[FIST] Gencon 97 - Final Brawl winning deck - Trinity
Andrew S. Davidson
TRINITY
by Joseph Livote
This is the deck that won the Final Brawl at Gencon 97, winning
four straight games outright - a very impressive record.
Joseph has been playing this deck for a long time and this
version is the result of much fine tuning. A key theme is that
the best multiple for most vital cards is 3. This suggests the name,
which was also the code-word for the first A-bomb test.
A single faction Architect deck does not need much explanation
but there are two cards which are not seen so often and so are worthy
of mention. Joseph highlights Crčche of the New Flesh as being
very good for setting up the winning attack - being cheaper than
an ordinary FS site and so catching out the opposition. Bzzzzzt! can
kill characters which are immune to Nerve Gas, notably CHAR, and
its toasting effect can hurt multi-faction decks.
Joseph himself is a New York banker but, despite this, seems to be a
most amiable and pleasant chap. He is part of a group that plays
every day (!) and this constant practise obviously pays off - Janifer
Cheng is part of this group and she did well too.
2 Abominable Lab
3 Alpha Beast
1 Biomass Reprocessing Center
3 Brain Sucker
3 BuroMil Grunt
3 Bzzzzzt!
3 Cellular Reinvigoration
1 CHAR
2 Crčche of the New Flesh
1 Dangerous Experiment
3 Expendable Unit
1 Genghis X
1 Gnarled Attuner
3 Imprisoned
3 Nerve Gas
3 Neutron Bomb
3 Plasma Trooper
1 Prototype X
3 Reinvigoration Process
1 Sergeant Blightman
5 Test Subjects
3 The Reconstructed
3 Vivisector
1 City Park
2 Garden of Bronze
5 Inner Sanctum
1 Mourning Tree
1 Night Market
2 Orbital Laser Strike
1 Proving Ground
1 Secret Headquarters
2 Smart Missile
2 Supercomputer
2 Wall of a Thousand Eyes
2 Whirlpool of Blood
= 77 cards
ANALYSES:
BY TYPE
28 Characters
7 Edges
21 Events
17 Feng Shui Sites
4 Sites
BY COST
4 0 cost
24 1 cost
16 2 cost
13 3 cost
4 4 cost
1 5 cost
15 variable cost
1.87 average cost (excluding variable)
BY FIGHTING
8 1 fighting
6 2 fighting
3 3 fighting
3 4 fighting
3 5 fighting
2 6 fighting
2 8 fighting
1 9 fighting
3.32 average fighting (by character)
1.21 average fighting (by card)
BY FOUNDATION
16 Flesh Architects
PERCENTAGES
21% Base resource
22% Feng Shui
5% Site
3% Magic
22% Tech
BY SET
46 Limited
13 Netherworld
18 Flashpoint
BY RARITY
13 Very Common
34 Common
23 Uncommon
7 Rares (9%)
BY FACTION
55 Flesh Architects
22 Neutral
Bryant Durrell
In article <BF45C6C0202EF055.C18CF24F...@library-proxy.airnews.net>,
Andrew S. Davidson <7271...@compuserve.com> wrote:
>Joseph himself is a New York banker but, despite this, seems to be a
>most amiable and pleasant chap. He is part of a group that plays
>every day (!) and this constant practise obviously pays off - Janifer
>Cheng is part of this group and she did well too.
Congratulations to Joseph! So the title moves to the East Coast...
maybe next year California will come back. It's a shame the Seattle
people didn't make a showing, but I hear the big players up there
have drifted away for the most part. Dragonflight had almost no
'Fist players.
Playing every day certainly helps a lot. I'm woefully out of practice
and I've seen the affect on my play, for sure.
Does anyone know if Joseph plays against Heffernan frequently? If the
answer is yes, I'll be giving Heffernan a lot more benefit of the doubt.
--
Bryant Durrell [] dur...@innocence.com [] http://www.innocence.com/~durrell
[----------------------------------------------------------------------------]
"You have all eternity to be cautious in when you're dead." -- Lois Platford
Joshua Kronengold
In article <5vmaq4$d3c$1...@toybox.flick.com>, Bryant Durrell wrote:
>
>In article <BF45C6C0202EF055.C18CF24F...@library-proxy.airnews.net>,
>Andrew S. Davidson <7271...@compuserve.com> wrote:
>Congratulations to Joseph! So the title moves to the East Coast...
>maybe next year California will come back. It's a shame the Seattle
>people didn't make a showing, but I hear the big players up there
Actually, this was the Final Brawl (The Nationals qualifier), not the
National finals (I assume that Andrew will post the results on that
soon, and yes, of course my deck has changed significantly between
then and now :).
Agreed on the Seattle people; it would have been nice to see
if all that trash talking was just trash.
>Playing every day certainly helps a lot. I'm woefully out of practice
>and I've seen the affect on my play, for sure.
Note that the Joseph/Jan/++ group, while it plays almost every day,
does not ALWAYS play Shadowfist, which is why I havent' shown up for
that group in many months.
>Does anyone know if Joseph plays against Heffernan frequently? If the
>answer is yes, I'll be giving Heffernan a lot more benefit of the doubt.
Actually, none of the top players in NYC (Hefferman is really a New
Jersey player, not a New York player, and only makes it in here
erratically) play Hefferman frequently, and to my knowledge, he hasn't
won a multiplayer game in which I was playing (on the other hand, I
don't think we've played more than two multiplayers together, and he
did smash a 75 card pre-flashpoint version of Walk Softly when I
played him two-player last year). Dennis does have an impressive win
record at the Neutral Ground proving ground (a different group than
the Jan/Joseph/etc crowd) when I'm not there, though -- it took me
something like 4 straight weeks to finally edge him out for leading
player before we did the proving ground finals right before Gencon.
--
mn...@dorsai.org Joshua Kronengold |\ _,,,--,,_ ,)
---^----"Unix is easy. Just like a cross between /,`.-'`' -, ;-;;'
/\\ English and Welsh. Except that you have to |,4- ) )-,_ ) /\
-/-\\\-- take out all the vowels" -- Me '---''(_/--' (_/-'
Bryant Durrell
In article <slrn61tgqq...@amanda.dorsai.org>,
Joshua Kronengold <mn...@dorsai.org> wrote:
>In article <5vmaq4$d3c$1...@toybox.flick.com>, Bryant Durrell wrote:
>>In article <BF45C6C0202EF055.C18CF24F...@library-proxy.airnews.net>,
>>Andrew S. Davidson <7271...@compuserve.com> wrote:
>>Congratulations to Joseph! So the title moves to the East Coast...
