Assamite Newsletter, December 2004
Otto Koskinen
by Otto Koskinen
=========================
Wow. With this, it has been a whole year of writing these. Sometimes
the writer's block is heavy, but I've managed.
Man, how *DOES* Legbiter do it, makes me wonder, though..
----------------------------------------
FATIMA PLUNGES
-Of multirush and suckyness
Yeah. "Fatso". The chick I havent had my hands on as of yet.
Now, last time I rambled a bit about rush decks facing serious
problems when their prey deny's targets. No handflow, no serious bleed
power, and a predator who is being a big bad meanie breathing down
your neck all the while, making him the logical choice to rush.
But that doesnt remove your prey and bloat your own evil not-so-little
tummy.
The methods to prevent this are few, but here's my go at it. Some
while back I witnessed David Cherryholmes, the creator of Fatima
multi-rush initially, playing his newest version of the deck which ran
the usual weenies, but had stuffed in 8 computer hacks and a slight
upping on the number of Swallowed by the nights. Seemed to work well
enough. But what has always bugged me about multirush type of decks is
that they usually have a somewhat shaky a) ousting method and b) bleed
defense. I for one dont consider it "good" bleed defense, when it
comprises of constantly taking care of your predators minions, without
permarush abilities, nor do I judge Fame and Tension to be enough in
far too many cases.
Now, I'm no expert when it comes to multi-rush decks, by no means, so
I basically copied Cherryholmes's latest Fatima deck, and altered it a
bit. Well, a lot, to be honest. The basic idea is the same, but combat
has been altered to have less Taste's due to compact issue choices.
Not a choice I relish, but something had to go.
Deck Name: Fatima goes mad
Created By: Oko
Crypt: (12 cards, Min: 14, Max: 32, Avg: 5,92)
----------------------------------------------
5 Fatima al-Faqadi aus CEL for OBF QUI 8, Assamite:2
1 Watenda obf 3, Malkavian:2
3 Persia aus DEM obf 5, Malkavian:3
2 Ruth McGinley aus cel DEM obf 6, Malkavian:3, Primogen
1 Sandra White none 1, Caitiff:3
Library: (90 cards)
-------------------
Master (13 cards)
1 Blood Doll
2 Contract
2 Dreams of the Sphinx
3 Fame
2 Fortitude
2 Malkavian Prank
1 Underworld Hunting Ground
Action (21 cards)
3 Ambush
3 Bum's Rush
3 Clandestine Contract
9 Kindred Spirits
3 Nose of the Hound
Action Modifier (15 cards)
5 Confusion
10 Freak Drive
Combat (26 cards)
4 Blur
2 Infernal Pursuit
9 Psyche!
7 Pursuit
2 Skin of Steel
2 Taste of Vitae
Ally (1 cards)
1 Muddled Vampire Hunter
Equipment (9 cards)
8 Assault Rifle
1 Sire's Index Finger
Combo (5 cards)
5 Swallowed by the Night
<<<>>>
The idea being the same as with multirush decks as usual, with the
slight difference. Starting out with either Persia or Uncle George,
getting marked down as "S&B-deck" by all on the table. So, humor them
with a Kindred Spirits, and bring out Fatima, proceed to whoop ass,
since by then your prey has had 4 turns of transfering time, most like
having brought up at least one minion himself.
The downside? Your predator might be a fast and aggressive deck giving
you lots of grief before you get your 18 pool setup going on. (5
Malkavian, 5 Gun, 8 Fatimator)
So, the idea is to bloat a little with Kindred spirits, while also
dishing out more than the usual, patented Assamite bleed for one "tm".
Malkavians were chosen for their natural aptitude when it comes to
bleeding with Kindred Spirits, and their nifty bloat master, Malkavian
Prank, which just screams to be used. Muddled for end game nuisance
ender, which will ease the burden of the Fatimator, leaving her free
to pursue other prey's.
----------------------------------------
I'm out of steam for once. Time to spare some for next month, to avoid
the block, methinks.
Until next month.
----------------------------------------
PATH OF BLOOD
Have you heard of it?
The Path of Blood is the best on-line site dealing with Vampire: The
Eternal Struggle, concentrating on the Clan Assamite.
Todd Banister, the man behind it all, has done a splendid job with it.
Come see for yourself, I dare you.
If you are interested more closely in Assamites, visit the site at:
http://www.thepathofblood.com/
----------------------------------------
David Cherryholmes
> FATIMA PLUNGES
> -Of multirush and suckyness
If we're not focused on the razor's edge of possible suckiness, then the
clan has lost much of it's appeal. I'm glad I've thrown my lot in with
something that continues to be dubious. ;)
> Now, last time I rambled a bit about rush decks facing serious
> problems when their prey deny's targets. No handflow, no serious bleed
> power, and a predator who is being a big bad meanie breathing down
> your neck all the while, making him the logical choice to rush.
> But that doesnt remove your prey and bloat your own evil not-so-little
> tummy.
I think this is just a conundrum that took a long time to work out, but
I do think that it has a final correct answer. The big debate stems from
the tension between the desire not to erase you predator entirely and
not wanting to sit on your prey the moment he comes up and freaking him
out to the extent he tanks both your games. The answer is: erase your
predator. I've seen so many games lately where there was *some* player
on the table who was just being... a retard. And that guy ultimately
throws some VP somewhere it never should have gone, and then we suddenly
start sweating whether the game is even winnable anymore with that VP
going *poof*. Added to is this the general hit that my playgroup has
taken due to the lemming-like love of Texas Hold'em poker, which
basically means mostly four player tables. Four player games are the
worst conditions to suffer retard randomness on; in a five way, some VP
can go "elsewhere", and your ability to win the game is not that badly
affected. Not so in a four way. In a four way you have to be extra
careful about handing anyone else a VP. So, I've repeatedly observed in
the worst possible conditions a VP plunking where it ought not, and yet
the game continues to be winnable (by me or whoever). So, based on that
and other things, the new news is: erase your predator.
Once your predator is erased, all these suck-ass bleed defense problems
we think we have become largely moot. And erasing your predator takes
time. And that means your prey has probably brought out three vampires.
See my previous takes on what it takes to win with a rush deck.
So, I don't think the problems of mutirush are outside the bounds of
what could be corrected for by playstyle, as opposed to new effects. But
granted, all these problems are pretty real, so lets just assume that we
need to look for a new way...
> Now, I'm no expert when it comes to multi-rush decks, by no means, so
> I basically copied Cherryholmes's latest Fatima deck, and altered it a
> bit. Well, a lot, to be honest. The basic idea is the same, but combat
> has been altered to have less Taste's due to compact issue choices.
> Not a choice I relish, but something had to go.
So you've gone with larger guys who can play Kindred Spirits.
Interesting idea, but I think it still may be less good than small obf
nerds and hacking. Your solution kind of bolts two decks together. The
stealth-bleed half is clearly better than consistent nerds with hacks,
but there is a difficult to quantify cost with having cards that can
only be played by some of your minions and not others. I also run a good
chunk of spying missions in the version of Fatima you saw (I can send
you an actual decklist if you want).
Uhm, the party has arrived. Maybe I'll come back and edit, but I think I
got most of what I wanted to say out there.
HAPPY NEW YEAR!
--
David Cherryholmes
joscha...@gmx.de
> So, based on that
> and other things, the new news is: erase your predator.
>
> Once your predator is erased, all these suck-ass bleed defense
> problems we think we have become largely moot.
It's true, the best bleed defense a straight combat deck has is down
the minions of it's predator. But I experienced very often the
following: My smart prey rescues most of my predator's (DOM-) vampires
to keep up the pressure on me by bleeds and to urge me to torporize
them again. Extremely annoying mainly if these vampires are blood
dolls. So what to do? Maybe playing Torpid Blood to make that rescues
more costly. Making one of those vampires famous is also a choice. But
we like to put that on one of our prey's vamps to get a chance to oust
him, don't we? I think that this rescues are the main problem of a
combat deck giving them a real problem taking the table. Have somebody
got a solution?
Joscha
Damnans
A deck whose only defense is attacking his or her predator's minions
is a bad deck, since it will not do anything but giving advantage to
another Methuselah either by extremely weakening that Methuselah's prey
or by leaving his own prey with no pressure at all.
A solution to this very common problem would be packing some bleed
defense (Deflection, Redirection, etc. and/or some Direct Interventions).
Another solution would be packing cards allowing you enough pool gain
to forget all about your predator.
The problem with using those "extra" cards is that the offensive potential
of the already weak multirush deck would decrease. However, those extra
cards would make the deck less vulnerable, and should keep that kind of
decks alive longer than usual.
We should realize that each Methuselah must have a predator (i.e, he or
she must have some degree of pressure during the entire game), because
the Methuselah with no predator grows stronger and often gets the
game win.
Multirush decks and other types of very combat foccussed decks usually
forget that leaving their preys with no minions will not necessary lead
them to victory. On the contrary, it would force their preys not to bring
out more minions and sit on their pool in the hope that weak deck's
predator will oust him or her.
If you want to deal a blow, it'd better be a final one. This means that
you may need to attack one of your prey's minions from time to time (not
always, and not each of your prey's minions all the time), so that your
prey does not grow stronger but he or she still thinks he or she has
chances to win or to get some victory points and goes forward. All that
implies patience and cards to grant you that time to oust your prey
given the chance.
Greetings,
Damnans
--
joscha...@gmx.de
I don't think so. With weenierush or multirush you are perfectly able
to damage both your predator AND prey. But you have to do that the
right time (David and Peter wrote some articles about that matter
before). That is why playing those deck is challenging and not easy.
Playing a Warghouldeck is more or less a weenierushdeck with just
little bleed defense and intercept. And it won EC 04 (as you know of
course as you were translating ;o) ). I think the main problem of those
decks is what I wrote above. Other problems can be countered by the
IMHO good ability of those decks to deal at the table. Another problem
might be the fearfactor of say a Karshmultirush. Often Meths like to
see those decks die regardless of seatposition and prey or predator.
Cheers,
Joscha
Peter D Bakija
> I don't think so. With weenierush or multirush you are perfectly able
> to damage both your predator AND prey. But you have to do that the
> right time (David and Peter wrote some articles about that matter
> before).
Yup. A deck that has, as its only defense, attacking its predator can work
just fine. You just need to know how much damage to do to your predator to
stay alive while keeping them from getting rolled over.
Peter D Bakija
pd...@lightlink.com
http://www.lightlink.com/pdb6
"How does this end?"
"In fire."
Emperor Turhan and Kosh
Damnans
joscha...@gmx.de wrote:
> Damnans wrote:
[...]
>>A deck whose only defense is attacking his or her predator's minions
>>is a bad deck, since it will not do anything but giving advantage to
>>another Methuselah either by extremely weakening that Methuselah's
>>prey or by leaving his own prey with no pressure at all.
>
> I don't think so. With weenierush or multirush you are perfectly able
> to damage both your predator AND prey. But you have to do that the
> right time (David and Peter wrote some articles about that matter
> before). That is why playing those deck is challenging and not easy.
It depends on the kind of deck you have as a predator. If your
predator is playing a very offensive deck (such as a stealth & bleed
deck, or any other deck capable of making you lose 5 or more pool
per turn), and you lack any other defense but attacking your predator's
minions, then you will surely be giving the game win to another player.
> Playing a Warghouldeck is more or less a weenierushdeck with just
> little bleed defense and intercept.
So it is not a defenseless weenie rush deck, since it has some
reactions to deal with bleeds and other threats in addition to casual
attacks on your predator's minions, which are the sort of cards I was
suggesting that should be added to that type of combat decks so that
they can properly focus on their prey.
> And it won EC 04 (as you know of
> course as you were translating ;o) ).
As you will surely know as well, since you were there too :-) the
War Ghoul deck almost had no predator after the Kindred Restructure
passed.
> I think the main problem of those
> decks is what I wrote above. Other problems can be countered by the
> IMHO good ability of those decks to deal at the table.
I agree with you that those decks are difficult to play. What you call
"the good ability of those decks to deal at the table" depends on how
experienced the other players are. I would rather call that "the good
ability to whine and excessive table talk", since they are usually
weak decks holding a weak position at the table.
> Another problem
> might be the fearfactor of say a Karshmultirush. Often Meths like to
> see those decks die regardless of seatposition and prey or predator.
Sure, because they usually are as disruptive as weak >:-)
Otto Koskinen
with dominate weenies, due to following reasons:
a) low cost as opposed the Malks
b) bleed defense capabilities far beyond the meager bloat of Kindred
Spirits
c) the ability to bleed 3, when required, with one card alone.
Also of note is that the Kindred spirits is playing (somewhat) into my
prey's bag, since he most certainly has his own bleed defense, and
happy to have a reckless bleeder as his predator.
Provided Ms.Faqadi hasnt paid a visiti to the dom/AUS minions of his,
naturally.
This is not to say that I dont believe in the Madness either, but the
dominate weenie route is tried and true, and if it aint broken..
Generally, I feel that a rush deck which has only one solution to an
aggressive bleeder, that is rushing it to the ground, is a "bad deck".
Damnans brought out the points that I stand by as well, with them.
Joscha
Otto Koskinen wrote:
> All things said and done, I personally would believe more in Fatima
> with dominate weenies, due to following reasons:
> a) low cost as opposed the Malks
> b) bleed defense capabilities far beyond the meager bloat of
> Kindred Spirits
> c) the ability to bleed 3, when required, with one card alone.
>
Of course dominate is one of the strongest if not THE strongest
disciplin in the game. So adding that is always a good option. Just
think of the cool graverobbing. Definitely a good addition to every
combatdeck. Alas in a pure rushdeck like multirush the dominate cards
tend to hinder the Freakdrive-directed attack flow in the most dire
situations. You can't put in that many dominatecards like Govern and
Deflection without making your deck unreliable. If you like that option
you have to say good-bye to pure rush and become more toolboxy. A good
choice, no doubt and no argue. But I tried to get advice in playing
pure rush and how to handle rescuing attempts and ganging up by prey
and predator. Is the only solution to down prey's and predator's
minions at the same time? I don't like that, because then my grandprey
is pumping up beyond me having a chance to get him/her. So what is
left? Becoming personal (restricted by tournament rules), diablerize
with 1 caps (sounds good, but burned minions are lost and cannot bleed
anymore even for just 1), playing Torpid Blood to calm the urge to
rescue because of high costs (hmmm...) or playing auspexcards with
Fatima (then we are back at toolboxing and moreover for blocking
rescues she'll need AUS)?
Cheers,
Joscha
Joscha
Otto Koskinen wrote:
> All things said and done, I personally would believe more in Fatima
> with dominate weenies, due to following reasons:
> a) low cost as opposed the Malks
> b) bleed defense capabilities far beyond the meager bloat of
> Kindred Spirits
> c) the ability to bleed 3, when required, with one card alone.
>
Of course dominate is one of the strongest if not THE strongest
David Cherryholmes
> Yup. A deck that has, as its only defense, attacking its predator can work
> just fine. You just need to know how much damage to do to your predator to
> stay alive while keeping them from getting rolled over.
Actually, to pick a nit, my point was that you backoust them.
Poolsacking them gives your prey enough rope for him to put himself in
the killing zone, and makes sure you stay alive.
And again, we should probably be clear when we're talking about
mutlirush and when we're talking about weenie rush, since they differ in
significant ways.
--
David Cherryholmes
David Cherryholmes
> It depends on the kind of deck you have as a predator. If your
> predator is playing a very offensive deck (such as a stealth & bleed
> deck, or any other deck capable of making you lose 5 or more pool
> per turn), and you lack any other defense but attacking your predator's
> minions, then you will surely be giving the game win to another player.
No, you will not "surely" be doing that; you're syndrome is hanging out
again. I can produce the one anecdote required to refute "surely", but
I'll spare you.
> So it is not a defenseless weenie rush deck, since it has some
> reactions to deal with bleeds and other threats in addition to casual
> attacks on your predator's minions, which are the sort of cards I was
> suggesting that should be added to that type of combat decks so that
> they can properly focus on their prey.
What's defenseless about playing weenies? Weenies *are* your defense.
Yeah, I'm trotting out the "b word" again. There's not a damn thing
weak about a weenie rush deck. Fat-ass multirush decks are probably
weak, but if I really cared about that I'd play the same dull pile of
bleeding crap everyone who really wants to win will play. It's a matter
of taste. But even so, weak is a relative term and I think they can win
and would win more often if people just ran them a little better (which
is what I'm trying to discuss).
> I agree with you that those decks are difficult to play. What you call
> "the good ability of those decks to deal at the table" depends on how
> experienced the other players are. I would rather call that "the good
> ability to whine and excessive table talk", since they are usually
> weak decks holding a weak position at the table.
