Malkavian Antitribu Newsletter, March 2007
Ector
Volume VI, Issue III
1. INTRODUCTION
The Sword of Caine set is released, and, as usual, it contains some
great cards for our clan. One of them is so groundbreaking that the
whole newsletter is devoted to it! Writing about such cards is always
pleasant. Since they are really able to inspire a lot of new deck
archetypes, nobody can complain that the game is stagnant, and there
is nothing new in it.
You know, when I started to write these newsletters, I feared that I
would exhaust all anti-Malkavian vampires and all the good cards
quickly enough and then wouldn't know what to review next. Actually, I
have so much new cards that I have to postpone something less
important to write about something more important first! I didn't
review all Third Edition goodies yet, and now we have new cards.
Thanks a lot for WW designers for that!
2. CARD OF THE MONTH
Name: Veil the Legions [SoC:C]
Type: Action Modifier
Discipline: Obfuscate
[obf] Only usable by a ready, untapped vampire other than the acting
minion you control. The acting minion gets +1 stealth. Only one Veil
the Legions may be played each action.
[OBF] As above, and this vampire may burn X additional blood to give
+1 stealth to the next X actions your minions perform this turn. Only
one Veil the Legions can be played at superior each turn.
This card isn't just "good", or even "wonderful" - these words aren't
precise enough. It is *revolutionary*. A card that performs some job
good enough may be called "good", but a card that creates a whole
bunch of the new deck archetypes, isn't just "good". Veil of the
Legions does right that - it creates a lot of the new deck archetypes.
Yes, I know that we already had Cloak the Gathering that allowed to
increase stealth of another minion, but that changes nothing...
Veil of the Legions has two great advantages compared to Cloak the
Gathering:
1). You may raise stealth of another minion with INFERIOR Obfuscate.
2). With superior Obfuscate you may raise stealth of SEVERAL minions
with just one card.
Now let me describe the meaning of these advantages in a deck that
wants to get stealth for the minions that cannot get it themselves.
With Cloak the Gathering, you had to use a support vampire with
superior Obfuscate. Prior to Sword of Caine (and Lubomira Hradok)
minimal capacity of such vampires was 4, and they rarely could do
something useful besides Cloaks and, probably, clan-based cards like
Sibyl's Tongue. Wasn't the price of stealth too high? And you had to
add enough support vampires into your crypt to get at least one, which
made the whole idea of "support Cloakers" almost absurd. Yes, I've
built some decks with support OBF-vampires (especially Imbued), but
they rarely were tournament-worthy. In fact, you could use Cloaks only
if some of your core vampires happen to have superior Obfuscate: in
"star decks", for instance (Arika comes to mind).
Now inferior Obfuscate is enough to Veil your minions. And you may
find even 1-cap vampires with inferior Obfuscate (Basil), or play it
with Marijava Thuggee! More importantly, there are 149 vampires having
capacity 6 or less and Obfuscate, but only 40 of them posess superior
Obfuscate. Thus, you can relatively easily assemble crypts having
enough vampires with Obfuscate, and you can build such crypts for a
different deck themes, without having to invest into fatties. You can
build a Presence weenie or Dementation weenie with a lot of Obfuscated
vampires, for instance, and put a lot of Veils in these decks.
No need to invest into superior Obfuscate anymore, eh? Now let's see
what can be done with it. How many Cloaks can you put into your deck
without losing its initial goal? Not very much, I guess. Thus, even
with Cloaks your deck was still be able to demonstrate only casual
stealth - it could be enough to push a few crucial actions, but you
had to assemble the whole "combo" (action card, Cloak and the support
vampire), so the opportunity cost was quite high. With Veil the
Legions, you may Cloak a lot of minions with just one stealth card!
This is NOT a frail and unreliable combo anymore, but a strong deck
strategy instead. Field or breed a lot of minions, wait until the time
comes, then Veil them all and organize an assault on your prey. How
about Isouda de Blaise Veiling a horde of !Toreador weenies after
Palla Grande? How about Stavros Veiling a horde of Presence weenies?
What would you say about Luc Veiling some Imbued, eager to get their
Powers???
Looks like we've got two distinct branches of Veiled decks: inferior-
Veiled and superior-Veiled. First branch includes all weenie decks
that suddenly became much more powerful with Veils. Choose any weenie
theme, and if you can build a crypt having at least 5 vampires with
Obfuscate, you can use Veil the Legions in that deck. Almost any
weenie deck can benefit of this: Potence-weenie, Presence-weenie,
Fortitude-weenie, and so on. Obviously, you should benefit much more
if your weenie was designed to perform +1 stealth actions, like
voting, hunt or equipping: most casual intercept deck cannot get more
than +1 intercept, and if you play Veil, your stealth would overcome.
Can you imagine a weenie voting deck with Veils? Actually, there's no
need to imagine, I've provided one below. What about a Cryptic Mission
deck with Veils? Or maybe Reunion Kamut deck? Even if you aren't
planning to play +1 stealth actions, Veil the Legions may be extremely
useful. What about a weenie Rush based on Games of Instinct to regain
blood, for instance?
Superior-Veiled decks are going to be more tricky and complicated, but
definitely more powerful. They may be weenie decks with a support of
some heavier "stars" like Luc+Imbued, or just any deck with enough
suitable vampires. They may even have just a few Veils to organize a
"sudden burst" and oust their prey as a surprise, which is a "hallmark
behaviour" of many good decks. Would you like to see three Veiled
inferior Governs from your "peaceful" Wall predator? It's quite
possible now. Please note that a vampire playing superior Veil can
cover his own action as well (inferior effect doesn't allow this) -
so, your Luc can Veil the first action, then increase your hand, and
then play some Cloaks for the rest actions. Yes, you can play BOTH
Cloak and Veil in the "superior-Veiled" decks, and get +2 stealth on
the most crucial actions. As long as most of these actions have
inherent +1 stealth, even Second Tradition won't be enough to block
you!
3. VAMPIRES OF THE MONTH
Name: Jackie [Third]
Clan: Malkavian Antitribu
Group: 4
Capacity: 3
Disciplines: DEM
Sabbat.
Jackie is the "star" of weenie Dementation deck. Actually, it's quite
strange to see a 3-cap with a superior bleeding discipline;
traditionally such vampires were at least 5-caps. And Dementation is
unique among the bleeding disciplines, since it provides some decent
stealth as well (Deny, Confusion, Mind Tricks). So, little Jackie is
quite a serious stealth-bleeder! See my first "Deck of the Month"
below.
You may also Jackie as a "babbler", since she is the youngest vampire
with superior Dementation, and tapping a 3-cap isn't very much for
untapping some huge blocker/bouncer with Babble.
Name: Midget [BH:U2]
Clan: Malkavian Antitribu
Group: 3
Capacity: 3
Disciplines: obf pre DEM
Sabbat: Infernal. Animal retainers lose their abilities while Midget
is acting or is in combat.
Yes, I know that Midget already was my Vampire of the Month, but I
must admit that I seriously underestimated him. He is a wonderful
stealth-bleeder, better than the 5-cap "main dudes" like Persia, Uncle
George and Apache Jones, since he avoids Raven Spies. Yes, you will
pay for his untap, but his low cost and fast influence speed are well
worth paying for such "loan", especially if you have a lot of Kindred
Spirits and regain the pool you pay for his untap. Midget is a
frequent player in any Kindred Spirits team.
Obviously, he's even better in Dementation weenie that tries to
overrun its prey with a lot of actions at moderate stealth. Would you
say that Jackie is better in this deck since she has the same superior
Dementation, but no Infernal disadvantage? Not so fast. Midget can
play inverior Veil the Legions for Jackie, she cannot. And Veil really
makes this deck much better!
Actually, Midget is so good that he can be used even WITHOUT his
Dementation: he is one of the best vampires for obf/pre deck, as well.
You won't find obf/pre vampires with smaller capacity! What about the
penalty? Well, you may just keep Midget untapped to Veil the rest
vampires... He may still participate in "alpha strike", when you will
be ready to oust your prey.
4. DECKS OF THE MONTH
Deck Name: Veiled DEM-weenie
Created By: Ilya Ginsburg
Description: "Inferior-Veiled" DEM-weenie
Crypt: (12 cards, Min: 10, Max: 19, Avg: 3,58)
----------------------------------------------
1 Eddie Gaines dem pot 1 Caitiff
1 Marta aus dem 3 !Malkavian
2 Jackie DEM 3 !Malkavian
2 Midget obf pre DEM 3 !Malkavian
1 Beauregard Krueller aus dem obf 4 !Malkavian
1 Jeremy Talbot dem obf 4 Malkavian
1 Adelaide Davis aus dem obf 4 Malkavian
1 Persia aus obf DEM 5 Malkavian
1 Uncle George aus dom obf DEM 5 !Malkavian
1 Apache Jones aus for obf DEM 5 !Malkavian
Library: (90 cards)
-------------------
Master (17 cards)
4 Dementation
3 Sudden Reversal
1 Obfuscate
3 Dreams of the Sphinx
3 Blood Doll
1 Bleeding the Vine
1 Pentex(TM) Loves You!
1 Jake Washington (Hunter)
Action (27 cards)
20 Kindred Spirits
4 Dive into Madness
1 Blessing of Chaos
2 Restructure
Action Modifier (35 cards)
11 Confusion
5 Eyes of Chaos
5 Mind Tricks
10 Veil the Legions
4 Change of Target
Ally (3 cards)
1 Muddled Vampire Hunter
1 Carlton Van Wyk (Hunter)
1 Escaped Mental Patient
Event (1 cards)
1 Unmasking, The
Combo (7 cards)
6 Deny
1 Abandoning the Flesh
I hate most weenie decks, even the effective ones. For a long time I
didn't believe in DEM-weenie effectiveness and had a discussion with
Peter Bakija and other players about it. I thought that the best
possible DEM-weenies had too large average capacity to go without
Obfuscate, while most of the vampires had Obfuscate anyway. Vampires
with inferior Dementation could generate only +1 stealth with Mind
Tricks (for 1 blood), and they were going to be blocked frequently,
losing the traditional weenie advantage in numbers. But Veil the
Legion completely changed the situation. We have just 4 vampires
without Obfuscate, so we're going to have A LOT of vampires able to
play the Veil. Even a vampire with inferior Dementation now can
generate +2 stealth, and most of the time one Veil would be enough,
without losing any blood.
The deck is a pretty straightforward "maddog-style" S&B that starts to
bleed very early and never stops. We have just 4 Dementation skill
cards, since there are just 5 vampires with inferior Dementation, and
you will rarely have more than one of them. An Obfuscate skill card
should allow you to get superior Obfuscate and greatly increase the
effect of your Veils. Dreams, SRs, Pentex Loves You! and Bleeding the
Vine support your "maddog" behaviour: bleed quickly, bleed for a lot
and never let your prey to survive.
This deck has no combat defense except for allies: they proved to be
much better protection for your vampires than any combat cards
available to the weenies. You have 4 such allies (counting Jake
Washington), and with The Unmasking they can block even +1 stealth
rushes. The only other defensive cards are Blessing of Chaos (disables
bleed modifiers from your predator), two Restructures (disables War
Ghouls/Ossian) and Abandoning the Flesh as a "fear card" to disable
diablerie.
The rest is the more-or-less traditional S&B package, besides for Veil
the Legion. I guess this deck cannot be called a pure DEM-weenie with
10 Obfuscate cards, but the crypt is the same, and I just cannot see
any reason of avoiding the card that can be played by 2/3 of the crypt
with a good effect. Note that Jackie and Midget are doubled here to
get full advantage of their low capacity and superior Dementation.
Deck Name: Crusader Legions
Created By: Ilya Ginsburg
Description: Veiled "weenie" vote
Crypt: (12 cards, Min: 11, Max: 24, Avg: 4,08)
----------------------------------------------
1 Justine Chen pre 2 !Toreador
2 Midget obf pre DEM 3 !Malkavian
1 Smash pot pre 3 !Brujah
1 Jonathan Gursel aus pre 3 !Toreador
1 Aiyana pre spi 3 Ahrimanes
1 Loonar cel PRE 4 !Toreador
1 Tock obf pot pre 4 !Nosferatu
2 Victor Pelletier cel dom for PRE 5 Ventrue
2 Stavros dem AUS OBF PRE 7 !Malkavian
Library: (90 cards)
-------------------
Master (16 cards)
1 Obfuscate
1 Creepshow Casino
1 Powerbase: Madrid
3 Dreams of the Sphinx
1 Powerbase: Rome
5 Presence
2 Blood Doll
1 Institution Hunting Ground
1 Secure Haven
Action (13 cards)
5 Charming Lobby
2 Sibyl`s Tongue
6 Enchant Kindred
Action Modifier (28 cards)
12 Veil the Legions
4 Bribes
6 Bewitching Oration
6 Voter Captivation
Political Action (20 cards)
1 Crusade: Brussels
1 Crusade: Geneva
1 Crusade: London
1 Crusade: Philadelphia
1 Crusade: Pittsburgh
1 Crusade: Rome
1 Crusade: Toronto
1 Crusade: Miami
1 Crusade: Barcelona
11 Kine Resources Contested
Combat (11 cards)
3 Staredown
8 Majesty
Ally (2 cards)
2 Procurer
This is a variation of the traditional weenie vote, but with some
serious changes. First of all, it isn't a "weenie" anymore, but it has
some very efficient titled vampires that should help with pushing the
Crusades. Veils provide a serious boost to the deck, at least in the
world of +1 intercept. You have 5 vampires with Obfuscate here (2
Midgets, Tocks and 2 Stavros), so you can expect to get at least one
of them in your crypt opening. 4 !Malks allowed to include some useful
cards: Hunting Ground and Sibyl's Tongues. All vampires are Sabbat to
play Crusades, except for Victor Pelletier who has the inbuilt title
and is just too good to ignore. Stavros is a second "star" of this
deck, having superior Obfuscate and Presence plus a title - he can
Veil many vampires at once, and it would be great in this deck. You
can expect to get either Stavros or Victor, and their votes would help
a lot in your Crusade. And with all these stars, we still have average
capacity 4.08 - it's almost a weenie! Fantastic!!!
If you won't get Stavros, you have another chance of getting superior
Obfuscate with the provided skill card. Feel free to fetch it if some
of your neighbours has light intercept. Creepshow Casino is another
stealth-booster, so you can get up to +3 stealth for one action per
turn. Powerbases provide extra votes that you will need for your Voter
Captivations, Dreams provide acceleration and hand cycling, and Secure
Haven should protect your most precious vampire (usually Stavros or
Victor) against rushes. You will need Presence skill cards to get
superior Presence for your smaller vamps; if you have Midget or Tock,
you should raise their Presence first, since you need to increase
their capacity: they may eventually get superior Obfuscate, and then
they will need all blood they can have for the superior Veils.
The voting package is pretty clear: nine Crusades (trying to avoid
contest whenever possible) and a bunch of KRC. As usual, you have some
Charming Lobbies and Bribes, but this deck usually can push its votes
even without bribery, so Charming Lobby is used just to get +2 votes,
and Bribes is played only to get a tasty Voter Captivation. Nobody
prevents you from keeping your Bewitching Oration in reserve and
pretend to be weak, though :)
There are two Sibyl's Tongues here that should be used wisely. Primary
targets are Secure Haven and Powerbase: Madrid, though you may
sometimes need a Hunting Ground most. There are six Enchant Kindreds
that should speed up your deployment and enforce your pressure on your
prey: even if he manages to block your vampire, you can play Majesty,
untap and then bleed with Enchant Kindred.
Blood can be a problem in this deck, especially for a smaller vampires
that aren't usually play Voter Captivations That's why you have two
Procurers, a Hunting Ground and 3 Staredowns. Vampires with superior
Presence usually have enough blood here (thanks to the Captivations),
so you can even take some into your pool with Blood Dolls. Victor is
the best target for Blood Doll, since he uses his blood only for
Majesties here, while Stavros may need it for Veil the Legions.
That's all for March.
As always, all comments and ideas are appreciated!
Yours,
Ector
Jeroen
> Malkavian Antitribu Newsletter, March 2007
> Volume VI, Issue III
Just commenting on the deck.
> 4. DECKS OF THE MONTH
>
> Deck Name: Veiled DEM-weenie
> Created By: Ilya Ginsburg
> Description: "Inferior-Veiled" DEM-weenie
>
> Crypt: (12 cards, Min: 10, Max: 19, Avg: 3,58)
> ----------------------------------------------
> 1 Eddie Gaines dem pot 1 Caitiff
> 1 Marta aus dem 3 !Malkavian
> 2 Jackie DEM 3 !Malkavian
> 2 Midget obf pre DEM 3 !Malkavian
> 1 Beauregard Krueller aus dem obf 4 !Malkavian
> 1 Jeremy Talbot dem obf 4 Malkavian
> 1 Adelaide Davis aus dem obf 4 Malkavian
> 1 Persia aus obf DEM 5 Malkavian
> 1 Uncle George aus dom obf DEM 5 !Malkavian
> 1 Apache Jones aus for obf DEM 5 !Malkavian
Looks ok.
>
> Library: (90 cards)
> -------------------
> Master (17 cards)
> 4 Dementation
one is enough.
> 3 Sudden Reversal
ditch 2
> 1 Obfuscate
> 3 Dreams of the Sphinx
> 3 Blood Doll
> 1 Bleeding the Vine
> 1 Pentex(TM) Loves You!
> 1 Jake Washington (Hunter)
You're playing weenies:
add Pentex Subversion and Anarch Troublemaker
>
> Action (27 cards)
> 20 Kindred Spirits
> 4 Dive into Madness
> 1 Blessing of Chaos
> 2 Restructure
>
> Action Modifier (35 cards)
> 11 Confusion
> 5 Eyes of Chaos
> 5 Mind Tricks
> 10 Veil the Legions
> 4 Change of Target
>
> Ally (3 cards)
> 1 Muddled Vampire Hunter
> 1 Carlton Van Wyk (Hunter)
> 1 Escaped Mental Patient
>
> Event (1 cards)
> 1 Unmasking, The
Drop the unmasking, you don't want to give your prey or predator +1
intercept....
>
> Combo (7 cards)
> 6 Deny
> 1 Abandoning the Flesh
drop
You do know that it doesn't work this way with an intelligent
predator, right? He can play his conditioning before you get to block.
, two Restructures (disables War
> Ghouls/Ossian) and Abandoning the Flesh as a "fear card" to disable
> diablerie.
prayerish....
Klai...@gmail.com
>
> - Näytä siteerattu teksti -- Piilota siteerattu teksti -
>
> - Näytä siteerattu teksti -- Piilota siteerattu teksti -
>
> - Näytä siteerattu teksti -
I wouldn't bother with Victor in the second deck... he doesn't have
obfuscate at all and isn't sabbat either, get something like General
Perfidio instead.
Ector
> > Master (17 cards)
> > 4 Dementation
>
> one is enough.
obviously, based on it. The skill card turns a 3-cap weakling into a 4-
cap power-bleeder, so I want to get one or two of them early, even if
I would have to discard the rest later.
> > 3 Sudden Reversal
>
> ditch 2
Ditch 2 SRs? Why?
> You're playing weenies:
> add Pentex Subversion and Anarch Troublemaker
They are good in certain circumstances... but the other masters are
good almost all the time.
> Drop the unmasking, you don't want to give your prey or predator +1
> intercept....
