posts with accurate criticisms, so that other readers get a
more realistic viewpoint of what works and what doesn't.

- - --
Derek

insert clever quotation here

- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (MingW32)

iD8DBQFCvevvtQZlu3o7QpERAp7GAJwJuFpPymVDCM9b3+pG7YLUDAPhRQCg4Xt/
i21nSJAbQOWqNPiQibG6N5I=
=ydgp
- -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

- ---

You said:
However, not all variations tend to win... especially when faced with
opposing players who are trying to win.

You and I can choose to agree about it or not. It makes it no less true.

I say: I tend to win a disproportionate amount here in Dallas. I know
you think we are all a bunch of scrubs, but, honestly, we're not losing
any sleep over your opinion of our play level.

You said:
"Have you ever considered that your play style is at fault, rather than
the card?

Given that you are relatively new to the game, and have a playgroup that
is also relatively new, I can assure you that taking such a stubborn
approach to advice is going to slow your own development as a player.
Members of your playgroup who don't willfully blind themselves to
alternate concepts will learn faster than you, and you will start
losing... a lot. And then the proof of the pudding WILL be in the
eating, won't it?"

I say: Well when that happens I'll let you know. I've been playing for a
couple of years. Played MtG on the Pro Tour before that. I've been
around. What really is itching me is why you are so damned driven to
have me play like you? In many games, people have a style that works for
them. So some cards will suit certain styles well and other cards will
suit another style well. I don't need you to validate my style of play
or my card selection, or the skill level of my group, and I don't
understand why it's so damned important to you that I play the game just
like you do.

You said:
I'm not trying to be rude... I'm trying to point out that frankly,
you're just plain wrong about a number of your ideas. There's a great
deal of complexity to this game. You are not going to absorb it all and
become a master in a year. It's a shame you won't get a chance to play
with the New York guys; it probably would've been quite an eye-opener
for you, as they have some quite talented players there.

I say: Some how I will live. But I must say, my experience with CCGs has
led me to believe that everyone tends to overestimate their own
abilities. I strongly doubt that the New York crew is somehow better
than, say, Los Angles where I have played and placed in major
tournments. But, I am used to people thinking they are hot shit, It's no
skin off my nose to indulge them. but it is a bit borish. Let's look at
what you are trying to convince me:
1. You are a much better player than I am
2. Dallas in a much better play environment than Dallas, and I suppose
Los Angles, IYHO
3. I should not just go with the cards that seem to produce results for
me but instead dogmatically take you at your word that you simply are
better at this than I am and I should do what you want me to do?

I'm sorry, but that's more than a bit galling. And I really don't
understand your motivation other than just to stroke your own ego.

You said:

Well, I'm trying to help you. I'd like you to at least TRY to have an
open mind. So far, you are absolutely certain that you're right about
everything you say, and you pretty much reject every suggestion with
"But that doesn't work for me" -- and I'll guess that you have not tried
even one-fifth of the suggestions you've received.

Dismissing things without trying them is the mark of a person who's
determined to make mistakes.

I say:
How quickly you forget. Was it not the original BWP: Gangrel thread
where you were so obnoxious that I took someone up on their suggestion
that my BWP deck was dramatically inferior to a deck of two starters.
Did I not ask them for a deck list and then try it out in actual play
and proved that it was not much better.

You will find that, as an empiricist, I tend to try things out all the
time. I dismiss suggestions not out of hand- as you seem to do- but out
of experience. You are now coming and asking me to say that my
experiences are somehow less valid than your experiences are. You say
you are trying to help me. Honestly Derek, I don't know of anyone who
plays this game who is just going to take someone else's word as gospel
over their own experience and play the game how they want it played. Why
you expect this of me I have no idea, but, if that's you idea of help,
please stop helping me.

You say:
You can play whatever cards you want in your own decks, and follow
whatever personal handicaps you want when you do so. But when you give
decks to try to recruit new players, you need to be giving them
something that lets them have fun and actually DO SOMETHING in the game.
~ It's no fun for someone to sit down and get smash-ousted immediately,
or for someone to never actually get their deck up and running, to feel
like they're DOING something.

I say:
These decks I give out seem on par with the decks that could be made out
of two starters
and are typically much better than the deck they were playing and
getting frustrated with.
So, since they are, in fact, doing something, and having fun, I have
accomplished my mission, Why you seem to have a problem with this I
don't know.

You say:
Some of your decks provide the player a means to DO something; take some
actions, do well in combat, defend against your predator, etc. Several
don't. The !Ventrue happen to be a clan that are great at DOING
something. Winning games is a bit harder... but for a brand new player,
they're a great clan. Lots of simplicity, the feeling that you're
PLAYING... etc.

| to tell me that I am doing a dis-service to new players by giving them
| sub-par decks. Obviously, I don't agree. I feel that, at a bare minimum,
| BWP decks are more focused and competitive than a deck made of two
| starter decks combined- which would seem to be the most common starting

You can feel that all you like, but have you ever TRIED mixing two
starter decks together and playing them? Be honest, now... it's easy to
tell that you haven't. See, this is where your blind assertions get
met with open laughter from people... because that particular assertion
is obviously just wrong, as you would've rapidly discovered if you had
tried it.

I say:

Dude, you totally forgot the Gangrel thread didn't you. I can't fucking
believe that. You lampooned me for the very report where I came back and
said, hey I tried two starters and it seemed about the same really, and
you are now criticising me for never trying it.
WTF????????????????????????????????????????

You say:
I and many other people, on the other hand, HAVE tried it. The
resulting constructs are quite functional against tier-1 decks. It
won't win its fair share of games against them, because tier-1 decks
have the entire card pool to choose from and are highly tuned. But it
will certainly stand up to them for awhile, and a skilled player can
even win if things go well. Two starter decks allow you to tune your
crypt, give you a prime selection of useful Master cards, and a great
deal of the commons, uncommons, and rares for that particular clan. In
70-80 cards, you can have something that's quite a solid beginning
against ANY deck.

I say:
And, since the BWP seems to render decks that are at least on par with
two starters, it will produce the same results. Even in New York.

You said:
You seem to believe that we're just out there blathering at random. I
started playing in mid-'98. Many others were playing well before this.
~ 7 years' experience playing against the best players in the world goes
a long way in this particular game. Getting offended and saying "well,
it works for me and it doesn't have to work for you" just isn't going to
cut it, nor will it change the truth.

I say:
I'm not sure what the hell you are blathering about, but it does seem
rather random. You seem to criticize me for things, such as not actually
trying two starters put together, when you had in fact criticized me for
it two months prior. I don't know what you want or why you are doing
this, but it is increasingly obvious to me that you do not really know
enough about me or what I am doing to really provide any real criticsim:
this is not the first time you have attacked without understanding all
of the facts

You say:
They can do the same thing with two starter decks mixed together, and
they'll have a much better base to start from. If they're perpetually
trying to make Short Term Investment work, though, they'll be forever
stuck in the rut of denying themselves valuable Master Phase actions,
and not having enough pool gain to survive.

I say:
So far they seem to be faring better with the BWP decks, not worse. See
the BWP: Nosferatu thread.

You say:
It's not good to pawn off crappy cards on people and pretend they don't
suck.

I say:
OK. Well good for you.

You said:
See, this is where you have made a demonstrably false statement.
Neither deck has any reliable intercept -- believing that Rat's Warning
by itself is any sort of effective bleed defense is delusional. The
basic stealth/bleed deck that you will create for the Malkavians will
crush both these decks.

| head-to-head against a dominate weenie deck that typically beats most
| constructed decks and the Gangrel deck won. Again, for me, the proof of
| the pudding is in the eating.

A head-to-head 2-player game is NOT a valid test of any deck. In this
situation, the Gangrel deck has a significant advantage as every
torporized minion counts as both predator and prey -- combat decks
increase sharply in quality in a head-to-head situation.

I say:
Well, it's a good test in my book. In a larger game, the S&B decks
actually seem to fair less well than in 5 player games than in two. The
Gangrel deck has a Raven's Spy, as well as Cat's Guidance. It may or may
not catch the bleeders. but on it's turn it will rush them and torpor
them pretty reliably. It's what the Gangrel do.

