The Metagame

So there I was, reading rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad for the first time in months (after getting my long lost net access restored) and all I found was a rules question from a newbie, a posting of a deck which used an obvious strategy and had a poor crypt, which no one had responded to and a long thread about CL vs. NCL which contained every single one of the arguments, on both sides, which everyone always uses during such debates, and which in the history of the universe have changed the minds of about five people, total. Frankly, I have no interest in reading this sort of stuff. In an ideal world, I would be able to use this group as a forum for discussing tournament-level play with other good players, preferable come who aren't in my local playgroup, as I see them every week anyway. Is there anyone else out there interested in this? Please, feel free to respond with anything that fits my general criterion. Argue about the tournament metagame. Post an inventive deck (one that has a shot in competetive play and is in some substantial way new and different). Any thoughts? Anybody? Anybody? Bueller? This post seems to have come off a lot more bitter and angry than I intended. Oh well. I just want to stimulate some good discussion here that could actually improve my enjoyment of the game. Hope at least one of you out there is like-minded enough to post a response. -Steve Wampler-

In article <36DB32...@clarityconnect.com>, Steve Wampler <swam...@clarityconnect.com> wrote: > Is there anyone else out there interested in this? Please, feel free > to respond with anything that fits my general criterion. Argue about > the tournament metagame. Post an inventive deck (one that has a shot in > competetive play and is in some substantial way new and different). Any > thoughts? Anybody? Anybody? Bueller? You're a player like the rest of us. If you got something you want to talk about, actually post it. What you've done is the equivalent of asking a person who's funny to say something funny. You'll get much better results by starting something on your own that other people can play off of. Perhaps what a recent tournament had for decks. Or what your current tournament deck is. The CL debates only spring up when a new CL person shows up and decides to say that tournaments should be played with a CL. Otherwise, no one tries to convert anyone. The current exception being a few people trying to come up with a deck that uses a lot of a single card that would require a CL to keep it from winning much more than any other deck. But that thread's been pretty quiet recently. So in short, if you don't have something funny to say yourself, don't ask everyone else to say something funny to entertain you. :) Mike -- Mike Bohlmann, MAIP - Prince of Urbana-Champaign http://www.shout.net/~mbohlman/ -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own

In article <36DB32...@clarityconnect.com>, Steve Wampler <swam...@clarityconnect.com> wrote: > So there I was, reading rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad for the first > time in months (after getting my long lost net access restored) and all > I found was a rules question from a newbie, a posting of a deck which > used an obvious strategy and had a poor crypt, which no one had > responded to and a long thread about CL vs. NCL which contained every > single one of the arguments, on both sides, which everyone always uses > during such debates, and which in the history of the universe have > changed the minds of about five people, total. > Frankly, I have no interest in reading this sort of stuff. In an ideal > world, I would be able to use this group as a forum for discussing > tournament-level play with other good players, preferable come who > aren't in my local playgroup, as I see them every week anyway. > Is there anyone else out there interested in this? Please, feel free > to respond with anything that fits my general criterion. Argue about > the tournament metagame. Post an inventive deck (one that has a shot in > competetive play and is in some substantial way new and different). Any > thoughts? Anybody? Anybody? Bueller? > This post seems to have come off a lot more bitter and angry than I > intended. Oh well. I just want to stimulate some good discussion here > that could actually improve my enjoyment of the game. Hope at least one > of you out there is like-minded enough to post a response. I don't like to discuss tournament stuff. I want to discuss the game as such and what will come in the future. For me, the next expansion is important, it's important what the DCI will do with different formats, and so on. I want to discuss how new players can be brought into the game. I want to learn about successes of other playgroups. People are needed that play the game at "friendly" level. Tournament level players are rather scarce and don't help the game growing. I want to discuss how we can bring the game to the people. More players I also like to question some rules, rulings and errata. Just because it was always the way it is, doesn't mean there is no better way to do it. If the game (i.e. VTES ) is too static, it will die, no matter what. Carl (VEKN Prince of Vienna) [ quoted text not captured ]

mboh...@shout.net wrote: > The CL debates only spring up when a new CL person shows up and decides > to say that tournaments should be played with a CL. Otherwise, no one > tries to convert anyone. The current exception being a few people > trying to come up with a deck that uses a lot of a single card that > would require a CL to keep it from winning much more than any other > deck. But that thread's been pretty quiet recently. I'm one of the people that is attempting to do it. I'm not doing it to prove that CL should be imposed on tournaments since I am a NL advocate for tournaments for several reasons. I'm just doing it to see if it can be done. Noal -- "Excuse me. Are you a yuppie?" -woman at a gas station in Detroit [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <36DB32...@clarityconnect.com>, Steve Wampler <swam...@clarityconnect.com> wrote: > So there I was, reading rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad for the first > time in months (after getting my long lost net access restored) and all > I found was a rules question from a newbie, a posting of a deck which > used an obvious strategy and had a poor crypt, which no one had > responded to and a long thread about CL vs. NCL which contained every > single one of the arguments, on both sides, which everyone always uses > during such debates, and which in the history of the universe have > changed the minds of about five people, total. > Frankly, I have no interest in reading this sort of stuff. In an ideal > world, I would be able to use this group as a forum for discussing > tournament-level play with other good players, preferable come who > aren't in my local playgroup, as I see them every week anyway. > Is there anyone else out there interested in this? Please, feel free > to respond with anything that fits my general criterion. Argue about > the tournament metagame. Are weenie decks really dead at tournament level? In Portsmouth it seems so, but in LA, Lisbon and Germany they still seem to do ok. How can we test this? What is people's experience? Post an inventive deck (one that has a shot in > competetive play and is in some substantial way new and different). Does Malkavian out-of-turn combat count? It's definitely competitive - QUICK combat. Got two versions now, and they both work well. Both use Madness Network, Bum's Rush and Rotschreck as core strategies; one is Princely protean, the other is princely weapons. Come to think of it though i posted one of those decks - it's available via dejanews. Any > thoughts? Anybody? Anybody? Bueller? > This post seems to have come off a lot more bitter and angry than I > intended. Oh well. I just want to stimulate some good discussion here > that could actually improve my enjoyment of the game. Hope at least one > of you out there is like-minded enough to post a response. > > -Steve Wampler- Hmmm, 'fraid your post gives a rather unfortunate impression, old chap, but i expect that's just the impersonal nature of email. By all means let's talk about what YOU want to discuss - as well as, not instead of, the concerns of the rest of the group. [ quoted text not captured ]

Are the newsletters a step in the right direction? I've posted 2 so far, with almost no response or feedback whatsoever. Steve Wampler wrote: > So there I was, reading rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad for the first > time in months (after getting my long lost net access restored) and all > I found was a rules question from a newbie, a posting of a deck which > used an obvious strategy and had a poor crypt, which no one had > responded to and a long thread about CL vs. NCL which contained every > single one of the arguments, on both sides, which everyone always uses > during such debates, and which in the history of the universe have > changed the minds of about five people, total. > Frankly, I have no interest in reading this sort of stuff. In an ideal > world, I would be able to use this group as a forum for discussing > tournament-level play with other good players, preferable come who > aren't in my local playgroup, as I see them every week anyway. > Is there anyone else out there interested in this? Please, feel free > to respond with anything that fits my general criterion. Argue about > the tournament metagame. Post an inventive deck (one that has a shot in > competetive play and is in some substantial way new and different). Any > thoughts? Anybody? Anybody? Bueller? > This post seems to have come off a lot more bitter and angry than I > intended. Oh well. I just want to stimulate some good discussion here > that could actually improve my enjoyment of the game. Hope at least one > of you out there is like-minded enough to post a response. > > -Steve Wampler -- Ethan Burrow - Prince of Austin et...@ddg.com http://whitestar.ddg.com/vtes/

legb...@my-dejanews.com wrote: > In article <36DB32...@clarityconnect.com>, > Steve Wampler <swam...@clarityconnect.com> wrote: > > Is there anyone else out there interested in this? Please, feel free > > to respond with anything that fits my general criterion. Argue about > > the tournament metagame. > > Are weenie decks really dead at tournament level? In Portsmouth it seems so, > but in LA, Lisbon and Germany they still seem to do ok. How can we test this? > What is people's experience? Weenie decks in tournaments are not dead in Austin. I've played a weenie Dominate deck similar to Goudies last year and won a Houston tournament, and Greg Faulkner plays a weenie Animalism deck which got second place at Praxis Seizure Austin two weeks ago. [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] I played another version of that weenie dominate deck a couple of weeks ago. I got into the final but really worked hard to get there. I had to do a lot of table talk and ruthless manipulation of new players. In fact, I even stooped to being friendly with people and complimenting their decks. I felt so dirty afterward. Anyway, the revised design eliminated the wakes and deflections. Without the entire table ganging-up with omni-directed bleeds, I only had to worry about my predator's bleeds. And, since my minions would lose a blood every time I deflected, I decided I'd prefer to take a few extra bleeds from my predator and keep my minions from hunting. I also lowered the quantity of Govern bleeds and added more free bleeds. While lowering my average bleed just a bit, I kept my minions full and attacking every turn. My three turn bleed totals were higher than what I was getting with the old Govern focus. I think I finished in third. My other weenie deck did the weenie obfuscate and night moves dance. Came in as the first seed and finished second. I ended the weekend as the highest rated player in L.A. On the other hand, the high-cap decks won the tournaments. I'd say there is a real parity in the tournaments right now. It was probably the first time I ever left a tournament without another clear direction in which to adjust decks for greater tournament success. Robert Goudie rrgo...@earthlink.net http://madnessnetwork.hexagon.net

