{DECK} Infernal Agitation
Ector
Created By: Ector (Ilya Hinsburh)
Description: Fearsome infernals and sexy Scout kill with their amazing
votes
Crypt: (12 cards, Min: 25, Max: 35, Avg: 7,5)
---------------------------------------------
3 Annazir DAI OBF POT PRE9 Baali
3 Arishat DAI OBF PRE 6 Baali
3 Scout Youngwood for qui MEL OBF PRE8 Daughters of
Cacophony
3 Xeper ani dai pro OBF PRE7 Baali
Library: (90 cards)
-------------------
Master (17 cards)
2 Dreams of the Sphinx
3 Fortitude
3 Grooming the Protege
1 Ruins of Charizel
4 Villein
2 Wider View
2 Zillah`s Valley
Action (8 cards)
2 Concordance
3 Condemnation: Mute
1 Contagion
2 Unleash Hell's Fury
Action Modifier (32 cards)
4 Elder Impersonation
4 Forgotten Labyrinth
6 Freak Drive
2 I Am Legion
4 Lost in Crowds
4 Perfect Paragon
8 Voter Captivation
Political Action (16 cards)
1 Banishment
4 Lily Prelude
1 Political Stranglehold
10 Reckless Agitation
Combat (10 cards)
2 Conflagration
8 Majesty
Ally (3 cards)
1 Infernal Servitor
1 Mylan Horseed (Goblin)
1 Veneficti (Mage)
Combo (4 cards)
4 Swallowed by the Night
The deck idea is very simple: get independent vamps with OBF/PRE and
votes and play Reckless Agitations. There is a lot of tech, though.
Annazir and Xeper can harm almost everybody: you can burn location,
steal equipment or ally without waiting for special cards against
locations, equipment or allies, which is huge. Scout can also play
Lily Prelude, which is extremely good, especially when you cannot play
RA anymore due to lack of players :)
Everything has its cost, though: infernals need a lot of pool. I've
tried to enable the multi-action with Fortitude, but looks like it's
too unreliable. Also, there is a LOT of tech, probably too much:
Condemnations to get rid of the opposing votes permanently, allies to
protect against rushes, Unleash Hell's Fury to frighten your predator,
etc. etc.
What do you think about the deck? If you'd like to change something,
please tell me!
FVicentini
hmm , you could replace groomings with tend the flocks , swap the
zillahs valley for information highways, remove the fortitude angle
and add more concordance + as the crow. that also opens up master
slots for dummy cooperation / major boon and archon investigation ,
depending on your preferences.
Ector
Isn't it absolutely the same in this deck?
> swap the zillahs valley for information highways,
Hmm, maybe.
> remove the fortitude angle and add more concordance + as the crow.
Wow! As the Crow! How could I miss such wonderful card? Unfortunately,
Xeper has inferior dai and isn't going to get Flight from Concordance,
but it's still good. Here's the modified deck:
Crypt: (12 cards, Min: 25, Max: 35, Avg: 7,5)
---------------------------------------------
3 Annazir DAI OBF POT PRE9 Baali
3 Arishat DAI OBF PRE 6 Baali
3 Scout Youngwood for qui MEL OBF PRE8
Daughters of Cacophony
3 Xeper ani dai pro OBF PRE7 Baali
Library: (90 cards)
-------------------
Master (16 cards)
2 Dreams of the Sphinx
3 Grooming the Protege
1 Ruins of Charizel
4 Villein
2 Wider View
2 Zillah`s Valley
1 Protected Resources
1 Dummy Corporation
Action (10 cards)
4 Concordance
3 Condemnation: Mute
1 Contagion
2 Unleash Hell's Fury
Action Modifier (31 cards)
4 Elder Impersonation
4 Forgotten Labyrinth
2 I Am Legion
4 Lost in Crowds
8 Voter Captivation
4 Perfect Paragon
5 As the Crow
Izaak
> Isn't it absolutely the same in this deck?
Of course not.
Grooming takes 3 blood from the vampire. Tend the Flock takes it from the
bloodbank.
Peter D Bakija
> > > Political Action (16 cards)
> > > 1 Banishment
> > > 4 Lily Prelude
> > > 1 Political Stranglehold
> > > 10 Reckless Agitation
10 Reckless Ag is probably too many Reckless Ag. You can't play them
when there are only 2 players, so if you are doing well, they become
dead cards. 8 is probably ok, replacing the other two with KRC or
something.
> > hmm , you could replace groomings with tend the flocks,
>
> Isn't it absolutely the same in this deck?
Uh, no? Tend the Flock is "move 3 blood from the blood bank to an
uncontrolled younger infernal (Balli?) minion". Grooming is "move 3
blood from minion X to a younger uncontrolled minion".
-Peter
Ector
Oh, thanks. Sometimes I misread even the simplest cards. Tend the
Flock looks like too good to be true :)
I definitely should use them. A lot of them.
Klaital
I would diverse your votes a lot, as it is now, delaying tactics jams
you really badly, and reckless is expensive also, you wont always be
able to do big voter caps, so that 2 blood cost will add up,
especially since almost half of the cards in your deck cost blood from
your minions. I would leave maybe 5 reckless, and then add something
like 3 krc, 1 ancilla empowerment and 1 anarchist uprising.
