Anarch expansion in retrospect

First - Border Skirmish? Anyone done something with this? Besides wondering and decorating walls? Second, I惴 sad to say I totally ignore the whole Anarch-concept. It愀 just never worth it. Yeah, I扉e seen the TWD-Anarch-decks. The playable non-reprint library cards in the Anarch-set was: - Aranthebes, The Immortal (My friends says this guy is great, and I somewhat agree. But somehow I never manage to find place for him in my decks. Maybe it愀 to few weenie-decks in our enviroment.) - Bleeding the Vine (This one found it愀 way into some nasty combo-decks (turbo-Baron, Revolt-Golconda-master-decks and into some speed-bleed decks. Ie, decks that did not need any help.) - Blow Torch (Simply a non-unique Sengir Dagger. Well balanced card.) - Brinksmanship (Made the Slaughterhouse-bingers playable. Or maybe not. That concept still needs some work from LSJ, because it messes up the table balance - one player not bleeding/voting/rushing at all makes his prey a little to powerful poolwise.) - Drum of Xipe Totec (A gift for mr Goratrix. Well, how sweet.) - Fiendish Tongue (Works good in Tzimisce. Actually, it gave birth to a whole new type of Tzimisce-decks around here. Decks which I think are much more funny then the old Wall-Smiling Jack-ish/Eagle Sight-ish ones.) - Filchware's Pawn Shop (Interesting card. A while it made us not play equipment-based decks at all.) - Gather (Best card in the set? Maybe. Maybe not. Bringing out plenty of large-cap gangrels low on blood is... doubtful. Only seen one strong deck doing it.) - Gift of Experience (Solid card. The advanced-concept needed this. Could have been a action-card?) - Life in the City (Works OK.) - Magazine (Naaaah... I don愒 know. Looks good on the paper, but haven愒 seen it make any real difference.) - Reins of Power (Complicated for a dumbass like me, but I扉e noticed it is very powerful. It ousts people.) - Repo Man (Yeah, mostly fun, but also, I think, quite playable.) - Sunset Strip, Hollywood (Solid card.) - Year of Fortune (Good card. Kinda like Rumours, but even more easy to make deals with. Everybody wants +1 hand size.)

>First - Border Skirmish? Anyone done something with this? Besides >wondering and decorating walls? It's a card for a card - I don't see the point of ever playing it. >Second, I惴 sad to say I totally ignore the whole Anarch-concept. It愀 >just never worth it. Yeah, I扉e seen the TWD-Anarch-decks. Besides The Lasombra's point that there are supposedly far more tournaments than TWDA entries, I *know* bad decks win tournaments. ... half of my entries are obviously bad. >The playable non-reprint library cards in the Anarch-set was: I'm going to comment on yours, then list mine at the end. >- Aranthebes, The Immortal (My friends says this guy is great, and I >somewhat agree. But somehow I never manage to find place for him in my >decks. Maybe it愀 to few weenie-decks in our enviroment.) > >- Bleeding the Vine (This one found it愀 way into some nasty >combo-decks (turbo-Baron, Revolt-Golconda-master-decks and into some >speed-bleed decks. Ie, decks that did not need any help.) I primarily see playing Bleeding with Suddens, otherwise it's unpredictable whether you stop what you put Bleeding in to stop. >- Blow Torch (Simply a non-unique Sengir Dagger. Well balanced card.) I almost never play with Sengir either. >- Brinksmanship (Made the Slaughterhouse-bingers playable. Or maybe >not. That concept still needs some work from LSJ, because it messes up >the table balance - one player not bleeding/voting/rushing at all >makes his prey a little to powerful poolwise.) Problem with this archetype is that: there's not enough testing of it; there might never be enough testing because it's so unpleasant. >- Drum of Xipe Totec (A gift for mr Goratrix. Well, how sweet.) > >- Fiendish Tongue (Works good in Tzimisce. Actually, it gave birth to >a whole new type of Tzimisce-decks around here. Decks which I think >are much more funny then the old Wall-Smiling Jack-ish/Eagle Sight-ish >ones.) I wish this hadn't been made as I see it pretty much only helping Tzimisce block decks. Tzimisce bleed decks were fine with Computer Hacking. >- Filchware's Pawn Shop (Interesting card. A while it made us not >play equipment-based decks at all.) Why!, why does anyone think this card is any good? How often can you rely on people to have: Equipment? Equipment in their ash heap? Equipment you gain want to be playing in their ash heap? Do you really want to spend extra pool to make sure it does anything? Then, it could have been a Life in the City, a power non-trifle master, or a non-master. >- Gather (Best card in the set? Maybe. Maybe not. Bringing out plenty >of large-cap gangrels low on blood is... doubtful. Only seen one >strong deck doing it.) Supposedly, this has been useful in at least one deck I can recall being posted. I can't see playing it. It's unreliable in nature even ignoring that it can be burnt before it can be used. >- Gift of Experience (Solid card. The advanced-concept needed this. >Could have been a action-card?) Many times, I've gone to build mergy decks. Most times, the effort never results in a deck as there's so little to be had by trying to merge. Of those efforts that produced decks, I believe I once put in Gift. Likely was a mistake. You could just play Effective Management instead which is a vastly better card even if it doesn't guarantee merging. >- Life in the City (Works OK.) > >- Magazine (Naaaah... I don愒 know. Looks good on the paper, but >haven愒 seen it make any real difference.) Coaster. >- Reins of Power (Complicated for a dumbass like me, but I扉e noticed >it is very powerful. It ousts people.) > >- Repo Man (Yeah, mostly fun, but also, I think, quite playable.) > >- Sunset Strip, Hollywood (Solid card.) > >- Year of Fortune (Good card. Kinda like Rumours, but even more easy >to make deals with. Everybody wants +1 hand size.) This is another card whose use boggles my mind. In a number of decklists I've seen, the deck could have run Rumors instead which has an awesome effect once it's in play where this has an ass effect once it's in play. Alternatively, it could be all sorts of other high quality vote cards. From my first pass of trying to rate all of the cards (though I didn't rate all as some I wanted to look at more), the good to better than good library, non-reprints: The Anarch Free Press* Anarch Railroad* Aranthebes Bleeding the Vine Drum of Xipe Totec Fee Stake: (all) Fiendish Tongue Firebrand Gambit Accepted Life in the City * Cards I'd consider taking off the list. Cards I'd put on the list: Repo Man Sunset Strip Cards I still don't feel comfortable rating: Nosferatu Bestial Unlicensed Taxicab Comment about the vampires: How many Anarch vampires do you see commonly played in actual games? Sure, I see a lot of decklists for advanced Tegyrius (and others like Nadima) and hear about nearby groups that try to merge him. But, the only ones I see played by my regular opponents on a basis more often than hardly never are Michael Luther, Christopher Houghton, Lucita, and Velya. And, Smallpox, but I discount that as it's due to one deck that gets played a lot and only played to pull off the combos rather than because it does anything productive.

