Q. What is the best combat deck ?

What is the best combat deck ? With the rise in combat, I am interested to find out what people value as the best combat deck they have made or played against and why? I was intrigued by a post on the group a while back that classified all combat decks as varying degrees of bruise and bleed. This of course is very true as even a 'pure' combat deck has to plough through the minions to get to the pool and it made me ponder which deck consistently comes out on top in combat? Is it numbers or punch power that wins the day? I realise the question is utterly situational and dependant on other decks, players blah blah yada yada but is there one combat deck that you fear above all others? Rob. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.237 / Virus Database: 115 - Release Date: 07/03/01

In article <9drut3$jph$2...@plutonium.btinternet.com>, Rob Treasure <R.Tre...@btinternet.com> wrote: >What is the best combat deck ? [snip] >I realise the question is utterly situational and dependant on other decks, >players blah blah yada yada but is there one combat deck that you fear above >all others? That's not a trivial point, as it _entirely_ depends on what deck you're playing. Potence weenie rush is terrifying to non combat decks, but doesn't really fare so well to against most other types of combat decks. For example Dedicated Range damage, or Gangrel Potence. Of course these other examples don't fare well against non-combat decks... In my experience Gangrel based pot, for, ani, pro is the best at beating other combat decks up, if that's what you mean.

"Jasper Phillips" <jas...@spock.peak.org> wrote in message news:9ds76m$77h$1...@spock.peak.org... [ quoted text not captured ] Not really. I meant the combat deck that will *consistently* come out better than others from a 'standard' game if there is such a thing. By a standard game I mean assume some combat, some sneak bleed, some votes etc. Basically what I am trying to get at is whether players think there are basic do's and don'ts of combat decks and then maybe examine any regional /national trends have a few arguments...... you know the sort of thing. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Tue, 15 May 2001 20:03:13 +0100, "Rob Treasure" <R.Tre...@btinternet.com> wrote: >What is the best combat deck ? The one that gets things dead the best. =) >With the rise in combat, I am interested to find out what people value as >the best combat deck they have made or played against and why? I was >intrigued by a post on the group a while back that classified all combat >decks as varying degrees of bruise and bleed. This of course is very true as >even a 'pure' combat deck has to plough through the minions to get to the >pool and it made me ponder which deck consistently comes out on top in >combat? Is it numbers or punch power that wins the day? (IMO, your mileage may vary, etc.) WARNING: THIS TURNED INTO A LONG RAMBLING STREAM-OF-THOUGHT POST. THOSE WHO DO NOT LIKE READING SUCH, BUGGER OFF NOW. It's not punch power. Hitting people for 7+ is not going to consistently win. There simply aren't enough vampires with 6 blood on them at any given point in time -- vamps tend to either have 1-4 or 8-11 blood on them. It's not burnage. Burning guys is terribly complicated. Anathema is nasty but not frightening, because of the amount of moving parts. Trying to burn guys with the Tremere or Assamites is always good for a giggle, but not for a win. And diablerie has its own inherent risks. It's not sheer numbers of dead guys. The Gangrel can litter the playing field with torporized vamps, but they don't win games any more than anyone else... mostly because guys who get poked for 1 agg can rescue themselves next turn, and putting in enough intercept to stop all the rescues WHILE putting in enough combat to kill everything WHILE putting in some way to oust your prey makes for a 150+ card deck. Well, what the hell is it, then? It's a combination of consistency and "power at a point" (to steal a term from General A. Tacticus). "Consistency": a good combat deck must screw up the opposing vampire damn near every time it gets into combat. Something as simple as a Disguised .44 can be ridiculously effective over the long-term. The classic POT Rush deck does well on consistency - it has roughly 50+ cards that all, in some form or other, read "I hit you." The 'best' deck in this department, however, is the one that consistently hits the opposing vamp for right around 3-5 points of damage. 