qualifiers, questions...
kevin scribner
so, i'm wondering why we haven't seen any results posted about the
first u.s. qualifier, in atlantic city...? i'm guessing that the
tournament organizer is the one responsible for seeing that we get the
results here on the newsgroup...?
we want to know things, like how many players qualified, what the soup
of the day was, total number in attendance, winner, winning deck list,
et cetera... get on your job, dude...!
:)
also, and this question points toward white wolf, lsj, and, i think,
robert goudie [though i could be mistaken in my apprehension of who
handles this stuff]: i head, roundabout, that there were some
significant issues at that qualifier, with prize support, and i'm
wondering if those issues will also rear their ugly heads come the
northeast regional qualifier on february 20th...?
i hope it's not considered unreasonable to want to know just what the
scopp on prize support will be at a qualifier, and whether or not
it'll be there at all... given the fact that the n.e.r.q. is being
held at totalcon *again* this year, which is a rather expensive [$35
for the weekend v:tes pass, which covers 3 constructed tournaments,
plus expenses] and otherwise utterly forgettable con, and it's also
out in the freaking styx, i just wonder what the stakes are...
of course, the real reason i'm going is for the chance to play with
visiting dignitaries who i never get to see except at this event, many
of whom are incredibly cool and fun people to hang around with... and
the hope of scoring a way cool qualifier's tshirt... but wanting to
know in advance just what kind of swag i might waltz away with if i
have a good day doesn't seem too terribly wrong to me...?
anyone care to pipe in...?
peace --
-- khs
"eritis sicut dii, scientes bonum et malum..."
David Cherryholmes
> so, i'm wondering why we haven't seen any results posted about the
> first u.s. qualifier, in atlantic city...? i'm guessing that the
> tournament organizer is the one responsible for seeing that we get the
> results here on the newsgroup...?
I think the Prince who hosted it is rather new. That whole qualifier
came out of the blue; I saw it announced long before I ever saw any
statement that WW was taking requests for event locations.
> we want to know things, like how many players qualified, what the soup
> of the day was, total number in attendance, winner, winning deck list,
> et cetera... get on your job, dude...!
50 players showed. 13 Qualified. I would not be one of them, having
come in 14th, tied with 13th on VP but losing by TP's.
Round 1:
Eurojah, some guy -> Fatima Multirush, me -> Baali, Colin Riggs -> Arika
PTO sleeze, Josh Duffin -> Gangrel FoW, can't remember (a Prince,
though).
My predator went down like a cheap prom date to several early
unblockable bleeds, rats, and over-spending. Yay for me. I flip out
Fatima, Josh turns up Arika, and we commence to eye-balling each other.
I'd rode up to the tourney from DC with him, and had told him I'd
probably just have to rush any IC on sight. Still, I bided, he bided,
and then I got Writ of Acceptance on Fatima and it didn't matter any
more. I oust Colin, then Josh, then the Gangrel player.
Round 2:
Me -> Kindred Spirits, Ben Peal -> Weenie Presence Bleed -> Tremere
toolbox -> A FUCKING CANINE HORDE *DECK*, Dan.
Uh, that was not my table. I could have completely taken Ben apart,
simply due to the nature of our decks, but I wanted him to oust the
weenie presence deck which was, literally, 30 bleed cards and 30 S:CE.
Ben reversed my early Blood Doll, upstream. Strike one. My predator is
bringing out small to midcaps with obf and tooling up with laptops,
bleed retainers, and army of rats. I can't ignore him. I get my gun
blown away. Clearly I'm going to lose. I bide, draw into the bow, and
get that blown away, too. Dan got his VP and, with no pressure behind
him, Ben smokes the rest of the table.
Round 3:
Me -> AN ENORMOUS HORKIN' TOOL -> Lasombra "I bleed you for seven" -> BH
pot/dom Seraphs -> Giovanni bleed and tricks
Two things: my deck gagged. 30 cards, saw one freak and one psyche.
Next thing: my prey brings out a 3 cap. I dunk her. He freaks out,
and STOPS TRANSFERRING. Not "I wait and bring four guys out at once".
Just..... quits, says he's digging for damage prevention, like one
friggin' damage prevention card is going to make or break Fatima with an
Assault Rifle. The Lasombra deck is unhooked, and decimates his first
prey fast. I beg the guy to get in the game. He continues to be a
tool. I start crosstable rushing the Lasombra deck, but he had 15 S:CE
cards, and like I said, the deck gagged that round. I get a bleed for
five bounced into me by my oh-so-grateful predator, and then another
bleed for five puts me outafter which he dies, and then my prey dies.
It is simply amazing how people with no predator tend to win. Oh well.
So, 1 GW, 4 VP the whole day, 14th place. Not bad I guess for a
multi-rush deck. The finals were, predictably, 4 pure stealth bleed
decks and one pot/dom seraph deck (not the one I faced in round 3, this
one was being driven by Trey Morita).