Ector
No way! Reckless is the primary idea of this deck. I've increased the
number of Paragons and added 2 Awe. Please consider that Arishat,
Xeper and Annazir will have 6 votes, +1 for the vote card and Arishat
will cancel somebody's votes. Also look at Condemnation: Mutes, they
have their purpose :)
Here's the last version of the deck:
Deck Name: Infernal Agitation
Created By: Ector (Ilya Hinzburh)
Description: Baali + Scout agitate for the win!
Crypt: (12 cards, Min: 25, Max: 35, Avg: 7,5)
---------------------------------------------
3 Annazir DAI OBF POT PRE 9 Baali
3 Arishat DAI OBF PRE 6
Baali
3 Scout Youngwood for qui MEL OBF PRE 8 Daughters of
Cacophony
3 Xeper ani dai pro OBF PRE 7
Baali
Library: (90 cards)
-------------------
Master (16 cards)
2 Dreams of the Sphinx
1 Protected Resources
1 Ruins of Charizel
4 Villein
2 Wider View
4 Tend the Flock
2 Information Highway
Action (10 cards)
4 Concordance
3 Condemnation: Mute
1 Contagion
2 Unleash Hell's Fury
Action Modifier (34 cards)
5 As the Crow
4 Elder Impersonation
4 Forgotten Labyrinth
2 I Am Legion
4 Lost in Crowds
5 Perfect Paragon
8 Voter Captivation
2 Awe
Political Action (16 cards)
1 Banishment
4 Lily Prelude
1 Political Stranglehold
10 Reckless Agitation
Combat (8 cards)
8 Majesty
Ally (2 cards)
1 Infernal Servitor
1 Mylan Horseed (Goblin)
Combo (4 cards)
4 Swallowed by the Night
What do you think of this deck? Is it strong enough to win tournaments
or not? Is it Tier1? Would you play such deck, and if you would, what
would you change? Your opinion is very important to me.
Peter D Bakija
> What do you think of this deck? Is it strong enough to win tournaments
> or not? Is it Tier1? Would you play such deck, and if you would, what
> would you change? Your opinion is very important to me.
I still think 10 Reckless Ags is too many Reckless Ags. You end up
with a lot of dead cards (and no way to hurt anyone) in the 2 player
end game. 4 Lily Prelude is also probably too many, as you only have
the 3x Scout (and only 2x Wider View). Still, turning 2 of each of
those into KRC would probably help a lot. With that much obfuscate in
the deck, the Perfect Paragons are probably way better off as
Bewitchings (0 blood for 4 votes as opposed to 1 blood for 3 votes to
back the Voter Caps). The Concordance/As the Crow tech is funny, but
probably less effective than just more killing power (votes or bleed
actions). That all being said, the basis of the deck looks comepltely
reasonable (I have an amazingly similar one that is Settites and Scout
and Arishat--less infernal, more Ferraile).
-Peter
Ector
Peter D Bakija wrote:
> On Mar 12, 3:27 am, Ector <Ec...@mail.ru> wrote:
> > What do you think of this deck? Is it strong enough to win tournaments
> > or not? Is it Tier1? Would you play such deck, and if you would, what
> > would you change? Your opinion is very important to me.
>
> I still think 10 Reckless Ags is too many Reckless Ags. You end up
> with a lot of dead cards (and no way to hurt anyone) in the 2 player
> end game.
would already be very good :) In short, I prefer to have too many Ags
to having too little. This deck can launch 3 Ags per turn - are 10 Ags
really too much for it?
> 4 Lily Prelude is also probably too many, as you only have
> the 3x Scout (and only 2x Wider View).
Scout will play it whenever possible. Yes, I can get 2 copies in my
hand, but the chance isn't very high.
> Still, turning 2 of each of those into KRC would probably help a lot.
The deck will become more consistent, but less powerful. Having 2
Agitations and Prelude may mean immediate oust while your prey was
quite confident having 14 pool :) Having 2 KRC and Prelude may mean
only having to wait. But you are probably right; I'll have to test it.
> With that much obfuscate in
> the deck, the Perfect Paragons are probably way better off as
> Bewitchings (0 blood for 4 votes as opposed to 1 blood for 3 votes to
> back the Voter Caps).
"That much"? I have only 16 Obfuscate stealth cards (I am Legion isn't
exactly a stealth card).
> The Concordance/As the Crow tech is funny, but
> probably less effective than just more killing power (votes or bleed
> actions).
I need Concordance to avoid losing pool for being infernal. As the
Crow can be reduced, right, but even ONE vamp with Concordance already
justifies it. After all, Annazir has +1 bleed - why not untapping him?
> That all being said, the basis of the deck looks comepltely
> reasonable (I have an amazingly similar one that is Settites and Scout
> and Arishat--less infernal, more Ferraile).
I'd like to see a crypt of this deck, if you don't mind.
Rhavas
> I need Concordance to avoid losing pool for being infernal. As the
> Crow can be reduced, right, but even ONE vamp with Concordance already
> justifies it. After all, Annazir has +1 bleed - why not untapping him?
>
Rather than run Concordance which means all your vote cards now need
obfuscate cards to be sucessful, why not replace them and the As the
Crows with Eluding the Arms of Morpheus? You can play it when your
predator announces any stealth action and it leaves you untapped once
you fail to block. If the argument is, "What if my predator doesn't
take any actions" then you are sitting in a pretty good place. If you
replace the Concordances and the As the Crows with Eludings, you can
go from 9 of those two cards to 6-7 Eludings and replace the remaining
2-3 card slots with more votes, more obfuscate, or more pool gain
(Villein/Vessel/Blood Doll).