Steve Wampler <swam...@clarityconnect.com> wrote: : Frankly, I have no interest in reading this sort of stuff. In an ideal : world, I would be able to use this group as a forum for discussing : tournament-level play with other good players, preferable come who : aren't in my local playgroup, as I see them every week anyway. Nothing personal, but I'm just getting back into Jyhad, am certainly not a "good player," and am intrigued by deck concepts which are (for most old-timers) old hat. Sorry I don't quite fit your ideal world; I guess you should probably put me in your killfile. :,-( : This post seems to have come off a lot more bitter and angry than I : intended. Oh well. I just want to stimulate some good discussion here : that could actually improve my enjoyment of the game. Hope at least one : of you out there is like-minded enough to post a response. So stimulate it, instead of asking others to get the ball rolling. Post a tourney-viable inventive deck, discuss the national/international metagame -- in other words, do something -proactive-. apathy= --=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=-- "It is the business of the future to be dangerous" Alfred North Whitehead --=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--

I also have not been in this group for a VERY long time. I play every week, have played in every Crusade:LA since it's inception, and won my fair share. My play group plays TOURNAMENT STYLE ONLY during game nights as we feel anything less would be pointless for deck preparation and play technique. Right down to the 2 hour time limit. I find it hard to believe that serious players would play it any other way. However, my decks I play on a given game night very greatly than my tourny decks. I believe tourny decks must be VERY focused and very fast. There's no time for flashy three card combos that send a Vamp to torpor or Burns it then proceeds to bleed for a whole 1 pnt of damage. I still can't believe people who play these elaborate decks and are disappointed when they can't win. I try to keep it very simple, Bleed big, make it unblockable, and blood manage (by gaining 6 per prey hopefully). Of course we all know the many debatable way to do all three. Offense IS the best defense. I love the creative deck Ideas and have many, but save it for the game group they rarely win a tourney. Of course there is always an exception to the rule, that's one of the beauties of the game. It's what I call the "X Factor". Many dedicated players take this for granted. I find good players showing up to a tournament expecting everyone to be playing on the same intense level as them. BIG mistake! At least in our tourny there were several "casual" players and a couple of "newbies" Don't underestimate these players, they will screw up your game!!! I personally sat predator to a guy I just taught the game to earlier that morning. He built a deck and to my surprise showed up to play in a tourny. HE BARLEY KNEW THE GAME! So I licked my chops and prepared to feast, or so I thought. He intercepted everything I did and did nothing to his prey. The other decks at the table were light bleed/combat. I was one turn from ousting my prey when time ran out, the table all got 1/2 VP. It was hell, one guy took 10 min a turn and the rest of the table wanted to show off 3&4 combo fights that took forever cause they were slow with there combat. Anyway, my point being we NEED to be aware that inexperienced players will play in tourneys and won't play well and wont make plays that we think a blind person should see. It's a side of the game that's not discussed very often but there are players that play for fun ONLY on a casual basis and not necessarily to win. Of course we can often steam roller them too, but that advantage might go to the wrong person at the table also. If we want new players we have to play with new players and hope we just make it to the final. The best of the best. Not always there either! It's like the super bowl some are awesome and some are crappers. I live for the AWESOME INTENSE games that make your hands sweat and your neck sore from staring at the cards, the perfect hand of seven, knowing your pray probably has just as good of a hand and all of his minions are untapped! It makes all worth while! ***JediMike*** Steve Wampler wrote: > So there I was, reading rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad for the first > time in months (after getting my long lost net access restored) and all > I found was a rules question from a newbie, a posting of a deck which > used an obvious strategy and had a poor crypt, which no one had > responded to and a long thread about CL vs. NCL which contained every > single one of the arguments, on both sides, which everyone always uses > during such debates, and which in the history of the universe have > changed the minds of about five people, total. > Frankly, I have no interest in reading this sort of stuff. In an ideal > world, I would be able to use this group as a forum for discussing > tournament-level play with other good players, preferable come who > aren't in my local playgroup, as I see them every week anyway. > Is there anyone else out there interested in this? Please, feel free > to respond with anything that fits my general criterion. Argue about > the tournament metagame. Post an inventive deck (one that has a shot in > competetive play and is in some substantial way new and different). Any > thoughts? Anybody? Anybody? Bueller? > This post seems to have come off a lot more bitter and angry than I > intended. Oh well. I just want to stimulate some good discussion here > that could actually improve my enjoyment of the game. Hope at least one > of you out there is like-minded enough to post a response. > > -Steve Wampler-

One of the things Steve wanted to see was innovative-but-competitive deck ideas, so i'm reposting my Malkavian OOT Prince-protean combat deck. This is an updated version, probably fifth edition by now. The basic idea is to use Madness Network actions to rush OOT and strike for agg damage, so that you can whack a rotschreck on to Kibosh SCE and damage prevention decks. Some judgement is required in playing the Rotshrecks since you have to play them simultaneously with the strikes, and you only get one Rotshreck per time round the table. Then you use weenies to diablerise [or you block and diablerise]. It works BRILLIANTLY. At the last Portsmouth tournament there were two decks like this, and mine got 5 and Rob Treasure's got 12 in the heats. Then we contested each other to death in the final. It's doubtful whether Rob will ever speak to me again as a result, but i honestly had no choice - my then version of the deck ABSOLUTELY relied on Greger Anderssen. Apart from reducing its reliance on the toothsome Prince of Stockholm, i also adoapted the deck in view of the fact that William Lee's !Nos "Cailean says the range is LONG" deck beat me up quite badly in two of the heats there [A Lasombra Shadow step deck would do the same thing, of course]; so i decided to put in a bit of LR agg dam. Here roughly is the deck as it currently stands: CRYPT: 3 x Greger Anderssen 2 x Whatsisponsyface, Prince of Monaco 2 x Zebulon Victoria Watenda Dollface Normal Brazil 4 x Madness Network 7 x Rotshreck 2 x Tribute to the Master 4 x Protean 2 x Fame The Rack 12 x Bum's Rush 4 x Progeny 4 x Swallowed by the Night 2 x Rapid Change 9 x Second Tradition: Domain 4 x Precognition 2 x Eagles' Sight 2 x Homunculus Ivory Bow White Phosphorous grenade 13 x Claws of the Dead 3 x Flesh of marble 6 x Form of the Ghost 2 x Body of Sun As you see, a VERY focussed combat deck whose [almost incidental] Plan B is swarm bleed. Rob's deck is similar but not quite so focussed on combat. We more- or-less evolved the concept independently, i believe, though of course one talks about decks during tournaments and passes ideas around. **************************** On a separate topic but in the same thread, and much as it pains me to disagree with my old friend JediMike [from jol64 - Hiya matey!], i really do not think you and steve are thinking clearly about the purpose of tournaments. IMO tournaments are there purely and simply to promote the game. Thus if they are working properly there should always be a healthy proportion of new guys n gals coming along and playing, often playing badly and generally losing of course but ALWAYS being cossetted and aided by the experienced players. This is certainly the philosophy at Portsmouth - we experienced players are RUTHLESS with each other but we give the new people every possible aid short of actually showing them which cards they should play to oust us. [Actually come to think of it on the Isle of Wight i near enough did that - two new people turned up and i lent them two of my decks and showed them how to play the decks.] So as i see it there are TWO tournament metagames - one is the jousting of the experienced players with each other, but the much more important one is the less experienced players BECOMING experienced. Anyway, i don't mean to come over all pompous and sanctimonious - by all means let's talk about both, and remember that we were ALL totally shit at Jyhad once upon a time, until some kind person showed us how to play properly. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <7bjla1$74k$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, <legb...@my-dejanews.com> wrote: Well, you didn't exactly ask for a critique, but that sort of thing seemed to be the intent of the thread, so I thought I'd jump in. Just don't bite off my head -- I'm not as tasty as some of the other posters. ;-) >CRYPT: >3 x Greger Anderssen >2 x Whatsisponsyface, Prince of Monaco >2 x Zebulon >Victoria >Watenda >Dollface >Normal >Brazil > >4 x Madness Network >7 x Rotshreck >2 x Tribute to the Master >4 x Protean >2 x Fame >The Rack Interesting, no hand cycling for a combat deck? Also, do you find the Fame to be effective? I remember the effectiveness of this was debated a while ago, but it seems like you've actually tried it. Some (admitedly cliche) Haven Uncovereds might be nice, as well as some way to deal with things like Secure Haven and the Elysium. I was going to suggest Kine Dominance, but you don't have anyone with DOM. :-/ There's always Arson or Unnatural Disaster I suppose. Either that, or you might include an Elysium, which is also good when you run up against a combat deck (Caillean?) that trumps yours. >12 x Bum's Rush >4 x Progeny With all your weenies, some Amaranth might come in handy. >4 x Swallowed by the Night >2 x Rapid Change > >9 x Second Tradition: Domain >4 x Precognition >2 x Eagles' Sight > >2 x Homunculus I'd think you'd want more of these, just to ensure you get them early. Perhaps 4. >Ivory Bow >White Phosphorous grenade > >13 x Claws of the Dead >3 x Flesh of marble I'd probably include a few more of these, since they will hose competeing potence decks. >6 x Form of the Ghost >2 x Body of Sun While Body of Sun is Funny, Body Flare really is much better. Also, I count 85 cards... considering the card intensity of combat, why not go to 90? -- /\ Jasper Phillips /VVVVVVVVVVVVVV|~"~"~"~"~"~"----------........____ jaz j^^^^^^^^^^^^^\/"~"~"~"~-----------........._____ ~"~--. * http://www.engr.orst.edu/~philljas/ "~"~'--`