You say:
Sit as the prey of the dominate weenie in a 4- or 5-player game... the
true test. I figure that deck is ousted in 5 turns, tops.
Sit as the prey of a stealth/bleed deck in the same game. Again, I'd
say 5-6 turns

I say: Here's our problem- I have. Read the BWP: Brujah thread. The
problem is that I actually these things and say, "Eh, seems to work" and
you reply that my experience is not valid.
.
You say:
Sit as the predator of either. Your prey has a great chance to sweep
the table, because your deck is simply not very good at forward pressure.

I say:Says you. Today I played 4x4 player games. I was the only one
using BWP decks, the rest were trying their decks out the the tournament
tomorrow. I won two out of 4 games as the table winner. But, I know, it
doesn't count because it's in Dallas.

You sayK
Of course, they are one of the best clans to do this sort of thing with,
for reasons I mentioned in the prior email.

Do you disagree? If so, why?

| But, if you would like, I can put you in touch with the
| player who submitted it and you two can collaborate. I welcome new sBWP
| submissions.

I'm not going to do your work for you. If you are not interested in
learning, then you are the worst possible teacher for any new player...
they would do better simply picking up the cards on their own and
throwing them together. Right now, you are teaching people inferior
strategies and painting them as superior; you're giving them a handicap
they may never get out of.

I say:
That's a bold statement.

Yoy say:
So, if you are interested in actually DISCUSSING any of this, we can go
on. But if you're simply going to sit there with your blinders on and
refuse to consider that perhaps other people know better than you
(because we do), then I will simply continue to respond to your
newsgroup posts with accurate criticisms, so that other readers get a
more realistic viewpoint of what works and what doesn't.

I say: I've never had a burning interest to really discuss anything with
you Derek. Personally, I would really like you to just stop writing to
me. I invite you to simply disregard all BWP related posts as being for
the open discussion of everyone else but you. I don't feel you have
anything constructive to add, and you seem to write most of your
posts/letter with the intent of making yourself feel better and NOT, as
you claim, out of concern for my VTES future of for those who might
learn the game from me.

- ---

X-Mozilla-Status: 0001
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00800000
Message-ID: <42BEB9C5...@yahoo.com>
Date: Sun, 26 Jun 2005 10:20:53 -0400
From: Derek <lor...@yahoo.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.2 (Windows/20050317)
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Preston Poulter <preston...@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: Barbed Wire Project- !Venture
References: <BAY105-F380102E92...@phx.gbl>
In-Reply-To: <BAY105-F380102E92...@phx.gbl>
X-Enigmail-Version: 0.89.6.0
X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Preston Poulter wrote:
| You said:
| However, not all variations tend to win... especially when faced with
| opposing players who are trying to win.
|
| You and I can choose to agree about it or not. It makes it no less true.
|
| I say: I tend to win a disproportionate amount here in Dallas. I know
| you think we are all a bunch of scrubs, but, honestly, we're not losing
| any sleep over your opinion of our play level.

Yep. This is about what I figured; the pissy ranting of an ignorant
fool was due to start... or is it perhaps the fear that I might be
right? You obviously care, or you wouldn't have bothered to actually
send email. That said, let's keep going and debunk your initial statements:

- - -- Just because you win against scrubs once with a deck proves nothing
about how it will perform in the hands of a newbie.
- - -- One or two tests in the wrong hands prove nothing.

| You said:
| "Have you ever considered that your play style is at fault, rather than
| the card?
|
| Given that you are relatively new to the game, and have a playgroup that
| is also relatively new, I can assure you that taking such a stubborn
| approach to advice is going to slow your own development as a player.
| Members of your playgroup who don't willfully blind themselves to
| alternate concepts will learn faster than you, and you will start
| losing... a lot. And then the proof of the pudding WILL be in the
| eating, won't it?"
|
| I say: Well when that happens I'll let you know. I've been playing for a
| couple of years. Played MtG on the Pro Tour before that. I've been

This explains a lot... you think because you're hot shit in Magic, that
you must automatically be right about everything. We have a few ex-Pro
Tour players of our own floating around, as well, so I know just how
meaningless that is. Guess what; how good you are in that game has
absolutely no bearing on how good you are in THIS game. One or two of
them have been able to translate their skills. One very well-known
player never could get it together, and spent the major tournaments in
0VP land. He's quit since then and has gone back to Magic.

| around. What really is itching me is why you are so damned driven to
| have me play like you? In many games, people have a style that works for

I'm not teaching you to play like me. I'm trying to help you to teach
new players stuff that's appropriate to their skill level, and stuff
that works. If you don't understand WHY it works, you won't ever try to
teach them. Instead, you insist on hanging onto stuff that sucks, and
you're even copping an attitude about it and hiding behind the tired old
defense of "but it's my style, man, it works for me".

So, Mr. Pro Tour Magic player, if I claimed that my style was to NEVER
put more than 1/5 of my deck as land, and it worked for me and I kicked
everyone's ass, and I didn't need validation from you that my deck
didn't have enough lands, because it was MY STYLE... what would you say?

(disclaimer: I don't play Magic, so 1/5th might be a good amount of
land. I think it's probably noticeably too small. Insert percentage as
appropriate.)

| them. So some cards will suit certain styles well and other cards will
| suit another style well. I don't need you to validate my style of play

And some styles will tend to lose as soon as people get above a certain
skill level.

| or my card selection, or the skill level of my group, and I don't
| understand why it's so damned important to you that I play the game just
| like you do.

See above. I don't understand why you're so scared of trying something
new... and I mean REALLY trying it.

REALLY trying it would be playing the 2-starter deck yourself for an
entire night, and then playing your own for another entire night. Due
to the vagaries of crypt draw, multiple games are the only way to really
get a true picture of how something is ACTUALLY going to do, and the
only valid test is to use the SAME player for all those tests.

| You said:
| I'm not trying to be rude... I'm trying to point out that frankly,
| you're just plain wrong about a number of your ideas. There's a great
| deal of complexity to this game. You are not going to absorb it all and
| become a master in a year. It's a shame you won't get a chance to play
| with the New York guys; it probably would've been quite an eye-opener
| for you, as they have some quite talented players there.
|
| I say: Some how I will live. But I must say, my experience with CCGs has
| led me to believe that everyone tends to overestimate their own
| abilities. I strongly doubt that the New York crew is somehow better

Yeah. Let's just turn that around on you, shall we? Right now, you're
vastly overestimating your own abilities.

| than, say, Los Angles where I have played and placed in major
| tournments. But, I am used to people thinking they are hot shit, It's no
| skin off my nose to indulge them. but it is a bit borish. Let's look at

Which ones? What dates? Who was at the final table with you? What
deck did you play? What were the other decks?

I'm pretty much used to people thinking they're hot shit, too, see.

| what you are trying to convince me:
| 1. You are a much better player than I am

Yep. I'm pretty certain of it. You lack a basic grasp of certain key
V:TES resources... or worse, you know them yourself but you're refusing
to try to teach them to new players, which is the act of a real lowlife.
~ I prefer to assume you just don't understand, personally.

| 2. Dallas in a much better play environment than Dallas, and I suppose
| Los Angles, IYHO

This sentence no verb. I will assume you mean "New York is a much
better play environment than Dallas." Yep, I feel comfortable with that
assessment. I think a select few of the LA guys are better than all the
New Yorkers, but a number of the New Yorkers are better than the rest of
the LA guys. I know a number of the LA guys personally, see. They're a
solid bunch-- but only one or two of them (Robert Goudie) are REALLY
able to hold their own and produce consistent results in the national
scene. Has to do with their play style.

| 3. I should not just go with the cards that seem to produce results for
| me but instead dogmatically take you at your word that you simply are
| better at this than I am and I should do what you want me to do?