I have a similar Baali vote deck and Eluding is the way I foresee
myself getting Baali untapped for blood rather than pool.
Eluding the Arms of Morpheus
Reaction
1 Blood
Only usable by a tapped vampire. This vampire untaps and attempts to
block.
Peter D Bakija
> You may be right here... but if I get to the 2-player end game, that
> would already be very good :) In short, I prefer to have too many Ags
> to having too little. This deck can launch 3 Ags per turn - are 10 Ags
> really too much for it?
Well, I'd think so, if only in the sense of "if you are doing well,
you'll regret that you only have Reck Ag in your hand, as you can't
oust your opponent in the end game". I mean, yeah, you *can* play 3x
Reck Ag a turn, but you will rarely need to--5 damage is a lot of
damage. Having only Reck Ag as your offense is problematic in that,
again, can't be used in the endgame, and a single DT shuts down your
turn. 8 is probably enough. Mix it up with a few KRCs.
> Scout will play it whenever possible. Yes, I can get 2 copies in my
> hand, but the chance isn't very high.
More the point is that you won't always have Scout in play--either she
is at the bottom of your crypt, or she got killed. Or something.
Without Scout, those Lily Preludes are dead cards. There are not
inconcievable circumstances that result in you getting to the 2 player
and game, you don't have Scout in your ready reigon, and all of your
damaging votes are unplayable. Which is sub-optimal. Having a couple
Lily Prelude (i.e. 2) is worth it as it is strong if it comes up and
you can use it. Having 4 is probably too many. Especially as 2 of them
could be KRCs that are always good.
> "That much"? I have only 16 Obfuscate stealth cards (I am Legion isn't
> exactly a stealth card).
You have a lot of OBF and good stealth cards. Having the ability to
get an extra conditional "stealth" for 1 blood is likely to be less
useful than a free 4 votes.
> I need Concordance to avoid losing pool for being infernal. As the
> Crow can be reduced, right, but even ONE vamp with Concordance already
> justifies it. After all, Annazir has +1 bleed - why not untapping him?
Sure. But it is a lot of work for something that could be Legal
Manipulations instead (bleed for 3, gain a pool. The infernalism is
balanced out.) Again, it is funny, and will ocasionally pay off. But
just more offense is probably a better plan.
> I'd like to see a crypt of this deck, if you don't mind.
I'll dig it up when I get home.
-Peter
Peter D Bakija
The deck looks like this:
2x Scout Youngwood (8) OBF, PRE
2x Ogwon (7) OBF, PRE, SER
2x Clea (6) OBF, pre, ser
2x Arishat (6) DAI, OBF, PRE
1x Sisocharis (4) obf, pre
1x Helen Fairchild (4) obf, pre
1x The Horde (3) dai, obf, pre
1x Ahmose Chambers (3) obf, ser
4x Blood Doll
2x Villein
2x Ferraille
2x Ruins of Charizel
1x Archon Investigation
1x Crocodile Temple
1x Two Wrongs
1x Opium Den
8x Lost in Crowds
4x Faceless Night
4x Elder Impersonation
8x Majesty
8x Voter Cap
8x Bewitching Oration
4x Awe
8x Enchant Kindred
2x Condemnation: Mute
2x Form of Corruption
1x Veneficti (Mage)
1x Carlton Van Wyk (Hunter)
8x Kine Resources Contested
4x Reckless Agitation
4x Exclusion Principal
2x Neonate Breach
I'm not totally sold on the crypt, but most of the issue comes from
the lack of G6 vampires (this was previously a G4/5 crypt which had
10x Settites and 2x Maureen, but Scout and Arishat convinced me to
retool the crypt while the deck is virtually identical). It does
pretty well.
-Peter
Ector
Peter D Bakija wrote:
> On Mar 12, 12:15 pm, Ector <Ec...@mail.ru> wrote:
> > You may be right here... but if I get to the 2-player end game, that
> > would already be very good :) In short, I prefer to have too many Ags
> > to having too little. This deck can launch 3 Ags per turn - are 10 Ags
> > really too much for it?
>
> Well, I'd think so, if only in the sense of "if you are doing well,
> you'll regret that you only have Reck Ag in your hand, as you can't
> oust your opponent in the end game". I mean, yeah, you *can* play 3x
> Reck Ag a turn, but you will rarely need to--5 damage is a lot of
> damage. Having only Reck Ag as your offense is problematic in that,
> again, can't be used in the endgame, and a single DT shuts down your
> turn. 8 is probably enough. Mix it up with a few KRCs.
Your argument is good. I've dropped one ReckAg and added Domain
Challenges. This deck likes to win quickly :)
> > Scout will play it whenever possible. Yes, I can get 2 copies in my
> > hand, but the chance isn't very high.
>
> More the point is that you won't always have Scout in play--either she
> is at the bottom of your crypt, or she got killed. Or something.
> Without Scout, those Lily Preludes are dead cards. There are not
> inconcievable circumstances that result in you getting to the 2 player
> and game, you don't have Scout in your ready reigon, and all of your
> damaging votes are unplayable. Which is sub-optimal. Having a couple
> Lily Prelude (i.e. 2) is worth it as it is strong if it comes up and
> you can use it. Having 4 is probably too many. Especially as 2 of them
> could be KRCs that are always good.