In article <7bkfn5$gs1$1...@news.NERO.NET>, phil...@tx.ENGR.ORST.EDU (Jasper Phillips) wrote: > In article <7bjla1$74k$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, > <legb...@my-dejanews.com> wrote: > > Well, you didn't exactly ask for a critique, but that sort of thing > seemed to be the intent of the thread, so I thought I'd jump in. > > Just don't bite off my head -- I'm not as tasty as some of the other > posters. ;-) Awww ..... > > >CRYPT: > >3 x Greger Anderssen > >2 x Whatsisponsyface, Prince of Monaco > >2 x Zebulon > >Victoria > >Watenda > >Dollface > >Normal > >Brazil > > > >4 x Madness Network > >7 x Rotshreck > >2 x Tribute to the Master > >4 x Protean > >2 x Fame > >The Rack > > Interesting, no hand cycling for a combat deck? Unusually for a combat deck, this one doesn't need a whole lot of cycling. Usually, an intercept, agg dam and Rotshreck is enough for a guaranteed kill. However, i'm not saying you aren't right to suggest that as a possible area for improvement. The Tributes don't altogether pull their weight in this deck, so i might experiment with a Fragment, Dreams and Barrens in place of those. Also, do you find > the Fame to be effective? I remember the effectiveness of this was > debated a while ago, but it seems like you've actually tried it. VERY effective. It won me the game i swept at the tournament - having emasculated my prey i put it on my grandpredator to take out his top vamp and thus stop him from ousting his weakened prey whilst doing him for 3 pool. > > Some (admitedly cliche) Haven Uncovereds might be nice, as well > as some way to deal with things like Secure Haven and the Elysium. You're absolutely right! The cammie voters are meant to get rid of Elysium, and the cards i forgot to put in include 2 arsons against the haven and, to a lesser extent, Elysium. > I was going to suggest Kine Dominance, but you don't have anyone > with DOM. :-/ There's always Arson or Unnatural Disaster I suppose. > Either that, or you might include an Elysium, which is also good > when you run up against a combat deck (Caillean?) that trumps yours. > > >12 x Bum's Rush > >4 x Progeny > > With all your weenies, some Amaranth might come in handy. An original version of this deck had those, but in the end i ditched them for 2 Rituals of the bitter rose - exactly the same reasoning as yours, of course. > > >4 x Swallowed by the Night > >2 x Rapid Change > > > >9 x Second Tradition: Domain > >4 x Precognition > >2 x Eagles' Sight > > > >2 x Homunculus > > I'd think you'd want more of these, just to ensure you get them early. > Perhaps 4. You'd be surprised how quickly they come up! But i take the point that this is a GOOD card in this deck, a potential game-winner. > > >Ivory Bow > >White Phosphorous grenade > > > >13 x Claws of the Dead > >3 x Flesh of marble > > I'd probably include a few more of these, since they will hose > competeing potence decks. Curiously enough, this was a card i was thinking of ditching! It is VERY nice when you get the Precognition/FoM combo to work, but actually Rotshreck acts as damage prevention all by its little self, and the manouevers take you away if you are in trouble combat-wise. But, currently they are still in. > > >6 x Form of the Ghost > >2 x Body of Sun > > While Body of Sun is Funny, Body Flare really is much better. True, but only works as ranged damage at PRO. This deck can't wait for the extra skill card. > > Also, I count 85 cards... considering the card intensity of combat, > why not go to 90? Good point, and a mistake by me. There are actually 2 arsons and 2 Rituals of the Bitter Rose in there. I can't remember what the 5th card is - quoting this deck from memory, y'see! > > -- > /\ Jasper Phillips > /VVVVVVVVVVVVVV|~"~"~"~"~"~"----------........____ jaz > j^^^^^^^^^^^^^\/"~"~"~"~-----------........._____ ~"~--. > * http://www.engr.orst.edu/~philljas/ "~"~'--` > Thanks for the comments! You can keep your head .. for now .. heheheh ..... [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <7blnlp$1qp$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, legb...@my-dejanews.com wrote: > In article <7bkfn5$gs1$1...@news.NERO.NET>, > phil...@tx.ENGR.ORST.EDU (Jasper Phillips) wrote: > > In article <7bjla1$74k$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, > > <legb...@my-dejanews.com> wrote: > > >13 x Claws of the Dead > > >3 x Flesh of marble > > > > I'd probably include a few more of these, since they will hose > > competeing potence decks. > > Curiously enough, this was a card i was thinking of ditching! It is VERY nice > when you get the Precognition/FoM combo to work, but actually Rotshreck acts > as damage prevention all by its little self, and the manouevers take you away > if you are in trouble combat-wise. But, currently they are still in. Just to nitpick... If you mean what I think you do by the 'Precognition/ FoM' combo, that combo doesn't actually work. Flesh of Marble reduces all *unprevented* damage to 1 each round. In effect, its ability happens after you're done using damage prevention effects. It's still good against Potence combat though. But as you say, with enough Rotschrecks, you may be able to avoid worries there in the first place. Josh hmmm... maybe if my tremere impersonated mad malkavians they'd do better with the burst of sunlight/rotschreck action... [ quoted text not captured ]

CPilh...@bhak12.ac.at ( Carl (VEKN Prince of Vienna) ) wrote: > I don't like to discuss tournament stuff. I want to discuss the game > as such What do you mean by this? Do you see some large difference between tournaments and a friendly game between good players? I don't; the decks, the level of play and the metagame are pretty much indistinguishable... > and what will come in the future. For me, the next expansion is > important, it's important what the DCI will do with different > formats, and so on. Well, the next expansion is pretty hard to talk about, considering that it doesn't exist as such yet. > I want to discuss how new players can be brought into the game. Hmm, sounds more like a goal for WotC than for us players. > I want to learn about successes of other playgroups. People are > needed that play the game at "friendly" level. They are? I don't have a problem with anyone using their Jyhad cards in whatever manner makes them happy, but my point in the first place was that these "just for fun" games are rarely interesting outside of the group that participated in them and thus are a less-than-perfect topic for an on-line newsgroup. > Tournament level players are rather scarce Which is why we use the internet to bring them together. > and don't help the game growing. I want to discuss how we can bring > the game to the people. More players I also like to question some > rules, rulings and errata. Just because it was always the way it is, > doesn't mean there is no better way to do it. What specific changes would you propose? > If the game (i.e. VTES) is too static, it will die, no matter what. Disagree here... how many years did it go with just one set of cards and practically no support?

In article <7bm7ci$equ$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, jt...@cornell.edu (Joshua Duffin) wrote: > In article <7blnlp$1qp$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, > legb...@my-dejanews.com wrote: > > In article <7bkfn5$gs1$1...@news.NERO.NET>, > > phil...@tx.ENGR.ORST.EDU (Jasper Phillips) wrote: > > > In article <7bjla1$74k$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, > > > <legb...@my-dejanews.com> wrote: > > > > >13 x Claws of the Dead > > > >3 x Flesh of marble > > > > > > I'd probably include a few more of these, since they will hose > > > competeing potence decks. > > > > Curiously enough, this was a card i was thinking of ditching! It is VERY nice > > when you get the Precognition/FoM combo to work, but actually Rotshreck acts > > as damage prevention all by its little self, and the manouevers take you away > > if you are in trouble combat-wise. But, currently they are still in. > > Just to nitpick... If you mean what I think you do by the 'Precognition/ > FoM' combo, that combo doesn't actually work. Flesh of Marble reduces > all *unprevented* damage to 1 each round. In effect, its ability happens > after you're done using damage prevention effects. Oops, is that right? Thanks! I've been reading the cards wrong, as usual. Sigh. > > It's still good against Potence combat though. But as you say, with > enough Rotschrecks, you may be able to avoid worries there in the first > place. > > Josh > > hmmm... maybe if my tremere impersonated mad malkavians they'd do better > with the burst of sunlight/rotschreck action... > Cor, that's a nice one ... rapidly leafs through Malkavians to find the ones with tha ... hmmm ..... Lucian, Mariel .... add the Tremere princes and Justicar plus Lisabetta Romano ..... Lucian x 3 Mariel x 3 Ugly Bugger Justicar of the Tremere Princes of Boston, Athens x 2, Barcelona Lisabetta Romano 2nd Trads 5th Trads Talaq Minion Taps Giant's Blood Political Stranglehold Rotshrecks More intercepts Madness Networks Bum's Rushes Burst of Sunlight Tastes of Death Ferocious votes .... Rutor's Hand Ambush Archon ToR3 GtU Leather/Flak jackets Looks to me like a working concept, no dah! Having no need for manoeuvers certainly saves space ..... on the other hand it would be vulnerable to IG combat decks, which my version is not, and it doesn't have the homunculus untaps. Lisabetta Romano is BRILLIANT for this kind of deck, isn't she? 6 for a vote and tha, qui, pro ... and Patrizia Giovanni would be another except that she has no easy way to get intercept. [ quoted text not captured ]