Nope. But you should try it my way for awhile and see if it produces
BETTER results for you, a paraphrase of which I repeated through the
whole last email. You aren't much on reading, huh?

| I'm sorry, but that's more than a bit galling. And I really don't
| understand your motivation other than just to stroke your own ego.

If I was inclined to do that, I would have refused to respond in email,
and instead sent this to the newsgroup and responded there, where I
could likely get no end of acclaim.

| You said:
| "But that doesn't work for me" -- and I'll guess that you have not tried
| even one-fifth of the suggestions you've received.
|
| Dismissing things without trying them is the mark of a person who's
| determined to make mistakes.
|
| I say:
| How quickly you forget. Was it not the original BWP: Gangrel thread
| where you were so obnoxious that I took someone up on their suggestion
| that my BWP deck was dramatically inferior to a deck of two starters.
| Did I not ask them for a deck list and then try it out in actual play
| and proved that it was not much better.

How quickly YOU forget. Let's go back to your post, shall we, and check
your facts?

You posted: "OK, we held the test today. I played Barbed Wire Gangrel,
Jon, another
experienced player played Dual Form (and bitched incesantly). Jessica,
a newbie who typically plays a Malk Sneak & Bleed I made for her, was
Jon's predator and he begged her not to play it so he could "have a
chance."

You tried to claim this somehow reflected poorly on the 2-Starter deck,
but since nobody actually played the S&B deck, it doesn't mean a damn
thing. A Malk S&B behind your BWP deck would be just as frightening to
you, with your total lack of intercept, big minions, and one-note
combat. While you might be able to backrush and dunk all the S&B
minions before getting ousted, your prey would be totally unhooked and
in great position for a sweep. Not a success. Let's continue:

You post some anecdotes, including: "Camille did block the Lassombra's
bleed this time, and we
sent each other to torpor (he with entombment, me with claws). [*both
rescue self*] ... Then, the !Venture ousted my predator with some
vote/bleed combinations."

You were able to slow your predator down by dunking his minion and
forcing a self-rescue, and ended up handing 1VP to your grandpredator.
5 players remaining. Not necessarily bad play, but indicative of what
this deck is going to have to do... and why this is a problem. You
traded in an inconvenient predator for an equally inconvenient one with
6 more pool.

Continuing: "Never facing a strong predator was allowed the !Ventrue to
come down on me pretty hard. Jon
with Dual Form did manage to get an out with some Stanisolva stealth
bleeds, with Jeff's deck having done little the whole game."

The 2-starter deck gets an oust, despite Jon having influenced one of
the worse vampires in his crypt. You know, for "experienced players",
they don't seem to have a good grasp of "action advantage" --
influencing Inner Circle members is going to put you WAY behind the
curve, even with the 4 votes and +2 bleed. So the total: Jon 1VP,
!Ventrue 1VP. 4 players remaining.

Continuing: "From there it was problematic, because Dual Form did not
have enough
umph to put pressure on my predator and he rained down a series of
KRC/Con Agg and I was ousted soon after- 1 turn away from ousting my
own prey myself from my army of rats and bleed actions."

Demonstrating quite adequately that your deck doesn't have a defense
against even +1 stealth actions, and obviously didn't have enough Rush
to kill off the !Ventrue voter. The no intercept is a real problem that
needs addressing; which is why I suggested what I did (Rumor Mill, KRCG)
in the thread. Your deck also has an obvious flaw that came to light
here; while the !Ventrue has vote lock, you torporizing his minions full
on blood is just a temporary slowdown. A known disadvantage of the
Gangrel -- they usually don't ever have vote lock, so their claws are
often just a minor inconvenience.

Final score:
2-Starter Deck: 1 VP
You: 0 VP, despite having a newbie (Jessica) as your prey
Tuned !Ventrue deck: 2VP and concession of the rest.

So what the facts read here is: The 2-starter deck did better than
yours, exactly as expected.

| You will find that, as an empiricist, I tend to try things out all the

I don't think that word means what you want it to mean.

"Empiricism \Em*pir"i*cism\, n.
1. The method or practice of an empiric; pursuit of knowledge by
observation and experiment. [1913 Webster]
2. Specifically, a practice of medicine founded on mere experience,
without the aid of science or a knowledge of principles; ignorant and
unscientific practice; charlatanry; quackery. [1913 Webster]"

Most people (you included) want it to mean #1. In reality, it tends to
mean #2 more often -- someone who relies SOLELY on his own experience,
without any knowledge of principles or proper, rigorous testing. And as
we see above, you didn't conduct proper, rigorous testing... nor do you
really have a good grasp of the basic V:TES principles.

| time. I dismiss suggestions not out of hand- as you seem to do- but out
| of experience. You are now coming and asking me to say that my
| experiences are somehow less valid than your experiences are. You say

Because you ignore the facts? Look at your test run; the 2-Starter deck
got a VP, and you didn't! Even ignoring all the flaws in this test run
(you should have played both decks yourself, for example, to remove
player skill from the equation), that in itself should have been
indicative of something, huh?

| you are trying to help me. Honestly Derek, I don't know of anyone who
| plays this game who is just going to take someone else's word as gospel
| over their own experience and play the game how they want it played. Why
| you expect this of me I have no idea, but, if that's you idea of help,
| please stop helping me.

My idea of help is to get you to TRY things. You didn't try the
2-Starter deck, for example; you pawned it off on someone else. Reading
back on the deck, it could have been built a bit more focused and with
some less obvious flaws (2x Rotschreck with no significant intercept in
the deck is useless, 2x Fame and 8x Rush with only 6 agg-damage cards is
also not so good) ... but even with those flaws, it still outperformed
your deck.

| You say:
| You can play whatever cards you want in your own decks, and follow
| whatever personal handicaps you want when you do so. But when you give
| decks to try to recruit new players, you need to be giving them
| something that lets them have fun and actually DO SOMETHING in the game.
|
| I say:
| These decks I give out seem on par with the decks that could be made out
| of two starters and are typically much better than the deck they were
playing and
| getting frustrated with.

Well, we know that the initial conclusion is so far false; in the single
(flawed) experiment, the 2-starter deck was better. It's no doubt that
EITHER of the decks is better than the newbie's own mishmash of stuff.

| So, since they are, in fact, doing something, and having fun, I have
| accomplished my mission, Why you seem to have a problem with this I
| don't know.

Because I'm interested in seeing not just an influx of raw newbies, but
raw newbies who can really appreciate the game and can become good
players. Teaching them the correct basics (create an action advantage,
pool is always better than blood, always play a Master card every turn)
is only going to increase their enjoyment, because they're more likely
to get an oust and maybe even win if they're lucky.

| You say:
| You can feel that all you like, but have you ever TRIED mixing two
| starter decks together and playing them? Be honest, now... it's easy to
| tell that you haven't. See, this is where your blind assertions get
| met with open laughter from people... because that particular assertion
| is obviously just wrong, as you would've rapidly discovered if you had
| tried it.
|
| I say:
| Dude, you totally forgot the Gangrel thread didn't you. I can't fucking
| believe that. You lampooned me for the very report where I came back and
| said, hey I tried two starters and it seemed about the same really, and
| you are now criticising me for never trying it.
| WTF????????????????????????????????????????

Yeah, that's what I say, WTF?

- - -- YOU didn't try it. You made someone else try it.
- - -- YOU didn't even build the deck yourself; you took a random idea.
- - -- It did better than your BWP deck!

I didn't forget that thread, Preston... I just never got around to
responding.

So I repeat my challenge: TRY IT YOURSELF.

| You say:
| I and many other people, on the other hand, HAVE tried it. The
| resulting constructs are quite functional against tier-1 decks. It
| won't win its fair share of games against them, because tier-1 decks
| have the entire card pool to choose from and are highly tuned. But it
| will certainly stand up to them for awhile, and a skilled player can
| even win if things go well. Two starter decks allow you to tune your
| crypt, give you a prime selection of useful Master cards, and a great
| deal of the commons, uncommons, and rares for that particular clan. In
| 70-80 cards, you can have something that's quite a solid beginning
| against ANY deck.
|
| I say:
| And, since the BWP seems to render decks that are at least on par with
| two starters, it will produce the same results. Even in New York.