As opposed to the good ability of a political deck to do the same? Or
how about any table with a bunch of European big guns? Or a bunch of LA
players? There's no difference, and you are grasping at straws.
> Sure, because they usually are as disruptive as weak >:-)
Take your blinders off.
--
David Cherryholmes
Stefan Ferenci
>
>
> joscha...@gmx.de wrote:
>
>> David Cherryholmes wrote:
>>
>>> So, based on that
>>> and other things, the new news is: erase your predator.
>>>
>>> Once your predator is erased, all these suck-ass bleed defense
>>> problems we think we have become largely moot.
>>
>>
>>
>> It's true, the best bleed defense a straight combat deck has is down
>> the minions of it's predator. But I experienced very often the
>> following: My smart prey rescues most of my predator's (DOM-) vampires
>> to keep up the pressure on me by bleeds and to urge me to torporize
>> them again. Extremely annoying mainly if these vampires are blood
>> dolls. So what to do? Maybe playing Torpid Blood to make that rescues
>> more costly. Making one of those vampires famous is also a choice. But
>> we like to put that on one of our prey's vamps to get a chance to oust
>> him, don't we? I think that this rescues are the main problem of a
>> combat deck giving them a real problem taking the table. Have somebody
>> got a solution?
>
>
> A deck whose only defense is attacking his or her predator's minions
> is a bad deck, since it will not do anything but giving advantage to
> another Methuselah either by extremely weakening that Methuselah's prey
> or by leaving his own prey with no pressure at all.
>
a skilled player can handle the hard part of keeping table balance. i
think one big misconception in vtes is that it is bad to kill your pred.
that is very often not true. read the table and if your better off with
a new predator go kill your predator. the real big problem with most
pure combat decks is that with the exception of the CEL weenie gun deck,
all of them are not viable for tournament play (at least in big
tourneys)(i know peter that your nossie hate you deck has won a big one
so you are the exeption of the rule)and that a lot of players playing
them are simply to stupid to either build a decent combat deck or play
it decently handing most of the time the gw to their grand predator or
grandprey.
> A solution to this very common problem would be packing some bleed
> defense (Deflection, Redirection, etc. and/or some Direct Interventions).
> Another solution would be packing cards allowing you enough pool gain
> to forget all about your predator.
>
watering down the deck so after a few turns you suffer from handjam too
(defelction is hard to cycle). blood dools and taste of vitaes are a
fine fine way of gaining pool.
> The problem with using those "extra" cards is that the offensive potential
> of the already weak multirush deck would decrease. However, those extra
> cards would make the deck less vulnerable, and should keep that kind of
> decks alive longer than usual.
>
yeah multirush sucks unless you can eat the torporizied minions (tariq)
adding defense just waters them down and totally kills them.
> We should realize that each Methuselah must have a predator (i.e, he or
> she must have some degree of pressure during the entire game), because
> the Methuselah with no predator grows stronger and often gets the
> game win.
so the real way to victory is to convince your predator to leave you
alone (here comes the dealing)
> Multirush decks and other types of very combat foccussed decks usually
> forget that leaving their preys with no minions will not necessary lead
> them to victory. On the contrary, it would force their preys not to bring
> out more minions and sit on their pool in the hope that weak deck's
> predator will oust him or her.
>
if you have enough minions to bleed with, killing your preys vamps is a
good way to oust him (thats why weenie combat decks rock)
> If you want to deal a blow, it'd better be a final one. This means that
> you may need to attack one of your prey's minions from time to time (not
> always, and not each of your prey's minions all the time), so that your
> prey does not grow stronger but he or she still thinks he or she has
> chances to win or to get some victory points and goes forward. All that
> implies patience and cards to grant you that time to oust your prey
> given the chance.
>
agreed, jumping on your prey usually gets you only one vp. being patient
gets you the gw.
stefan
> Greetings,
> Damnans
>
Stefan Ferenci
> Playing a Warghouldeck is more or less a weenierushdeck with just
> little bleed defense and intercept. And it won EC 04 (as you know of
> course as you were translating ;o) ).
i wouldn´t use the ec finals as an example it was a rather odd game.
stefan
David Cherryholmes
> the real big problem with most
> pure combat decks is that with the exception of the CEL weenie gun deck,
> all of them are not viable for tournament play (at least in big
> tourneys)
What property does weenie guns have that sets it apart from weenie
potence (and I still find it hilarious that weenie fortitude isn't on
people's radar, but thank god for that)?
> yeah multirush sucks unless you can eat the torporizied minions (tariq)
> adding defense just waters them down and totally kills them.
Or, more generally, your deck design simply can't stop with "and I
torpor them", because there's an inherent "undo all your work" action
built into the game.
> so the real way to victory is to convince your predator to leave you
> alone (here comes the dealing)
Historically true. What I'm suggesting is that you skip that part, and
just go ahead and pool sack them. I mean, there will be games where you
don't have to totally mutilate your predator but, odds are, most games
you will. And there's this general reluctance to do that. And I'm
saying just go ahead and do it. It is no big deal if your prey gets one
VP while you are killing your predator. Two VP's is a problem, though,
so that must be kept in mind.
> if you have enough minions to bleed with, killing your preys vamps is a
> good way to oust him (thats why weenie combat decks rock)
OK, now I'm confused.... do weenie combat decks rock, or just weenie
CEL/guns? I think they all tend to rock, but I rate all the intrinsic
advantages of weenies very highly.
--
David Cherryholmes
Stefan Ferenci
> Stefan Ferenci wrote:
>
>> the real big problem with most pure combat decks is that with the
>> exception of the CEL weenie gun deck, all of them are not viable for
>> tournament play (at least in big tourneys)
>
>
> What property does weenie guns have that sets it apart from weenie
> potence (and I still find it hilarious that weenie fortitude isn't on
> people's radar, but thank god for that)?
>
long range psyche sideslip dodge add strike
pot rush suffers from hit back, ani wennie and for weenie are strong but
lack defense against combat ends (i love my trap undead persistance
molotov cocktail deck but sce hoses it)
>> so the real way to victory is to convince your predator to leave you
>> alone (here comes the dealing)
>
>
> Historically true. What I'm suggesting is that you skip that part, and
> just go ahead and pool sack them. I mean, there will be games where you
> don't have to totally mutilate your predator but, odds are, most games
> you will. And there's this general reluctance to do that. And I'm
> saying just go ahead and do it. It is no big deal if your prey gets one
> VP while you are killing your predator. Two VP's is a problem, though,
> so that must be kept in mind.
>
>> if you have enough minions to bleed with, killing your preys vamps is
>> a good way to oust him (thats why weenie combat decks rock)
>
>
> OK, now I'm confused.... do weenie combat decks rock, or just weenie
> CEL/guns? I think they all tend to rock, but I rate all the intrinsic
> advantages of weenies very highly.
>
let me make that clear, if combat then weenie combat is the best choice,
of those cel weenie gun is by far the best choice (a well designed for
weenie deck with some dom or aus fro bounce works too)
stefan
> --
>
> David Cherryholmes
David Cherryholmes
> long range psyche sideslip dodge add strike
All of which come at a cost, and a pool cost at that. I'm not
suggesting that weenie CEL/guns isn't good, but I'm not sure that it's
clearly better than other choices. The built-in maneuver makes your
weenies more durable, sure, but trying to hang on to them rather than
replace them as they go down is a choice, not a necessity. Put another
way, you can have a 2 cap and then bolt-on a 2 pool costing thing and
that weenie will live longer, but simply influencing out the next two
cap after the first one has exhausted himself is a viable option.
> pot rush suffers from hit back, ani wennie and for weenie are strong but
> lack defense against combat ends (i love my trap undead persistance
> molotov cocktail deck but sce hoses it)
They aren't hosed by SCE, they simply iterate themselves right through
it. If you artificially narrow the scope of your analysis to be any
single given combat, then sure they are hosed. But within the scope of
an actual game, they've all got SCE smoked. Which is part of the reason
why I think your preference for CEL/gun is a bit misguided (which is not
to say that it isn't a strong deck, because it is. It's a weenie deck,
at the very least).
> let me make that clear, if combat then weenie combat is the best choice,
> of those cel weenie gun is by far the best choice (a well designed for
> weenie deck with some dom or aus fro bounce works too)
I don't agree with your argument, but it's not totally out in left
field, either.
--
David Cherryholmes
James Coupe
<david.che...@duke.edu> writes:
>Stefan Ferenci wrote:
>> the real big problem with most pure combat decks is that with the
>>exception of the CEL weenie gun deck, all of them are not viable for
>>tournament play (at least in big tourneys)
>
>What property does weenie guns have that sets it apart from weenie
>potence (and I still find it hilarious that weenie fortitude isn't on
>people's radar, but thank god for that)?
As a random aside, I have an inkling for a weenie ani/for deck, largely
because I often get smacked hard by combat decks when I don't have
enough combat defence. It'd be nice to have most of the benefits of
Weenie, plus defence and some Animalism fun. Can't decide where I want
it to go quite, though.
>> yeah multirush sucks unless you can eat the torporizied minions (tariq)
>> adding defense just waters them down and totally kills them.
>
>Or, more generally, your deck design simply can't stop with "and I
>torpor them", because there's an inherent "undo all your work" action
>built into the game.
I think that the crucial point here is that Multi-Rush doesn't have to
be a single vampire strategy. Typically, the multi-rush-ing element is
a single vampire strategy but if you have weenie support, you combine
some of the best elements of multi-rush (incredible speed - one vampire
comes out and eats four) with the ability to oust (weenie bleed).
This can also then give you a crypt-based defence (they can rescue you
when things go wrong) along with a potential for offence (they can
diablerise and, hey, they cost 2 pool, who cares?).
The potential for a Vulnerability or two in the deck is far from
impossible. Yeah, three or four and you might start jamming a little
nastily, but the odd one gives nasty surprises.
Even with a good multi-rush vampire plus a weapon (say, 12 pool? I know
that things like the Rowan Ring are popular, but 12 pool seems like a
reasonable limit), you can afford a couple of weenies.
--
James Coupe
PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D Who's ever heard of that, though!
EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 Designing a deck that just calls votes.
13D7E668C3695D623D5D That's crazy talk, there.
David Cherryholmes
> As a random aside, I have an inkling for a weenie ani/for deck, largely
> because I often get smacked hard by combat decks when I don't have
> enough combat defence. It'd be nice to have most of the benefits of
> Weenie, plus defence and some Animalism fun. Can't decide where I want
> it to go quite, though.
I think I would plan for skill card madness. My take on weenie
fortitude is that you play skill cards to bump your guys up to FOR. The
deck functions just fine at inferior, but at superior the UP starts to
double as damage prevention, and you can play piles of it and never
*not* have it in hand.
And then there's the Animalism side of the equation. Carrion Crows
looks fine at inferior, but Trap/CC/UP would be some pretty brutal
damage at superior. And even better, Song of Serenity at superior would
be a fine alternative to UP, allowing you the flexibility to choose to
bin your own nerd or try to keep him alive.
> I think that the crucial point here is that Multi-Rush doesn't have to
> be a single vampire strategy. Typically, the multi-rush-ing element is
> a single vampire strategy but if you have weenie support, you combine
> some of the best elements of multi-rush (incredible speed - one vampire
> comes out and eats four) with the ability to oust (weenie bleed).
The problem comes in when you start thinking about crypt ratios. The
standard seems to be 5 copies of the star and 7 copies of nerds. Going
by experience, this will rarely yield you one copy of the star and 3
nerds. It will often yield you 2 copies of the star and 2 nerds, and it
can easily get a lot worse. So yes, in theory you can run your big guy
with nerd support, but in practice it's better to assume you have your
hitter and one sidekick, and thank the Lords of Math on the days when it
pans out better than that. Otherwise, you are trusting to luck and that
*is* a bad deck.
Now, that said, I've worked in Effective Managements into the already
tight master space of such decks, and I've also fiddled with Clotho's
Gift. There's potential there, but the numbers are so low that it's not
going to be transformative or anything. It may be that working in 2
Effectives and 2 Clothos and dropping down to 4 copies of your hitter is
the sweet spot, but I haven't tested that.
> Even with a good multi-rush vampire plus a weapon (say, 12 pool? I know
> that things like the Rowan Ring are popular, but 12 pool seems like a
> reasonable limit), you can afford a couple of weenies.
Rowan Ring is good for Tariq, Muaziz, and Archon rush. Most other
multirush decks rely on the Assault Rifle, in which case 12 may be a
little low.
--
David Cherryholmes
Stefan Ferenci
> Stefan Ferenci wrote:
>
>> long range psyche sideslip dodge add strike
>
>
> All of which come at a cost, and a pool cost at that. I'm not
> suggesting that weenie CEL/guns isn't good, but I'm not sure that it's
> clearly better than other choices. The built-in maneuver makes your
> weenies more durable, sure, but trying to hang on to them rather than
> replace them as they go down is a choice, not a necessity. Put another
> way, you can have a 2 cap and then bolt-on a 2 pool costing thing and
> that weenie will live longer, but simply influencing out the next two
> cap after the first one has exhausted himself is a viable option.
>
i think wasting a minion is not a smart strategy. i like to keep mine alive.
stefan
salem
<david.che...@duke.edu> scrawled:
yup. i was playing a tweaked-due-to-card-availablility version of one
of David's Fatima multi-rush decks ina 7 player game yesterday (at the
time i chose the deck, i didn't realise ti was going to be 7
players!).
my predator was a giovanni powerbleed. i got up normal(i was going
2nd) before i knew what my pred was. next turn they bring up Gloria. i
put 4 on fatima. they bleed me for 3 and bring out francesca. i bring
out fatima. they bleed me for 3 + 6 and bring out chas. fatima goes
off, getting herself an assult Rifle. i have about 3 pool at this
stage. i drop gloria. i attack fran but only empty her, i attack her
again and chas blocks, so i dunk chas. my prey kindly dropped the
empty fran. no one was really willing to rescue because they knew as
soon as they did i was ousted, and no one wanted anyone else ousting
people. i managed to sneak in an attack on my prey a bit later with a
leadership vaccuum on their lambach adv. they then brought out
stravinsky, who i also dropped. they were down to two pool in their
master phase with no ready minions or blood on torpored minions and
ousted themselves with blood dolls. a bit sooky, but i took the vp
none-the-less. the giovanni eventually got another action (cross table
rescue, life in the city, acquired venture assets) and took away half
my vp-gained pool. i almost got my new prey before the grand pred
killed him and then me.
lesson was: i couldn't let my pred take any actions or i'd have no
pool left to do anything. and if he died as a result, so be it. i also
managed to talk some sort of informal thing with the grand predator
about how we'd oust the gio and then i'd oust my prey before he ousted
me (sort of insuring myself for 1vp), but it sort of naturally flowed
that way anyway.
salem
domain:canberra http://www.geocities.com/salem_christ.geo/vtes.htm
(replace "hotmail" with "yahoo" to email)
Joscha
salem wrote:
-snip cool game report-
Thanks for that example. Now look: if your prey would have been a good
deflector/misdirector (was he?) he could have rescued your predator's
minions to help him oust you because he has to fear your deck more than
his. And you could do nothing about it. That's my problem. If somebody
thinks your deck have to go out of the game you can't do much against
that. A real weakness of those decks I wish to get over.
Damnans
David Cherryholmes wrote:
[...]
>> So it is not a defenseless weenie rush deck, since it has some
>> reactions to deal with bleeds and other threats in addition to casual
>> attacks on your predator's minions, which are the sort of cards I was
>> suggesting that should be added to that type of combat decks so that
>> they can properly focus on their prey.
>
>
> What's defenseless about playing weenies? Weenies *are* your defense.
> Yeah, I'm trotting out the "b word" again. There's not a damn thing
> weak about a weenie rush deck.
Well, you also have to invest pool on your combat weenies (2, 3 or 4
pool for each). An amount of pool similar to the one you'd need to work
Fatima multirush (for instance). And, as well as this deck, weenie rush
decks are able to attack many minions per turn.
It is true that you usually do not need as much setup with Weenie Potence
decks (for instance) as you do with Fatima multirush; so you can attack
your oponents sooner.
The weakness of playing weenie rush is basing your only defense on
attacking your predator by default, when there are other viable ways
to do so via other cards already mentioned in previous posts (and which
can by cycled in different ways, if needed: Infernal Pursuit, Aura
Reading, Dreams of the Sphinx, The Barrens, etc.)
> Fat-ass multirush decks are probably
> weak, but if I really cared about that I'd play the same dull pile of
> bleeding crap everyone who really wants to win will play. It's a matter
> of taste. But even so, weak is a relative term and I think they can win
> and would win more often if people just ran them a little better (which
> is what I'm trying to discuss).
You can play as many weak fun decks as you like :-)
I also think that my weak Baali decks could win more often if people just
ran them a little better >:-P
C'mon! The weaker a deck is the better you should run it.