If my prey has allies, I will discard The Unmasking. But if not, the
card may be very helpful. And sometimes you will be happy to give your
predator's allies +1 intercept :)
> > The only other defensive cards are Blessing of Chaos (disables
> > bleed modifiers from your predator)
>
> You do know that it doesn't work this way with an intelligent
> predator, right? He can play his conditioning before you get to block.
Yes, he can. Thanks for the comment! It was a dumb idea to use this
card here.
> , two Restructures (disables War> Ghouls/Ossian) and Abandoning the Flesh as a "fear card" to disable
> > diablerie.
>
> prayerish....
Sure. But as long as you told me that I shouldn't use The Unmasking
since my predator or prey can have allies, why shouldn't I use
Restructure to steal these allies? :)
Abandoning the Flesh is prayerish, right. But don't you think that DEM-
weenies are going to be torporized and diablerized quite often? This
deck is so aggressive that players would wish to diablerize your
vampire and prevent you from resquing.
Thanks,
Ector
Alias
> On 27 ÍÁÒ, 10:14, "Jeroen" <joen_...@hotmail.com> wrote:> > Master (17 cards)
> > > 4 Dementation
>
> > one is enough.
>
> There are five vampires with inferior Dementation, and most cards are,
> obviously, based on it. The skill card turns a 3-cap weakling into a 4-
> cap power-bleeder, so I want to get one or two of them early, even if
> I would have to discard the rest later.
>
> > > 3 Sudden Reversal
>
> > ditch 2
>
> Ditch 2 SRs? Why?
because in reality, Suddens are quite stupid, because mostly the
suddened master isn't worth you master phase, your card slot, and the
actual -1 hand size you have while you hold the SR in your hand,
waiting for the opportunity to play it.
yeah, sometimes you win because you sudden that minion tap, palla
grande or week of nightmares..
but just as often, you just sudden something, because the SR clogs
your hand, and then you draw into another master card, which then
clogs your hand for two more turns because of that wasted master
action :))
>
> > You're playing weenies:
> > add Pentex Subversion and Anarch Troublemaker
>
> They are good in certain circumstances... but the other masters are
> good almost all the time.
huh? what circumstances? quite the opposite to Sudden Reversal, tell
me one certain circumstance when PS and AT *aren't* good? Like, when
your prey has no ready vampires or what?
Peter D Bakija
> Crypt: (12 cards, Min: 10, Max: 19, Avg: 3,58)
> ----------------------------------------------
> 1 Eddie Gaines dem pot 1 Caitiff
> 1 Marta aus dem 3 !Malkavian
> 2 Jackie DEM 3 !Malkavian
> 2 Midget obf pre DEM 3 !Malkavian
> 1 Beauregard Krueller aus dem obf 4 !Malkavian
> 1 Jeremy Talbot dem obf 4 Malkavian
> 1 Adelaide Davis aus dem obf 4 Malkavian
> 1 Persia aus obf DEM 5 Malkavian
> 1 Uncle George aus dom obf DEM 5 !Malkavian
> 1 Apache Jones aus for obf DEM 5 !Malkavian
My. What a wildly familar crypt this is...
:-)
> I hate most weenie decks, even the effective ones. For a long time I
> didn't believe in DEM-weenie effectiveness and had a discussion with
> Peter Bakija and other players about it.
In any case, yeah, Veil certainly is handy in this deck, but I'm not
convinced that it is going to be that much better than the plain dem
version--you are replacing a bunch of dem stealth cards (Confusion and
Mind Tricks) with Veil. Slightly more available stealth when you have
untapped guys with obf, slightly less when you don't. Strikes me as
more or less of a wash.
-Peter
Jeroen Rombouts
"Ector" <Ec...@mail.ru> schreef in bericht
news:1174994905.7...@d57g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> On 27 อมา, 10:14, "Jeroen" <joen_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> > Master (17 cards)
>> > 4 Dementation
>>
>> one is enough.
> There are five vampires with inferior Dementation, and most cards are,
> obviously, based on it. The skill card turns a 3-cap weakling into a 4-
> cap power-bleeder, so I want to get one or two of them early, even if
> I would have to discard the rest later.
The thing is: if you use obf, superior dem isn't really necesarry for all
your vamps. So unless you draw 4 vamps with only inferior dem, you don't
really need it. Bleeding for 2 on 1 stealth, gaining 1 pool if succesfull
is a good action for a weenie vamp.
>
>> > 3 Sudden Reversal
>>
>> ditch 2
> Ditch 2 SRs? Why?
1. the time of gamewinning masters is over since Temptation of Greater Power
and Hostile Takeover where nerved. You don't need SR.
2. Your playing a fast cycling weenie deck. You don't have room for this.
3. look at what Alias said.
>
>> You're playing weenies:
>> add Pentex Subversion and Anarch Troublemaker
> They are good in certain circumstances... but the other masters are
> good almost all the time.
huh? The only way PS isn't good is if you are on 1 or 2 pool. And AT is only
bad if it gets contested or when you play with equipment.
>
>> Drop the unmasking, you don't want to give your prey or predator +1
>> intercept....
> If my prey has allies, I will discard The Unmasking. But if not, the
> card may be very helpful. And sometimes you will be happy to give your
> predator's allies +1 intercept :)
I think it's generally not worth it. The only thing you want blocked are
rushes at +1 stealth. and if they rush, your allies will probalby die
anyway.
>
>> > The only other defensive cards are Blessing of Chaos (disables
>> > bleed modifiers from your predator)
>>
>> You do know that it doesn't work this way with an intelligent
>> predator, right? He can play his conditioning before you get to block.
> Yes, he can. Thanks for the comment! It was a dumb idea to use this
> card here.
>
>> , two Restructures (disables War> Ghouls/Ossian) and Abandoning the Flesh
>> as a "fear card" to disable
>> > diablerie.
>>
>> prayerish....
> Sure. But as long as you told me that I shouldn't use The Unmasking
> since my predator or prey can have allies, why shouldn't I use
> Restructure to steal these allies? :)
I meant the AtF, not the Restructures. I would probably use 3 restructures.
> Abandoning the Flesh is prayerish, right. But don't you think that DEM-
> weenies are going to be torporized and diablerized quite often? This
> deck is so aggressive that players would wish to diablerize your
> vampire and prevent you from resquing.
I think that, unless you include some tech like Humanitas or the Catacombs,
that any vampire that ends up in torpor is probably going to stay there.
Actions that cost 2 blood are expensive for your deck.
Ector
> > Ditch 2 SRs? Why?
>
> because in reality, Suddens are quite stupid, because mostly the
> suddened master isn't worth you master phase, your card slot, and the
> actual -1 hand size you have while you hold the SR in your hand,
> waiting for the opportunity to play it.
> yeah, sometimes you win because you sudden that minion tap, palla
> grande or week of nightmares..
> but just as often, you just sudden something, because the SR clogs
> your hand, and then you draw into another master card, which then
> clogs your hand for two more turns because of that wasted master
> action :))
playing another master card but still negates the most dangerous
Minion Taps and Blood Dolls.
> huh? what circumstances? quite the opposite to Sudden Reversal, tell
> me one certain circumstance when PS and AT *aren't* good? Like, when
> your prey has no ready vampires or what?
PS isn't very good if your prey and your predator don't have a single
huge vampire. Yes, you will "lock" one vampire for a turn. So what?
The vampire with Pentex can even bounce your bleeds!
AT isn't good if your prey has no intercept, no weapons, no bounce and
doesn't try to block you at all. How good would be AT if your prey is
a disciplineless weenie, for instance? Or Potence-weenie? Or just
straightforward Obf/Pre stealth/vote? All his vampires will be tapped
without your AT.
In all these situations extra Wash can cancel a pool-gaining master
like Blood Doll/Tribute to the Master, extra Dreams can cycle your
hand, and so on.
Yours,
Ector
Ector
> On Mar 27, 1:40 am, "Ector" <E...@mail.ru> wrote:
>
> > Crypt: (12 cards, Min: 10, Max: 19, Avg: 3,58)
> > ----------------------------------------------
> > 1 Eddie Gaines dem pot 1 Caitiff
> > 1 Marta aus dem 3 !Malkavian
> > 2 Jackie DEM 3 !Malkavian
> > 2 Midget obf pre DEM 3 !Malkavian
> > 1 Beauregard Krueller aus dem obf 4 !Malkavian
> > 1 Jeremy Talbot dem obf 4 Malkavian
> > 1 Adelaide Davis aus dem obf 4 Malkavian
> > 1 Persia aus obf DEM 5 Malkavian
> > 1 Uncle George aus dom obf DEM 5 !Malkavian
> > 1 Apache Jones aus for obf DEM 5 !Malkavian
>
> My. What a wildly familar crypt this is...
>
> :-)
available :) But nevertheless, it's slightly different: you used
Fabrizia, I replaced her with Adelaide. I need the inferior Obfuscate
and Malkavian to play Muddled Vampire Hunter.
> > I hate most weenie decks, even the effective ones. For a long time I
> > didn't believe in DEM-weenie effectiveness and had a discussion with
> > Peter Bakija and other players about it.
>
> In any case, yeah, Veil certainly is handy in this deck, but I'm not
> convinced that it is going to be that much better than the plain dem
> version--you are replacing a bunch of dem stealth cards (Confusion and
> Mind Tricks) with Veil. Slightly more available stealth when you have
> untapped guys with obf, slightly less when you don't. Strikes me as
> more or less of a wash.
>
Actually, the difference is huge. Without Veils, every player knows
that your vamp with inferior Dem cannot generate more than +1 stealth
(Mind Tricks) and for blood. This will make your prey to leave at
least one minion untapped and to attempt to block your weenies - lose
blood or be blocked. With Veils, you just demonstrate +1 stealth for
free, and your prey quickly moves to the common "don't block him"
tactics, hoping for clogging your hand with stealth. Your weenies are
safe, and you really can benefit from their numbers!
Yes, your last vampire will have slightly less stealth, but, firstly,
it must be a vampire with superior Dementation, so he can generate up
to +3 stealth without Veil, and, secondly, you may just leave Midget
untapped to avoid paying pool for his untap :) The deck really became
much more powerful with Veils.
Yours,
Ector
Jeroen Rombouts
> On 27 อมา, 15:26, "Alias" <ransom.st...@seznam.cz> wrote:
>> > Ditch 2 SRs? Why?
>>
>> because in reality, Suddens are quite stupid, because mostly the
>> suddened master isn't worth you master phase, your card slot, and the
>> actual -1 hand size you have while you hold the SR in your hand,
>> waiting for the opportunity to play it.
>> yeah, sometimes you win because you sudden that minion tap, palla
>> grande or week of nightmares..
>> but just as often, you just sudden something, because the SR clogs
>> your hand, and then you draw into another master card, which then
>> clogs your hand for two more turns because of that wasted master
>> action :))
> OK, I guess I should use Wash instead :) Wash doesn't prevent you from
> playing another master card but still negates the most dangerous
> Minion Taps and Blood Dolls.
You don't need wash either. It might help. But, unless they can minion tap
every turn (in wich case your 3 SR/wash aren't enough anyway), a bleed deck
like this won't really mind. Blood doll will probably come to late and
heavy minion tap means big caps, so you will have killed him before he gets
his second minion out.
>
>> huh? what circumstances? quite the opposite to Sudden Reversal, tell
>> me one certain circumstance when PS and AT *aren't* good? Like, when
>> your prey has no ready vampires or what?
> PS isn't very good if your prey and your predator don't have a single
> huge vampire. Yes, you will "lock" one vampire for a turn. So what?
> The vampire with Pentex can even bounce your bleeds!
wait.. weenie decks win by.....swarming. making your prey lose 1 blocker (no
matter the cap) for -at least- your turn can make all the difference in the
world.
> AT isn't good if your prey
"NONE of your preys" you mean, it sticks around.
> has no intercept,
of course, because 10 stealth cards doesn't get you intercepted ever....
>no weapons
>, no bounce
what does this matter? both blocking and bouncing needs wakes or the like
after being tapped.
> and
> doesn't try to block you at all.
Are we playing the same game? If you prey doesn't block you, and you have 3
Dreams of the sphinx in your deck to ditch your excess stealth, aren't you
almost certain of victory? What if he decides at a certain point (say he's
at 6 pool) he NEEDS to start blocking. Well, guess what, his blockers get
tapped or Pentex'ed.
>How good would be AT if your prey is
> a disciplineless weenie, for instance? Or Potence-weenie? Or just
> straightforward Obf/Pre stealth/vote? All his vampires will be tapped
> without your AT.
OH no!!! you played a card that against some decktypes won't help directly
BUT STICKS AROUND ON THE TABLE...... (cont. below)
> In all these situations extra Wash can cancel a pool-gaining master
> like Blood Doll/Tribute to the Master, extra Dreams can cycle your
> hand, and so on.
... all the while defending a card that you need to hold IN YOUR HAND to
defend against cards that don't really matter to your deck, apart from
slowing you down for a turn, at most.
Are you still questioning why people react badly to things you say sometimes
when you use logical paradoxes like above?
Ector
wrote:
>
> You don't need wash either. It might help. But, unless they can minion tap
> every turn (in wich case your 3 SR/wash aren't enough anyway), a bleed deck
> like this won't really mind. Blood doll will probably come to late and
> heavy minion tap means big caps, so you will have killed him before he gets
> his second minion out.
time to influence vampires and, possibly, generate some pool - so,
Wash may still be useful to the endgame. Don't forget that it can be
used defensively - to cancel Haven Uncovered, for instance.
> wait.. weenie decks win by.....swarming. making your prey lose 1 blocker (no
> matter the cap) for -at least- your turn can make all the difference in the
> world.
I didn't say that AT isn't good at all or it isn't good in this deck.
But it is a weenie deck with STEALTH. So I'm more-or-less politely
arguing that in this deck some another master can be better than AT.
> > AT isn't good if your prey
>
> "NONE of your preys" you mean, it sticks around.
Yes, I know that it sticks around. But you play a speed-killing deck,
and you need cards to help you in that. IMHO, a card that will
eventually help you to oust your grand-grand-prey isn't as good as a
card that can help you to oust your prey NOW.
> > has no intercept,
>
> of course, because 10 stealth cards doesn't get you intercepted ever....
Did you counted right? I have 11 Confusion, 5 Mind Tricks, 10 Veils
and 6 Deny = 32 stealth cards. 15 of them can be played for a vampire
with inferior Dementation. This is quite enough to make your prey
adopt the traditional "don't block him, let him clog with his stealth"
tactics if he doesn't have a decent amount of intercept. That's why AT
isn't as good here as in the "swarm-weenie" deck without stealth.
> >no weapons
> >, no bounce
>
> what does this matter? both blocking and bouncing needs wakes or the like
> after being tapped.
AT can disable his bounce if he doesn't have a Wake. AT can burn his
weapon. But if he doesn't have weapons, doesn't have much bounce and
doesn't have good enough intercept to block you, AT isn't going to
bring you much good against him. Yes, you may disable his bounce for a
crucial turn, but you don't know whether he has it or not.
> > and
> > doesn't try to block you at all.
>
> Are we playing the same game? If you prey doesn't block you, and you have 3
> Dreams of the sphinx in your deck to ditch your excess stealth, aren't you
> almost certain of victory? What if he decides at a certain point (say he's
> at 6 pool) he NEEDS to start blocking. Well, guess what, his blockers get
> tapped or Pentex'ed.
Oh really, are we playing the same game??? Do you try to block a
stealth-bleeding deck if you obviously don't have good enough
intercept to block him? Just to help him cycle his stealth, maybe? :)
This deck was designed to penetrate light-to-medium intercept (like 10
Second Traditions, for instance). If you encounter a heavy intercept,
one Pentex Sub and one AT isn't aren't going to help you much (if you
get them in time at all). Every deck has its nemesis. But as long as
you have a lot of Kindred Spirits, you can always try to deal with
that player.
> OH no!!! you played a card that against some decktypes won't help directly
> BUT STICKS AROUND ON THE TABLE...... (cont. below)
It may help you, right. But sometimes it won't help you right now,
while speed is essential. And sometimes it won't help you AT ALL - if
there are no heavy intercept or weapons on the table. You have a lot
of stealth.
>
> ... all the while defending a card that you need to hold IN YOUR HAND to
> defend against cards that don't really matter to your deck, apart from
> slowing you down for a turn, at most.
Are you trying to say that "slowing S&B down for a turn" is nothing?
The average game is 12-15 turns! And that turn is quite often the
difference between ousting your voting prey now, getting 6 pool and be
on your road to Game Win or being ousted with a help of your prey (KRC
etc).
> Are you still questioning why people react badly to things you say sometimes
> when you use logical paradoxes like above?
Yes, I still wonder how even an absolute confidence can justify the
uncivilized behaviour.
In this case, I don't see any "logical paradoxes" in my words. As long
as the deck we're discussing here works like a regular S&B, not as a
regular weenie deck, AT and Pentex aren't as mandatory here as they
are in the traditional weenies. I didn't say that they aren't good or
they cannot save you sometimes, but they are NOT mandatory, and going
without them is NOT a stupidity.
Yours,
Ector
Jeroen
> On 28 ÍÁÒ, 01:51, "Jeroen Rombouts" <jeroen.rombou...@telenet.be>
> wrote:
>
> > You don't need wash either. It might help. But, unless they can minion tap
> > every turn (in wich case your 3 SR/wash aren't enough anyway), a bleed deck
> > like this won't really mind. Blood doll will probably come to late and
> > heavy minion tap means big caps, so you will have killed him before he gets
> > his second minion out.
>
> You may oust your initial prey that way. Your next prey will have some
> time to influence vampires and, possibly, generate some pool - so,
> Wash may still be useful to the endgame. Don't forget that it can be
> used defensively - to cancel Haven Uncovered, for instance.
your playing a weenie...Why are you afraid of Haven Uncovered? weenie
Bum's Rushes are worse.
>
> > wait.. weenie decks win by.....swarming. making your prey lose 1 blocker (no
> > matter the cap) for -at least- your turn can make all the difference in the
> > world.
>
> I didn't say that AT isn't good at all or it isn't good in this deck.
> But it is a weenie deck with STEALTH. So I'm more-or-less politely
> arguing that in this deck some another master can be better than AT.
Yes, but by providing the same reasons others have used against to
convince you of playing less SR, with wich you don't agree.
>
> > > AT isn't good if your prey
>
> > "NONE of your preys" you mean, it sticks around.
>
> Yes, I know that it sticks around. But you play a speed-killing deck,
> and you need cards to help you in that. IMHO, a card that will
> eventually help you to oust your grand-grand-prey isn't as good as a
> card that can help you to oust your prey NOW.
Mostly, it does. Only not so much in the case a minority of decks is
your prey.
>
> > > has no intercept,
>
> > of course, because 10 stealth cards doesn't get you intercepted ever....
>
> Did you counted right? I have 11 Confusion, 5 Mind Tricks, 10 Veils
> and 6 Deny = 32 stealth cards. 15 of them can be played for a vampire
> with inferior Dementation. This is quite enough to make your prey
> adopt the traditional "don't block him, let him clog with his stealth"
> tactics if he doesn't have a decent amount of intercept. That's why AT
> isn't as good here as in the "swarm-weenie" deck without stealth.
you still need to be untapped to bounce....
> > >no weapons
> > >, no bounce
>
> > what does this matter? both blocking and bouncing needs wakes or the like
> > after being tapped.