>>maybe next year California will come back. It's a shame the Seattle
>>people didn't make a showing, but I hear the big players up there
>
>Actually, this was the Final Brawl (The Nationals qualifier), not the
>National finals (I assume that Andrew will post the results on that
>soon, and yes, of course my deck has changed significantly between
>then and now :).
My bad. :)
>>Playing every day certainly helps a lot. I'm woefully out of practice
>>and I've seen the affect on my play, for sure.
>Note that the Joseph/Jan/++ group, while it plays almost every day,
>does not ALWAYS play Shadowfist, which is why I havent' shown up for
>that group in many months.
>
>>Does anyone know if Joseph plays against Heffernan frequently? If the
>>answer is yes, I'll be giving Heffernan a lot more benefit of the doubt.
>
>Actually, none of the top players in NYC (Hefferman is really a New
>Jersey player, not a New York player, and only makes it in here
>erratically) play Hefferman frequently, and to my knowledge, he hasn't
>won a multiplayer game in which I was playing (on the other hand, I
>don't think we've played more than two multiplayers together, and he
>did smash a 75 card pre-flashpoint version of Walk Softly when I
>played him two-player last year). Dennis does have an impressive win
>record at the Neutral Ground proving ground (a different group than
>the Jan/Joseph/etc crowd) when I'm not there, though -- it took me
>something like 4 straight weeks to finally edge him out for leading
>player before we did the proving ground finals right before Gencon.
Ah, so. Well, with any luck there'll be a Nationals next year and I'll
show up this time and I'll be in good form. I'd like to get back into
the weekly play thang again; Dragonflight was very embarassing. Stupid
stupid mistakes.
--
Bryant Durrell [] dur...@innocence.com [] http://www.innocence.com/~durrell
[----------------------------------------------------------------------------]
"We all know that art is not truth. Art is the lie that makes us realize
truth -- at least the truth that is given us to understand." -- Pablo Picasso
Brian Kawano
Bryant Durrell wrote:
>
> Ah, so. Well, with any luck there'll be a Nationals next year and
> I'll show up this time and I'll be in good form. I'd like to get
> back into the weekly play thang again; Dragonflight was very
> embarassing. Stupid stupid mistakes.
>
bwah hah hah . . . :)
you weren't the only one who was less-than-heffernanian in form. i
was quite rusty but more than willing to capitalize on everyone else's
mistakes. never underestimate the power of a deck that contains the
Rules Card. :)
AFAIK, none of the Seattle-area players play more often than once a
week. my l'il threesome hasn't played in a while. if any other
Seattle-area players are out there, please drop me an e-mail.
off-topic, the dragonflight CCG turnout was an embarassment. :P
WOTC's game center seems to have killed dragonflight's ability to draw
CCGers. but that's OK; it smelled nicer this year than it had in years
past . . . ;) ;) ;)
-- reverend brian
---- .sigfile rendered invisible by psi-pests
Dennis F. Hefferman
In <slrn61tgqq...@amanda.dorsai.org> mn...@dorsai.org (Joshua Kronengold) writes:
|Actually, none of the top players in NYC (Hefferman is really a New
|Jersey player, not a New York player, and only makes it in here
|erratically) play Hefferman frequently, and to my knowledge, he hasn't
|won a multiplayer game in which I was playing (on the other hand, I
|don't think we've played more than two multiplayers together, and he
It's only been two, and you didn't win the second one either. ;-)
(I was using Gouda, which doesn't measure up to Jarlsberg.)
|did smash a 75 card pre-flashpoint version of Walk Softly when I
|played him two-player last year). Dennis does have an impressive win
I also ran over your attempt at the Kung Fu Student/weak site deck.
'Course you "convinced" me that the BuroMil module of two or three redesigns
ago was a lost cause on another occasion.
|record at the Neutral Ground proving ground (a different group than
|the Jan/Joseph/etc crowd) when I'm not there, though -- it took me
And that was only showing up three times. ;-)
(To explain: the NG group is fairly small, so weekly events tend to
have low point values. However, Jose's trip to NG took place that season and
the two-player tourney run that day counted for points. Said tourney was much
larger than the norm and I came in second, so I racked up a huge number of
points, comparatively speaking, in one day. The deck I lost to, for what it's
worth, was an optimized version of my own -- we were both playing straight
Architects, but since I was using a deck put together from two halves that have
to interface with other parts and the other guy was using one built as a
unified whole, he had the edge and it came through for him.)
|something like 4 straight weeks to finally edge him out for leading
|player before we did the proving ground finals right before Gencon.
I just can't make it in that often. Actually I tend to wedge in a trip
to the city when I tweak one of the multiplayer decks to see if it will work.
If they have actually switched to Fridays I might make it in more often.
--
Dennis Francis Heffernan IRC: FuzyLogic heff...@pegasus.montclair.edu
Montclair State University #include <disclaim.h> Computer Science/Philosophy
"I don't know why you make such a big deal out of everything...haven't you
learned; if it's not happening to me it's not important?" -- Murphy Brown
Dennis F. Hefferman
|Does anyone know if Joseph plays against Heffernan frequently? If the
|answer is yes, I'll be giving Heffernan a lot more benefit of the doubt.
Nevah hoid of 'em -- but the deck posted is about 90% of my deck using
Architects/Architects. It's too big, it's site-based and it uses a few cards I
wouldn't (Cellular Reinvigoration, Creche of the New Flesh, Brain
Sucker...can't think of any others right now) but pretty much it's my deck. I
may have played him at Neutral Ground without knowing it.
Brian Kawano
Tony Hafner wrote:
>
> And from some other article, yes- most of the big players
> from this area have moved on in various ways (no offense
> intended, Brian).
>
i'm nowhere near to being a shadowfist player with big *talent*;
i try to compensate with a big *attitude*. :)
shadowfist will return to Seattle one day. if i can get sufficient
demo material, then i can beg WOTC to let me demo at the game center.
-- reverend brian
---- .sigfile converted to conform to eurosigfile standards
Tony Hafner
If I weren't in the market for a house that weekend, I would
have been there. Actually, if I'd known that out-of-town
'Fisters would be there then I'd have gone anyway.
Unfortunately, I didn't hear of this until long after the
fact. I would have liked proving that we aren't all hot
air...
And from some other article, yes- most of the big players
from this area have moved on in various ways (no offense
intended, Brian). Sgt. Whiteman has discovered Quakeworld,
Shay is too caught up in school, 1 Jason moved to
California, another appears to be getting serious with his
new job, and the other one seems to have dropped off the
face of the planet. Jose, of course, moved back where he
came from. Jon also vanished, and with the people I know in
that group gone I have no way of contacting the others.