When I get to the 2-player game, I will generally play half of my deck
and get Wider View. It will dig Scout for me. Lily Prelude is much,
much better than KRC, *especially in the 2-player game* since I can
damage my prey for 4 and get 1 pool instead of damaging it for 3 and
taking 1 damage.
> > "That much"? I have only 16 Obfuscate stealth cards (I am Legion isn't
> > exactly a stealth card).
>
> You have a lot of OBF and good stealth cards. Having the ability to
> get an extra conditional "stealth" for 1 blood is likely to be less
> useful than a free 4 votes.
Sometimes you will sit near a wall deck. And you can't afford that
wall to ruin your day just because you were too greedy and preferred
to save 1 blood.
> > I need Concordance to avoid losing pool for being infernal. As the
> > Crow can be reduced, right, but even ONE vamp with Concordance already
> > justifies it. After all, Annazir has +1 bleed - why not untapping him?
>
> Sure. But it is a lot of work for something that could be Legal
> Manipulations instead (bleed for 3, gain a pool. The infernalism is
> balanced out.) Again, it is funny, and will ocasionally pay off. But
> just more offense is probably a better plan.
I've just noticed that Concordations reduce my stealth, so I've dumped
them with As the Crows. One Helicopter is going to be enough here,
even though it's quite expensive.
As for Legal Manipulations, they may be very good in your deck (with
much lower average capacity), but in mine they are much worse. My
actions "cost" much more, since vamps are large and most of them are
infernal. Thus, bouncing my Legal Manipulations would be a disaster
for me. But still thanks for the suggestion, I'll think about that...
Here's the last build of my deck:
Crypt: (12 cards, Min: 25, Max: 35, Avg: 7,5)
---------------------------------------------
3 Annazir DAI OBF POT PRE9 Baali
3 Arishat DAI OBF PRE 6 Baali
3 Scout Youngwood for qui MEL OBF PRE8
Daughters of Cacophony
3 Xeper ani dai pro OBF PRE7 Baali
Library: (90 cards)
-------------------
Master (18 cards)
2 Dreams of the Sphinx
2 Information Highway
1 Protected Resources
1 Ruins of Charizel
4 Tend the Flock
4 Villein
2 Wider View
1 Golconda: Inner Peace
1 From a Sinking Ship
Action (7 cards)
4 Condemnation: Mute
1 Contagion
2 Unleash Hell's Fury
Action Modifier (32 cards)
2 Awe
4 Elder Impersonation
4 Forgotten Labyrinth
2 I Am Legion
4 Lost in Crowds
5 Perfect Paragon
9 Voter Captivation
2 Bewitching Oration
Political Action (17 cards)
1 Banishment
4 Lily Prelude
1 Political Stranglehold
9 Reckless Agitation
2 Domain Challenge
Combat (8 cards)
8 Majesty
Ally (3 cards)
1 Infernal Servitor
1 Mylan Horseed (Goblin)
1 Carlton Van Wyk (Hunter)
Equipment (1 cards)
1 Helicopter
Combo (4 cards)
4 Swallowed by the Night
I've added Golconda for additional pressure (or survival) and From a
Sinking Ship for its extreme efficiency in this deck. Looks like I'll
be able to steal some good vamps with it.
There are no Concordance/As the Crow, but there are Helicopter,
Carlton, 2 Bewitchings and Domain Challenges. And one more
Condemnation: Mute.
Ector
I'd say that almost all vamps with inferior PRE are bad in this deck,
as you have little permanent votes (just 2 Scout + 2 Arishat), and a
vamp with inferior Presence can be unable to push the vote even with
Bewitching and Awe. You also have too little stealth, even one 2nd
Tradition can be enough to block you. This is somewhat mitigated by
the larger number of vamps (due to lower average capacity and Enchant
Kindreds), but you cannot allow them to block and torporize your
"stars". Also, your 8 Majesty is much "less" than mine, since you're
going to be blocked more frequently...
Looks like we'll have to wait for the new Group 6 vamps if we want to
play Scout without infernals.
Peter D Bakija
> When I get to the 2-player game, I will generally play half of my deck
> and get Wider View. It will dig Scout for me. Lily Prelude is much,
> much better than KRC, *especially in the 2-player game* since I can
> damage my prey for 4 and get 1 pool instead of damaging it for 3 and
> taking 1 damage.
Sure, but still, if Scout is dead, or for whatever reason not in play,
they aren't helpful. And if you have Scout take an action that isn't
Lilly prelude, and you draw into a Lilly Prelude, you are stopped,
where if it was a KRC, you'd still be able to do something effective.
Lily Prelude is certainly a good card when you can play it. But it
seems likely that a lot of the time, you won't be able to.
> Sometimes you will sit near a wall deck. And you can't afford that
> wall to ruin your day just because you were too greedy and preferred
> to save 1 blood.
That's true. And other times, you'll really wish you had the extra
votes from the Bewitching. It is a trade off. And while I can't ever
say for sure, in the long run, the extra free votes will probably be
more effective than the 1 blood cost -1 intercept, in a deck that has
OBF in it. That being said, if the Concordances stay, keep the Perfect
Paragons.
> I've just noticed that Concordations reduce my stealth, so I've dumped
> them with As the Crows. One Helicopter is going to be enough here,
> even though it's quite expensive.
Oh, heh--yeah, the -1 stealth is one of the main reasons that
Concordance isn't actually good. Especially with the As the Crow
(which only works if the action is successful...).
