I usually do not play rush (bruise/bleed) decks, but have started
playing them a bit now. One of the scenarios I find myself in every
now and then is that it gets towards the end, when it looks like I am
pretty close to being ousted. When it gets to my turn I have a few
freak drives etc in my hand.
If my predator has a bunch of minions, and I have rushes / freak
drives in my hand but still very low on pool (and have worked out that
I can't oust my prey this turn) my natural instinct is to rush the
hell out of my predators minions so that they can't oust me the next
turn. There has been a bit of player talk about this that this is a
real "jerk move" and not really PTW.
The rule confuses the heck out me, if I think there is a slim chance I
can still win it seems to me that I should be trying to maximize my
VPs, not just rolling over. The argument against this is that I should
just roll over because I only have a slim chance to win.
So what should I be doing in these cases if I want to play by the
tournament rules? Trying my hardest to win in a marginal situation or
rolling over?
[ quoted text not captured ]
No, you should do whatever it takes to win.
Don't worry about what I said on JoL, I was just ribbin' you.
If you can bin enough of your predator's vamps that they can't act
against you, then you might get a round or two of grace, enough to
build back up.
If you are finding it happening more and more though, then perhaps you
need to look at your deck. Maybe some more bloat/pool defence or
forward motion so that you're not just a random wrecking ball, but
have purpose on the table at all times.
-- J
[ quoted text not captured ]
cool, the point of the post was not really about the viability of any
particular rush deck, more on trying to make sure I don't get
penalized by a judge for not "playing to win". the rule can be
interpreted quite differently by different people, just seeing what
the community had to offer.
for what its worth though I think rush decks need to have a serious
ousting mechanism before you take them to a tournament table. its very
difficult to win with a straight multirush deck these days (not a lof
of Enkidu decks on the TWD in the last year or two for example).
> for what its worth though I think rush decks need to have a serious
> ousting mechanism before you take them to a tournament table. its very
> difficult to win with a straight multirush deck these days (not a lof
> of Enkidu decks on the TWD in the last year or two for example).
Enkidu needs Enkil Cog. Makes him so much more viable. And his bleed
of 1 is often going to be taken without a second thought.
-- J
On May 30, 10:32 pm, simcof <sim...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I usually do not play rush (bruise/bleed) decks, but have started
> playing them a bit now. One of the scenarios I find myself in every
> now and then is that it gets towards the end, when it looks like I am
> pretty close to being ousted. When it gets to my turn I have a few
> freak drives etc in my hand.
>
> If my predator has a bunch of minions, and I have rushes / freak
> drives in my hand but still very low on pool (and have worked out that
> I can't oust my prey this turn) my natural instinct is to rush the
> hell out of my predators minions so that they can't oust me the next
> turn. There has been a bit of player talk about this that this is a
> real "jerk move" and not really PTW.
Preventing yourself from being ousted is usually PTW.
[ quoted text not captured ]
I agree, but when other players assume you have no reasonable chance
of ousting your prey they would consider any back rushing to be just
delaying the inevitable.
[ quoted text not captured ]> delaying the inevitable.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
If your best course of action to maximise your chances of killing your
prey is to nearly obliterate your predator, then lock'n'load.
Realistically, a moderately combat-heavy deck in a 3-play situation
should win, precisely by neutering any threatening vampire and
mangling the rest of the minions on the table. So crippling your
predator enough to buy you the time you need to do the same and then
oust your prey is as PTW as it gets. Realistically you're even
setting yourself up to claim the remaining VPs on the table (3+ VPs,
by your prey, pred, your own + VPs gained previously)
> Realistically, a moderately combat-heavy deck in a 3-play situation
> should win
Not true.
You have to be able to deal pool damage as well, mangling a couple
vampires a turn doesn't win a game. Especially if your prey has a bit
of resistance to your fight (S:CE, Prevent or Chump Blockers), and can
deal copious pool damage. If you nuke your predator, and your prey
has some pool napalm available to them, you might have just given your
prey the GW.
-- J
[ quoted text not captured ]
The breakdown goes as follows.
I think this is PDB's theory, but it works fantastically well.
1) Oust first prey asap.
2) Back oust everyoe else.
3) Win with 3vp's
Totally play to win
simcof <sim...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On May 31, 11:54�am, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
<snip - demolishing your predator when you have a slim chance to win>
>> Preventing yourself from being ousted is usually PTW.>
>I agree, but when other players assume you have no reasonable chance
>of ousting your prey they would consider any back rushing to be just
>delaying the inevitable.
In a live tournament, delaying the inevitable is absolutely fine - if
you delay it long enough, you may push it outside the end of the round
and get a time-out .5 VP (and potentially a larger number of TP). Other
structures without the same time-out incentives won't necessarily work
like that, obviously.