On a lighter note, a 'Fist friend of mine from back home is
moving to the area today. He will be busy with school, but
I'll make him play. Not that I play more than once every 2
weeks these days (going on 5 or so right now).
--
Tony Hafner
"We raise hell- we make fire for fun...we make trouble, we
make war, we make whole bunch of wars!" -Ugh, BC Rock
Joshua Kronengold
In article <hefferma....@pegasus.montclair.edu>, Dennis F. Hefferman wrote:
>In <slrn61tgqq...@amanda.dorsai.org> mn...@dorsai.org (Joshua Kronengold) writes:
>
>|erratically) play Hefferman frequently, and to my knowledge, he hasn't
>|won a multiplayer game in which I was playing (on the other hand, I
>|don't think we've played more than two multiplayers together, and he
> It's only been two, and you didn't win the second one either. ;-)
>(I was using Gouda, which doesn't measure up to Jarlsberg.)
On the other hand, I think you've been eliminated at bunch of
multiplayer tournaments before I took the high seat, but who's
counting? :)
>|did smash a 75 card pre-flashpoint version of Walk Softly when I
>|played him two-player last year). Dennis does have an impressive win
>
> I also ran over your attempt at the Kung Fu Student/weak site deck.
>'Course you "convinced" me that the BuroMil module of two or three redesigns
>ago was a lost cause on another occasion.
Actually, that was my early attempt at a Killing Rain deck, with FAR
too many cards -- try it now and you won't find it so easy (it shared
second at the Dexcon Who's the Man tourney, and has improved since).
Regarding Kung Fu Student decks, my 34 card version is QUITE different.
Regardless, I wouldn't take my bloated killing rain deck (which I
wasn't playing with the PG rules anyways) as an example of how these
things play; they're just a wee bit faster than that (in fact, as far
as I can tell, the Kung Fu student deck comes out faster than ANY
other deck I've ever seen), and I've seen a lot.
> And that was only showing up three times. ;-)
Actually, I think I passed you on the third win in a row, but I'm not
sure; I'd have to ask Steve or Matt.
>|something like 4 straight weeks to finally edge him out for leading
>|player before we did the proving ground finals right before Gencon.
>
> I just can't make it in that often. Actually I tend to wedge in a trip
>to the city when I tweak one of the multiplayer decks to see if it will work.
>If they have actually switched to Fridays I might make it in more often.
And of course, since I'm overcommitted on Fridays, I'll make it much
less (though I'll be doing NYU's Shadowfist things pretty regularly
despite not going to NYU).
Andrew S. Davidson
On 17 Sep 1997 01:59:44 -0400, (Dennis F. Hefferman) wrote:
> Nevah hoid of 'em -- but the deck posted is about 90% of my deck using
>Architects/Architects. It's too big, it's site-based and it uses a few cards I
>wouldn't (Cellular Reinvigoration, Creche of the New Flesh, Brain
>Sucker...can't think of any others right now) but pretty much it's my deck.
I assume that your equivalent deck is:
>FENG SHUI 2:
>5 Inner Sanctum, 5 City Park, 5 Sacred Ground, Jagged Cliffs
>ARCHITECTS A:
>5 DNA Mage, Buromil Grunt, 2 Abominable Lab, CHAR,
>2 Sergeant Blightman, Genghis X, 5 Imprisoned, 3 Neutron Bomb,
>2 Dangerous Experiment
>ARCHITECTS B:
>5 Test Subjects, 2 Abominable Lab, 3 Vivisector, 2 Gnarled Attuner,
>2 Prototype X, Desdemona Deathangel, 3 Reinvigoration Process,
>4 Nerve Gas
I note that he used Tech cards too. These can be very useful in a
multi-player game - Smart Missile/Orbital Laser Strike to take out
denial sites and Supercomputer to set up an event lock.
I'm curious why you both have only one copy of CHAR. He has a big rep
and is not unique. Why not more?
Andrew
Joshua Duffin
Andrew S. Davidson (7271...@compuserve.com) wrote:
[Mr. Heffernan's comments and presumable deck snipped]
: I note that he used Tech cards too. These can be very useful in a
: multi-player game - Smart Missile/Orbital Laser Strike to take out
: denial sites and Supercomputer to set up an event lock.
: I'm curious why you both have only one copy of CHAR. He has a big rep
: and is not unique. Why not more?
I'm not Dennis so I don't know for sure, but my guess is that both of
these look like recycling-Abomination decks (each has 3 Reinvig Processes
and a wide selection of good Abominations, though by the by I have no idea
why the Joseph Livote version has 3 Alpha Beasts - sure, they're Abominations,
but there are better Aboms and better foundations, I'd think). CHAR, while
very good, is not an Abomination. So, both of them have gone for more
Abominations and less CHAR.
I agree on Tech cards - I'd add that MegaTank can come in handy sometimes,
particularly if used with Tank Warfare, although it is a little on the high-
cost end of things.
Josh
speculative secret warrior
Dennis F. Hefferman
In <D6FCFB9A1B0629F4.0AB4256D...@library-proxy.airnews.net> 7271...@compuserve.com (Andrew S. Davidson) writes:
|I assume that your equivalent deck is:
|>FENG SHUI 2:
|>5 Inner Sanctum, 5 City Park, 5 Sacred Ground, Jagged Cliffs
I'd prefer Feng Shui 1; the no-specials idea just doesn't work.
(Assuming I was going to run something like this in multiplayer at all, which I
wouldn't -- I'd use Jarlsberg or Gouda (Brie is still in the tinkering
stage).)
|>ARCHITECTS A:
|>5 DNA Mage, Buromil Grunt, 2 Abominable Lab, CHAR,
|>2 Sergeant Blightman, Genghis X, 5 Imprisoned, 3 Neutron Bomb,
|>2 Dangerous Experiment
|>ARCHITECTS B:
|>5 Test Subjects, 2 Abominable Lab, 3 Vivisector, 2 Gnarled Attuner,
|>2 Prototype X, Desdemona Deathangel, 3 Reinvigoration Process,
|>4 Nerve Gas
Pretty much; don't think I've tinkered with these for a while.
|I note that he used Tech cards too. These can be very useful in a
|multi-player game - Smart Missile/Orbital Laser Strike to take out
|denial sites and Supercomputer to set up an event lock.
I used to use Supercomputer. I may put it back in, taking out the DE's
for it. I haven't played Architects A enough to truly judge their
effectiveness. (I already know it works; I'm more interested in how some of
the other sections perform.)
My site-destruction stuff is in the Jammers module --
Architects/Jammers is pretty strong as a result.
|I'm curious why you both have only one copy of CHAR. He has a big rep
|and is not unique. Why not more?