> As for Legal Manipulations, they may be very good in your deck (with
> much lower average capacity), but in mine they are much worse. My
> actions "cost" much more, since vamps are large and most of them are
> infernal. Thus, bouncing my Legal Manipulations would be a disaster
> for me. But still thanks for the suggestion, I'll think about that...
Oh, sure. But still, having some kind of back up to the voting is
always helpful--if someone DT's you or blocks you and you Majesty,
being able to follow up with a bleed of 3, even if only once and a
while, is often very effective.
> Master (18 cards)
> 2 Dreams of the Sphinx
> 2 Information Highway
> 1 Protected Resources
> 1 Ruins of Charizel
> 4 Tend the Flock
> 4 Villein
> 2 Wider View
> 1 Golconda: Inner Peace
> 1 From a Sinking Ship
If you can fit more Tend the Flock in, it can be huge. I was playing
against an All Infernal All the Time deck last night, and my prey
gained, like, 33 pool from Tend the Flocks over the course of the game
(granted, my deck was critically failing, and he was at 1 pool for
multiple turns, but still. 33 pool.)
-Peter
Peter D Bakija
> I'd say that almost all vamps with inferior PRE are bad in this deck,
> as you have little permanent votes (just 2 Scout + 2 Arishat), and a
> vamp with inferior Presence can be unable to push the vote even with
> Bewitching and Awe.
Having little guys are handy. And early on, a vote +2 from a
Bewitching are all you need to hit someone with a KRC. And Ferraille
goes a very long way towards making things happen.
> You also have too little stealth, even one 2nd Tradition can be enough to block you.
+1 stealth from vote +2 from Lost in Crowds = +3 stealth. Which is
usually sufficient except against the most focused intercept. And then
there is block fails. It seems kind of lowball, but tends to do ok.
> Also, your 8 Majesty is much "less" than mine, since you're
> going to be blocked more frequently...
Maybe? 8 of the minions in the crypt have OBF. The rest are 4 weenies
that are just there to vote early and get in the way of things. A 4
cap with obf, pre calling and hitting with a single KRC has pretty
much paid for itself, even if it does nothing the rest of the game.
> Looks like we'll have to wait for the new Group 6 vamps if we want to
> play Scout without infernals.
Well, ya know, lots of stuff will open up when we get more G5 or G6
vampires.
-Peter
Ector
Peter D Bakija wrote:
> On Mar 13, 7:35 am, Ector <Ec...@mail.ru> wrote:
> > When I get to the 2-player game, I will generally play half of my deck
> > and get Wider View. It will dig Scout for me. Lily Prelude is much,
> > much better than KRC, *especially in the 2-player game* since I can
> > damage my prey for 4 and get 1 pool instead of damaging it for 3 and
> > taking 1 damage.
>
> Sure, but still, if Scout is dead, or for whatever reason not in play,
> they aren't helpful. And if you have Scout take an action that isn't
> Lilly prelude, and you draw into a Lilly Prelude, you are stopped,
> where if it was a KRC, you'd still be able to do something effective.
> Lily Prelude is certainly a good card when you can play it. But it
> seems likely that a lot of the time, you won't be able to.
to increase chances of getting Scout, but because I'm trying to
increase number of Condemnation: Mutes, and Xeper can play it only at
inferior.
But even now, there won't be much problems with Preludes. I will just
have to play it first if I have it, or just act last with Scout.
> > Sometimes you will sit near a wall deck. And you can't afford that
> > wall to ruin your day just because you were too greedy and preferred
> > to save 1 blood.
>
> That's true. And other times, you'll really wish you had the extra
> votes from the Bewitching. It is a trade off. And while I can't ever
> say for sure, in the long run, the extra free votes will probably be
> more effective than the 1 blood cost -1 intercept, in a deck that has
> OBF in it. That being said, if the Concordances stay, keep the Perfect
> Paragons.
+1 vote for Bewitching will rarely matter, since you can have 6-8
votes. 1 blood also rarely matters, if I have VoterCap. But +1 stealth
can really matter!
>
> > As for Legal Manipulations, they may be very good in your deck (with
> > much lower average capacity), but in mine they are much worse. My
> > actions "cost" much more, since vamps are large and most of them are
> > infernal. Thus, bouncing my Legal Manipulations would be a disaster
> > for me. But still thanks for the suggestion, I'll think about that...
>
> Oh, sure. But still, having some kind of back up to the voting is
> always helpful--if someone DT's you or blocks you and you Majesty,
> being able to follow up with a bleed of 3, even if only once and a
> while, is often very effective.
Then I'd better add permanent bleed enhancers instead of Legal
Manipulations. One Legendary Vampire and one Heart of the City would
be enough. If you have a card like Legal Manipulations in your hand,
you have to play it or discard it, and most of the time both options
aren't very good.
> > Master (18 cards)
> > 2 Dreams of the Sphinx
> > 2 Information Highway
> > 1 Protected Resources
> > 1 Ruins of Charizel
> > 4 Tend the Flock
> > 4 Villein
> > 2 Wider View
> > 1 Golconda: Inner Peace
> > 1 From a Sinking Ship
>
> If you can fit more Tend the Flock in, it can be huge. I was playing
> against an All Infernal All the Time deck last night, and my prey
> gained, like, 33 pool from Tend the Flocks over the course of the game
> (granted, my deck was critically failing, and he was at 1 pool for
> multiple turns, but still. 33 pool.)