>> I agree with you that those decks are difficult to play. What you call
>> "the good ability of those decks to deal at the table" depends on how
>> experienced the other players are. I would rather call that "the good
>> ability to whine and excessive table talk", since they are usually
>> weak decks holding a weak position at the table.
>
> As opposed to the good ability of a political deck to do the same?
A political deck does not base its strategy on screwing its predator,
as multirush decks do. Political decks can grow even stronger if they
have a S&B predator (for instance), which defenseless "pure" multirush
decks cannot, since they cannot bounce bleeds to your prey.
Damnans
Stefan Ferenci wrote:
>> Damnans wrote:
[...]
>> A deck whose only defense is attacking his or her predator's minions
>> is a bad deck, since it will not do anything but giving advantage to
>> another Methuselah either by extremely weakening that Methuselah's prey
>> or by leaving his own prey with no pressure at all.
>>
>
> a skilled player can handle the hard part of keeping table balance. i
> think one big misconception in vtes is that it is bad to kill your pred.
> that is very often not true.
Agreed. Sometimes it's necessary for you to oust your predator. But that's
not the point. The point is that killing your predator (or weakening him
or her to death) by default (as multirush decks do) is a sign of that
deck's vulnerability.
[...]
>> A solution to this very common problem would be packing some bleed
>> defense (Deflection, Redirection, etc. and/or some Direct Interventions).
>> Another solution would be packing cards allowing you enough pool gain
>> to forget all about your predator.
>>
> watering down the deck so after a few turns you suffer from handjam too
> (defelction is hard to cycle). blood dools and taste of vitaes are a
> fine fine way of gaining pool.
Depending on the type of rush deck you are using, there are several
cards that can be very useful to avoid hand jam: Dreams of the Sphinx,
The Barrens, The Fragment of the Book of Nod, Infernal Pursuit,
Death of my Conscience, Aura Reading, etc.)
[...]
>> Multirush decks and other types of very combat foccussed decks usually
>> forget that leaving their preys with no minions will not necessary lead
>> them to victory. On the contrary, it would force their preys not to bring
>> out more minions and sit on their pool in the hope that weak deck's
>> predator will oust him or her.
>>
> if you have enough minions to bleed with, killing your preys vamps is a
> good way to oust him (thats why weenie combat decks rock)
Although you have lots of minions to bleed for 1 with each, and your
prey has lots of pool because he or she has given up to bring out more
vampires until you are dead or almost dead, you'll still have a predator
who will try to oust you, so you will have to attack him, which will
limit your bleed actions and your prey's pool loss.
[...]
salem
>
>salem wrote:
>
>-snip cool game report-
>
>Thanks for that example. Now look: if your prey would have been a good
>deflector/misdirector (was he?)
nope. he was combat too. trumpy combat. he was chock full of drawing
out the beasts. however, i didn't know that, and as luck would have it
he had yet to drawn into one of his (8 or so i think it was) DotB
before Fatima had at him.
> he could have rescued your predator's
>minions to help him oust you because he has to fear your deck more than
>his. And you could do nothing about it. That's my problem. If somebody
>thinks your deck have to go out of the game you can't do much against
>that. A real weakness of those decks I wish to get over.
if he had been a deflectorator, and rescued one/some of my predator's
vamps, i would have said to my predator 'i have no pool gain. if you
can oust me this turn you can oust me next turn. don't do it this
turn, and i'll spend my entire next turn attacking his deflect-able
minions'
i'd still die, but my prey learns a hard lesson. better yet, i point
out that that's what i'd do _before_ my prey rescues my predator, and
then hopefully my prey won't do it. my prey would also have to be
aware of the fact that that would have annoyed my grand predator, a
vote deck, as well as my grand prey, another combat deck. is it really
worth getting the combat deck you can't handle killed, when it'd spend
90% of it's game backwards anyway, and at the same time get 3
methuselahs angry with you?
you need to talk in this game, i feel, if you want to have any chance
of offsetting unfortunate match-ups of trumpy decks.
Derek Ray
Hash: SHA1
salem wrote:
| On 3 Jan 2005 23:41:36 -0800, "Joscha" <joscha...@gmx.de> scrawled:
|
|>he could have rescued your predator's
|>minions to help him oust you because he has to fear your deck more than
|>his. And you could do nothing about it. That's my problem. If somebody
|>thinks your deck have to go out of the game you can't do much against
|>that. A real weakness of those decks I wish to get over.
|
| if he had been a deflectorator, and rescued one/some of my predator's
| vamps, i would have said to my predator 'i have no pool gain. if you
| can oust me this turn you can oust me next turn. don't do it this
| turn, and i'll spend my entire next turn attacking his deflect-able
| minions'
If you want to chase people away from V:TES, this is the way to do it.
Let's restate what you would've said, shall we?
"I've been beaten by a deck that was better prepared than mine. Because
I'm pissy about the skillful play my prey just made, I'm going to try to
ruin his game as I die."
Everyone gets pissy. But again, if you want to chase people away from
V:TES, all you have to do is pull this sort of crap once too often. And
you'll never know where the line is... all you'll know is that suddenly
they quit coming.
| i'd still die, but my prey learns a hard lesson.
Yeah. He learns "don't play V:TES, the people are lame."
| then hopefully my prey won't do it. my prey would also have to be
| aware of the fact that that would have annoyed my grand predator, a
| vote deck, as well as my grand prey, another combat deck. is it really
| worth getting the combat deck you can't handle killed, when it'd spend
| 90% of it's game backwards anyway, and at the same time get 3
If its predator doesn't have minions, it isn't going to spend any of its
game going backwards. So you rescue one of your grandpredator's vamps,
because the player with no predator is always in a great spot.
If your deck is leaving holes against itself that are so easy to close,
perhaps it's time to pick a new deck, not increase the amount of
berating other players you do in hopes that you can shout them into
letting you win.
| you need to talk in this game, i feel, if you want to have any chance
| of offsetting unfortunate match-ups of trumpy decks.
Talk all you like, but being lame will have unfortunate side effects.
- --
Derek
insert clever quotation here
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (MingW32)
iD8DBQFB2qEotQZlu3o7QpERAmrXAJoCDIdhEfLn/fXow2hP0mPoAaDQzQCfV2Ks
1fOQ3Wj6RirU5z+Aq3PzCog=
=X9fe
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
David Cherryholmes
> you need to talk in this game, i feel, if you want to have any chance
> of offsetting unfortunate match-ups of trumpy decks.
Nice though it is to hear that someone is tinkering around with "your"
tech, I have to say I agree with Derek's post a little down-thread. No
deck can prepare for everything, and when bad luck puts you adjacent to
a strategy for which you aren't prepared, nine times out of ten due to
the fact that preparing for it would cut into all those juicy bleed
cards you want to play (or whatever), then it's best to just go ahead
and say "ya got me". There's too much potential for any player to throw
this game, and taking someone else down on your way out is poor
sportsmanship in my mind. And yeah, I think it's poor sportsmanship
even if you manage to whore your way into a dinky little VP because of it.
The game may require some amount of talking, but the less lip-flapping
your strategy *requires*, then I think the better it strictly is. Part
of what I'm getting at with this idea (and it's just an idea I'm kicking
around) of flat-out erasing your predator is that you skip the whole
wheedling phase of trying to get another player to do this or that, and
instead you just proactively execute your strategy and let the chips
fall where they may.
--
David Cherryholmes
X_Ze...@cox-internet.com
I have to step in and disagree. At his position of 3-5 pool and with
an unknown hand with Fatima who is armed with and assault rifle yet
tapped. Your only alternative is table talking. You are dead. If you
survive another turn, you should break the deal and plant your
predator's remaining minion then focus on your prey trying to get the
oust.
> | i'd still die, but my prey learns a hard lesson.
>
> Yeah. He learns "don't play V:TES, the people are lame."
They would be lame if they actually lined up the table for weenie
dominate, but it would be cool if you broke the deal. Therefore
underlining one of the basic premises of VTES, deals can be broken.
> | then hopefully my prey won't do it. my prey would also have to be
> | aware of the fact that that would have annoyed my grand predator, a
> | vote deck, as well as my grand prey, another combat deck. is it
really
> | worth getting the combat deck you can't handle killed, when it'd
spend
> | 90% of it's game backwards anyway, and at the same time get 3
>
> If its predator doesn't have minions, it isn't going to spend any of
its
> game going backwards. So you rescue one of your grandpredator's
vamps,
> because the player with no predator is always in a great spot.
Yes, this is true.
> If your deck is leaving holes against itself that are so easy to
close,
> perhaps it's time to pick a new deck, not increase the amount of
> berating other players you do in hopes that you can shout them into
> letting you win.
Where did table talk get converted to berating?
> | you need to talk in this game, i feel, if you want to have any
chance
> | of offsetting unfortunate match-ups of trumpy decks.
>
> Talk all you like, but being lame will have unfortunate side effects.
Not getting it....How does a last chance plea for remaining alive equal
lame?
Comments Welcome,
Norman S. Brown, Jr
XZealot
Archon of the Swamp
Joscha
Over here in Europe (at least Germany, Belgium, France and Austria
afaik) most people see the talking part as most important. And if you
ever played with notorious Kamel from Paris (we admire you, Kamel ;o) )
you know what I mean. He talks his way out of (nearly) every bad
situation and achieves (mostly) that others do what is best for him,
without even knowing. It is a matter of taste though wether that is
good for the game, the best part of it, or just annoying. At EC04 they
played a Silence of Death Tournament at which everybody must not make
negotiations about game relevant things.
In my opinion talking "to whore your way into a dinky little VP" is
absolutely okay and I respect people who achieved that. But I know some
people who find that disgusting. I think it is part of the game.
But I don't think that Salem's threat would have been succesful. Maybe
if he threatened a noob. But an ex. player would have laughed about
that and point out to the Domplayer, that he, Salem, would break the
deal anyway and he should oust him as soon as possible. Or offering an
own deal for rescuing the minion(s). You are free to talk also, you
know.
David Cherryholmes
> Over here in Europe (at least Germany, Belgium, France and Austria
> afaik) most people see the talking part as most important. And if you
> ever played with notorious Kamel from Paris (we admire you, Kamel ;o) )
> you know what I mean. He talks his way out of (nearly) every bad
> situation and achieves (mostly) that others do what is best for him,
> without even knowing.
There are lots of players like that. I live pretty near David Tatu, who
was infamous for the same kind of talent. I've even been known to
lip-flap my way out of some tight spots myself, on occasion. But
there's also the fact that the guy who is willing to just keep badgering
people will eventually get the better side of their manners, because who
really wants to keep listening to that crap and it's just a stupid game
without even a nickel riding on it, and lots of people are too polite
and/or timid to just tell someone to SHUT THE FUCK UP. And so these
Yapmasters get their way and everyone thinks they are genius card
players. Whatever.
> It is a matter of taste though wether that is
> good for the game, the best part of it, or just annoying.
True statement. I just gave you my take on it, and people think I talk
a lot. I guess everyone's got their subjective line drawn, where it
goes from "part of the game" to "annoying".
--
David Cherryholmes
Stefan Ferenci
> Joscha wrote:
>
>> Over here in Europe (at least Germany, Belgium, France and Austria
>> afaik) most people see the talking part as most important. And if you
>> ever played with notorious Kamel from Paris (we admire you, Kamel ;o) )
>> you know what I mean. He talks his way out of (nearly) every bad
>> situation and achieves (mostly) that others do what is best for him,
>> without even knowing.
>
>
> There are lots of players like that. I live pretty near David Tatu, who
> was infamous for the same kind of talent.
i had the chance to play a game with david, he is not even remotely as
bad as the average (west)european player. i find it more and more
disgusting they way a lot of players prostitute themselfs for a fu....g
vp. its destroying a lot of the fun in the game,itæ„€ bad for the game in
the long run. i had a few bad experiences at the ec 2004. its getting so
annoying to be forced to talk all the time just to prevent the game
shifting away from you (a lot of you know that i know how to tabletalk,
but its getting boring) i really like the idea of the silent of the
death format and would like to see them as sanctioned formats.
just my two cents
stefan
David Cherryholmes
> Well, you also have to invest pool on your combat weenies (2, 3 or 4
> pool for each). An amount of pool similar to the one you'd need to work
> Fatima multirush (for instance). And, as well as this deck, weenie rush
> decks are able to attack many minions per turn.
Fatima is 13 pool, minimum. More if you want any kind of protection
against your one big vampire getting hosed. In actual practice weenies
don't cost that much and, if they do, you've been able to trickle the
pool out in increments merely as needed. Not even the same, but I don't
know why we're comparing weenie decks and one big vampire decks, really.
> It is true that you usually do not need as much setup with Weenie Potence
> decks (for instance) as you do with Fatima multirush; so you can attack
> your oponents sooner.
Right. Now just realize that "attack opponents sooner" really means
"bled for about 10 less" in a lot of cases. It's not a trivial
distinction. There's also no issue on whether you've drawn into an
assault rifle in order to be effective.
> The weakness of playing weenie rush is basing your only defense on
> attacking your predator by default, when there are other viable ways
> to do so via other cards already mentioned in previous posts (and which
> can by cycled in different ways, if needed: Infernal Pursuit, Aura
> Reading, Dreams of the Sphinx, The Barrens, etc.)
You keep insisting on calling this a "weakness". It's not. It's a
strategy. Clearly you don't like the strategy and that is fine, but
"weak" is a pretty meaningless word here. And don't hand-wave away
moving parts, flush tech, and dead cards. You mess around with that
stuff at great risk, and should only do it when you really have to.
And, hey, there's the point: adding gaggable parts to your deck is *so*
risky that it may be better to get the job done with your one, focused
moving part. The hypothesis is that this is less "weak" than the deck
gagging, stalling out, and falling over.
And lastly, the weenie has an intrinsic defense you are glossing over.
It's called "look at my 4 vampires. I spent 10."
> A political deck does not base its strategy on screwing its predator,
> as multirush decks do. Political decks can grow even stronger if they
> have a S&B predator (for instance), which defenseless "pure" multirush
> decks cannot, since they cannot bounce bleeds to your prey.
I wasn't aware that there was a Prince card that bounces, or a Presence one.
--
David Cherryholmes
Stefan Ferenci
>
>
> In my opinion talking "to whore your way into a dinky little VP" is
> absolutely okay and I respect people who achieved that. But I know some
> people who find that disgusting.
its ok but still very disgusting.
i am just amazed how little selfdignity some players have. is very often
quite amusing to see how some players degrade themselfs just for a vp
instead of telling the other player to shove the vp up the a.. .
stefan
Daneel
<david.che...@duke.edu> wrote:
> Historically true. What I'm suggesting is that you skip that part, and
> just go ahead and pool sack them. I mean, there will be games where you
> don't have to totally mutilate your predator but, odds are, most games
> you will. And there's this general reluctance to do that. And I'm
> saying just go ahead and do it. It is no big deal if your prey gets one
> VP while you are killing your predator. Two VP's is a problem, though,
> so that must be kept in mind.
This is the part where I'm supposed to say WTF?
Sir, we have enough looneys who think that any deck that does its thing
well is a good deck and that beating vampires to torpor is a legitimate
passtime. There is absolutely no need to tell people that they should
play like this. Because someone might take it seriously.
If you cannot conceal that you play combat, the best way to go is to keep
your predator waiting for the opportune moment while you time your own
lunge well enough to harvest some VPs. If you kill your predator, not
only are you expending important resources, but you are also invoking
his or her spite, and a swift transfer out and a lunging new predator.
Just as the combat deck's "defense" against an aggressive predator is to
ensure that they both lose by hitting back hard and then dying horribly,
so is a mutilated predator's only "defense" against a strong hitback an
unconditional transfer out.
--
Bye,
Daneel
Stefan Ferenci
> On Mon, 03 Jan 2005 08:26:20 -0500, David Cherryholmes
> <david.che...@duke.edu> wrote:
>
>> Historically true. What I'm suggesting is that you skip that part,
>> and just go ahead and pool sack them. I mean, there will be games
>> where you don't have to totally mutilate your predator but, odds are,
>> most games you will. And there's this general reluctance to do that.
>> And I'm saying just go ahead and do it. It is no big deal if your
>> prey gets one VP while you are killing your predator. Two VP's is a
>> problem, though, so that must be kept in mind.
>
>
> This is the part where I'm supposed to say WTF?