I'm playing with Blightmans right now, and they've been working out.
The Sacred Hearts are a big help, and Architects/Hand is always fun thanks to
the Realignments in the latter. Like I said, I don't play these much; I
already know they work.
Joshua Duffin
Dennis F. Hefferman (heff...@pegasus.montclair.edu) wrote:
[snip]
: I'd prefer Feng Shui 1; the no-specials idea just doesn't work.
: (Assuming I was going to run something like this in multiplayer at all,
: which I
: wouldn't -- I'd use Jarlsberg or Gouda (Brie is still in the tinkering
: stage).)
Speaking of your decks named after cheeses, do we have any chance of seeing
you post any of 'em anytime in the foreseeable future?
To put my own money where my mouth is, here's my currently favorite deck.
It's not perfect, but it's lots of fun. (Intended largely for multi, but
also works well in two-player.)
"Feast of Hungry Walking Soulless Corpses"?
Foundations:
5 Sinister Priest
4 Vassals of the Lotus
3 Claw of Fury | I'm considering upping the Claw count; it seems
| like I always end up playing them just before I'd
| get them free; and if I pull some Glimpses it
| won't be as important to get the quick-Vassal
| resources.
Non-Foundations:
5 Walking Corpses | Love the early muscle. Love the 2-cost.
3 White Disciple | Also 2-cost. Proving Grounds, you see.
2 Purist Sorcerer | Also 2-cost. Potential Buro-screwing angle.
2 Evil Twin | Probably the only Heffernan-broken card in here.
2 Destroyer | Especially fun with Feast of Souls.
3 Kun Kan | Supposed to go with Hungry and Glimpse; not doing
| as well as I'd hoped.
1 Thing w/1000 Tongues | Also good with Feast, although the Thing hasn't
| come out in most recent games.
Edges:
3 The Hungry | We all know how good this is, I think.
2 Feast of Souls | Pricey, but very effective.
Events:
5 Glimpse of the Abyss | I'm seriously considering reducing or dropping
| these. Especially in multi, it has made it
| noticeably harder to get into contention for the
| win, and I always seem to discard at least 1 or
| 2 in the early game (when they wouldn't get me
| enough Power for it to seem worthwhile).
5 Pocket Demon | For obvious reasons.
2 Discerning Fire | Some minor denial.
1 Tortured Memories | All I own, oddly enough. Might try getting more.
Feng Shui:
5 Proving Ground | Pocket Demon combo, and lots of 2-cost characters.
5 Fortress of Shadow | Comeback helpfulness, and decent Body.
2 Whirlpool of Blood | For the Proving Grounds, etcetera.
---------
60 cards.
It's won a few multiplayer games as well as a few two-players. I like the
deck a lot, but I'm really dubious about the Glimpses in this deck. I think
they just don't get me far enough to be worth the drawback. The only thing
I'm concerned about it is where to get the Power for a Feast without having
Glimpses around. But I might just accept that I'd have to save up a little
in order to replace the Glimpses with cards that are more frequently useful.
Inauspicious Reburial is tempting me, but I don't know whether I want to
go that route. If I put it in, I'll be tempted to use it in multi, and if
I do, I'll run the risk of doing the wrong thing with it (eg keeping someone
down and then wishing I hadn't when someone else goes for a win). Maybe I'd
like some Inexorable Corruption, it's been a fun card before. Any other
suggestions, anyone?
Josh
contributing to thread drift
Brad Solberg
In article <01bcc44a$f47ba860$2124...@duplo.dns.microsoft.com>,
Tony Hafner <tonyhaf@*no spam*microsoft.com> wrote:
>> > Ah, so. Well, with any luck there'll be a Nationals next year and
>> > I'll show up this time and I'll be in good form. I'd like to get
>> > back into the weekly play thang again; Dragonflight was very
>> > embarassing. Stupid stupid mistakes.
>> >
>> bwah hah hah . . . :)
>>
>> you weren't the only one who was less-than-heffernanian in form. i
>> was quite rusty but more than willing to capitalize on everyone else's
>> mistakes. never underestimate the power of a deck that contains the
>> Rules Card. :)
>>
Me too. I was playing Bryant's decks so made mistakes in the first three
games. Then I got back into form and went 2-3. If I'd brought my own
decks I would have made less errors, since I am down to about 4 decks
in preparation for throne war and can (and have) play those decks
in my sleep.
>> AFAIK, none of the Seattle-area players play more often than once a
>> week. my l'il threesome hasn't played in a while. if any other
>> Seattle-area players are out there, please drop me an e-mail.
>>
I really need to start playing again, to keep my hand in until
Throne War. I didn't think it would be this long, so I've been
kind of waiting for the new cards...
>> off-topic, the dragonflight CCG turnout was an embarassment. :P
>> WOTC's game center seems to have killed dragonflight's ability to draw
>> CCGers. but that's OK; it smelled nicer this year than it had in years
>> past . . . ;) ;) ;)
>
>If I weren't in the market for a house that weekend, I would
>have been there. Actually, if I'd known that out-of-town
>'Fisters would be there then I'd have gone anyway.
>Unfortunately, I didn't hear of this until long after the
>fact. I would have liked proving that we aren't all hot
>air...
>
I felt the same way about not being able to go to Gencon.
Not enough time and money what with a 3 week vacation we did
about the same time.
I would have loved to meet the New York and London crowd.
I think Cold War would have done pretty well, what with all
the Architects in the games...
-Brad
Brad Solberg
In article <603o7h$5...@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu>,
Joshua Duffin <du...@newton.ruph.cornell.edu> wrote:
>
>To put my own money where my mouth is, here's my currently favorite deck.
>It's not perfect, but it's lots of fun. (Intended largely for multi, but
>also works well in two-player.)
>
>"Feast of Hungry Walking Soulless Corpses"?
>
>It's won a few multiplayer games as well as a few two-players. I like the
>deck a lot, but I'm really dubious about the Glimpses in this deck. I think
>they just don't get me far enough to be worth the drawback. The only thing
>I'm concerned about it is where to get the Power for a Feast without having
>Glimpses around. But I might just accept that I'd have to save up a little
>in order to replace the Glimpses with cards that are more frequently useful.
>
alternate power generation (hungry, feast of souls, pocket demon). I go
with 5 when I don't have the option of magic.
I would keep a couple for emergencies and work harder on getting the
magic resources for the Hungry instead. Claws of Fury are more
important in 2-player where obnoxious things like Covert Operation
are more likely. So maybe toss all 5, replace Vassals with Darkness
Priestesses, up the Claw count to 5 or replace with Eunuchs and
toss in an Avenging Thunder or two. The Priestesses will help a
lot if some bozo Thunder on Thunders your pricey edges. Timing
is such that I think even though your power moves left, the power
you gain from the priestess for all the toasted cards will arrive
after the power move (kind of like Bite vs Hungry) Or consider a
hacker or two to stop that event.