--
David Cherryholmes
Duke Radiology
P.E.T. Facility
(919) 684-7714
david.che...@duke.edu
Ben Peal
> I think the Prince who hosted it is rather new. That whole qualifier
> came out of the blue; I saw it announced long before I ever saw any
> statement that WW was taking requests for event locations.
I've been emailing with him (David Lapp), and he'll have the
full report up in the next day or two.
> Round 2:
>
> Me -> Kindred Spirits, Ben Peal -> Weenie Presence Bleed -> Tremere
> toolbox -> A FUCKING CANINE HORDE *DECK*, Dan.
>
> Uh, that was not my table. I could have completely taken Ben apart,
> simply due to the nature of our decks, but I wanted him to oust the
> weenie presence deck which was, literally, 30 bleed cards and 30 S:CE.
> Ben reversed my early Blood Doll, upstream. Strike one. My predator is
> bringing out small to midcaps with obf and tooling up with laptops,
> bleed retainers, and army of rats. I can't ignore him. I get my gun
> blown away. Clearly I'm going to lose. I bide, draw into the bow, and
> get that blown away, too. Dan got his VP and, with no pressure behind
> him, Ben smokes the rest of the table.
*nod* Accurate assessment. I was dreading the "Ben Loses All His
Vampires In One Turn" onslaught, but since Dan had basically no
pressure, he was free to go all out after you.
> The finals were, predictably, 4 pure stealth bleed decks and one
> pot/dom seraph deck (not the one I faced in round 3, this one was
> being driven by Trey Morita).
One of those stealth bleed decks was actually Ethan Levi's Turbo
Baron deck.
Matt Morgan's big Dem bleed, Colin Riggs' Baali bleed frenzy,
Ethan Levi's Turbo Baron, Trey Morita's Pot-Dom Black Hand
rush-bleed, my Malk/!Malk Kindred Spirits bleed
Matt fails to draw bounce. I oust him. Ethan's Turbo Baron
craziness fails to go off. Colin ousts him. Colin eventually
blasts through Trey. Colin and I exchange unblocked bleeds,
but Colin's Anarch Revolt and his lack of using Greta's special
spell his doom. If I had gotten rid of the Anarch Revolt, I
probably would have made victory more certain for me, but the
Revolt seemed like a good thing for me at the time.
The deck:
Deckname: Cheesequake
Created by: Ben Peal
Description: This deck is total cheese. The qualifier was in
New Jersey. There's a town in New Jersey called Cheesequake,
so I thereby dub this deck Cheesequake.
CRYPT
1 x Adelaide Davis (4): obf dem aus
1 x Jeremy Talbot (4): obf dem
1 x Persia, the Beautiful Statue (5): DEM obf aus
1 x Evan Klein (5): OBF dem aus pre
1 x Tony (6): DEM AUS obf dom
1 x Dr. Douglas Netchurch (6): OBF AUS dem dom
1 x Yorik (3): dem obf
1 x Claven (4): dem obf aus
1 x Artemis (6): OBF DEM aus cel for
1 x Dolphin Black (6): OBF DEM AUS
1 x Kite (7): DEM AUS obf pre
1 x Korah (7): OBF DEM AUS ani
LIBRARY
1 x Institution Hunting Ground
1 x Muddled Vampire Hunter
1 x The Barrens
1 x The Rumor Mill, Tabloid Newspaper
1 x Anarch Troublemaker
1 x Misdirection
4 x Blood Doll
1 x Life Boon
2 x Sudden Reversal
1 x Auspex
1 x Dementation
1 x Change of Target
8 x Wake with Evening's Freshness
5 x Elder Impersonation
5 x Lost in Crowds
5 x Spying Mission
5 x Cloak the Gathering
5 x Faceless Night
3 x Swallowed by the Night
2 x Domain of Evernight
18 x Kindred Spirits
6 x Confusion
8 x Telepathic Misdirection
3 x Enhanced Senses
1 x The Call
- Ben Peal, Prince of Boston
fu...@mindstorm.com
Snapcase
kevins...@airbridge.net says...
> so, i'm wondering why we haven't seen any results posted about the
> first u.s. qualifier, in atlantic city...? i'm guessing that the
> tournament organizer is the one responsible for seeing that we get the
> results here on the newsgroup...?
>
> we want to know things, like how many players qualified, what the soup
> of the day was, total number in attendance, winner, winning deck list,
> et cetera... get on your job, dude...!
That particular tournament organizer doesn't read the newsgroup as far
as I know.