>
no, because david is right.
stefan
Derek Ray
Hash: SHA1
X_Ze...@cox-internet.com wrote:
| Derek Ray wrote:
|
|>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
|>Hash: SHA1
|>
|>If you want to chase people away from V:TES, this is the way to do
| it.
|
|>Let's restate what you would've said, shall we?
|>
|>"I've been beaten by a deck that was better prepared than mine.
| Because
|>I'm pissy about the skillful play my prey just made, I'm going to try
| to
|>ruin his game as I die."
|
| I have to step in and disagree. At his position of 3-5 pool and with
| an unknown hand with Fatima who is armed with and assault rifle yet
| tapped. Your only alternative is table talking. You are dead. If you
Right. You are dead. Don't bone someone else on the way out just
because they took an action to help them win.
| survive another turn, you should break the deal and plant your
| predator's remaining minion then focus on your prey trying to get the
| oust.
Yep. It might be a real bitch to convince your predator you're really
going to do it, but you MIGHT be able to get away with it.
Actually following through on it though, just to teach your prey a "hard
lesson"? Bah.
|>| i'd still die, but my prey learns a hard lesson.
|>
|>Yeah. He learns "don't play V:TES, the people are lame."
|
| They would be lame if they actually lined up the table for weenie
| dominate, but it would be cool if you broke the deal. Therefore
| underlining one of the basic premises of VTES, deals can be broken.
Breaking this deal (ie, using the extra turn of life you talked your
predator into to shore up your position, kill some of your predator's
minions, gain pool, ...TRY TO WIN) is a clever thing, but be prepared to
draw a LOT of ire for this one until you actually break the deal.
|>If your deck is leaving holes against itself that are so easy to
| close,
|>perhaps it's time to pick a new deck, not increase the amount of
|>berating other players you do in hopes that you can shout them into
|>letting you win.
|
| Where did table talk get converted to berating?
Where he suggested threatening your prey with "I'll suicide on you and
give your VP and mine to my predator if you don't do what I want" first.
You don't need to raise your voice to be berating someone.
|>| you need to talk in this game, i feel, if you want to have any
|
| chance
|
|>| of offsetting unfortunate match-ups of trumpy decks.
|>
|>Talk all you like, but being lame will have unfortunate side effects.
|
| Not getting it....How does a last chance plea for remaining alive equal
| lame?
Making a deal with your predator to give your prey's VP to him as well
as your own if your prey doesn't quit not-letting-you-win, simply
because your predator happened to be a deck that attacks your own deck's
weaknesses?
It's one thing to tap out and suicide, saying "Can't survive right,
gotta go left, must kill prey, maybe predator gets Pentexed". It's
maybe not the best play, but that's another issue. However, it's
another thing entirely to beg for extra turns of life from your predator
so you can "punish" your prey for trying to win the game.
- --
Derek
insert clever quotation here
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (MingW32)
iD8DBQFB2yb+tQZlu3o7QpERAoIbAJ4jkkh2gnvrTTfkfnQncaLCLF4lAQCfVcvf
h1gZ2u4yya5nx10QDDEc0wE=
=kL8v
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
James Coupe
Ferenci <nos...@thankyou.com> writes:
>i think wasting a minion is not a smart strategy. i like to keep mine alive.
Sure, pretty much every deck in the world is going to say "I like to
keep mine alive." That almost always figures out to be right.
(Aside: Some freaky Redeem the Lost Soul combo might go on a suicide
spree, or attack/implode spree. But we're talking the vast majority of
decks here.)
But acknowledging that you can afford to have minions killed is not the
same as having a strategy of wasting minions.
For example, if you can't play a lot of bounce/pool defence, you can
head towards bloat. Minion Tap/Taste of Vitae, Consanguineous Boon,
Autarkis Persecution - whatever floats your boat. It's not "wasting"
pool, it's acknowledging you're not in necessarily the strongest
position to defend it and going about an alternative strategy to avoid
that. For *some* decks, it's just too hard to defend your pool with
bounce etc., so you decide to make that irrelevant.
Ditto, with some weenie decks, it's the case that you don't *want* to
throw away minions, but generating several of them means that if you do
lose one, it won't hurt so much. And, in some decks, it's much easier
to do that than spent extra time and effort defending them, in terms of
cards used and so on.
Now, of course, if you're throwing guns and things on to them, you want
to defend them anyway, for the time and effort that takes. But that's
just a different trade off.
James Coupe
<david.che...@duke.edu> writes:
>James Coupe wrote:
>> As a random aside, I have an inkling for a weenie ani/for deck, largely
>> because I often get smacked hard by combat decks when I don't have
>> enough combat defence. It'd be nice to have most of the benefits of
>> Weenie, plus defence and some Animalism fun. Can't decide where I want
>> it to go quite, though.
>
>I think I would plan for skill card madness. My take on weenie
>fortitude is that you play skill cards to bump your guys up to FOR.
>The deck functions just fine at inferior, but at superior the UP starts
>to double as damage prevention, and you can play piles of it and never
>*not* have it in hand.
Yeah, the Trap/UP side of things is well-known. I was toying with
Animalism for some of the other tricks - Crows, Bats etc.
As you say:
>And then there's the Animalism side of the equation. Carrion Crows
>looks fine at inferior, but Trap/CC/UP would be some pretty brutal
>damage at superior. And even better, Song of Serenity at superior
>would be a fine alternative to UP, allowing you the flexibility to
>choose to bin your own nerd or try to keep him alive.
Well, there's always the possibility of Song in the Dark, for the
terminally insane.
It's cards like Army of Rats and Tier of Souls I keep toying with. Do I
want to diversify the deck that way? If I do, would I be better off
with Computer Hacking? Or should I just go for weenie madness?
The crypt is also a pain too. ani/for is fine, but you don't get much
superior either below 5, and when you do, you get grouping splitting
them up. Damn designers stopping my nefarious ways. :/
>> I think that the crucial point here is that Multi-Rush doesn't have to
>> be a single vampire strategy. Typically, the multi-rush-ing element is
>> a single vampire strategy but if you have weenie support, you combine
>> some of the best elements of multi-rush (incredible speed - one vampire
>> comes out and eats four) with the ability to oust (weenie bleed).
>
>The problem comes in when you start thinking about crypt ratios.
Aye. :(
>The standard seems to be 5 copies of the star and 7 copies of nerds.
>Going by experience, this will rarely yield you one copy of the star
>and 3 nerds. It will often yield you 2 copies of the star and 2 nerds,
>and it can easily get a lot worse.
I'm not sure about easily. In a 12 card crypt, pulling out 3 or 4 of 5
is getting into "unlikely" territory. I'd do the numbers if I could be
arsed.
However, even at 3, you have the possibility of a pool to throw away for
a new minion to look at.
>So yes, in theory you can run your big guy with nerd support, but in
>practice it's better to assume you have your hitter and one sidekick,
>and thank the Lords of Math on the days when it pans out better than
>that. Otherwise, you are trusting to luck and that *is* a bad deck.
One thing I'm wondering if it's worth looking at is seeing if any Prince
or Archbishop (or functionally equivalent thing) is worth trying for the
capability of throwing in a Third Tradition or Creation Rites. Sadly,
most of them suck a fair bit for multi-rush, though. If you're mostly
going for a weapon and some Celerity and some Fortitude, there are
*some* options at least. Just not excellent ones. :/
But, the idea is that you'd be able to counter the problem of nerd
support by having a little help in the library. Obviously, not enough
to completely stall the deck, but it'd mitigate the crypt problems.
>> Even with a good multi-rush vampire plus a weapon (say, 12 pool? I know
>> that things like the Rowan Ring are popular, but 12 pool seems like a
>> reasonable limit), you can afford a couple of weenies.
>
>Rowan Ring is good for Tariq, Muaziz, and Archon rush. Most other
>multirush decks rely on the Assault Rifle, in which case 12 may be a
>little low.
I'm never certain about the need for the Assault Rifle.
Has anyone looked into the benefits of, say, the Sub Machine Gun? It's
a pool less...
I've been similarly wondering about ammo cards. Again, just a
smattering to throw off numbers.
salem
scrawled:
>It's one thing to tap out and suicide, saying "Can't survive right,
>gotta go left, must kill prey, maybe predator gets Pentexed". It's
>maybe not the best play, but that's another issue. However, it's
>another thing entirely to beg for extra turns of life from your predator
>so you can "punish" your prey for trying to win the game.
i think this sums up what i need to respond to.
quite frankly, if i am dead, i'll beg, plead, berate (nicely), lie,
squirm and offer the world to anyone who might offer me a chance at
life (and thus from there, a sniff at a vp). and i'll backstab for a
gamewin, maybe even a vp if i feel the person was particularly silly
to even listen to me in the first place. our social games here (which
is where the anecdote started) are pretty friendly affairs. any
berating is going to be taken with a grain of salt. i'll say keep me
alive a turn so i can trash my prey. is my predator going to beleive
me? possibly. but they'll make sure they have some s:ce, and that they
_need_ my prey hurt to help them with their next vp. if they didn't
have either or both those things, they'd probably say 'bugger that,
i'll have my vp now thanks'.
and if i am dead regardless, why not trash the minion that caused it?
i couldn't exactly say to my predator 'leave me alone one turn and
i'll trash your newly rescued vampire. it'll be good, honest'. i don't
think they'd go for that.
so i trash my prey's vamp. we have a laugh, he calls me a nasty bitch,
we laugh some more, i pass him some m&ms. it's a game, we have fun. no
one actually feels like they've been berated. at least not that they
show. and since i've known these guys for 5 years (or more for some)
now i think i might notice...
and if i was still back at the 'berating' phase, before anyone was
actually rescued, would my prey beleive a) my predator would take the
risk of not ousting me. b) if i did get the one more turn of life,
squander it on spite instead of trying to shore up my position. c)
think i could actually hurt his minions.
who doesn't use tabletalk in this game to try and get out of fucked
spots? sometimes (well, twice now) i have been lucky enough to say
'give me one more turn alive and i'll take as much pool off my prey as
i can, then you can kill me next turn', they've aggreed to it, and
i've fluked an oust. talk. plead. offer the world. grab vps where you
can.
salem
<david.che...@duke.edu> scrawled:
>salem wrote:
>
>> you need to talk in this game, i feel, if you want to have any chance
>> of offsetting unfortunate match-ups of trumpy decks.
>
>Nice though it is to hear that someone is tinkering around with "your"
>tech, I have to say I agree with Derek's post a little down-thread. No
>deck can prepare for everything, and when bad luck puts you adjacent to
>a strategy for which you aren't prepared, nine times out of ten due to
>the fact that preparing for it would cut into all those juicy bleed
>cards you want to play (or whatever), then it's best to just go ahead
>and say "ya got me". There's too much potential for any player to throw
>this game, and taking someone else down on your way out is poor
>sportsmanship in my mind. And yeah, I think it's poor sportsmanship
>even if you manage to whore your way into a dinky little VP because of it.
but if you whore yourself into a vp, you weren't really in a lost
position after all, so the wheedling was justified, right?
i just can't lie down and die. it doesn't mean i'll harp on for hours
about how this or that is in such and such's best interest to try and
keep myself in, but if i see an angle to pitch, i'll pitch it. if it
works, great, if not, pass the m&ms.
and what's so unsporting about taking out the minion who got you
killed? i just don't get that. taking down your prey on your way
out...well, how's that my bad play? surely the prey i am taking down,
sitting next to my deck that bones him, should just think 'ya got me'
and be happy to go down with me?
>The game may require some amount of talking, but the less lip-flapping
>your strategy *requires*, then I think the better it strictly is. Part
i agree.
>of what I'm getting at with this idea (and it's just an idea I'm kicking
>around) of flat-out erasing your predator is that you skip the whole
>wheedling phase of trying to get another player to do this or that, and
>instead you just proactively execute your strategy and let the chips
>fall where they may.
i'm not up for blabbering all the way through games. but when the shit
hits the fan and you've got nothing else, why the hell not?
salem
scrawled:
[multirush]
>I'm never certain about the need for the Assault Rifle.
>
>Has anyone looked into the benefits of, say, the Sub Machine Gun? It's
>a pool less...
well, as i am trying to get the hang of Multirush, and dirtying
david's name along the way, it might seem (and, of course, dirtying my
own name!) i've got a Nu multirush running with assult rifles, because
the half price-ness of the clio's kiss or whatever that temporis card
is makes them the best bargain, and the same price as sub machinegun
if you get them for half.
so, that didn't leave me the requisite number of assult rifles for the
Fatima attempted slap-together of david's deck i was trying (not to
mention the rares he uses! rares! where am i going to get those!?) so
some got subsituted for sub machineguns. as i've only run the deck
once so far, and i got an assult rifle, i can't really offer any data.
but i can get back to you.
and i also recall some article on 'reliable' or 'good enough' combat
saying something about 3 regular or 1 agg damage. sub machinegun meets
the first criteria.
>I've been similarly wondering about ammo cards. Again, just a
>smattering to throw off numbers.
i dropped a caseless rounds into the Nu deck to see how that goes,
just for a bit of an experiment. but i have too many decks at the
moment and haven't had a shot at it yet (excuse the pun).
salem
>lunge well enough to harvest some VPs. If you kill your predator, not
>only are you expending important resources, but you are also invoking
>his or her spite, and a swift transfer out and a lunging new predator.
actually, if you hit them hard and early, it's quite hard for them to
spend pool. :) and _their_ predator isn't too keen to kill them quick,
because they know then _they'll_ be getting the combat deck
back-rushing it.
>Just as the combat deck's "defense" against an aggressive predator is to
>ensure that they both lose by hitting back hard and then dying horribly,
whoa. that's not the plan. the plan is hit back hard, then kill your
prey. if your grand pred gets one vp, and your prey snipped a vp while
you were going backwards, and then you kill your prey, it's good!
spread the vps around thinly, as long as at the end you've got 2 or
more and no one else has more than one.
>so is a mutilated predator's only "defense" against a strong hitback an
>unconditional transfer out.
talk-ing. talk to people. everyone should talk to people. who's going
to gain by you _not_ transferring out? talk to them, get them to help?
who's getting hurt by your transferring out? blackmail them (nicely!
hi derek!) into doing something for you if you _don't_ transfer out.
Damnans
David Cherryholmes wrote:
[...]
>> The weakness of playing weenie rush is basing your only defense on
>> attacking your predator by default, when there are other viable ways
>> to do so via other cards already mentioned in previous posts (and which
>> can by cycled in different ways, if needed: Infernal Pursuit, Aura
>> Reading, Dreams of the Sphinx, The Barrens, etc.)
>
>
> You keep insisting on calling this a "weakness". It's not. It's a
> strategy.
Then it is a weak, poor and vulnerable strategy, since the only
way for your so vulnerable deck to win is to use such a weak strategy.
> Clearly you don't like the strategy and that is fine,
It is not a matter of taste. My deck preferences have nothing to
do with my comments. I have actually played multirush decks several
times (with Fatima, Jaroslav Pascek or Karsh) both for fun's sake and
to see if they were decks worth playing in tournaments. In fact, our
playgroup has been confronting multirush decks before you published
your first one (IIRC).
> but
> "weak" is a pretty meaningless word here. And don't hand-wave away
> moving parts, flush tech, and dead cards. You mess around with that
> stuff at great risk, and should only do it when you really have to.
>
> And, hey, there's the point: adding gaggable parts to your deck is *so*
> risky that it may be better to get the job done with your one, focused
> moving part. The hypothesis is that this is less "weak" than the deck
> gagging, stalling out, and falling over.
I would like to see your most recent and competitive version of your
Fatima multirush deck so that it could be put under review in order to
see if there are viable alternative ways to improve it.
[...]
>> A political deck does not base its strategy on screwing its predator,
>> as multirush decks do. Political decks can grow even stronger if they
>> have a S&B predator (for instance), which defenseless "pure" multirush
>> decks cannot, since they cannot bounce bleeds to your prey.
>
>
> I wasn't aware that there was a Prince card that bounces, or a Presence
> one.
Ventrue Princes have Dominate (Deflection, Redirection).
Toreador Princes have Auspex (Telepathic Misdirection, My Enemy's Enemy).
Eurobrujah have Dominate (see Ventrue above)
Lasombra have Dominate (idem).
Malkavian and Malkavian antitribu have Auspex and/or Dominate (see above).
Tremere have Dominate (as per Ventrue)
Etc.
Stefan Ferenci
>
> Tremere have Dominate (as per Ventrue)
> Etc.
>
> Greetings,
> Damnans
>
>
and auspex too ;-)
stefan
David Cherryholmes
> Well, there's always the possibility of Song in the Dark, for the
> terminally insane.
I think Molotov Cocktail is a better choice. MC is a toy that deck
didn't need to get, but there it is.
> It's cards like Army of Rats and Tier of Souls I keep toying with. Do I
> want to diversify the deck that way? If I do, would I be better off
> with Computer Hacking? Or should I just go for weenie madness?