>
> AT can disable his bounce if he doesn't have a Wake. AT can burn his
> weapon. But if he doesn't have weapons, doesn't have much bounce and
> doesn't have good enough intercept to block you, AT isn't going to
> bring you much good against him. Yes, you may disable his bounce for a
> crucial turn, but you don't know whether he has it or not.
???? You almost never know what your prey has in his hands....
>
> > > and
> > > doesn't try to block you at all.
>
> > Are we playing the same game? If you prey doesn't block you, and you have 3
> > Dreams of the sphinx in your deck to ditch your excess stealth, aren't you
> > almost certain of victory? What if he decides at a certain point (say he's
> > at 6 pool) he NEEDS to start blocking. Well, guess what, his blockers get
> > tapped or Pentex'ed.
>
> Oh really, are we playing the same game??? Do you try to block a
> stealth-bleeding deck if you obviously don't have good enough
> intercept to block him? Just to help him cycle his stealth, maybe? :)
In general, you're right. But we are talking about this deck.
No, but your deck normally doesn't have problems with the I don't
block strategy. 3 Dreams will cycle them out of your hand and you
can't stealth jam on Confusions. In a pinch you can cycle Deny and
Mind Tricks too, by asking your grandprey to block a bleed and cycle
them in combat.
> This deck was designed to penetrate light-to-medium intercept (like 10
> Second Traditions, for instance). If you encounter a heavy intercept,
> one Pentex Sub and one AT isn't aren't going to help you much (if you
> get them in time at all). Every deck has its nemesis. But as long as
> you have a lot of Kindred Spirits, you can always try to deal with
> that player.
>
> > OH no!!! you played a card that against some decktypes won't help directly
> > BUT STICKS AROUND ON THE TABLE...... (cont. below)
>
> It may help you, right. But sometimes it won't help you right now,
> while speed is essential. And sometimes it won't help you AT ALL - if
> there are no heavy intercept or weapons on the table. You have a lot
> of stealth.
So the card that might help you against your biggest problems (heavy
bounce, heavy intercept and guns) isn't worth including. Gotcha.
>
>
> > ... all the while defending a card that you need to hold IN YOUR HAND to
> > defend against cards that don't really matter to your deck, apart from
> > slowing you down for a turn, at most.
>
> Are you trying to say that "slowing S&B down for a turn" is nothing?
Only the Minion-tap-for-a-lot will do that. And big cap decks don't
stand a chance against this deck.
> The average game is 12-15 turns! And that turn is quite often the
> difference between ousting your voting prey now, getting 6 pool and be
> on your road to Game Win or being ousted with a help of your prey (KRC
> etc).
I'd say that packing delaying Tactics or DI is better than SR/wash.
> > Are you still questioning why people react badly to things you say sometimes
> > when you use logical paradoxes like above?
>
> Yes, I still wonder how even an absolute confidence can justify the
> uncivilized behaviour.
> In this case, I don't see any "logical paradoxes" in my words. As long
> as the deck we're discussing here works like a regular S&B, not as a
> regular weenie deck, AT and Pentex aren't as mandatory here as they
> are in the traditional weenies. I didn't say that they aren't good or
> they cannot save you sometimes, but they are NOT mandatory, and going
> without them is NOT a stupidity.
no, but arguing that holding on to SR/wash isn't worse than throwing
an AR on the table is.
Ector
> your playing a weenie...Why are you afraid of Haven Uncovered? weenie
> Bum's Rushes are worse.
> > I didn't say that AT isn't good at all or it isn't good in this deck.
> > But it is a weenie deck with STEALTH. So I'm more-or-less politely
> > arguing that in this deck some another master can be better than AT.
>
> Yes, but by providing the same reasons others have used against to
> convince you of playing less SR, with wich you don't agree.
What reasons are the same? Sorry, but I didn't understand you here.
2-3 SRs was a standard package for a S&B deck prior to Wash. My friend
plays even more Washes in his Kindred Spirits deck.
>
> Mostly, it does. Only not so much in the case a minority of decks is
> your prey.
Minority of decks you said? All decks that cannot block you, cannot
bounce and don't have weapons make a minority? All weenie decks
(except for DOM-weenie), almost all Rush decks, almost all voting
decks (especially midcaps) and even some S&B decks (Ravnos, Obf/Pre)
make only a minority? Probably in your environment. But even if
they're minority, this minority is quite large :)
AT can disable one block or bounce. It's great with Change of Target
if the vampire really can block you - but this isn't going to happen
very often with this deck. It's great if your prey has more bounce
cards than Wakes and regularly leaves one vampire untapped to bounce -
but such behavior isn't normal for the majority of decks in my
playgroup at least.
> you still need to be untapped to bounce....
Or maybe have Wake. As long as your prey knows about AT, he can keep
his Wake for such case. If he hopes to oust his prey before you oust
him, he won't leave untapped vampires even if he has bounce, so AT
won't help you in that situation, too.
>
> ???? You almost never know what your prey has in his hands....
That's the thing. Your prey knows that you have AT, but you don't know
his hand and you cannot determine the best moment to use it. Sometimes
he can bluff and leave the vampire untapped without bounce. Or even
two vampires, if his hand is clogged with wrong cards. This makes AT
benefit unreliable, at least in this deck.
>
> > Oh really, are we playing the same game??? Do you try to block a
> > stealth-bleeding deck if you obviously don't have good enough
> > intercept to block him? Just to help him cycle his stealth, maybe? :)
>
> In general, you're right. But we are talking about this deck.
It's a true S&B deck. Really. It has enough stealth, enough bleed, and
the only thing it lacks is responsive bleeding, but you can use
Revelations, Patterns in the Chaos or Tapestry of Blood here. This was
the major point of the newsletter: arrival of Veil the Legions enables
us to build true S&B decks with weenies.
> No, but your deck normally doesn't have problems with the I don't
> block strategy. 3 Dreams will cycle them out of your hand and you
> can't stealth jam on Confusions. In a pinch you can cycle Deny and
> Mind Tricks too, by asking your grandprey to block a bleed and cycle
> them in combat.
Firstly, 3 Dreams won't always be enough to cycle the unneeded stealth
(at least they're rarely enough in the Kindred Spirits decks).
Secondly, your prey doesn't know how many Dreams do you have unless
you tell him :) I should put Barrens and/or Powerbase:LA. Finally, do
you believe that your grandprey is going to HELP you when you're
playing with such deck? Really? :D
> So the card that might help you against your biggest problems (heavy
> bounce, heavy intercept and guns) isn't worth including. Gotcha.
You're welcome. A card that *might* help me (it might not!) against my
biggest problems (should I encounter them) *once*... can be really not
worth including. You may find a lot of Kindred Spirits deck without
any Gemini's Mirrors, for instance, despite the fact that this card
also might help them against their biggest problems. Nobody cannot
defend against everything. It's generally much better to adopt the
"shit happens" philosophy (or to try to deal with the "biggest
problem" player) than to fill your deck with cards that *might*
*sometimes* help you. Especially Master cards.
>
> > Are you trying to say that "slowing S&B down for a turn" is nothing?
>
> Only the Minion-tap-for-a-lot will do that. And big cap decks don't
> stand a chance against this deck.
Why only Minion Tap? What about a Tribute-for-a-lot? Weenie deck using
Tributes can manage to oust his prey first.
What about Black Forest Base? You know, the table is going to let your
prey get his pool - probably, even with Voter Cap. And so on...
> > The average game is 12-15 turns! And that turn is quite often the
> > difference between ousting your voting prey now, getting 6 pool and be
> > on your road to Game Win or being ousted with a help of your prey (KRC
> > etc).
>
> I'd say that packing delaying Tactics or DI is better than SR/wash.
Yes, this may be true. Especially DI. But at least two Washes should
still remain, IMHO.
> > I didn't say that they aren't good or
> > they cannot save you sometimes, but they are NOT mandatory, and going
> > without them is NOT a stupidity.
>
> no, but arguing that holding on to SR/wash isn't worse than throwing
> an AR on the table is.
At least you think so. I don't, for the reasons expained above. My
current version of this deck has 2 Washes, Momentum's Edge and The
Barrens instead of one Blood Doll and 3 SRs (thanks to everybody who
helped me!), and I'm not going to replace any of these cards with AT.
As long as there are some decks with SRs, but without ATs in the TWDA,
I don't think that the word "stupidity" is appropriate here.
Yours,
Ector
Jeroen
> On 28 ÍÁÒ, 10:05, "Jeroen" <joen_...@hotmail.com> wrote:> your playing a weenie...Why are you afraid of Haven Uncovered? weenie
> > Bum's Rushes are worse.
>
> Okay, Haven Uncovered was a stupid example. How about Frontal Assault?
like you say below: shit happens.
>
> > > I didn't say that AT isn't good at all or it isn't good in this deck.
> > > But it is a weenie deck with STEALTH. So I'm more-or-less politely
> > > arguing that in this deck some another master can be better than AT.
>
> > Yes, but by providing the same reasons others have used against to
> > convince you of playing less SR, with wich you don't agree.
>
> What reasons are the same?
Look at what you posted below. And then tell me that that entire
paragraph is not applicable to SR/wash.
******quoting Ector***************************************************
A card that *might* help me (it might not!) against my
biggest problems (should I encounter them) *once*... can be really
not
worth including. <snip> It's generally much better to adopt the
"shit happens" philosophy (or to try to deal with the "biggest
problem" player) than to fill your deck with cards that *might*
*sometimes* help you. Especially Master cards.
*****************************************************************
>Sorry, but I didn't understand you here.
> 2-3 SRs was a standard package for a S&B deck prior to Wash. My friend
> plays even more Washes in his Kindred Spirits deck.
you honestly believe that 'because others do' wil convince anybody?
>
>
>
> > Mostly, it does. Only not so much in the case a minority of decks is
> > your prey.
>
> Minority of decks you said?
Dude: none-rush, none intercept decks that cannot bounce makes a deck
a member of a minority.
> Probably in your environment.
You're writing the newsletter for everyone, not just people who play
in your environment.
>But even if
> they're minority, this minority is quite large :)
> AT can disable one block or bounce.
2
<snip>
> Firstly, 3 Dreams won't always be enough to cycle the unneeded stealth
> (at least they're rarely enough in the Kindred Spirits decks).
> Secondly, your prey doesn't know how many Dreams do you have unless
> you tell him :) I should put Barrens and/or Powerbase:LA. Finally, do
> you believe that your grandprey is going to HELP you when you're
> playing with such deck? Really? :D
You will get bounced to him. what would he like better, that you add
stealth or that you allow yourself to get blocked.
>
<snip>
> Why only Minion Tap? What about a Tribute-for-a-lot? Weenie deck using
> Tributes can manage to oust his prey first.
Your deck should be the fastest.
> What about Black Forest Base? You know, the table is going to let your
> prey get his pool - probably, even with Voter Cap. And so on...
DI, Delay, as mentioned
>
> > > The average game is 12-15 turns! And that turn is quite often the
> > > difference between ousting your voting prey now, getting 6 pool and be
> > > on your road to Game Win or being ousted with a help of your prey (KRC
> > > etc).
>
> > I'd say that packing delaying Tactics or DI is better than SR/wash.
>
> Yes, this may be true. Especially DI. But at least two Washes should
> still remain, IMHO.
>
> > > I didn't say that they aren't good or
> > > they cannot save you sometimes, but they are NOT mandatory, and going
> > > without them is NOT a stupidity.
>
> > no, but arguing that holding on to SR/wash isn't worse than throwing
> > an AR on the table is.
>
> At least you think so. I don't, for the reasons expained above. My
> current version of this deck has 2 Washes, Momentum's Edge and The
> Barrens instead of one Blood Doll and 3 SRs (thanks to everybody who
> helped me!), and I'm not going to replace any of these cards with AT.
> As long as there are some decks with SRs, but without ATs in the TWDA,
> I don't think that the word "stupidity" is appropriate here.
The stupidity is your line of argument, not necessary conlusions. If
you don't want to use AT and a lot of SR, go right ahead. If you don't
see the logical paradox above. It's way beyond stupid, and I will just
stop arguing altogether.
Peter D Bakija
> Actually, the difference is huge.
Unconvinced.
> Without Veils, every player knows
> that your vamp with inferior Dem cannot generate more than +1 stealth
> (Mind Tricks) and for blood.
Which is mostly irrelevant when you are hammering your prey
continually from the start with bleeds of 3. Sure, they know the dem
guys only have +1 stealth ever, which means they will block them once
and a while. And then the guys with DEM will kill them.
> This will make your prey to leave at
> least one minion untapped and to attempt to block your weenies - lose
> blood or be blocked.
That is why you neutralize them with Misdirection. Or Anarch Trouble
Maker. Or Pentex Subversion. And even if they leave them untapped and
you can't neutralize them, you spend a blood and bleed them for 2.
> Yes, your last vampire will have slightly less stealth, but, firstly,
> it must be a vampire with superior Dementation, so he can generate up
> to +3 stealth without Veil, and, secondly, you may just leave Midget
> untapped to avoid paying pool for his untap :) The deck really became
> much more powerful with Veils.
I'm not seeing it. Possibly a bit more flexible. But not so much the
"much more powerful".
-Peter
librarian
>> wrote:
>>
>>> You don't need wash either. It might help. But, unless they can minion tap
>>> every turn (in wich case your 3 SR/wash aren't enough anyway), a bleed deck
>>> like this won't really mind. Blood doll will probably come to late and
>>> heavy minion tap means big caps, so you will have killed him before he gets
>>> his second minion out.
>> You may oust your initial prey that way. Your next prey will have some
>> time to influence vampires and, possibly, generate some pool - so,
>> Wash may still be useful to the endgame. Don't forget that it can be
>> used defensively - to cancel Haven Uncovered, for instance.
>
> your playing a weenie...Why are you afraid of Haven Uncovered? weenie
> Bum's Rushes are worse.
>
Best use for SR in weenie non fighty decks is to Sudden your predator's
Fames.
best -
chris
--
Super Fun Cards
http://myworld.ebay.com/superfuncards/
auct...@superfuncards.com
Ector
> Look at what you posted below. And then tell me that that entire
> paragraph is not applicable to SR/wash.
>
> ******quoting Ector***************************************************
> A card that *might* help me (it might not!) against my
> biggest problems (should I encounter them) *once*... can be really
> not
> worth including. <snip> It's generally much better to adopt the
> "shit happens" philosophy (or to try to deal with the "biggest
> problem" player) than to fill your deck with cards that *might*
> *sometimes* help you. Especially Master cards.
> *****************************************************************
1). Size of the "shit". The most benefit you can get from AT is
tapping two vampires. This may represent a serious difference only if
your prey left these vampires untapped, and they could block or bounce
you while they were untapped, but now cannot do this due to the lack
of Wakes. Such situation really doesn't happen very often. Heavy
intercept decks often use 2nd Traditions/Eternal Vigilance/No Secrets
from the Magaji or Read the Winds that makes tapping their vampires
not that significant.
The most benefit you can get from Wash is the difference between
winning and losing. You may survive 1-2 rushes, but Frontal Assault is
your death; Fame and Tension in the Ranks are also very dangerous. You
may fail to oust your weenie prey before it will oust his prey, but if
you cancel that Tribute, your chances will be much higher. And so on.
2). Opportunity cost. Almost every deck has some ways to regain pool,
so you will almost always find a good target for your Wash. I you will
have to cycle it, it will at least slow your prey and increase your
chances of ousting it first (for instance, canceling Parthenon of your
weenie prey is going to slow it).
3). Sudden nature. Everybody will see your AT and play accordingly.
Nobody will see your Wash, so you can make them lose a precious card.
> >Sorry, but I didn't understand you here.
> > 2-3 SRs was a standard package for a S&B deck prior to Wash. My friend
> > plays even more Washes in his Kindred Spirits deck.
>
> you honestly believe that 'because others do' wil convince anybody?
Well, I should add that the friend is the best local player, an avid
VTES fanatic and usually wins all local tournaments. He would never
play a sub-optimal deck.
> Dude: none-rush, none intercept decks that cannot bounce makes a deck
> a member of a minority.
I wonder, why everybody is complaining to the enormous numbers of
weenies, then? :)
> > Probably in your environment.
>
> You're writing the newsletter for everyone, not just people who play
> in your environment.
Surely. But I cannot fit the decks in my newsletters to YOUR
environment, since I don't know it. Or any specific environment except
for mine. The decks are inevitably designed according to my experience
from MY environment. AT won't be that beneficial against most decks in
my environment: there are Rush decks, there are weenie decks, there
are stealth-bleed decks that would just refuse to leave the untapped
vampires when they would see AT, and so on.
> > AT can disable one block or bounce.
>
> 2
OK, probably two in the *best possible* situation.
>
> You will get bounced to him. what would he like better, that you add
> stealth or that you allow yourself to get blocked.
Yes, you can normally make a deal with your grandprey "I will let you
to block if you won't punch me".
But you wrote: "In a pinch you can cycle Deny and Mind Tricks too, by
asking your grandprey to block a bleed and cycle them in combat." You
cannot cycle Mind Tricks in combat, it's Action Modifier. If you play
it, you will increase stealth, and this isn't going to be appreciated
by your grandprey, unless he needs to cycle intercept, too. Cycling
Deny in combat means pressing to continue? Well, you may sometimes
succeed to play Mind Tricks, become blocked, use maneuver to avoid
damage and counter the grandprey's press to continue, but I wouldn't
rely on this.
Your grandprey should want to stop you, not to help you cycle cards,
and if he notices that you're trying to improve your position with his
help he would normally try to torporize you in that combat. At least I
would do so.
> > Why only Minion Tap? What about a Tribute-for-a-lot? Weenie deck using
> > Tributes can manage to oust his prey first.
>
> Your deck should be the fastest.
Probably so, but that deck may happen to be my second prey. Or even
third.
> > What about Black Forest Base? You know, the table is going to let your
> > prey get his pool - probably, even with Voter Cap. And so on...
>
> DI, Delay, as mentioned
But canceling the Base would be much better, right?
>
> The stupidity is your line of argument, not necessary conlusions. If
> you don't want to use AT and a lot of SR, go right ahead. If you don't
> see the logical paradox above. It's way beyond stupid, and I will just
> stop arguing altogether.
If you have no temper or no time do discuss something, you don't have
to. That doesn't grant you any rights of pointing out the opponent's
"stupidity", though. I still don't see any "logical paradoxes" in my
words.
Yours,
Ector
Jeroen
> On 28 ÍÁÒ, 13:58, "Jeroen" <joen_...@hotmail.com> wrote:> Look at what you posted below. And then tell me that that entire
> > paragraph is not applicable to SR/wash.
>
> > ******quoting Ector***************************************************
> > A card that *might* help me (it might not!) against my
> > biggest problems (should I encounter them) *once*... can be really
> > not
> > worth including. <snip> It's generally much better to adopt the
> > "shit happens" philosophy (or to try to deal with the "biggest
> > problem" player) than to fill your deck with cards that *might*
> > *sometimes* help you. Especially Master cards.
> > *****************************************************************
>
> OK, let's look at the difference. Actually, there are several of them.
>
> 1). Size of the "shit". The most benefit you can get from AT is
> tapping two vampires. This may represent a serious difference only if
> your prey left these vampires untapped, and they could block or bounce
> you while they were untapped, but now cannot do this due to the lack
> of Wakes. Such situation really doesn't happen very often. Heavy
> intercept decks often use 2nd Traditions/Eternal Vigilance/No Secrets
> from the Magaji or Read the Winds that makes tapping their vampires
> not that significant.
