I just got hammered by an Una deck..you need to see this!
***JediMike***
through his ENTIRE 90 card deck in the same turn. Thank God he got
PTO'ed but not before sending both of my vampires to torpor and
following it up with a bleed of 13....in that SAME single turn. 53
freak drives!
I've been playing this game since it came out and that was the
SICKEST, WRONGEST thing I've ever seen! He swept the table the game he
previously played the deck. I'm not sure but the word "broken" came to
mind when I was getting raped by Una. But hey, thats just me. We'll see
what it continues to do.
Open for your opinions!
Here it is:
Creator-Dennis Lien from L.A.
Crypt: (12 cards, Min: 36, Max: 36, Avg: 9)
-------------------------------------------
12 Una dem ANI FOR PRE PRO 9 Gangrel
Antitribu
Library: (90 cards)
-------------------
Action (12 cards)
1 Big Game
1 Bum`s Rush
1 Harass
1 Ambush
1 Blessing of Chaos
1 Ablative Skin
1 Shadow of the Beast
1 Fire Dance
1 Eternal Vigilance
1 Clan Impersonation
1 Heart of the City
1 Tier of Souls
Action Modifier (56 cards)
****56 Freak Drive*****
Political Action (1 cards)
1 Sabbat Inquisitor
Retainer (10 cards)
1 Ghoul Retainer
1 Murder of Crows
1 Owl Companion
1 Jackie Therman
1 Raptor
1 Raven Spy
1 Mr. Winthrop
1 Robert Carter
1 Tasha Morgan
1 J. S. Simmons, Esq.
Equipment (11 cards)
1 Hawg
1 Leather Jacket
1 Ivory Bow
1 Sire`s Index Finger
1 Flak Jacket
1 IR Goggles
1 Erebus Mask
1 Seal of Veddartha
1 Eye of Hazimel
1 Laptop Computer
1 Inveraray, Scotland
***JediMike***
bjorn...@yahoo.com
than 9 in one turn?
I also notice there's no combat at all, and all of these actions are at
+1 stealth. Block just a few of them, and where does that leave Una?
The word "broken" doesn't come to mind. I'm not even certain how this
deck is meant to work.
jeff...@pacbell.net
> Clever! But each Freak Drive costs one blood, so how does Una play more
> than 9 in one turn?
Read Una's special.
> I also notice there's no combat at all, and all of these actions are at
> +1 stealth. Block just a few of them, and where does that leave Una?
>
> The word "broken" doesn't come to mind. I'm not even certain how this
> deck is meant to work.
If there is not a blocker in place when Una starts her turn, she will
go through her *entire deck* that turn. Of course, one well-placed
Direct Intervention might delay her as well.
She'll bleed for a helluva lot...
Heart of the City: +2
Tier of Souls (maybe): +1
Sabbat Inquisitor (maybe): +1
Robert Carter: +2
Tasha Morgan: +1
J.S. Simmons, Esq.: +1
Seal of Veddartha: +1
Eye of Hazimel: +1
Laptop Computer: +1
So that's guaranteed bleeds of 10, maybe 12 *every action*. And if she
tools up Inverary, even more!
Archon Investigation would ruin her day, but she'd probably clean the
table by then.
As good as this is, I bet it could be improved ever so slightly.
1x Giant's Blood (for the turn after Una goes nuclear)
1x Writ of Acceptance (cheaper anti-PTO tech than Clan Imp)
1x Aaron's Feeding Razor (she's hunting anyway to cycle Freaks, right?)
1x Starshell Grenade Launcher (just in case the Bow gets contested)
That ought to do it. ;)
Jeff
CthuluKitty
the deck in one turn, and that gets through a prey or two tops, but
isn't anyone playing with bounce? Or combat? Or intercept? And
what's this crap about not having a blocker in place? She's a 9
capacity vampire. If you don't have someone out by then there's
something pretty wrong with your crypt.
Just my thoughts. I understand that my meta is a lot different from
most, but if someone tried to pull this crap around here we would laugh
as Una was sent to torpor and diablerized within a turn of going off
like that.
Cthulukitty
Janne Hägglund
> I've been playing this game since it came out and that was the
> SICKEST, WRONGEST thing I've ever seen! He swept the table the game he
> previously played the deck. I'm not sure but the word "broken" came to
> mind when I was getting raped by Una. But hey, thats just me. We'll see
> what it continues to do.
>
> Open for your opinions!
*Falls down on his knees, in worship of absolute, merciless beauty.*
--
hg@ "If you can't offend part of your audience,
iki.fi there is no point in being an artist at all." -Hakim Bey
jeff...@pacbell.net
> I don't know how this is sweeping tables...I mean, sure she can cycle
> the deck in one turn, and that gets through a prey or two tops, but
> isn't anyone playing with bounce?
Bounced at zero stealth is easy to block.
> Or combat?
Ivory Bow, Ghoul Retainer, IR Goggles, Flak Jacket, Leather Jacket,
Ablative Skin, Shadow of the Beast, Hawg, Jackie Therman, Murder of
Crows, Fire Dance, Owl Companion, Sire's Index Finger, and Eye of
Hazimel can go a long way in combat. :P
> Or intercept?
Fine. Block any *several* of those actions. If you don't torpor her
immediately, she'll simply Freak Drive and keep the train a'rollin'.
> And
> what's this crap about not having a blocker in place? She's a 9
> capacity vampire. If you don't have someone out by then there's
> something pretty wrong with your crypt.
Which blocker? The one she rushed into the ground with one of her two
unrestricted enter combat actions? Oh, *that* blocker. Good luck
surviving three or more rounds of Ivory Bow goodness in combat with all
those maneuvers. Hell, she ought to keep that Clan Impersonation and go
Gangrel then get a Dog Pack just to deal with S:CE (and PTO).
> Just my thoughts. I understand that my meta is a lot different from
> most, but if someone tried to pull this crap around here we would laugh
> as Una was sent to torpor and diablerized within a turn of going off
> like that.
Personally I think that Una ought to have 3 weenie support
vampires/chump blockers in the crypt. The odds of seeing one of them
are pretty darn good, and you're guaranteed of seeing Una herself.
Jeff (looking for Freak Drives)
bjorn...@yahoo.com
But still. If there is not a blocker in place when she starts shopping,
well, why isn't there? And when she bleeds (as CthuluKitty says), what
if your prey bounces? Or plays Archon Investigation? Or even blocks?
Sure would you not block a bleed for 10+, even if she has the Ivory
Bow? Or if your prey has Protected Resources?
Not that it isn't a very nice and clever trick, and it would probably
come as a nasty surprise, but "broken"? I can think of dozens of ways
that it can fail.
***JediMike***
torpor. You can only block so many thing even if your dedicated
intercept.
***JediMike***
Janne Hägglund
> Which blocker? The one she rushed into the ground with one of her two
> unrestricted enter combat actions? Oh, *that* blocker.
Two? Are you counting Eternal Vigilance, or am I missing something?
I only found Eye of Hazimel and a bunch of non-permanent rush cards.
> surviving three or more rounds of Ivory Bow goodness in combat with all
> those maneuvers. Hell, she ought to keep that Clan Impersonation and go
> Gangrel then get a Dog Pack just to deal with S:CE (and PTO).
Going Independent will not help her against PTO. A Writ of Acceptance
would, but that would destroy her ultra-useful Eternal Vigilance. And she
can get around S:CE simply by using Freak Drives... :-P
How about adding one Direct Intervention, just for PTO?
> Personally I think that Una ought to have 3 weenie support
> vampires/chump blockers in the crypt. The odds of seeing one of them
> are pretty darn good, and you're guaranteed of seeing Una herself.
Agreed. Or more than three. That Pentex Subversion sure can ruin your
whole game...
jeff...@pacbell.net
> jeff...@pacbell.net writes:
>
> > Which blocker? The one she rushed into the ground with one of her two
> > unrestricted enter combat actions? Oh, *that* blocker.
>
> Two? Are you counting Eternal Vigilance, or am I missing something?
> I only found Eye of Hazimel and a bunch of non-permanent rush cards.
I was actually counting Bum's Rush and Big Game, both of which ought to
be in your hand along with Harass and Ambush after Una goes off. Didn't
even think about the Eye's perma-rush.
> > surviving three or more rounds of Ivory Bow goodness in combat with all
> > those maneuvers. Hell, she ought to keep that Clan Impersonation and go
> > Gangrel then get a Dog Pack just to deal with S:CE (and PTO).
>
> Going Independent will not help her against PTO. A Writ of Acceptance
> would, but that would destroy her ultra-useful Eternal Vigilance. And she
> can get around S:CE simply by using Freak Drives... :-P
Oh right. Gangrel gone Indie. I suppose you really ought to just risk
it and stay Sabbat for the EV. DI is probably sufficient for anti-vote
tech. Interestingly, if she is getting the Erebus Mask anyway (ack, I
was confusing this with Changeling Skin Mask)....
Well now, since she's gone Harbingers and has +1 stealth, I can see now
how bounce might be fairly effective.
I was thinking she could get a Changeling Skin Mask and you could pack
1x Confusion of the Eye as well just in case of PTO accidents (if you
really expected to face two PTOs in a single game).
> How about adding one Direct Intervention, just for PTO?
Or several DIs. ;)
> > Personally I think that Una ought to have 3 weenie support
> > vampires/chump blockers in the crypt. The odds of seeing one of them
> > are pretty darn good, and you're guaranteed of seeing Una herself.
>
> Agreed. Or more than three. That Pentex Subversion sure can ruin your
> whole game...
Maybe 1x DI and 1x Sudden Reversal? ;) You'd still have several Rushes
available, a couple Freaks and room for Masters.
If you didn't want to go the Harbingers/Stealth route, you could always
toss in a Waste Management Operation to cycle a Freak Drive. Rush via
Eye, Torpor, Freak, Bleed for 10+ will eventually wear down just about
anyone.
Jeff
jeff...@pacbell.net
> Action Modifier (56 cards)
> ****56 Freak Drive*****
Just because it's appropriate (even though I don't believe it)...
WE NEED CARD LIMITS!!!! ;)
Jeff
reyda
> I'll just say he took something like 53 actions in ONE turn and went
> through his ENTIRE 90 card deck in the same turn. Thank God he got
> PTO'ed but not before sending both of my vampires to torpor and
> following it up with a bleed of 13....in that SAME single turn. 53
> freak drives!