Heres a re-post of the email he sent out afterwards:
//begin forward
I just wanted to say congratulations to the 13 people who qualified for
the championships in the East Central region. We had an unprecedented 50
players in attendance. Players coming from Connecticut and Massachusetts
all the way down to South Carolina managed to make their way out to
South Jersey. Thanks to everyone for making it such a great turnout. The
following is the list of qualifiers:
1. Ben Peal
2. Colin Riggs
3. Ethan Levi
4. Matt Morgan
5. Trey Morita
6. Warren Bell
7. Nick Watkins
8. Scott Gomes
9. David Cox
10. Jason Bubalis
11. Cory Seigel
12. Roger McCrady
13. Ken Fazekas
All in all it seemed like most players had a good time, and I hope we
can do this again next year. I learned what not to do (I.e., put the
food where nobody could get to it and make sure the chairs were rented
earlier), and what everyone liked about it. There should be pictures,
the winning deck list, and the final standings posted on our website
shortly.
//end forward
> i head, roundabout, that there were some
> significant issues at that qualifier, with prize support, and i'm
> wondering if those issues will also rear their ugly heads come the
> northeast regional qualifier on february 20th...?
I haven't heard anything, but perhaps one of the finalists can clarify.
They only had 10 tshirts for qualified players, but I think that's
because they were expecting 40 people and not 50.
--
-Snapcase
kevin scribner
thanks for the tournament report, david... sounds like business as usual...
so, about my other questions and concerns...?
peace --
-- khs
Matthew T. Morgan
> > i head, roundabout, that there were some
> > significant issues at that qualifier, with prize support, and i'm
> > wondering if those issues will also rear their ugly heads come the
> > northeast regional qualifier on february 20th...?
>
> I haven't heard anything, but perhaps one of the finalists can clarify.
> They only had 10 tshirts for qualified players, but I think that's
> because they were expecting 40 people and not 50.
That's the only "issue" I could think of. Yes, the top 10 got t-shirts.
11-13 received apologies and David Lapp (who was an excellent host and
judge) took their addresses so the shirts could be sent. There was also a
large display of promo cards, which included not only Eyes of Hazimel,
Legions and a pile of promo vamps, but also Blood Dolls and Wakes. I
personally took none of these, having a sizable collection, but it's
wonderful for new players to be able to grab a couple extra copies of
these important staples. A few of those demo decks we've heard about were
also available.
The five finalists received many booster packs as prizes, but I sort of
had the sense that these were from David's personal stock and not related
to "official" prize support.
Really, aside from my performance in the finals, I can't think of any
complaint to make about the event.
Matt Morgan
Colin Riggs
"Ben Peal" <fu...@optical.mindstorm.com> wrote in message
news:bf72a12e.04020...@posting.google.com...
>
> Matt fails to draw bounce. I oust him. Ethan's Turbo Baron
> craziness fails to go off. Colin ousts him. Colin eventually
> blasts through Trey. Colin and I exchange unblocked bleeds,
> but Colin's Anarch Revolt and his lack of using Greta's special
> spell his doom. If I had gotten rid of the Anarch Revolt, I
> probably would have made victory more certain for me, but the
> Revolt seemed like a good thing for me at the time.
>
It was more the losing 3 pool every untap phase, and running a little too
much combat defense that got me. Greta, if I had remembered, *smack*, would
have given me another turn. But you had 7 pool, and I had 2 social charms
coming up, not quite enough. Your deck has suprisingly little bleed, but
weenie-ness made up for it.
I don't know if getting rid of the Anarch revolt would have been good for
you. I was the one losing pool on top of the bleeds, I would have been happy
to see it go. Having both of us run out of bleed cards was sort of a funny
end to a stealth bleed finals.
It was strange how many decks failed to work in the finals. Trey didn't draw
nearly enough rush to kill you, and his intercept was mostly worthless
against me. Matt drew no bounce, which I assume is a sad fluke, and a sad
side effect of playing 8 plus cap stealth bleed. Leviathan had a crappy draw
(no Baron, no coroners, 1 Deflection) and Trey managed to screw him with a
ministry. Of course on the other hand, Matt's deck didn't have time to draw
bounce 'cause you were bleeding the crap out of him, and Leviathan had no
2nd chance at the Soul gem.
Anyway, great tournament, and fun finals, just a little too quick : )
Colin Riggs
the baali really are infernal
salem
<far...@eris.io.com> scrawled:
[snip]
>That's the only "issue" I could think of. Yes, the top 10 got t-shirts.
>11-13 received apologies and David Lapp (who was an excellent host and
>judge) took their addresses so the shirts could be sent.
ahahahahahaha!
sorry, just the idea of people who didn't get their qualifier shirts
at the event they were supposed to actually getting it later makes me
laugh.
no insult meant to the princes, here. just my lack of faith in links
higher up the chain being able to get qualifier tshirts out.