legb...@my-dejanews.com wrote: > Are weenie decks really dead at tournament level? In Portsmouth it > seems so, but in LA, Lisbon and Germany they still seem to do ok. > How can we test this? What is people's experience? Its all about the metagame... It started when someone brought a weenie deck to the table and killed everyone. They all built decks to kill that deck, and the next time it lost horribly. The guy made another deck to kill those decks and won again. So everyone went back to the decks they had before. So the guy brought back the weenies. No strategy ever dies in Jyhad, it just hits a low in the cycle. > Does Malkavian out-of-turn combat count? It's definitely competitive > - QUICK combat. Does it actually win games? I've found combat to be somewhat dubious in tournaments because people tend to concede the fact that you can kill them in combat, so they focus their efforts on other ways to kill you so they're the ones who end up actually getting VPs. "Tricky" combat, like Rotschreck Network or my weenie-celerity-zip-gun deck tend to exacerbate the problem by being more card intensize. Haven't actually used the strategy you're discussing, though, which is why I ask. > Got two versions now, and they both work well. Both > use Madness Network, Bum's Rush and Rotschreck as core strategies; > one is Princely protean, the other is princely weapons. Come to > think of it though i posted one of those decks - it's available via > dejanews. Why princes? What do you actually gain from it? > Hmmm, 'fraid your post gives a rather unfortunate impression, old > chap, but i expect that's just the impersonal nature of email. By > all means let's talk about what YOU want to discuss - as well as, > not instead of, the concerns of the rest of the group. Guess all I can do is apologize and try to do a better job in the future of getting my friendly, easy-going nature in writing...

JediMike wrote: > My play > group plays TOURNAMENT STYLE ONLY during game nights as we feel anything less would > be pointless for deck preparation and play technique. Right down to the 2 hour time > limit. Mike plays in my group. In a lot of ways we have the experience of having played in hundreds of tournaments. [clip] > I > believe tourny decks must be VERY focused and very fast. There's no time for flashy > three card combos that send a Vamp to torpor or Burns it then proceeds to bleed for > a whole 1 pnt of damage. I still can't believe people who play these elaborate > decks and are disappointed when they can't win. I don't know it that's the best example of the problem, but yes, slow decks are not a good idea in tournaments. I started counting the number of turns I got in a two-hour game. On average it was only 10 turns. If you spend your first five turns "building", you can imagine how difficult it would be to get enough VPs in those final 5 turns to be able to advance to the finals. [clip] > > It's what I call the "X Factor". Many dedicated players take this for granted. I > find good players showing up to a tournament expecting everyone to be playing on > the same intense level as them. BIG mistake! At least in our tourny there were > several "casual" players and a couple of "newbies" Don't underestimate these > players, they will screw up your game!!! I personally sat predator to a guy I just > taught the game to earlier that morning. He built a deck and to my surprise showed > up to play in a tourny. HE BARLEY KNEW THE GAME! So I licked my chops and prepared > to feast, or so I thought. He intercepted everything I did and did nothing to his > prey. The other decks at the table were light bleed/combat. I was one turn from > ousting my prey when time ran out, the table all got 1/2 VP. It was hell, one guy > took 10 min a turn and the rest of the table wanted to show off 3&4 combo fights > that took forever cause they were slow with their combat. I should note that I had this same new player as my prey and swept the table. I wrote an article on tournament play (http://www.io.com/~mlangsdo/RPGs/Jyhad/Strategy/tournament1.html) that addressed this problem. I recommended eliminating slow players as quickly as possible. -- [ quoted text not captured ]

apathy wrote: > Nothing personal, but I'm just getting back into Jyhad, am certainly > not a "good player," and am intrigued by deck concepts which are > (for most old-timers) old hat. Sorry I don't quite fit your ideal > world; I guess you should probably put me in your killfile. :,-( Wow, I guess I really came off much meaner than I ever intended. Look, I really don't have anything against people who want to talk about things that I don't, and I would never suggest that they don't have every right to talk or that this is not the appropriate forum, I would just like to have some other discussion in addition. > So stimulate it, instead of asking others to get the ball rolling. > Post a tourney-viable inventive deck, discuss the national/ > international metagame -- in other words, do something -proactive-. I thought I was... maybe people just can't respond well to open-ended posts. Then maybe I'll try a more specific post... which will probably be too focused to be of interest to anyone else and they'll all ignore it. Oh, well. Maybe I'll go argue against CL some more...

Robert Goudie <rrgo...@earthlink.net> wrote: > JediMike wrote: > > > My play > > group plays TOURNAMENT STYLE ONLY during game nights as we feel anything less would > > be pointless for deck preparation and play technique. Right down to the 2 hour time > > limit. > > Mike plays in my group. In a lot of ways we have the experience of > having played in hundreds of tournaments. > > [clip] > > I > > believe tourny decks must be VERY focused and very fast. There's no time for flashy > > three card combos that send a Vamp to torpor or Burns it then proceeds to bleed for > > a whole 1 pnt of damage. I still can't believe people who play these elaborate > > decks and are disappointed when they can't win. > > I don't know it that's the best example of the problem, but yes, slow > decks are not a good idea in tournaments. I started counting the number > of turns I got in a two-hour game. On average it was only 10 turns. If > you spend your first five turns "building", you can imagine how > difficult it would be to get enough VPs in those final 5 turns to be > able to advance to the finals. Point of interest: two hours is *not* the official time limit - it is merely the *minimum* allowable time limit. Tournament coordinators are free to choose any time limit they like, so long as it is at least two hours (and they announce it prior to the start of the tournament). -- L. Scott Johnson (vte...@wizards.com) VTES Net.Rep for Wizards of the Coast. Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and DCI (tournament) rules: http://www.wizards.com/VTES/VTES_Rules.html [ quoted text not captured ]