I'm not surprised it's a Dennis Deck : I remember his "Great beast tools
up with the eye of hazimel and wreaks havoc" stuff :D
A friend in paris tried the same thing a long time ago, and was fairly
succesful. He also played 7 raptors to prevent other players to harm him
in combat. He recruted them via Muricia's call and Jack of both sides to
avoid the NRA, so he could have 3 raptors in a single turn. He also
added Sargon fragment to bring back all the useful cards if needed.
The problem is the same with all mono vampire decks: you are highly
vulnerable to stuff like seduction, unpreventable damage (you have not
other vamp to protect or rescue the main star), pentex...
I'm really curious to know what other cards were at that table when
Dennis did the sweep :)
Peter D Bakija
> I've been playing this game since it came out and that was the
> SICKEST, WRONGEST thing I've ever seen! He swept the table the game he
> previously played the deck. I'm not sure but the word "broken" came to
> mind when I was getting raped by Una. But hey, thats just me. We'll see
> what it continues to do.
Yeah, I'm not quite sure if this is, like, comedy or not.
I mean, yeah, she can take 53 actions in one turn. She could potentially
bleed for a lot, but at zero stealth. She can't survive combat even
remotely--there is, like, a Murder of Crows, an Ivory Bow, a Leather Jacket,
and an Ablative Skin? You just let her take the 53 actions, when she comes
to bleed for 12 you block her with +0 intercept, and either stand around and
watch her do run out of cards as she can't really hurt you otherwise.
The real flaw is the lack of combat defense (well, and stealth)--she gets in
a fight with someone even remotely combaty, and she will end up in torpor
right quickly, and never get out, as she doesn't have any freinds to rescue
her.
Heck--her offensive abilitiy is stopped dead in its tracks by a small
handfull of Majesties. Or dodges. Or fortitude. Or, well, I'm sure you get
the point.
Peter D Bakija
pd...@lightlink.com
http://www.lightlink.com/pdb6
"So in conclusion, our business plan is to sell hot,
easily spilled liquids to naked people."
-Brittni Meil
Derek Ray
Hash: SHA1
***JediMike*** wrote:
| I'll just say he took something like 53 actions in ONE turn and went
| through his ENTIRE 90 card deck in the same turn. Thank God he got
| PTO'ed but not before sending both of my vampires to torpor and
| following it up with a bleed of 13....in that SAME single turn. 53
| freak drives!
Hee! Funny stuff.
| I've been playing this game since it came out and that was the
| SICKEST, WRONGEST thing I've ever seen! He swept the table the game he
| previously played the deck. I'm not sure but the word "broken" came to
| mind when I was getting raped by Una. But hey, thats just me. We'll see
| what it continues to do.
Well, the weaknesses here are that:
- -- All the actions are at 1 stealth, unless you hit the Clan
Impersonation before the Erebus Mask. This only matters because it
makes it very easy to block the key cards.
- -- The only ousting action the deck can take is "I bleed for (a
gazillion)", and it can only do that once per turn, and it can do that
at no more than 1 stealth. It can Rush things once it gets the Ivory
Bow, but the Bow is far from trump combat. It has a lot of maneuvers
and presses, but ... see below. Despite the card explosion on turn 1,
it is actually a fairly slow mover, so it runs a big risk of being
ousted cross-table in some fashion.
- -- There are only a few "prevent"-like cards: Ablative Skin, Fire
Dance, Flak Jacket, Leather Jacket. Leather Jacket is one-shot-only.
All those presses it has become less useful since the +1 strength from
the Eye isn't as good now.
- -- If you don't have any of the prevent cards early on, you have a
significant problem if anyone can block and do damage to you.
Specifically, block-and-agg people are the deck's primary fear; even
though it can Freak Drive and rescue itself, there's always the chance
there are two blockers available, and then it's Munch City. Also, the
self-rescue will be 2 blood that it can't necessarily afford at that
point in time.
- -- Saving your blocks for key actions can cripple the deck. Blocking
the Ivory Bow, for example, removes the vast majority of Una's combat
threat; I would have definitely included the Sargon Fragment here, to
give myself an out in case this happens. I would have used two Day
Operations as well, JUST in case -- although going to torpor is scary
for this deck.
- -- Any deck that can put Una in torpor empty, of course, will stop this
deck cold (Signpost/Blur, Magnum/Blur).
There are a lot of hidden strengths, too, though.
- -- The cardless "hunt" action is not covered under NRA anymore; I assume
this is how the deck can afford all the cards that cost blood. This is
also the deck's primary defense against "hit-you-for-lots" combat, and
why it doesn't need THAT much prevention; it can always cycle Freak
Drives and hunt itself back up for a few blood. Someone who goes after
Una while she's on 8 blood and punches her down to 3 is making a big
mistake.
- -- While some of the toys cost pool, Una's still only a 9-cap. Plenty
of spending room, especially when you can Rush backwards if things look
like big bleeders.
- -- Blocking individual actions without a clear purpose is largely
meaningless, as Una simply plows through the toys and moves on. She has
no need for ALL the bleed retainers, for example -- so being too clever
and trying to block the +bleeders is simply wasting intercept.
- -- The only chance of hand jam is being caught without a Freak Drive,
and the best chance of this is at the start of the game, when the most
non-Freak Drive cards are in the deck. If no blockers can torporize or
somehow incapacitate Una, he's almost certain to get his entire deck out
in a single turn. Actual math works out to less than .01% chance of no
Freak Drives in his first 10 cards (3 discard phases before Una can
act)... and yes, that is point oh-one percent, not 1%.
Seriously? I think this is a damned funny novelty deck,... but I don't
see it as broken. I think its slow forward motion is its biggest
weakness, and any deck that has some cross-table capacity is going to be
able to handle this effectively... although it will certainly disrupt
things while it's around. Like all the turbo decks, though, hardly a
guaranteed win... more of an all-or-nothing shot.
| Action Modifier (56 cards)
| ****56 Freak Drive*****
Uh-oh. David Tatu has some competition! :)
- --
Derek
insert clever quotation here
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (MingW32)
iD8DBQFCvs9AtQZlu3o7QpERAkvlAKDeMwik7aHEo3+i4w5zre3XIUrzEwCgk3X2
QrPXFNY3a7TlPHwjqDWuhh4=
=hy8r
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Omael
una is blocked 7 times in a turn (i just don't think that the odds of
drawing more Wakes or Forced Awakenings in a turn is even worthy
considering) but if she is torporized and manage to have 2 blood (or
other way) to exit torpor she can exit torpor and hunt 9 times and get
filled again.
The point is that it is'nt important that her actions are at 0 stealth,
if someone block her once, ok, that action wasn't succesfull, untap,
action, block her twice, ok, untap, if she got beated she hunts, hunts
hunts to get some blood, and do another action, i don't think that
after that there's anyone that CAN block her, all are tapped or
otherwise unable to block, even at 0 stealth.
And i want to know how does she sweep the table killing it's prey and
grand prey in one turn if she can only bleed once a turn.
The Kaiser
"The Name Forgotten".
And who in the hell owns 53 Freak Drives? Aren't there laws against
that sort of thing?
TTFn
Darby Keeney
100%-win kind of broken, but Una's ability is inappropriately strong in
a deck with 56 Freak Drives (no surprise).
Many of you write this deck off like it's nothing and you can block a
linch pin card to make the deck fall apart. It's not quite that easy,
though there are a few key stops (Ivory Bow, Clan Impersonation/Erebus
Mask). But you have to know they're coming and that's tough to predict
the first time to see this thing. Dennis will also do what he can to
make sure that the cards flow in an order that improves the odds of
successfully completing the action.
Other say just deflect. Right. While you've waiting to do that Dennis
gets +1 stealth, 3 maneuvers, 2 presses, 3 flavors damage prevention,
immunity to agg damage, an autorush and environmental ranged agg damage
(ghoul/bow). At some point in the turn, he will use those Bum's Rush,
Ambush and Big Game that are clogging his hand to take down your
deflectors (and maybe a stealth bleeder). So much for that plan
unless you can stop between 1 and 5 sequental rushes with environmental
agg damage kickers. Good luck with that, by the way.
Some suggested punking Una after she's tooled up. HA! Hoping you're
playing CEL/FOR - anything else will have trouble with the damage
prevention and multiround ranged environmental agg.
So sure, if you can rush Una and put her down before she gets to act,
Dennis is done. If you can block and and punk Una, Dennis is done. You
can Archon Investigate or PTO and Dennis is done. If he gets bled
heavily early, or late at stealth, Dennis is done. Every deck has weak
spots, and this is no exception. We're simply saying Una is
overpowered in this situation.
With regards to adding stuff like DI - Dennis said (and I agree) that
you want to avoid adding anything that might contribute to hand jam,
especially given that there are 3 ephemeral rushes in the deck already.
That means zero masters, including DI, and you just take a chance on
PTO. Rush any Inner Circle and try to take it down after you're tooled
up, but don't add dead cards. We did talk about Mylan Horseseed and
Sargon Fragment as possible adds and maybe a few weenies to
rescue/defend if anything goes wrong. But Dennis' original plan was
only Una, with a bunch of crap stacked on her and nothing else in
play......a design foible we'll forgive.
So yeah, not the "be-all" of decks, but a very strong concept that gets
out of the gate immediately - and one of only 2 decks that I've seen
deplete it's entire library in one turn to because simply freaking
scary (the other being Black Cat/Concealed Weapon).
D.
Robert Goudie
Peter D Bakija wrote:
> ***JediMike*** wrote:
> I mean, yeah, she can take 53 actions in one turn. She could potentially
> bleed for a lot, but at zero stealth.
I'm sure you've the Erebus Mask posts by now.
> The real flaw is the lack of combat defense (well, and stealth)--she gets in
> a fight with someone even remotely combaty, and she will end up in torpor
> right quickly, and never get out, as she doesn't have any freinds to rescue
> her.
She's doing hands and the ghoul retainer is using the Ivory Bow.
> Heck--her offensive abilitiy is stopped dead in its tracks by a small
> handfull of Majesties.
Blessing of Chaos.
> Or dodges. Or fortitude. Or, well, I'm sure you get
> the point.