(2002 shirts never arrived for canberra, australia. an email a
fortnight for about 5 months after the event and i give up. Newcastle,
australia's 2003 qualifier is in the same boat. plus i seem to recall
hearing similar anecdotes about even US qualifiers...)
salem
domain:canberra http://www.geocities.com/salem_christ.geo/vtes.htm
Ben Peal
> Ben Peal wrote:
> > Matt fails to draw bounce. I oust him. Ethan's Turbo Baron
> > craziness fails to go off. Colin ousts him. Colin eventually
> > blasts through Trey. Colin and I exchange unblocked bleeds,
> > but Colin's Anarch Revolt and his lack of using Greta's special
> > spell his doom. If I had gotten rid of the Anarch Revolt, I
> > probably would have made victory more certain for me, but the
> > Revolt seemed like a good thing for me at the time.
>
> It was more the losing 3 pool every untap phase, and running a little too
> much combat defense that got me. Greta, if I had remembered, *smack*, would
> have given me another turn. But you had 7 pool, and I had 2 social charms
> coming up, not quite enough. Your deck has suprisingly little bleed, but
> weenie-ness made up for it.
Well, there would've been more bleed coming your way if my hand
wasn't completely jammed with stealth down the stretch. :)
Just one or two Kindred Spirits in the end game would've given me
a lot of breathing room.
> Having both of us run out of bleed cards was sort of a funny
> end to a stealth bleed finals.
*laugh* Agreed. :)
> It was strange how many decks failed to work in the finals. Trey didn't draw
> nearly enough rush to kill you, and his intercept was mostly worthless
> against me. Matt drew no bounce, which I assume is a sad fluke, and a sad
> side effect of playing 8 plus cap stealth bleed. Leviathan had a crappy draw
> (no Baron, no coroners, 1 Deflection) and Trey managed to screw him with a
> ministry. Of course on the other hand, Matt's deck didn't have time to draw
> bounce 'cause you were bleeding the crap out of him, and Leviathan had no
> 2nd chance at the Soul gem.
*nod*
> Anyway, great tournament, and fun finals, just a little too quick : )
Just quick enough. ;)
> Colin Riggs
> the baali really are infernal
Hey, speaking of which, could you post a decklist for your deck?
Colin Riggs
"Ben Peal" <fu...@optical.mindstorm.com> wrote in message
news:bf72a12e.04020...@posting.google.com...
>
> > the baali really are infernal
>
> Hey, speaking of which, could you post a decklist for your deck?
Sure, its mostly the same as the others I have posted in the past. I took
out 2 combat defense cards for the tournament, turns out I could have taken
out more. Though I did remain mostly untouched by the huge Ganrgel rush deck
that was my predator in round 3.
I could also take out a blood doll for some other master as I always had
plenty.
Deck Name: Bounce'n Baali - 2004 remix
Created By: Colin Riggs
Description: Greta (or any other non-infernal) then Baali, then bleed a
lot. Block stuff, use combat, Giotto and Angry Pants specials are really
good, especially Giotto.
Crypt: (12 cards, Min: 27, Max: 34, Avg: 7.42)
----------------------------------------------
1 Antoinette AUS cel obf PRE 6, Toreador:3,
Primogen
4 Greta Kircher AUS CEL obf PRE 7, Toreador
Antitribu:2
3 High Priest Angra Mainyu DAI dem OBF PRE ser 8, Baali:2
3 Giotto Verducci DAI for OBF pot pre 7, Baali:2
1 Huitzilopochtli AUS DAI DOM OBF PRE POT 10, Baali:2
Library: (90 cards)
-------------------
Master (14 cards)
1 Anarch Revolt
7 Blood Doll
1 Coven, The
2 Dreams of the Sphinx
1 Giant's Blood
1 Jake Washington (Hunter)
1 Presence
Action (13 cards)
1 Contagion
2 Entrancement
3 Legal Manipulations
7 Social Charm
Action Modifier (20 cards)
4 Aire of Elation
2 Cloak the Gathering
3 Faceless Night
4 Lost in Crowds
1 Mask of a Thousand Faces
6 Spying Mission
Reaction (18 cards)
2 Delaying Tactics
8 Telepathic Misdirection
8 Wake with Evening's Freshness
Combat (13 cards)
4 Behind You!
5 Conflagration
4 Majesty
Combo (12 cards)
10 Sense the Sin
2 Swallowed by the Night
Colin Riggs
will play something less 'do or die' at next qualifier.
Andrew S. Davidson
>Next thing: my prey brings out a 3 cap. I dunk her. He freaks out,
>and STOPS TRANSFERRING. Not "I wait and bring four guys out at once".
>Just..... quits, says he's digging for damage prevention, like one
>friggin' damage prevention card is going to make or break Fatima with an
>Assault Rifle. The Lasombra deck is unhooked, and decimates his first
>prey fast. I beg the guy to get in the game. He continues to be a
>tool.