Already demonstrated that BWP doesn't quite cut it, although you've
never tried the 2-starter variant yourself so you have no REAL way of
knowing. For someone who claims to rely on his own experience, you
aren't interested in gathering very much of it yourself.

| You said:
| You seem to believe that we're just out there blathering at random. I
| started playing in mid-'98. Many others were playing well before this.
| ~ 7 years' experience playing against the best players in the world goes
| a long way in this particular game. Getting offended and saying "well,
| it works for me and it doesn't have to work for you" just isn't going to
| cut it, nor will it change the truth.
|
| I say:
| I'm not sure what the hell you are blathering about, but it does seem
| rather random. You seem to criticize me for things, such as not actually

Then you should reread and think about it.

| trying two starters put together, when you had in fact criticized me for
| it two months prior. I don't know what you want or why you are doing

And I'm criticizing you for it a month later, because you still haven't
tried it.

| this, but it is increasingly obvious to me that you do not really know
| enough about me or what I am doing to really provide any real criticsim:
| this is not the first time you have attacked without understanding all
| of the facts

Actually, as it turns out, I seem to understand a lot more than you
think I do.

| You say:
| They can do the same thing with two starter decks mixed together, and
| they'll have a much better base to start from. If they're perpetually
| trying to make Short Term Investment work, though, they'll be forever
| stuck in the rut of denying themselves valuable Master Phase actions,
| and not having enough pool gain to survive.
|
| I say:
| So far they seem to be faring better with the BWP decks, not worse. See
| the BWP: Nosferatu thread.

..You mean the one where you listened to Peter Bakija, someone who
plays in New York?
..And took a good deal of his advice?
..And as a result, had a much better deck?

The pool gain engine in that deck is 3x Parity Shift, 2x Minion Tap, and
dropping a LOT of pool damage votes as fast as possible. (6 pool for
ousting = good pool gain). If you note, Peter even referenced Blood
Dolls, although he assumed you were including STI because you had no
access to spares and/or didn't want to give any away.

And it looks like you even took some of mine -- you threw out the whole
Hidden Lurker angle, which is best. Hidden Lurker isn't a weak card --
it just takes a very experienced player to make work properly.

| You said:
| See, this is where you have made a demonstrably false statement.
| Neither deck has any reliable intercept -- believing that Rat's Warning
| by itself is any sort of effective bleed defense is delusional. The
| basic stealth/bleed deck that you will create for the Malkavians will
| crush both these decks.
|
| | head-to-head against a dominate weenie deck that typically beats most
| | constructed decks and the Gangrel deck won. Again, for me, the proof of
| | the pudding is in the eating.
|
| A head-to-head 2-player game is NOT a valid test of any deck. In this
| situation, the Gangrel deck has a significant advantage as every
| torporized minion counts as both predator and prey -- combat decks
| increase sharply in quality in a head-to-head situation.
|
| I say:
| Well, it's a good test in my book. In a larger game, the S&B decks

Oh boy! I refer you to the definition of "empiricist" above. #2,
specifically. Perhaps other people out there have a better book than
you? One with more pages? And pages that have writing, not just pictures?

The game was designed for 4-5 players. Most games are 4 or 5 players.
At the tournament level, ALL games are 4 or 5 players. A 2-player game
is not at all representative of how a deck will perform in a 4- or
5-player game, because the dynamics are significantly different.

If you are unwilling to accept this basic concept, ... well, you DID
claim you were an empiricist. You'll certainly earn definition #2 for
yourself this way, but you won't actually get very far.

| actually seem to fair less well than in 5 player games than in two. The

..Nevermind the dozens of S&B decks in The Lasombra's Tournament
Winning Deck Archive, and the obvious fear of S&B by your players, and
the traditional Malk OBF/DOM deck that everyone builds when first faced
with Jyhad cards that sweeps tables. Yeah. They sure fare poorly, all
right.

| Gangrel deck has a Raven's Spy, as well as Cat's Guidance. It may or may
| not catch the bleeders. but on it's turn it will rush them and torpor
| them pretty reliably. It's what the Gangrel do.

Pretty reliably? Not so sure. Still looking forward to that Malk BWP
deck, and the experiments against the Gangrel (practical experience, right?)

..But you forgot the rest of the statement. "... and then they rescue
themselves, and bleed you out. Because this, too, is what the Gangrel do."

| You say:
| Sit as the prey of the dominate weenie in a 4- or 5-player game... the
| true test. I figure that deck is ousted in 5 turns, tops.
| Sit as the prey of a stealth/bleed deck in the same game. Again, I'd
| say 5-6 turns
|
| I say: Here's our problem- I have. Read the BWP: Brujah thread. The
| problem is that I actually these things and say, "Eh, seems to work" and
| you reply that my experience is not valid.

Yeah, I did read it. You got ousted twice in rapid succession by the
S&B decks, and got the CORRECT seating in the 3rd game -- stealth bleed
as prey, where it can't hurt you (crunchy!), and combat deck fighting
with its predator as your own predator. If you can't sweep under these
circumstances, you're a mental cripple. Fortunately, you swept.

You did learn the value of Minion Tap -- it's rapid pool gain when you
need pool WAY more than you need blood on minions... stealth/bleed
typically punches for 1 a lot. Now would be a great time to experiment
with Blood Doll as well, wouldn't you think?

Also, the Brujah make good Rushers because of the POT/CEL combo. To
boost up that deck against S&B, I would add more Rush. This works for
the Brujah and not the Gangrel because the Brujah put people in torpor
EMPTY -- the Gangrel send them there full of blood, where they can
self-rescue. Empty people have to be rescued by someone else, and have
to waste their action hunting. Big, big difference.

| You say:
| Sit as the predator of either. Your prey has a great chance to sweep
| the table, because your deck is simply not very good at forward pressure.
|
| I say:Says you. Today I played 4x4 player games. I was the only one
| using BWP decks, the rest were trying their decks out the the tournament
| tomorrow. I won two out of 4 games as the table winner. But, I know, it
| doesn't count because it's in Dallas.

Well, we have determined that your "experienced" players haven't learned
a lot of the basics yet, Preston. I finished 6th out of 20 in the
Lafayette regional qualifier this year using a deck I built in 15
minutes just before the tournament started -- because I hadn't intended
to play in the first place, only judge. The qualifier was full of fish
- - -- and a skilled player can outplay fish no matter what deck he's using.

Amusingly, two of the players at the final table were players whom I had
ousted in earlier rounds. Funny stuff. =)

| You sayK
| Of course, they are one of the best clans to do this sort of thing with,
| for reasons I mentioned in the prior email.
|
| Do you disagree? If so, why?
|
| | But, if you would like, I can put you in touch with the
| | player who submitted it and you two can collaborate. I welcome new sBWP
| | submissions.
|
| I'm not going to do your work for you. If you are not interested in
| learning, then you are the worst possible teacher for any new player...
| they would do better simply picking up the cards on their own and
| throwing them together. Right now, you are teaching people inferior
| strategies and painting them as superior; you're giving them a handicap
| they may never get out of.
|
| I say:
| That's a bold statement.

I'm a bold person.

See above statement regarding one of the "best clans". Do you disagree?
~ If so, why?

| Yoy say:
| So, if you are interested in actually DISCUSSING any of this, we can go
| on. But if you're simply going to sit there with your blinders on and
| refuse to consider that perhaps other people know better than you
| (because we do), then I will simply continue to respond to your
| newsgroup posts with accurate criticisms, so that other readers get a
| more realistic viewpoint of what works and what doesn't.
|
| I say: I've never had a burning interest to really discuss anything with
| you Derek. Personally, I would really like you to just stop writing to
| me. I invite you to simply disregard all BWP related posts as being for

If I see misinformation, I'll correct it. If I think I have input into
a topic that others might benefit from, I'll provide it. If you can't
handle the truth... that's not my problem. I've got a lot of that
"experience" thing, and I'm a pretty good teacher.