As was said elsewhere, this is certainly an "all or nothing"
proposition. If you've got one of the answers to the deck then it
dies...otherwise it doesn't. :)
-Robert
Peter D Bakija
> I'm sure you've the Erebus Mask posts by now.
Sure. I missed a lot of the subtleties of the deck without pouring over it
with a fine tooth comb, but still.
> She's doing hands and the ghoul retainer is using the Ivory Bow.
Which is solid. But still doesn't foil S:CE (though Majesty is trumped by
the Blessing of Chaos) or fortitude or prevent a point of damage Celerity or
anti-weapon tech.
> As was said elsewhere, this is certainly an "all or nothing"
> proposition. If you've got one of the answers to the deck then it
> dies...otherwise it doesn't. :)
Sure, but lots of decks do that too. There are a few key stops (Ivorty Bow,
Clan Impersonate, Erebus Mask) that shut the deck down dead. Even when
completely set up, the deck is very vulnerable to getting its single bleed a
turn blocked or deflected. The deck is *incredibly* vulnerable to having Una
rushed before she gets to take an action, where she'll get to do nothing but
stand there, take damage, punch for 1, and go to torpor. And a single
superstar hoser (Pentex Subversion or whatever) is going to end the deck
immediately.
I suspect that in the long run, the deck will have a reasonably good chance
of getting 1 very quick and unexpected VP, after which, it'll likely get
bogged down and/or killed. Once and a while, it might get everything to lock
into place and get a table win. But that describes a lot of decks that
already exist.
CthuluKitty
posters in this thread. I guess what I'm getting at is that in order
to curtail decks like this, people need to adopt a different philosophy
of the game. Up here in Western Mass, EVERYONE packs cards for
cross-table manipulation and people are simply prepared to team up
against tricky decks that threaten to sweep. Yeah, Una's combat
package is pretty mean IF she gets all her stuff, but who's to say you
can't block and torporize her on the first action? Lots of decks
around here could easily do that. Miller Delmardigan comes to mind as
an apt candidate for the job. Or Omaya. Hell, Blythe Candeleria could
do it and she's a freakin' 3 capacity vapire. Sure, if everyone at the
table is playing some trick deck or S&B with the intent of a quick
sweep then Una wins because she does it faster. That doesn't mean the
deck is broken. It just means the table isn't prepared for it.
Cthulukitty
NorthSaber
some trouble with this google group thing... Says "Unable to retrieve
message")
I think it's a pretty genius deck, and has the potential to slay
pretty much any deck without much trouble. The way I see it, it has
three major faults.
One, it's a one-man-show (or a one-woman-show, haven't seen the
vampire), and is vulnerable to all kinds of nastiness targeting
single, powerful vamps. Still, rarely do those come up in your first
few turns or are doable right then and there... So I wouldn't want to
start as Una's prey.
Two, it can die from a bad shuffle or draw. If for some reason, the
deck only gets a few freaks in the first 3-5 rounds of the game, it's
pretty dead. Alternately, if it ONLY gets freaks, it can't do much
either (as the only actions you can do without cards are pretty much
hunt and bleed).
Three, it can die if the opponent has a good hand. Basically the
strategy here is to first equip everything you can and hire all the
retainers you can, then attack the enemy minions with direct attacks
(torporizing or at least tapping them), and then bleed for a lot. If
the enemy can withstand the attacks (which only takes a handful of
dodges, S:CEs or fortitude) - or even worse, torporize Una (agg damage
won't do the trick most likely as she has plenty of maneuvers and
damage prevention, but things like Coma would work) - the cycle stops,
and doesn't start again easily.
I do think its a powerful deck, IF it starts to run smoothly, and the
above three things do not come up. However, I also think that a sign
of a good deck is the ability to recover from a bad situation, and
that's something this deck lacks in a major way. Once Una goes to
torpor, its very unlikely she'll ever make it back out. If the player
gets a bad draw, he's gonna get eaten alive before he can discard
himself into better cards. Since there are so few direct attack cards,
Una can also be stopped by a good hand of defensive combat, and once
those rushes are gone, there's little she can do but bleed once per
turn and get blocked.
It IS a nasty deck though. ;)
jeff...@pacbell.net
> I guess my comments went rather unappreciated by the majority of
> posters in this thread.
I don't think that's true at all.
Mainly, if you're not playing intercept-combat, a relatively uncommon
archetype, *and* don't have the hand to torpor her immediately, Una has
a very significant chance of going off the first turn she acts. It's
all about playing the metagame, and I think this deck stands a very
good chance to do some serious damage in just about *any* environment.
Sure, it's a one-trick pony, but it is one helluva trick.
Jeff
James Coupe
<pd...@lightlink.com> writes:
>I suspect that in the long run, the deck will have a reasonably good chance
>of getting 1 very quick and unexpected VP, after which, it'll likely get
>bogged down and/or killed. Once and a while, it might get everything to lock
>into place and get a table win. But that describes a lot of decks that
>already exist.
In a tournament environment, I'd expect to see it do somewhat like the
Turbo-Arika[0] deck. That is, it can do well (extremely well,
potentially), but once players know what it's doing, they'll try to get
you off the table RIGHT NOW if they can't get something out of it (a
deal, bouncing, or whatever).
Unlike the Turbo-Arika deck, it will absolutely need multiple turns to
try to sweep a table. (The Turbo decks sometimes stall based on the
distribution of cards, of course, but could in theory do it all in one
turn.)
The deck interests me a great, great deal, however.
[0] Any Turbo deck could do, if it can repeat bleed by burning itself
and replacing itself with another vampire, and so on.
--
James Coupe
PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D YOU ARE IN ERROR.
EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 NO-ONE IS SCREAMING.
13D7E668C3695D623D5D THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.
Derek Ray
Hash: SHA1
Darby Keeney wrote:
| heavily early, or late at stealth, Dennis is done. Every deck has weak
| spots, and this is no exception. We're simply saying Una is
| overpowered in this situation.
I think this is poorly stated, though I see what you're getting at.
I suggest a better phrasing: Given the design decisions made by the
Design Team in the recent sets, and given the obvious intent of a number
of past decisions and errata, this deck's existence doesn't appear to be
in line with the direction the Design Team wishes the game to go -- ie.
away from solitaire, and more towards interaction.
It is likely that a simple solution would be to return the NRA
restriction on cardless hunts. NRA was removed from equip and recruit
actions to help allies, retainers, and equipment suck less; hunting
didn't actually suck in the first place.
| That means zero masters, including DI, and you just take a chance on
| PTO. Rush any Inner Circle and try to take it down after you're tooled
And take a chance on other players using DI as well, of course. I
didn't bring it up in my analysis because obviously, the "This isn't
broken because of DI" argument is not productive... but given the
prevalence of DI, I'm not sure I can think of a deck that fears it more
than this one.
| So yeah, not the "be-all" of decks, but a very strong concept that gets
| out of the gate immediately - and one of only 2 decks that I've seen
Another problem, I think, is that the deck really relies on surprise and
luck (not sitting next to the Tzmisce, frex.) a LOT. If you've seen the
deck before, you know to wait and block the key actions; and they aren't
hard to pick out (Ivory Bow) even when you don't know the deck list.
I'd actually be interested in seeing a non-hyperbolic version of this
deck that is more robust on defense and ousting -- perhaps one that
doesn't erase its library on turn 3, but can have more consistent
forward momentum in a variety of environments.
- --
Derek
insert clever quotation here
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (MingW32)
iD8DBQFCvw+ltQZlu3o7QpERAh8kAJ9p0svYWzjtPv1rna5JN4IXGXZTjwCg4vR0
bfRZwWP7aownoPlRRzaWp/0=
=9OXh
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Robert Goudie
> One, it's a one-man-show (or a one-woman-show, haven't seen the
> vampire), and is vulnerable to all kinds of nastiness targeting
> single, powerful vamps. Still, rarely do those come up in your first
> few turns or are doable right then and there... So I wouldn't want to
> start as Una's prey.
True.
> Two, it can die from a bad shuffle or draw. If for some reason, the
> deck only gets a few freaks in the first 3-5 rounds of the game, it's
> pretty dead.
That's pretty unlikely. Half the deck is freaks.
> Alternately, if it ONLY gets freaks, it can't do much
> either (as the only actions you can do without cards are pretty much
> hunt and bleed).
That happens but it is unimportant. I watched Dennis get a glut of
freaks and he just hunted, freaked, hunted, freaked, until he got
something useful.
> Three, it can die if the opponent has a good hand.
Certainly. Pred or Prey can do the job.
-Robert
James Coupe
<lor...@yahoo.com> writes:
>I suggest a better phrasing: Given the design decisions made by the
>Design Team in the recent sets, and given the obvious intent of a
>number
>of past decisions and errata, this deck's existence doesn't appear to
>be
>in line with the direction the Design Team wishes the game to go -- ie.
>away from solitaire, and more towards interaction.
>
>It is likely that a simple solution would be to return the NRA
>restriction on cardless hunts. NRA was removed from equip and recruit
>actions to help allies, retainers, and equipment suck less; hunting
>didn't actually suck in the first place.
Whilst that is certainly one side-effect of it, I'm not 100% sure that
it was entirely the intent. I'm pretty certain it wasn't the sole
intent, at least.
Part of the problem with the V:EKN floor rule was that it was
complicated to explain. From conversations LSJ had online at the time,
before it could be integrated into the base rules, there was a strong
desire to simplify the rule without breaking it.
So, this is probably sort of looking at it from a different angle, but
I'm not 100% sure that it was "hunting and equipping need an upgrade"
rather than "removing this list of actions from NRA will not break
things AND will make things simpler to explain."
IYSWIM.
Kevin M.
> I'd actually be interested in seeing a non-hyperbolic version of this
> deck that is more robust on defense and ousting -- perhaps one that
> doesn't erase its library on turn 3, but can have more consistent
> forward momentum in a variety of environments.
For what it's worth, here's an Una deck I've been working on:
Deck Name: Una Gets Freaky v2.0
Created By: Kevin J. Mergen
Description: Obvious Una Fortitude abuse.