Wrong. Just as SR/Wash, AT can mean the difference between winning and
losing. Tapping 2 vampires can mean 2 bounces that won't get played.
> The most benefit you can get from Wash is the difference between
> winning and losing. You may survive 1-2 rushes, but Frontal Assault is
> your death; Fame and Tension in the Ranks are also very dangerous. You
> may fail to oust your weenie prey before it will oust his prey, but if
> you cancel that Tribute, your chances will be much higher. And so on.
Hey, look. It's the same max benefit. With the difference that AT is
on the table and SR/wash is in your hand until you might need it. What
if they don't play massive poolgain? SR is a dead card. See how they
are the same.
> 2). Opportunity cost. Almost every deck has some ways to regain pool,
> so you will almost always find a good target for your Wash. I you will
> have to cycle it, it will at least slow your prey and increase your
> chances of ousting it first (for instance, canceling Parthenon of your
> weenie prey is going to slow it).
You can always play an AT. Wash and SR, not so. Opportunity cost is
acutally lower.
> 3). Sudden nature. Everybody will see your AT and play accordingly.
> Nobody will see your Wash, so you can make them lose a precious card.
Yes. People will see your AT and react to that by tapping more
vampires. And that's bad, how?
>
> > >Sorry, but I didn't understand you here.
> > > 2-3 SRs was a standard package for a S&B deck prior to Wash. My friend
> > > plays even more Washes in his Kindred Spirits deck.
>
> > you honestly believe that 'because others do' wil convince anybody?
>
> Well, I should add that the friend is the best local player, an avid
> VTES fanatic and usually wins all local tournaments. He would never
> play a sub-optimal deck.
no argument.... Post his arguments, maybe.
>
> > Dude: none-rush, none intercept decks that cannot bounce makes a deck
> > a member of a minority.
>
> I wonder, why everybody is complaining to the enormous numbers of
> weenies, then? :)
of course, weenie rush and weenie intercept don't exist do they?
<snip>
>
> > > AT can disable one block or bounce.
>
> > 2
>
> OK, probably two in the *best possible* situation.
your using best situations for wash as the usual too.
> > You will get bounced to him. what would he like better, that you add
> > stealth or that you allow yourself to get blocked.
>
> Yes, you can normally make a deal with your grandprey "I will let you
> to block if you won't punch me".But you wrote: "In a pinch you can cycle Deny and Mind Tricks too, by
>
> asking your grandprey to block a bleed and cycle them in combat." You
> cannot cycle Mind Tricks in combat, it's Action Modifier. If you play
> it, you will increase stealth, and this isn't going to be appreciated
> by your grandprey, unless he needs to cycle intercept, too.
You can ask if you can cycle stealth, that's why it's a deal. If he
doesn't like it: cycle it anyway and gain a pool of the KS.
>Cycling
> Deny in combat means pressing to continue? Well, you may sometimes
> succeed to play Mind Tricks, become blocked, use maneuver to avoid
> damage and counter the grandprey's press to continue, but I wouldn't
> rely on this.
> Your grandprey should want to stop you, not to help you cycle cards,
> and if he notices that you're trying to improve your position with his
> help he would normally try to torporize you in that combat. At least I
> would do so.
yes, torporising your grandpredator's minions is always a good way of
playing this game...
>
> > > Why only Minion Tap? What about a Tribute-for-a-lot? Weenie deck using
> > > Tributes can manage to oust his prey first.
>
> > Your deck should be the fastest.
>
> Probably so, but that deck may happen to be my second prey. Or even
> third.
will you use your SR cross-table (before they are your prey, doesn't
work with wash)? If not, you cannot stop them doing it before you are
their predator...
>
> > > What about Black Forest Base? You know, the table is going to let your
> > > prey get his pool - probably, even with Voter Cap. And so on...
>
> > DI, Delay, as mentioned
>
> But canceling the Base would be much better, right?
Even cross-table? Even if it means playing with 6 handsize for 3
turns?
> > The stupidity is your line of argument, not necessary conlusions. If
> > you don't want to use AT and a lot of SR, go right ahead. If you don't
> > see the logical paradox above. It's way beyond stupid, and I will just
> > stop arguing altogether.
>
> If you have no temper or no time do discuss something, you don't have
> to. That doesn't grant you any rights of pointing out the opponent's
> "stupidity", though. I still don't see any "logical paradoxes" in my
> words.
That is, of course, the whole point...
Ector
> On Mar 27, 11:57 am, "Ector" <E...@mail.ru> wrote:
>
> > Without Veils, every player knows
> > that your vamp with inferior Dem cannot generate more than +1 stealth
> > (Mind Tricks) and for blood.
>
> Which is mostly irrelevant when you are hammering your prey
> continually from the start with bleeds of 3. Sure, they know the dem
> guys only have +1 stealth ever, which means they will block them once
> and a while. And then the guys with DEM will kill them.
Looks like we're talking about slightly different things. You are
talking about ousting your first prey, I'm talking about Game Win.
Yes, you will generally be able to oust your first prey even if he
blocks and kills some of your smaller vamprires, but it will slow you
and provide the rest players some time to develop their positions and
completely stop you. You need every single bit of speed you can get -
or you should play a regular S&B instead of DEM-weenie.
For instance, your Eddie can play Mind Tricks, but he will be forced
to hunt next turn, and then he won't untap (in the best case). So, you
will lose *two* bleed actions. Should your prey ask another player
having WMRH Talk Radio to get him intercept against your Fabrizia - he
would torporize her, and you will lose two actions again (resque +
hunt) - in the best case, as well. With Veils of the Legion, your
Eddie would be safe, your Fabrizia would penetrate the intercept, and
the WMRH player would lose 1 pool for his help. Your prey will quickly
understand that blocking you isn't wise if he has no intercept, so you
will keep ALL your vampires and nothing will stop you even a single
bit.
In fact, adding Veils to this deck makes it almost a "true S&B" deck,
not a weenie deck. Every vampire can bleed for 2 with up to +2
stealth! This couldn't be achieved prior to Veil. I'd say that it's
something like "revolution".
> > This will make your prey to leave at
> > least one minion untapped and to attempt to block your weenies - lose
> > blood or be blocked.
>
> That is why you neutralize them with Misdirection. Or Anarch Trouble
> Maker. Or Pentex Subversion. And even if they leave them untapped and
> you can't neutralize them, you spend a blood and bleed them for 2.
You keep to hold on the traditional "anti-Wake" cards. I'm not trying
to say that they are unusable, but they're masters, and you cannot use
a lot of them. How about some theory about these cards?
If you're playing a disciplineless weenie swarm (you now, a lot of
Computer Hackings, Change of Targets, Dodges and so on), you are
"attacking the Wakes". In other words, you don't have stealth, so you
have to "kill" your prey's Wakes to pass unblocked. AT and
Misdirection are perfect for this, especially combined with Change of
Target. Pentex generally "removes" a vampire with Eternal Vigilance,
No Secrets or potentially able to play 2nd Traditions, forcing your
prey to Wake the other vampires, so it's also an "anti-Wake" card.
If you're playing a traditional S&B, you are generally "attacking" the
intercept and bounce, Wakes are only the secondary targets. You don't
need to "attack Wakes", since the prey wouldn't be able to block you
without a serious intercept, even with million Wakes. Probably,
sometimes Wakes are the weakest spot of your prey, and attacking them
can appear to be the best strategy even for a S&B deck, but this
doesn't happen very often. That's why cards like AT, Misdir and Pentex
aren't that mandatory in S&B decks (but they still may be good!)
Please realize that this deck behaves like a regular S&B, not as a
traditional weenie deck - after all, there are 32 stealth cards, and
with average capacity 3.6 you aren't going to have more than 5-6
vampires prior to ousting your first prey most of the time. Thus, you
don't need to "attack the Wakes" - attack intercept with your stealth
and attack bounce with inferior Revelations, Patterns in the Chaos and
Tapestry of Blood. My last version of this deck includes all these
cards.
> > The deck really became much more powerful with Veils.
>
> I'm not seeing it. Possibly a bit more flexible. But not so much the
> "much more powerful".
>
Hopefully *now* you see it. A weenie deck "attacks Wakes" since it has
no stealth, but has a lot of minions. A S&B deck has enough stealth to
attack intercept and bounce which is more effective, as every deck has
some "free Wakes" in form of leaving untapped vampires, but no deck
has "free intercept" or "free bounce". Without Veils, the DEM-weenie
was something intermediate between weenie and S&B. With Veils, it's a
true S&B with the weenie crypt!
Yours,
Ector
Ector
>
> Wrong. Just as SR/Wash, AT can mean the difference between winning and
> losing. Tapping 2 vampires can mean 2 bounces that won't get played.
losing" you need a situation where:
a). Your prey has 2 bounces, but no Wakes.
b). Your prey has exactly two vampires able to play bounce (if he has
more, he's going to leave them all untapped, as he knows about your AT
and he can roughly calculate how many turns you need to oust him)
c). Your grandprey is low on pool, so you really risk to help your
prey to oust him.
d). Your prey has enough pool to survive your remaining bleeds after
playing both bounce cards.
Please realize that this deck can easily field 5-6 minions able to
bleed for 2 each. Thus, if your grandprey has 5+ pool, and your prey
has 6 pool or less, you can bleed for 2 with 5 vampires, and even TWO
bounces would just help you to oust your next prey. And since you are
going to be the most aggressive deck on the table, your prey isn't
going to have a lot of pool most of the time. So, the situations where
AT can be that much of a difference, are *extremely* rare, and you can
ignore them.
Besides, you have much more effective cards against bounce. Inferior
Revelations will *remove* the bounce card and provide information
about your prey's hand. Half vampires from this crypt can play it, and
you can put several copies.
>
> Hey, look. It's the same max benefit. With the difference that AT is
> on the table and SR/wash is in your hand until you might need it. What
> if they don't play massive poolgain? SR is a dead card. See how they
> are the same.
No, Wash is never a dead card. You can easily cycle it to cancel any
master, if you feel that you won't need it to cancel something
groundbreaking. Every deck has some masters. You may just slow your
prey by cancelling any master that happens to be important to him. Or
you may slow your predator by cancelling his Dreams/Info HW/Grooming.
And so on.
And the "realistic" max benefit of Wash is much higher (see above).
> > 2). Opportunity cost. Almost every deck has some ways to regain pool,
> > so you will almost always find a good target for your Wash. I you will
> > have to cycle it, it will at least slow your prey and increase your
> > chances of ousting it first (for instance, canceling Parthenon of your
> > weenie prey is going to slow it).
>
> You can always play an AT. Wash and SR, not so. Opportunity cost is
> acutally lower.
I mean "opportunity to get a valuable result", not just "opportunity
to play a card". And this opportunity cost is much higher for AT. Even
if you cancel a master card that doesn't generate pool, the player
would never be happy to lose it. But if you play AT having a POT-
weenie prey (for instance), your prey can just ignore it, and you feel
like cycling the card (it may be useful against your next prey, but
not right now). Moreover, if you get your hand jammed with masters,
you will have to discard AT in such situation, since other masters are
going to be more useful - and Wash is a trifle that's easy to cycle.
Please read my answer to Peter D. Bakija for the "theory" of
"attacking Wakes" versus "attacking intercept and bounce", too.
> > 3). Sudden nature. Everybody will see your AT and play accordingly.
> > Nobody will see your Wash, so you can make them lose a precious card.
>
> Yes. People will see your AT and react to that by tapping more
> vampires. And that's bad, how?
People will see AT and choose the best way to deal with it. They will
keep their Wakes and dig for their bounce. If your prey has any
chances of ousting his prey, he will try - and this may be bad for you
if he succeeds. Sometimes you prey will bluff and pretend to have
bounce to make you use AT. And sometimes AT may be the last reason
needed to deal against you. For instance, your grandprey having
Alastor + Assault Rifle isn't going to be happy seeing AT, right?
Compare this to the other anti-bounce cards (say, Revelations). Your
prey has bounce and leaves the vampire untapped. You play Revelations
and remove that bounce, plus he lost an action of his vampire and
you've got a precious information about his hand.
>
> > Well, I should add that the friend is the best local player, an avid
> > VTES fanatic and usually wins all local tournaments. He would never
> > play a sub-optimal deck.
>
> no argument.... Post his arguments, maybe.
His arguments = my arguments already posted. We talked about this a
lot, and tried different builds. He usually plays DIs and Washes and
has no room for AT.
>
> of course, weenie rush and weenie intercept don't exist do they?
Surely they do! But how your AT is going to help you against them?
Weenie rush cannot block or bounce you, tapped or not. Maybe you're
talking about CEL-weenie with guns? Tapping two vampires of AUS weenie
won't mean much - there are much more, and each can play Telepathic
Counter/Misdirection. I guess you're also talking about burning a gun,
right?
Well, burning a gun may help you, indeed. But not too much: they have
a lot of guns, and they can either rush you or block you. I'd prefer
DI to cancel the gun which can also save you in varuous other
situations.
>
> > OK, probably two in the *best possible* situation.
>
> your using best situations for wash as the usual too.
Not only the best. Canceling the prey's Parthenon, for instance, isn't
as good as canceling Minion Tap, but it's going to seriously slow him.
As well as canceling Dreams, Info HW, Grooming the Protege and many
others. And you will encounter all these cards quite often!
>
> yes, torporising your grandpredator's minions is always a good way of
> playing this game...
Please don't tell me that slowing your uber-aggressive grandpredator
(not killing him, just slowing) is a bad play. As long as this deck is
going to have 5 bleeders minimum, I wouldn't be surprised if its
grandpredator would even rush them!
>
> will you use your SR cross-table (before they are your prey, doesn't
> work with wash)? If not, you cannot stop them doing it before you are
> their predator...
Surely I'm not going to SR crosstable (unless the master really worth
it, like Fame on my vampire) But when I will become a predator of such
deck, it will need a Tribute to survive, and canceling it would quite
often provide me a Game Win. Such situation is quite common - they
have a lot of Tributes.
>
> > But canceling the Base would be much better, right?
>
> Even cross-table? Even if it means playing with 6 handsize for 3
> turns?
Definitely not sitting with 6 cards for 3 turns (unless you can afford
this). You will find a target for your Wash, sometimes more important,
sometimes less, but it would almost always worth Washing :) People
rarely play insignificant masters.
SR may be preferable if your players tend to deal against the
dangerous S&B decks - you will want to cancel crosstable Fame on your
vampire, and crosstable Black Forest Base may provide pool to your
prey. Why not canceling it if that crosstable player already has a
deal with your prey?
Yours,
Ector
Jeroen Rombouts
> On Mar 29, 12:38 pm, "Jeroen" <joen_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Wrong. Just as SR/Wash, AT can mean the difference between winning and
>> losing. Tapping 2 vampires can mean 2 bounces that won't get played.
> Theoretically, it can.
Duh. YOU use theoretical best of Wash. So if you want to compare it with AT,
you should compare it to the theoretical best of AT.
>But to get "the difference between winning and
> losing" you need a situation where:
> a). Your prey has 2 bounces, but no Wakes.
or even 2 or more bounces (with DOM) and no wakes. Or even 2 bounces and and
wake? And you just need those 2 extra bleed in....
> b). Your prey has exactly two vampires able to play bounce (if he has
> more, he's going to leave them all untapped, as he knows about your AT
> and he can roughly calculate how many turns you need to oust him)
huh? If someone plays AT, his prey will leave everybody untapped? You know
what, you obviously never played with this card. Most people react to it by
tapping everything EXCEPT 1 vamp, because they think you won't use it to tap
1 vamp. And if they leave everyone untapped, they are not cycling into new
wakes.
> c). Your grandprey is low on pool, so you really risk to help your
> prey to oust him.
why is this needed to get the result we where talking about?
> d). Your prey has enough pool to survive your remaining bleeds after
> playing both bounce cards.
ditto?
>
> Please realize that this deck can easily field 5-6 minions able to
> bleed for 2 each. Thus, if your grandprey has 5+ pool, and your prey
> has 6 pool or less, you can bleed for 2 with 5 vampires, and even TWO
> bounces would just help you to oust your next prey. And since you are
> going to be the most aggressive deck on the table, your prey isn't
> going to have a lot of pool most of the time. So, the situations where
> AT can be that much of a difference, are *extremely* rare, and you can
> ignore them.
not. not rare. Best uses of cards are indeed rare. but a 'good' use of this
card isn't.
> Besides, you have much more effective cards against bounce. Inferior
> Revelations will *remove* the bounce card and provide information
> about your prey's hand. Half vampires from this crypt can play it, and
> you can put several copies.
Where does this come from? you don't have it in the deck...
<snip metric shit load of BS>
> Definitely not sitting with 6 cards for 3 turns (unless you can afford
> this). You will find a target for your Wash, sometimes more important,
> sometimes less, but it would almost always worth Washing :) People
> rarely play insignificant masters.
> SR may be preferable if your players tend to deal against the
> dangerous S&B decks - you will want to cancel crosstable Fame on your
> vampire, and crosstable Black Forest Base may provide pool to your
> prey. Why not canceling it if that crosstable player already has a
> deal with your prey?
Dude, if people are ganging up on bleed decks in your neighbourhood, you not
ready to play with the big boys. Back to the playground with you. Come back
when you're ready to play competitivly. No point in us arguing this any
further.
Ector
wrote:
> "Ector" <E...@mail.ru> schreef in berichtnews:1175213787.0...@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On Mar 29, 12:38 pm, "Jeroen" <joen_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> Wrong. Just as SR/Wash, AT can mean the difference between winning and
> >> losing. Tapping 2 vampires can mean 2 bounces that won't get played.
> > Theoretically, it can.
>
> Duh. YOU use theoretical best of Wash. So if you want to compare it with AT,
> you should compare it to the theoretical best of AT.
cards (i.e. Probability1*Value1 + Probability2*Value2+.....) While
maximum possible Values may be the same, the probability of good usage
for Wash is going to be higher than for AT. If both cards can help you
win the game, but one does it much more often, that one is better.
> >But to get "the difference between winning and
> > losing" you need a situation where:
> > a). Your prey has 2 bounces, but no Wakes.
>
> or even 2 or more bounces (with DOM) and no wakes. Or even 2 bounces and and
> wake? And you just need those 2 extra bleed in....
If he has 4 bounces and no wakes - he's going to leave 4 vampires
untapped. Would you believe that he has 4 bounces and use your AT in
such situation? Or you are going to think that he has 1-2 bounces, so
why waste your AT? Four bounces aren't very likely, so I think that
you will hold your AT, and it won't help you at all.
If he has 2 bounces and a Wake - he would leave ONE vampire untapped.
If you use AT you will avoid just one bounce. Not so spectacular for a
master card, and rarely is a "difference between winning and losing".
I just tried to find out what is "the difference" for AT.
> > b). Your prey has exactly two vampires able to play bounce (if he has
> > more, he's going to leave them all untapped, as he knows about your AT
> > and he can roughly calculate how many turns you need to oust him)
>
> huh? If someone plays AT, his prey will leave everybody untapped? You know
> what, you obviously never played with this card. Most people react to it by
> tapping everything EXCEPT 1 vamp, because they think you won't use it to tap
> 1 vamp. And if they leave everyone untapped, they are not cycling into new
> wakes.