I applaud this guy and would be inclined to do the same. The more my
predator whined that I should bring out minions for him to rush, the
more I'd be sure I was doing the right thing.
Andrew
Derek Ray
Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> mumbled something about:
Nobody likes a person who says "I'm losing and I'm taking you with me."
And in fact, you are doing the wrong thing; you give yourself no chance
of winning. Transferring to 1 short of each minion and bringing out
more minions at once than your predator can Rush -does- give you a
chance; making no transfers whatsoever is simply playing to make someone
else lose, and the act of a five-year old child.
-- Derek
Deafness never kept composers from hearing the music.
It only stopped them hearing the distractions.
Andrew S. Davidson
>And in fact, you are doing the wrong thing; you give yourself no chance
>of winning. Transferring to 1 short of each minion and bringing out
>more minions at once than your predator can Rush -does- give you a
>chance; making no transfers whatsoever is simply playing to make someone
>else lose, and the act of a five-year old child.
As I understand it, rush decks are usually more about making other
players lose than winning themselves. He who lives by the sword ...
And it's not necessarily playing take-ya-with-me. As I see it, one is
playing for time - eking out one's pool until something turns up to
change the situation. Maybe your predator is ousted. Maybe someone
changes the seating or direction of play. Maybe one just hangs on
until time runs out and you score a VP for surviving.
But mainly I'm just happy to see a rush deck frustrated by someone who
refused to play their game.
Andrew
Derek Ray
>On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 00:08:26 -0500, Derek Ray wrote:
>
>>And in fact, you are doing the wrong thing; you give yourself no chance
>>of winning. Transferring to 1 short of each minion and bringing out
>>more minions at once than your predator can Rush -does- give you a
>>chance; making no transfers whatsoever is simply playing to make someone
>>else lose, and the act of a five-year old child.
>
>As I understand it, rush decks are usually more about making other
>players lose than winning themselves. He who lives by the sword ...
As usual, you are incorrect. Poorly played rush decks make people lose;
well-played ones can, and DO win, because they focus on both the pool
and the minions.
>And it's not necessarily playing take-ya-with-me. As I see it, one is
>playing for time - eking out one's pool until something turns up to
>change the situation. Maybe your predator is ousted. Maybe someone
>changes the seating or direction of play. Maybe one just hangs on
>until time runs out and you score a VP for surviving.
All of the above are not inconsistent with "make all-but-1 transfers to
each minion, bringing them out immediately as soon as things look good
for you". This is "trying to win in a bad situation".
All of the above *ARE*, however, inconsistent with "never transfer,
ever". You just lose that way, make someone else lose, and hand the
game to your prey. Nobody has ever successfully gotten a VP by not
transferring and "hanging around" until time ran out. Nobody ever will.
>But mainly I'm just happy to see a rush deck frustrated by someone who
>refused to play their game.
Yes, we are well aware of your irrational, personal bias against Rush
decks, Andrew. However, we recognize it as such, and therefore can give
it the lack of respect it deserves.
David Cherryholmes
> As I understand it, rush decks are usually more about making other
> players lose than winning themselves. He who lives by the sword ...
Poorly played ones, yes. The same criticism could be leveled at wall
decks, irresponsible bleed decks, and many others.
> And it's not necessarily playing take-ya-with-me. As I see it, one is
> playing for time - eking out one's pool until something turns up to
> change the situation. Maybe your predator is ousted. Maybe someone
> changes the seating or direction of play. Maybe one just hangs on
> until time runs out and you score a VP for surviving.
I can understand and respect a player who sees a deck upstream of him who
is clearly the paper to his rock, and playing to outlive that deck. But
that consideration has to be balanced against actually playing to win (not
in any objectively proveable way, since I don't believe you *can* prove
that sort of thing). The strongest single predictor in this game is "the
guy with no predator wins". That's something you have to also be *highly*
cognizant of any time you play a deck with strong minion control, whether
that is rush, sensedep, pto, banishment, temptation, or whatever. It is
not enough to simply assess whether you can remove that minion, but also
whether it is wise to do so in light of table balance. That very
interesting puzzle is what attracts me to such decks, since it injects a
level of analysis I don't perceive in, say, stealth-bleed.
When I play a rush deck -- the kind I like to play anyway -- I am highly
cognizant of the fact that my deck simply does not have the resources to
sweep a table, barring a string of lucky breaks. So, I'm not playing to
oust everyone. I'm playing to make sure no one has more than 1 VP, and
then to put myself on top of the heap with at least two. That means, as
far as my self-interest is concerned, *everyone* needs to be in the game
and actively applying at least some pressure to their predators and
preys. I'm willing to let my prey have a VP, if that seems best for my
long term strategy. I'm willing to take the risk that someone gets the
one VP I, more or less, let them get, and then go on to thwart me and get
two or more. It's part of the inherent limitations of my deck's strategy,
albeit one I'm willing to accept.