Crypt: (12 cards, Min: 24, Max: 36, Avg: 7.83)
----------------------------------------------
6 Una dem ANI FOR PRE PRO 9 !Gangrel
4 Antonino ani FOR pre pro 6 Gangrel
2 Brunhilde ANI FOR pre PRO 8 Gangrel
Library: (90 cards)
-------------------
Master (14 cards)
3 Blood Doll
1 Dia de los Muertos
3 Direct Intervention
1 Giant`s Blood
1 Golconda: Inner Peace
1 Hungry Coyote, The
1 Secure Haven
3 Sudden Reversal
Action (22 cards)
2 Army of Rats
2 Charming Lobby
4 Enchant Kindred
1 Entrancement
1 Eternal Vigilance
4 Kindred Spirits
3 Legal Manipulations
2 Mind Numb
3 Social Charm
Action Modifier (30 cards)
5 Awe
5 Beast Meld
16 Freak Drive
4 Voter Captivation
Political Action (9 cards)
4 Conservative Agitation
5 Kine Resources Contested
Combat (15 cards)
2 Alpha Glint
4 Earth Meld
4 Form of Mist
5 Skin of Steel
Kevin M., Prince of Las Vegas
"Know your enemy, and know yourself; in one-thousand battles
you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, *The Art of War*
"Contentment... Complacency... Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier
Darby Keeney
There's no such thing as a bad draw. Almost 2/3rds of the deck is
Freak, so you'll never draw a starting hand without a couple. If you
get all Freaks, hunt them away and you'll get the other stuff. Dennis
hunted 8 straight times in our game. Forget any hand-jam
considerations - they don't exist.
Yeah, if you opponents punk Una before, or in the first action then
you're stuck. But this is admitedly a blaze-design deck - and it
either goes off or not. When it does, it very difficult to stop.
For the solutions you propose, the options are pretty limited. You
can't dodge environmental agg damage (ghoul retainer + ivory bow), nor
can use use many common prevention cards that rely on preventing
strikes. You can't play presence-based S:CE, nor can you play Coma
(Blessing of Chaos). Yeah, there are other S:CE and damage prevents,
but Dennis was effective in minimizing the number of available options
- it's just tough to see that at first glance. And you better have
several of them in hand, cause he'll rush 5 times in his opening
gambit.
There is insidious strength in this deck - after it gets tooled up.
Peter D Bakija
> Mainly, if you're not playing intercept-combat, a relatively uncommon
> archetype, *and* don't have the hand to torpor her immediately, Una has
> a very significant chance of going off the first turn she acts.
If you are playing:
-Rush combat (kill Una before she takes a single action)
-Bleed bounce (send her 1 bleed a turn somewhere else)
-Light intercept (block her key action, like, equip with Ivory Bow or Clan
Impersonate)
-Intercept combat
-Protect Thine Own
-DI (DI the first Freak Drive)
which is a lot of decks, she'll have to get lucky to go off on her first
turn.
I mean, like, yeah, the first time this deck gets played in a given
environment, it'll probably go off ('cause no one will know what is going
on) and do well. But after it gets played once, everyone will know what it
does ('cause if nothing else, the funny angle will spread the word far and
wide), and after that, it'll need to get lucky.
I see the tournament performance of this deck going like this:
-Round 1: Goes off without a hitch. Gets a VP or two. Might win the table if
everything goes its way.
-Round 2-3: Might get a VP once or twice. Likely gets shut down a few times.
-Finals, if it makes it: Likely gets shut down and killed without a VP.
Peter D Bakija
> There's no such thing as a bad draw. Almost 2/3rds of the deck is
> Freak, so you'll never draw a starting hand without a couple.
Sure, but an opening hand of nothing but Freaks means you have to take a few
actions that are like "hunt, Freak, hunt, Freak...", and if you get blocked
on one of those (and hunting 4 times in a row with Una is likely to yell out
"block me soon or never!"), you have zero defense--your whole deck strategy
is revolving around a +1 stealth action when you have zero combat defense
other than permanents--it is pretty easy to get blocked on your first action
and killed right off.
Peter D Bakija
> For what it's worth, here's an Una deck I've been working on:
This deck looks both much more robust and much less crack wacky--I'd say
this deck has a much more reliable win chance than the other one under
discussion.
The "53 Freak Una" deck under discussion has, as its main weapon, Surprise
(and a fanatical devotion to the Pope...). If you don't know what it is
going to do, it'll probably do it quickly and devestatingly. But if you do
know what it is going to do, you can shut it down pretty easily.
Peter D Bakija
> I guess what I'm getting at is that in order
> to curtail decks like this, people need to adopt a different philosophy
> of the game. Up here in Western Mass, EVERYONE packs cards for
> cross-table manipulation and people are simply prepared to team up
> against tricky decks that threaten to sweep.
While this is a completely different discussion, this idea is generally
support that something *is* broken--if a deck is so effective that it
requires the players to reguarly circumvent or ignore the established
predator/prey relationship, then something is clearly wrong.
This being said, I don't think this Una deck is terrifying enough to justify
needing to cross table nuke it. Heck--a deck with moderately reliable +1
intercept and enough combat to torp someone will shut it down immediately:
A: "Una takes a plus 1 stealth action to get some cool thing."
B: "Um, I block with +1 intercept."
A: "Oh, ok. We fight."
B: "I [Claws of the Dead/Tzimisce
Aggro/IG+Disarm/Animalism+Crows+Bats/whatever] kill you."
A: "Huh. I just stand here and take it. But then I freak and untap 'cause I
was aggro poked and still have blood! Una takes a +1 stealth action to
rescue herself from torpor!"
B: "Um, I Forced and block with +1 intercept and diablerize you."
A: "Huh. That's no good..."
Screaming Vermillian
~SV
CthuluKitty
support that something *is* broken--if a deck is so effective that it
requires the players to reguarly circumvent or ignore the established
predator/prey relationship, then something is clearly wrong.
I don't really feel that this is the case. In the games I play it is
very common to see people taking cross table actions to neutralize what
they see as the major threat to the table. This isn't circumventing
the prey/predator dynamics; it's just understanding them on a more
nuanced, long-term basis. In a 5 player game, which is the norm, no
player is more than 1 oust away from being either your prey or
predator, depending on where they sit. So everyone at the table has
the potential to become your enemy, and it makes sense to weaken those
potential enemies while you still can, even if it means diverting
attention from your immediate goals. Frequently, you can bargain with
your prey and/or predator to make this happen. For example: "Don't
bleed for a turn and I'll hit the threat"; or "Let me take this next
action unblocked and then I'll hit the threat".
>> ...Heck--a deck with moderately reliable +1
intercept and enough combat to torp someone will shut it down
immediately...
Yeah. I definitely agree with you on that note, as is clear from my
earlier comments.
Cthulukitty
Jeroen Rombouts
"***JediMike***" <Jedi...@rebelscum.net> schreef in bericht
news:1119760053.5...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>
> Action Modifier (56 cards)
> ****56 Freak Drive*****
>
Just when I gave up on trying to use victim of habit. :)
LSJ
> I see the tournament performance of this deck going like this:
>
> -Round 1: Goes off without a hitch. Gets a VP or two. Might win the table if
> everything goes its way.
> -Round 2-3: Might get a VP once or twice. Likely gets shut down a few times.
> -Finals, if it makes it: Likely gets shut down and killed without a VP.
Or: two of those decks make it to the finals and contest Una the whole time.
:-).
--
LSJ (vtesr...@TRAPwhite-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep (remove spam trap to reply)
Links to V:TES news, rules, cards, utilities, and tournament calendar:
http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/
Peter D Bakija
> I don't really feel that this is the case.
Ok.
> In the games I play it is
> very common to see people taking cross table actions to neutralize what
> they see as the major threat to the table.
Yeah, see, that is pretty much circumventing or ignoring the predator/prey
dynamic. And usually it is a dumb idea as it just makes someone else win. If
you focus on ousting your prey, then you get VPs. If you focus on ousting
someone else's prey, someone else gets VPs.
> This isn't circumventing the prey/predator dynamics; it's just understanding
>them on a more nuanced, long-term basis.
Umm, ok. Me PTOing someone crosstable is likely just making that guy cross
the table get ousted by someone who isn't me. At which point I have to PTO
someone else cross table, who then also gets ousted by someone who isn't me.
You are much better off just killing your prey. And the game as a whole is
much better off if you just kill your prey.
> In a 5 player game, which is the norm, no
> player is more than 1 oust away from being either your prey or
> predator, depending on where they sit.
Correct.
>So everyone at the table has
> the potential to become your enemy, and it makes sense to weaken those
> potential enemies while you still can, even if it means diverting
> attention from your immediate goals.
Only if you like making other people win the game. Weakening your non
immediate opponents usually makes your immediate opponents stronger. When
your immediate opponents are stronger, you are weaker. And your now stronger
opponents who are less worried about weaker you go on to kill your weaker
non immediate opponent, and become even stronger.
See, if there is a deck that the table that requires the whole table to gang
up on it to keep it from sweeping with impunity, then there is something
wrong with the game that needs fixing. In other circumstances, the need to
mess with folks cross table is generally few and far between.
> Frequently, you can bargain with
> your prey and/or predator to make this happen. For example: "Don't
> bleed for a turn and I'll hit the threat"; or "Let me take this next
> action unblocked and then I'll hit the threat".
At which point the game bogs down in people wheeling and dealing to try to
get people to give them an incentive to take an action that has significant
(reasonably so) built in disincentive to attempt. Which is a bad idea.
Yeah. Sometimes a cross table shenanagin seems like a good idea. Most of
those times it actually isn't. Just kill your prey.
Robert Goudie
LSJ wrote:
> Peter D Bakija wrote:
> > I see the tournament performance of this deck going like this:
> >
> > -Round 1: Goes off without a hitch. Gets a VP or two. Might win the table if
> > everything goes its way.
> > -Round 2-3: Might get a VP once or twice. Likely gets shut down a few times.
> > -Finals, if it makes it: Likely gets shut down and killed without a VP.
>
> Or: two of those decks make it to the finals and contest Una the whole time.
> :-).
Or: two Una decks immediately make a table split deal. One gets 3 VPs
and then let's the other withdraw. :)
-Robert
NorthSaber
> Darby Keeney wrote:
> Sure, but an opening hand of nothing but Freaks means you have to take a few
> actions that are like "hunt, Freak, hunt, Freak...", and if you get blocked
To me it seems like that NRA is fine for hunt, but I don't think a
vampire should be able to hunt when at full blood. That would stop
this deck from burning extra Freaks to get a better hand.