LSJ wrote: > > Robert Goudie <rrgo...@earthlink.net> wrote: > > JediMike wrote: [clip] > > Point of interest: two hours is *not* the official time limit - it is > merely the *minimum* allowable time limit. Tournament coordinators are > free to choose any time limit they like, so long as it is at least > two hours (and they announce it prior to the start of the tournament). Good point. We've always been forced to play with the minimum 2 hrs. because of outside time constraints but it is certainly possible to have longer games. I suspect some of us L.A. players would suffer in a longer tournament (if we didn't make any adjustments). A deck that has a fast-paced defense and that slowly builds to become an offensive threat would outlast our initial onslaught and might eventually oust us. Does anyone out there ever play with rounds that are longer than 2 hours in their tournaments? -Robert [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <7blnlp$1qp$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, <legb...@my-dejanews.com> wrote: >In article <7bkfn5$gs1$1...@news.NERO.NET>, > phil...@tx.ENGR.ORST.EDU (Jasper Phillips) wrote: > >Also, do you find >> the Fame to be effective? I remember the effectiveness of this was >> debated a while ago, but it seems like you've actually tried it. > >VERY effective. It won me the game i swept at the tournament - having >emasculated my prey i put it on my grandpredator to take out his top vamp and >thus stop him from ousting his weakened prey whilst doing him for 3 pool. Interesting. I might try a few out, although Master space is always really tight in my rush decks. >> >2 x Homunculus >> >> I'd think you'd want more of these, just to ensure you get them early. >> Perhaps 4. > >You'd be surprised how quickly they come up! But i take the point that this >is a GOOD card in this deck, a potential game-winner. Yup, also a good card in a round about way with RotBR. I'd add more simply because it's entirely too possible that you won't see one until your deck is most exhausted, and it's an especially evil card early -- before people's vampires get a chance to take actions. >> >3 x Flesh of marble >> >> I'd probably include a few more of these, since they will hose >> competeing potence decks. > >Curiously enough, this was a card i was thinking of ditching! It is VERY nice >when you get the Precognition/FoM combo to work, but actually Rotshreck acts >as damage prevention all by its little self, and the manouevers take you away >if you are in trouble combat-wise. But, currently they are still in. Actually that's a good point, I'm not quite sure how that slipped my mind. :-( Still, it is easily cyclable, and you don't have all _that_ many rotshreks... still, probably not worth it. >> >6 x Form of the Ghost >> >2 x Body of Sun >> >> While Body of Sun is Funny, Body Flare really is much better. > >True, but only works as ranged damage at PRO. This deck can't wait for the >extra skill card. Ack! I thought it was 1R aggravated w/ PRO. My mistake. >> Also, I count 85 cards... considering the card intensity of combat, >> why not go to 90? > >Good point, and a mistake by me. There are actually 2 arsons and 2 Rituals of >the Bitter Rose in there. I can't remember what the 5th card is - quoting this >deck from memory, y'see! I've gotten to the point where I make the deck listing first, and then build the deck (with an occasional reference to see if I have important cards). I find it much easier to think about what a deck should do when it's written down, and I can easily see it all at once. Saves lots of time swapping cards in and out too. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <36DEBD...@clarityconnect.com>, Steve Wampler <swam...@clarityconnect.com> wrote: >legb...@my-dejanews.com wrote: > >> Does Malkavian out-of-turn combat count? It's definitely competitive > - QUICK combat. > >Does it actually win games? I've found combat to be somewhat dubious in >tournaments because people tend to concede the fact that you can kill >them in combat, so they focus their efforts on other ways to kill you so >they're the ones who end up actually getting VPs. "Tricky" combat, like >Rotschreck Network or my weenie-celerity-zip-gun deck tend to exacerbate >the problem by being more card intensize. Haven't actually used the >strategy you're discussing, though, which is why I ask. Actually the Malk OOT rush isn't terribly card intensive, especially for a combat deck. Also, IMHO it's not quite so easy to ignore a rush deck, and "focus" ones efforts on killing. When a rush deck gets going, at least your prey doesn't have any vampires left, and isn't getting much of anything done. >> Got two versions now, and they both work well. Both >> use Madness Network, Bum's Rush and Rotschreck as core strategies; >> one is Princely protean, the other is princely weapons. Come to >> think of it though i posted one of those decks - it's available via>dejanews. > >Why princes? What do you actually gain from it? It's not my deck, but I'm guessing because Humunculus is blood intensive, you get easy access to 2nd Tradition, and 1 of the 2 Malks w/ Protean is a prince. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <36DE96...@clarityconnect.com>, Steve Wampler <swam...@clarityconnect.com> wrote: > CPilh...@bhak12.ac.at ( Carl (VEKN Prince of Vienna) ) wrote: > > > I don't like to discuss tournament stuff. I want to discuss the game > as such > > What do you mean by this? Do you see some large difference between > tournaments and a friendly game between good players? I don't; the > decks, the level of play and the metagame are pretty much > indistinguishable... No, in friendly games you often go for a funny action, in tournaments you don't, you try to make any action bringing you to a VP. > > > and what will come in the future. For me, the next expansion is > > important, it's important what the DCI will do with different > > formats, and so on. > > Well, the next expansion is pretty hard to talk about, considering that > it doesn't exist as such yet. Yes, it is. but thinking and musing about it now might come to the attention of the powers that be. Perhaps they listen to what we players like. :) > > > I want to discuss how new players can be brought into the game. > > Hmm, sounds more like a goal for WotC than for us players. Yeah, and see what happened in the past. If you don't try to bring new players in the game, the groups cease to exist (ok, not everyone of them), cause old players often have to move on, or have less time as they change jobs, or their hobbies change. I can tell for sure, in my playgroup that has happened. > > > I want to learn about successes of other playgroups. People are > > needed that play the game at "friendly" level. > > They are? I don't have a problem with anyone using their Jyhad cards in > whatever manner makes them happy, but my point in the first place was > that these "just for fun" games are rarely interesting outside of the > group that participated in them and thus are a less-than-perfect topic > for an on-line newsgroup. In my experience, newbies tend to be attracted by games played at a relaxed level, they like to play with players who are not the ultimate winners. When they see tournament players, they can't catch on, cause they are playing to fast, and are bored by newbies. :( > > > Tournament level players are rather scarce > > Which is why we use the internet to bring them together. Ok, this is how it should be, but only discussing at tournament level, and neglecting the environment of the game and it's players is a bad trend. > > and don't help the game growing. I want to discuss how we can bring > the game to the people. More players I also like to question some > > rules, rulings and errata. Just because it was always the way it is, > doesn't mean there is no better way to do it. > > What specific changes would you propose? Hehe, you asked... Give First Strike the power to kill the dodgers!!!! :) You wanted to know. > > If the game (i.e. VTES) is too static, it will die, no matter what. > > Disagree here... how many years did it go with just one set of cards and > practically no support? In the Jyhad days, for the first eight months or so it grew. Then it became static. It got a little push with VTES, which sadly was compensated by a loss of players due to "switchback" (i.e. switching the backs) :) Now it stagnates again. If we players do nothing against it (by demo-ing, handing out selfmade folders, printing rule-book translations, etc.), who will? Carl (VEKN Prince of Vienna) -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <7bn6v5$b1l$1...@news.NERO.NET>, phil...@tx.ENGR.ORST.EDU (Jasper Phillips) wrote: > In article <36DEBD...@clarityconnect.com>, > Steve Wampler <swam...@clarityconnect.com> wrote: > >legb...@my-dejanews.com wrote: > > > >> Does Malkavian out-of-turn combat count? It's definitely competitive > - QUICK combat. > > > >Does it actually win games? O yes! It's a STARTLINGLY effective combat concept, virtually immune to most of the standard defences. Moreover it wins at tournament level, which is why i put it in this thread. Had it not been for contesting i think one such deck would have won the latest Portsmouth tournament - there were two of them in the heats, and they came into the final with 17VP between them! I think the most unusual thing about it is that this deck CAN win big games when it is the ONLY combat deck on the table. I've found combat to be somewhat dubious in > >tournaments because people tend to concede the fact that you can kill > >them in combat, so they focus their efforts on other ways to kill you so > >they're the ones who end up actually getting VPs. "Tricky" combat, like > >Rotschreck Network or my weenie-celerity-zip-gun deck tend to exacerbate > >the problem by being more card intensize. Haven't actually used the > >strategy you're discussing, though, which is why I ask. > > Actually the Malk OOT rush isn't terribly card intensive, especially > for a combat deck. Exactly. Also, IMHO it's not quite so easy to ignore > a rush deck, and "focus" ones efforts on killing. When a rush deck > gets going, at least your prey doesn't have any vampires left, and > isn't getting much of anything done. Yep, although i think in fairness to steve we can concede that playing a combat deck at tournament level is difficult - not just technically but also strategically. The trick is to hurt the table so that its balance swings in your favour, and not towards someone else. This can be done, but it requires REAL finesse in knowing when to launch the cross-table stuff [and i personally am CERTAINLY not claiming i always get this right!]. > > >> Got two versions now, and they both work well. Both > >> use Madness Network, Bum's Rush and Rotschreck as core strategies; > >> one is Princely protean, the other is princely weapons. Come to > >> think of it though i posted one of those decks - it's available via>dejanews. > > > >Why princes? What do you actually gain from it? > > It's not my deck, but I'm guessing because Humunculus is blood intensive, > you get easy access to 2nd Tradition, and 1 of the 2 Malks w/ > Protean is a prince. > Absolutely right. Also, the votes help when you diablerise someone. [ quoted text not captured ]

> Does anyone out there ever play with rounds that are longer than 2 hours > in their tournaments? > > -Robert Depending on when we get started, MJL tournament rounds generally last until the last person is ousted or concedes the VP. The last tournament I ran was at Wintercon. We got started at 6pm and were wrapped up by 11:30 if I recall correctly. The one that Bernie ran at BashCon in Toledo, on the other hand was, just about halfway through its third round when the con called it a night. *shrug* However, we don't have a "final" round like DCI tournaments. We just play three rounds of randomly seated players and tally up the VP points. Noal McDonald Michigan Jyhad League -- "Excuse me. Are you a yuppie?" -woman at a gas station in Detroit -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <7bolue$j0m$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, Dhar...@yahoo.com wrote: > However, we don't have a "final" round like > DCI tournaments. We just play three rounds of randomly seated players > and tally up the VP points. Well that's no fun. That final round is where everyone gets a chance to see what the best decks at the tournament were. Do you announce a running tally of who's leading going into each round? Or is it pretty much a surprise to find out you won rather than just a high ranking? I would think this would make it too easy for a group of people to collude together to put one of their own at the top. With a final round, the appointed one still has to defeat the other good decks from the tournament. Mike -- Mike Bohlmann, MAIP - Prince of Urbana-Champaign http://www.shout.net/~mbohlman/ -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- [ quoted text not captured ]

mboh...@shout.net wrote: > > However, we don't have a "final" round like > > DCI tournaments. We just play three rounds of randomly seated players > > and tally up the VP points. > > Well that's no fun. That final round is where everyone gets a chance > to see what the best decks at the tournament were. Do you announce > a running tally of who's leading going into each round? Yes...we do keep a running tally. Keep in mind that our tournaments are pretty much like friendly games. "Everybody fights. Nobody quits." Our feeling is that it's more fun to play the game then to sit and watch. Even the moderator usually gets to play. After all, at most MJL tournaments at least 3 of the MJL rules team members are present...so it's not like an issue of bias will come up. > I would think this would make it too easy for a group of people to > collude together to put one of their own at the top. Since the MJL is a rather tight-knit group, there isn't a "one of their own" mentality. I can honestly say that there never has been nor will there ever be a "king maker" issue at a MJL tournament. Of course, since you'vbe never been to a MJL tournament, you wouldn't know that the difference between the environment at a DCI tournament and a MJL tournament is vastly different. *grin* Okay...that was an obvious ploy to get you to attend one, Mike. Noal McDonald Michigan Jyhad League -- "Excuse me. Are you a yuppie?" -woman at a gas station in Detroit -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- [ quoted text not captured ]