Don't expect me to quit responding just because I say things you don't
like to hear. Even if you are too stupid to learn something from them,
perhaps a newbie reading the posts will.

I do find it interesting that you are scared of simple discussion,
though. Curiouser and curiouser, huh?

- - --
Derek

insert clever quotation here

- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (MingW32)

iD8DBQFCvrnFtQZlu3o7QpERAhuVAKDCQrnd7OkTol9iQYOu6hfXHlkj7QCgv5Cp
qRdb0Tga9qxoMPFe8221iQY=
=n1gs
- -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

- --

Dear Derek,

You clearly seem to feel you are not only much better than I, but that
you are better than the entire Dallas play group. Unfortunately, you
have done nothing up to this point that demonstrates any skill on your
part whatsoever (other than misunderstand Concealed Weapon and Magic the
Gathering land ratios). But, I will remedy that. I will allow you to
email/post to some local Dallas players. We have some bona fide newbies
who would love someone as skilled as you to take them under your wing.

If these players start kicking ass, I will start taking note. If they
feel that your deck suggestions are about average to everyone else's, or
if you decline this offer, then I will simply ignore you as the rather
pathetic ass you have demonstrated yourself to be.

Do we have a deal?

Warmest Regards,
Preston Poulter

- ---

X-Mozilla-Status: 0001
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00800000
Message-ID: <42C23364...@yahoo.com>
Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2005 01:36:36 -0400
From: Derek <lor...@yahoo.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.2 (Windows/20050317)
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Preston Poulter <preston...@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: Barbed Wire Project- !Venture
References: <BAY105-F293B8894A...@phx.gbl>
In-Reply-To: <BAY105-F293B8894A...@phx.gbl>
X-Enigmail-Version: 0.89.6.0
X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Preston Poulter wrote:
| Dear Derek,
|
| You clearly seem to feel you are not only much better than I, but that
| you are better than the entire Dallas play group. Unfortunately, you
| have done nothing up to this point that demonstrates any skill on your

Gracious me. You should have read all those posts and emails, and then
spent some time trying out my ideas. Perhaps you would learn something
for a change.

| part whatsoever (other than misunderstand Concealed Weapon and Magic the
| Gathering land ratios). But, I will remedy that.

You mean you'll actually try to discuss the issues? Excellent. I look
forward to it.

| I will allow you to
| email/post to some local Dallas players. We have some bona fide newbies
| who would love someone as skilled as you to take them under your wing.

I'm sure they would. And if they ever move to Atlanta, I'll be
delighted to help them.

I see your new idea is to completely avoid trying to argue against all
the valid points I made, and instead to dodge the issue and change the
subject. Exactly what I expected from someone who didn't have any valid
points of their _own_ to make, and who would instead prefer to hide in
denial of reality.

I've got a better idea; instead of wasting your time trying to come up
with random noise and ways to duck the truth, why don't you see if you
can grow a pair (or at least a backbone) and actually respond to what I
said, or even, god forbid, try some of my suggestions on your own?
Which, I remind you, you failed to do... and then tried to lie and said
you had.

Do we have a deal? You will face up to the subject at hand... which is
a discussion of basic principles of V:TES, cards, and deckbuilding, and
whether certain ideas are viable or inherently flawed (see previous
posts for full detail)... and, like grownups, we will consider the
arguments on their merits and discuss them. While you seem to be
inherently incapable of this, I will permit you a chance to redeem
yourself. Alternately, you can continue to try to evade the question,
which will confirm that you are nothing more than another isolated poser
with an overinflated opinion of himself.

I will consider any non-response, or response which is not concerning
the above subjects, to be your tacit admittal that everything I have
said is true, and you are simply choosing not to follow the advice
because either you wish to intentionally handicap yourself against newer
players (an admirable goal), or you are just full of spite at having
been proven wrong.

I am betting on option "B", myself.

- - --
Derek

insert clever quotation here

- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (MingW32)

iD8DBQFCwjNktQZlu3o7QpERAhyXAJsFQRjppPj87uPYIPtrPlfgt5vEbACcDbZn
yIesIF/YAxLU3uLUU7kmxUI=
=qu1B
- -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

- --

So you have once again declined to take any demonstrable steps towards
proving your skill.
Pussy says what? I must say Derek, you're a legend in your own mind, and
there's nothing I can do to change that- not that I would. I think you
need to hold onto your fantasies. I think they are the only thing you
have going for you.

Incidentally, I did examine each point in kind, as you would have no
doubt known had you actually the email or posts. That's the weird thing
about you Derek- you criticize others for what you are doing at the
time. You tell me I haven't bothered to understand your points when you
haven't even read my posts or emails. You tell me I haven't bothered to
try out any of your ideas when I actually point to where I have and they
didn't work for me and it was you who didn't try out any of my ideas RE:
the Barbed Wire Project. You tell me I think I am hot shit, when in fact
its obvious that you think you are hot shit. You tell me I have avoided
the issue when, in fact, it is you who have avoided the issue at every
single turn.

You're pathetic, and I'm through arguing with you. Don't bother
responding, I won't read it.

Warmest Regards,
Preston Poulter

- --

X-Mozilla-Status: 0001
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00800000
Message-ID: <42C2ECF1...@yahoo.com>
Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2005 14:48:17 -0400
From: Derek <lor...@yahoo.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.2 (Windows/20050317)
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Preston Poulter <preston...@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: Barbed Wire Project- !Venture
References: <BAY105-F11715F2E8...@phx.gbl>
In-Reply-To: <BAY105-F11715F2E8...@phx.gbl>
X-Enigmail-Version: 0.89.6.0
X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

I accept your admission of my statements' truth.

- - --
Derek

insert clever quotation here

- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (MingW32)

iD8DBQFCwuzwtQZlu3o7QpERAo4qAJkB1RH7pQomuX24WMsjYGoajDX72ACglZGb
zgC1sr1bLX6sKjD6M8O5Krs=
=ywoN
- -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

- --
Derek

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (MingW32)

iD8DBQFCx0bVtQZlu3o7QpERAmTXAJ0Qwlsu2g0xlDkkiTxTxT3NuD6JsQCgskQB
EZJ2F6l7FH7mi7gPpCdmt5o=
=N3z6
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[Preston]

One correction. Derek states that I emailed him the first part- I did
not. That was from the BWP: !Venture thread. He emailed me. As it
states in the emails I asked him what exactly he wanted from me. He
said that he was only trying to help me by showing me how bad a player
I was. The rest, as they say, is history.

[Derek Ray]

Preston wrote:
> One correction. Derek states that I emailed him the first part- I did
> not. That was from the BWP: !Venture thread. He emailed me. As it

Now, now, Preston, let's tell the truth, shall we?

To the reader: Examining the referenced Message-ID, it is clear that
Preston's first message is a direct response to my own (public) post;
the quote structure indicates this as well.

I think anyone who cares is perfectly capable of reading for themselves,
Preston. And I invite everyone to do just that.

[Preston]

Well I did my best to post in thread on BWP: !Ventrue thread. If my
unfamiliarity with the google engine sent you an email that reply to
the thread I guess I have only my ignorance of google to blame for
getting an email from you.

As for you being an ass, I'm afraid you're gonna have to take the wrap
for that one.

[Derek Ray]

Preston wrote:
> Well I did my best to post in thread on BWP: !Ventrue thread. If my
> unfamiliarity with the google engine sent you an email that reply to
> the thread I guess I have only my ignorance of google to blame for
> getting an email from you.

I suspect that is exactly what happened, since you appear to believe
your first email was a public post, yet there is no such public post on
record in either my newsserver or Google.

No big deal. It's not like email is any more significant than a
newsgroup post, IMO.

> As for you being an ass, I'm afraid you're gonna have to take the wrap
> for that one.

I repeat: I think anyone who cares is perfectly capable of reading for

[Albert Chang]

"Derek Ray" <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:AqKdnQ_wiNR...@giganews.com...