Going on my weekly exposure to this type of deck, I think you just go
for weenie madness. You *could* hack, but the fact is, no one is going
to block you, and you can bleed with every single one of your nerds, and
that will kill most decks. I would include only a handful of rushes,
and chuck the entire rest of the deck at *ensuring* that you have your
combo in hand, and have access to Rapid Heals when you need them. What
space you have left I would round out with wakes and intercept toys.
Oh, by "this deck", I mean straight weenie fortitude. I've never seen
anyone try to stir in Animalism.
> I'm not sure about easily. In a 12 card crypt, pulling out 3 or 4 of 5
> is getting into "unlikely" territory. I'd do the numbers if I could be
> arsed.
Yeah, you would think that. Maybe I'm cursed. Playing on deckbot will
educate you right quickly on what "random" really looks like. To think
I'd been stacking my decks all these years....
> However, even at 3, you have the possibility of a pool to throw away for
> a new minion to look at.
Sure, and I do that every game I play with this style of deck. But odds
are, you're paying one to look at another copy of your star anyway. You
muddle through with it, but it's far from ideal.
> One thing I'm wondering if it's worth looking at is seeing if any Prince
> or Archbishop (or functionally equivalent thing) is worth trying for the
> capability of throwing in a Third Tradition or Creation Rites. Sadly,
> most of them suck a fair bit for multi-rush, though. If you're mostly
> going for a weapon and some Celerity and some Fortitude, there are
> *some* options at least. Just not excellent ones. :/
Volker is the excellent option. Volker is Assamite Buddy #1.
> But, the idea is that you'd be able to counter the problem of nerd
> support by having a little help in the library. Obviously, not enough
> to completely stall the deck, but it'd mitigate the crypt problems.
That's the sticky part, though, isn't it? If you put in little enough
to feel safe about clogging, how much of a difference will it make?
Honest question, because I've just got a vague sense of it from experience.
> Has anyone looked into the benefits of, say, the Sub Machine Gun? It's
> a pool less...
As a matter of fact, another player in my group has a pretty solid
!Gangrel gunner deck, and he plays Submachine Guns precisely because
they are one pool less. His deck seems to do fine with them, but it
just seems like the AR is better for a mere one pool more.
> I've been similarly wondering about ammo cards. Again, just a
> smattering to throw off numbers.
I like the idea of a clutch of strictly less than Tier 1 cards in an
otherwise straight tournament deck to throw people off balance.
Cleverly bumping up your combat damage doesn't seem worth it to me, but
YMMV.
--
David Cherryholmes
David Cherryholmes
> Then it is a weak, poor and vulnerable strategy, since the only
> way for your so vulnerable deck to win is to use such a weak strategy.
Then weenie dominate must be poor as well, right? I mean, the *only*
way it can win is by speed. And again, if you drop "so vulnerable" and
"weak" off that last sentence, would it be any worse?
> It is not a matter of taste. My deck preferences have nothing to
> do with my comments. I have actually played multirush decks several
> times (with Fatima, Jaroslav Pascek or Karsh) both for fun's sake and
> to see if they were decks worth playing in tournaments. In fact, our
> playgroup has been confronting multirush decks before you published
> your first one (IIRC).
I'm sure everyone's been confronting them for a long time. I didn't
invent the damn thing, I'm just the one who's talked about it. At
length. I might point out that I've played that style of deck far more
than "a few times" and several times in tournaments, so I might like
that heap of empirical evidence acknowledged, but that's as far as I'll
take it.
> I would like to see your most recent and competitive version of your
> Fatima multirush deck so that it could be put under review in order to
> see if there are viable alternative ways to improve it.
I haven't gotten ARDB rebuilt on my "Damn the Man" linux box yet, but
when I do I'll throw a list up here for you. And let's be clear: I'm
*not* trying to say that Fatima is some end-all, be-all of.... well,
anything. There are far better decks, there are far better rush decks,
and there are even far better multirush decks. This isn't about Fatima.
It's about *multirush* as a strategy.
However, your insistence that turning your first predator into a smoking
crater right out of the gate is "weak" is still nothing more than an
assertion, to my mind. Realize we're stipulating a deck that can do it,
of course.
> Ventrue Princes have Dominate (Deflection, Redirection).
> Toreador Princes have Auspex (Telepathic Misdirection, My Enemy's Enemy).
> Eurobrujah have Dominate (see Ventrue above)
> Lasombra have Dominate (idem).
> Malkavian and Malkavian antitribu have Auspex and/or Dominate (see above).
> Tremere have Dominate (as per Ventrue)
OK, I'll grant you that one. There are other cornercase voting decks,
but they are cornercase.
--
David Cherryholmes
David Cherryholmes
> Sir, we have enough looneys who think that any deck that does its thing
> well is a good deck and that beating vampires to torpor is a legitimate
> passtime. There is absolutely no need to tell people that they should
> play like this. Because someone might take it seriously.
But I am being serious. My initial post took some time to make the case
that, even in the worst case of a four way, 1 VP going where it would
appear at first glance it shouldn't go doesn't preclude you from winning
the game. Handing your predator to your grandpredator is clearly
counterintuitive, granted. But you can't win if you're dead, and my
experience says if you fiddle around hoping you won't die, then you die.
> If you cannot conceal that you play combat, the best way to go is to keep
> your predator waiting for the opportune moment while you time your own
> lunge well enough to harvest some VPs. If you kill your predator, not
> only are you expending important resources, but you are also invoking
> his or her spite, and a swift transfer out and a lunging new predator.
You are expending resources. But part of the premise is that you've
thrown your deck at basically that one resource, so you have enough to
go around. Again, the alternative is a bunch of threats and smack
talking while you try to do as little damage to them as you figure you
need to, and they kill you anyway. That's bad strategy, clearly. As
far as "swift transfer out".... that's kind of the idea, minus the swift
part. The earlier they decide to do that, the better off you are.
> Just as the combat deck's "defense" against an aggressive predator is to
> ensure that they both lose by hitting back hard and then dying horribly,
> so is a mutilated predator's only "defense" against a strong hitback an
> unconditional transfer out.
You're assuming hitting your predator hard makes you both lose. Prove it.
--
David Cherryholmes
David Cherryholmes
> There are lots of players like that. I live pretty near David Tatu, who
> was infamous for the same kind of talent. I've even been known to
> lip-flap my way out of some tight spots myself, on occasion. But
> there's also the fact that the guy who is willing to just keep badgering
> people will eventually get the better side of their manners, because who
> really wants to keep listening to that crap and it's just a stupid game
> without even a nickel riding on it, and lots of people are too polite
> and/or timid to just tell someone to SHUT THE FUCK UP. And so these
> Yapmasters get their way and everyone thinks they are genius card
> players. Whatever.
Sorry to respond to my own post but I was rereading the thread and it
occurred to me that it could be taken that I was describing Mr. Tatu
with the above. In fact, Dave is one of the most pleasant people to
play V:TES with that I've met, and I was really going off in another
direction when I got all ranty. Just wanted to make sure that was clear.
--
David Cherryholmes
Otto Koskinen
<david.che...@duke.edu> wrote:
>Joscha wrote:
>
>> Over here in Europe (at least Germany, Belgium, France and Austria
>> afaik) most people see the talking part as most important. And if you
>> ever played with notorious Kamel from Paris (we admire you, Kamel ;o) )
>> you know what I mean. He talks his way out of (nearly) every bad
>> situation and achieves (mostly) that others do what is best for him,
>> without even knowing.
>
>There are lots of players like that. I live pretty near David Tatu, who
>was infamous for the same kind of talent. I've even been known to
>lip-flap my way out of some tight spots myself, on occasion. But
>there's also the fact that the guy who is willing to just keep badgering
>people will eventually get the better side of their manners, because who
>really wants to keep listening to that crap and it's just a stupid game
>without even a nickel riding on it, and lots of people are too polite
>and/or timid to just tell someone to SHUT THE FUCK UP. And so these
>Yapmasters get their way and everyone thinks they are genius card
>players. Whatever.
>
I agree.
James Coupe
>Going on my weekly exposure to this type of deck, I think you just go
>for weenie madness. You *could* hack, but the fact is, no one is going
>to block you, and you can bleed with every single one of your nerds,
>and that will kill most decks. I would include only a handful of
>rushes, and chuck the entire rest of the deck at *ensuring* that you
>have your combo in hand, and have access to Rapid Heals when you need
>them. What space you have left I would round out with wakes and
>intercept toys.
>
>Oh, by "this deck", I mean straight weenie fortitude. I've never seen
>anyone try to stir in Animalism.
The Animalism amuses me. It also gives me something else to do with the
deck, meaning I get less bored. (I do find mono-whatever a bit of a
bind, when it's all just the same.)
I was also looking at using it to increase the depth of options
available to the deck. Alpha Glint (for the "Oh shit" option), the odd
Army of Rats, Shepherd's Innocence, Owl Companion sort of thing.
Possibly Dogs/Rats for defence.
Of course, that doesn't want to be too high for the Weenie For madness
angle. Hmm hmm. Perhaps 15 cards?
>> However, even at 3, you have the possibility of a pool to throw away for
>> a new minion to look at.
>
>Sure, and I do that every game I play with this style of deck. But
>odds are, you're paying one to look at another copy of your star
>anyway. You muddle through with it, but it's far from ideal.
Well, at 3 Multi-Rush, 1 Weenie, 5 Multirush in the deck, there's 8
vampires left, 2 of which are multi-rush. That's only a 25% chance.
Of course, this *can* still happen.
>> One thing I'm wondering if it's worth looking at is seeing if any Prince
>> or Archbishop (or functionally equivalent thing) is worth trying for the
>> capability of throwing in a Third Tradition or Creation Rites. Sadly,
>> most of them suck a fair bit for multi-rush, though. If you're mostly
>> going for a weapon and some Celerity and some Fortitude, there are
>> *some* options at least. Just not excellent ones. :/
>
>Volker is the excellent option. Volker is Assamite Buddy #1.
Oh, yes, I love Volker. But... Volker isn't great.
What I was thinking was actually using a Prince (or whoever) for Multi-
Rush. But, cel/for and an appropriate title isn't so easily available,
especially with a decent vampire (for multi-rush purposes) too.
Mustafa the Heir could be fun, if for nothing else the "VENTRUE?" looks
on people's faces. :) (And then the cackles as they wipe you off the
table. Bastards.) The trouble there, of course, is getting the decent
weapon onto them in the first place, and having a playable deck at the
end of the day, with the Group 4 vamp options being thin(ner) on the
ground right now.
>> But, the idea is that you'd be able to counter the problem of nerd
>> support by having a little help in the library. Obviously, not enough
>> to completely stall the deck, but it'd mitigate the crypt problems.
>
>That's the sticky part, though, isn't it? If you put in little enough
>to feel safe about clogging, how much of a difference will it make?
>Honest question, because I've just got a vague sense of it from
>experience.
I tend to think of such things along the lines, not of "Will this
guarantee it?" but "How likely is it that that won't come up *and* this
won't come up in the first <X> cards?"
If I get 4 multi-rushers *and* all four Embraces at the bottom of the
deck, I might as well give up and go home.
>> Has anyone looked into the benefits of, say, the Sub Machine Gun? It's
>> a pool less...
>
>As a matter of fact, another player in my group has a pretty solid
>!Gangrel gunner deck, and he plays Submachine Guns precisely because
>they are one pool less. His deck seems to do fine with them, but it
>just seems like the AR is better for a mere one pool more.
Oh, it's definitely better. If you can afford it, I'd go for it. The
chance of Up Yours! or whatever being played is so ludicrously minimal
that it's never going to be the case that if you can easily afford both,
SMG is going to be better. More... if you're penny pinching...
>> I've been similarly wondering about ammo cards. Again, just a
>> smattering to throw off numbers.
>
>I like the idea of a clutch of strictly less than Tier 1 cards in an
>otherwise straight tournament deck to throw people off balance.
>Cleverly bumping up your combat damage doesn't seem worth it to me, but
>YMMV.
I tend to find myself working out what other people can do. "If I bleed
with him, he can take three damage, and he's not only got one Blur in
his ash heap so I can probably get away with that."
I like the ability to do something to throw people off. Legbiter used
to suggest putting e.g. Lucky Blow in a Malkavian deck. Not to throw
people off, per se, more to throw in something they weren't expecting.
"Well, that's a Malkie S&B deck so I can go down to zero and then
Taste..."
Do other people do that? The trying to calculate thing, I mean.
James Coupe
<david.che...@duke.edu> writes:
>Daneel wrote:
>> Just as the combat deck's "defense" against an aggressive predator is to
>> ensure that they both lose by hitting back hard and then dying horribly,
>> so is a mutilated predator's only "defense" against a strong hitback an
>> unconditional transfer out.
>
>You're assuming hitting your predator hard makes you both lose. Prove it.
I think - historically - a number of such concerns are based around the
fact that people aren't effectively using the minion actions at their
disposal, and aren't generating enough of them to do this.
Pre-multi-rush, going backwards with a big vampire deck *is* probably
going to make you lose. You waste way too much time. However, if you
can spend two actions of your three this turn doing it, rather than one
action this turn, one action next turn, and only after that getting your
third turn onto your prey, it's a different ball game. Against a
similar deck, with only one vampire out and no multi-action capability,
you've *really* exploded things. Bye Jost, bye Lolita, hello Anson!
Ditto, with a weenie deck - but historically, those have mostly been an
American thing.
Trying to annihilate people who aren't your prey *without* that spare
minion capacity, however, is a recipe for stabbing yourself in the head
repeatedly, a lot of the time. And there are a *lot* of decks out there
without that spare capacity, so they have to go for more usual defences
- bounce, Delaying Tactics, etc.
salem
<david.che...@duke.edu> scrawled:
>Damnans wrote:
>> Ventrue Princes have Dominate (Deflection, Redirection).
>> Toreador Princes have Auspex (Telepathic Misdirection, My Enemy's Enemy).
>> Eurobrujah have Dominate (see Ventrue above)
>> Lasombra have Dominate (idem).
>> Malkavian and Malkavian antitribu have Auspex and/or Dominate (see above).
>> Tremere have Dominate (as per Ventrue)
>
>OK, I'll grant you that one. There are other cornercase voting decks,
>but they are cornercase.
weenie/lowcap pre wasn't cornercase last i checked, and it's going to
have a hodgepodge of non-pre disciplines floating around that usually
isn't worth trying to bolt on bounce.
and if you have no bounce, and rely instead on bloat/lock down style
votes, it makes all _your_ prey's anti-bleed tech a wasted hunk of
cards. i like obsoleteing parts of my opponent's decks. it's a good
plan.
salem
scrawled:
>The Animalism amuses me. It also gives me something else to do with the
>deck, meaning I get less bored. (I do find mono-whatever a bit of a
>bind, when it's all just the same.)
i'm totally trying to talk to the cool people and they're ignoring me.
:(
>I was also looking at using it to increase the depth of options
>available to the deck. Alpha Glint (for the "Oh shit" option), the odd
not so cool in a weenie deck:
Alpha Glint [BH:C]
Cardtype: Combat
Cost: 1 blood
Discipline: Animalism & Fortitude
*Not usable in combat with an ally or an older vampire.*
>Army of Rats, Shepherd's Innocence, Owl Companion sort of thing.
>Possibly Dogs/Rats for defence.
those things do add nice spice. owl companion, if nothing else, irks
people.
>Do other people do that? The trying to calculate thing, I mean.
yup. usually just before i berate people into doing what i want if the
numbers come up bad for me. ;)
Daneel
<david.che...@duke.edu> wrote:
> Nice though it is to hear that someone is tinkering around with "your"
> tech, I have to say I agree with Derek's post a little down-thread. No
> deck can prepare for everything, and when bad luck puts you adjacent to
> a strategy for which you aren't prepared, nine times out of ten due to
> the fact that preparing for it would cut into all those juicy bleed
> cards you want to play (or whatever), then it's best to just go ahead
> and say "ya got me". There's too much potential for any player to throw
> this game, and taking someone else down on your way out is poor
> sportsmanship in my mind. And yeah, I think it's poor sportsmanship
> even if you manage to whore your way into a dinky little VP because of
> it.
I agree with this... But I fail to see how you can say this and argue in
another post how you should play a deck strategy that completely fucks a
player without granting your victory. What's the big difference? In one
case it's a matter of deck type _and_ seating, in the other it is
seating alone. Care to elaborate?
--
Bye,
Daneel
Daneel
<david.che...@duke.edu> wrote:
> But there's also the fact that the guy who is willing to just keep
> badgering people will eventually get the better side of their manners,
> because who really wants to keep listening to that crap and it's just a
> stupid game without even a nickel riding on it, and lots of people are
> too polite and/or timid to just tell someone to SHUT THE FUCK UP.
I often do that. The poor part is that very verbal players will often find
at least one noob at every table whom they can abuse. So you're in the
position of needing to talk to the noob, because if you don't convince
him, the yapper will.