Jeroen Rombouts
"Peter D Bakija" <pd...@lightlink.com> schreef in bericht
news:BEE57091.20493%pd...@lightlink.com...
> CthuluKitty wrote:
>
>> I don't really feel that this is the case.
>
> Ok.
>
>> In the games I play it is
>> very common to see people taking cross table actions to neutralize what
>> they see as the major threat to the table.
>
> Yeah, see, that is pretty much circumventing or ignoring the predator/prey
> dynamic. And usually it is a dumb idea as it just makes someone else win.
> If
> you focus on ousting your prey, then you get VPs. If you focus on ousting
> someone else's prey, someone else gets VPs.
where did you make the jump from "weakening someone cross table who became
too strong and will in all likelyhood be you next predator" to "oust
someone/PTO someone cross table"? IMO, there's a difference. a HUGE
difference. In the first, you slow him down from getting a vp, not give
someone else a VP. Addionally, it gives you more time to try to get your
prey.
>
> Yeah. Sometimes a cross table shenanagin seems like a good idea. Most of
> those times it actually isn't. Just kill your prey.
>
like you said indeed, most of the time. But sometimes it's just for the
best.
Jeroen Rombouts
"Darby Keeney" <darby....@gmail.com> schreef in bericht
news:1119829750.4...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Think about what we're saying.
>
> There's no such thing as a bad draw.
yes there is. Because of non redundancy in the cards it possible that the
ivory bow is in the last 5 cards of his deck. Making the rushes a non
playable (well, very inefficent in any case) card. no combat also means you
cannot cycle your for prevent.
Joscha
Screaming Vermillian schrieb:
> Man, my HoS Brinkmanship deck will own this thing, as its pred...
>
> ~SV
At least one deck you will oust with that Slaughterhouserubbish... ;o)
Peter D Bakija
> To me it seems like that NRA is fine for hunt, but I don't think a
> vampire should be able to hunt when at full blood. That would stop
> this deck from burning extra Freaks to get a better hand.
Yeah, I'm not seeing this particular deck as a need to change the NRA
rules--other than this deck (and in the case of this deck, it is only
arguably problematic), hunting while full is hardly a problem at all. It
only ever comes up, generally speaking, in the following situations:
-You have a hand full of Freak Drives (in a non Una abuse deck) and want to
fish for something useful. For my money, people fishing for something useful
by burning Freak Drives is just fine.
-You have a very teniously and sketchily set up Kyoko Shinsegawa strategy
going. If you can set this up and not get immediately ousted, more power to
you.
-You are playing the "March Halcyon tries to withdraw on Turn 3" deck. Yeah,
this needs shutting down...
If there is a problem that this deck is indicative of (which I am yet to be
convinced of, personally, but that is me), it is a problem with Una that
could easily be tweaked by fixing her without doing collateral damage (say,
change her ability to "Una pays 1 less blood for Fortitude combat cards or
actions" or something.)
Peter D Bakija
> where did you make the jump from "weakening someone cross table who became
> too strong and will in all likelyhood be you next predator" to "oust
> someone/PTO someone cross table"?
Weakening someone xtable is getting him ousted by someone who isn't you. If
I Rush/KRC/Parity Shift/PTO/whatever someone across the table, I am making
someone who is not my immediate foe weak. Which makes someone who is is my
immediate foe stronger--I make my grand prey lose 4 pool to a ConAg, that
makes my prey's job 4 pool easier, which makes my job harder. PTO was just a
convinient and extreme illustration. But it could have been 3 pool loss to a
KRC or my torping someone by xtable Rushing. By making someone who isn't my
prey weaker and consequently making someone who is either my predator or
prey stronger, I compromise my own position. See, the game has built in
disincentive to do this. Yet people still don't see that.
> IMO, there's a difference. a HUGE
> difference. In the first, you slow him down from getting a vp, not give
> someone else a VP. Addionally, it gives you more time to try to get your
> prey.
How does it give you more time to get your prey to waste actions making it
easier for someone else to get their prey?
> like you said indeed, most of the time. But sometimes it's just for the
> best.
Sure. Sometimes it is. But that is the vast minority of the time. Sometimes,
someone will do something crazy and hose someone cross table, and then
they'll sweep and the crazy cross table shenanagins will turn out to have
been completely brilliant. But 90% of the time that someone does something
crazy to hose someone xtable, it just makes someone else win.
I just like pointing out that it is usually a bed precident to set to try to
make xtable shenanagins a desirable aspect of the game.
Jeroen Rombouts
> Jeroen Rombouts wrote:
>
>> where did you make the jump from "weakening someone cross table who
>> became
>> too strong and will in all likelyhood be you next predator" to "oust
>> someone/PTO someone cross table"?
>
> Weakening someone xtable is getting him ousted by someone who isn't you.
I thought the topic here was: doing xtable things to neutralise a xtable
threat. You're not a threat in my book if you're easily ousted.
>If
> I Rush/KRC/Parity Shift/PTO/whatever someone across the table, I am making
> someone who is not my immediate foe weak.
weakER. if he/she is the threat of the table, in a good position to sweep
(my definition of a threat).
>Which makes someone who is is my
> immediate foe stronger--I make my grand prey lose 4 pool to a ConAg, that
> makes my prey's job 4 pool easier, which makes my job harder. PTO was just
> a
> convinient and extreme illustration. But it could have been 3 pool loss to
> a
> KRC or my torping someone by xtable Rushing. By making someone who isn't
> my
> prey weaker and consequently making someone who is either my predator or
> prey stronger, I compromise my own position. See, the game has built in
> disincentive to do this. Yet people still don't see that.
OTOH, you could argue: in the case that say, your grand predator is the big
Threat of the table, slowing him down from getting a vp makes your own
position better. But I guess were just talking about different things. My
premises were: there is a BIG threat on the table who is not my
prey/predator. If the threat is not stopped by his prey or predator, he
will likely sweep. Provided those two cannot do this, I can maybe help.
Thus securing my chance at the GW. doesn't happen regularly. I thought
this was the topic of the discussion.
>
>> IMO, there's a difference. a HUGE
>> difference. In the first, you slow him down from getting a vp, not give
>> someone else a VP. Addionally, it gives you more time to try to get your
>> prey.
>
> How does it give you more time to get your prey to waste actions making it
> easier for someone else to get their prey?
eg if the crosstable person is you grand predator and about to oust your
predator. every turn he survives is another turn (wich he will mostly spend
trying to survive, not comming after you) you can go forward without having
to defend against the Big Threat.
>
>> like you said indeed, most of the time. But sometimes it's just for the
>> best.
>
> Sure. Sometimes it is. But that is the vast minority of the time.
> Sometimes,
> someone will do something crazy and hose someone cross table, and then
> they'll sweep and the crazy cross table shenanagins will turn out to have
> been completely brilliant. But 90% of the time that someone does something
> crazy to hose someone xtable, it just makes someone else win.
>
> I just like pointing out that it is usually a bed precident to set to try
> to
> make xtable shenanagins a desirable aspect of the game.
agreed. And more often than not will result in countertable balancing and
time outs.
Matthew T. Morgan
> -You have a very teniously and sketchily set up Kyoko Shinsegawa strategy
> going. If you can set this up and not get immediately ousted, more power to
> you.
You mean Kyoko hunts off someone, Freaks, hunts off someone else, etc?
I'm sure that would be a popular strategy (see Cryptic Mission, except
Kyoko doesn't need a card for it) if it were legal. Her hunt action is
granted by a card in play (herself) and subject to NRA.
Matt Morgan
Jeroen Rombouts
"Matthew T. Morgan" <far...@io.com> schreef in bericht
news:2005062710...@fnord.io.com...
been able to hunt while full if you changed NRA.
Matthew T. Morgan
She can't anyway (unless of course she can gain all the blood she needs
in one hunt). Kyoko can't perform the normal cardless hunt action.
Matt Morgan
Morgan Vening
<pd...@lightlink.com> wrote:
>NorthSaber wrote:
>
>> To me it seems like that NRA is fine for hunt, but I don't think a
>> vampire should be able to hunt when at full blood. That would stop
>> this deck from burning extra Freaks to get a better hand.
>
>Yeah, I'm not seeing this particular deck as a need to change the NRA
>rules--other than this deck (and in the case of this deck, it is only
>arguably problematic), hunting while full is hardly a problem at all. It
>only ever comes up, generally speaking, in the following situations:
>
>-You have a hand full of Freak Drives (in a non Una abuse deck) and want to
>fish for something useful. For my money, people fishing for something useful
>by burning Freak Drives is just fine.
>
>-You have a very teniously and sketchily set up Kyoko Shinsegawa strategy
>going. If you can set this up and not get immediately ousted, more power to
>you.
>
>-You are playing the "March Halcyon tries to withdraw on Turn 3" deck. Yeah,
>this needs shutting down...
>
>If there is a problem that this deck is indicative of (which I am yet to be
>convinced of, personally, but that is me), it is a problem with Una that
>could easily be tweaked by fixing her without doing collateral damage (say,
>change her ability to "Una pays 1 less blood for Fortitude combat cards or
>actions" or something.)
To be fair, there's also Force of Will, for Fortitude bleeds. I've had
to Hunt at capacity to do that in my !Ven deck.
And personally, I'm not real fussed about this deck. Sure, it goes off
'in a big way'. But seriously, aren't there enough other decks that
can do this in their own ways, that makes this less special? Certain
turbo decks. Weenie bleed. Etcetera.
Morgan Vening
Peter D Bakija
> I think he knows that :) He was talking about the fact that kyoko wouldn't
> been able to hunt while full if you changed NRA.
Oh. Uh, yeah. That's it. That's what I meant all along...
Peter D Bakija
> You mean Kyoko hunts off someone, Freaks, hunts off someone else, etc?
> I'm sure that would be a popular strategy (see Cryptic Mission, except
> Kyoko doesn't need a card for it) if it were legal. Her hunt action is
> granted by a card in play (herself) and subject to NRA.
Yeah, that was likely what I meant, and then not paying attention that it
wasn't legal. Making it even less desireable to change the NRA rules.
Peter D Bakija
> To be fair, there's also Force of Will, for Fortitude bleeds. I've had
> to Hunt at capacity to do that in my !Ven deck.