When swapping between 2-player and multiplayer I trade Glimpses for
Trade Centers (esp with proving grounds) and reburials for character
destruction like Tortured Memories or Discerning fire. The reason is
that raw speed and resource denial is more important in 2-player, and
steady power and character destruction often matters more in multiplayer.
Watch out for Fox Outfoxed. That could really hose this deck. Because
of that, you may just want to reduce the Glimpses but not swap trade
centers in. Or you could toss in a couple of Righteous Fists to scrape
the damn things off your Hungries, Feast of Souls or Trade Centers.
>Inauspicious Reburial is tempting me, but I don't know whether I want to
>go that route. If I put it in, I'll be tempted to use it in multi, and if
>I do, I'll run the risk of doing the wrong thing with it (eg keeping someone
>down and then wishing I hadn't when someone else goes for a win). Maybe I'd
>like some Inexorable Corruption, it's been a fun card before. Any other
>suggestions, anyone?
>
Reburial is a 2-player tactic. Corruption is fun, but fills a card slot
and is better in Lotus/Ascended control decks with Monkey Kings to move
it around. Get more tortured memories and you can swap them in and out
for reburials.
-Brad
Joshua Duffin
Brad Solberg (gret...@best.com) wrote:
: In article <603o7h$5...@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu>,
: Joshua Duffin <du...@newton.ruph.cornell.edu> wrote:
: >
: >"Feast of Hungry Walking Soulless Corpses"?
: ><snip>
: >
[more snip]
: >
: I think there are probably too many glimpses for a deck with so much other
: alternate power generation (hungry, feast of souls, pocket demon). I go
: with 5 when I don't have the option of magic.
Yeah, I think that's exactly the problem with the Glimpses here. Not really
necessary since Power comes from so many other places.
: I would keep a couple for emergencies and work harder on getting the
: magic resources for the Hungry instead. Claws of Fury are more
: important in 2-player where obnoxious things like Covert Operation
: are more likely. So maybe toss all 5, replace Vassals with Darkness
: Priestesses, up the Claw count to 5 or replace with Eunuchs and
: toss in an Avenging Thunder or two. The Priestesses will help a
: lot if some bozo Thunder on Thunders your pricey edges. Timing
: is such that I think even though your power moves left, the power
: you gain from the priestess for all the toasted cards will arrive
: after the power move (kind of like Bite vs Hungry) Or consider a
: hacker or two to stop that event.
Claws of Fury are certainly more important in 2-player, but they would also
give me some satisfaction when people Violetly Meditate or Pocket Demon on
me (which they keep doing, with all those Edges and sites burned for victory).
Dark Priestess vs Thunder on Thunder w/ Feast may or may not work - if Feast's
Power-shifting-to-the-left effect is an "immediate" effect (rather than one
that has to be generated and resolve) then it definitely works; otherwise it
depends if you (owner of Feast and Priestess) get to choose which of your
simultaneously-generated effects goes on the stack first.
: When swapping between 2-player and multiplayer I trade Glimpses for
: Trade Centers (esp with proving grounds) and reburials for character
: destruction like Tortured Memories or Discerning fire. The reason is
: that raw speed and resource denial is more important in 2-player, and
: steady power and character destruction often matters more in multiplayer.
: Watch out for Fox Outfoxed. That could really hose this deck. Because
: of that, you may just want to reduce the Glimpses but not swap trade
: centers in. Or you could toss in a couple of Righteous Fists to scrape
: the damn things off your Hungries, Feast of Souls or Trade Centers.
Trade Centers, I like that idea. I think I'll probably put a couple of them
in now. I like the Priestesses too. Fox Outfoxed has been very non-prevalent
through most of my playgroup's history, but now that you've mentioned it they
might start packing 'em. I may put in Righteous Fists, or maybe just take
my chances for now.
: Reburial is a 2-player tactic. Corruption is fun, but fills a card slot
: and is better in Lotus/Ascended control decks with Monkey Kings to move
: it around. Get more tortured memories and you can swap them in and out
: for reburials.
Yeah, I may try more Tortured Memories too. Thanks for the ideas,
Josh
new to the paths of corruption
Dennis F. Hefferman
|In article <hefferma....@pegasus.montclair.edu>, Dennis F. Hefferman wrote:
|>In <slrn61tgqq...@amanda.dorsai.org> mn...@dorsai.org (Joshua Kronengold) writes:
|>
|> It's only been two, and you didn't win the second one either. ;-)
|>(I was using Gouda, which doesn't measure up to Jarlsberg.)
|And my deck was doing really poorly, but yes.
_Everyone's_ deck was doing poorly. 15 Hackers at the table and two
out of two DE's got through.
|On the other hand, I think you've been eliminated at bunch of
|multiplayer tournaments before I took the high seat, but who's
|counting? :)
I haven't _played_ in a "bunch" of multiplayer tournaments.
|Actually, that was my early attempt at a Killing Rain deck, with FAR
|too many cards -- try it now and you won't find it so easy (it shared
|second at the Dexcon Who's the Man tourney, and has improved since).
I've played against KR decks; haven't impressed me. They just delay
the inevitable.
Dennis F. Hefferman
|I'm not Dennis so I don't know for sure, but my guess is that both of
|these look like recycling-Abomination decks (each has 3 Reinvig Processes
|and a wide selection of good Abominations, though by the by I have no idea
|why the Joseph Livote version has 3 Alpha Beasts - sure, they're Abominations,
|but there are better Aboms and better foundations, I'd think). CHAR, while
|very good, is not an Abomination. So, both of them have gone for more
|Abominations and less CHAR.
My Architects core section is not built on recursive Abominations.
It's got Blightmans in it for now instead of the CHARs; I want to see how they
work. I recently decided to switch Jarlsberg over to CHARs over recursion to
see how it would work; haven't tested it yet. The recursive version was
brutal.
|I agree on Tech cards - I'd add that MegaTank can come in handy sometimes,
|particularly if used with Tank Warfare, although it is a little on the high-
|cost end of things.
Megatank is utterly useless and Tank Warfare is no help, given that you
have to play the bloated cost of the tank first.
Dennis F. Hefferman
|Speaking of your decks named after cheeses, do we have any chance of seeing
|you post any of 'em anytime in the foreseeable future?