> Well, we have determined that your "experienced" players haven't learned
> a lot of the basics yet, Preston. I finished 6th out of 20 in the
> Lafayette regional qualifier this year using a deck I built in 15
> minutes just before the tournament started -- because I hadn't intended
> to play in the first place, only judge. The qualifier was full of fish
> - - -- and a skilled player can outplay fish no matter what deck he's
> using.
>
> Amusingly, two of the players at the final table were players whom I had
> ousted in earlier rounds. Funny stuff. =)

On a note not completely related to this discussion, I did not enjoy playing
against your deck.

[James Coupe]

In message <AqKdnQ_wiNR...@giganews.com>, Derek Ray

<lor...@yahoo.com> writes:
>| actually seem to fair less well than in 5 player games than in two. The
>
>..Nevermind the dozens of S&B decks in The Lasombra's Tournament
>Winning Deck Archive, and the obvious fear of S&B by your players, and
>the traditional Malk OBF/DOM deck that everyone builds when first faced
>with Jyhad cards that sweeps tables. Yeah. They sure fare poorly, all
>right.

Given that we know that one of the stealth and bleed decks being
regularly played was made by Preston, it seems reasonable that it will
have followed similar construction to other decks of his.

20 bleed cards, 9 action modifiers, 8 Discipline cards, Blow Torches and
no pool gain would be a brief outline of the Barbed Wire Malkavian deck.

8 discipline cards - a shocking waste. The Malkavians don't actually
need to get superiors to do well.

9 Obfuscate modifiers? WTF?

Use of Computer Hacking? WTF? There are only two vampires without
Dominate. If you want a free card, use Scouting Mission and fix the
crypt, or deal with the fact that you're playing weenies who aren't
great for the deck. Or even swap in a couple of vampires from another
clan - Mustafa Rahman if you REALLY want Dominate, say. No point
cutting off your nose to spite your face - and introducing new players
to the concept of "You can include good vampires even if they're from
the wrong clan" is both simple and useful, very easily assimilated.

4 bleed bounces - 2 of which can only be played by 5 of your crypt. And
no Wakes.

And there's very little speed to it. The cardinal sin of V:TES is...
looking like the threat. The cardinal sin when people have deemed that
you are the threat, however, is not being able to shift up a gear and
kick some ass before (if) you die.

And if this is supposed to be a solid S&B deck to get a new player
started, it won't work anyway. What's missing? Responsible stealth
bleed.

"But I played the deck perfectly and all my bleeds got bounced to my
grand-prey and I ended up ousting him."

"Yes?"

"What was I supposed to do?"

"Well, I hadn't given you any responsible stealth-bleed options, so suck
it up."

From this start, it is easy to see why a stealth-bleed deck constructed
in such a fashion would have significant trouble lasting for 5 players.

--
James Coupe
PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D YOU ARE IN ERROR.
EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 NO-ONE IS SCREAMING.
13D7E668C3695D623D5D THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.

[Derek Ray]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Albert Chang wrote:
> "Derek Ray" <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:AqKdnQ_wiNR...@giganews.com...
>

>>Amusingly, two of the players at the final table were players whom I had
>>ousted in earlier rounds. Funny stuff. =)
>
> On a note not completely related to this discussion, I did not enjoy playing
> against your deck.

You were not the only person to tell me this. Chad and Tatu
particularly were unthrilled by it, as were a few different predators
that day. :)

- --
Derek

insert clever quotation here
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFCx/HFtQZlu3o7QpERAiSqAJ9W8WVp2ecW/x3wfSDMfWCV2e/9tQCcDmR0
LLQZWpAsRtXpwqV0NSpagsQ=
=I0Yg
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[Preston]

James,

I moved your concerns regarding the Malkavian deck to the Malkavian
thread.

[reyda]

Derek Ray a écrit :

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Albert Chang wrote:
>
>>"Derek Ray" <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>news:AqKdnQ_wiNR...@giganews.com...
>>
>>
>>>Amusingly, two of the players at the final table were players whom I had
>>>ousted in earlier rounds. Funny stuff. =)
>>
>>On a note not completely related to this discussion, I did not enjoy playing
>>against your deck.
>
>
> You were not the only person to tell me this. Chad and Tatu
> particularly were unthrilled by it, as were a few different predators
> that day. :)

for those who were not here : what kind of deck was it ? Weenie protean
maybe ? ;)

[Derek Ray]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

reyda wrote:
> Derek Ray a écrit :

>
>> Albert Chang wrote:
>>>
>>> On a note not completely related to this discussion, I did not enjoy
>>> playing against your deck.
>>
>> You were not the only person to tell me this. Chad and Tatu
>> particularly were unthrilled by it, as were a few different predators
>> that day. :)
>
> for those who were not here : what kind of deck was it ? Weenie protean
> maybe ? ;)

It was a weenie OBF variant. It used mostly inferior OBF and very small
guys; the superiors in the deck were 2x Agrippina, 1x Tansu, and 1x
Pochtli. It also used a snotload of Blood Dolls and Life in the City
for its Masters, with a few obvious ones like PB:Montreal, Dreams, etc.

It had two significant tweaks. One was only 2x Computer Hacking in the
whole thing; I didn't want to ever look like a run-forward threat,
instead preferring to just sit, bloat, and bring out most of my crypt,
and then bleed for 10 at stealth a few times to gain my ousts. The
other was several Weighted Walking Sticks, along with Fake Outs, Dodges,
and a couple Boxed In -- to force combat-light people to reconsider just
attempting to block every action I made. In retrospect, the
intimidation factor against non-combat worked better than expected; I
would remove the Dodges and replaced with Lucky Blows in a future
version. Dodge simply isn't going to save me for long, and weenie OBF
has little trouble rescuing its own guys.

Pochtli looks like an unusual addition, but he ended up being key to my
third-round Game Win; I used him to put Faceless Nights and Computer
Hacks back into my deck once it started to run low. I actually rather
like him in this, since you don't HAVE to get him early and can be
relatively assured of getting to him eventually (Kindred Intelligence, etc.)

- --
Derek

insert clever quotation here
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFCyEjptQZlu3o7QpERAl8GAJ0RkMlRVzl44iiqQiTqz+MnwrLqKgCeM9ir
LY2ScZofBm6KUdawk4RsIxs=
=ha1Z
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[reyda]

Derek Ray a écrit :

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> reyda wrote:
>
>>Derek Ray a écrit :
>>
>>
>>>Albert Chang wrote:
>>>
>>>>On a note not completely related to this discussion, I did not enjoy
>>>>playing against your deck.
>>>
>>>You were not the only person to tell me this. Chad and Tatu
>>>particularly were unthrilled by it, as were a few different predators
>>>that day. :)
>>
>>for those who were not here : what kind of deck was it ? Weenie protean
>>maybe ? ;)
>
>
> It was a weenie OBF variant. It used mostly inferior OBF and very small
> guys; the superiors in the deck were 2x Agrippina, 1x Tansu, and 1x
> Pochtli. It also used a snotload of Blood Dolls and Life in the City
> for its Masters, with a few obvious ones like PB:Montreal, Dreams, etc.

in the defense of the other players, i have to say that this kind of
deck has almost no nemesis.
the worst that can happen ? multiple domain challenge/anarchist
uprising, multirush or plain old anti weenie vamps around (greta,
justine...)

other that that, i guess you will install without much effort. :)

[James Coupe]

In message <1120400938.5...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,

Preston,

Learn to drive your news-reader.

Responding to a post made by Derek in order to tell me (remember, I'm
not Derek) something about a post I made is both mind-bogglingly stupid
and deliberately unhelpful.

I can only assume that you have absolutely no wish to actually use
Usenet in the way it is intended, if you continue to misuse it in this
fashion.

Please go and read some basic Usenet FAQs, so that you actually have
some clue what you should be doing.

[Johannes Walch]

reyda wrote:
> in the defense of the other players, i have to say that this kind of
> deck has almost no nemesis.
> the worst that can happen ? multiple domain challenge/anarchist
> uprising, multirush or plain old anti weenie vamps around (greta,
> justine...)
>
> other that that, i guess you will install without much effort. :)

i am not sure. weenie potence will kill it, as will weenie celerity and
probably every reasonably fast combat deck. a fast S&B deck might be a
problem unless you have packed multiple archon investigations (as i did
in mine ;-) ). parity shifter behind is also a problem unless you have
lots of anti vote tech.