3 points is too much to be blithely ignored, except for maybe your local Inner Circle member - and you should have the advantage in numbers on him. But most vampires will be 8-caps or fewer, and most of THOSE vampires will not have full blood. Consider Jost Werner, a common target. Hitting him for 3 when he's full leaves him with 3 blood, and it's no longer quite so automatic to drop the Pulse on him. And a Blood Doll is now more likely to be used to push blood TO him. Did you torporize him? No -- but neither did you make yourself a target to the rest of the table. If Lisette Vizquel drops a Torn Signpost, Immortal Grapple, Pushing the Limit, and Claws on her first combat, totally vaporizing some pathetic 4-cap, then people are going to be a bit edgy about sitting near the deck in the future, and will go out of their way to help its prey. =) 3-5 points is also a lot easier to reach for most decks. Animalism can use Carrion Crows/Scorpion Sting for 4. Potence can drop a single Undead Strength or Pushing the Limit. A simple Gas-Powered Chainsaw tends to pay for itself quickly, and a .44 may lack immediate punch, but its permanent defensive properties are well worth it. And adding a little Celerity repairs its offense rapidly. Few clans (actually, I can't think of one offhand) are incapable of finding a way to consistently do 3 points of damage in combat. Even the pitiful Toreador can use hands/Blur/Taste, for an extreme example. "Power at a point": So you have a deck that can do 4 points per combat every time. Your deck will still suck if you can't apply that damage to the vampires YOU want. Going back to the example above, suppose Jost Werner goes and Pulses himself as his first action. You now have a target. If you can't hit the target, you can expect pretty consistent bleeds of 3 at +1 stealth coming your way. Classic POT Rush sometimes falls down pretty badly here, I'm afraid. With its myriad 0-stealth actions and bleeds for 1, it doesn't have any real way to guarantee that one specific vampire dies - so its tactic is modified early on to "all vampires must die", under the theory that if you kill them all, you definitely got the one you wanted. This makes you a hell of a target, though, and can be a real problem if people bring out more vamps than you can kill - or if you are unable because of hand jam to kill -everything- fast enough. As many have said, when it works, it works well - when it fails, it explodes gloriously. Adding stealth to a Rush sounds like a great idea, until you realize how many card slots in your deck it takes to pull off - and what might happen when people quit blocking you. Oops. But it -has- worked for decks in the past, although I might be inclined to use it with permanents as opposed to transients. Intercept is, oddly enough, the premier option here - a well-built intercept deck should certainly be able to get into combat with any vampire it chooses (unless, of course, that vampire takes no actions, in which case it can be reclassified under 'no threat'). But Combining effective intercept with effective combat has been a puzzle for as long as V:TES has been around. The Tzimisce are foremost here, as they have two intercept disciplines (ANI/AUS) and two combat disciplines (VIC/ANI) to draw from. But even they run into some difficulty, since the best cards they have are transients and they'll run out of those transients rapidly if they attempt to slaughter everything. >I realise the question is utterly situational and dependant on other decks, >players blah blah yada yada but is there one combat deck that you fear above >all others? Seriously? =) The one that is the counter to my OWN combat. If I've got Trap/Carrion Crows/Song of Serenity, I'll be scared of Potence. If I've got guns, I'll be scared of the Animalism decks. And if I've got Potence, I'll be scared of gun decks and Fortitude. (Gun decks and Trap/CC/Song don't care about Fortitude, for the most part. "They'll run out" is their battle cry.) -- Derek [generic .signature file]

>I realise the question is utterly situational and dependant on other decks, >players blah blah yada yada but is there one combat deck that you fear above >all others? I believe one question does have to be answered. Best in combat or best at winning? It isn't clear which is desired. A highly flexible combat deck should destroy most focused combat decks. But, I can only see reliably gaining any VPs from a focused combat deck. For tournament play, I'd most want to avoid an IG deck (any kind). Playing against another combat deck, I think I'd want to play Gangrel.

>For tournament play, I'd most want to avoid an IG deck (any kind). Argh. Didn't answer the question even when I layed it out. While this is what I'd most want to avoid playing against in a tournament, some sort of heavy Animalism, weenie deck would be my choice for best VP deck.