Not really, unless Mr. Bain or one of the Neutral Ground folks outs
them on me. (Or I decide to quit playing, which looks like an increasingly
good choice these days.) Jarlsberg is the only one that's really stable
anyway; Gouda's done well but not well enough for my tastes so it's still being
tinkered with, and Brie still needs work (went 0-4 in casual play at NG last
week, which was not good).
Joshua Duffin
: |Speaking of your decks named after cheeses, do we have any chance of seeing
: |you post any of 'em anytime in the foreseeable future?
: Not really, unless Mr. Bain or one of the Neutral Ground folks outs
: them on me. (Or I decide to quit playing, which looks like an increasingly
: good choice these days.) Jarlsberg is the only one that's really stable
: anyway; Gouda's done well but not well enough for my tastes so it's still being
: tinkered with, and Brie still needs work (went 0-4 in casual play at NG last
: week, which was not good).
Quit playing? Have you gotten really disillusioned with the game lately
or something? If you do, feel free to give me all your cards. I promise
I'll set drinks on the Dangerous Experiments...
Well, given that you're not going to tell us what's in your Cheese decks,
what good does it do us to hear, for example, that you're putting CHARs
into one of them, and that the recursive version was brutal?
(Besides, these are all meant as multiplayer decks, right? And multi
depends more on the players than the decks, doesn't it? So why do you
bother putting that much effort into your multi decks?)
Josh
not quitting fist anytime soon
Joshua Kronengold
In article <hefferma....@pegasus.montclair.edu>, Dennis F. Hefferman wrote:
>In <slrn622tuc...@amanda.dorsai.org> mn...@dorsai.org (Joshua Kronengold) writes:
>
>|In article <hefferma....@pegasus.montclair.edu>, Dennis F. Hefferman wrote:
>|>In <slrn61tgqq...@amanda.dorsai.org> mn...@dorsai.org (Joshua Kronengold) writes:
>|>
>|On the other hand, I think you've been eliminated at bunch of
>|multiplayer tournaments before I took the high seat, but who's
>|counting? :)
>
> I haven't _played_ in a "bunch" of multiplayer tournaments.
>|Actually, that was my early attempt at a Killing Rain deck, with FAR
>|too many cards -- try it now and you won't find it so easy (it shared
>|second at the Dexcon Who's the Man tourney, and has improved since).
>
> I've played against KR decks; haven't impressed me. They just delay
>the inevitable.
It's just AMAZING how uninevitable the inevitable gets when my two
power gets me 10 or 12 fighting, and your two gets you...2, or 6 if
you pair it....
Unpredictable, KR decks may be, but "delay the inevitable?" I
think not.
Jack Dracula
Dennis F. Hefferman <heff...@pegasus.montclair.edu> wrote:
>| Speaking of your decks named after cheeses, do we have any chance of seeing
>| you post any of 'em anytime in the foreseeable future?
> Not really, unless Mr. Bain or one of the Neutral Ground folks outs
> them on me. (Or I decide to quit playing, which looks like an increasingly
> good choice these days.) Jarlsberg is the only one that's really stable
> anyway; Gouda's done well but not well enough for my tastes so it's still being
> tinkered with, and Brie still needs work (went 0-4 in casual play at NG last
> week, which was not good).
If you aren't going to say what's in the deck, then don't use them as examples,
or even bother mentioning them, as the names are meaningless.
JD
Andrew S. Davidson
Dennis has dropped plenty of clues about his siteless decks. Given
their success in competition, we're lucky that he has told us
anything. Others have their secrets too - Brad Solberg and his Cold
War deck, me and my Tickertape deck. It's hard to stay ahead if you
make all your best ideas common knowledge. Notice how quickly the
Kung Fu Student deck was picked up once the idea was made public.
Andrew
Jack Dracula
Andrew S. Davidson <7271...@compuserve.com> wrote:
>>>| Speaking of your decks named after cheeses, do we have any chance of seeing
>>>| you post any of 'em anytime in the foreseeable future?
>>> Not really, unless Mr. Bain or one of the Neutral Ground folks outs
>>> them on me. (Or I decide to quit playing, which looks like an increasingly
>>> good choice these days.) Jarlsberg is the only one that's really stable
>>> anyway; Gouda's done well but not well enough for my tastes so it's still being
>>> tinkered with, and Brie still needs work (went 0-4 in casual play at NG last
>>> week, which was not good).
>> If you aren't going to say what's in the deck, then don't use them as examples,
>> or even bother mentioning them, as the names are meaningless.
> Dennis has dropped plenty of clues about his siteless decks. Given
> their success in competition, we're lucky that he has told us
> anything.
Oh yeah, I wouldn't want him spilling any secrets and ruining his chances at
the Shadowfist Pro Tour. </sarcasm>
> Others have their secrets too - Brad Solberg and his Cold
> War deck, me and my Tickertape deck.
But you kids don't talk about them all the damn time.
> It's hard to stay ahead if you
> make all your best ideas common knowledge. Notice how quickly the
> Kung Fu Student deck was picked up once the idea was made public.
If he wants to keep secrets, that's fine. Just don't talk about the secrets,
and use them as examples, because they're meaningless unless you put your
money where your mouth is.
Jack Dracula
doin' his math
"I wonder if secrey is the late twentieth century's final lust."
-Alexandra Johnson
Joshua Duffin
: their success in competition, we're lucky that he has told us
: War deck, me and my Tickertape deck. It's hard to stay ahead if you
: make all your best ideas common knowledge. Notice how quickly the
: Kung Fu Student deck was picked up once the idea was made public.
: Andrew
While I can understand that people might want to keep some of their secrets,
it seems to me that it can't work forever. Particularly, if anyone ever wins
a major tournament with such a deck, I'd think the cat would be pretty well
out of the bag. (Personally I'd just as soon see everyone's ideas out there
from the beginning; good ideas generate more good ideas. The only downside
I can see to this is that it doesn't make it as easy for people to come up
with the same concepts independently, and some people don't like playing decks
that aren't original to them.)
But heck, we all know how a lock deck works anyway. First you make the game
last long enough for you to get the lock, then you keep everyone else from
doing anything, then you win. ;-)
Josh
information wants to be free, you know...
Dennis F. Hefferman
|Quit playing? Have you gotten really disillusioned with the game lately
|or something? If you do, feel free to give me all your cards. I promise
|I'll set drinks on the Dangerous Experiments...
It's about to die anyway, and it's a solved problem.
|Well, given that you're not going to tell us what's in your Cheese decks,
|what good does it do us to hear, for example, that you're putting CHARs
|into one of them, and that the recursive version was brutal?