That's quite possible if somebody would play Anthelios. Unfortunately,
nobody can provide the second MPA, but still :)
I can probably change Protected Resources to Tend the Flock. From a
Sinking Ship can also be changed, but I feel that Legendary Vampire
would be better.
Ector
Peter D Bakija wrote:
> On Mar 13, 7:45 am, Ector <Ec...@mail.ru> wrote:
> > I'd say that almost all vamps with inferior PRE are bad in this deck,
> > as you have little permanent votes (just 2 Scout + 2 Arishat), and a
> > vamp with inferior Presence can be unable to push the vote even with
> > Bewitching and Awe.
>
> Having little guys are handy. And early on, a vote +2 from a
> Bewitching are all you need to hit someone with a KRC. And Ferraille
> goes a very long way towards making things happen.
You can do it just once. What next?
> > Also, your 8 Majesty is much "less" than mine, since you're
> > going to be blocked more frequently...
>
> Maybe? 8 of the minions in the crypt have OBF. The rest are 4 weenies
> that are just there to vote early and get in the way of things. A 4
> cap with obf, pre calling and hitting with a single KRC has pretty
> much paid for itself, even if it does nothing the rest of the game.
Really? Then Jackie "pays for herself" after her first Kindred Spirits
+ Confusion? :) I don't think that hitting your prey for amount of
pool = vampire's capacity "pays for it".
Peter D Bakija
> You can do it just once. What next?
Well, your 4 cap has hit someone for 3 pool. They then spend the rest
of the game either:
A) Bleeding for 1 or 2 at stealth.
B) Calling and passing more votes if there aren't a ton of votes on
the table (call a vote. Have 1 from the vote, 2 from a Bewitching, 3
from Ferraille, maybe 1 from the edge, maybe a vote or 2 on the
table). If you aren't sitting next to a couple IC members, that can
often work. Espceially if someone cross table is willing to help you
out 'cause you are hitting their prey.
C) Blocking rushes, rescuing from torpor, or whatever random actions
are useful at the time. Including hunting as a Blood Doll.
I think you are vastly underestimating what a weenie with obf/pre can
do. I mean, yeah, sure, once and a while, you'll be between a huge
permacept wall and 3x IC members. And then you are hosed. But that
happens. Most of the time, however, a 3 or 4 cap with obf/pre is going
to be worth the effort. Especially when supporting 2 or 3 other guys
with OBF/PRE.
> Really? Then Jackie "pays for herself" after her first Kindred Spirits
> + Confusion? :)
Yes, yes she does. Heck, far more than that, as she bled your prey for
4 *and* gained you a pool. This is why weenies with DEM are so
stupidly good.
> I don't think that hitting your prey for amount of
> pool = vampire's capacity "pays for it".
I'm certainly not going to attempt to make you look at the world the
same way I do. But for my money, if I get a guy out, and that guy does
more damage than he cost me, he has paid for himself. Anything over
that is pure gold. I get out a 4 cap, and that 4 cap does 4+ damage,
even if that 4 cap then is vaporized? That 4 cap did what it needed to
do. Luckily, most minions don't get vaporized that quickly, so they
continue to pay dividends.
-Peter
Ector
Peter D Bakija wrote:
> On Mar 15, 10:50 am, Ector <Ec...@mail.ru> wrote:
> > You can do it just once. What next?
>
> Well, your 4 cap has hit someone for 3 pool. They then spend the rest
> of the game either:
>
> A) Bleeding for 1 or 2 at stealth.
You will have stealth for that only if both your prey and your
predator have zero intercept. This can happen, but I wouldn't rely on
this. Even +1 intercept will force you to spend your stealth on more
important actions.
> B) Calling and passing more votes if there aren't a ton of votes on
> the table (call a vote. Have 1 from the vote, 2 from a Bewitching, 3
> from Ferraille, maybe 1 from the edge, maybe a vote or 2 on the
> table). If you aren't sitting next to a couple IC members, that can
> often work. Espceially if someone cross table is willing to help you
> out 'cause you are hitting their prey.
This wouldn't work 90% of the time. You will use Ferraile with a
better vamp, preferably with PRE, since you don't have a lot of votes,
and you want VoterCap. Without Ferraile, you have just 2 votes from
one vamp + 1 for the vote, +2 for Bewitching, +1 for the Edge = 6.
Even one non-voting deck can often outvote this: for instance, I've
played Klaus Konrecht + Venere Carboni intercept.
> C) Blocking rushes, rescuing from torpor, or whatever random actions
> are useful at the time. Including hunting as a Blood Doll.
This is right. Though I prefer a good ally that can survive rushes and/
or have intercept, like Carlton. But you spend not only pool for your
vampires, transfers also have their price. Both our decks have little
or no defense against bleed, so we have to oust our prey quickly. Time
is crucial, and spending it for influencing sub-optimal vamps isn't
going to bring you a victory...
------------------------
Looks like we're starting to discuss meaningless things, while I'd
like to discuss something more important. Do you think that increasing
number of Condemnation: Mute to 6-7 would be good in my deck? I have
enough vamps to play them, and Mutes are shocking good at superior,
even if nobody is playing titled vamps. If a vamp of my prey would
burn a blood each time a referendum passes, I can burn 2-3 blood per
turn off it. After 2-3 Condemnations, his poolgain can be completely
disrupted, and he may even be stopped at all!
Peter D Bakija
> You will have stealth for that only if both your prey and your
> predator have zero intercept. This can happen, but I wouldn't rely on
> this. Even +1 intercept will force you to spend your stealth on more
> important actions.