> > >I realise the question is utterly situational and dependant on other > decks, > > >players blah blah yada yada but is there one combat deck that you fear > above > > >all others? intercept rötschreck decks with a lot of agg damage. they ruin everything. no prevention, no S:CE, grapple is useless, and they don´t take the damage you make. the target your main vamps, send them to torpor and never let him out again. > > That's not a trivial point, as it _entirely_ depends on what deck you're > > playing. Potence weenie rush is terrifying to non combat decks, but > > doesn't really fare so well to against most other types of combat decks. > > For example Dedicated Range damage, or Gangrel Potence. Of course these > > other examples don't fare well against non-combat decks... most combat decks would lose to trap/CC/for decks. you recieve constant damage, while your opponent prevents the damage you inflict. > Not really. I meant the combat deck that will *consistently* come out better > than others from a 'standard' game if there is such a thing. By a standard > game I mean assume some combat, some sneak bleed, some votes etc. Basically > what I am trying to get at is whether players think there are basic do's and > don'ts of combat decks and then maybe examine any regional /national trends > have a few arguments...... you know the sort of thing. > i think the only combat decks that work constantly against all other deck types, are intercept combat decks. aus/ani weenie, tzimisze aus/vic (forget about ani), toreador cel/aus with guns, tremere aus weenie with burst, or some guns, aus/obf with guns.... the backbone of these decks must always be a strong pool support (HG´s,PE;Rack;powerbases, etc) they will usually make 3 VP kiling the last two players in a game the only other combat deck that performs well is brujah euro princes, they have some votes, some intercept (2th tradition), dom for deflections and governs, and cel/pot to beat up= combat deck with toolboxy approach. my fav deck is tzimisze intercept rötschreck. stefan [ quoted text not captured ]

>===== Original Message From "Rob Treasure" <R.Tre...@btinternet.com> ===== >What is the best combat deck ? > >With the rise in combat, I am interested to find out what people value as >the best combat deck they have made or played against and why? i've made three decent combat decks, and in this context decent means "reached tourney finals and were fun to play". One was Malky OOT rush-Rotshreck. The second was weenie potence-rush with a touch of computer hacking [this one got me third place in the last-but-one UK nationals]. The third was a clone of Greg Faulkner's weenie animalism deck, spiced up wth a TINY bit of dominate. As for the ones i fear, big gangrels a la Barney and Jon are scary, but not if you are playing Malky OOT rush. i also got kicked in good and proper once by a Euro-brujah Thoughts Betrayed deck, still a very powerful concept i think. Ironically the only constructed-deck tourney i've actually WON was down to a tweaked clone of one of Atomweaver's decks ["Princes of Carthage"] which LOOKS like a Brujah bash deck but actually isn't. I was >intrigued by a post on the group a while back that classified all combat >decks as varying degrees of bruise and bleed. This of course is very true as >even a 'pure' combat deck has to plough through the minions to get to the >pool and it made me ponder which deck consistently comes out on top in >combat? Is it numbers or punch power that wins the day? My own experience is that numbers and a bit of FEAR is the way to go. But the fear is more important than the numbers. Sorry i'm not being very helpful here! > >I realise the question is utterly situational and dependant on other decks, >players blah blah yada yada but is there one combat deck that you fear above >all others? Yeah, a combat deck played by YOU. O, wait, that also applies to Vote, bleed and trick decks played by you. And Mummify/Purity of the Beast/Eyes of the Dead decks. > >Rob. > > > >--- >Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. >Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). >Version: 6.0.237 / Virus Database: 115 - Release Date: 07/03/01 > ------------------------------------------------------------ Get your FREE web-based e-mail and newsgroup access at: http://MailAndNews.com Create a new mailbox, or access your existing IMAP4 or POP3 mailbox from anywhere with just a web browser. ------------------------------------------------------------