Steve Wampler <swam...@clarityconnect.com> wrote: : Wow, I guess I really came off much meaner than I ever intended. Look, : I really don't have anything against people who want to talk about : things that I don't, and I would never suggest that they don't have : every right to talk or that this is not the appropriate forum, I would : just like to have some other discussion in addition. Glad to hear it. I was just responding to what I saw. ;-) [ quoted text not captured ]

Robert Goudie wrote: > We've always been forced to play with the minimum 2 hrs. because of > outside time constraints but it is certainly possible to have > longer games. I suspect some of us L.A. players would suffer in a > longer tournament (if we didn't make any adjustments). A deck that > has a fast-paced defense and that slowly builds to become an > offensive threat would outlast our initial onslaught and might > eventually oust us. > > Does anyone out there ever play with rounds that are longer than 2 > hours in their tournaments? Hmmm... I've never actually found the time limit to have much impact on deck design. Our non-tourney games are without a time limit, but only a couple have ever lasted as long as two hours, and at least one of those had my life boon deck keeping everyone alive. Maybe this is just because we all happen to play very fast decks, but I have a hard time imagining anything slower than an IC blood machine type being playable in a tournament setting anyway. If you have a deck that didn't get started until turn 4, you wouldn't bring it to a tourney, not because it would suck under a time limit, but because it would get killed on turn 5 no matter what the time limit was. Or maybe we just all play real fast... -Steve

legb...@my-dejanews.com wrote: > Yep, although i think in fairness to steve we can concede that > playing a combat deck at tournament level is difficult - not just > technically but also strategically. The trick is to hurt the table > so that its balance swings in your favour, and not towards someone > else. This can be done, but it requires > REAL finesse in knowing when to launch the cross-table stuff [and i > personally am CERTAINLY not claiming i always get this right!]. Yeah, this is the problem I was referring to, just had to drastically over-simplify for the purpose of brevity in my initial post. I'm under no such constraint here, though... Combat decks are usually great fun to play, and have the greatest potential for really off-beat strategies that are as or more effective than the standard ones. It isn't even that difficult to make a comabt deck that routinely destoys a minion with each of its vampires every turn, even against the best decks of other types. The problem at tournament level is, as you pointed out, one of winning the war after you have won all the battles. The central issue is the fact that most combat decks rely on a good offense as their defense. The solution to a dangerous predator is to deprive him of the vampires he planned to use to kill you. This, however, makes him unable to defend himself from his own predator. Why do you care? Because in a tournament setting or competetive play, every victory point counts, and giving an opponent a free VP is a losing strategy. But simply attacking the grandpredator simply moves the problem one step further upstream and exarcebating it by potentially giving away 2 VPs. The solution is, as you said, to attack all over the table, making sure that no one can oust anyone else until you can oust your prey with one point bleeds (because combat decks can't afford to include bleed modifiers... as a friend of mine once found out, a handful of GtUs is really weak if you're trying to torporize someone). This is difficult enough on its own, and if there's another combat deck, or one or more of your opponents has effective combat defense, well, it would make you despair of winning a tournament with a combat deck. But, of course, with no comabt decks in tournies, everyone takes out their comabt defense, and the next combat deck to show up kills every vampire in sight. The Metagame wins again.

CPilh...@bhak12.ac.at ( Carl (VEKN Prince of Vienna) ) wrote: > No, in friendly games you often go for a funny action, in > tournaments you don't, you try to make any action bringing you to a > VP. Only rarely do I play a deck that isn't designed to get VP, even in "friendl" play. I realize that other people make things along the lines of my "tactical nuclear deer rifle" deck more frequently, but for me, the competition of the high-level Metagame is even more fun than "just fun" decks. I play Jyhad in the first place for the intellectual competition. Do you make "funny" moves in chess when playing "fiendly" games? <snip> > Ok, this is how it should be, but only discussing at tournament > level, and neglecting the environment of the game and it's players > is a bad trend. I agree. I don't want to discourage any type of discourse on this group, only encourage a certain type which I found to be somewhat lacking. <snip> > Give First Strike the power to kill the dodgers!!!! > :) > > You wanted to know. <snip> I can see your point at a theoretical level, but how often does it affect play? First Strike is pretty rare, and dodges only a little less so. I've personally never seen them meet up. - Steve

On Sat, 06 Mar 1999 12:52:44 -0400, Steve Wampler <swam...@clarityconnect.com> wrote: >CPilh...@bhak12.ac.at ( Carl (VEKN Prince of Vienna) ) wrote: >> No, in friendly games you often go for a funny action, in >> tournaments you don't, you try to make any action bringing you to a >> VP. > >Only rarely do I play a deck that isn't designed to get VP, even in >"friendl" play. I realize that other people make things along the lines >of my "tactical nuclear deer rifle" deck more frequently, but for me, >the competition of the high-level Metagame is even more fun than "just >fun" decks. I play Jyhad in the first place for the intellectual >competition. Do you make "funny" moves in chess when playing "fiendly" >games? Actually, yeah, I do. I make "speculative" moves, if that makes any sense - the type of move commonly marked in notation with "!?" (interesting new idea) or "?!" (dubious new idea). There's a safe way to play chess, which is appropriate for tournaments, and a more wide-open way, which can help you test out new ideas that a tournament-style environment would be very bad for. The competition at the tournaments is fun, yes, but it's also entertaining to see how effective you can make an ineffective strategy. Or the "pick a random card, figure out a way to abuse it" type of thing which occasionally yields an EXTREMELY effective deck. >I agree. I don't want to discourage any type of discourse on this >group, only encourage a certain type which I found to be somewhat >lacking. Heh. State of the metagame? Voting was DEAD at the Columbia tournament - I didn't see a single vote deck. Combat was on the upswing with 5 decks, but still hasn't quite overcome its inherent problems. Hideous pool gain was the order of the day, with 3 Minion Tap/5th decks in the final, and weenie or fast-bleed decks were the rest. -- Derek (replying by email? remove the nospam from my domain :)

On Sat, 06 Mar 1999 12:22:07 -0400, Steve Wampler <swam...@clarityconnect.com> wrote: >Hmmm... I've never actually found the time limit to have much impact on >deck design. Our non-tourney games are without a time limit, but only a >couple have ever lasted as long as two hours, and at least one of those >had my life boon deck keeping everyone alive. >Maybe this is just because we all happen to play very fast decks, but I >have a hard time imagining anything slower than an IC blood machine type >being playable in a tournament setting anyway. If you have a deck that >didn't get started until turn 4, you wouldn't bring it to a tourney, not >because it would suck under a time limit, but because it would get >killed on turn 5 no matter what the time limit was. >Or maybe we just all play real fast... Beats me. I'd hate to bring a slow deck to a tournament unless it was partially based around Hideous Pool Gain - at Columbia, the table I sat at in the 2nd round was finished in 22 minutes - and VPs were split 2-1-1, so it wasn't like a huge-bleeder just happened to sweep. =) [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <8FA4CD7CD5149C3E.77079777...@library-proxy.airnews.net >, lor...@nospam.nineball.org (Derek S. Ray) wrote: > Heh. State of the metagame? Voting was DEAD at the Columbia > tournament - I didn't see a single vote deck. Combat was on the > upswing with 5 decks, but still hasn't quite overcome its inherent > problems. Hideous pool gain was the order of the day, with 3 Minion > Tap/5th decks in the final, and weenie or fast-bleed decks were the > rest. OK, time to be defensive :) My deck was _not_ a Minion Tap/5th Tradition deck. Out of 90 cards, there are 3 5th Tradition and 4 Minion Tap. If I remember correctly, in the game we both played in, at least one of the 5th Traditions was blocked, which means I got at most 2 off. The reason I made it to the final was not that combo. Let's see: - blood gain from other sources - The Rack, Hunting Ground, Art Museum, Francois stealing blood, Voter Cap, etc. - enough combat defense to avoid getting slaughtered in most cases (except the first game). Fortunately in the third game, my predator never had the right hand to kill my vamps with. - enough combat offense to torpor weenies - enough intercept to block hunts - more than enough untaps - especially from Masika and Alexandra - votes and/or extra bleed on most vampires. I did call a few votes. Anyway, I don't call it a pool gain deck. I don't call it anything beyond a large Toreador deck, since it does a bit of everything. (If anyone wants to see the deck, I'll post it) Brian [ quoted text not captured ]