[Derek Ray]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Johannes Walch wrote:
> reyda wrote:
>
>> in the defense of the other players, i have to say that this kind of
>> deck has almost no nemesis.
>> the worst that can happen ? multiple domain challenge/anarchist
>> uprising, multirush or plain old anti weenie vamps around (greta,
>> justine...)
>>
>> other that that, i guess you will install without much effort. :)
>
> i am not sure. weenie potence will kill it, as will weenie celerity and
> probably every reasonably fast combat deck. a fast S&B deck might be a

Any weenie combat deck and/or multi-kill combat deck has an excellent
chance of running it over. Combat decks that can't kill enough per
round are subject to watching me rescue my own guys and hunt a lot,
which will make them sad.

> problem unless you have packed multiple archon investigations (as i did

I did have one AI in; did not see it in the first round, where my
predator's Ozmo...

- -- was influenced turn 2
- -- received Secure Haven turn 3
- -- Pulsed himself as his action on turn 3.

I almost outbloated him anyway; his own predator had 5 bleed standing on
the table, my predator at 6 pool, no Wakes, and my grandpred couldn't
close the deal. My prey was at 4 pool and I had 4 minions with 12 pool
left, so that was a guaranteed oust if I had gotten another turn. Oh
well. :)

> in mine ;-) ). parity shifter behind is also a problem unless you have
> lots of anti vote tech.

Parity Shift MIGHT be a problem, although I always have the option to
keep transferring out minions, instead of trying to bloat like a maniac,
thus making it harder.

- --
Derek

insert clever quotation here
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFCyUxytQZlu3o7QpERAkrGAKDtqlVwD8I/c5I68D6mnRANo8sRAgCeOo+g
7aWRW6LHBqPNXdDB2+sNwAs=
=LJ0o
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[Johannes Walch]

Derek Ray wrote:
> Any weenie combat deck and/or multi-kill combat deck has an excellent
> chance of running it over. Combat decks that can't kill enough per
> round are subject to watching me rescue my own guys and hunt a lot,
> which will make them sad.

Well, combat decks that can愒 kill enough per round are crap anyway ;-)

> I did have one AI in; did not see it in the first round, where my
> predator's Ozmo...

For AI one is none in my opinion. If you rely on it you need to have at
least 3 better 4. But I agree that stronger bloat is a better option
than clogging the hand with 2many AI.

> Parity Shift MIGHT be a problem, although I always have the option to
> keep transferring out minions, instead of trying to bloat like a maniac,
> thus making it harder.

But that get愀 you dangerously close to being killed because the deck
can愒 bounce/block a bleed and usually can愒 prevent votes (a lot).

Do you mind posting a decklist? I have a similiar deck and I am always
looking for ways to improve it ...

--
johannes walch

[Derek Ray]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Johannes Walch wrote:

> Derek Ray wrote:
>
>> I did have one AI in; did not see it in the first round, where my
>> predator's Ozmo...
>
> For AI one is none in my opinion. If you rely on it you need to have at
> least 3 better 4. But I agree that stronger bloat is a better option
> than clogging the hand with 2many AI.

Yep. I wasn't intending to rely on it; just figured that with no
Deflection showing, someone would eventually go for it and I might have
the chance to make a loud "POP" noise in my predator's ready region.

>> Parity Shift MIGHT be a problem, although I always have the option to
>> keep transferring out minions, instead of trying to bloat like a maniac,
>> thus making it harder.
>

> But that get´s you dangerously close to being killed because the deck
> can´t bounce/block a bleed and usually can´t prevent votes (a lot).

Possibly; depends on how close the Parity Shift deck wants to get to
being killed. :) If you're showing enough Parity Shift, you have to
figure out a way to use it and get it out of your hand. If you're only
using a few alongside normal KRC stuff, the run-ahead bloating is workable.

> Do you mind posting a decklist? I have a similiar deck and I am always
> looking for ways to improve it ...

Well, no, I don't mind, but it was built entirely with borrowed cards,
so I need to check and see if Mike still happens to have it around
somewhere. =) If not, I can post a reasonable facsimile thereof...
although you'll laugh since it has no Elder Impersonation (hazards of
building it in 15 minutes before the tournament) in it :)

- --
Derek

insert clever quotation here
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFCyVJPtQZlu3o7QpERAl2fAKCxEwtMAoL5+zgywUP2us58kgHhEQCg5aD/
5DyD50lzztKcMGyZwvIygnk=
=1hjL
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[James Coupe]

In message <kbednUJ8cqL...@giganews.com>, Derek Ray

<lor...@yahoo.com> writes:
>Johannes Walch wrote:
>> reyda wrote:
>>
>>> in the defense of the other players, i have to say that this kind of
>>> deck has almost no nemesis.
>>> the worst that can happen ? multiple domain challenge/anarchist
>>> uprising, multirush or plain old anti weenie vamps around (greta,
>>> justine...)
>>>
>>> other that that, i guess you will install without much effort. :)
>>
>> i am not sure. weenie potence will kill it, as will weenie celerity and
>> probably every reasonably fast combat deck. a fast S&B deck might be a
>
>Any weenie combat deck and/or multi-kill combat deck has an excellent
>chance of running it over. Combat decks that can't kill enough per
>round are subject to watching me rescue my own guys and hunt a lot,
>which will make them sad.

Other options include:

- Any Turbo deck (burn, rinse, repeat, or Una type Freak Drive) that can
survive long enough to get its moving parts in place can
potentially give you a good hard thrashing - as they can do to
many deck types. Not a nemesis per se, but can rid of you.

- A couple of events, depending on the setup. e.g. Nightmare upon
Nightmares can be annoying if you're mostly real weenies (and
not brushing up into 4s, 5s...). Veil of Darkness can be
awkward when the use of Obfuscate is broad but shallow, so
everyone play of a Night Moves (or whatever) is another card
you're wasting. Of course, with weenies, you can fall back on
cardless bleed at zero stealth and hope, but it does annoy
rather a lot.

- Various strong intercept strategies, so long as they can fire off soon
enough that you don't get a HUGE head-start on them, with a few
wakes here and there to make their early minions count double if
they can manage it. Can be sufficient to keep you going,
especially if the deck has to keep burning blood to do rescues.

[reyda]

James Coupe a écrit :

> - Various strong intercept strategies, so long as they can fire off soon
> enough that you don't get a HUGE head-start on them, with a few
> wakes here and there to make their early minions count double if
> they can manage it. Can be sufficient to keep you going,
> especially if the deck has to keep burning blood to do rescues.

Life in the city is here to help the rescuers.

[James Coupe]

In message <42c9c195$0$3747$79c1...@nan-newsreader-07.noos.net>, reyda

Oh, there are ways to cushion the blow - the other obvious one is using
Blood Doll to push blood back on, in a fun, multi-functional fashion.
But emptying vampires slows such decks down a chunk. Any time a
vampire's in torpor is a time you're not being bled, and any rescues are
another vampire down - especially since LitC has to go to a ready
vampire (and not just one you control).

It's not so much a nemesis strategy as being able to slow the deck down
to a "normal" (or at least manageable) pace, to start with, before being
able to handle it more effectively later on because it hasn't got such a
huge lead on you. It's a chunk more bruised and battered than it would
like.

[Derek Ray]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

two responses in one! yay!

James Coupe wrote:
> In message <42c9c195$0$3747$79c1...@nan-newsreader-07.noos.net>, reyda
> <true_...@hotmail.com> writes:
>>James Coupe a écrit :
>>
>>>- Various strong intercept strategies, so long as they can fire off soon
>>> enough that you don't get a HUGE head-start on them, with a few

Two of the decks I ousted were an Ahrimanes intercept/bleed deck (the
eventual tourney winner) and a Teresita wall. Both decks managed to get
a turn 3 Raven Spy and eventually stack a second one on the same minion;
a real pain in the butt, believe me, but not untenable by a long shot.