<snip> > >WARNING: THIS TURNED INTO A LONG RAMBLING STREAM-OF-THOUGHT POST. >THOSE WHO DO NOT LIKE READING SUCH, BUGGER OFF NOW. > Glad I didn't ;-), as the stuff that followed sums up my opinion pretty well. Some things I would like to add, emphasize or simply rant about: In other posts I read a lot about scary combat decks, but I think they all focus on single effective combats. Vampire A vs. Vampire B is not what the question is about, but - as Derek rightly points out - consistency. Killing vampires doesn't win the game, although it may go a long way towards this goal. Combat as such has to be seen as part of the game environment. So the question asked by Rob has an easy, but I guess rather unsatisfying answer: The best combat deck is the one that handles the metagame best, which sees not only combat, but mostly combat defense (S:CE and friends, Fortitude etc.). If I build a deck I never include such a thing as "casual combat" - it's either dedicated killing capacity or dedicated defense. So what IS the best combat deck then? The one that handles the metagame best, I said. Without the local and situational context, this means: The one that does combat well in the most common metagame types. At least down here good old honest Bleed is still the strategy that wins most games, and the one everybody returns to if the bloodshed gets too scary. Gangrel Potence is scary as hell, but nothing that stops a fast bleeding predator. Tzimisce Intercept works, but won't be effective against the most common combat defense, S:CE. Rötschreck on top? Fine, one goes to torpor... As Derek rightly pointed out: These combat monsters are deadly when they work, but Lazverinus offing Gideon Fontaine with 6 aggravated is just overkill, especially if there are 4 or 5 Friends Of Gideon just waiting for you to run out of your valuable transient cards, be it intercept our untap. So the best combat deck to me is the one that can handle these situations best, and that IMHO is potence rush (Nosferatu or Brujah flavour, Antitribu welcome - whichever you prefer). Okay, they rule or explode, but they have the best chance to kill Joe Vampire in the average metagame, and each and every one of them - which is more important, since your forward momentum is to fill out the vacuum in your prey's active region, metaphorically speaking. I played many wicked combat decks in my (un)life as a V:TES player, but every time I look at the metagame, rush looks more promising then most other ideas. Why? Because while IG/Potence combat has problems with Gangrel poke etc, all these decks which sometimes come along during a metagame shift are not as good as Potence rush against the bread and butter decks - sneaky bleed, politics... I found that all-combat environments are quite easy to exploit - maybe because people here don't build efficient combat decks, but I think because most combat decks are effective in killing, but not effective in eiher ousting or defending. Interesting topic... Actually if I remember correctly the current British metagame reads "Pack Fortitude or Die". Does that mean that Tremere or Assamites will shine soon? If so, good, but then that would mean that you are all too gentlemanly to deploy some real cheesy weenie sneak & bleed or weenie politics. These should handle the situation without ever touching a vampire - the minions will be rushed and killed, but I don't see a Gangrel Potence deck quick enough to destroy them all reliably. Ah, my apologies for rambling as Derek did, without a proper warning in the beginning. Regards Skaffen Chantry Elder Of Munich "Des ganzen, langen Lebens kurze Freuden und vergebliche Hoffnungen Kommen in grauen Kleidern, wie Abendnebel nach der Sonne Untergang." (Novalis, 'Hymnen an die Nacht')

>. Tzimisce Intercept works, > but won't be effective against the most common combat defense, S:CE. > Rötschreck on top? Fine, one goes to torpor one per turn goes to torpor and never comes back! ever thought about telephatic tracking by the way! > I played many wicked combat decks in my (un)life as a V:TES player, > but every time I look at the metagame, rush looks more promising then > most other ideas. Why? Because while IG/Potence combat has problems > with Gangrel poke etc, all these decks which sometimes come along > during a metagame shift are not as good as Potence rush against the > bread and butter decks - sneaky bleed, politics... I found that > all-combat environments are quite easy to exploit - maybe because > people here don't build efficient combat decks, but I think because > most combat decks are effective in killing, but not effective in eiher > ousting or defending. thats why i said that combat intercept works best, you can defend against everything!!!!! every potence rush deck is ruined when your prey/pred plays with agg damage because most pot rush decks are not able to prevent damage. most potence rush decks are ruined when you move to long range because then you can´t play IG and therefore S:CE can be played. offensive combat decks are not going to work because they lack the defense, most can´t deflect, can´t block votes or block even simple +1 stealth actions (5th tradition e.g.). combat will only work when played backwards. just look at a standard game. if a plays a good rush deck destroying a lot of b minions, Bwon´t be able to apply pressure on C. Cwon´t have to worry about b and using all vamps he has to oust D. so d is busy defending and e has all his might to throw against you. since you lack the defense you will sooner or later be ousted. most of you also forget that the other players will also interact. c might not won´t too have a crazy brujah in his back, while E won´t be to happy if you oust weakend player B so both will start rescuing B´s vamps from torpor. don´t tell me this won´t happen because i have seen these things happen more than once. and if you should be able to fend off E while keeping B down, you will sooner or later run out of gas. stefan [ quoted text not captured ]