And ya think that the rules need to be tweaked so that you can't hunt if at
capacity to prevent folks from using Force of Will?
CthuluKitty
fairly adequately: my play group does not play with time limits. The
nearest place to play in tournaments is over 2 hours drive away, and
I've only gone once with one other player. Our experience with time
limits there only confirmed our distaste for them, as we saw game after
game time out because of what looked like intentionally slow, or at
least unexcusably slow play. The game is drastically different without
the time limit, and not just shorter. When there's no pressure to get
multiple ousts ASAP it is much more reasonable to spend time improving
your own position via permanents and bloating, and weakening the
position of other players who appear to present a threat. It's also
worth noting that at that one tournament I played, the closest I came
to a GW was achieved by back-ousting my CEL guns predator with a
Kindred Spirits. Not exactly going xtable, but still contrary to the
pred/prey dynamics as many here are defining them, and perfectly
defensable in that situation. I understand that 90% of the time it's
better to focus on ousting your own prey, but that other 10% is still a
relevant and important part of play. If it weren't, cards like Eagle's
Sight wouldn't exist, and Anneke would not nearly as popular as she is,
just to name a few examples.
Cthulukitty
LSJ
> If there is a problem that this deck is indicative of (which I am yet to be
> convinced of, personally, but that is me), it is a problem with Una that
> could easily be tweaked by fixing her without doing collateral damage (say,
> change her ability to "Una pays 1 less blood for Fortitude combat cards or
> actions" or something.)
If there's a problem here, I doubt if it's Una. It's either Freak's
in-turn repeatability or hunt's in-turn repeatability.
Screaming Vermillian
LSJ wrote:
> Peter D Bakija wrote:
> > If there is a problem that this deck is indicative of (which I am yet to be
> > convinced of, personally, but that is me), it is a problem with Una that
> > could easily be tweaked by fixing her without doing collateral damage (say,
> > change her ability to "Una pays 1 less blood for Fortitude combat cards or
> > actions" or something.)
>
> If there's a problem here, I doubt if it's Una. It's either Freak's
> in-turn repeatability or hunt's in-turn repeatability.
Just limit the number of actions a minion can take by their capacity...
Seems reasonable to me. Makes fatties 'better'.
~SV
bjorn...@yahoo.com
deck, that would be one thing (something would be "broken"), but it
isn't. In fact, it sounds fragile and hard to play well. Probably
requires a good deal of skill *and* luck.
We already have a long list of things that would stop this deck dead
even if you weren't specifically prepared for it. It's still brilliant
and spectacular, and congrats to the creator, but if it swept up
tables, it was probably due more to shock value than anything.
Super-equipped Una rushes? I prevent one (aggravated) damage from the
Ivory Bow. Press? I prevent again. If she struck me at short range, she
just rushed for 4 non-aggravated damage. I'm more afraid of your
average Brujah or Assamite.
Come to think of it, how would she deal with Assamites, or Tremere?
It's a very clever trick, but it doesn't "break" anything, and it
doesn't demonstrate a need to change any rules.
Morgan Vening
<pd...@lightlink.com> wrote:
>Morgan Vening wrote:
>
>> To be fair, there's also Force of Will, for Fortitude bleeds. I've had
>> to Hunt at capacity to do that in my !Ven deck.
>
>And ya think that the rules need to be tweaked so that you can't hunt if at
>capacity to prevent folks from using Force of Will?
Nope. Sorry, I had just finished a 16 hour shift, and was winding
down. There should have been no "To be fair" part. Sounds snooty. It
should have been "In addition, here's another reason why I don't think
a 'cant hunt at capacity' ruling would be bad".
Morgan Vening
A.J.Behrends
LSJ schrieb:
> Peter D Bakija wrote:
> > If there is a problem that this deck is indicative of (which I am yet to be
> > convinced of, personally, but that is me), it is a problem with Una that
> > could easily be tweaked by fixing her without doing collateral damage (say,
> > change her ability to "Una pays 1 less blood for Fortitude combat cards or
> > actions" or something.)
>
> If there's a problem here, I doubt if it's Una. It's either Freak's
> in-turn repeatability or hunt's in-turn repeatability.
Nit-pick:
Used to be nigh impossible to accumulate this amount of Freak Drives
before its rarity changed from R to U ...
Not totally impossible, I know. But still.
Sigh! Those were the days ...
Alf
x5m...@gmx.de
> If you are playing:
> -Rush combat (kill Una before she takes a single action)
> -Bleed bounce (send her 1 bleed a turn somewhere else)
> -Light intercept (block her key action, like, equip with Ivory Bow or Clan
> Impersonate)
> -Intercept combat
> -Protect Thine Own
> -DI (DI the first Freak Drive)
>
> which is a lot of decks, she'll have to get lucky to go off on her first
> turn.
And from my experience in Germany i would say, it will be mostly the
last type that kill the Una deck (the DIs). Normaly every Deck packs 2
DIs. Some have 3, some have only 1. That is 8 DIs against the Una deck.
Very reasonable that we have one in the first round or one after
cycling cards in the second. Every DI will stop one whole turn of that
deck, and that is deadly for a deck that only has speed to survive.
Peter D Bakija
> Our experience with time
> limits there only confirmed our distaste for them, as we saw game after
> game time out because of what looked like intentionally slow, or at
> least unexcusably slow play.
Yeah--we don't play with time limits either. But if a single game goes
longer than, like, an hour and a half here, we were all clearly very
distracted and Sackett kept getting up to go get drinks or something.
I can't imagine playing in an environment where single games regularly went
longer than the standard two hours that a tournament time limit affords you.
> The game is drastically different without the time limit, and not just
>shorter.
How long are these games of which you speak?
> It's also
> worth noting that at that one tournament I played, the closest I came
> to a GW was achieved by back-ousting my CEL guns predator with a
> Kindred Spirits.
If you have to mess up your predator to win, you mess up your predator to
win. At least your predator is sitting next to you.
> Not exactly going xtable, but still contrary to the
> pred/prey dynamics as many here are defining them, and perfectly
> defensable in that situation.
Well, not really contrary to your predator/prey dynamic, as, well, they are
your predator. I mean, like, I'm not saying it is generally a good idea to
get your predator ousted, but it is much more likely to be useful to get
your predator ousted than it is to get some random dude across the table
ousted.
> I understand that 90% of the time it's
> better to focus on ousting your own prey, but that other 10% is still a
> relevant and important part of play.
Sure. But that is a vast minority of the time.
Peter D Bakija
> If there's a problem here, I doubt if it's Una. It's either Freak's
> in-turn repeatability or hunt's in-turn repeatability.
Ya think? Like, Freak Drive has been around forever, and while it was
certainly a problem pre-NRA, post NRA it hasn't been a problem at all, and
is only a problem now due to Una. And the hunting in-turn repeatability has
only ever been a problem in the context of Una being able to cycle an
infinite number of Freak Drives to find something useful--anyone could
already do this, but without the free play ability of Una, packing a deck
with 53 Freaks has never been really worth the effort.
I mean, like, yeah, tweaking either Freak or hunting certainly could be an
option, but that would have a much bigger effect that isn't necessarily
warranted than tweaking Una.
Peter D Bakija
> Nope. Sorry, I had just finished a 16 hour shift, and was winding
> down. There should have been no "To be fair" part. Sounds snooty. It
> should have been "In addition, here's another reason why I don't think
> a 'cant hunt at capacity' ruling would be bad".
Heh heh :-)
Daneel
wrote:
> Peter D Bakija wrote:
>> If there is a problem that this deck is indicative of (which I am yet
>> to be
>> convinced of, personally, but that is me), it is a problem with Una that
>> could easily be tweaked by fixing her without doing collateral damage
>> (say,
>> change her ability to "Una pays 1 less blood for Fortitude combat cards
>> or
>> actions" or something.)
>
> If there's a problem here, I doubt if it's Una. It's either Freak's
> in-turn repeatability or hunt's in-turn repeatability.
Come to think of it, what happened to the rule stating you cannot hunt at
capacity? That rule would mostly make this kind of trick deck unusable
(if it's a problem at all), and it kind of made sense anyway.
--
Bye,
Daneel
Matthew T. Morgan
> Come to think of it, what happened to the rule stating you cannot hunt at
> capacity? That rule would mostly make this kind of trick deck unusable
> (if it's a problem at all), and it kind of made sense anyway.
Actually, no. If you look at the RPG, there are numerous examples of
vampire gluttons who hunt despite being full (at capacity).
If vampires hunting while at capacity really bothers you, just play
Restricted Vitae. Then they won't.
Matt Morgan
Robert Goudie
> LSJ wrote:
>
> > If there's a problem here, I doubt if it's Una. It's either Freak's
> > in-turn repeatability or hunt's in-turn repeatability.
>
> Ya think? Like, Freak Drive has been around forever, and while it was
> certainly a problem pre-NRA, post NRA it hasn't been a problem at all, and
> is only a problem now due to Una.
Yeah, but when you look at other vamps with the same special (with a
different skill) they aren't broken. As well, there are tons of cards
that can be put in play and that create a somewhat similar effect
(paths, for example) and none of those are very impressive either. So
while Una hasn't existed until now, the "vampire that pays 1 less for
Discipline X" has been around for a long time and there isn't anything
inherently wrong with it...until it interacts with Freak Drive.
-Robert
A.J.Behrends
Peter D Bakija schrieb:
> .. --anyone could
> already do this, but without the free play ability of Una, packing a deck
> with 53 Freaks has never been really worth the effort.
Every Vampire equipped with Ankara Citadel and FOR like say Cardano,
or Mata Hari could have done the trick before Una.
Nothing too new here, just less set up needed.
Alf
Omael
Citadel, Turkey, I don't think that restricting the actions would be
wise, anyway, it's fun to do those kind of things, i don't know anyone
that own at least 30 freakdrives.
Maybe a solution would be adding the option in the rated CONSTRUCTED
tournaments of a card limit, i think that based in the consensum of the
playgroup maybe it would be good to add a limit of 10 of the same cards
(or even 4). Basically, let the group choose in what kind of tournament
they wanna play.