If my predator with AT is going to oust me at the next turn, and I
have no Wakes and no hope to oust my prey in time, but I have some
bounce cards - why shouldn't I leave the vampires untapped?
> > c). Your grandprey is low on pool, so you really risk to help your
> > prey to oust him.
>
> why is this needed to get the result we where talking about?
Since elsewhere your AT isn't the "difference between winning and
losing".
> > d). Your prey has enough pool to survive your remaining bleeds after
> > playing both bounce cards.
> ditto?
So you really risk to help him oust his prey. This doesn't necessary
to happen. If your grandprey has 15 pool, and your prey is dying, his
bounces mean a little to you.
>
>
> > Besides, you have much more effective cards against bounce. Inferior
> > Revelations will *remove* the bounce card and provide information
> > about your prey's hand. Half vampires from this crypt can play it, and
> > you can put several copies.
>
> Where does this come from? you don't have it in the deck...
Where does AT come from, either? I don't have it too. You are arguing
that I should have it, I'm arguing that I'd better get some
Revelations.
> Dude, if people are ganging up on bleed decks in your neighbourhood, you not
> ready to play with the big boys. Back to the playground with you. Come back
> when you're ready to play competitivly. No point in us arguing this any
> further.
Hey, "big boy", I don't see anything strange in ganging up on a bleed
decks. Any Rush deck without bounce can try to stop in order to avoid
being ousted by it, and there's nothing strange in this. But you're
right: arguing in such tone as yours is really pointless.
Ector
Peter D Bakija
> Looks like we're talking about slightly different things. You are
> talking about ousting your first prey, I'm talking about Game Win.
Early in the game, you have more dem and speed. Later in the game you
have more DEM and thus more stealth. The deck works itself up.
> Hopefully *now* you see it.
Still with the not so much. Again, I'm not saying that the Veil is
gonna make the deck *less* effective. Just not substantially more
effective than it was before.
-Peter
Jeroen Rombouts
> Hey, "big boy", I don't see anything strange in ganging up on a bleed
> decks. Any Rush deck without bounce can try to stop in order to avoid
> being ousted by it, and there's nothing strange in this. But you're
> right: arguing in such tone as yours is really pointless.
Ganging up takes at least 2 decks.
And, in case you haven't noticed, if people never agree with you it's
probably not their fault. Now reread your history of posting on this board.
Ector
tournament):
Crypt: (12 cards, Min: 10, Max: 19, Avg: 3,58)
----------------------------------------------
1 Eddie Gaines dem pot 1 Caitiff
1 Marta aus dem 3 Malkavian
Antitribu
2 Jackie DEM 3 Malkavian
Antitribu
2 Midget obf pre DEM 3 Malkavian
Antitribu
1 Beauregard Krueller aus dem obf 4 Malkavian
Antitribu
1 Jeremy Talbot dem obf 4 Malkavian
1 Adelaide Davis aus dem obf 4 Malkavian
1 Persia aus obf DEM 5 Malkavian
1 Uncle George aus dom obf DEM 5 Malkavian
Antitribu
1 Apache Jones aus for obf DEM 5 Malkavian
Antitribu
Library: (90 cards)
-------------------
Master (17 cards)
3 Dementation
3 Dreams of the Sphinx
2 Blood Doll
1 Bleeding the Vine
1 Pentex(TM) Loves You!
1 Jake Washington (Hunter)
2 Wash
1 Barrens, The
1 Momentum`s Edge
2 Direct Intervention
Action (27 cards)
20 Kindred Spirits
4 Dive into Madness
1 Restructure
2 Revelations
Action Modifier (37 cards)
10 Confusion
6 Eyes of Chaos
5 Mind Tricks
10 Veil the Legions
4 Change of Target
2 Patterns in the Chaos
Ally (3 cards)
1 Muddled Vampire Hunter
1 Carlton Van Wyk (Hunter)
1 Escaped Mental Patient
Combo (6 cards)
6 Deny
>
> Ganging up takes at least 2 decks.
AFAIK, most of the time at least 3 players are trying to weaken/slow
S&B: its predator, its prey and its grandpredator that doesn't want to
become its prey.
> And, in case you haven't noticed, if people never agree with you it's
> probably not their fault. Now reread your history of posting on this board.
I guess it's diffucult enough to discuss something with a stubborn
opponent that doesn't give up until he has at least one argument?
But would you prefer a person who would immediately accept all that
you say? Is it possible at all? I'd say that such person is much more
stupid than a man who tries to argue.
Yes, I've said a lot of stupid things at this newsgroup. But at least
I'm reading what other people are saying and I'm trying to think.
Believe it or not. How else a person can learn something new? Sorry,
but for now I'm still not convinced that AT is necessary in this deck
- or it's going to be more helpful than any of the current masters in
the deck. But nobody doubts that it's good and may save the game in
some situations.
Yours,
Ector
Ector
> On Mar 29, 6:42 pm, "Ector" <E...@mail.ru> wrote:
>
> > Looks like we're talking about slightly different things. You are
> > talking about ousting your first prey, I'm talking about Game Win.
>
> Early in the game, you have more dem and speed. Later in the game you
> have more DEM and thus more stealth. The deck works itself up.
likely behavior of your prey from the very beginning:
Without Veils: Your prey is going to leave at least one vampire
untapped to block your vampires with inferior Dem. Even if he *never*
succeeds, you will lose a lot of blood, some tempo (hunt etc.) and
your grandprey would have some time to develop his position. More
likely that you will lose some vampires or at least actions.
With Veils: After the first 1-2 attempts to block, your prey will
understand that he will never block you and, hopefully, he will start
to press on your grandprey. This is ideal for you, since your vampires
would be safe, and your next prey would be weakened.
Still no much difference in your eyes?
Yours,
Ector
James Coupe
Peter D Bakija <pd...@lightlink.com> writes:
>On Mar 29, 6:42 pm, "Ector" <E...@mail.ru> wrote:
>> Looks like we're talking about slightly different things. You are
>> talking about ousting your first prey, I'm talking about Game Win.
>
>Early in the game, you have more dem and speed. Later in the game you
>have more DEM and thus more stealth. The deck works itself up.
I've been toying with this in my mind for the last few days. How stupid
is the suggestion of a handful (3-4?) copies of Stealth Ritus? It's not
cheap, but it could just destabilise a "Oh, I'll be able to block one of
them with my Sport Bike..." thought pattern, just enough.
Expensive, though.
--
James Coupe
PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D YOU ARE IN ERROR.
EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 NO-ONE IS SCREAMING.
13D7E668C3695D623D5D THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.
Jeroen Rombouts
>Sorry,
> but for now I'm still not convinced that AT is necessary in this deck
> - or it's going to be more helpful than any of the current masters in
> the deck. But nobody doubts that it's good and may save the game in
> some situations.
Which wasn't what the discussion was about, either. It was about you
rejecting AT with the same arguments other people had used against wash/SR
and you rejected.. That was what this was about.
Peter D Bakija
James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote:
> I've been toying with this in my mind for the last few days. How stupid
> is the suggestion of a handful (3-4?) copies of Stealth Ritus? It's not
> cheap, but it could just destabilise a "Oh, I'll be able to block one of
> them with my Sport Bike..." thought pattern, just enough.
Heh--not horribly stupid, but unlikely to do much more than, like, a
Dodge. If your prey is playing mean combat with intercept, then the
Stealth Ritus might help (although they also can probably get more than
+1 intercept in that case). If your prey is not playing mean combat, you
can just send your first guy, get blocked, and play a Dodge.
> Expensive, though.
Yeah, that is the big problem.
Peter D Bakija
pd...@lightlink.com
http://www.lightlink.com/pdb6/vtes.html
Peter D Bakija
"Ector" <Ec...@mail.ru> wrote:
> Why do you have more *speed* early in the game?
'Cause your prey has (likely) fewer vampires and less to interfere with
you.
> Without Veils: Your prey is going to leave at least one vampire
> untapped to block your vampires with inferior Dem.
So you let him block the first one, play a Dodge, and then bleed him for
8 with the other 3 minions.
> Still no much difference in your eyes?
Nope. With the Veils, the deck is likely pretty good. Without the Veils,
the deck is likely pretty good.
Ector
> In article <1175379085.435120.324...@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
>
> > Without Veils: Your prey is going to leave at least one vampire
> > untapped to block your vampires with inferior Dem.
>
> So you let him block the first one, play a Dodge, and then bleed him for
> 8 with the other 3 minions.
Dodge is yet another "anti-Wake" tactics, and it's much more dangerous
than Change of Target. Such tactics will seriously decrease your
chances against the rush decks, as they will laugh at your dodge. A
weenie with 2.5 capacity may use such tactics, a deck with 3.6 cannot.
Plus, this tactics isn't going to detract your prey from attempting to
block you. You cannot have as much Dodges as a regular weenie deck
has.
> > Still no much difference in your eyes?
>
> Nope. With the Veils, the deck is likely pretty good. Without the Veils,
> the deck is likely pretty good.
Without Veils the deck is S&B tactics mixed mixed with weenie tactics.
With Veils, it's more-or-less "true" S&B. This is a serious
difference.
Yours,
Ector
Ector
> In message <1175258975.085371.244...@p15g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>,
>
> I've been toying with this in my mind for the last few days. How stupid
> is the suggestion of a handful (3-4?) copies of Stealth Ritus? It's not
> cheap, but it could just destabilise a "Oh, I'll be able to block one of
> them with my Sport Bike..." thought pattern, just enough.
>
> Expensive, though.
>
Not stupid at all. IMHO, "only when action is announced" is even worse
than the price - without it, the card would be very good here.
But even as is, it's still much better than relying on Dodges, IMHO :)
As long as you're trying to demonstrate that attempting to block you
is pointless, this will help you. Not for Eddie, alas - he is too
small for it.
Yours,
Ector
Jeroen Rombouts
> On Apr 1, 5:08 pm, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote:
>> In article <1175379085.435120.324...@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
>>
>
>> > Without Veils: Your prey is going to leave at least one vampire
>> > untapped to block your vampires with inferior Dem.
>>
>> So you let him block the first one, play a Dodge, and then bleed him for
>> 8 with the other 3 minions.
> Dodge is yet another "anti-Wake" tactics, and it's much more dangerous
> than Change of Target.
Change of Target is indeed anti-wake tech, not 'tap-tech' and that's what
the let them block and dodge is al about: you tap a minion.
> Such tactics will seriously decrease your
> chances against the rush decks, as they will laugh at your dodge.
any serious rush deck will laugh at this deck. dodges or not.
> A
> weenie with 2.5 capacity may use such tactics, a deck with 3.6 cannot.
your still not saying why not.
> Plus, this tactics isn't going to detract your prey from attempting to
> block you. You cannot have as much Dodges as a regular weenie deck
> has.
your mixing everyting up. Your tapping his minions not detract him from
attempting to block.
>
>> > Still no much difference in your eyes?
>>
>> Nope. With the Veils, the deck is likely pretty good. Without the Veils,
>> the deck is likely pretty good.
> Without Veils the deck is S&B tactics mixed mixed with weenie tactics.
> With Veils, it's more-or-less "true" S&B. This is a serious
> difference.
no it isn't. your cap is a little higher and you can gain an additional
stealth. That's it.
Peter D Bakija
> Dodge is yet another "anti-Wake" tactics, and it's much more dangerous
> than Change of Target.
Against a deck that is going to kill you, the Dodges aren't going to
help in any case, so Change of Target might be better, except then
they still have someone to block you with (assuming they were untapped
to begin with). Against someone who isn't going to kill you (i.e.
limited combat), the Dodge will do everything you need it to.
> Such tactics will seriously decrease your chances against the rush decks,
> as they will laugh at your dodge.
Against a Rush deck, any of these decks are totally hosed. You might
oust them before you run out of minions, but you are going to be
losing minions on a regular basis. All you can do is *hope* they leave
a guy untapped so you can stealth past them and bleed for a few.
> Plus, this tactics isn't going to detract your prey from attempting to
> block you. You cannot have as much Dodges as a regular weenie deck
> has.
If your prey is going to try and block you, your prey is going to try
and block you. If you get to stealth by, even if it costs blood, your
deck is doing what it was designed to do--if they *don't* leave
someone untapped to try and block, then you jam on what stealth you
have.
> Without Veils the deck is S&B tactics mixed mixed with weenie tactics.
> With Veils, it's more-or-less "true" S&B. This is a serious
> difference.
You are using these terms as if they have actual concrete meanings.
Which they do not.
-Peter
Ector
wrote:
>
> Change of Target is indeed anti-wake tech, not 'tap-tech' and that's what
> the let them block and dodge is al about: you tap a minion.
tapped" effect. But both effects are trying to overcome the prey by
sheer numbers, and, generally, both are "attacking Wakes". Should you
prey have a lot of Wakes, he can defend against both tactics, so I've
grouped them together.
> > Such tactics will seriously decrease your
> > chances against the rush decks, as they will laugh at your dodge.
>
> any serious rush deck will laugh at this deck. dodges or not.
A Rush deck will laugh at the S&B predator??? Especially with such
number of bleeders? Why???
In most cases this deck will oust the Rush easily. It would obviously
rush our vampires, but it can run out of rush cards very quickly, as
we have a lot of vampires and, possibly, some blocking allies. Trying
to tap their vampires with Dodge is going to be much worse than adding
stealth in this situation.
> > A
> > weenie with 2.5 capacity may use such tactics, a deck with 3.6 cannot.
>
> your still not saying why not.
It's simple: a 2.5 weenie tries to overcome its prey by the sheer
numbers. It usually has some Effective Managements to quickly increase
the number of vampires, in addition to the lower capacity. So it can
easily have 8 vampires or more prior to the first oust. It can afford
losing one vampire much easier than a 3.6-cap deck, and losing
vampires is quite possible with the Dodge tactics.
> > Plus, this tactics isn't going to detract your prey from attempting to
> > block you. You cannot have as much Dodges as a regular weenie deck
> > has.
>
> your mixing everyting up. Your tapping his minions not detract him from
> attempting to block.
I mean that your prey will still attempt to block you on his next
turn. If you demonstrate that you have a lot of stealth and he isn't
going to block you, he would stop these attempts.
> > Without Veils the deck is S&B tactics mixed mixed with weenie tactics.
> > With Veils, it's more-or-less "true" S&B. This is a serious
> > difference.
>
> no it isn't. your cap is a little higher and you can gain an additional
> stealth. That's it.
You can gain additional stealth => you can avoid being blocked most of
the time => your vampires are going to be safe, and your prey is going
to refuse to block you. This is the difference.
Yours,
Ector
Ector
> Against a deck that is going to kill you, the Dodges aren't going to
> help in any case, so Change of Target might be better, except then
> they still have someone to block you with (assuming they were untapped
> to begin with). Against someone who isn't going to kill you (i.e.
> limited combat), the Dodge will do everything you need it to.
Correct. And extra stealth is good against both combat-light and
combat-heavy decks. So the deck obviously improved with Veils.
> > Such tactics will seriously decrease your chances against the rush decks,
> > as they will laugh at your dodge.
>
> Against a Rush deck, any of these decks are totally hosed. You might
> oust them before you run out of minions, but you are going to be
> losing minions on a regular basis. All you can do is *hope* they leave
> a guy untapped so you can stealth past them and bleed for a few.
Against a Rush prey??? I've killed a hundred of Rush preys with
various S&B decks. They cannot block you, they cannot bounce, plus you
generally can resque your torporized vampires and generate pool with
Kindred Spirits. You are going to oust your Rush prey, but with Veils
you're going to do it faster and you will lose less vampires/blood
than with dodges.
> > Plus, this tactics isn't going to detract your prey from attempting to
> > block you. You cannot have as much Dodges as a regular weenie deck
> > has.
>
> If your prey is going to try and block you, your prey is going to try
> and block you. If you get to stealth by, even if it costs blood, your
> deck is doing what it was designed to do--if they *don't* leave
> someone untapped to try and block, then you jam on what stealth you
> have.
Your prey isn't going to block you as long as you demonstrate that
it's pointless. If you are forced to lose blood for Mind Tricks,
blocking already wasn't pointless - you don't have infinite blood (and
infinite Tricks, too).
Jamming with stealth is a potential problem for all S&B decks. It's
solved by improved hand cycling (Dreams, Barrens, Powerbase: LA etc).
You may even add Luc for that purpose.
> > Without Veils the deck is S&B tactics mixed mixed with weenie tactics.
> > With Veils, it's more-or-less "true" S&B. This is a serious
> > difference.
>
> You are using these terms as if they have actual concrete meanings.
> Which they do not.
I'm trying to explain why S&B tactics is more reliable than weenie
tactics, which should demonstrate why the deck became much better with
Veils. S&B tactics is simple: get enough stealth to pass unblocked.
Only heavy intercept can block you. Weenie tactics is more complicated
and less reliable; there are lot of good solutions against it (No
Secrets From the Magaji, for instance).
Yours,
Ector
Jeroen Rombouts
>> > chances against the rush decks, as they will laugh at your dodge.
>>
>> any serious rush deck will laugh at this deck. dodges or not.
> A Rush deck will laugh at the S&B predator??? Especially with such
> number of bleeders? Why???
I'm only going to answer this because it shows you don't play competitively.
YES! Any SERIOUS (like i said above) rush deck will remove bleeding vamps
controlled by its predator just as fast as you can bring them out. If they
don't, they die. It's that easy.
> In most cases this deck will oust the Rush easily.
not if it's a good one.
>It would obviously
> rush our vampires, but it can run out of rush cards very quickly,
Serious rush deck has 2-4 Haven Uncovered and 12-15 Rushes...
>as
> we have a lot of vampires
So does the rush deck (since the only viable rush deck is the weenie rush
deck)
>and, possibly, some blocking allies.
Maybe, if your vamps last long enough to recruit them.
>Trying
> to tap their vampires with Dodge is going to be much worse than adding
> stealth in this situation.
>
doesn't matter. Rush deck as prey means almost certain death to your deck.
As a predator, you might have a chance, if the rush deck needs to go
backward first and you can (threaten to) bleed him.
Peter D Bakija
> Correct. And extra stealth is good against both combat-light and
> combat-heavy decks. So the deck obviously improved with Veils.
Extra stealth doesn't do you any good at all against decks that aren't
trying to block you, or are Rushing your guys into paste.
> Against a Rush prey??? I've killed a hundred of Rush preys with
> various S&B decks. They cannot block you, they cannot bounce, plus you
> generally can resque your torporized vampires and generate pool with
> Kindred Spirits.
If all your vampires are in torpor, you can't rescue anyone. That is
how Rush decks kill you.
> Your prey isn't going to block you as long as you demonstrate that
> it's pointless. If you are forced to lose blood for Mind Tricks,
> blocking already wasn't pointless - you don't have infinite blood (and
> infinite Tricks, too).
Having a guy standing around to block, when facing a deck that is
designed to get past a guy who is standing around to block, is simply
helping that deck do what it is supposed to do.
> Jamming with stealth is a potential problem for all S&B decks. It's
> solved by improved hand cycling (Dreams, Barrens, Powerbase: LA etc).
> You may even add Luc for that purpose.
It is also solved by lowballing the stealth (i.e. like in the deck
that orinally sparked this increasingly absurd discussion...)
> I'm trying to explain why S&B tactics is more reliable than weenie
> tactics, which should demonstrate why the deck became much better with
> Veils.
You may think it the deck has become much better with veils. It really
isn't. The deck will work fine with Veils. The deck will work fine
without Veils.