"Curevei" <cur...@aol.commetal> schrieb im Newsbeitrag news:20040121142702.12686.00000430@mb-> >- > From my first pass of trying to rate all of the cards (though I didn't rate all > as some I wanted to look at more), the good to better than good library, > non-reprints: > don´t forget molotov cocktail. > Comment about the vampires: How many Anarch vampires do you see commonly > played in actual games? Sure, I see a lot of decklists for advanced Tegyrius > (and others like Nadima) and hear about nearby groups that try to merge him. > But, the only ones I see played by my regular opponents on a basis more often > than hardly never are Michael Luther, Christopher Houghton, Lucita, and Velya. > And, Smallpox, but I discount that as it's due to one deck that gets played a > lot and only played to pull off the combos rather than because it does anything > productive. martin frankel maldavis feo ramos saiz sandra white perfidoo dios elisabeth westcott cristos mantigo saiz just to name a few stefan

cur...@aol.commetal (Curevei) wrote in message news:<20040121142702...@mb-m29.aol.com>... > >First - Border Skirmish? Anyone done something with this? Besides > >wondering and decorating walls? > > It's a card for a card - I don't see the point of ever playing it. Still working on it. Really it's just low-level table annoyance, but sometimes your cross-table ally is happy to cycle part of a bad hand. > >Second, I惴 sad to say I totally ignore the whole Anarch-concept. It愀 > >just never worth it. Yeah, I扉e seen the TWD-Anarch-decks. And have you been reading my newsletters? :) > >- Filchware's Pawn Shop (Interesting card. A while it made us not > >play equipment-based decks at all.) > > Why!, why does anyone think this card is any good? How often can you rely on > people to have: Equipment? Equipment in their ash heap? Equipment you gain > want to be playing in their ash heap? Do you really want to spend extra pool > to make sure it does anything? More often than you might think, and it IS just a trifle. I put it in the occasional equipment-heavy deck, figuring that I just MIGHT find something I like even more in somebody else's pile. > >- Reins of Power (Complicated for a dumbass like me, but I扉e noticed > >it is very powerful. It ousts people.) Just think of it as a reverse Ancient Influence. > Cards I'd put on the list: > Repo Man > Sunset Strip I think Stolen Police Cruiser is pretty cool. I also think it needs to be more common than it is. > Comment about the vampires: How many Anarch vampires do you see commonly > played in actual games? How about the G3 Caitiff? (Particularly Maldavis) The G3 Gangrel? Then there's Lia, Elizabeth, Scarlet, Joseph Not to mention Sundown and Antonino, who rank among the best starter-only vamps around. I agree that the initial round of Adv vamps were not all that great, and I think the jury's still out on advancement anyway. I suppose it's not surprising that I would say this, but I think there's a lot to like in the Anarch set. Eric Simon Prince of Chicago Writer of the Official V:EKN Anarch Newsletter