Intercept strategies have to be handled differently; attack the untap,
not the intercept, except for very key actions (say, rescuing the minion
who just drew out a Wake).

>>> wakes here and there to make their early minions count double if
>>> they can manage it. Can be sufficient to keep you going,
>>> especially if the deck has to keep burning blood to do rescues.
>>
>>Life in the city is here to help the rescuers.

If necessary. Mostly it's just there to keep my guys from having to
hunt when I don't want them to. That's sort of key; a predator who can
force a bunch of hunts when they're in a good position to block (no
pressure) can make me use stealth resources too early.

> Oh, there are ways to cushion the blow - the other obvious one is using
> Blood Doll to push blood back on, in a fun, multi-functional fashion.

Ugh. Hate doing that, but in emergencies, needs must.

> But emptying vampires slows such decks down a chunk. Any time a
> vampire's in torpor is a time you're not being bled, and any rescues are

Weeeeell... fortunately, this deck isn't designed to come out and jump
on people on turn 2. That's certainly not how I played it, either -- I
figured doing that would totally invite cross-table Rushes and assorted
other antagonism.

I DID keep constant bleed pressure on my prey, but it was mostly of the
nature of "OK, you have the Edge, so Agrippina here bleeds you for 1."
while talking out the rest of my turn.

> another vampire down - especially since LitC has to go to a ready
> vampire (and not just one you control).

If I'm out of ready vampires completely, being unable to use Life to
facilitate rescues is the least of my problems. :)

> It's not so much a nemesis strategy as being able to slow the deck down
> to a "normal" (or at least manageable) pace, to start with, before being
> able to handle it more effectively later on because it hasn't got such a
> huge lead on you. It's a chunk more bruised and battered than it would
> like.

Not entirely so. This deck also contained no Night Moves -- it was all
transient stealth. What this meant was that I was able to peel out
resources as necessary to move cards to reach a Master for next turn, or
otherwise accomplish individual actions. What it sacrifices in
acceleration (2x Computer Hack, remember) it makes up in consistency;
after awhile people KNOW I'm sitting on 5-6 stealth cards at any time,
and have to decide then whether or not a bleed of 1 is worth blocking.

Eventually they get wise, realize that my resources are transient, and
start trying to block everything with a token minion; this is usually
when I let them block and pull out a Stick. That forces them to use
"real" vampires to block, and usually slows their own forward motion
down. This sets them up for Faceless Night eventually, and/or repeat
Stick bleed actions if they're not naturally a blocky-killy deck.

That was a bit of a drift, but the short of it is: this particular deck
doesn't mind running slowly. Once it gets to the second half and
people's resources start being more strapped, THEN it can accelerate.

- --
Derek

insert clever quotation here
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFCydy6tQZlu3o7QpERAuQ2AKDPlJ9dTvEjnD6LO8OfpUwvPI6+cQCbBTAh
i5AGO4RJq93CKPlCpy2mA2E=
=7w7H
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[Sascha Neumayr]

Dear friends of the newsgroup,

first of all I'd like to say thank you, Preston and Derek, for providing me
half an hour of brilliant entertainment while wading through this thread. I
printed out a copy and took it to the toilet in order to read it while I
shat and it became a long session. ;-) You were putting up such a great show
that I actually missed my favorite daily soap on TV. Again, thank you! This
newsgroup dearly needs people like you to bring some life to this stinking
and joy-deprived place. Please reconsider wether or not you would like to
stop your discussion. They are a true beacon in the darkness - and staring
at the same tiles over and over again finally exhausts it's entertainment
value.

Preston, I am honestly impressed by your way to bring newbies to the game
and the amount of time you spend to build decks to give them away. Wether
the deck design has flaws or not is a matter of secondary importance. What
people need in first place when trying out a CCG is a deck to play. After a
newbie has established the "first contact", if he - unexpectedly - returns
home with a deck he can call his own, this is IMHO a strong incentive to
give it a second chance at least.

What I would recommend to both of you (Preston and Derek) is to cool down a
little bit and to look at the world in a less b/w-fashion. To be not of
one's opinion (no matter how well backed-up one supposes his opinion to be)
does not necessarily mean that the other party is automatically wrong.
Personality coaches would possibly charge a pretty penny for revealing this
to you - here you get it for free. No need to thank me. It is just my caring
soul.

The dick waving contest wether a deck out of two starters is superior to a
BWP-deck is moot IMO, because it's comparing apples with oranges. The
intention of the BWP - if I interpret it correctly - is to provide playable
decks made out of an overflow of Jyhad-cards which are eventually used as
give-aways to newbies. On the other hand I have heard of no incident in
which a prince donated two-starters to some random newbie. Correct me if I
am wrong (which I doubt). The BWP-decks are not the best ones out there, not
even when restricting oneself to using Jyhad-cards. But they are also not
abysmally weak and you will have some fun with them during the first nights
with V:TES.

The same goes for the discussion wether limiting oneself to 60 cards makes
sense or not. Well, do the maths: Giving away 60-card decks means you can
construct more decks out of a limited card stock. Of course 60 is not the
ideal number for many decks (combat, for example).

A newbie shall have the oportunity to play. If this happens with a deck of
his own (possession) I'd guess the experience is likely to be more
motivating . Once this newbie's interest for this game grows and he buys
some basic card stock he will inevitably start to construct his own decks.
In this case some flaws in Preston's deck design might even be helpful in a
way, because improving the BWP-decks' performance can be done easily without
using a ton of rares. Once a new player has experienced that he himself is
able to improve decks even with limited experience is an additional
motivator.

Wether the tutor has a different approach towards the play value of certain
cards becomes more and more arbitrary once a player has played a decent
amount of games and can judge cards by his own experience. Different people
have different styles of play and can make decks work which others' can't.
I, for one, never got a grip on Cryptic Mission-decks, no matter how hard I
tried. I watched Martin Weinmayer play it more than once and had a lengthy
discussion with him about about how he plays it. I tried and failed. And
failed again... and again. Cryptic Mission does not work for me. Knowing
this I am also willing to concede that some decks I play well will fail in
other peoples' hands. If Preston says that STI works better for him than
Blood Dolls then I accept it although I am of a totally different opinion.

Newbies in Dallas who start with Preston's BWP-decks packing STIs will
finally try out Blood Dolls and draw their own conclusions. It is the mix of
playing styles that adds spice to a group of players. Derek, your points,
your advice and your willingness to help are well taken and surely provided
with good intentions, but that will not save a player from testing it all
out by himself.

The most important thing is to have fun, right?

Best regards,
Sascha Neumayr

[Jeroen Rombouts]

"reyda" <true_...@hotmail.com> schreef in bericht
news:42c8528c$0$1374$79c1...@nan-newsreader-07.noos.net...

>> It was a weenie OBF variant. It used mostly inferior OBF and very small
>> guys; the superiors in the deck were 2x Agrippina, 1x Tansu, and 1x
>> Pochtli. It also used a snotload of Blood Dolls and Life in the City
>> for its Masters, with a few obvious ones like PB:Montreal, Dreams, etc.
>
> in the defense of the other players, i have to say that this kind of deck
> has almost no nemesis.
> the worst that can happen ? multiple domain challenge/anarchist uprising,
> multirush or plain old anti weenie vamps around (greta, justine...)
>
> other that that, i guess you will install without much effort. :)

Well, my weenie obf horde got smashed... by a Free state Rant + Edged
Illusion deck. I only lasted as long as I did because he forgot to include
Fame, Tension in the Ranks and Dragonbound.

[Preston]

Dear Sascha,

I could not agree more. I am glad out exchange provided you with some
entertainment. I had some very clear goals in mind when I started the
BWP and I feel it has accomplished those goals. Whether the BWP will be
of any use to anyone else is debatable, but I have had a number of
people tell me they liked the look of the decks and wanted to try them
out for themselves- particularly when they play against people who are,
say, just coming back to the game.

Thanks again,
Preston