Jeroen Rombouts
"Omael" <omael....@gmail.com> schreef in bericht
news:1119973034....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Robert Goudie
Yeah, back in the good ol' days when the number of actions per turn
your minions would take would correlate with your income level. Ah,
yes, those were the days... :)
-Robert
Daneel
wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Jun 2005, Daneel wrote:
>
>> Come to think of it, what happened to the rule stating you cannot hunt
>> at
>> capacity? That rule would mostly make this kind of trick deck unusable
>> (if it's a problem at all), and it kind of made sense anyway.
>
> Actually, no. If you look at the RPG, there are numerous examples of
> vampire gluttons who hunt despite being full (at capacity).
I believe there are cards representing that sort of gluttony.
> If vampires hunting while at capacity really bothers you, just play
> Restricted Vitae. Then they won't.
You seem to miss the point.
--
Bye,
Daneel
Robert Goudie
I'd guess that the rule was dropped because it is uneccessary
complexity (doesn't add anything to the game and isn't needed for
balance).
-Robert
Matthew T. Morgan
> On Tue, 28 Jun 2005 09:33:50 -0500, Matthew T. Morgan <far...@io.com> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 28 Jun 2005, Daneel wrote:
>>
>>> Come to think of it, what happened to the rule stating you cannot hunt at
>>> capacity? That rule would mostly make this kind of trick deck unusable
>>> (if it's a problem at all), and it kind of made sense anyway.
>>
>> Actually, no. If you look at the RPG, there are numerous examples of
>> vampire gluttons who hunt despite being full (at capacity).
>
> I believe there are cards representing that sort of gluttony.
Thanks for the non-sequitor. The point is the RPG supports the idea that
vampires can feed when they don't need to.
>> If vampires hunting while at capacity really bothers you, just play
>> Restricted Vitae. Then they won't.
>
> You seem to miss the point.
No. I just nailed it. See above.
Matt Morgan
David Zopf
"Jeroen Rombouts" <jeroen....@NOSPAMtelenet.be> wrote in message
news:Joewe.132309$nd5.7...@phobos.telenet-ops.be...
You've got to forgive him. I'm sure he doesn't know the can of worms that
he's opening. :-)
DaveZ
Atom Weaver
(else, he does, and the post is just a goad...)
***JediMike***
bjorn...@yahoo.com wrote:
> What problem is there? If this were an unbeatable, or nearly unbeatable
> deck, that would be one thing (something would be "broken"), but it
> isn't. In fact, it sounds fragile and hard to play well. Probably
> requires a good deal of skill *and* luck.
>
> It's a very clever trick, but it doesn't "break" anything, and it
> doesn't demonstrate a need to change any rules.
Now that I've had a few days to let the shock dissapate, I'm afraid I
have to agree with you. The particular game I was in, I was not ready
to stop Una so soon. Either was his predator. Next time I hope I'm
playing my Intercept/Horrid Form Deck. Una won't stand a chance. Still
I find myself questioning if a vamp that pays one less for For. is
"good" for the game. I suspect that in the long run it won't mattter
much.
***JediMike***
***JediMike***
***JediMike***
CthuluKitty
Typically no more than 2 and a half hours. I actually find that no
time limit can make the game go *faster* at times too, because no one
has any incentive to slow things down for their 1/2 VP or undeserved
game win.
>> I understand that 90% of the time it's
>> better to focus on ousting your own prey, but that other 10% is still a
>> relevant and important part of play.
>>>Sure. But that is a vast minority of the time.
Returning to the original topic of discussion, I feel that a trick deck
like the Una one posted going off warrants xtable interference. Sure,
it's better that it be stopped by its own predator or prey --and
certainly possible-- but it may be necessary, and intelligent, for
players to cross the table to keep it from going off. Decks like that
simply do not have any defense if they are attacked before they pull
the trick, and are thus exceptionally vulnerable to a well prepared
table.
Cthulukitty
CthuluKitty
been included in the last message. It's very common in our games for
players to concede when one player clearly has the game in hand.
Obviously, this doesn't happen until only 2 or 3 are left at the table,
but it serves to shorten the game. In 2 hour time limit games, people
will often keep playing in positions they know they can't win just to
score the 1/2 VP and possibly prevent an opponent from getting a GW.
The one tourney I went to I saw a player in a clearly lost position in
the 1v1 phase of the game repeatedly counting his cards without playing
anything as the clock ran down, as though somehow he would have a
number other than 7 in his hand. I mentioned this to other players and
noone seemed bothered by it, which is weird. In any case, the lack of
an incentive to draw games out to the time limit, can actually make
games a lot shorter.
Wow this thread has gone OT.
Cthulukitty
David Zopf
"CthuluKitty" <vtana...@riseup.net> wrote in message
news:1119985051....@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>> How long are these games of which you speak?
>
> Typically no more than 2 and a half hours. I actually find that no
> time limit can make the game go *faster* at times too, because no one
> has any incentive to slow things down for their 1/2 VP or undeserved
> game win.
>
undeserved game win (other than by collusion or other methods of cheating),
with or without a time limit?
DZ
AW
Daneel
Well, given how you wouldn't normally want to hunt at capacity unless
you were playing a trick deck, I'm not sure about that. The vast majority
of decks don't really care whether the rule is in place or not. If a deck
like this one is a problem, I think reinstalling that rule would still be
the best solution.
--
Bye,
Daneel
David Zopf
> Oh. Another thing about playing with no time limit, which should have
> been included in the last message. It's very common in our games for
> players to concede when one player clearly has the game in hand.
> Obviously, this doesn't happen until only 2 or 3 are left at the table,
> but it serves to shorten the game. In 2 hour time limit games, people
> will often keep playing in positions they know they can't win just to
> score the 1/2 VP and possibly prevent an opponent from getting a GW.
> The one tourney I went to I saw a player in a clearly lost position in
> the 1v1 phase of the game repeatedly counting his cards without playing
> anything as the clock ran down, as though somehow he would have a
> number other than 7 in his hand. I mentioned this to other players and
Aye, weird. The judge should have issued a penalty for slow-play...
> In any case, the lack of
> an incentive to draw games out to the time limit, can actually make
> games a lot shorter.
>
I think you might be (justifiably) confusing the effect of slow-play (not
allowed under VEKN rules), with the effect of a time limit. You need better
(more active)officiating, such that the former is eliminated. In the
abscence of that, its reasonable to see why one wouldn't like time limits...
DZ
AW
David Zopf
"Daneel" <dan...@eposta.hu> wrote in message
news:opss3g2b...@news.chello.hu...
> On 28 Jun 2005 10:10:03 -0700, Robert Goudie <rob...@vtesinla.org> wrote:
>
>> Daneel wrote:
>>> On Mon, 27 Jun 2005 21:58:21 GMT, LSJ <vtesr...@TRAPwhite-wolf.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> > If there's a problem here, I doubt if it's Una. It's either Freak's
>>> > in-turn repeatability or hunt's in-turn repeatability.
>>>
>>> Come to think of it, what happened to the rule stating you cannot hunt
>>> at
>>> capacity? That rule would mostly make this kind of trick deck unusable
>>> (if it's a problem at all), and it kind of made sense anyway.
>>
>> I'd guess that the rule was dropped because it is uneccessary
>> complexity (doesn't add anything to the game and isn't needed for
>> balance).
>
> Well, given how you wouldn't normally want to hunt at capacity unless
> you were playing a trick deck, I'm not sure about that. The vast majority
> of decks don't really care whether the rule is in place or not.
I think that is an fairly accurate indication (definition, even?) of an
"unnecessary complexity"...
> If a deck
> like this one is a problem, I think reinstalling that rule would still be
> the best solution.
>
Yeah, but it isn't. At least, its no greater a problem than Cardano with
Ankara Citadel has been since Ancient Hearts... I agree, though, that it
must have been quite a shock for the unprepared, the first time Una went
supercritical... Thanks out to Jedi Mike for pointing out the tactic.
DZ
AW
Matthew T. Morgan
>> If a deck
>> like this one is a problem, I think reinstalling that rule would still be
>> the best solution.
>>
> Yeah, but it isn't. At least, its no greater a problem than Cardano with
> Ankara Citadel has been since Ancient Hearts... I agree, though, that it
> must have been quite a shock for the unprepared, the first time Una went
> supercritical... Thanks out to Jedi Mike for pointing out the tactic.
Agreed. Jason Babbit used to run a deck where Cardano or Ulugh Beg would
get the Citadel and Govern down, Freak, Fourth Tradition every turn. Nice
trick and very strong if nobody had intercept, but there are plenty of
ways to stop it.
Matt Morgan
Wouter Kuyper
> Well, not really contrary to your predator/prey dynamic, as, well, they are
> your predator. I mean, like, I'm not saying it is generally a good idea to
> get your predator ousted, but it is much more likely to be useful to get
> your predator ousted than it is to get some random dude across the table
> ousted.
>
Now why did you put in that little word "random"? Ofcourse that is a
bad thing,...but what if it is not random,...
I go crosstable a lot if i think i need to stop someone getting a VP.
So usually not to oust someone crosstable, but to stop someone from
ousting crosstable.
Give someone xtable three KRC-damage and they suddenly have to defend
against their predator instead of just going full forward. Could very
well be worth it in my book. I dont want that player ousted,..not at
all, but perhaps i dont want him ousting either,...
Sometimes it aint necesary to do the xtable stuff yourself,...just
hold back a little on your prey, so that he can put some more
pressure, either by deal or not,...
Just ousting your prey isnt what this game is about if you ask me.
Ousting your prey while stopping others from growing too fast. That's
how i see this game.
W
Robert Goudie
> Still I find myself questioning if a vamp that pays one less for
> For. is "good" for the game. I suspect that in the long run it
> won't mattter much.
Funny that you mention your Tzimisce deck as a counter to the Una deck
and wonder whether Una's special is "good for the game". You are
familiar with Meshenka's special, right? ;)
Una clearly isn't the problem. I've narrowed the root problem down to
a toss-up between Freak Drive or Dennis Lien. I'm currently leaning
toward Dennis.
-Robert
LSJ
> LSJ wrote:
>
>
>>If there's a problem here, I doubt if it's Una. It's either Freak's
>>in-turn repeatability or hunt's in-turn repeatability.
>
> Ya think?
Yes.