Henrik Klippstr?m <as...@hotmail.com> wrote: > The playable non-reprint library cards in the Anarch-set was: [many cards snipped] > - Blow Torch (Simply a non-unique Sengir Dagger. > Well balanced card.) You are mistaken. Sengir Dagger does STRENGTH aggravated damage. Blow Torch does ONE aggravated damage. This is HUUUUUUUUUUGE. Also, Sengir Dagger is a MELEE weapon, which means that, in addition to all the 'weapon'-related effects which affect the dagger, it allows Jaroslav Pascek or Wendell Delburton to beat the crap out of you with it, and it ups Blessing of the Name, Scorpion Touch, Channeling The Beast, Decapitate, Lucky Blow, Mightly Grapple, Pushing The Limit, and Vengeance Of Samiel damage, and it allows you to gain First Strike with Silence Of Death. > - Drum of Xipe Totec (A gift for mr Goratrix. Well, how sweet.) Why anyone would waste a Goratrix action equipping this drum when Infernal Pact exists is beyond me. I mean, you are going to be playing multiple strike-type CEL cards anyway, right? > - Fiendish Tongue (Works good in Tzimisce. > [...] It's better than that. It *wallpapered* Computer Hacking for Sabbat vampires. Kevin M., Prince of Henderson, NV (USA) "Know your enemy, and know yourself; in one-thousand battles you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, *The Art of War* "Contentment... Complacency... Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier

Curevei <cur...@aol.commetal> wrote: >>- Brinksmanship (Made the Slaughterhouse-bingers playable. Or maybe >>not. That concept still needs some work from LSJ, because it messes up >>the table balance - one player not bleeding/voting/rushing at all >>makes his prey a little to powerful poolwise.) > > Problem with this archetype is that: there's not enough testing of > it; there might never be enough testing because it's so unpleasant. I know someone that has made two players cry with this HoS deck, and yet he continues to play it constantly. I love hearing that. >:) What makes you think that the playtesters don't playtest these cards enough? [ quoted text not captured ]

> Why anyone would waste a Goratrix action equipping this drum when Infernal > Pact exists is beyond me. I mean, you are going to be playing multiple > strike-type CEL cards anyway, right? Because you perhaps prefer packing several Magic of the Smith than several Infernal Pact in your deck... JPh.

Kevin M. <you...@imaspammer.org> wrote: : Henrik Klippstr?m <as...@hotmail.com> wrote: : You are mistaken. Sengir Dagger does STRENGTH aggravated damage. Blow : Torch does ONE aggravated damage. This is HUUUUUUUUUUGE. Not Unique. and Blow Torch is infinitely better for many themed decks ;) :> - Drum of Xipe Totec (A gift for mr Goratrix. Well, how sweet.) : Why anyone would waste a Goratrix action equipping this drum when Infernal : Pact exists is beyond me. I mean, you are going to be playing multiple : strike-type CEL cards anyway, right? MotS was already mentioned and Infernal Pact is unique (if you want to give the big G some friends) and dont you just feel slightly embarassed holding onto 6 Blurs and one Infernal Pact when your Prey or Predator is wiggling his Bleeding the Wine at you? It's all about options. :> - Fiendish Tongue (Works good in Tzimisce. :> [...] : It's better than that. It *wallpapered* Computer Hacking for Sabbat : vampires. In a deck with a mixed crypt I'd never use a card with a Sabbat requirement plus, Tzimisce excluded, the only difference is from Anarchs that do blocking. I quite like the card, it doesn't make Computer Hacking any worse a card, but brings new, small possibilities for those Vamps that can use it. Plus I was tired of looking at the CHs already. //T

"Kevin M." <you...@imaspammer.org> wrote in message news:<XzJPb.33737$Xq2.26985@fed1read07>... > Henrik Klippstr?m <as...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > The playable non-reprint library cards in the Anarch-set was: > > [many cards snipped] > > > - Blow Torch (Simply a non-unique Sengir Dagger. > > Well balanced card.) > > You are mistaken. Sengir Dagger does STRENGTH aggravated damage. Blow > Torch does ONE aggravated damage. This is HUUUUUUUUUUGE. Sorry. My mistake, I forgot. You don´t have to be angry. So, Blow Torch is even more balanced than I thought. > Also, Sengir Dagger is a MELEE weapon, which means that, in addition to all > the 'weapon'-related effects which affect the dagger, it allows Jaroslav > Pascek or Wendell Delburton to beat the crap out of you with it, and it ups > Blessing of the Name, Scorpion Touch, Channeling The Beast, Decapitate, > Lucky Blow, Mightly Grapple, Pushing The Limit, and Vengeance Of Samiel > damage, and it allows you to gain First Strike with Silence Of Death. THAT I had not thought of at all actually. Sorry. So, Blow Torch is even more balanced than I thought. > > - Drum of Xipe Totec (A gift for mr Goratrix. Well, how sweet.) > > Why anyone would waste a Goratrix action equipping this drum when Infernal > Pact exists is beyond me. I mean, you are going to be playing multiple > strike-type CEL cards anyway, right? Well, I only owned 2 Pacts back then, so Magic-smithing up a Drum, with its extra manuvear did not sound so bad. It still does not. > > - Fiendish Tongue (Works good in Tzimisce. > > [...] > > It's better than that. It *wallpapered* Computer Hacking for Sabbat > vampires. What? Wallpapered? I don´t get it. Its better than Hacking in ALL sabbat decks, and incredibly much better in a Tzi deck. Isn´t "wallpaper" a bad card?