An alternative may be to start on this earlier. Assuming you're
currently doing this in Turn X, if you were to start in Turn X-1 you
might get fewer people perceiving a problem, and potentially be in a
stronger position - one bleed you didn't have to deal with, one vote
etc. Obviously, not necessarily possible if you suddenly find yourself
with a new predator but...
In any event, if you see that you have a slim chance to gain VPs or win,
you can play for it. Even if other people think you're in a lost
position, you don't have to agree with them.
It may also be worth pointing out to players that this is a perfectly
rational thing for a combat deck to be doing in the late game, and that
they should plan for it. What players often mean by "You should just
roll over" is "I don't want to have to play well, so you shouldn't
expose the holes in my deck."
--
James Coupe
PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D YOU ARE IN ERROR.
EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 NO-ONE IS SCREAMING.
13D7E668C3695D623D5D THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.
On May 31, 6:13 am, Blooded Sand <sandm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The breakdown goes as follows.
> I think this is PDB's theory, but it works fantastically well.
>
> 1) Oust first prey asap.
> 2) Back oust everyoe else.
> 3) Win with 3vp's
> Totally play to win
Correct. Well, kind of. The plan isn't "backoust everyone else" is is
"kill your first prey, and then be the last guy standing". Which
sometimes requires back ousting. Sometimes not so much.
[ quoted text not captured ]
true, but it seems, for some reason, much easier to win this way, if
you oust prey, then SCEE. Then bleed out
(Smoking Crater Everyone Else)
On May 30, 7:32 pm, simcof <sim...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I usually do not play rush (bruise/bleed) decks, but have started
> playing them a bit now. One of the scenarios I find myself in every
> now and then is that it gets towards the end, when it looks like I am
> pretty close to being ousted. When it gets to my turn I have a few
> freak drives etc in my hand.
>
> If my predator has a bunch of minions, and I have rushes / freak
> drives in my hand but still very low on pool (and have worked out that
> I can't oust my prey this turn) my natural instinct is to rush the
> hell out of my predators minions so that they can't oust me the next
> turn. There has been a bit of player talk about this that this is a
> real "jerk move" and n
Don't listen to them, this is what combat decks often have to do. Next
time do some of this earlier and/or threaten/deal with them so that
they don't act surprised to see it happen.
> The rule confuses the heck out me, if I think there is a slim chance I
> can still win it seems to me that I should be trying to maximize my
> VPs, not just rolling over. The argument against this is that I should
> just roll over because I only have a slim chance to win.
>
> So what should I be doing in these cases if I want to play by the
> tournament rules? Trying my hardest to win in a marginal situation or
> rolling over?
Depending on how bad your position is(subjective), either way may be a
good option. No one has the right to make you quit for just playing
your game. You could say "Thank you for the advice, I will take it
into consideration. *Tap KoKo* Bum's Rush (insert their star
vampire's name here). Blocks?"
Brandon
simcof wrote:
> LSJ wrote:[ quoted text not captured ]
Here, copy+paste this:
"I'm trying to win by removing my predator's ability to oust me,
thereby giving myself time to rebuild and possibly get a VP."
Kevin M., Prince of Las Vegas
"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
Please visit VTESville daily! http://vtesville.myminicity.com/
Please bid on my auctions! http://shop.ebay.com/kjmergen/m.html
[ quoted text not captured ]
Actually, it would be more like...
1) Try to get prey, don't go out like a bad Action Movie all guns
blazing... just rough them up a bit.
2) Survive until the table reaches 3-play (preferably you have 1VP by
now)
3) Smoking Crater the other two players and bleed them out while their
vampires are taking a dirt nap.
[ quoted text not captured ]
Even assuming they're completely right, that you have no reasonable
chance to oust your prey and are just delaying the inevitable, then
under PTW you're free to lose in the manner of your choosing. Going
after the possibly-unreasonable scenario (which IMO isn't unreasonable
at all) that back-rushing will buy you time to rebuild is at least as
valid a decision as rolling over or turtling up.
- D.J.
[ quoted text not captured ]
Yeah, and if your pred has an issue with you SC'ing him, tell him he
should have given you a chance to play without annihilating you up
front. then he would not be annihilated right now
On Jun 1, 3:47 pm, Johannes Walch <johannes.wa...@vekn.de> wrote:
> The Path of the Salmon!
Again, I'm not real convinced that going backwards as a policy is a
good plan.
You sit down at a table with your rush deck. You figure out your prey.
If you can oust them quickly and brutally, you do so. In doing that,
your grand prey probably gets up to speed pretty quick and ousts their
prey. So you end up with a 3 player game pretty quickly (you with 1VP
and 6 pool; your initial grand prey/now prey with 1VP and 6 pool).
After that, you do what you need to be the last guy standing with a
3VP GW.
-Peter
[ quoted text not captured ]
Peter,
In other words, the long debate about the statement:
A combat deck should collapse a table to 3 players ASAP then rape the
remaining to for the Win is an excellent strategy?