Anyway, the proof's in the pudding. He stopped playing, and his prey -- a
strong, forward moving deck in it's own right -- nearly swept the
table. It doesn't take a genius to predict this as the likely outcome.
And lastly, in this particular game the player in question *was* playing
fortitude. That automatically negates any consideration that my deck
could even *be* the paper to his rock. He has damage prevention, it's
there for a reason, and I still had other things to manage besides
auto-squishing every minion he presents (like not dying to my own DOM/NEC
predator).
No, in this game at least, the player in question flipped out, played
poorly, and handed the game to his prey.
> But mainly I'm just happy to see a rush deck frustrated by someone who
> refused to play their game.
He refused to play any game at all. I fail to see what there is to be
proud of.
Peter D Bakija
>> As I understand it, rush decks are usually more about making other
>> players lose than winning themselves. He who lives by the sword ...
>
> Poorly played ones, yes. The same criticism could be leveled at wall
> decks, irresponsible bleed decks, and many others.
Lots of decks are usually about making other players lose than winning
themselves. Most bad decks do that. When someone sits at a table with a weak
deck with little forward momentum, they are just making their grand prey
lose (and their prey win).
This being said, Rush decks are no more about "making someone lose" than
bleed decks are--they do their best to oust their prey (i.e. make them lose)
as fast as possible (just like bleed decks), and in doing so, try to get a
table win (just like bleed decks).
Peter D Bakija
pd...@lightlink.com
http://www.lightlink.com/pdb6
"Punk rock's been pretty good to me for twenty years. It's my year to give
back: I'm dedicating the next year of my life to fucking the Bush
administration."
-Fat Mike, http://www.punkvoter.com
Chris Shorb
David Cherryholmes wrote:
> Two things: my deck gagged. 30 cards, saw one freak and one psyche.
> Next thing: my prey brings out a 3 cap. I dunk her. He freaks out,
> and STOPS TRANSFERRING. Not "I wait and bring four guys out at once".
> Just..... quits, says he's digging for damage prevention, like one
> friggin' damage prevention card is going to make or break Fatima with an
> Assault Rifle. The Lasombra deck is unhooked, and decimates his first
> prey fast. I beg the guy to get in the game. He continues to be a
> tool. I start crosstable rushing the Lasombra deck, but he had 15 S:CE
> cards, and like I said, the deck gagged that round. I get a bleed for
> five bounced into me by my oh-so-grateful predator, and then another
> bleed for five puts me outafter which he dies, and then my prey dies.
> It is simply amazing how people with no predator tend to win. Oh well.
Hi David - we have never met, but I have heard you are a good player, and a
fun one. I think the lesson to be learned is that as a rush deck, sometimes
it pays not to appear too scary. As you say, your prey brought up one vamp,
and you "dunked" her. If you are the omega to my alpha, I might not bring
up another vamp as well. I might not even influence until I saw Fatima dead
or seating switch. To some extent, you did exactly what he wanted - you
started to pound on his prey.
At no point do you mention yourself going up stream and dunking some of your
predator's Giovanni. If you had the goods to go cross-table, then you
probably had the goods to go upstream. I think if you had pummeled the
Gio's DOM vamps, and perhaps all of his vamps, your prey would have figured
you had forgot him, and brought up some vamps of his own. You can even
declare "You don't have to worry about my rush for a while." As you say
yourself, "people with no predator tend to win." The Huge benefit of
playing Rush is that you can create that situation for yourself.
One thing Andrew said that I thought was canny was "The more my
predator whined that I should bring out minions for him to rush, the
more I'd be sure I was doing the right thing." If I am pissing you off, and
you are either my pred or prey, well then I am really getting positive
feedback, and I will continue to do whatever is pissing you off.
Maybe his thought was that if he waited until you were gone, he might be
able to squeak out 2 VP between himself and his prey, or whoever. Finally,
if he had been influencing onto his vamps, two things would have happened:
a) you would not have let him go, as Fatima would have been salivating to go
after those guys as soon as they came up. And b) he might have influenced
himself down enough that you would start to concentrate on ousting him with
bleeds (even for 1).
I understand your frustration - learn from it for the future, and Fatima
Multi-rush will dominate again, as it should.
best -
chris
--
chris shorb
<www.vtesinla.org> (A V:TES site)
prince of torrance, california
***
Into the abyss I'll fall - the eye of Horus
Into the eyes of the night - watching me go
Green is the cat's eye that glows - in this temple
Enter the risen Osiris - risen again
- Dickinson
Wes
"Chris Shorb" <chr...@vtesinla.org> wrote
>
> One thing Andrew said that I thought was canny was "The more my
> predator whined that I should bring out minions for him to rush, the
> more I'd be sure I was doing the right thing." If I am pissing you
off, and
> you are either my pred or prey, well then I am really getting positive
> feedback, and I will continue to do whatever is pissing you off.