Henrik Klippstr?m wrote: > "Kevin M." <you...@imaspammer.org> wrote in message news:<XzJPb.33737$Xq2.26985@fed1read07>... >>It's better than that. It *wallpapered* Computer Hacking for Sabbat >>vampires. > > What? Wallpapered? I don´t get it. Its better than Hacking in ALL > sabbat decks, and incredibly much better in a Tzi deck. Isn´t > "wallpaper" a bad card? It wallpapered it in the same way that Scouting Mission wallpapered Computer Hacking in all-dom decks that don't use allies, Graverobbing, Hostile Takeover, etc. The same way that Flash wallpapers Claws of the Dead in decks with celerity and no protean. -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. Links to V:TES news, rules, cards, utilities, and tournament calendar: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/

On Wed, 21 Jan 2004 21:52:41 -0800, Kevin M. wrote: > Why anyone would waste a Goratrix action equipping this drum when Infernal > Pact exists is beyond me. I mean, you are going to be playing multiple > strike-type CEL cards anyway, right? Because MoS exists, and the permenant maneuver cuts waaaaay down on the number of cards, and the combinations of cards, you need to draw into to stomp. Magic the Drum. Terror Frenzy. Thought's Betrayed. Long. Steal two with built-in ability. Lightning Reflexes. Suck 'em dry. Credit to Matt Guinn for whipping up the combo, at least locally.

On Wed, 21 Jan 2004 19:27:02 +0000, Curevei wrote: > Problem with this archetype is that: there's not enough testing of it; there > might never be enough testing because it's so unpleasant. Some are testing it. It sees very little tournament play, sure, but throw it on the heap of decks that don't see tournament play under the current game balance. FWIW, I've won one tournament with Brinksmanship and Cameron Domer's won one as well. -- David Cherryholmes Duke Radiology P.E.T. Facility (919) 684-7714 david.che...@duke.edu

"Kevin M." <you...@imaspammer.org> wrote in message news:<XzJPb.33737$Xq2.26985@fed1read07>... > > - Drum of Xipe Totec (A gift for mr Goratrix. Well, how sweet.) > > Why anyone would waste a Goratrix action equipping this drum when Infernal > Pact exists is beyond me. I mean, you are going to be playing multiple > strike-type CEL cards anyway, right? Many, many, many players did not have access to an Infernal Pact (much less several) before the reprint in Black Hand. It's still much easier to pack a combo of Drums and Magic of the Smiths in quantity than it is to pack the same number of Infernal Pacts, and the MotS's can be used to find other equipment. I'd much rather have 2 Drums and 3 MotS's in a Goratrix/CEL deck than 5 Infernal Pacts. And most players don't have 5 Pacts to begin with. Plus, the Drum provides more than the Pact can; the Pact does not also give a free maneuver each combat (which is huge when you're planning to use Goratrix's theft-for-2 as your main strike. Also, people sometimes play with both - give Goratrix the Drum, and then pass it to someone else once their (often only) copy of the Pact comes up. > Kevin M., Prince of Henderson, NV (USA) -John Flournoy

LSJ expounded: > Henrik Klippstr?m wrote: > > "Kevin M." <you...@imaspammer.org> wrote in message news:<XzJPb.33737$Xq2.26985@fed1read07>... > >>It's better than that. It *wallpapered* Computer Hacking for Sabbat > >>vampires. > > > > What? Wallpapered? I don´t get it. Its better than Hacking in ALL > > sabbat decks, and incredibly much better in a Tzi deck. Isn´t > > "wallpaper" a bad card? > > It wallpapered it in the same way that Scouting Mission wallpapered > Computer Hacking in all-dom decks that don't use allies Exactly the same way but for amuch bigger group. All-sabbat is more common than all-dom (though maybe not in tournaments...). It was an expressive way of saying that Fiendish tongue is strictly better than Computer Hacking in any all-sabbat deck (well assuming that you aren't just bleeding so you can be blocked). > , Graverobbing, Hostile Takeover, etc. > > The same way that Flash wallpapers Claws of the Dead in decks with > celerity and no protean. That's just silly.