On Sat, 06 Mar 1999 22:07:52 GMT, bwel...@xbill.org wrote: (various and sundry snipped) > >Anyway, I don't call it a pool gain deck. I don't call it anything >beyond a large Toreador deck, since it does a bit of everything. > >(If anyone wants to see the deck, I'll post it) Actually, I'd like to see it, since I didn't play at your table during the first three rounds, and the final round probably wasn't best for determining either what yours OR Conor's deck actually -did- considering you both contested Anson for most of the game. =) -- Der [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <7bs8vi$j02$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, <bwel...@xbill.org> wrote: >In article >Anyway, I don't call it a pool gain deck. I don't call it anything >beyond a large Toreador deck, since it does a bit of everything. > >(If anyone wants to see the deck, I'll post it) A Toreador deck that did well? Hell yah I want to see it! [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <4107E0506F5E9B5C.E772763E...@library-proxy.airnews.net >, lor...@nospam.nineball.org (Derek S. Ray) wrote: > On Sat, 06 Mar 1999 22:07:52 GMT, bwel...@xbill.org wrote: > > (various and sundry snipped) > > > > >Anyway, I don't call it a pool gain deck. I don't call it anything > >beyond a large Toreador deck, since it does a bit of everything. > > > >(If anyone wants to see the deck, I'll post it) > > Actually, I'd like to see it, since I didn't play at your table during > the first three rounds, and the final round probably wasn't best for > determining either what yours OR Conor's deck actually -did- > considering you both contested Anson for most of the game. =) I thought we were at the same table once. I must be confusing you with one of the other people I'd never met before... Now is when I wish my news server worked. Anyway, on with the deck: 2 Felicia Mostrom 2 Anson 2 Anneke 2 Francois Villon 2 Masika 2 Alexandra 4 Minion Tap 3 Blood Doll 3 Aching Beauty 2 Society Hunting Ground 2 Art Museum 2 Information Highway 1 Elysium: The Arboretum 1 The Rack 1 Giant's Blood 1 Toreador Grand Ball 1 Tomb of Ramses III 1 Dreams of the Sphinx 4 Telepathic Counter 4 Telepathic Misdirection 3 Enhanced Senses 2 Eagle Sight 1 Precognition 5 Majesty 5 Voter Captivation 3 Bewitching Oration 3 Catatonic Fear 2 Entrancement 5 Sideslip 3 Acrobatics 2 Alacrity 2 Side Strike 4 Kine Resources Contested 2 Disputed Territory 1 Consanguineous Boon 1 Banishment 1 Parity Shift 1 Ancient Influence 1 Protect Thine Own 5 Wake with Evening's Freshness 4 The Second Tradition: Domain 3 The Fifth Tradition: Hospitality 1 Scorn of Adonis A couple of the odd votes (Banishment and Protect Thine Own) could easily be replaced by more KRC or Parity Shift. I'd also like to put another Entrancement or two in, since they worked really well at the tournament (both for bleeding and stealing Muddles and a Garou). [ quoted text not captured ]

On Sat, 6 Mar 1999, Derek S. Ray wrote: > On Sat, 06 Mar 1999 Steve Wampler wrote: > >Only rarely do I play a deck that isn't designed to get VP, even in > >"friendl" play. I realize that other people make things along the lines > >of my "tactical nuclear deer rifle" deck more frequently, but for me, > >the competition of the high-level Metagame is even more fun than "just > >fun" decks. I play Jyhad in the first place for the intellectual > >competition. Do you make "funny" moves in chess when playing "fiendly" > >games? > > Actually, yeah, I do. I make "speculative" moves, if that makes any > sense - the type of move commonly marked in notation with "!?" > (interesting new idea) or "?!" (dubious new idea). There's a safe way > to play chess, which is appropriate for tournaments, and a more > wide-open way, which can help you test out new ideas that a > tournament-style environment would be very bad for. The dichotomy noted here is not really a dichotomy. Playing experimental decks in no way violates the ultimate purpose of the game, which is to win victory points. In the short run, certain deck ideas may be more risky than a proven winner strategy, but in the long run, if you are predictable and lack creativity, you will win fewer games. Experimentation is essential to the good player. A wise player will, of course, tend to experiment more when the stakes are low, and be more conservative when the stakes are high, but the killer deck he uses when the stakes are higher is quite likely to be the product of experimentation when the stakes are low. Playing a risky "fun" deck in a friendly game in no way means you are not playing to win. The same is true for chess-players who try experimental moves in low-stakes games. Another reason why it is essential to be unpredictable and "fun" in friendly games is that everyone knows you. Your "best deck" won't win too often if everyone knows what to expect. In a tournament, where most opponents have not played you before, you can pull out what you think to be your current "best deck" with far fewer qualms. When you look at the big picture (which goes beyond each single game) then playing for fun in no way contradicts the notion of playing to win. In fact, it is people who truly play for motives other than victory that are regarded as "unsportsmanlike" and tend to spoil the fun for everyone. An example might be the player whose goal is to oust a specific player, regardless of whether this helps him gain victory points or not. Lupus Australis ____ ____ \ \----/ / |()__()| __\ __ /__ / __\()/__ \ |/ \==/ \| | || |

In article <36E15D...@clarityconnect.com>, Steve Wampler <swam...@clarityconnect.com> wrote: > CPilh...@bhak12.ac.at ( Carl (VEKN Prince of Vienna) ) wrote: > > No, in friendly games you often go for a funny action, in > > tournaments you don't, you try to make any action bringing you to a > > VP. > > Only rarely do I play a deck that isn't designed to get VP, even in > "friendl" play. I realize that other people make things along the lines > of my "tactical nuclear deer rifle" deck more frequently, but for me, > the competition of the high-level Metagame is even more fun than "just > fun" decks. I play Jyhad in the first place for the intellectual > competition. Do you make "funny" moves in chess when playing "fiendly" > games? Ok, we have different viewpoints here. Let's leave it at that. If I wanted intellectual competition, I would play chess. I like to have a good evening playing VTES, and testing interesting concepts, and I like a good laugh over a quickie. :) > <snip> > > Ok, this is how it should be, but only discussing at tournament > > level, and neglecting the environment of the game and it's players > > is a bad trend. > > I agree. I don't want to discourage any type of discourse on this > group, only encourage a certain type which I found to be somewhat > lacking. > > <snip> > > Give First Strike the power to kill the dodgers!!!! > > :) > > > > You wanted to know. > <snip> > > I can see your point at a theoretical level, but how often does it > affect play? First Strike is pretty rare, and dodges only a little less > so. I've personally never seen them meet up. Keep in mind that there are other formats than constructed tourneys, too. For sealed deck FS beating dodge is a cool thing. If you followed the discussion about FS a few weeks ago, you'll see that there are many pros and cons. Also, there is the possibility, that in the future there might be cards using FS again. But that is only likely if FS is changed to beat dodge. Let's see what comes... ;) Carl (VEKN Prince of Vienna) -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <8FA4CD7CD5149C3E.770797776F5F28D2.026700EDFCA87AD9@library- proxy.airnews.net>, lor...@nospam.nineball.org (Derek S. Ray) wrote: > Heh. State of the metagame? Voting was DEAD at the Columbia > tournament - I didn't see a single vote deck. I wouldn't say it was completely DEAD. In fact, I was playing an !Ven vote deck in Columbia. It had some serious problems with garous with dominate-envy and night-moving weenies. The deck, when working, can force a vote through by canceling votes of up to three vampires, through Quentin's special ability, tapping Demonstration, and Telepathic Vote counting. The only real chance I had in the tourny of garnishing even one VP was in the second round. Unfortunately my hand jammed up with TVCs and no referendums, major pain. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <7c0eod$s44$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, carl.pi...@at.ccmail.philips.com wrote: > In article <36E15D...@clarityconnect.com>, > Steve Wampler <swam...@clarityconnect.com> wrote: > > CPilh...@bhak12.ac.at ( Carl (VEKN Prince of Vienna) ) wrote: > > > No, in friendly games you often go for a funny action, in > > > tournaments you don't, you try to make any action bringing you to a > > > VP. > > > > Only rarely do I play a deck that isn't designed to get VP, even in > > "friendl" play. I realize that other people make things along the lines > > of my "tactical nuclear deer rifle" deck more frequently, but for me, > > the competition of the high-level Metagame is even more fun than "just > > fun" decks. I play Jyhad in the first place for the intellectual > > competition. Do you make "funny" moves in chess when playing "fiendly" > > games? Personally there are some openings [King's Gambit, Queen's Indian] which i would never play EXCEPT in friendly chess .... and these nights i usually play Steve Jackson's Knightmare chess anyway. Perhaps this is a silly response to your question though, i'm not sure. > > Ok, we have different viewpoints here. Let's leave it at that. If I > wanted intellectual competition, I would play chess. I like to have > a good evening playing VTES, and testing interesting concepts, and > I like a good laugh over a quickie. :) > Agree with that, and even more with Lupus' point that the playgroup is where you test out the weird concept before you unleash it on the unususpecting tournament scene. BTW "quickie" in UK means "episode of casual sexual intercourse, often conducted under threat of discovery". Suspect that's not what it means where you live, though! > > > > <snip> > > > Give First Strike the power to kill the dodgers!!!! > > > :) > > > > > > You wanted to know. > > <snip> > > > > I can see your point at a theoretical level, but how often does it > > affect play? First Strike is pretty rare, and dodges only a little less > > so. I've personally never seen them meet up. > > Keep in mind that there are other formats than constructed tourneys, too. > For sealed deck FS beating dodge is a cool thing. If you followed the > discussion about FS a few weeks ago, you'll see that there are many pros > and cons. > Also, there is the possibility, that in the future there might be cards > using FS again. But that is only likely if FS is changed to beat dodge. > Let's see what comes... ;) > > Carl > (VEKN Prince of Vienna) > Playing first strike the way you want it would make sense, and would elevate the Toreador and Assamites to something like combat credibility. But it would also make the Brujah HORRIBLY more powerful which they don't exactly need at the moment. I'm not saying i disagree with you, however - i think the boost to them is proportionately less than to the two clans that REALLY need help. Legbiter, too lazy to read the FS thread and hoping for a quick summary of the pros and cons comprehensible to a Methuselah of very LITTLE brain. [ quoted text not captured ]