So long as your goal is still to win, this is acceptable. In fact,
almost anything (legal) should be acceptable so long as this is your
goal.
I've kept all of my uncontrolled vampires at X-1 blood because of a rush
predator and managed to sweep once he expended all his combat on his
predator instead of poor old me.
But from the original post it sounded like the person just caved with
the intention of transferring out. That's quite a bit different.
Cheers,
WES
David Cherryholmes
> Hi David - we have never met,
We haven't? All this time I've had your posts linked to some other dude's
face. You weren't at WoN 2002? Weren't you my grandprey at one table at
Gencon, playing some wierd "bleed upstream" malk deck when I was playing
Thetmes and getting preyed on by Jeff Kuta's Tegyrius? Oh well.
> but I have heard you are a good player, and a
> fun one.
I talk a lot of smack. For me, Jyhad is all about the smack.
> I think the lesson to be learned is that as a rush deck, sometimes
> it pays not to appear too scary. As you say, your prey brought up one vamp,
> and you "dunked" her.
K'man, a few more details, since you appear at least a little
interested. He brought up a three cap. Eventually, much later, after
bringing up my own nerd, I bring out Fatima. Yes, I torpored his THREE
CAP. I think you can reason out the rest of my position from that.
> If you are the omega to my alpha, I might not bring
> up another vamp as well.
But I wasn't the Omega to his Alpha. He was playing AUS/FOR. AUS stops
the freak drives until I get a skill card. FOR means maybe I just cycle
his hand for him on the rushes. Neither of our decks "negated" the other.
> I might not even influence until I saw Fatima dead
> or seating switch. To some extent, you did exactly what he wanted - you
> started to pound on his prey.
Yes, after his prey ousted his first prey with two bleeds of six and seven
at three and four stealth, respectively, and was then bleeding into my
Dom-having predator, meaning either he ousts me with a bounced mega-bleed,
or he ousts my predator and now has two VP's, I started rushing
him. That's because I was TRYING TO WIN THE GAME!!!!!!!! Just because
his prey has practically become my predator and I'm now doing his job for
him does not make him clever. A broken clock is right twice a day.
> At no point do you mention yourself going up stream and dunking some of your
> predator's Giovanni.
Not really relevant to the scenario. I rushed upstream once, but mostly
my smack-talking kept my predator at bay. That, and he ousted me with me
with a bounced mega-bleed, just like he was probably planning to do all
along.
> If you had the goods to go cross-table, then you
> probably had the goods to go upstream. I think if you had pummeled the
> Gio's DOM vamps, and perhaps all of his vamps, your prey would have figured
> you had forgot him, and brought up some vamps of his own.
Possibly. I was more concerned with squishing his guys and him getting
ousted, giving the Lasombra "Fuckhead Hooked Me Up" player a second VP. I
had a lot of things to balance that game. It'd be cool to just let
Kindred Spirits bleeds rip at stealth action after action, but I like a
mental game.
> You can even
> declare "You don't have to worry about my rush for a while." As you say
> yourself, "people with no predator tend to win."
I did this. I went on at great length, and I think in a not too derisive
way, as to what his strategy was doing to the table and that we were all
going to lose to the Lasombra player. I promised not to rush him, or do
anything to him, if he would just get in the game. IIRC, after four turns
of not making a single transfer, he finally brought out Matthias, who I
think he was ready to bring out the turn after I hit the 3 cap.
Incidently, as to "hitting the three cap", to me that is just like doing
a bleed of three, only not as good. I shouldn't have had to do all the
hand holding and back-patting, except that I obviously did.
> The Huge benefit of
> playing Rush is that you can create that situation for yourself.
Sure. Wasn't the way to go that game.
> One thing Andrew said that I thought was canny was "The more my
> predator whined that I should bring out minions for him to rush, the
> more I'd be sure I was doing the right thing." If I am pissing you off, and
> you are either my pred or prey, well then I am really getting positive
> feedback, and I will continue to do whatever is pissing you off.
Sorry, but that's really dumb. It's never bad when your opponents get
worked up, since they are liable to make more mistakes. But you might
want to consider the possibility that you are, yourself, exhibiting a
little cranial-rectal inversion, and said player has a *legitimate* reason
to be pissed off. Of course everyone thinks their shit doesn't stink, but
it's just not true.
> Maybe his thought was that if he waited until you were gone, he might be
> able to squeak out 2 VP between himself and his prey, or whoever.
Maybe, who knows? I didn't call a judge or anything. He's free to play
his game as he likes. He's also free to not be able to read the writing
on the wall and make a christmas present of a round in a regional
qualifier to another player. He's free to not note that said prey was a
power "to hell with bounce" bleed deck, and he would have been meat in the
two-way. None of these truths change the fact that, in that game, the guy
was a tool.