>> Problem with this archetype is that: there's not enough testing of >> it; there might never be enough testing because it's so unpleasant. > >I know someone that has made two players cry with this HoS deck, and yet he >continues to play it constantly. I love hearing that. >:) > >What makes you think that the playtesters don't playtest these cards enough? I don't recall mentioning playtesters. As an alternate win condition archetype, I would normally expect every play group to have at least one Brinksmanship deck. That doesn't seem to be the case. So, in trying to determine the cause of the paucity of such decks, I fall back on my own reasons for avoiding testing Brinksmanship decks, which involves not being all that enthralled with spending a lot of time annoying people while trying to tune a deck that may never be any good. Now, if we want to take this in another direction, I'm sure V:TES playtesters don't test the cards enough. Just as I'm sure playtesters of most CCGs don't test the cards enough. Just as I'm sure that designers/product managers/whatever sometimes ignore or undermine playtester efforts. Why am I sure of these things? Because I've done a lot of CCG playtesting, have even done V:TES playtesting. Then, I could just look at the product put out. The only CCG I think *might* have proper playtesting, not that I know because I've never worked with WotC, is Magic.

>> Problem with this archetype is that: there's not enough testing of it; >there >> might never be enough testing because it's so unpleasant. > >Some are testing it. It sees very little tournament play, sure, but throw >it on the heap of decks that don't see tournament play under the current >game balance. > >FWIW, I've won one tournament with Brinksmanship and Cameron Domer's won >one as well. As a different way to win, every play group in existence should have looked at the viability of it in order for proper testing to have been done. While one member of my regular group played around with it for a while, I don't consider that sufficient testing as he never discussed with anyone how to make the deck competitive nor did he take his deck and test under tournament conditions before giving up on it. Similar lacking of proper testing as far as I can tell in the case of a player I mostly only see at tournaments who has played milling in tournament play as I've never heard him discuss how to turn his deck into a winning deck. I'm not entirely sure what is meant by the line above about decks that don't see tournament play. Obviously, lots of decks don't get played in tournaments. I played four constructed tournaments last year which means I played around 4% of the decks I built last year under tournament conditions. But, if a deck is ever to compete with known decks, then I'd think it would have to be tested under tournament conditions at some point. OTOH, a single tournament isn't likely to generate suitable testing either as deck building is apparently one of the least important factors to winning.

On 22 Jan 2004, Curevei wrote: > As a different way to win, every play group in existence should have looked at > the viability of it in order for proper testing to have been done. While one > member of my regular group played around with it for a while, I don't consider > that sufficient testing as he never discussed with anyone how to make the deck > competitive nor did he take his deck and test under tournament conditions > before giving up on it. Similar lacking of proper testing as far as I can tell > in the case of a player I mostly only see at tournaments who has played milling > in tournament play as I've never heard him discuss how to turn his deck into a > winning deck. I can't speak for every play group, and I'm just one guy. But I *did* play the thing extensively. I do that a lot. I got my head kicked in for about a year trying to figure out Assamites, almost exclusively. I played this deck for about the past six months. A few months ago I got it into table winning shape, and then a few more months figuring out how to get it down to less than two hours. Again, that's just my experience, and I get that you are suggesting it should've happened a lot more, but there you go. > I'm not entirely sure what is meant by the line above about decks that don't > see tournament play. Obviously, lots of decks don't get played in tournaments. > I played four constructed tournaments last year which means I played around 4% > of the decks I built last year under tournament conditions. But, if a deck is > ever to compete with known decks, then I'd think it would have to be tested > under tournament conditions at some point. OTOH, a single tournament isn't > likely to generate suitable testing either as deck building is apparently one > of the least important factors to winning. I meant that there are lots of decks people love to play in their weekly games that are even pretty decent, but clearly don't compare to Dominate, weenie, what-have-you, and so don't get taken to tournaments. [ quoted text not captured ]