That's why I prefer Kindred Spirits and Bums Rush. Rather table-talk
resistant approaches... ;)
> Yapmasters get their way and everyone thinks they are genius card
> players. Whatever.
Yeah, right. Go, silence of death. My favourite format.
--
Bye,
Daneel
Damnans
David Cherryholmes wrote:
> Damnans wrote:
[...]
>> It is not a matter of taste. My deck preferences have nothing to
>> do with my comments. I have actually played multirush decks several
>> times (with Fatima, Jaroslav Pascek or Karsh) both for fun's sake and
>> to see if they were decks worth playing in tournaments. In fact, our
>> playgroup has been confronting multirush decks before you published
>> your first one (IIRC).
>
>
> [...] I might point out that I've played that style of deck far more
> than "a few times" and several times in tournaments, so I might like
> that heap of empirical evidence acknowledged, but that's as far as I'll
> take it.
Multirush decks are mostly based on a single vampire. That's one major
weakness of these decks, because if something goes wrong (e.g., your
gun is destroyed, your main vampire is burnt, torporized, or
"neutralized"), your game will be probably over.
Since these decks' only defense is their powerful offense, they must
attack each turn either their prey's, predator's or other Methuselahs'
minions (depending on the type of threat the mean). Which may cause
other Methuselahs to gang up against you (much like it would happen
if confronting a Baltimore Purge deck). So the second weakness is that
these decks draw too much attention to themselves.
Third weakness. It is easy to counter them (as a prey) by not bringing
out any more minions until they have been neutralized. And their
neutralization will be sped up by the fact that their prey has lots of
pool.
>> I would like to see your most recent and competitive version of your
>> Fatima multirush deck so that it could be put under review in order to
>> see if there are viable alternative ways to improve it.
>
>
> I haven't gotten ARDB rebuilt on my "Damn the Man" linux box yet, but
> when I do I'll throw a list up here for you. And let's be clear: I'm
> *not* trying to say that Fatima is some end-all, be-all of.... well,
> anything. There are far better decks, there are far better rush decks,
> and there are even far better multirush decks. This isn't about Fatima.
> It's about *multirush* as a strategy.
I asked for your Fatima multirush deck as an example of what you consider
a competitive multirush deck. You can post here any multirush deck you
consider competitive for tournament play.
[...]
David Cherryholmes
> i'm totally trying to talk to the cool people and they're ignoring me.
> :(
Hey Salem. :)
> yup. usually just before i berate people into doing what i want if the
> numbers come up bad for me. ;)
LMAO!
--
David Cherryholmes
David Cherryholmes
> I agree with this... But I fail to see how you can say this and argue in
> another post how you should play a deck strategy that completely fucks a
> player without granting your victory.
I'm saying, if you do this, it will grant you victory.
> What's the big difference? In one
> case it's a matter of deck type _and_ seating, in the other it is
> seating alone. Care to elaborate?
Yeah, it grants you victory (about 20% of the time, of course).
--
David Cherryholmes
David Cherryholmes
> Multirush decks are mostly based on a single vampire. That's one major
> weakness of these decks, because if something goes wrong (e.g., your
> gun is destroyed, your main vampire is burnt, torporized, or
> "neutralized"), your game will be probably over.
Man, it is hard to keep you on track. Now you're not talking about
multi*RUSH*, and which way to aim the cannon. Now you're talking about
the problems with one big vampire decks. OK, sure, the weaknesses of
that are well-known. In theory, perfect disciplines and specials, a
well built deck, and smart play can mitigate that.
I just feel like you're trying to drag us down the path that ends with
us all deciding to play the same half-dozen decks (you know, the same
sad handful at the finals of any large tourney). You go with that, guy.
Meanwhile I'll be over here trying to make other stuff work...
> Since these decks' only defense is their powerful offense, they must
> attack each turn either their prey's, predator's or other Methuselahs'
> minions (depending on the type of threat the mean).
Why would they be attacking someone else's minions? Unless someone else
starts up the cross-table hijinks, I can't see any tactical or strategic
reason to look beyond your predator or prey. Of course, someone else
likely *will* start up the cross-tableness, 'cause lots of players are
psychic. But then you're just responding in kind, aren't you?
> Which may cause
> other Methuselahs to gang up against you (much like it would happen
> if confronting a Baltimore Purge deck). So the second weakness is that
> these decks draw too much attention to themselves.
Man, rushing your predator and prey is *so* not the same thing as
playing Baltimore Purge. We've spun off into Bad Analogy Land again,
that magical place where Duck is a walking PTO. Whatever.
If you say they draw too much attention, then that is I suppose true for
*you*. Combat exists. I know you would prefer to play the parlor game
of everyone bouncing everyone around and having a jolly good time of it,
but the game is more than that.
> Third weakness. It is easy to counter them (as a prey) by not bringing
> out any more minions until they have been neutralized. And their
> neutralization will be sped up by the fact that their prey has lots of
> pool.
If by "easy to counter" you mean "sit on my ass and watch someone else
win because I'm psychic", then I agree. However, if you are going to
sit down with rush and you don't plan for this situation, you're
building it badly.
> I asked for your Fatima multirush deck as an example of what you consider
> a competitive multirush deck. You can post here any multirush deck you
> consider competitive for tournament play.
Whatever I post you'll say it sucks, because you think anything along
that model sucks. You can't add up the bounce cards and the minion taps
and weigh such a deck's goodness. We're talking about executing a
strategy, not deck construction.
Still, I'll throw up some decks when I get around to it.
--
David Cherryholmes
Damnans
David Cherryholmes wrote:
> Damnans wrote:
>
>> Multirush decks are mostly based on a single vampire. That's one major
>> weakness of these decks, because if something goes wrong (e.g., your
>> gun is destroyed, your main vampire is burnt, torporized, or
>> "neutralized"), your game will be probably over.
>
>
> Man, it is hard to keep you on track. Now you're not talking about
> multi*RUSH*, and which way to aim the cannon. Now you're talking about
> the problems with one big vampire decks. OK, sure, the weaknesses of
> that are well-known. In theory, perfect disciplines and specials, a
> well built deck, and smart play can mitigate that.
I think I have already critisized that strategy of multirush decks in
previous posts. I agree that attacking your predator is the only way
for you not to be ousted and have chances to win. But I also said that is
the reason that makes that type of deck so weak, since you make two
Methuselahs become strong (your grandpredator and your grandprey).
[...]
>> Since these decks' only defense is their powerful offense, they must
>> attack each turn either their prey's, predator's or other Methuselahs'
>> minions (depending on the type of threat the mean).
>
> Why would they be attacking someone else's minions? Unless someone else
> starts up the cross-table hijinks, I can't see any tactical or strategic
> reason to look beyond your predator or prey. Of course, someone else
> likely *will* start up the cross-tableness, 'cause lots of players are
> psychic.
No one is psychic. Players make their decisions according to game state
and their own experience. There is nothing psychic about that.
After a few turns of play, it will not be difficult for experienced
players to know what kind of deck you are playing and what it can do.
Or are you perhaps denying the importance of experience when making
decisions?
[...]
>> Which may cause
>> other Methuselahs to gang up against you (much like it would happen
>> if confronting a Baltimore Purge deck). So the second weakness is that
>> these decks draw too much attention to themselves.
>
> Man, rushing your predator and prey is *so* not the same thing as
> playing Baltimore Purge.
Agreed. But it is closer example I was able to find.
> If you say they draw too much attention, then that is I suppose true for
> *you*. Combat exists. I know you would prefer to play the parlor game
> of everyone bouncing everyone around and having a jolly good time of it,
> but the game is more than that.
Are you psychic?. No. So you do not know what I prefer to play :-P
If your deck draws too much attention, be prepared for the consequences.
>> Third weakness. It is easy to counter them (as a prey) by not bringing
>> out any more minions until they have been neutralized. And their
>> neutralization will be sped up by the fact that their prey has lots of
>> pool.
>
>
> If by "easy to counter" you mean "sit on my ass and watch someone else
> win because I'm psychic", then I agree. However, if you are going to
> sit down with rush and you don't plan for this situation, you're
> building it badly.
I strongly disagree with you on this.
Do you really think that the prey of a multirush deck has more chances
to win if he or she plays your game by bringing out more than one
minion so that you can both get his or her pool lowered (via transfers)
and bleed actions, and oust your prey more easily, than if he or she keeps
his or her pool waiting for better times to use it?
In my experience, sitting on my pool is one of the best strategies to
counter multirush decks, because you will have to defend yourself from
your predator; your grandprey will be free to put as much pressure as
he or she can on his or her prey (therefore having better chances to
win the game, due to the lack of a predator); your grandpredator will
have an easy-to-oust prey (since you will have attacked your predator's
minions to survive); and, once you are ousted, your prey will hopefully
have enough pool to bring out one or two minions and maximize his or
her victory points.
Weren't you the one who said that the player with no predator wins? >:-)
>> I asked for your Fatima multirush deck as an example of what you consider
>> a competitive multirush deck. You can post here any multirush deck you
>> consider competitive for tournament play.
>
>
> Whatever I post you'll say it sucks, because you think anything along
> that model sucks.
Your psychic syndrome is showing up again? >:-)
Remember, you are not psychic ;-)
> You can't add up the bounce cards and the minion taps
> and weigh such a deck's goodness. We're talking about executing a
> strategy, not deck construction. [...]
Agreed. That's why I would like to see that deck posted.
X_Ze...@cox-internet.com
> |>Let's restate what you would've said, shall we?
> |>
> |>"I've been beaten by a deck that was better prepared than mine.
> | Because
> |>I'm pissy about the skillful play my prey just made, I'm going to
try
> | to
> |>ruin his game as I die."
> |
> | I have to step in and disagree. At his position of 3-5 pool and
with
> | an unknown hand with Fatima who is armed with and assault rifle yet
> | tapped. Your only alternative is table talking. You are dead. If
you
>
> Right. You are dead. Don't bone someone else on the way out just
> because they took an action to help them win.
>
I don't know about that. They took an action to bone you by rescuing
your predator's vampire from torpor. Isn't turnabout fair play?
Also, doesn't this course of action act as a deterant to your prey
rescuing your predator's vampires. Your prey is going to get a more
powerful predator if they do that. Maybe they can deal with it. Maybe
they can't.
> | survive another turn, you should break the deal and plant your
> | predator's remaining minion then focus on your prey trying to get
the
> | oust.
>
> Yep. It might be a real bitch to convince your predator you're
really
> going to do it, but you MIGHT be able to get away with it.
>
> Actually following through on it though, just to teach your prey a
"hard
> lesson"? Bah.
Again, following through on it is reputation building which is a
totally out of game consideration, but something that should also be
noted.
> |>| i'd still die, but my prey learns a hard lesson.
> |>
> |>Yeah. He learns "don't play V:TES, the people are lame."
> |
> | They would be lame if they actually lined up the table for weenie
> | dominate, but it would be cool if you broke the deal. Therefore
> | underlining one of the basic premises of VTES, deals can be broken.
>
> Breaking this deal (ie, using the extra turn of life you talked your
> predator into to shore up your position, kill some of your predator's
> minions, gain pool, ...TRY TO WIN) is a clever thing, but be prepared
to
> draw a LOT of ire for this one until you actually break the deal.
Look playing rush is the bully's game. If you can't bully people at
the table with rush then you aren't playing it right. Threatening
players with imminant destruction is a valid strategy in table
politics.
> |>If your deck is leaving holes against itself that are so easy to
> | close,
> |>perhaps it's time to pick a new deck, not increase the amount of
> |>berating other players you do in hopes that you can shout them into
> |>letting you win.
> |
> | Where did table talk get converted to berating?
>
> Where he suggested threatening your prey with "I'll suicide on you
and
> give your VP and mine to my predator if you don't do what I want"
first.
>
> You don't need to raise your voice to be berating someone.
I think a better way of putting it would be "If you rescue my
predator's vampire from torpor, and if I live to see the light of my
next turn, then I am going to fuck you up (in a friendly and neighborly
manner)." How is that any different than what you were planning on
doing if he hadn't rescued your predator's vampire from torpor?
> |>| you need to talk in this game, i feel, if you want to have any
> |
> | chance
> |
> |>| of offsetting unfortunate match-ups of trumpy decks.
> |>
> |>Talk all you like, but being lame will have unfortunate side
effects.
> |
> | Not getting it....How does a last chance plea for remaining alive
equal
> | lame?
>
> Making a deal with your predator to give your prey's VP to him as
well
> as your own if your prey doesn't quit not-letting-you-win, simply
> because your predator happened to be a deck that attacks your own
deck's
> weaknesses?
A valid strategy is to punish people who hurt you. I would say it is
instinctual.
> It's one thing to tap out and suicide, saying "Can't survive right,
> gotta go left, must kill prey, maybe predator gets Pentexed". It's
> maybe not the best play, but that's another issue. However, it's
> another thing entirely to beg for extra turns of life from your
predator
> so you can "punish" your prey for trying to win the game.
If you aren't punishing your prey, then why are you playing rush? You
might just oust them if your predator is stupid enough to keep you in
the game. In reality, it is a non-issue unless your predator is a
moron.
Comments Welcome,
Norman S. Brown, Jr.
XZealot
Archon of the Swamp
David Cherryholmes
> I think I have already critisized that strategy of multirush decks in
> previous posts. I agree that attacking your predator is the only way
> for you not to be ousted and have chances to win. But I also said that is
> the reason that makes that type of deck so weak, since you make two
> Methuselahs become strong (your grandpredator and your grandprey).
No, you are making yourself strong. By making your predator weak. The
effect you have on your grandpredator and grandprey are one step further
removed from the actual action, and thus even more speculative.
> No one is psychic. Players make their decisions according to game state
> and their own experience. There is nothing psychic about that.
But when they step out of the triangle based on someone else about to
become their predator/prey/whatever, when that in fact hasn't happened
yet and they in fact haven't ousted their prey, then I call that
"gettin' psychic".
> After a few turns of play, it will not be difficult for experienced
> players to know what kind of deck you are playing and what it can do.
> Or are you perhaps denying the importance of experience when making
> decisions?
Not at all. I expect any decent player to have clocked most of the
capabilities of most of the decks on the table fairly early in the game.
But knowing what a deck is capable of, and knowing what the game state
is going to look like one or more turns down the road, are totally
different things. If you think you know what the game state will be
next turn, one full turn around the table, nine times out of ten you are
kidding yourself. In the absence of that knowledge, keep your eye on
the ball (that would be your predator and your prey).
So, with a table full of rational players, I say again: there's no
reason for a rush deck to go crosstable, unless it's to somehow stave
off the cross table actions initiated by another player. And, yes, I'm
sure cornercases can be constructed where this is not true, but they're
cornercase.
> Are you psychic?. No. So you do not know what I prefer to play :-P
I'm not looking into the future. I'm looking into the past, at all
those conversations we've had. That's not being psychic. Anyway, it's
not really relevant whether I know to a tee every deck you do and don't
enjoy playing. Your prejudices betray themselves with your insistence
on using hyperbolic words like "weak" and "poor" and such, when they
clearly have no substantial meaning.
> Do you really think that the prey of a multirush deck has more chances
> to win if he or she plays your game by bringing out more than one
> minion so that you can both get his or her pool lowered (via transfers)
> and bleed actions, and oust your prey more easily, than if he or she keeps
> his or her pool waiting for better times to use it?
In a word, yes. Because there's more going on in a game than a predator
being able to look at nothing but his prey. Maybe you lose some minions
along the way, but you have a better shot at winning the game if you are
*in* the game, than if you sit there for 9 turns and think you are going
to get anything done scrambling in at the last moment. What you are
doing is taking the most likely path to 1 VP, and willfully throwing any
chance at a game win. But, that's going to be speculative each and
every game you try it in, and it's clear what you've decided. Nothing I
can do about that but plan for it.
> In my experience, sitting on my pool is one of the best strategies to
> counter multirush decks, because you will have to defend yourself from
> your predator; your grandprey will be free to put as much pressure as
> he or she can on his or her prey (therefore having better chances to
> win the game, due to the lack of a predator); your grandpredator will
> have an easy-to-oust prey (since you will have attacked your predator's
> minions to survive); and, once you are ousted, your prey will hopefully
> have enough pool to bring out one or two minions and maximize his or
> her victory points.
> Weren't you the one who said that the player with no predator wins? >:-)
Yeah, which is why "foiling" the rush deck is retarded. You're just
handing the game to your prey because you don't want to take a chance.
--
David Cherryholmes
James Coupe
writes:
>I often do that. The poor part is that very verbal players will often find
>at least one noob at every table whom they can abuse. So you're in the
>position of needing to talk to the noob, because if you don't convince
>him, the yapper will.