Once again, you seem to be vastly under appreciating the usefulness of
a weenie with pre/obf. It has stealth. It can bleed and gain votes. It
only costs 3 or 4 pool. Decks that have weenies with obf/X combo
disciplines tend to be good. Yes. Somtimes someone has more intercept
than you have stealth. But a lot of time, not so much.
> This wouldn't work 90% of the time.
You really see *that* many table votes 90% of the time? I certainly
don't.
> This is right. Though I prefer a good ally that can survive rushes and/
> or have intercept, like Carlton. But you spend not only pool for your
> vampires, transfers also have their price. Both our decks have little
> or no defense against bleed, so we have to oust our prey quickly. Time
> is crucial, and spending it for influencing sub-optimal vamps isn't
> going to bring you a victory...
And yet I play this deck all the time (or the previous version that
had a crypt that was smaller and more diverse, but mostly the same
library), and it does fine, regularly getting VPs and winning games.
It's not a bad deck. 4 caps and all.
> Do you think that increasing
> number of Condemnation: Mute to 6-7 would be good in my deck?
Condemnation: Moot is very good. If you have enough guys to play 6-7
of them, it's probably worth it. Although having 6-7 of them means you
are spending time taking those actions instead of calling votes, and
6-7 of a card that you might not even need to play is a lot. Maybe
4-5?
-Peter
Ector
Peter D Bakija wrote:
>
> > This wouldn't work 90% of the time.
>
> You really see *that* many table votes 90% of the time? I certainly
> don't.
If "that many" is 6, then yes. I really see that many 90% of the time,
and often even more. Even if there are no voting decks at the table.
Ira Rivers + Marcellus = 4 votes; Rachel + Greger = 4 votes, Anson +
Anneke = 5 votes, Sheldon + friends usually have even more :)
> > This is right. Though I prefer a good ally that can survive rushes and/
> > or have intercept, like Carlton. But you spend not only pool for your
> > vampires, transfers also have their price. Both our decks have little
> > or no defense against bleed, so we have to oust our prey quickly. Time
> > is crucial, and spending it for influencing sub-optimal vamps isn't
> > going to bring you a victory...
>
> And yet I play this deck all the time (or the previous version that
> had a crypt that was smaller and more diverse, but mostly the same
> library), and it does fine, regularly getting VPs and winning games.
> It's not a bad deck. 4 caps and all.
It obviously isn't bad, but I need only the best :)
> > Do you think that increasing
> > number of Condemnation: Mute to 6-7 would be good in my deck?
>
> Condemnation: Moot is very good. If you have enough guys to play 6-7
> of them, it's probably worth it. Although having 6-7 of them means you
> are spending time taking those actions instead of calling votes, and
> 6-7 of a card that you might not even need to play is a lot. Maybe
> 4-5?
We have a huge misunderstanding here, IMHO. There are NO situations
where you "don't need to play" superior Condemnation: Mute, since it
burns blood from the vampires of your prey. Smiling Jack does exactly
the same, and it kills the entire tables. If you have 6-7 Mutes in
your deck, you can play, say, 2-3 of them on your prey. After that,
EVERY passed referendum (not just yours!) will drain 2-3 blood that
could be converted into pool.
6-7 Mutes almost ensure you a "vote lock". You will draw 2-3 early and
shut down the opposing votes; add Arishat's ability, and you will
generally push your votes with a tasty VoterCap.
Please think about the "threat value" of this card. You can just
propose a crosstable player a "Godfather's suggestion": vote for you
or be Condemned. This card will remain in play even if you get ousted,
and there are no ways to remove it.
I've got another idea for my deck: Cavalier! There are lot of actions
that cost blood (ReckAgs, for instance), so Annazir could untap with
it quite frequently. What do you think?
Peter D Bakija
> If "that many" is 6, then yes. I really see that many 90% of the time,
> and often even more. Even if there are no voting decks at the table.
> Ira Rivers + Marcellus = 4 votes; Rachel + Greger = 4 votes, Anson +
> Anneke = 5 votes, Sheldon + friends usually have even more :)
Sure. I often see games that don't have even 6 votes static on the
table. Sometimes I see more. Having a bunch of guys with PRE who can
reliably pass votes with just Bewitching and/or Awe backed by a little
guy or two who can call votes opportunistically, or just even bleed
for a couple is totally worth it.
> It obviously isn't bad, but I need only the best :)
I'm not telling you you should use little guys. I'm just telling you
why *I* use little guys.
> We have a huge misunderstanding here, IMHO. There are NO situations
> where you "don't need to play" superior Condemnation: Mute, since it
> burns blood from the vampires of your prey. Smiling Jack does exactly
> the same, and it kills the entire tables.
I don't think there is a misunderstanding at all. I think there is you
thinking that playing a Condemation Mute on your prey, even if they
don't have votes, is much more of an effective use of resources than I
do. Condemnation Mute is great if it shuts down 3 votes. That it also
burns some blood off a guy is cool too, but given the choice between:
A) Playing Condemnation Mute on my prey's vampire to make them lose
blood, even if they have no votes.
and
B) HItting my prey for 3 with a KRC.
I'll go with (B) every single time. A Pre/Obf stealth vote deck isn't
winning the game by making his prey's vampires lose 1 blood a turn. It
is winning by ReckAg/KRCing them to death, with the occasional bleed
and/or bloat action. It certainly doesn't *hurt* to make your prey
lose a blood when you call a vote, but it isn't soimething that *I*
would want to focus on over, say, calling KRC.