cur...@aol.commetal (Curevei) wrote in message news:<20040122142154...@mb-m06.aol.com>... > As a different way to win, every play group in existence should have looked at > the viability of it in order for proper testing to have been done. While one > member of my regular group played around with it for a while, I don't consider > that sufficient testing as he never discussed with anyone how to make the deck > competitive nor did he take his deck and test under tournament conditions > before giving up on it. Similar lacking of proper testing as far as I can tell > in the case of a player I mostly only see at tournaments who has played milling > in tournament play as I've never heard him discuss how to turn his deck into a > winning deck. So no one who's played it has ever wanted to talk to you about it? So it's not tested? <sniping the ironic insulting paragraph i just wrote.> If you want to talk about this deck, and how to make it win, it is incumbent upon you to either play it, or encourage others to do so. You have no valid complaint otherwise. And it is a winning deck. Been doing it since Bloodlines came out. Does LSJ have to consult everyone about every card? I assume it was playtested, and from what I know of playtesting (generally) new ideas or paradigms are much more closely scrutinized than (in vampire terms) a new version of BO. > I'm not entirely sure what is meant by the line above about decks that don't > see tournament play. Obviously, lots of decks don't get played in tournaments. *cough*PTO*cough* I really didn't want to have to say that. > I played four constructed tournaments last year which means I played around 4% > of the decks I built last year under tournament conditions. But, if a deck is > ever to compete with known decks, then I'd think it would have to be tested > under tournament conditions at some point. OTOH, a single tournament isn't > likely to generate suitable testing either as deck building is apparently one > of the least important factors to winning. It has been tested under tournement conditions. It has won under tournement conditions. Twice since Brinksmanship came out. Once before then in a sanctioned tournement, and once in an unsanctioned (required to play allies) tournement. (that I am aware of) All four of the decks were different from each other, achieving their goals (setting up ousts, passing Brinksmanship, protecting pool) differently. I've played the deck in 4-5 tournements now, which is a reasonably good record of wins for a new and untested paradigm huh? Cameron PS: evolution of my HoS Milling deck: HoS Milling/Wall (use AUS/FOR to shut down predator, mill to keep prey from ousting more than twice) - played, got to finals, lost in finals. HoS Milling/Wall/Shambling Hordes (same as above, but with less AUS/FOR more zombies as defense) - played once, won Gamefest Milwaukee in '02 HoS Milling/Zombies (same as above, but with even more freaking Zombies) -played once, won an unsanctioned ally tournement Hos Milling/Votes (posted as TWD of Frozen Tundra Milwaukee. "Everything is better with Dominate" Uses Quentin to GtU out Hos, and help pass votes.) So there you have it, how I've been using the paradigm. Care to discuss it?

>I've played the deck in 4-5 tournements now, which is a reasonably >good record of wins for a new and untested paradigm huh? >So there you have it, how I've been using the paradigm. Care to >discuss it? Your experience is part of my point, which suggests to me that you didn't get what I was trying to get at. Let's say I take your word for it that the archetype is a good one. Shouldn't there be a lot more people doing something with it outside of you and Cherryholmes? How many people have learned from your experiences about how to make the strategy better? Maybe it's the nature of niche CCGing that only a tiny fraction of a player base focuses on the optimal development of particular archetypes. I recall basically saying that I thought the Brinksmanship archetype is underexplored (for a particular reason, but, whatever). What you are saying is that isn't the case for you. Are you disputing that's the case in general?

In message <XzJPb.33737$Xq2.26985@fed1read07>, "Kevin M." <you...@imaspammer.org> mumbled something about: >Why anyone would waste a Goratrix action equipping this drum when Infernal >Pact exists is beyond me. I mean, you are going to be playing multiple >strike-type CEL cards anyway, right? Magic of the Smith -- plus, the Drum has a maneuver, so for the rest of the game, with no cards played, you steal 2 at long range and bleed for 2. Not half bad. That way the Infernal Pact can go on Bryan van Duesen. (Note the +1 bleed trend...) -- Derek Deafness never kept composers from hearing the music. It only stopped them hearing the distractions.

On 23 Jan 2004, Curevei wrote: > Your experience is part of my point, which suggests to me that you didn't get > what I was trying to get at. Let's say I take your word for it that the > archetype is a good one. Shouldn't there be a lot more people doing something > with it outside of you and Cherryholmes? How many people have learned from > your experiences about how to make the strategy better? I've discussed the deck, and strategies for Brinksmanship/Slaughterhouse, extensively on pathofblood. Granted, not every Jyhad player reads those forums, but neither do they all read the newsgroup. I can't really answer your question about why more people aren't doing it. Probably because most people want to win, and the game is lopsided like a fiddler crab towards a small handfull of strategies. Not much I can do about that, man. > Maybe it's the nature of niche CCGing that only a tiny fraction of a player > base focuses on the optimal development of particular archetypes. I recall > basically saying that I thought the Brinksmanship archetype is underexplored > (for a particular reason, but, whatever). What you are saying is that isn't > the case for you. Are you disputing that's the case in general? It's underexplored, basically, because it sucks compared to the same tired shit that's been winning since the original set (or thereabouts). "Sucking" doesn't equate to "impossible to win with", though, and there will always be a few people out there willing to give it a shot. [ quoted text not captured ]

> It's better than that. It *wallpapered* Computer Hacking for Sabbat > vampires. Maybe all the Sabbat players can send their computer hacks to me :).