There is nothing to stop largely non-verbal players explaining, in short
simple ways, what the other player is trying to do.
"He's trying to talk you into something that's good for him because
<keep it under 30 words>. Yeah, you'll get some short term benefit out
of it, but he wouldn't be trying to get you to do it if it didn't give
him way more benefit than you get."
It is perfectly reasonable - indeed, sensible in many situations - to
counter verbal with a little of your own, if the player is about to be
exploited due to naivety.
Damnans
David Cherryholmes wrote:
[...]
>> Do you really think that the prey of a multirush deck has more chances
>> to win if he or she plays your game by bringing out more than one
>> minion so that you can both get his or her pool lowered (via transfers)
>> and bleed actions, and oust your prey more easily, than if he or she
>> keeps
>> his or her pool waiting for better times to use it?
>
> In a word, yes. Because there's more going on in a game than a predator
> being able to look at nothing but his prey. Maybe you lose some minions
> along the way, but you have a better shot at winning the game if you are
> *in* the game, than if you sit there for 9 turns and think you are going
> to get anything done scrambling in at the last moment. What you are
> doing is taking the most likely path to 1 VP, and willfully throwing any
> chance at a game win. But, that's going to be speculative each and
> every game you try it in, and it's clear what you've decided. Nothing I
> can do about that but plan for it.
Look. Unless your prey is well prepared against multirush decks, or
there is some kind of non-agression agreement between you and your prey
for several turns, so that your prey can play his or her game while
building a decent hand to face your deck when the time comes, it will
be better for your prey not to bring out more minions and sit on his
or her pool in the hope of your ousting.
If the above mentioned agreement is reached, your prey may get 1 VP, after
which (or not long before it happens) you may start to attack his minions
in an attempt to prevent him or her from getting either his or her first VP
or his or her second one, of course. But your prey will have a chance to
survive your attacks for some time.
But multirush decks need to move quickly, since inactivity kills them, so
they cannot usually afford letting their preys play their game long enough,
which is why it is probably better to sit on your pool until they are
ousted, because those decks do not let their preys play anyway.
[...]
David Cherryholmes
> But multirush decks need to move quickly, since inactivity kills them, so
> they cannot usually afford letting their preys play their game long enough,
> which is why it is probably better to sit on your pool until they are
> ousted, because those decks do not let their preys play anyway.
I don't really want to argue whether turtling up is smart play any
further. I have my opinion, but it seems too complicated and too
contingent on the particulars of any given table for there to be
anything like a proof. So let's agree to disagree there.
But I do disagree that inactivity kills multirush. Another metric I've
used for a long time now is "don't move unless you have to" (erasing
your predator is really a corollary to this). They can do this
precisely because of their large ability to lunge. If the table is
moving in the direction you want it to move in, why step in? FWIW, I
can recall one game where I sat still for the first 4 turns Fatima was
active, with a pat hand, because I judged there was no need to dunk anyone.
Now, what I might agree with is that, once you've begun to move you may
want to floor it and not look back. That's more of a special case than
what it sounds like you are saying, though.
--
David Cherryholmes
Jeroen Rombouts
"David Cherryholmes" <david.che...@duke.edu> schreef in bericht
news:347e2hF...@individual.net...
> But I do disagree that inactivity kills multirush. Another metric I've
> used for a long time now is "don't move unless you have to" (erasing your
> predator is really a corollary to this). They can do this precisely
> because of their large ability to lunge.
IME you cannot be sure of a lunge. Every time i tried this, someone played
a DI on my first freak drive. Turn ends, try again next turn. If the game
was in progress long enough, it's almost a guarantee that either your
predator or prey (or both) has a DI in hand (over here, at least). You
simply cannot prepare for that. well, except for waiting until they already
played an OOT master.
David Cherryholmes
> IME you cannot be sure of a lunge. Every time i tried this, someone played
> a DI on my first freak drive. Turn ends, try again next turn. If the game
> was in progress long enough, it's almost a guarantee that either your
> predator or prey (or both) has a DI in hand (over here, at least). You
> simply cannot prepare for that. well, except for waiting until they already
> played an OOT master.
Depends on the playgroup, but sure. Actually, this is very true of my
playgroup, who all pack 3-4 DI's per deck in our "fun" games. An
Obedience will also shut you down cold, sadly.
--
David Cherryholmes
James Coupe
<damna...@ono.comNOSPAM> writes:
>Look. Unless your prey is well prepared against multirush decks, or
>there is some kind of non-agression agreement between you and your prey
>for several turns, so that your prey can play his or her game while
>building a decent hand to face your deck when the time comes, it will
>be better for your prey not to bring out more minions and sit on his
>or her pool in the hope of your ousting.
In which time, his prey can freely act, knowing his predator will never
be putting any pressure on him.
His prey can spend pool speculatively in a free fashion, since it will
never bring him closer to death, because that death will almost
certainly never happen if his predator isn't attacking him. Typical
speculations of "Well, if I bring out this vampire, I can get two pool
back but will I get killed in the meantime?" cease to have any
downsides.
When you do get back in the game, you haven't been able to cycle (in
anything like a sensible manner, at least), haven't been able to bolster
your defence or offence, and have a prey who - if s/he has any sense -
has just obliterated his or her prey.
Damnans
James Coupe wrote:
> In message <b6vDd.8599$dr....@news.ono.com>, Damnans
> <damna...@ono.comNOSPAM> writes:
>
>>Look. Unless your prey is well prepared against multirush decks, or
>>there is some kind of non-agression agreement between you and your prey
>>for several turns, so that your prey can play his or her game while
>>building a decent hand to face your deck when the time comes, it will
>>be better for your prey not to bring out more minions and sit on his
>>or her pool in the hope of your ousting.
>
>
> In which time, his prey can freely act, knowing his predator will never
> be putting any pressure on him.
Exactly, which would happen anyway if the prey of the multirush deck
brings out any minions (since they will be crushed, most probably).
> His prey can spend pool speculatively in a free fashion, since it will
> never bring him closer to death,
That is a good thing for his or her predator. Your prey will get
overconfident and run low of pool, whithout even knowing the type of
deck his or her predator is playing (see below for further explanations).
> because that death will almost
> certainly never happen if his predator isn't attacking him. Typical
> speculations of "Well, if I bring out this vampire, I can get two pool
> back but will I get killed in the meantime?" cease to have any
> downsides.
>
> When you do get back in the game, you haven't been able to cycle (in
> anything like a sensible manner, at least), haven't been able to bolster
> your defence or offence, and have a prey who - if s/he has any sense -
> has just obliterated his or her prey.
Since my statements on the strategy to be followed against multirush
or weenie rush decks are based on my experience, I will give you some
examples occurred in sanctioned tournaments:
1. Last Chance Qualifier for the Spanish National
Championship 2002 (ca. 80 player tournament):
4 player table:
!Toreador Palla Grande deck ->
Tariq + Rowan Ring multirush deck ->
Dementation S&B deck (me) ->
Group 2-3 Brujah toolbox deck
I had not brought out any minions yet when my predator put Tariq in
play, so I chose to make transfers to 3 different vampires and wait
to bring them out until the Tariq deck was ousted by the !Tor.
Meanwhile, my prey had time to bring out 3 vampires (Jaroslav Pascek,
Pug Jackson and another one I cannot remember now); the !Tor deck had
5 or 6 ready vampires in play (including 3 Embraces).
I just discarded 1 card (Wake with Evening's Freshness) during the
turns where I had no vampires in play, and the other players were asking
me what kind of deck I was playing. I said that I was not going to
tell them, of course.
The Tariq deck did not survive long, and, once he was ousted, I brought
our 3 vampires (Kite, Persia and Dolphin Black) on the same turn.
During my next turn, I ousted my prey (so I got 1 VP I would not
have gotten otherwise, since my combat defense was almost zero
and my vampires would have surely been burnt by Tariq), and I was
1 turn away from getting the game win.
-----------------------------------------------
2. Last Chance Qualifier for the European Championship 2004
(ca. 130 player tournament)
5 player table (round 2):
Ventrue S&B deck ->
Warghoul + Rock Cat deck ->
Celerity & Guns Weenie rush deck ->
Ventrue vote deck (me) ->
Anarch Fortitude&Potence weenie rush deck
I brought out one single vampire (Horatio Ballard), who was immediately
torporized by my predator, so I chose again not to bring out more
vampires at the moment, while asking my grandprey to rescue Horatio from
torpor (which he did).
My predator bled me with Legal Manipulations from time to time, which I
could not obviously block due to my lack of ready minions. Meanwhile, both
my prey and my grandpredator put a lot of pressure on the Ventrue S&B deck,
which resulted in his ousting.
Soon afterwards my grandpredator finally started to attack my predator's
vampires (I think he controlled 4 ready vampires at that time), so I took
that opportunity to bring out Victorine Lafourcade, and play a Secure Haven
(I had in my starting hand!) on her.
Several turns afterwards, I ousted my prey with my single vampire and was
almost able to oust the Warghoul & Rock Cat deck. What happened afterwards
was that the WG & RC deck ousted my predator and then me.
-----------------------------------------------
3. European Championship 2004 (ca. 124 player tournament):
5 player table (round 3):
Giovanni vote & Gehenna events deck ->
Weenie Fortitude rush deck ->
Ventrue vote deck (me) ->
!Toreador Palla Grande & War ghoul deck ->
Weenie Potence & Dominate rush deck
I put Mustafa, the Heir, in play, who was torporized on my predator's
turn, so, once again, I chose not to bring out more vampires. Besides,
soon there were lots of events on the table (played by both my predator
and my grandpredator), such as Veil of Darkness, Blood Weakens,
Recalled to the Founder, Fall of the Camarilla, Slow Withering, etc.
I patiently waited until my predator was ousted by the Giovanni deck.
So when it happened, I brought out Katarina Kornfeld. I convinced
my prey and my grandprey that the Giovanni Gehenna events deck should
be ousted, because he was screwing our games (note that he had in play
Veil of Darkness, Fall of the Camarilla, Slow Withering, and I do not
know what else :-) So not long afterwards, my predator was ousted.
At that time, my prey had lots of minions and 1 or 2 War Ghouls in play,
and putting much pressure on his Pentex Subverted prey (the weenie Potence
& Dominate deck). His overconfidence made him spend too many pool, so I
made a deal with my predator: I would give him the game win, if he let me
oust my prey. My predator agreed, and I ousted my prey a couple of turns
afterwards via an unblockable bleed which sent Katarina Kornfeld to
torpor (Daring the Dawn).
-----------------------------------------------
In each of those games, if I had not followed that strategy, I would
not have gotten those victory points (i.e., I would not have maximized
my VPs, and would have perished by playing as my different predators
would have liked me to).
David Cherryholmes
<snip lots of examples>
> In each of those games, if I had not followed that strategy, I would
> not have gotten those victory points (i.e., I would not have maximized
> my VPs, and would have perished by playing as my different predators
> would have liked me to).
If you included combat defense cards in your deck, then this is a case
of psychicness; *my* experience suggests that 8 - 12
S:CE/prevent/obedience cards give you enough defense against even
dedicated combat that you have chance. It becomes a.... *gasp*.... card
game!
If you chose to just ignore combat entirely.... I don't know what to
say. You may be right that in this case your chances are better to
simply withdraw from the game, generate a big sucking vacuum where one
would assume a player would be, and wait for the table to collapse into
something better. Or not.
But even if I were to stipulate that you were correct in your
assessment, it seems like there is a flaw in the game. Look at the
number of combat cards printed and the inevitability of combat occurring
in every single game. It doesn't seem too radical to say that combat
*is* one of the legs of the triangle, and recent card releases suggest
that the designers consider that it should be a strategy in its own
right. If I'm right about that, then it seems weird that the
"competitive" choice is to just ignore it completely and tie the game
into pretzels if you run into someone who attempts to employ it.
Not a solution in there of course, but I wonder if others consider this
to be a design problem?
--
David Cherryholmes
Morgan Vening
I'm not sure it's a design problem. It looks more of an interactive
problem. While if he had of played normally, he might not have gotten
a VP, and admittedly I have no real competitive experience under my
belt, it seems like the VP he gained, were essentially given to him by
the other players, either by their inability to do something, or their
eagerness to do nothing.
In our group, if a player tried to 'wait it out', they'd invariably
find themselves ousted, as everyone slowed down their process until
the player was too weak to do anything.
Also, the numbers need to be cleared too. That was three anecdotes of
times where sitting on your pool gained a VP. None of the anecdotes
gave a game win. How many anecdotes of this tactic end with "I had no
effect, got pumped, and ousted for 0VP". Hey, I have an anecdote of my
Toreador deck gaining 4VP in a single turn. I have about a dozen where
I didn't. Even if the ratio is high of sitting pretty working
successfully, is that because it's a good tactic, or because people
don't know how to play when faced with a pred/prey/whatever using it?
That two anecdotes end with the Prey putting themselves into a
position of quick oust, when there was a Vote deck in play (they've
been banned now, but when announced, the noise indicated a prelevance
in tournaments) on the table. I'm not trying to say they are bad
players, but if someone who has put no pressure on you all game can
oust you in a single turn, did you really prepare correctly?
Morgan Vening
Damnans
David Cherryholmes wrote:
> Damnans wrote:
>
> <snip lots of examples>
>
>> In each of those games, if I had not followed that strategy, I would
>> not have gotten those victory points (i.e., I would not have maximized
>> my VPs, and would have perished by playing as my different predators
>> would have liked me to).
>
>
> If you included combat defense cards in your deck, then this is a case
> of psychicness; *my* experience suggests that 8 - 12
> S:CE/prevent/obedience cards give you enough defense against even
> dedicated combat that you have chance. It becomes a.... *gasp*.... card
> game!
My Ventrue vote deck packed 12 Majesty (enough to deal with dedicated combat
decks, according to you). But your assumption is false, since when the
first vampire you put in play is torporized (after having had the
chance to play 1 Majesty), you have no other chances to cycle your hand
to get more Majesty than discarding 1 card during your discard phase, so
you will not have as many S:CE as you need to deal with dedicated combat
decks.
> If you chose to just ignore combat entirely....
My Dementation S&B deck did not ignore combat entirely. It actually packed 1
Secure Haven, 3 Zip Guns, and 4 Swallowed by the night, as well as 3 Direct
Interventions (for rush actions, or any other annoyance).
> I don't know what to
> say. You may be right that in this case your chances are better to
> simply withdraw from the game, generate a big sucking vacuum where one
> would assume a player would be, and wait for the table to collapse into
> something better. Or not.
>
> But even if I were to stipulate that you were correct in your
> assessment, it seems like there is a flaw in the game. Look at the
> number of combat cards printed and the inevitability of combat occurring
> in every single game. It doesn't seem too radical to say that combat
> *is* one of the legs of the triangle, and recent card releases suggest
> that the designers consider that it should be a strategy in its own
> right. If I'm right about that, then it seems weird that the
> "competitive" choice is to just ignore it completely and tie the game
> into pretzels if you run into someone who attempts to employ it.
>
> Not a solution in there of course, but I wonder if others consider this
> to be a design problem?
As you will surely know, not every deck is prepared against every
strategy (i.e., every deck has its nemesis).
There are different types of combat decks (not just dedicated combat).
My Dementetion S&B deck can pretty deal with combat decks that do
not rush my vampires, since unless my minions are blocked, they will not
enter combat.
And what you call a "flaw in the game", may problably be a flaw in the
dedicated combat deck's strategy, by putting too much pressure on its
prey (or predator) because they cannot do anything else to survive.
x5m...@gmx.de
> Agreed. Sometimes it's necessary for you to oust your predator. But
that's
> not the point. The point is that killing your predator (or weakening
him
> or her to death) by default (as multirush decks do) is a sign of that
> deck's vulnerability.
I dont agree. Its a sign of the strength of a deck. To be able to play
backwards is a strength. To be able to let your prey go, because you
know you can stop him everytime you want, is a strength. (I am not
talking about wasting all your ressources ar you predator and i am not
talking about really depleting their pool. But killing their key
vampire with one rush is always good.)
And its good to kill your predator. A Wall deck should always do it, a
rush deck will be better by doing it.
- You are not wasting actions or ressources (only if you fail), because
the strong preadtor will do more harm to your ressources than you
invest to make him weak.
- You give your grand predator the option to kill his prey. That
focuses the attention of the table to him, not to you.
- A dying predator will usually die a long time (3-5 rounds). In that
time you will have no pressure. The player without pressure wins the
game.
- Wall decks and rush decks need some time. They are not interested in
those usual table balancing games. Its good if the game has one less
player, its good if the table starts moving. All that happens, if you
weaken your predator.