Lots of people talk about lots of decks without posting toe sheets for
them. I've told plenty about the early forms of Jarlsberg, and I've told
basically what's in Gouda and Brie.
|(Besides, these are all meant as multiplayer decks, right? And multi
|depends more on the players than the decks, doesn't it? So why do you
|bother putting that much effort into your multi decks?)
Experimentation. If I didn't test the theory you'd dismiss me as being
closed-minded. And it's not that much effort, anyway.
--
Dennis Francis Heffernan IRC: FuzyLogic heff...@pegasus.montclair.edu
Montclair State University #include <disclaim.h> Computer Science/Philosophy
"I feel much better about myself now. Only a quarter of the people online who
have flamed me over the years actually exist! :)" -- Steve Miller on r.g.f.m
Dennis F. Hefferman
|While I can understand that people might want to keep some of their secrets,
|it seems to me that it can't work forever. Particularly, if anyone ever wins
As I've said before, there is a big difference between what people
suspect and what they _know_.
|a major tournament with such a deck, I'd think the cat would be pretty well
|out of the bag. (Personally I'd just as soon see everyone's ideas out there
|from the beginning; good ideas generate more good ideas. The only downside
Not in CCG's, thanks to the use of rocks-breaks-scissors as a
substitute for quality in design. If you disclose anyone with two brain cells
to rub together can hose you. (Actually it's not really possible to
counterdeck in multiplayer -- if you're a single player. If you can get
everyone in on it -- well, I don't feel like showing up at Neutral Ground to
face three people with decks built to hose mine.)
|information wants to be free, you know...
Tell it to Bill Gates.
Dennis F. Hefferman
| Unpredictable, KR decks may be, but "delay the inevitable?" I
|think not.
They delay the inevitable because the characters are still just as
cheap or cheaper to kill than they are to put out.
Joshua Kronengold
>
>| Unpredictable, KR decks may be, but "delay the inevitable?" I
>|think not.
>
> They delay the inevitable because the characters are still just as
>cheap or cheaper to kill than they are to put out.
put out, Dennis, assuming you have the right event in hand.
This argument leads only one place: the ludicrious statement
that power/fighting ratios are irrelevent.
--
mn...@dorsai.org Joshua Kronengold |\ _,,,--,,_ ,)
---^---- "What part of 'Pthhhrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr' /,`.-'`' -, ;-;;'
/\\ didn't you understand?" -- Me |,4- ) )-,_ ) /\
-/-\\\-- AKA mneme at mcny.com '---''(_/--' (_/-'
Joshua Duffin
: |While I can understand that people might want to keep some of their secrets,
: |it seems to me that it can't work forever. Particularly, if anyone ever wins
: As I've said before, there is a big difference between what people
: suspect and what they _know_.
True, true. But if people were to compare notes, I'd bet they could get
within a card or two of a correct listing - given a number of games played
with the same deck, a substantial majority (if not all) of the cards will
be seen at one time or another.
: |a major tournament with such a deck, I'd think the cat would be pretty well
: |out of the bag. (Personally I'd just as soon see everyone's ideas out there
: |from the beginning; good ideas generate more good ideas. The only downside
: Not in CCG's, thanks to the use of rocks-breaks-scissors as a
: substitute for quality in design. If you disclose anyone with two brain cells
: to rub together can hose you. (Actually it's not really possible to
: counterdeck in multiplayer -- if you're a single player. If you can get
: everyone in on it -- well, I don't feel like showing up at Neutral Ground to
: face three people with decks built to hose mine.)
Sure, counterdecks aren't much fun, but they're usually not going to be
generally useful either. If we're talking about someone making a deck that
specifically beats your deck, in a two-player tourney they have presumably
weakened their deck against the field by making it better against yours. And
in multi, as you say, it's a little dubious how useful it'd be to make a deck
based on countering someone else's. And I agree that it wouldn't be much
fun to show up and play against a bunch of people all playing against your
specific deck - but this shouldn't happen. What do they gain from that,
other than shutting you out as a possible winner?
(From a certain point of view, they might gain in that we could guess that,
with you shut out, each of them has a 33% chance of winning, whereas with
you playing, each of them might have, say, a 25% chance of winning. However,
in that case, it would be to the advantage of one of the three to instead
play a deck that capitalizes on the knowledge that the other two will be
playing that 'hoser' deck, and come to the table with a deck to hose *them*,
thus presumably raising his/her chances above 33% and reducing theirs (while
they continue to effectively shut you out of the game). So it seems like it
wouldn't be a stable cartel.)
I stand by my belief that creative, effective deck design encourages further
creative and effective deck design. Rock/paper/scissors aspects of card
games are perhaps inevitable, as strengths of certain common deck types can
be exploited by other common deck types. But replacing that failure with
'good design' seems like a tough proposition to me. Do you know how to go
about it yourself, or are you just dissatisfied with current CCG design?
: |information wants to be free, you know...
: Tell it to Bill Gates.
Well, I could, but I don't think he'd really care that I thought so...
Information does want to be free, though. Once the information exists, the
cost of propagating it (at least via the net) is basically negligible, while
the benefits to the recipients could be substantial. (There may be initial
costs associated with creating the information, which complicates matters.
Even then, the low/nonexistent marginal cost implies that it would be
efficient for the price to be low/zero.)
Usually it doesn't cost the creator of information anything for additional
people to have/use it. The case in which the creator might be harmed by, for
example, stiffer competition at tournies is a special case. It could also
happen that the creator benefits because he/she enjoys having better
competition at the tournies.
Josh
using economic theory for the forces of good for a change
Dennis F. Hefferman
|True, true. But if people were to compare notes, I'd bet they could get
|within a card or two of a correct listing - given a number of games played
|with the same deck, a substantial majority (if not all) of the cards will
|be seen at one time or another.
They could, but they haven't. No one's done the work. I did say it
was possible for several individuals to out the deck on me.
|based on countering someone else's. And I agree that it wouldn't be much
|fun to show up and play against a bunch of people all playing against your
|specific deck - but this shouldn't happen. What do they gain from that,
|other than shutting you out as a possible winner?
It shouldn't happen but it could, and I'd rather it didn't.
|(From a certain point of view, they might gain in that we could guess that,
|with you shut out, each of them has a 33% chance of winning, whereas with
|you playing, each of them might have, say, a 25% chance of winning. However,
Not even. ;-)
|in that case, it would be to the advantage of one of the three to instead
|play a deck that capitalizes on the knowledge that the other two will be
|playing that 'hoser' deck, and come to the table with a deck to hose *them*,
|thus presumably raising his/her chances above 33% and reducing theirs (while
|they continue to effectively shut you out of the game). So it seems like it
|wouldn't be a stable cartel.)