In message <7e624de2.04012...@posting.google.com>, lo...@rsbs.anu.edu.au (markvtes) mumbled something about: >> It's better than that. It *wallpapered* Computer Hacking for Sabbat >> vampires. > >Maybe all the Sabbat players can send their computer hacks to me :). Never... thought... I'd see... this post... [ quoted text not captured ]

"Derek Ray" <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:5l31105av89083m59...@4ax.com... > In message <7e624de2.04012...@posting.google.com>, > lo...@rsbs.anu.edu.au (markvtes) mumbled something about: > > >> It's better than that. It *wallpapered* Computer Hacking for Sabbat > >> vampires. > > > >Maybe all the Sabbat players can send their computer hacks to me :). > > Never... thought... I'd see... this post... > I run out of computer hacks once every 3 months. Everyone could use more computer hacks. Colin Riggs needs axe to hax

Curevei expounded: > Now, if we want to take this in another direction, I'm sure V:TES playtesters > don't test the cards enough. Just as I'm sure playtesters of most CCGs don't > test the cards enough. Just as I'm sure that designers/product > managers/whatever sometimes ignore or undermine playtester efforts. Why am I > sure of these things? Because I've done a lot of CCG playtesting, have even > done V:TES playtesting. Then, I could just look at the product put out. The > only CCG I think *might* have proper playtesting, not that I know because I've > never worked with WotC, is Magic. Aren't they absolutely RIFE with broken cards?

cur...@aol.commetal (Curevei) wrote in message news:<20040122140540...@mb-m06.aol.com>... > Then, I could just look at the product put out. The only CCG I think *might* > have proper playtesting, not that I know because I've never worked with WotC, > is Magic. They do a lousy job of it then, since Magic has frequent bannings and eratta (or at least did when I left the game). Really the only thing they get right is typeos. Magic's playtesting is twofold as well. They attempt to balance the sets for Limited environments as well as Constructed (which is why there's often a whole lot of really crappy cards in a given Magic set- they're balanced for Limited play). -- -Snapcase

cur...@aol.commetal (Curevei) wrote in message news:<20040122140540...@mb-m06.aol.com>... > >> Problem with this archetype is that: there's not enough testing of > >> it; there might never be enough testing because it's so unpleasant. > > > >I know someone that has made two players cry with this HoS deck, and yet he > >continues to play it constantly. I love hearing that. >:) > > > >What makes you think that the playtesters don't playtest these cards enough? > > I don't recall mentioning playtesters. As an alternate win condition > archetype, I would normally expect every play group to have at least one > Brinksmanship deck. That doesn't seem to be the case. So, in trying to > determine the cause of the paucity of such decks, I fall back on my own reasons > for avoiding testing Brinksmanship decks, which involves not being all that > enthralled with spending a lot of time annoying people while trying to tune a > deck that may never be any good. Not every group has someone who is inthralled by Milling. For various reasons. Just like not every group is likely to have someone who loves the crypt machine. Doesn't mean it isn't a decent deck, just no one plays it. I personally had to suck my area dry of Slaughterhouses to make my initial deck, and again to (just barely) get the brinksmanships for it. I still don't have any dia de los muertes. Maybe people just don't want to go through the trouble to play what is in effect intercept/votes. Or maybe they don't want to take the risk to play something that may not win. And will certianly annoy. I, of course don't really (in playing terms) care who I annoy with my deck. > Now, if we want to take this in another direction, I'm sure V:TES playtesters > don't test the cards enough. Just as I'm sure playtesters of most CCGs don't > test the cards enough. Just as I'm sure that designers/product > managers/whatever sometimes ignore or undermine playtester efforts. Why am I > sure of these things? Because I've done a lot of CCG playtesting, have even > done V:TES playtesting. Then, I could just look at the product put out. The > only CCG I think *might* have proper playtesting, not that I know because I've > never worked with WotC, is Magic. Crack = Death. If by properly playtested, you mean that the playtesters know ahead of time what the power rares are? I'll bite, what cards show evidence of hasty playtest and design in this game? How would more playtesting by a small group of people have shown that? Sometimes it takes a community to break a card. Cameron

David Cherryholmes <david.che...@duke.edu> wrote in message news:<Pine.GSO.4.21.04012...@petsparc.duhs.duke.edu>... > I've discussed the deck, and strategies for Brinksmanship/Slaughterhouse, > extensively on pathofblood. I looked and looked, but couldn't find the decklist on the site. (Saw some good discussion in the process, though.) Any chance of you posting it here? Also, and apologies in advance if this is an incredibly stupid question, how important are the 'Houses/Brinks to the strategy of winning? Would a general toolbox deck be less resilient? Why/why not? Thanks from the new kid. Kushiel