- Being very offensive against a player will sometimes have a
psychological bad result. He will start playing against you. If you
start very strong against your prey he will maybe start to wall against
you. But if your predator is pissed of, you dont have to care. He
wouldnt be nice to you in either case.
David Cherryholmes
> My Ventrue vote deck packed 12 Majesty (enough to deal with dedicated
> combat
> decks, according to you). But your assumption is false, since when the
> first vampire you put in play is torporized (after having had the
> chance to play 1 Majesty), you have no other chances to cycle your hand
> to get more Majesty than discarding 1 card during your discard phase, so
> you will not have as many S:CE as you need to deal with dedicated combat
> decks.
Maybe. I think you make all this sound way too certain (which is the
central point of my "psychic" jibe). I certainly don't see anything
wrong with waiting to bring out several minions at once, it's "I'll
never bring out anyone until you're dead" that I think is silly and
self-defeating. So you could do that, or maybe get a rescue of your
first guy while you bring out your second, or maybe you get more than
one Majesty in hand. There are all kinds of "maybes", but you have to
actually play for any of them to have a chance of being actual.
Just a quick anecdote: I played a game yesterday where I was running a
Hazimel deck. My predator, Jeff Kuta (so let's assume he knows what
he's doing) played Assamite rush/intercept. Famed Sandra White, brought
out Parmenides. I Society of Leopold and pop my own Sandra, get up
Hazimel, he contracts Hazimel on his turn and torpors him. At this
point, you would have put your cards down and begun spectating, right?
I decided to test my own theories and stay in the game. I got a rescue,
Hazimel goes right back down and my nerd gets dunked too. I get
rescued again, Hazimel goes down again. I bring out Ettienne. Hazimel
gets himself out and is empty. But by this point, my predator's minions
are too low on blood to rush Hazimel and I get a FSR off to keep it that
way. This happens, that happens, and I cycle into my Giant's Blood. I
swept that table. Yeah, it's only one game, and I'm not trying to make
too much out of it, but it is a perfect example of what I have been
talking about.
> My Dementation S&B deck did not ignore combat entirely. It actually
> packed 1
> Secure Haven, 3 Zip Guns, and 4 Swallowed by the night, as well as 3 Direct
> Interventions (for rush actions, or any other annoyance).
And that is fine. It's also fine if you lose a minion or two, since you
are bleeding at stealth, gaining pool, and you can bring out more.
Steady pressure forward with a minion or two dropping off the back end
is far, far better than sitting there hoping to get back in at the last
moment. You want a sure thing. I'm saying "play the game".
> And what you call a "flaw in the game", may problably be a flaw in the
> dedicated combat deck's strategy, by putting too much pressure on its
> prey (or predator) because they cannot do anything else to survive.
Maybe. My point is that it seems that dedicated combat is a strategy by
designer intent. *If* we stipulate that you are correct (big if), then
that raises the question of whether the game suffers from a fundamental
design flaw, in that one of the legs of the triangle is broken (and not
in a good way). Of course, there may be no designer intent for "pure"
combat to be viable, making it all moot. But it looks that way to me,
from the limited information I have available.
--
David Cherryholmes
Damnans
x5m...@gmx.de wrote:
> Damnans wrote:
>
>> Agreed. Sometimes it's necessary for you to oust your predator. But
>> that's not the point. The point is that killing your predator (or weakening
>> him or her to death) by default (as multirush decks do) is a sign of that
>> deck's vulnerability.
>
> I dont agree. Its a sign of the strength of a deck. To be able to play
> backwards is a strength. To be able to let your prey go, because you
> know you can stop him everytime you want, is a strength. (I am not
> talking about wasting all your ressources ar you predator and i am not
> talking about really depleting their pool. But killing their key
> vampire with one rush is always good.)
[...]
Most decks only move against their predator when their survival is
at stake, since they have means to oust their prey and keep their
predator at bay (either via bleed bounce, pool gain, intercept, etc.),
but multirush decks must move against their predator not because that's
the best way to win the game (i.e., by reducing the amount of players
at the table), which is true, BTW, but because they cannot afford to
have a predator.
> - You give your grand predator the option to kill his prey. That
> focuses the attention of the table to him, not to you.
Heh!. Of course, your multirush deck will not draw any attention after
such a display of power.
[...]
Damnans
David Cherryholmes wrote:
> Damnans wrote:
>
>> My Ventrue vote deck packed 12 Majesty (enough to deal with dedicated
>> combat
>> decks, according to you). But your assumption is false, since when the
>> first vampire you put in play is torporized (after having had the
>> chance to play 1 Majesty), you have no other chances to cycle your hand
>> to get more Majesty than discarding 1 card during your discard phase, so
>> you will not have as many S:CE as you need to deal with dedicated combat
>> decks.
>
>
> Maybe. I think you make all this sound way too certain (which is the
> central point of my "psychic" jibe). I certainly don't see anything
> wrong with waiting to bring out several minions at once, it's "I'll
> never bring out anyone until you're dead" that I think is silly and
> self-defeating. So you could do that, or maybe get a rescue of your
> first guy while you bring out your second, or maybe you get more than
> one Majesty in hand. There are all kinds of "maybes", but you have to
> actually play for any of them to have a chance of being actual.
This option you suggest it also viable (depending on how aggressive
your predator is, and the metagame), and I have done several times.
Do not take my strategical statements as if they were immutable and not
depending on the metagame and game state ;-) Generalizing usually implies
an excessive simplification.
[...]
>> My Dementation S&B deck did not ignore combat entirely. It actually
>> packed 1
>> Secure Haven, 3 Zip Guns, and 4 Swallowed by the night, as well as 3
>> Direct
>> Interventions (for rush actions, or any other annoyance).
>
>
> And that is fine. It's also fine if you lose a minion or two, since you
> are bleeding at stealth, gaining pool, and you can bring out more.
> Steady pressure forward with a minion or two dropping off the back end
> is far, far better than sitting there hoping to get back in at the last
> moment. You want a sure thing. I'm saying "play the game".
The game can be played in may different ways, including passively.
>> And what you call a "flaw in the game", may problably be a flaw in the
>> dedicated combat deck's strategy, by putting too much pressure on its
>> prey (or predator) because they cannot do anything else to survive.
>
>
> Maybe. My point is that it seems that dedicated combat is a strategy by
> designer intent. *If* we stipulate that you are correct (big if), then
> that raises the question of whether the game suffers from a fundamental
> design flaw, in that one of the legs of the triangle is broken (and not
> in a good way). Of course, there may be no designer intent for "pure"
> combat to be viable, making it all moot. But it looks that way to me,
> from the limited information I have available.
Well, some cards giving more ousting power to combat decks have been
released (e.g., Dragonbound, Tension in the Ranks, etc.), but I do not
think they are enough to consider dedicated combat decks a reliable
strategy to win the game.
Maybe if there was a new card that would give you some pool when
torporizing one of your prey's vampires or burning one of your prey's
allies; or another card would protected you from X pool loss where
X is the amount of vampires in torpor controlled by your prey; etc.,
dedicated combat could be considered as an effective strategy, since
you could move forward without worrying so much about your predator.
David Cherryholmes
> Heh!. Of course, your multirush deck will not draw any attention after
> such a display of power.
But why? Killing your predator doesn't happen in one turn. Your
grandpredator is happy with the directions things are moving in. Your
prey is happy because you are rushing backwards. Maybe your grandprey
is happy, too, if your prey is turtling. I don't get it. And please
don't bother with arguments to the effect that "so-and-so knows they are
next", since this is true of any strong deck, and the fact is that every
strong deck does not get piled on. I would expect any decent tournament
game to be populated by strong decks, the urge to pile-on is diluted,
and we're left with the basic predator-prey mechanic of the game.
--
David Cherryholmes
Stefan Ferenci
>
> Well, some cards giving more ousting power to combat decks have been
> released (e.g., Dragonbound, Tension in the Ranks, etc.), but I do not
> think they are enough to consider dedicated combat decks a reliable
> strategy to win the game.
>
>
> Greetings,
> Damnans
>
i think a cel weenie gun deck is a very working and powerful deck
concept that is very reliable and has a very good chance of winning.
stefan
James Coupe
<damna...@ono.comNOSPAM> writes:
>The game can be played in may different ways, including passively.
As an aside:
Garfield appears to dislike "Sit on your hands" as a ploy. Several
elements of the game are designed to facilitate this. Obvious examples
are: the Edge, the inherent bleed action, offence largely beating
defence as was discussed elsewhere recently.
Further, contrary to Magic, you can't draw into more cards by sitting on
your hands[0], which Magic facilitates with the constant re-draw
mechanism.
Certainly, you *can* play passively. However, that's going very much
against the grain.
[0] You can, by using cards like The Barrens. However, relative to
active play - which could be doing that *and* normal cycling - you're
still at a disadvantage.
Stefan Ferenci
> In message <nydEd.11536$US....@news.ono.com>, Damnans
> <damna...@ono.comNOSPAM> writes:
>
>
>
>
> offence largely beating defence as was discussed elsewhere recently.
>
lol
stefan
Damnans
David Cherryholmes wrote:
> Damnans wrote:
>
>> Heh!. Of course, your multirush deck will not draw any attention after
>> such a display of power.
>
>
> But why? Killing your predator doesn't happen in one turn. Your
> grandpredator is happy with the directions things are moving in.
Yes :-)
> Your prey is happy because you are rushing backwards. Maybe your
> grandprey is happy, too, if your prey is turtling. I don't get it.
[...]
I would not say that your prey is happy, since it not neccessary
to be psychic to foresee that you will now rush your prey's vampires.
However, I see I did not make myself clear in the sentence you
quoted above. After neutralizing its predator, the multirush deck
will move against its prey and try to do the same as it did to
its predator before.
Such displays of power necessarily draw attention, because
they mean your deck is a threat. Sometimes players may ignore them,
and sometimes not (depending on the metagame, game state, etc.)
Damnans
James Coupe wrote:
> In message <nydEd.11536$US....@news.ono.com>, Damnans
> <damna...@ono.comNOSPAM> writes:
>
>>The game can be played in may different ways, including passively.
>
>
> As an aside:
>
> Garfield appears to dislike "Sit on your hands" as a ploy. Several
> elements of the game are designed to facilitate this. Obvious examples
> are: the Edge, the inherent bleed action, offence largely beating
> defence as was discussed elsewhere recently.
>
> Further, contrary to Magic, you can't draw into more cards by sitting on
> your hands[0], which Magic facilitates with the constant re-draw
> mechanism.
>
>
> Certainly, you *can* play passively. However, that's going very much
> against the grain.
Agreed. However I did not intend to mean that by playing passively
during the entire game, you could win. I just consider passive
play as a temporary strategy for victory.
Charles Lechasseur
<david.che...@duke.edu> wrote:
>And please don't bother with arguments to the effect that "so-and-so
>knows they are next", since this is true of any strong deck, and the
>fact is that every strong deck does not get piled on.
I didn't have much to say in your discussion with Damnans here, but I just
wanted to comment on this particular statement.
I have to disagree with you here. In my experience, pretty much every
strong deck (or, should I say, decks that appear strong with a
considerable display of power) gets piled on. Or at least, when others
have the power to pile on it.
--
charles lechasseur - da...@novideospamtron.ca
salem
scrawled:
>In message <nydEd.11536$US....@news.ono.com>, Damnans
><damna...@ono.comNOSPAM> writes:
>>The game can be played in may different ways, including passively.
>
>As an aside:
>
>Garfield appears to dislike "Sit on your hands" as a ploy. Several
>elements of the game are designed to facilitate this. Obvious examples
>are: the Edge, the inherent bleed action, offence largely beating
>defence as was discussed elsewhere recently.
the withdraw rule somewhat encourages active play too, when it gets
down to that.
ie: oh crap i'd better bleed him or i'll miss out on his vp.
salem
domain:canberra http://www.geocities.com/salem_christ.geo/vtes.htm
(replace "hotmail" with "yahoo" to email)
David Cherryholmes
> I have to disagree with you here. In my experience, pretty much every
> strong deck (or, should I say, decks that appear strong with a
> considerable display of power) gets piled on. Or at least, when others
> have the power to pile on it.
MMV's. Sure, in lots of games someone becomes "the bad guy", but I'd
wager this has as much to do with social factors as it does the actual
strength of the deck, or at the very least doesn't become tangible until
someone is clearly on the cusp of an oust. KS bleed, palle grande
decks, Malk 94, Arika, weenie 'X'.... all clearly powerhouse decks. And
yet, when I see these decks game after game, I do not see them getting
auto-piled on (I wish they did, because I'm *never* the guy playing
them). Sure, there may be some noise and ragging going on, but when it
comes down to blowing precious resources cross-table, that's where most
players will draw the line. And that's with just one of those decks
sharing the table with more "moderate" ones. Imagine a table with 2 or
more decks of that caliber, and it gets even less likely.
--
David Cherryholmes
Otto Koskinen
<david.che...@duke.edu> wrote:
>Just a quick anecdote: I played a game yesterday where I was running a
>Hazimel deck. My predator, Jeff Kuta (so let's assume he knows what
>he's doing) played Assamite rush/intercept. Famed Sandra White, brought
>out Parmenides. I Society of Leopold and pop my own Sandra, get up
>Hazimel, he contracts Hazimel on his turn and torpors him. At this
>point, you would have put your cards down and begun spectating, right?
>I decided to test my own theories and stay in the game. I got a rescue,
> Hazimel goes right back down and my nerd gets dunked too. I get
>rescued again, Hazimel goes down again. I bring out Ettienne. Hazimel
>gets himself out and is empty. But by this point, my predator's minions
>are too low on blood to rush Hazimel and I get a FSR off to keep it that
>way. This happens, that happens, and I cycle into my Giant's Blood. I
>swept that table. Yeah, it's only one game, and I'm not trying to make
>too much out of it, but it is a perfect example of what I have been
>talking about.
Owain Evans didnt hurt you there either, but as a side note, I got my
VP, so no sweep. ;)
But yes, that is a prime example of the game. Hazimel and Etienne,
although, have great anti-rush specials which add up in the course of
time, but that's a whole another matter.
I've had a few times happend with my vote deck (15 S:CE's) that my
minions get mauled, but I've found it to be more reliable cycle to
whine, beg for rescue, and cycle the votes you haev in hand whoring
them however you need to to pass them and thus cycle some more cards,
and so ofrth. Also having non-minion hand cycle is good for any deck.
(Ie. Barrens and stuff) especially for situations such as that.
No more obvious insights this morning.
David Cherryholmes
> Owain Evans didnt hurt you there either, but as a side note, I got my
> VP, so no sweep. ;)
Oh my bad. That warm glow from winning by staying in the game must have
colored my recollection.
> But yes, that is a prime example of the game. Hazimel and Etienne,
> although, have great anti-rush specials which add up in the course of
> time, but that's a whole another matter.
Sure, and the deck takes advantage of the excellent combat defenses
Chimestry provides. In other words, I planned for combat.
--
David Cherryholmes
jeff_kuta
> On Sun, 09 Jan 2005 10:29:59 -0500, David Cherryholmes
> <david.che...@duke.edu> wrote:
>
> >Just a quick anecdote: I played a game yesterday where I was
running a
> >Hazimel deck. My predator, Jeff Kuta (so let's assume he knows what
> >he's doing) played Assamite rush/intercept. Famed Sandra White,
brought
> >out Parmenides. I Society of Leopold and pop my own Sandra, get up
> >Hazimel, he contracts Hazimel on his turn and torpors him. At this
> >point, you would have put your cards down and begun spectating,
right?
> >I decided to test my own theories and stay in the game.
>
> Owain Evans didnt hurt you there either, but as a side note, I got my
> VP, so no sweep. ;)
>
> But yes, that is a prime example of the game. Hazimel and Etienne,
> although, have great anti-rush specials which add up in the course of
> time, but that's a whole another matter.
The lesson to be learned is that even if you think events "cross-table"
don't affect you, they really REALLY do. It was a 4-player table and I
begged my "ally" to diablerize Hazimel, who was really going to annoy
his Anarch FSR-ish type deck if he was up and running. He chose not to,
and he again refused the second time around. Haz got Giant's Blood and
the game essentially ended. I was very perturbed that I couldn't afford
to pop either of my Contracts on Hazimel via Provision of the Silsila
to refill my very low vampires because I felt I needed insurance to
keep dunking Haz. However, having a full vampire with Sense-Dep and/or
Nightmare Curse isn't much different than having an empty one with the
same.
I can see how my initial torporization of Hazimel may have made me look
strong, but I was very fortunate to have the perfect combat in hand
while Dave had absolutely nothing. Anyway, I think people really need
to decide that sometimes it *is* good to knock a player out of the
game and proceed from there. Of course, Arden would have been faced
with two intercept-combat decks instead so I guess he thought he'd take
his chances with a "crippled" predator.
Jeff