It wouldn't be, but people are dumb, panicky animals and they do
irrational things. I really don't want to deal with people who don't care if
they win so long as I lose -- and I've had to in the past.
|be exploited by other common deck types. But replacing that failure with
|'good design' seems like a tough proposition to me. Do you know how to go
|about it yourself, or are you just dissatisfied with current CCG design?
I don't think I'm going out on a limb when I say that most CCG design
blows goats, but good examples that minimize Rocks-Breaks-Scissors-Syndrome
include Guardians, Dark Age and Xxxenophile. The common element of all three
is that all three put a lot of emphasis on what happens to the cards when they
hit the table, making the little stack on the side less important. Shadowfist
tries to do this but fails by allowing the siteless paradigm. (Magic fails
utterly as there's really not much to DO with your cards in Magic.)
|Information does want to be free, though. Once the information exists, the
I understand all that, but the fact remains that individuals can still
profit by keeping it chained up. It's that old Prisoner's Dilemma again.
--
Dennis Francis Heffernan IRC: FuzyLogic heff...@pegasus.montclair.edu
Montclair State University #include <disclaim.h> Computer Science/Philosophy
Microsoft, Scientology, WotC....Just Say No!
"Resist singularity" -- B. Zabel
Joshua Duffin
: |I don't see how it's a solved problem. Have you really played
: |every deck that can be made in Shadowfist and determined which one was
: |the Best, and now you never lose? I know I haven't.
: It's not necessary. You can wipe out huge sections of the problem
: space by identifying cards that have no use whatsoever and cards that can only
: work under unlikely conditions. You'll never get decks that never lose because
: of the luck element, but right now I'm running about 80% across the board.
: That's absurd.
: |True, people do, but most of us (I at least) would have no objection to
: |publicly releasing the full decklist if asked. I just looked at DejaNews,
: Well, I do. The decks are in use and I see no reason to make things
: any easier for the opposition than I have to.
Well, if you're going 80% across the board, that is fairly absurd, and maybe
you get tired of winning and would like your opponents to play better. It's
a sticky question I guess, as to whether you'd rather play games in which
you get some good competition, or would rather win all the time. (of course,
given your multiplayer views, this is probably fairly irrelevant for your
multi decks, and I'm not even sure why you would want to participate in
multiplayer Fist games, given what it boils down to for you.)
: |and you did give a rough summary of all three back on July 25. Jarlsberg
: As I've said, I disclosed the theory. The implementation is left as an
: exercise for the reader.
Sure, that works. And given what you've said, these all look like strong,
fairly straightforward multiplayer deck designs. They are also big leeches
and exemplify the problem that could happen if everyone played siteless
in multiplayer. But big state secrets, I don't see. Frankly, multi depends
enough on the players that I think your success with these decks says
relatively little about the decks. Any good deck is likely to work about the
same for a good player in multi.
: Brie has been an experiment to see if Swiss Bankers will ever work, and
: the answer is "yes, but not often enough for my tastes". Mole Networks didn't
: -- the opportunity cost of keeping them in hand whilst waiting for power to
: steal was too high -- and while the Paper Trails are still in, the Covert Ops
: are out in favor of more aggressive Events. The Hand component was originally
: for RigDis'ing Swiss Banker's limitation on to other characters (there were a
: number of other characters with interesting RD possibilities); it has been
: extended to provide [CHI] for Violet Meds. Ascended secondary power generation
: is very sub-par these days; definitely Not As Advertised.
Ah, I see. Swiss Bankers have always given me trouble partly due to their
vulnerability to Final Brawl. I think Paper Trail is a far more reliable
method of Power generation for Ascended (primarily in conjunction with discard
effects; I often see people discarding relatively little if a Paper Trail
comes out), and Bull Market is even better (though with an obvious drawback).
The Ascended, I think, have been suffering for some time now from having
been a very strong faction in Limited. They have gained nearly nothing from
both of the expansions, especially in Power generation, and they've fallen
behind the power-generating curve because of it.
: |It's pretty accurate, really, and I won't argue against
: |it - it's just that I (and a lot of other people, I think) still enjoy playing
: |multi, because it may not be the same game as two-player Fist, but it is
: |still a game, and it's still enjoyable. It is, in a sense, just "the one
: |multiplayer game", but the spin that Fist puts on that game makes it lots of
: |fun for some of us.
: Which, as Garfield puts it, is "ritual play". I want something more
: from a game than just a way to kill time.
Well, but that's nearly all a game can offer you, from my point of view.
I mean, there can be some level of intellectual satisfaction or whatever,
but at heart it's just a somewhat social way to waste time and have fun.
If the play's not the thing, I don't know what is. (Competition appeals to
me a lot in some ways, but it doesn't seem like it's very highly valued
among my Fist playgroup, so there you go.)
Josh
Joshua Duffin
Dennis F. Hefferman (heff...@pegasus.montclair.edu) wrote:
: It wouldn't be, but people are dumb, panicky animals and they do
: irrational things. I really don't want to deal with people who don't care if
: they win so long as I lose -- and I've had to in the past.
Seems like this should only happen in your playgroup, if there. I wouldn't
think anyone at a larger tourney, for example, would be concerned enough
about you personally as to try to hose you. I mean, it only seems like it's
even possible to try this in "friendly" play (not a very friendly thing to
do though), given the randomness of matchings at tourneys.
: |be exploited by other common deck types. But replacing that failure with
: |'good design' seems like a tough proposition to me. Do you know how to go
: |about it yourself, or are you just dissatisfied with current CCG design?
: I don't think I'm going out on a limb when I say that most CCG design
: blows goats, but good examples that minimize Rocks-Breaks-Scissors-Syndrome
: include Guardians, Dark Age and Xxxenophile. The common element of all three
: is that all three put a lot of emphasis on what happens to the cards when they
: hit the table, making the little stack on the side less important. Shadowfist
: tries to do this but fails by allowing the siteless paradigm. (Magic fails
: utterly as there's really not much to DO with your cards in Magic.)
I'm afraid I've never played any of these games. I'm previously aware of the
existence of Guardians and XXXenophile, don't think I've even heard of Dark
Age.
Hmmmm. While that certainly tends to reduce the element of luck, luck is -
for me - an important element to have in a card game. If I wanted to play a
game of pure strategy, I'd play something without randomness, or with a great
deal less randomness than shows up in CCGs. The possibility of extreme and
sudden shifts in balance of power is a fair amount of the excitement. But
it does reduce the applicability of skill.
: |Information does want to be free, though. Once the information exists, the
: I understand all that, but the fact remains that individuals can still
: profit by keeping it chained up. It's that old Prisoner's Dilemma again.
Well, yes.
Josh