"Cameron" <orcao...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:a1e26d99.0401...@posting.google.com... > cur...@aol.commetal (Curevei) wrote in message news:<20040122140540...@mb-m06.aol.com>... > > Now, if we want to take this in another direction, I'm sure V:TES playtesters > > don't test the cards enough. Just as I'm sure playtesters of most CCGs don't > > test the cards enough. Just as I'm sure that designers/product > > managers/whatever sometimes ignore or undermine playtester efforts. Why am I > > sure of these things? Because I've done a lot of CCG playtesting, have even > > done V:TES playtesting. Then, I could just look at the product put out. > > I'll bite, what cards show evidence of hasty playtest and design in > this game? How would more playtesting by a small group of people have > shown that? Sometimes it takes a community to break a card. Liberty Club Intrigue, Mistrust, Trainer, Bear-Baiting, Delivery Truck, Magazine, for starters. In my opinion, longer and better playtesting is more important for making cards *strong enough* rather than not brokenly overpowered. It's relatively easy (not to say that it's automatic, there are indeed a lot of possible card combinations and not every group will see the important ones) to identify and get depowered things that are over-strong. (Though there is then a risk of them getting depowered so much that they end up too weak in reaction.) Cards that start out too weak (or too narrow, a form of weakness that I have particular trouble with) need more playtesting to get them upgraded to a playable level, I think. Obviously production deadlines have an impact on this and it's not possible to playtest indefinitely. But more playtesting is almost always better. It's always seemed kind of strange to me that VTES playtesting isn't open (Shadowfist playtesting was, when I was involved in it), both in the sense of "open to anyone who wants to test" and "open between playtest groups who can communicate with each other". I found that the players being able to bounce ideas off each other was very productive in terms of brainstorming ways to break things and ways to improve things that aren't good enough. It was also helpful that a number of the Shadowfist designers participated in the open discussions. Of course, not everyone's style is the same, which could be why VTES doesn't operate like this. (I also have the sense that White Wolf feels more strongly that if all their players were also playtesters, they wouldn't sell as much product; I have no idea whether that's true or not.) Josh good with standardized tests

>It's always seemed kind of strange to me that VTES >playtesting isn't open (Shadowfist playtesting was, when I was involved >in it), both in the sense of "open to anyone who wants to test" and >"open between playtest groups who can communicate with each other". I >found that the players being able to bounce ideas off each other was >very productive in terms of brainstorming ways to break things and ways >to improve things that aren't good enough. It was also helpful that a >number of the Shadowfist designers participated in the open discussions. >Of course, not everyone's style is the same, which could be why VTES >doesn't operate like this. Exalted's playtesting has been open. Guess what? I have a complaint about how it's handled. I know, I know - shocking. I want playtester comments in my e-mail where I can see them and don't want to have to rummage through hard to read forums to hear what people have to say about something that matters immediately.

"Curevei" <cur...@aol.commetal> wrote > > Exalted's playtesting has been open. How's that game looking, Ian? Cheers, WES

>> Exalted's playtesting has been open. > >How's that game looking, Ian? Entrapment! I only break NDAs by accident ... It's not challenging to be able to look at the Exalted CCG forum, assuming of course I know anything.

"Curevei" <cur...@aol.commetal> wrote > >> Exalted's playtesting has been open. > > > >How's that game looking, Ian? > > Entrapment! I only break NDAs by accident ... Oho! Not so "open" after all it seems, eh? :) Cheers, WES

On 23 Jan 2004, kushiel wrote: > I looked and looked, but couldn't find the decklist on the site. (Saw some > good discussion in the process, though.) Any chance of you posting it here? http://www.thepathofblood.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=5586&highlight=brinksmanship#5586 These notes come from pre-Dia de los Meurtos days. The newer version requires less vote muscle, even though a few Cardinal Benedictions and side votes remain as "Plan B". With less voting required, more card slots can be devoted to Counters and Folderols. In short, the new deck is better, but the strategy remains the same. [ quoted text not captured ]

David Cherryholmes <david.che...@duke.edu> wrote in message news:<Pine.GSO.4.21.040129...@petsparc.duhs.duke.edu>... > On 23 Jan 2004, kushiel wrote: > > > I looked and looked, but couldn't find the decklist on the site. (Saw some > > good discussion in the process, though.) Any chance of you posting it here? > > http://www.thepathofblood.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=5586&highlight=brinksmanship#5586 > > These notes come from pre-Dia de los Meurtos days. The newer version > requires less vote muscle, even though a few Cardinal Benedictions and > side votes remain as "Plan B". With less voting required, more card slots > can be devoted to Counters and Folderols. In short, the new deck is > better, but the strategy remains the same. Fantastic. Thanks, Mr. Cherryholmes. I thought my post had gotten lost in the mix, there. Kushiel

Curevei wrote: > >Second, I惴 sad to say I totally ignore the whole Anarch-concept. It愀 > >just never worth it. Yeah, I扉e seen the TWD-Anarch-decks. > > Besides The Lasombra's point that there are supposedly far more tournaments > than TWDA entries, I *know* bad decks win tournaments. ... half of my entries > are obviously bad. *glares* > Comment about the vampires: How many Anarch vampires do you see commonly > played in actual games? A good number of them, and I include them in my own decks. I've seen most of the Gangrel vamps in play (largely 'cause you get the Gangrel fans who want to try 'em out), along with Juggler, Hanna Redmonds, Maldavis, Jeremy Talbot, Clarissa Steinburgen, Michael Luther, Ardan Lane, Martin Franckel, Tegyrius-A, Velya the Flayer, Scarlet Carson O'Toole, General Perfidio Dios, Smallpox Griet, Cristos Mantigo, Saiz, and Joseph O'Grady. - Ben Peal, Prince of Boston fu...@mindstorm.com