-Peter
Ector
wrote:
>I'm only going to answer this because it shows you don't play competitively.
>YES! Any SERIOUS (like i said above) rush deck will remove bleeding vamps
>controlled by its predator just as fast as you can bring them out. If they
>don't, they die. It's that easy.
...
> > In most cases this deck will oust the Rush easily.
> not if it's a good one.
...
> Serious rush deck has 2-4 Haven Uncovered and 12-15 Rushes...
>as we have a lot of vampires
>So does the rush deck (since the only viable rush deck is the weenie rush deck)
>Rush deck as prey means almost certain death to your deck.
Here's some statistics from the TWDA for your information. I've listed
the short info for all tournament-winning Rush decks for the last two
years. For simplicity, I've counted only decks with at least 8 Rush
cards (or at least 4 vampires with inbuilt rush) and at least 35
combat cards. For each deck, here is the tournament date, the winning
player's name, number of Rush cards/number of Haven Uncovereds, number
of combat cards (in parenthesis) and the average capacity.
21/11/06 Mike Nudd 6/1 + 2*Beast (37) 6.84
07/10/06 Martin Tremblay 0 + 18*Tupdog (57) 1.58
30/07/06 Claudio Gomes 13 + Hrothulf (55) 6.00
29/07/06 Denis Gerard 13 + Hrothulf (52) 6.00
18/06/06 Ralf Lammert 0 + 16*Tupdog (50) 2.08
04/06/06 Jarkko Suvela 11 (42) 3.80 (only Xaviar
fights)
28/05/06 Marc Desaulniers 0 + 18*Tupdog (60) 1.70
21/05/06 John Eno 10/3 (54) 4.67
22/04/06 Boris Zaretsky 0 + 8*Tupdog (47) 2.57
30/04/06 H.S. Skarsten Larsen 0 + 8*Tupdog (54) 2.18
29/04/06 Tony Wedd 0 + 5*Beast (41) 5.42
22/04/06 Jeff Lamothe 10/6 (50) 3.34
08/04/06 Eric Torstensson 4*Enkidu+Karsh (41) 7.00
25/03/06 Benoit Olivieri 3 + 4*Enkidu (47) 5.16 (only Enkidu
fights)
26/02/06 Johannes Walch 18/1 (54) 3.59
21/01/06 Kari Makinen 14 (40) 6.50
27/08/05 Ramon Moure 5*Enkidu (40) 6.84
09/07/05 Jon Glas 8/0 (46) 2.85
30/06/05 John Bell 8+Ossian+Garou (54) 3.16
15/05/05 Giovanni Cisterna 6+ 2*Theo (52) 7.08
You can easily see that your statements aren't correspond to the
reality, so the words "you don't play competitively" look like
*extremely* silly. There are 20 decks, only 9 of them can be counted
as "weenie" (average capacity 4 or lower) - less than a half! So, "the
only viable rush deck is a weenie rush deck" is absolutely wrong
statement. Moreover, Jarkko Suvela's deck shouldn't be counted as a
weenie Rush since only Xaviar can fight there...
I should note that there are NO "serious rush decks" by your
definition (12-15 rushes and 2-4 Haven Uncovered) here :D The closest
one is Johannes Walch's deck, most others are different. This should
at least teach you to think about the words you're posting.
As I've expected, my DEM/obf deck has a good chance to oust most of
these decks. Decks with fatties are too slow to hold my assault, and
deck with less than 10 rush cards are going to run out of them. Euro-
Brujah may block somebody with 2nd Traditions and bounce my bleeds,
but I don't think that they will have enough copies of these cards to
survive.
Most of the weenie decks here are Tupdog decks, and they are going to
lose if they concentrate on killing all my vampires (even if they
succeed!), since they would constantly lose their pool and their
Tupdogs. So I think that I will be able to deal with such prey without
much risking of betrayal - he will just run out of Tupdogs.
Alternatively, I can influence several vampires at once, and my prey
isn't going to have enough Tupdogs to kill them all at once.
The only problematic decks here are the decks with a lot of Rush cards
- weenies (Johannes Walch's) or midcap multirush (Denis Gerard's).
Even against them I still have some chances, maybe low, but
nevertheless.
Please note that the deck variant without the Veils would have
problems against ALL these decks, especially against Tupdogs. As long
as they recruit constantly, you will always encounter some untapped
Tupdogs that can attempt to block, and Dodge isn't going to bring you
any good :) With some Rockhearts/Stonestrengths a Tupdog can even keep
his blood and rush you on the next turn! You are going to oust Enkidu
even without the Veils, right, but you will lose much more vampires,
and it will take more time as a result. One Raven Spy/Guardian Angel
will be enough to block vampires with inferior Dem, even if you have
enough Mind Tricks.
Also, a deck with Veils can generate up to +4 stealth with superior
Dementation, and it generates +3 stealth much more reliably which may
be crucial againt Second Traditions.
Yours,
Ector
Ector
> On Apr 3, 7:01 am, "Ector" <E...@mail.ru> wrote:
>
> > Correct. And extra stealth is good against both combat-light and
> > combat-heavy decks. So the deck obviously improved with Veils.
>
> Extra stealth doesn't do you any good at all against decks that aren't
> trying to block you, or are Rushing your guys into paste.
blocking you. And you can always tweak numbers of stealth cards in
your deck to fit your metagame.
> > Against a Rush prey??? I've killed a hundred of Rush preys with
> > various S&B decks. They cannot block you, they cannot bounce, plus you
> > generally can resque your torporized vampires and generate pool with
> > Kindred Spirits.
>
> If all your vampires are in torpor, you can't rescue anyone. That is
> how Rush decks kill you.
Killing all my vampires isn't going to be easy to any rush deck, even
to the weenie rush. As you can see from my response to Jeroen, most
popular rush deck would fail to stop me in time.
> > Your prey isn't going to block you as long as you demonstrate that
> > it's pointless. If you are forced to lose blood for Mind Tricks,
> > blocking already wasn't pointless - you don't have infinite blood (and
> > infinite Tricks, too).
>
> Having a guy standing around to block, when facing a deck that is
> designed to get past a guy who is standing around to block, is simply
> helping that deck do what it is supposed to do.
A deck with Veils is designed "to get past", a deck without them
isn't. This is the difference you are refusing to see somewhy... If
the variant without Veils would be designed for this, why would you
talk about Dodges?
> > Jamming with stealth is a potential problem for all S&B decks. It's
> > solved by improved hand cycling (Dreams, Barrens, Powerbase: LA etc).
> > You may even add Luc for that purpose.
>
> It is also solved by lowballing the stealth (i.e. like in the deck
> that orinally sparked this increasingly absurd discussion...)
IMHO, the discussion is absurd only because you refuse to hear my
arguments (or to think about them).
You can "lowball the stealth" in the deck with Veils, too - you just
have more options. And you can do this without losing the ability to
generate +2 stealth with inferior DEM.
>
> You may think it the deck has become much better with veils. It really
> isn't. The deck will work fine with Veils. The deck will work fine
> without Veils.
What does yours "works fine" mean? HOW "fine"? You can win sometimes,
right, and I also can win sometimes. And my Worst Deck Ever can also
win sometimes. I demonstrated several times why the chance of winning
with the Veil deck should be higher than chances without Veils, but
you seem to miss all my words.
Well, let's choose the simplest way. Which deck is going to have
better chances against Second Traditions: a deck with Veils or a deck
without them? As long as you cannot generate more than +3 stealth
without Veil, you will need a very good hand to penetrate 2nd
Tradition - but with Veils this should be much easier. Which deck is
going to have better chances against a Rush deck with no intercept - a
deck without Veils that can be blocked or a deck with Veils that
isn't going to? Which deck will have better chances against permanent
+1 intercept (say, WMRH Talk Radio)?
I still cannot see the situations where the deck without Veils can be
better. Probably if your prey will be stupid enough and completely
refuse to block you for some mysterious reason?
Yours,
Ector
Jeroen Rombouts
> On Apr 3, 4:04 pm, "Jeroen Rombouts" <jeroen.rombou...@telenet.be>
> wrote:
>
>
> Here's some statistics from the TWDA for your information. I've listed
> the short info for all tournament-winning Rush decks for the last two
> years. For simplicity, I've counted only decks with at least 8 Rush
> cards (or at least 4 vampires with inbuilt rush) and at least 35
> combat cards. For each deck, here is the tournament date, the winning
> player's name, number of Rush cards/number of Haven Uncovereds, number
> of combat cards (in parenthesis) and the average capacity.
number of players in tournament? BIG factor, here.... Besides, you call them
most popular in your response to peter?
weenie pot, weenie cel and tupdog. Those are the really competititve rush
decks.
>
> 21/11/06 Mike Nudd 6/1 + 2*Beast (37) 6.84
Not a real rush deck. plays intercept. (besides october is the 10th month,
not the 11th)
> 07/10/06 Martin Tremblay 0 + 18*Tupdog (57) 1.58
weenie rush
> 30/07/06 Claudio Gomes 13 + Hrothulf (55) 6.00
That's Australia, doesn't count. ;) Seriously, they have a combat heavy
metagame. And is a copy of the deck below, it says so in the text.
> 29/07/06 Denis Gerard 13 + Hrothulf (52) 6.00
see above.
> 18/06/06 Ralf Lammert 0 + 16*Tupdog (50) 2.08
weenie rush
> 04/06/06 Jarkko Suvela 11 (42) 3.80 (only Xaviar
> fights)
Xaviar Multi-rush. While this might be effective, it's a one star deck based
on an 11cap. Do or die deck, IMO.
> 28/05/06 Marc Desaulniers 0 + 18*Tupdog (60) 1.70
weenie rush
> 21/05/06 John Eno 10/3 (54) 4.67
low midcap rush with wakes and no reactions and no intercept...
> 22/04/06 Boris Zaretsky 0 + 8*Tupdog (47) 2.57
weenie rush
> 30/04/06 H.S. Skarsten Larsen 0 + 8*Tupdog (54) 2.18
weenie rush.
> 29/04/06 Tony Wedd 0 + 5*Beast (41) 5.42
1 star beast deck with support vamps.
> 22/04/06 Jeff Lamothe 10/6 (50) 3.34
weenie for rush.
> 08/04/06 Eric Torstensson 4*Enkidu+Karsh (41) 7.00
And this must be a metagame thing. No rushes and only Enkidu can get into
combat except for light intercept. heavy combat metagame, or metagame with a
lot of fatties. This is more an intercept combat decks, IMO.
> 25/03/06 Benoit Olivieri 3 + 4*Enkidu (47) 5.16 (only Enkidu
> fights)
and it's more an intercept deck than a pure rush deck. again one star deck.
> 26/02/06 Johannes Walch 18/1 (54) 3.59
weenie pot rush with Beast.
> 21/01/06 Kari Makinen 14 (40) 6.50
multi rush
> 27/08/05 Ramon Moure 5*Enkidu (40) 6.84
another metagame thing, I expect. And only 10 player tourney.
> 09/07/05 Jon Glas 8/0 (46) 2.85
weenie rush
> 30/06/05 John Bell 8+Ossian+Garou (54) 3.16
weenie for.
> 15/05/05 Giovanni Cisterna 6+ 2*Theo (52) 7.08
brujah princes. With deflection and second trad. not a rush deck.
>
> You can easily see that your statements aren't correspond to the
> reality, so the words "you don't play competitively" look like
> *extremely* silly.
No it doesn't.
>There are 20 decks, only 9 of them can be counted
> as "weenie" (average capacity 4 or lower) - less than a half!
Who says that weenie need to be 4 or lower? And a number of the above are
not rush decks.
>So, "the
> only viable rush deck is a weenie rush deck" is absolutely wrong
> statement.
mostly, yes it isn't. with the exception of big cap multi-rushers. But those
are one star decks and die by virtue of DI or Pentex Subversion....
>Moreover, Jarkko Suvela's deck shouldn't be counted as a
> weenie Rush since only Xaviar can fight there...
> I should note that there are NO "serious rush decks" by your
> definition (12-15 rushes and 2-4 Haven Uncovered) here :D
duh. most of them are tupdog decks. they don't need it. There is no cel gun
deck in there, fr.ex. And the weenie pot decks have beast to offset the
lower number of rush cards.
> The closest
> one is Johannes Walch's deck, most others are different. This should
> at least teach you to think about the words you're posting.
why? I'm still not convinced by what your saying.
First you say:
rush decks? bah! I always kill them.
I say: not if it's a good one.
then you go and post a list of decks that you think you can kill.... what's
that proof?
> As I've expected, my DEM/obf deck has a good chance to oust most of
> these decks. Decks with fatties are too slow to hold my assault, and
> deck with less than 10 rush cards are going to run out of them. Euro-
> Brujah may block somebody with 2nd Traditions and bounce my bleeds,
> but I don't think that they will have enough copies of these cards to
> survive.
> Most of the weenie decks here are Tupdog decks, and they are going to
> lose if they concentrate on killing all my vampires (even if they
> succeed!), since they would constantly lose their pool and their
> Tupdogs. So I think that I will be able to deal with such prey without
> much risking of betrayal - he will just run out of Tupdogs.
And you don't have a predator????
> Alternatively, I can influence several vampires at once, and my prey
> isn't going to have enough Tupdogs to kill them all at once.
only if you know which deck he is playing in advance.
> The only problematic decks here are the decks with a lot of Rush cards
> - weenies (Johannes Walch's) or midcap multirush (Denis Gerard's).
You mean: serious rush decks?
> Even against them I still have some chances, maybe low, but
> nevertheless.
>
> Please note that the deck variant without the Veils would have
> problems against ALL these decks, especially against Tupdogs.
why? one stealth is enough to go past them...
>As long
> as they recruit constantly, you will always encounter some untapped
> Tupdogs that can attempt to block, and Dodge isn't going to bring you
> any good :) With some Rockhearts/Stonestrengths a Tupdog can even keep
> his blood and rush you on the next turn! You are going to oust Enkidu
> even without the Veils, right, but you will lose much more vampires,
> and it will take more time as a result. One Raven Spy/Guardian Angel
> will be enough to block vampires with inferior Dem, even if you have
> enough Mind Tricks.
By the time Enkidu gets that far, he should have been killed by your deck...
> Also, a deck with Veils can generate up to +4 stealth with superior
> Dementation, and it generates +3 stealth much more reliably which may
> be crucial againt Second Traditions.
unless they kill the obf vamps first....
Peter D Bakija
> Killing all my vampires isn't going to be easy to any rush deck, even
> to the weenie rush. As you can see from my response to Jeroen, most
> popular rush deck would fail to stop me in time.
This is an incorrect assumption. Rush that is good at killing is going
to mangle either deck under discussion here. Due to an utter lack of
combat defense other than an occasional Dodge.
> IMHO, the discussion is absurd only because you refuse to hear my
> arguments (or to think about them).
No, I just think you are over estimating the effect that occasionally
having an additional +1 stealth is going to have at the expense of
having to manage your minions more carefully (so as to actually be
able to play the Veils when you need them) and having more cards to
jam up your hand when someone *isn't* trying to block you (which
happens a lot. Veils or no).
> What does yours "works fine" mean? HOW "fine"? You can win sometimes,
> right, and I also can win sometimes. And my Worst Deck Ever can also
> win sometimes. I demonstrated several times why the chance of winning
> with the Veil deck should be higher than chances without Veils, but
> you seem to miss all my words.
No, you haven't actually demonstrated this. You have suggested it,
sure. But I don't think your suggestion is correct.
> Well, let's choose the simplest way. Which deck is going to have
> better chances against Second Traditions: a deck with Veils or a deck
> without them?
Neither. Consistient +2 intercept and untap is likely to kill either
of these decks.
> I still cannot see the situations where the deck without Veils can be
> better. Probably if your prey will be stupid enough and completely
> refuse to block you for some mysterious reason?
Your prey often completely refuses to block you. Without being stupid.
'Cause they are playing a deck that either:
A) Is nothing but forward momentum.
B) Has no intercept or untap built in.
In these cases, it is silly to try and block when your block attempt
consists of "My guy with zero intercept tries to block your stealth
bleed minion again. Oh, you get +1 stealth? Damn..." Even if it costs
the acting minion a blood.
-Peter
Morgan Vening
wrote:
>> I still cannot see the situations where the deck without Veils can be
>> better. Probably if your prey will be stupid enough and completely
>> refuse to block you for some mysterious reason?
>
>Your prey often completely refuses to block you. Without being stupid.
>'Cause they are playing a deck that either:
>
>A) Is nothing but forward momentum.
>
>B) Has no intercept or untap built in.
>
>In these cases, it is silly to try and block when your block attempt
>consists of "My guy with zero intercept tries to block your stealth
>bleed minion again. Oh, you get +1 stealth? Damn..." Even if it costs
>the acting minion a blood.
IAWTP.
I consider it my rule number 4 of Jyhad gameplay. If you can't stop
something, don't try.
Sometimes it's not stupid to refuse to block. If you KNOW you can't
block, all you do is allow them to cycle. A recent game showed that,
where a midcap stealth bleeder (Suzannee Kadim was the larger of the
vamps) was my grand-predator. My predator consistantly tried to block
the Social Charms with no intercept. Stealth past, and hit for 3. My
Predator lost about 20 pool to this. When it became my turn, I didn't
bother, and after 3 bleeds, he had gummed up on stealth, and his
forward momentum stalled.
The game eventually went to him, due to my grand prey (his predator)
influencing out Jaroslav, then influencing out Jaroslav. Doh!
Morgan Vening
Ector
wrote:
>
> number of players in tournament? BIG factor, here.... Besides, you call them
> most popular in your response to peter?
Some patterns are really clear here. I was surprised myself that
Enkidu decks are so popular, for instance, but as long as we have
three Enkidu decks in TWDA, we HAVE to assume that they are popular.
> weenie pot, weenie cel and tupdog. Those are the really competititve rush
> decks.
So half of the mentioned tournament-winning decks (that are not weenie
pot, weenie cel or tupdog) are not really competitive? I appreciate
your opinion, but cannot consider it an absolute truth. I know a
player that doesn't consider Tupdogs very competitive, for instance
(and he's a very experienced player from Germany that plays from the
very beginning).
>
>
> > 21/11/06 Mike Nudd 6/1 + 2*Beast (37) 6.84
>
> Not a real rush deck. plays intercept. (besides october is the 10th month,
> not the 11th)
Sorry for the date mistake. It isn't a "pure" rush deck, but it's more
rush than intercept. 6 Rush cards + Haven Uncovered + 2 Beasts mean
much more that 6 Raven Spies. Should he wish to play intercept, he'd
replace Beasts with extra Teresitas.
> > 07/10/06 Martin Tremblay 0 + 18*Tupdog (57) 1.58
>
> weenie rush
Tupdogs are technically weenies (less than 4 average capacity) and
rush, but they are completely different from the "normal" weenie Rush
decks. Let's talk about them a bit later...
> > 30/07/06 Claudio Gomes 13 + Hrothulf (55) 6.00
>
> That's Australia, doesn't count. ;) Seriously, they have a combat heavy
> metagame. And is a copy of the deck below, it says so in the text.
Yes I know that it's a copy. But the fact that this deck won TWICE
should prove that it's very competitive. And it does NOT correspond to
both of your definitions of "competitive rush decks", as it isn't a
weenie. Looks like the definitions aren't completely correct :)
>
> > 04/06/06 Jarkko Suvela 11 (42) 3.80 (only Xaviar
> > fights)
>
> Xaviar Multi-rush. While this might be effective, it's a one star deck based
> on an 11cap. Do or die deck, IMO.