> Like, Freak Drive has been around forever, and while it was
> certainly a problem pre-NRA, post NRA it hasn't been a problem at all, and
> is only a problem now due to Una. And the hunting in-turn repeatability has
> only ever been a problem in the context of Una being able to cycle an
> infinite number of Freak Drives to find something useful--anyone could
> already do this, but without the free play ability of Una, packing a deck
> with 53 Freaks has never been really worth the effort.
Which doesn't really address the issue of which link in the chain is
the offending one (assuming there's any offense at all).
That the chain has only now been completed is not material to determining
which link is the crux.
How many cards untap the acting minion?
How many of those can untap the same acting minion more than once in a turn?
How many actions can be repeated?
How many of those are cardless?
(Note: I don't think repeat hunting is the link of interest. I included
it only because it is the link whose adjustment would be the easiest to
swallow. Assuming any adjustment is warranted, of course.)
> I mean, like, yeah, tweaking either Freak or hunting certainly could be an
> option, but that would have a much bigger effect that isn't necessarily
> warranted than tweaking Una.
Limiting repeat hunting would not have a much bigger effect than fixing Una.
Limited repeat Freaks have a bigger effect, sure. But that's why it would
only be done if it was warranted.
I never suggested making an unwarranted change to Freak.
If Freak is the problem, then changing it is warranted, by definition.
--
LSJ (vtesr...@TRAPwhite-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep (remove spam trap to reply)
Links to V:TES news, rules, cards, utilities, and tournament calendar:
http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/
LSJ
> Come to think of it, what happened to the rule stating you cannot hunt at
> capacity? That rule would mostly make this kind of trick deck unusable
> (if it's a problem at all), and it kind of made sense anyway.
The original rules did not prohibit at-capacity hunting.
It was added in 1995. It was subsequently reset in 1998.
Allowing hunting at capacity makes sense, since vampires can.
Emmit Svenson
Peter D Bakija wrote:
> ...Freak Drive has been around forever, and while it was
> certainly a problem pre-NRA, post NRA it hasn't been a problem at all, and
> is only a problem now due to Una. And the hunting in-turn repeatability has
> only ever been a problem in the context of Una being able to cycle an
> infinite number of Freak Drives to find something useful....
Another deck that gets an inordinate advantage from Freak + repeatable
hunts is the Rabbat bloat deck. Use the Hungry Coyote or Aaron's
Feeding Razor to allow Rabbat to hunt for 2, then hunt-Freak-repeat
until you're out of Freaks. Each hunt gains you a pool...and Rabbat's
no fun to block.
Daneel
wrote:
> Daneel wrote:
>> Come to think of it, what happened to the rule stating you cannot hunt
>> at
>> capacity? That rule would mostly make this kind of trick deck unusable
>> (if it's a problem at all), and it kind of made sense anyway.
>
> The original rules did not prohibit at-capacity hunting.
> It was added in 1995. It was subsequently reset in 1998.
>
> Allowing hunting at capacity makes sense, since vampires can.
I think that while vampires who are freshly fed can technically hunt
according to the source material, they seldom do so (except for special
cases). Hence it would make sense that in VTES they can not do it without
a special card or effect. I mean, a vampire of the source material can
choose to go and see the sunrise for the last time (which they often do
in their angst-ridden melancholy), yet in VTES I can't just say "Okay,
my famous Marlene ends her own life." without providing for a special
circumstance to back that up (like, playing Daring the Dawn).
Not that it would matter much, I just felt like pointing that out.
--
Bye,
Daneel
David Cherryholmes
> Agreed. Jason Babbit used to run a deck where Cardano or Ulugh Beg
> would get the Citadel and Govern down, Freak, Fourth Tradition every
> turn. Nice trick and very strong if nobody had intercept, but there are
> plenty of ways to stop it.
I think there may be a qualitative shift when you go from sixteen Freak
Drives to, like, fifty.
--
David Cherryholmes
David Cherryholmes
> At least one deck you will oust with that Slaughterhouserubbish... ;o)
If you can get Brinksmanship on the table, it ousts just fine (or at
least some do).
--
David Cherryholmes
***JediMike***
My vote is for banning Dennis! :) Seriously, there is a huge difference
between throwing 5 or 6 Horrid Forms (of 18) in a combat vs. 53 Freak
Drives in one single turn. As nasty as my Tzimisce deck can be, I often
DON'T have the goods. What Una can do is....well....INSANE! If a fix
needs to be made (and thats a BIG if) I would not want to be the one to
decide which "link" in the chain is the culprit. Still, I own 47 Freaks
and it makes me think....hmmmmm.
***JediMike***
Rehlow
Robert Goudie wrote:
>
> Una clearly isn't the problem. I've narrowed the root problem down to
> a toss-up between Freak Drive or Dennis Lien. I'm currently leaning
> toward Dennis.
>
> -Robert
Banning Dennis won't help. There are plenty of other people crazy
enough to come up with more Turbo decks. Plus, if you banned Dennis,
you'd have to ban Legbiter for his contributions to Turbo Baron, and we
don't want to see Leggy banned.
JediMike & Dennis,
Thanks for finding the perfect vampire for my vamp gets Soul Gem,
Freaks, plays Dual Form, Dual Form plays Force of Will, vamp with Soul
Gem burns, get free full vampire, and then Possession original vamp
back into play and rinse and repeat as needed. Oh, its fragile, but it
will be a good time if no one can block.
Later,
~Rehlow
***JediMike***
how to get to some place called "The Gallows" ?
***JediMike***
Kevin M.
> Oh. Another thing about playing with no time limit, which should have
> been included in the last message. It's very common in our games for
> players to concede when one player clearly has the game in hand.
> Obviously, this doesn't happen until only 2 or 3 are left at the
> table, but it serves to shorten the game. In 2 hour time limit
> games, people will often keep playing in positions they know they
> can't win just to score the 1/2 VP and possibly prevent an opponent
> from getting a GW.
And the problems with that are...?
Do you disagree with the philosophy that a player in a losing position is
allowed to lose any way he wishes?
> The one tourney I went to I saw a player in a
> clearly lost position in the 1v1 phase of the game repeatedly
> counting his cards without playing anything as the clock ran down, as
> though somehow he would have a number other than 7 in his hand. I
> mentioned this to other players and noone seemed bothered by it,
> which is weird.
And when you mentioned this obvious stalling to the judge, what happened?
> In any case, the lack of an incentive to draw games
> out to the time limit, can actually make games a lot shorter.
I'd like to see some hard data supporting this position, but I'd wager
that it's your playgroup's lack of playing with 2 hour time limits in
non-tournament games that has biased you to believe that the longer the
game is allowed to continue the shorter the final game length will
actually be.
> Cthulukitty
Kevin M., Prince of Las Vegas
"Know your enemy, and know yourself; in one-thousand battles
you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, *The Art of War*
"Contentment... Complacency... Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier
Robert Goudie
***JediMike*** wrote:
> Robert Goudie wrote:
> > ***JediMike*** wrote:
> > > Still I find myself questioning if a vamp that pays one less for
> > > For. is "good" for the game. I suspect that in the long run it
> > > won't mattter much.
> >
> > Funny that you mention your Tzimisce deck as a counter to the Una deck
> > and wonder whether Una's special is "good for the game". You are
> > familiar with Meshenka's special, right? ;)
> >
> > Una clearly isn't the problem. I've narrowed the root problem down to
> > a toss-up between Freak Drive or Dennis Lien. I'm currently leaning
> > toward Dennis.
> >
> > -Robert
>
> My vote is for banning Dennis! :) Seriously, there is a huge difference
> between throwing 5 or 6 Horrid Forms (of 18) in a combat vs. 53 Freak
> Drives in one single turn.
Exactly. But notice that in the description of the differences, you are
discussing Horrid Form and Freak Drive and not the difference between
Una and Meshenka ('cause there ain't none!).
-Robert
Daneel
Yeah, well I'd say there are more glorious game wins (like, defeating
the concerted effort of the whole table in an epic struggle for
domination), and less glorious ones (like, having your prey say "what
the fuck" and launch a suicide attack at your grandprey after one and
a half hours of boring tug-of-war that has 10% chance of giving him
1 VP and 90% of giving you 2 VP).
I think that depending on what contributed more to your GW it may seem
more or less "deserved". Winning by strategizing, resource management,
outthinking the other players is generally considered better than
winning by a lucky draw, the ending of the game or bullshitting.
At least, by me... ;)
--
Bye,
Daneel
Peter D Bakija
> Maybe a solution would be adding the option in the rated CONSTRUCTED
> tournaments of a card limit,
Oh just stop now.
Peter D Bakija
pd...@lightlink.com
http://www.lightlink.com/pdb6
"So in conclusion, our business plan is to sell hot,
easily spilled liquids to naked people."
-Brittni Meil
Jeroen Rombouts
"Rehlow" <news...@rehlow.com> schreef in bericht
news:1120000046.9...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>
> JediMike & Dennis,
> Thanks for finding the perfect vampire for my vamp gets Soul Gem,
> Freaks, plays Dual Form, Dual Form plays Force of Will, vamp with Soul
> Gem burns, get free full vampire, and then Possession original vamp
> back into play and rinse and repeat as needed. Oh, its fragile, but it
> will be a good time if no one can block.
>
crypt, esp. because of the cap decrease of Dual form.
also: possesion only gives you a new Una with 1 blood. so no more Dual
form.
Jeroen Rombouts
"Jeroen Rombouts" <jeroen....@NOSPAMtelenet.be> schreef in bericht
news:7zwwe.132968$JD6.7...@phobos.telenet-ops.be...
>
> "Rehlow" <news...@rehlow.com> schreef in bericht
> news:1120000046.9...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>>
>> JediMike & Dennis,
>> Thanks for finding the perfect vampire for my vamp gets Soul Gem,
>> Freaks, plays Dual Form, Dual Form plays Force of Will, vamp with Soul
>> Gem burns, get free full vampire, and then Possession original vamp
>> back into play and rinse and repeat as needed. Oh, its fragile, but it
>> will be a good time if no one can block.
>>
> How do you plan on fishing for Una? you can't put more than 1 in your
> crypt, esp. because of the cap decrease of Dual form.
stupid me: completely forgot Recruitment.
Wouter Kuyper
very difficult, because DualForm lowers your capacity,...you will
never be certain you get the good vampire,...or you need to find a way
to get +2capacity in your turbocycle,..
W