> Finally,
> if he had been influencing onto his vamps, two things would have happened:
> a) you would not have let him go, as Fatima would have been salivating to go
> after those guys as soon as they came up.
This is just not true. It's not how I play. I don't think it's even
smart, unless you are playing weenie rush (which, granted, is the only
kind of rush most people see).
> And b) he might have influenced
> himself down enough that you would start to concentrate on ousting him with
> bleeds (even for 1).
You mean... GASP! He would have had a predator!? I say to him, welcome
to the game known as V:TES. I'm still a better deal that 2/3 of the
cheesy crap that got brought to the USA's first national qualifier.
> I understand your frustration - learn from it for the future, and Fatima
> Multi-rush will dominate again, as it should.
I do try to take every game as a learning experience. But, I don't think
there's anything I could have done in that game short of just not being a
predator to that guy. Fuck that. Sometimes dumb-asses will make you
lose, it's the nature of the game.
Pat Lusk
"David Cherryholmes" <david.che...@duke.edu> wrote
<snip>
> You mean... GASP! He would have had a predator!? I say to him, welcome
> to the game known as V:TES. I'm still a better deal that 2/3 of the
> cheesy crap that got brought to the USA's first national qualifier.
>
What was some of the cheesy stuff that you encountered?
Just curious, as it was my first qualifier, and I have no basis for
comparison.
Pat
David Cherryholmes
> What was some of the cheesy stuff that you encountered?
The cheesiest deck I saw was Weenie Presence. I think it was 30 bleed
cards and some ridiculously large number of S:CE. Arika PTO was there
but, interestingly, goose-egged for the day. The weenie presence deck
didn't get a VP at the table I sat at with it, come to think of it. There
was a whole lot of stealth bleed, though. I know that's a huge swath of
the game, but it's a big, cheesy swath. ;)
The relevant point being that, disturbing as a predator practicing minion
control on you is, he's less likely to oust you than the one taking it
straight to your pool. Have you thanked your rush-deck player today?
Daneel
> > Multi-rush will dominate again, as it should.
>
> I do try to take every game as a learning experience. But, I don't think
> there's anything I could have done in that game short of just not being a
> predator to that guy. Fuck that. Sometimes dumb-asses will make you
> lose, it's the nature of the game.
Well, the game may be more complex than we would like it to be.
If you go forward strongly, your prey might...
[cognitively] decide that his chances to win are dim as hell and go
about gaining their VPs in any way they choose (like not
transferring), or with other words
[emotionally] consider you to be explicitly messing with them and
therefore mess back the only way they can.
When I play Rush, I always start upstream. Maybe even crosstable (If I
see an IC or something). When my prey has 1 minion, he still has the
chance to "back out" of the game and fuck with me. When he has three,
torporising one will unbalance his strategy, urging him to rescue or
replace the guy without "quitting" the game.
I'm not sure that playing the part of cattle is really mandatory in
this game. If you're playing PureCombat, and my basic option is to go
down the hard way or lay down by bringing out the minions one by one,
the option may be more open than aggressive predators would like it to
be.
I was shafted once by a similar instance. I was playing a Malk
Toolbox-Bleed deck, and after torporizing my prey's Huitzlipochtli, he
stopped transferring. He just sit there, being the smart ass, figuring
if he won't win, neither should I. Well, I almost took that table, but
the endgame was too intense (with a weenie bleed deck) and I made 2-3
"small" mistakes, which eventually just cost me the game. But
nevertheless, I cannot condemn my prey for doing what he did; he
really had no chance, after I killed his fresh 10-cap minion, and
since my deck could bleed, he was oust anyway. Unfortunately, it took
one round longer than it should have, but such is life. Cost me the
finals too.
Anyway, it was an interesting game from a psychological POV. You
should get others connected to the game before disappointing them,
because you may get an overreaction from them, especially from
less-than veteran players. Also, it's personal style too. Bleeds
always get bounced to me, but I at least know why... ;)
Bye,
Daneel
Snapcase
> One thing Andrew said that I thought was canny was "The more my
> predator whined that I should bring out minions for him to rush, the
> more I'd be sure I was doing the right thing." If I am pissing you off, and
> you are either my pred or prey, well then I am really getting positive
> feedback, and I will continue to do whatever is pissing you off.
The reason he was pissed off is because it was quite obvious that his
grandprey was going to sweep very easily with 0 pressure.
> Maybe his thought was that if he waited until you were gone, he might be
> able to squeak out 2 VP between himself and his prey, or whoever.
Knowing the deck that would have been his opponent at that point very
well, with 0 vampires in play he would have lasted a grand total of 2
turns. He would have been hit with 2-3 bleeds of about 6 or 7 each, two
turns in a row, and the game would have ended (and it did).
--
-Snapcase