We also have such decks here, and they usually do well enough.
> > 22/04/06 Boris Zaretsky 0 + 8*Tupdog (47) 2.57
>
> weenie rush
>
> > 30/04/06 H.S. Skarsten Larsen 0 + 8*Tupdog (54) 2.18
>
> weenie rush.
Both decks are something average between rush and swarm bleed, as they
have too few Tupdogs. But as long as there are 8, I included these
decks.
> > 29/04/06 Tony Wedd 0 + 5*Beast (41) 5.42
>
> 1 star beast deck with support vamps.
So what? It isn't a weenie rush, so it isn't "serious" by your
definition. Arika decks are going to consider it quite serious, I
guess :)
> > 22/04/06 Jeff Lamothe 10/6 (50) 3.34
>
> weenie for rush.
Again, a rush deck with some bleed elements (bruise & bleed?) Just 10
Rush cards - not a "serious rush" by your definion.
>
> > 08/04/06 Eric Torstensson 4*Enkidu+Karsh (41) 7.00
>
> And this must be a metagame thing. No rushes and only Enkidu can get into
> combat except for light intercept. heavy combat metagame, or metagame with a
> lot of fatties. This is more an intercept combat decks, IMO.
> > 25/03/06 Benoit Olivieri 3 + 4*Enkidu (47) 5.16 (only Enkidu
> > fights)
>
> and it's more an intercept deck than a pure rush deck. again one star deck.
Nobody would play Enkidu is he isn't going to rush. The "untap for
retainer" ability is nice, but it doesn't make Enkidu as good blocker
as Lazverinus. Laz can play Eternal Vigilance, Eagle's Sight and
Telepathic Misdirection, Enkidu cannot. Any deck based on Enkidu is
either a rush deck or just stupid, IMHO. If you aren't going to rush a
lot, take another vampire.
>
> > 26/02/06 Johannes Walch 18/1 (54) 3.59
>
> weenie pot rush with Beast.
The deck that most corresponds to your definition. Almost the single
one...
> > 21/01/06 Kari Makinen 14 (40) 6.50
>
> multi rush
Sure. And a "star deck" with Matata, too. Not a "competitive deck" by
your definition :) But actually, quite effective, though not against
S&B.
>
> > 27/08/05 Ramon Moure 5*Enkidu (40) 6.84
>
> another metagame thing, I expect. And only 10 player tourney.
If it was the only Enkidu deck, we could dismiss it, but it isn't the
only one.
> > 09/07/05 Jon Glas 8/0 (46) 2.85
>
> weenie rush
Yes, but not a "serious rush deck" by your definition having only 8
rush actions. Really.
> > 30/06/05 John Bell 8+Ossian+Garou (54) 3.16
>
> weenie for.
And yet another "not serious enough rush deck" by your definition.
> > 15/05/05 Giovanni Cisterna 6+ 2*Theo (52) 7.08
>
> brujah princes. With deflection and second trad. not a rush deck.
Maybe. But 6 rush actions + 2 Theo Bells provide more rush actions
than were in John Glas's deck. There is no clear definition what is
rush deck and what isn't, and this deck has decent rush abilities in
my eyes.
>
> Who says that weenie need to be 4 or lower? And a number of the above are
> not rush decks.
AFAIK, weenies are 1-4 caps, 5-8 are midcaps, 9+ are fatties. Aren't
they? IMHO, the most simple criteria for a weenie deck is the average
capacity. If you have less than 4, it's weenie, if not - it's a midcap
deck. Maybe, "low midcap", but still not weenie.
Nobody has the distinct rule to determine which deck is "rush" and
which isn't. Some decks are both rush and intercept or rush and bleed.
My criteria was: at least 8 rush cards (including vampires able to
rush) or at least 4 vampires able to rush, and at least 35 combat
cards. Giovanni's Euro-Brujah met all these criteria.
> >So, "the
> > only viable rush deck is a weenie rush deck" is absolutely wrong
> > statement.
>
> mostly, yes it isn't. with the exception of big cap multi-rushers. But those
> are one star decks and die by virtue of DI or Pentex Subversion....
There are also very effective midcap multi-rushers that are not "one-
star". Actually, from these decks I like Dennis Gerard's POT/CEL/for
multirush most.
> >Moreover, Jarkko Suvela's deck shouldn't be counted as a
> > weenie Rush since only Xaviar can fight there...
> > I should note that there are NO "serious rush decks" by your
> > definition (12-15 rushes and 2-4 Haven Uncovered) here :D
>
> duh. most of them are tupdog decks. they don't need it. There is no cel gun
> deck in there, fr.ex. And the weenie pot decks have beast to offset the
> lower number of rush cards.
Not most of them are Tupdog decks (only five), and two of them have
just 8 Tupdogs. Surely they don't need rush cards, but the definition
still doesn't work here.
> > The closest
> > one is Johannes Walch's deck, most others are different. This should
> > at least teach you to think about the words you're posting.
>
> why? I'm still not convinced by what your saying.
>
> First you say:
> rush decks? bah! I always kill them.
> I say: not if it's a good one.
> then you go and post a list of decks that you think you can kill.... what's
> that proof?
We were talking about your words on the "serious rush decks". In
reality there are competitive rush decks that don't correspond to your
theory, and decks that do correspond (or almost correspond) are
MINORITY in the TWDA. That's why I wrote that you should think about
the words you're posting, especially when you're going to generalize.
Now let's talk about the chances of Dem-weenie against these decks as
a predator. Let's assume that I'm going to have at least 5-6 vampires
(average capacity 3.6 and pool from Kindred Spirits easily allow
this). I also have 4 allies that can block rushes and 2 DIs in the
latest variant that can cancel them. I will definitely attempt to
resque every torporized vampire I can. How many Rush actions is needed
to stop my deck, then? 5-6 successful rushes in one turn would
probably be enough, but this requires a lot of vampires and an ideal
card flow. IMHO, the average number is 9-10 rushes, and they must
perform these rushes in 3-4 turns.
Beast decks (2): Easy prey. Too little rush cards. Even if Beast would
kill one my vampire per turn, I will oust such deck pretty soon.
Heavy Tupdogs (3): Can be problematic, but generally I can manage
this. See the detailed explanation below.
Light Tupdogs (2): Not a problem most of the time - too little
Tupdogs. Eight isn't enough to stop my deck, and they aren't going to
appear in large numbers.
Enkidu/Xaviar (4): Not a problem at all.
Low-rush decks (3): Not a problem most of the time. Obviously, if you
have 8 Rush cards in the entire deck, you cannot get them all when you
need them. Euro-Brujah may be a problem due to their bounce and 2nd
Trads, however.
The rest are two weenie rush decks, one "low-midcap" deck and three
multirush decks. These decks may represent a serious threat for me.
But look, there are just 6 decks of 20, only 30%! That's why I can
claim that I'm going to oust the majority of popular rush decks easily
enough.
Besides, having just 10 rush cards in the deck isn't going to be
enough against me, and Haven Uncovered really works as a common rush
at +1 stealth against me, since one his rush is usually enough to kill
my vamp. But it can force me to forget about resque that vampire,
though.
>
> > As I've expected, my DEM/obf deck has a good chance to oust most of
> > these decks. Decks with fatties are too slow to hold my assault, and
> > deck with less than 10 rush cards are going to run out of them. Euro-
> > Brujah may block somebody with 2nd Traditions and bounce my bleeds,
> > but I don't think that they will have enough copies of these cards to
> > survive.
> > Most of the weenie decks here are Tupdog decks, and they are going to
> > lose if they concentrate on killing all my vampires (even if they
> > succeed!), since they would constantly lose their pool and their
> > Tupdogs. So I think that I will be able to deal with such prey without
> > much risking of betrayal - he will just run out of Tupdogs.
>
> And you don't have a predator????
Surely I have a predator, and I'm going to lose as well. But how
killing me is going to save my prey? He will lose some finite
resources (pool and Tupdogs) to stop me, and I will bleed him for some
pool. He's going to become weakened and face the new predator. So we
are likely to get 0VPs if he concentrates on rushing me. If we deal,
he will get at least 1-2 VP, and I will have some time to develop my
position - get pool from Kindred Spirits, influence more vampires and
allies. He may help me to stop my predator, I can help him to oust his
prey. He will simply run out of Tupdogs to kill me when we remain as
the last players.
Besides, the Tupdog deck use the unusual combat package: IGs, Raking
Talons and Torn Signposts. They don't make their victims to lose a lot
of blood, as they're trying to Graverob the torporized vamps. And,
frankly, how much would they get from Graverobbing a DEM-weenie
without any DEM cards in their library? It would be much more logical
to Graverob some fatty for them.
> > Alternatively, I can influence several vampires at once, and my prey
> > isn't going to have enough Tupdogs to kill them all at once.
>
> only if you know which deck he is playing in advance.
This is usually simple enough. They are going to influence the first
Tupdog on turn 2, if not on turn 1 if they see your Jackie, Eddie or
Midget on turn 1.
> > The only problematic decks here are the decks with a lot of Rush cards
> > - weenies (Johannes Walch's) or midcap multirush (Denis Gerard's).
>
> You mean: serious rush decks?
I mean what I've said. I don't divide the decks to "serious" and "non-
serious": any deck archetype that won several tournaments in different
countries is good enough in my eyes. When I don't understand how the
deck managed to win, it's probably my problem, not the problem of the
deck.
> > Even against them I still have some chances, maybe low, but
> > nevertheless.
>
> > Please note that the deck variant without the Veils would have
> > problems against ALL these decks, especially against Tupdogs.
>
> why? one stealth is enough to go past them...
Sure. But you cannot have 20 Mind Tricks - they would just jam in your
hand. When you are limited to only one available Action Modifier, you
cannot use it in large quantities. With 10 Tricks you are going to
play without it quite often, since you will need Tricks for EACH bleed
of your vampires with inferior DEM. If you put more, you will often
have 3 copies or more in your hand, lose a lot of blood and actually
play with a smaller hand size.
That's why Veils bring a serious difference: you gain another stealth
card type, and you really can have 20 stealth cards suitable for
inferior DEM vampires (10+10) without risking of getting a serious
hand jam. I have just 15 (10 Veils + 5 Tricks), but the deck isn't
tested yet.
>
> By the time Enkidu gets that far, he should have been killed by your deck...
He may get his Raven Spy in time... after all, they usually have 5-6
copies. Yes, you will still oust him, but it can take more time and
you may be weakened much more.
>
> > Also, a deck with Veils can generate up to +4 stealth with superior
> > Dementation, and it generates +3 stealth much more reliably which may
> > be crucial againt Second Traditions.
>
> unless they kill the obf vamps first....
I have 8 vampires with Obfuscate and only 4 without it :) This is very
unlikely.
Yours,
Ector
Kushiel
> So half of the mentioned tournament-winning decks (that are not weenie
> pot, weenie cel or tupdog) are not really competitive?
I'm not sure where mine fell on the side of competitive or not (Jeroen
seemed unimpressed by my inclusion of wakes), but let me chime in here
by saying that the deck really shouldn't be in the TWDA. Or at least,
you shouldn't use it as a data point. It won purely by accident, and
wasn't even in the finals until three or four people left after the
third round - and it was only a 12-person tournament to begin with...
John Eno
Ector
Peter D Bakija wrote:
> On Apr 4, 4:59 am, "Ector" <E...@mail.ru> wrote:
> > Killing all my vampires isn't going to be easy to any rush deck, even
> > to the weenie rush. As you can see from my response to Jeroen, most
> > popular rush deck would fail to stop me in time.
>
> This is an incorrect assumption. Rush that is good at killing is going
> to mangle either deck under discussion here. Due to an utter lack of
> combat defense other than an occasional Dodge.
this deck. But how many Rush actions it will need? With average
capacity 3.6 I'm going to field 5-6 vampires. Plus, I have 4 allies
that can block rushes and two DIs (in the last variant) that can
cancel them. I think that the rush deck will need at least 5 rushes in
one turn, or up to 10 rushes in several turns. Not all rush decks are
capable of this. For instance, a single Beast isn't going to stop me,
only slow me a bit. Overall, if my prey would rush only 2 of my
vampires per turn, I will still oust it.
So, the number of Rush cards is crucial. And if you allow them to
block you, they will save some rush cards.
>
> > Well, let's choose the simplest way. Which deck is going to have
> > better chances against Second Traditions: a deck with Veils or a deck
> > without them?
>
> Neither. Consistient +2 intercept and untap is likely to kill either
> of these decks.
Did I talk about "consistent" +2 intercept and untap? No. A typical
deck usually has 6-10 Second Traditions, some have 12, but not more
(at least not in the TWDA). Such number doesn't grant "consistent" +2
intercept and untap, especially against a deck with 5-6 vampires. Yes,
they can block some of my vampires with inferior Dementation, but not
with superior. I have 32 stealth cards of four types, and I'm going to
pass through 2nd Trad quite frequently. Without Veils you will have
problems, right.
> > I still cannot see the situations where the deck without Veils can be
> > better. Probably if your prey will be stupid enough and completely
> > refuse to block you for some mysterious reason?
>
> Your prey often completely refuses to block you. Without being stupid.
> 'Cause they are playing a deck that either:
>
> A) Is nothing but forward momentum.
>
> B) Has no intercept or untap built in.
Even such decks should attempt to block you. My variant of DEM-weenie
"is nothing but forward momentum", it doesn't have even Wakes, but I
would still attempt to block your vampires with inferiour Dementation.
At least with my allies or when I cannot bleed more than for 1. The
reason is described below...
> In these cases, it is silly to try and block when your block attempt
> consists of "My guy with zero intercept tries to block your stealth
> bleed minion again. Oh, you get +1 stealth? Damn..." Even if it costs
> the acting minion a blood.
Why I'm going to block your vampire with inferior Dem if I have no
intercept? Because your stealth is limited to Mind Tricks, and you
cannot have 20 Mind Tricks in your deck. If you try, you will get
tremendous hand jams and will often be unable to generate enough
stealth even with superior Dementation. So you are generally limited
to 10-12 Mind Tricks, and you are likely to run out of them if I will
constantly attempt to block you.
If you have two vampires with inferior Dementation, you will need two
Mind Tricks per turn. Having two is very likely, since you will
influence 5-6 vampires, or even more. So why I shouldn't attempt to
block you even though my deck has only forward momentum? I will
definitely prefer to leave one vampire for blocking if he cannot do
anything better than bleed for 1.
And the lost blood is a factor, too. Eddie will lose two bleed actions
after Mind Tricks. If I'm playing some blood-denial deck, I'm going to
be HAPPY with your Mind Tricks, as you will allow me to shut down your
vampires very quickly. Any rush deck would torporize you more easily.
And so on. Twelve Mind Tricks mean 12 blood lost, and even 1 blood
lost may force somebody to hunt.
With Veils you are not more limited to one card type for vampires with
inferior Dementation. This means that you're not that limited in the
number of copies, too. That's why the deck became much better with the
Veils.
Yours,
Ector
Peter D Bakija
> I don't doubt that a decent Rush deck will torporize any vampire of
> this deck. But how many Rush actions it will need?
If someone has a Rush deck and it wants to totally kill the weenie
Dementation deck that is behind it, it will likely do so.
> Did I talk about "consistent" +2 intercept and untap? No. A typical
> deck usually has 6-10 Second Traditions, some have 12, but not more
> (at least not in the TWDA).
You are putting way too much weight into the TWDA. It is interesting
to see what decks win tournaments. It is fun to get your deck in the
TWDA. The TWDA might be viable for generating some generalities ("vote
decks seem to be doing ok"). Sometimes it is interesting to try and
use the TWDA to generate some sort of data (i.e. "How many Telepathic
Misdirections show up in the TWDA vs Telepathic Counters?") that
doesn't actually do anything other than illuminate the TWDA. But for
every deck in the TWDA, there were at least 9 others. And at least 4
others that were good enough to get into the finals. And any given TWD
could very well have gotten into the finals as last seed or by virtue
of someone having to go home early, and then won by accident. So
really, you gotta let the thing go some.
> Even such decks should attempt to block you. My variant of DEM-weenie
> "is nothing but forward momentum", it doesn't have even Wakes, but I
> would still attempt to block your vampires with inferiour Dementation.
That is not necessarily the best idea. If you have zero intercept, and
your predator can reliably generate +1 stealth, even if it costs a
blood off a 2 cap vampire, it is usually better to simply leave them
the blood and use your minion to do something useful instead.
> Why I'm going to block your vampire with inferior Dem if I have no
> intercept? Because your stealth is limited to Mind Tricks, and you
> cannot have 20 Mind Tricks in your deck. If you try, you will get
> tremendous hand jams and will often be unable to generate enough
> stealth even with superior Dementation.
I won't get tremendous hand jams if my prey stubornly insists on
trying to block every action my inferior dementation vampire takes,
even though he can't generate any intercept...
-Peter
Peter D Bakija
> Enkidu decks are so popular, for instance, but as long as we have
> three Enkidu decks in TWDA, we HAVE to assume that they are popular.
Well, actually, no, we don't.
We have to assume that three of them won some tournaments recently,
and can figure that this might mean that they are popular, or we can
figure that this might mean that they aren't necessarily popular yet
are unreasonably good or we can figure that this might mean that these
three decks being in the TWDA are the result of outside forces that
are not reflected in the information we have.
The TWDA, as noted, is a fun resource, and is likely to reflect
certain trends , and certainly is an interesting font of possibly
useful data. But it is hardly a concrete indication of anything at
all.
-Peter
Ector
> On Apr 5, 6:21 am, "Ector" <E...@mail.ru> wrote:
>
> > I don't doubt that a decent Rush deck will torporize any vampire of
> > this deck. But how many Rush actions it will need?
>
> If someone has a Rush deck and it wants to totally kill the weenie
> Dementation deck that is behind it, it will likely do so.
and closer to the Jeroen's.
> > Did I talk about "consistent" +2 intercept and untap? No. A typical
> > deck usually has 6-10 Second Traditions, some have 12, but not more
> > (at least not in the TWDA).
>
> You are putting way too much weight into the TWDA. It is interesting
> to see what decks win tournaments. It is fun to get your deck in the
> TWDA. The TWDA might be viable for generating some generalities ("vote
> decks seem to be doing ok"). Sometimes it is interesting to try and
> use the TWDA to generate some sort of data (i.e. "How many Telepathic
> Misdirections show up in the TWDA vs Telepathic Counters?") that
> doesn't actually do anything other than illuminate the TWDA. But for
> every deck in the TWDA, there were at least 9 others. And at least 4
> others that were good enough to get into the finals. And any given TWD
> could very well have gotten into the finals as last seed or by virtue
> of someone having to go home early, and then won by accident. So
> really, you gotta let the thing go some.
It's obvious that some decks win by chance, or for some other reasons
that doesn't correspond to their "quality". But statistics allows to
make some generalization from the large numbers. If there are one deck
of some type in the TWDA, this may mean nothing, if there are three,
it should mean something. If there are ten, we can derive some
"rules". At least it's better source for making theories than
somebody's personal opinion, IMHO.
> > Even such decks should attempt to block you. My variant of DEM-weenie
> > "is nothing but forward momentum", it doesn't have even Wakes, but I
> > would still attempt to block your vampires with inferiour Dementation.