legb...@my-dejanews.com wrote: > BTW "quickie" in UK means "episode of casual sexual > intercourse, often conducted under threat of discovery". Suspect that's not > what it means where you live, though! Heh. Means pretty much the same thing here in the States, although it doesn't usually have the "threat of discovery" thrill necessarily associated with it. Just that's it's quick...usually under 15 mins. I need to build a deck called, "Wham! Bam! Thank you, Ma'am!" Either that or I need to develop another hobby. Noal -- "Excuse me. Are you a yuppie?" -woman at a gas station in Detroit -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <7c1006$beb$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, legb...@my-dejanews.com wrote: > In article <7c0eod$s44$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, > carl.pi...@at.ccmail.philips.com wrote: > > In article <36E15D...@clarityconnect.com>, > > Steve Wampler <swam...@clarityconnect.com> wrote: > > > CPilh...@bhak12.ac.at ( Carl (VEKN Prince of Vienna) ) wrote: > > > > No, in friendly games you often go for a funny action, in > > > > tournaments you don't, you try to make any action bringing you to a > > > > VP. > > > > > > Only rarely do I play a deck that isn't designed to get VP, even in > > > "friendl" play. I realize that other people make things along the lines > > > of my "tactical nuclear deer rifle" deck more frequently, but for me, > > > the competition of the high-level Metagame is even more fun than "just > > > fun" decks. I play Jyhad in the first place for the intellectual > > > competition. Do you make "funny" moves in chess when playing "fiendly" > > > games? > > Personally there are some openings [King's Gambit, Queen's Indian] which i > would never play EXCEPT in friendly chess .... and these nights i usually > play Steve Jackson's Knightmare chess anyway. Perhaps this is a silly > response to your question though, i'm not sure. Knightmare chess is a nice game. I prefer VTES, though. ;) > > > > > Ok, we have different viewpoints here. Let's leave it at that. If I > > wanted intellectual competition, I would play chess. I like to have > > a good evening playing VTES, and testing interesting concepts, and > > I like a good laugh over a quickie. :) > > > > Agree with that, and even more with Lupus' point that the playgroup is where > you test out the weird concept before you unleash it on the unususpecting > tournament scene. BTW "quickie" in UK means "episode of casual sexual > intercourse, often conducted under threat of discovery". Suspect that's not > what it means where you live, though! Well, I just adopted the word "quickie" for my purpose in this context. Yes, where I live it sometimes used for other things than "sexual intercourse". Whoaaaah.... We vamps don't like sex, do we? On the other hand, in the LARP I'm Toreador, so... ;) > > > > > > > <snip> > > > > Give First Strike the power to kill the dodgers!!!! > > > > :) > > > > > > > > You wanted to know. > > > <snip> > > > > > > I can see your point at a theoretical level, but how often does it > > > affect play? First Strike is pretty rare, and dodges only a little less > > > so. I've personally never seen them meet up. > > > > Keep in mind that there are other formats than constructed tourneys, too. > > For sealed deck FS beating dodge is a cool thing. If you followed the > > discussion about FS a few weeks ago, you'll see that there are many pros > > and cons. > > Also, there is the possibility, that in the future there might be cards > > using FS again. But that is only likely if FS is changed to beat dodge. > > Let's see what comes... ;) > > > > Carl > > (VEKN Prince of Vienna) > > > > Playing first strike the way you want it would make sense, and would elevate > the Toreador and Assamites to something like combat credibility. But it would > also make the Brujah HORRIBLY more powerful which they don't exactly need at > the moment. I'm not saying i disagree with you, however - i think the boost > to them is proportionately less than to the two clans that REALLY need help. So you think that FS beating dodge would actually have impact on the game? If you had followed the thread, you'd see that all other arguments contain at least in a small version the sentence "...but it wouldn't make any difference, no-one would play FS, as there is S:CE...", and that's why the argument stopped. Sad. :( > > Legbiter, too lazy to read the FS thread and hoping for a quick summary of the > pros and cons comprehensible to a Methuselah of very LITTLE brain. Carl, too busy to give a quickie. Ops, that's supposed to mean "quick summary", damn sexual intercourse late at night... :) [ quoted text not captured ]

> > Knightmare chess is a nice game. I prefer VTES, though. ;) Likewise, of course! But it's a nice duelling game and i think will be even nicer played with the upcoming Camarilla v Sabbat chess set from White Wolf. I have a TOTALLY unplaytested version of chess that uses Jyhad cards ... see alt.games.jyhad. <snip> "quickie" in UK means "episode of casual sexual > > intercourse, often conducted under threat of discovery". Suspect that's not > > what it means where you live, though! > > Well, I just adopted the word "quickie" for my purpose in this context. > Yes, where I live it sometimes used for other things than "sexual > intercourse". Whoaaaah.... We vamps don't like sex, do we? On the other > hand, in the LARP I'm Toreador, so... ;) In Portsmouth we are TOTALLY obsessed by it .... English vice sorta thing ... Doubtless a throwback to the original English vamps like Lord Ruthven/Varney and Dracula who OOZED sex from every pore. See my post on alt.games.jyhad about strip Jyhad for evidence of this, and a fun variant for those of you who are looking for even MORE stimulation form the best game in the world. [ quoted text not captured ] It's not robust against SCE but then no combat deck concepts except IG and agg dam/rotschreck are. Alright, i suppose Hidden Lurker and Fast Reaction and Thoughts Betrayed are ok too. I think playing FS the way you want it WOULD make a difference, yes. At the moment FS is really a neglected strategy and i think this is sad and unnecessary. Personally i would like to see it beat SCE, too, but last time we had this argument i was in a tiny minority of me and Michael Beer on that. Perhaps there is a case for a local on-line game to check out the effects of this possible rule change? Could we assemble 8 people interested enough to try this? [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <7c1006$beb$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, <legb...@my-dejanews.com> wrote: >> I like a good laugh over a quickie. :) [snip] >tournament scene. BTW "quickie" in UK means "episode of casual sexual >intercourse, often conducted under threat of discovery". Suspect that's not >what it means where you live, though! Nope, it means the same thing over here... ;-) not in the mood for usefull contribution, -Jasper [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <7c3c7f$6q3$1...@news.NERO.NET>, phil...@tx.ENGR.ORST.EDU (Jasper Phillips) wrote: > In article <7c1006$beb$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, > <legb...@my-dejanews.com> wrote: > >tournament scene. BTW "quickie" in UK means "episode of casual sexual > >intercourse, often conducted under threat of discovery". Suspect that's not > >what it means where you live, though! > > Nope, it means the same thing over here... ;-) To be more precise, quickie _can_ mean the same thing in the U.S., but it doesn't always. Or that could be something that varies from region to region on this side of the pond. Like most slang words, their use and sometimes meanings can change over time. Mike -- Mike Bohlmann, MAIP http://www.shout.net/~mbohlman/ V:EKN Prince of Urbana-Champaign Editor of the Fragment of the Book of Nod [ quoted text not captured ]

On Tue, 9 Mar 1999 mboh...@shout.net wrote: > In article <7c3c7f$6q3$1...@news.NERO.NET>, > phil...@tx.ENGR.ORST.EDU (Jasper Phillips) wrote: > > In article <7c1006$beb$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, > > <legb...@my-dejanews.com> wrote: > > > >tournament scene. BTW "quickie" in UK means "episode of casual sexual > > >intercourse, often conducted under threat of discovery". Suspect that's not > > >what it means where you live, though! > > > > Nope, it means the same thing over here... ;-) > > To be more precise, quickie _can_ mean the same thing in the U.S., but it > doesn't always. Or that could be something that varies from region to > region on this side of the pond. Like most slang words, their use and > sometimes meanings can change over time. I always assumed that "quickie" simply meant "quick one" just as "biggie" means "big one". What precisely one is referring to would depend on the context. However, once a word acquires a sexual meaning or connotation, that meaning tends to eclipse all others. "Intercourse" used to be a perfectly acceptable general term for any sort of interaction, until someone coined the phrase "sexual intercourse" as a polite euphemism for fucking. [ quoted text not captured ]