Condemnation Mute is a great card. And worth including in decks that
can use them. Primarily 'cause they turn off inconvinient votes. The
blood loss is handy, but not essential, for my money. So you could put
8 in the deck if you wanted to, but I'd imagine that you see too many
of them, and regularly discard some as you just wanted to ReckAg
instead.
> I've got another idea for my deck: Cavalier! There are lot of actions
> that cost blood (ReckAgs, for instance), so Annazir could untap with
> it quite frequently. What do you think?
That seems quite reasonable--saves you from being infernal. But the
blood cost will add up very quickly. I'd make sure to have more Vote
Caps.
-Peter
Ector
If your argument is "I prefer having extra ReckAgs instead of Mutes",
I cannot agree with that. I'm not trying to say that Mutes can be good
without voting actions, but having both Mutes and voting actions is
better than just having a lot of voting actions. Here are my reasons:
1). Mute cannot be outvoted even by the entire table. It's also immune
to DT and other anti-voting cards. It's also directed (D), so your
intercepting predator will need Eagle's Sight to block it.
2). Mute can be safely placed crosstable without much risk of killing
that player, but the accumulated effect can greatly improve your
chances of ousting that player later. You cannot just play ReckAg
crosstable and hope that other players will wait for you :)
3). Net loss from the Mute is going to be much more than 3 pool from
KRC. You need just 3 passed votes to burn 3 blood, and you will pass
much, much more.
4). You will generally avoid killing your predator (unless the
grandpredator is much less dangerous), but placing Mutes on predator's
vamps is OK. The predator tends to slow down, sometimes hunt, which is
great for you!
> > I've got another idea for my deck: Cavalier! There are lot of actions
> > that cost blood (ReckAgs, for instance), so Annazir could untap with
> > it quite frequently. What do you think?
>
> That seems quite reasonable--saves you from being infernal. But the
> blood cost will add up very quickly. I'd make sure to have more Vote
> Caps.
Thanks, I will think about that. But it looks like worth adding, at
least for occasional bleeding for 2.
Rhavas
in some Ventrue and Brujah with obf/pre) and am getting some nice
ideas. I like the Cavalier angle a lot.
I agree with Peter and don't plan to use more than 2-3 Condemnation:
Mutes. It is typically useful, but not useful enough to merit
replacing damage, untap or pool gain cards, which you need in Baali
decks.
Peter D Bakija
> If your argument is "I prefer having extra ReckAgs instead of Mutes",
> I cannot agree with that.
Uh, what? I specifically said "Mute is a great card" and "use 4-5
Mutes". I also said that given the choice between putting a
Condemnation Mute on someone with no votes just to make them lose
blood and taking some other action that is useful, I'll take the other
action that is useful. As I don't think putting Condemnation Mute on
someone with no votes is really worth the effort. Which is why I
suggested using 4-5 Condemnation Mutes instead of 8. As I think 8 is
too many. Not that you shouldn't use any at all.
-Peter
Ector
I've put 4 copies initially, but I feel that wouldn't be enough.
Currenty I think I will need 6-7. Ideally, I'd like to play 2-3
Condemnation: Mutes early enough; for instance, one on turn 3 (with
Annazir), one on turn 4-5, and one on turn 6-7. With 4-5 Mutes I'm not
going to draw them in time.
Why do I need so much Mutes? Because it's my way to control the table.
Independent voters will never have as many votes as Camarilla, Sabbat
or even Laibons. Thus, even a single voting deck on the table can
outvote me if I fail to "turn off" its votes with Condemnations.
Ventrue Law Firm can easily have 8+ votes, Ayo Igoli or Arika will
have even more. Yes, I can make deals, but I hate to be *forced* to do
that. Without Condemnations, you will have to deal, with them other
players will :) This creates excellent opportunities for GW.
What am I going to do with Condemnations at the table without voting
decks? Play them, of course! They allow me to "slow down" the decks
that appear to be "too fast" and preserve the VPs for myself :) For
instance, a typical DOM/OBF stealth-bleed has a lot of Governs,
Deflections and Conditionings, all for 1 blood. Condemnation:Mute will
"turn off" one vampire of such deck, draining his blood very quickly.
Condemnation is also the card that's going to help you grab GW in the
2-player game. Vampires generally are low on blood at the time, and
you can force somebody to hunt instead of doing something against you.
Peter D Bakija
> Why do I need so much Mutes? Because it's my way to control the table.
Trying to "control the table" is more than likely going to result in
people killing you cross table.
> What am I going to do with Condemnations at the table without voting
> decks? Play them, of course! They allow me to "slow down" the decks
> that appear to be "too fast" and preserve the VPs for myself :)
Yeah, see, that sort of thing just gets you cross table killed. But
ok.
-Peter
Ector
Yess!!! That was the reaction I've waited for! If people want to kill
you crosstable, that's the clear sign of a Tier1 deck! :))) But please
recall that even killing me crosstable wouldn't remove my
Condemnations, so it's mostly pointless, unless I would be the only
voting deck on the table. If somebody else would vote, Condemnation
would still work! *evil grin*
Talking seriously, I don't believe that Condemnations: Mute are going
to cause such reaction. They don't cause any *immediate* harm :)
They're like Smiling Jack: it starts so innocent that nobody believes
it can sweep tables :) But, unlike Smiling Jack, Condemnations are
permanent.