>
> That is not necessarily the best idea. If you have zero intercept, and
> your predator can reliably generate +1 stealth, even if it costs a
> blood off a 2 cap vampire, it is usually better to simply leave them
> the blood and use your minion to do something useful instead.
Can the vampire with inferior Dem and only Mind Tricks RELIABLY
generate +1 stealth? This is the point. I say no, he cannot. You
simply cannot have enough Tricks.
> > Why I'm going to block your vampire with inferior Dem if I have no
> > intercept? Because your stealth is limited to Mind Tricks, and you
> > cannot have 20 Mind Tricks in your deck. If you try, you will get
> > tremendous hand jams and will often be unable to generate enough
> > stealth even with superior Dementation.
>
> I won't get tremendous hand jams if my prey stubornly insists on
> trying to block every action my inferior dementation vampire takes,
> even though he can't generate any intercept...
If you put 20 Mind Tricks, you will get hand jams quite often. This
would mean that you will often be unable to get more than +1 intercept
even with superior Dementation, and one Raven Spy would be enough to
block them. So please don't tell me that you are going to put 20.
Everybody knows that you aren't going to do this, so blocking you can
be quite logical.
I think that you realize the advantage of Veils now, but you still
continue to argue. I was punished a lot for such behaviour here, but
for me, it's OK. I never miss a good discussion :)
Yours,
Ector
Peter D Bakija
"Ector" <Ec...@mail.ru> wrote:
> I think that you realize the advantage of Veils now, but you still
> continue to argue.
No, as I said, I think the deck without Veils is pretty good. The deck
with Veils is pretty good. I don't think the deck with Veils is
significantly better than the deck without Veils.
Ector
> On Apr 5, 1:49 am, "Ector" <E...@mail.ru> wrote:
>
> > Some patterns are really clear here. I was surprised myself that
> > Enkidu decks are so popular, for instance, but as long as we have
> > three Enkidu decks in TWDA, we HAVE to assume that they are popular.
>
> Well, actually, no, we don't.
>
> We have to assume that three of them won some tournaments recently,
> and can figure that this might mean that they are popular, or we can
> figure that this might mean that they aren't necessarily popular yet
> are unreasonably good or we can figure that this might mean that these
> three decks being in the TWDA are the result of outside forces that
> are not reflected in the information we have.
that the pattern won't be representative enough, random enough or
something else. But when we need statistics, we still use it. There
are no better things for generalization at our disposal.
> The TWDA, as noted, is a fun resource, and is likely to reflect
> certain trends , and certainly is an interesting font of possibly
> useful data. But it is hardly a concrete indication of anything at
> all.
Well, at least, one can safely say: "Playing more than 12 Second
Traditions isn't very good, as nobody wins with such numbers". The
number of decks is large enough, they were played by different
players, at different tournaments and in different metagames.
Statistics works good enough in this case.
Yours,
Ector
Peter D Bakija
"Ector" <Ec...@mail.ru> wrote:
> This is the common thing about statistics. There's always a chance
> that the pattern won't be representative enough, random enough or
> something else. But when we need statistics, we still use it. There
> are no better things for generalization at our disposal.
Yet still, you should stop clinging to the TWDA as if it is the word.
Make unfounded generalizations. They are more likely to get you
somewhere.
> Well, at least, one can safely say: "Playing more than 12 Second
> Traditions isn't very good, as nobody wins with such numbers".
I don't think one actually can safely say that. I have played with and
against decks that played with more than 12 Second Traditions. And they
did fine. And won sometimes too.
> Statistics works good enough in this case.
And yet said statistics are faulty.
witness1
> Make unfounded generalizations. They are more likely to get you
> somewhere.
Pure. Comedy. Gold.
witness1
-will you have my children?
Peter D Bakija
"witness1" <jwnew...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> Pure. Comedy. Gold.
Thank you, thank you. I'm here all week. Try the veal...
:-)
Ector
> In article <1175805558.765464.243...@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
>
> No, as I said, I think the deck without Veils is pretty good. The deck
> with Veils is pretty good. I don't think the deck with Veils is
> significantly better than the deck without Veils.
Are we discussing here whether the decks are "pretty good" or not
"pretty" good? I thought that we are discussing whether the deck is
better with the Veils or not.
OK, I have no choice but to demonstrate you the difference on the
examples. Please tell me how many copies of Confusion, Deny and Mind
Tricks are you going to have in your deck without Veils to have a
common ground for the discussion.
Yours,
Ector
James Coupe
Ector <Ec...@mail.ru> writes:
>Well, at least, one can safely say: "Playing more than 12 Second
>Traditions isn't very good, as nobody wins with such numbers". The
>number of decks is large enough, they were played by different
>players, at different tournaments and in different metagames.
>Statistics works good enough in this case.
No, you can't say that.
The TWDA doesn't include all tournament winning decks because not all
are submitted. It doesn't cover casual games, and there are a variety
of players who play a lot of casual games but relatively few tournaments
for whatever reason (not many tournaments locally, dislike tournament
atmosphere, can't play in the relevant location, and so on), some of
whom are very good players indeed. For example, Lady Legbiter has been
a very solid and thoughtful player, but I don't think she's ever played
in a tournament.
It may also indicate an unexplored avenue. Before Legbiter started
doing batshit insane[0] things with Betrayer, pretty much no-one played
Betrayer at all. Ditto, Temptation of Greater Power. Due to changes in
the game (Grouping, and a nerf of ToGP) neither is playable *now*, but
had Legbiter looked at the TWDA, or a hypothetical equivalent, when he
screwed every last drop of power out of those cards, he'd never have
done it. Why? Computer says "No."
[0] I mean this in an *entirely* positive way.
--
James Coupe
PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D YOU ARE IN ERROR.
EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 NO-ONE IS SCREAMING.
13D7E668C3695D623D5D THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.
James Coupe
Not a fair comparison.
A deck that was planning to include and make use of Psychic Veil would
(or, at least, *should*) be constructed differently to one that isn't.
The discipline choice on vampires could be quite different.
Additionally, any given mono-Dem deck might end up using very similar
ratios of those cards to the Veil deck, but also include Dive into
Madness, which comes with a built-in untap at inferior, which provides
more potential speed than the Veil (which means one vampire gifts one or
more vampires with stealth, but uses up their action).
Peter D Bakija
"Ector" <Ec...@mail.ru> wrote:
> Are we discussing here whether the decks are "pretty good" or not
> "pretty" good? I thought that we are discussing whether the deck is
> better with the Veils or not.
I'm not entirely sure what you are discussing here. You seem to think
that the Veils make the deck better. I don't think you are necessarily
correct. Thus, I keep saying that both decks are "pretty good". Without
Veils, a weenie dementation deck is "pretty good". If you monkey around
with it and add Veils, it'll still be "pretty good". I'm wildly
unconvinced that the addition of Veils is going to make the deck
significantly better than it already was.
> OK, I have no choice but to demonstrate you the difference on the
> examples.
No, you also have the choice of going "Oh, ok. Never mind."
Ector
> In message <1175838140.712151.268...@w1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
>
> Not a fair comparison.
>
> A deck that was planning to include and make use of Psychic Veil would
> (or, at least, *should*) be constructed differently to one that isn't.
> The discipline choice on vampires could be quite different.
good idea! I will think about it, thanks...
Actually, the crypt is almost the same here (one vampire different,
but I guess it isn't important to Peter).
> Additionally, any given mono-Dem deck might end up using very similar
> ratios of those cards to the Veil deck, but also include Dive into
> Madness, which comes with a built-in untap at inferior, which provides
> more potential speed than the Veil (which means one vampire gifts one or
> more vampires with stealth, but uses up their action).
My deck includes some Dives, too. It's a good cards for this deck, but
it brings the additional risk if your *predator* happens to be a
serious intercept deck (Second Tradition will be enough). Normally,
DEM-weenie plays mostly (D) actions, so the predator will need Eagle's
Sight or Anneke to block, but Dive provides him this opportunity for
free. Besides, you cannot put a lot of them to avoid hand jams (this
deck really needs to have some stealth cards and some bleed cards all
the time).
Veil the Legions is free - you don't have to sacrifice any actions.
Yours,
Ector
Ector
>
> I'm not entirely sure what you are discussing here. You seem to think
> that the Veils make the deck better. I don't think you are necessarily
> correct. Thus, I keep saying that both decks are "pretty good". Without
> Veils, a weenie dementation deck is "pretty good". If you monkey around
> with it and add Veils, it'll still be "pretty good". I'm wildly
> unconvinced that the addition of Veils is going to make the deck
> significantly better than it already was.
1). You can use more stealth cards for your vampires with inferior
Dem, and you can provide up to +2 stealth for them.
2). You can get up to +4 stealth with superior Dem, and +3 stealth is
much more realistic (so you can penetrate Second Traditions).
3). You are much less predictable. Nobody can predict how many stealth
you can generate.
In my eyes, this is enough to consider it the better version.
> > OK, I have no choice but to demonstrate you the difference on the
> > examples.
>
> No, you also have the choice of going "Oh, ok. Never mind."
Well, if you wish, then, OK, never mind :)
Yours,
Ector
Peter D Bakija
"Ector" <Ec...@mail.ru> wrote:
> I think that the version with Veils is better for these reasons:
Yes, I realize that you think the version with Veils is better. Which
you are perfectly welcome to do. I don't think you are correct, however.
> 1). You can use more stealth cards for your vampires with inferior
> Dem, and you can provide up to +2 stealth for them.
Yep. Which is not shabby. But if you build the deck to either have
plenty of skill cards (so you get a lot of DEM) and Dive into Madness
(so you get lots of DEM) or can simply not worry about the little guys
with dem getting blocked, the lack of obf stealth isn't really a big
deal.
> 2). You can get up to +4 stealth with superior Dem, and +3 stealth is
> much more realistic (so you can penetrate Second Traditions).
+3 stealth from pure DEM is usually just as good.
> 3). You are much less predictable. Nobody can predict how many stealth
> you can generate.
"Hmm. You have a guy with dem and a guy with dem/obf untapped. The guy
with dem can get +2 stealth. The guy with dem/obf can get +1." That
seems pretty predictable. But ok.
> In my eyes, this is enough to consider it the better version.
Clearly. Which you are welcome to do.
> Well, if you wish, then, OK, never mind :)
See, that wasn't hard.
Ector
> In article <1176059854.145300.140...@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
>
> "Ector" <E...@mail.ru> wrote:
> > 1). You can use more stealth cards for your vampires with inferior
> > Dem, and you can provide up to +2 stealth for them.
>
> Yep. Which is not shabby. But if you build the deck to either have
> plenty of skill cards (so you get a lot of DEM) and Dive into Madness
> (so you get lots of DEM) or can simply not worry about the little guys
> with dem getting blocked, the lack of obf stealth isn't really a big
> deal.
Surely I will try to get superior DEM for all my vampires. So I also
have skill cards and Dives. But you don't always get the cards you
need, and the other player don't always allow you to play them
(especially Dives). And I definitely worry about little guys getting
blocked, since I'm playing weenie to get advantage from the superior
numbers, and I'm not going to lose this advantage.
> > 2). You can get up to +4 stealth with superior Dem, and +3 stealth is
> > much more realistic (so you can penetrate Second Traditions).
>
> +3 stealth from pure DEM is usually just as good.
But your chances to get it are smaller. Even if you put 12 Confusions,
12 Mind Tricks and 12 Deny (which you aren't going to do, I presume),
your chances of having them ALL in your hand aren't very good.
> > 3). You are much less predictable. Nobody can predict how many stealth
> > you can generate.
>
> "Hmm. You have a guy with dem and a guy with dem/obf untapped. The guy
> with dem can get +2 stealth. The guy with dem/obf can get +1." That
> seems pretty predictable. But ok.
You know that most vampires here have superior Dementation, so the
last vamp can get up to +3 stealth without the Veil. Thus, I'm NOT as
predictable as you're trying to demonstrate.
Yours,
Ector
Jeroen Rombouts
"Kushiel" <invisibl...@gmail.com> schreef in bericht
news:1175753069....@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> On Apr 5, 1:49 am, "Ector" <E...@mail.ru> wrote:
>> So half of the mentioned tournament-winning decks (that are not weenie
>> pot, weenie cel or tupdog) are not really competitive?
>
> I'm not sure where mine fell on the side of competitive or not (Jeroen
> seemed unimpressed by my inclusion of wakes),
no offence, I just don't see them being usefull in most circumstances.
Unless people do a lot of 0 stealth actions in your environment....
Kushiel
wrote:
> "Kushiel" <invisibleking...@gmail.com> schreef in berichtnews:1175753069....@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
Heh. I'm usually amused at decks that don't include wakes, because 0-
stealth actions really do happen...
But don't worry about having offended me. I was mostly just curious if
that was the criteron that you were hanging "not serious rush" on, or
if there was some other reason.
John Eno
James Coupe
Rombouts <jeroen.r...@telenet.be> writes:
>no offence, I just don't see them being usefull in most circumstances.
>Unless people do a lot of 0 stealth actions in your environment....
I have no idea about that particular environment, but a lot of rush
decks are doing zero stealth actions and not a lot else. Obviously,
there'll be the possibility of some +1 stealth hunts, some +1 stealth
rescues and so on, but there are a lot of zero stealth rushes, zero
stealth bleeds, and zero stealth diableries. The odd wake against such
a deck could mean that a chump takes a fist to the face instead of a
better vampire, which isn't a bad thing, usually.
Chump blockers as a form of "combat defence" has a long history, though
rarely gets the headlines that things like Majesty or Obedience do.
Jeroen Rombouts
"James Coupe" <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> schreef in bericht
news:coy4Ak3Y...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk...
> In message <KezSh.111769$iw1.7...@phobos.telenet-ops.be>, Jeroen
> Rombouts <jeroen.r...@telenet.be> writes:
>>no offence, I just don't see them being usefull in most circumstances.
>>Unless people do a lot of 0 stealth actions in your environment....
>
> I have no idea about that particular environment, but a lot of rush
> decks are doing zero stealth actions and not a lot else. Obviously,
> there'll be the possibility of some +1 stealth hunts, some +1 stealth
> rescues and so on, but there are a lot of zero stealth rushes, zero
> stealth bleeds, and zero stealth diableries. The odd wake against such
> a deck could mean that a chump takes a fist to the face instead of a
> better vampire, which isn't a bad thing, usually.
>
> Chump blockers as a form of "combat defence" has a long history, though
> rarely gets the headlines that things like Majesty or Obedience do.
>
that need combat defence?
Jeroen Rombouts
Yeah. most 0 stealth action I'm used to will either be stealthed through or
be a rush card. Neither of with a rush deck needs a wake for. Maybe against
weenie pre bleed.
Kushiel
wrote:
> Yeah. most 0 stealth action I'm used to will either be stealthed through or
> be a rush card.
Fair enough, I guess. I see zero-stealth actions happen all the time.
And, really, the worst-case scenario is that you sit next to two
people whom you're not going to be able to block. In which case, it's
not like the wakes are difficult to cycle.
> Neither of with a rush deck needs a wake for. Maybe against
> weenie pre bleed.
I can think of quite a few others, too, but I guess zero-stealth non-
rush actions are just a myth outside my playgroup. ;)
John Eno
Kushiel
wrote:
> I know what you mean, but we were talking about the rush deck itself. Does
> that need combat defence?
In a combat-light environment? Not likely.
In a combat-heavy environment? It's very possible.
John Eno
James Coupe
Pretty much summarizes the post I've just discarded a draft of.
I'd also add:
- trump-combat, which can be really bloody annoying
- especially helpful vampires can get screwed even in rush decks, like
the master for your Tupdogs, or perhaps some Blood Brother
weirdness with some SAN or something hanging around.
Jeroen Rombouts
True. But you can never ever cover all holes in your strategy, right? Every
combat has its trump. I don't see how having a couple of chump blockers will
help against any kind of hit back or trumpy combat. Unless you play a one
star deck or have some minion that's crucial for your deck. Then again, I
never played in a combat heavy environment(*), so what do I know ;-)
*excepting 2 games while testing the Gatling Engine. 12 Obedience and a
couple of skin of steel seemed to do the trick :-)
Kushiel
wrote:
> True. But you can never ever cover all holes in your strategy, right? Every
> combat has its trump. I don't see how having a couple of chump blockers will
> help against any kind of hit back or trumpy combat. Unless you play a one
> star deck or have some minion that's crucial for your deck. Then again, I
> never played in a combat heavy environment(*), so what do I know ;-)
Right on all points.
Keep in mind, though, that blocking rushes with a chump rather than an
important guy was just one use of wakes in a deck that generates no
intercept or bounce. Really, in my experience it's pretty rare to see
a game in which there are simply no zero-stealth actions taken, and
even if you come to that point, wakes are trivially easy to cycle.
John Eno
legbiter
> In message <1175806128.153048.120...@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
>
> Ector <E...@mail.ru> writes:
> >Well, at least, one can safely say: "Playing more than 12 Second
> >Traditions isn't very good, as nobody wins with such numbers". The
> >number of decks is large enough, they were played by different
> >players, at different tournaments and in different metagames.
> >Statistics works good enough in this case.
>
> No, you can't say that.
>
> The TWDA doesn't include all tournament winning decks because not all
> are submitted. It doesn't cover casual games, and there are a variety
> of players who play a lot of casual games but relatively few tournaments
> for whatever reason (not many tournaments locally, dislike tournament
> atmosphere, can't play in the relevant location, and so on), some of
> whom are very good players indeed. For example, Lady Legbiter has been
> a very solid and thoughtful player, but I don't think she's ever played
> in a tournament.
She did once, in Bath, so's I, erm, we, could get an extra promo. And
did better than me IIRC, using toolbox Tzimisce.
>
> It may also indicate an unexplored avenue. Before Legbiter started
> doing batshit insane[0] things with Betrayer, pretty much no-one played
> Betrayer at all. Ditto, Temptation of Greater Power. Due to changes in
> the game (Grouping, and a nerf of ToGP) neither is playable *now*, but
> had Legbiter looked at the TWDA, or a hypothetical equivalent, when he
> screwed every last drop of power out of those cards, he'd never have
> done it. Why? Computer says "No."
>
> [0] I mean this in an *entirely* positive way.
I still think every deck that fields/might field a Justicar ought to
contain a ToGP, Nerf or no nerf. The original ToGP deck "kagemusha"
only contained one. Winning games with that deck is how i discovered
how good ToGP can be.
mgre...@googlemail.com
> On Apr 6, 8:05 am, James Coupe <j...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote:
> > The TWDA doesn't include all tournament winning decks because not all
> > are submitted. It doesn't cover casual games, and there are a variety
> > of players who play a lot of casual games but relatively few tournaments
> > for whatever reason (not many tournaments locally, dislike tournament
> > atmosphere, can't play in the relevant location, and so on), some of
> > whom are very good players indeed. For example, Lady Legbiter has been
> > a very solid and thoughtful player, but I don't think she's ever played
> > in a tournament.
>
> She did once, in Bath, so's I, erm, we, could get an extra promo. And
> did better than me IIRC, using toolbox Tzimisce.
Verified. One of the advantages of playing terrible decks at
tournaments (a crime I commit more often these days it seems) is that
you get time at the bar to talk with players playing the more
inovative decks, effective or otherwise. That was one such case. Red
wine as I recall.
Furthermore, anyone who's played agianst Mrs Green will vouch for the
fact that she plays a damn sight better than I do.
Matt