On Wed, 16 May 2001 14:25:35 +0200, "Ferenci Stefan" <a950...@unet.univie.ac.at> wrote: > >>. Tzimisce Intercept works, >> but won't be effective against the most common combat defense, S:CE. >> Rötschreck on top? Fine, one goes to torpor > >one per turn goes to torpor and never comes back! ever thought about >telephatic tracking by the way! > I certainly have. But you misunderstood my point: I was not saying that Tzimisce Intercept with or without Rötschreck is bad. And you can certainly tweak it as necessary when you know what to expect - but my point was that the pro-active character of rush decks on average works better. As Derek mentioned in his post: Tzimisce Intercept needs many moving parts - transient intercept, untap and fierceness in combat. Add Rötschreck and Telepathic Tracking, and the dreaded Bad Hand (tm) is close by. The reliable hit for 3 Derek described is IMHO most easily deliverd by a Potence Rush deck, >> I played many wicked combat decks in my (un)life as a V:TES player, >> but every time I look at the metagame, rush looks more promising then >> most other ideas. Why? Because while IG/Potence combat has problems >> with Gangrel poke etc, all these decks which sometimes come along >> during a metagame shift are not as good as Potence rush against the >> bread and butter decks - sneaky bleed, politics... I found that >> all-combat environments are quite easy to exploit - maybe because >> people here don't build efficient combat decks, but I think because >> most combat decks are effective in killing, but not effective in eiher >> ousting or defending. > >thats why i said that combat intercept works best, you can defend against >everything!!!!! Not to turn this into a discussion about the viability of intercept decks (2 VPs, someone?): I agree, but only to a certain degree. Apart from some decks the Tzimisce can do next to nothing against (unblockable bleed for example): Yes, they can handle "everything", IF you know what this everything is going to be. But even in our local environment you can expect to see ultra stealth bleed, weenie animalism swarm stuff without any stealth, bruise and bleed like the Frisbee Deck I posted a while ago in the Brujah Newsletter... With rush you simply need that one Bums Rush or Haven and you can expect at least five hand cards to be deadly stuff - with Tzimisce you might have that extra intercept you don't need, the Forced Awakenings etc. instead of the Telepathic Tracking against his Majesty or the Rötschreck to make your Body Arsenal count against his Earth Meld. <snip stuff about the difficulty of playing rush and table dynamics - I didn't say it is easy, but the problems concern the question of how to use your forces, not if you will be able to do so> [ quoted text not captured ]

>===== Original Message From "Rob Treasure" <R.Tre...@btinternet.com> ===== >What is the best combat deck ? > >With the rise in combat, I am interested to find out what people value as >the best combat deck they have made or played against and why? I know the best decks (combat) I've had to face off against have either been Gangrel or Weapon Decks. The Lasombra are starting to make a nice dent, but I believe this is mainly due to the release of Sabbat War, as are the Tzimisce. The worst problem the decks had, however, were lack of forward momentum to back up the deck's combat prowess. While other clans may be better at dishing out the damage, the runaway capability or the "I ignore your puny attempts to hurt me" from maneuvers and Fortitude seem to really make the difference especially where blood loss from cards is minimum. I was >intrigued by a post on the group a while back that classified all combat >decks as varying degrees of bruise and bleed. This of course is very true as >even a 'pure' combat deck has to plough through the minions to get to the >pool and it made me ponder which deck consistently comes out on top in >combat? Is it numbers or punch power that wins the day? > The numbers to punch power question... I am more in line to agree with Derek on needing a decent punch potential, however, the right numbers (4-5 minions) with that potential is where I see a combat deck should be. The deck that comes to mind for this capability are again Gangrel and Weapons decks that have a strong intercept capability. This essentially allows you to choose the fights you want to have (usually) and gives you a better management tool for gaining your cards. >I realise the question is utterly situational and dependant on other decks, >players blah blah yada yada but is there one combat deck that you fear above >all others? > The list would include the 2nd place deck at the Vienna 1999 Championship, Legbiter's Animalism deck, your "I'll be your dog" deck (great work there), the "Low and Dirty Blow" deck and a Malkavian Multiple Muddles with Stake deck. Michael Eichler Prince of Ramstein [ quoted text not captured ]

On Wed, 16 May 2001 14:25:35 +0200, "Ferenci Stefan" <a950...@unet.univie.ac.at> wrote: > >>. Tzimisce Intercept works, >> but won't be effective against the most common combat defense, S:CE. >> Rötschreck on top? Fine, one goes to torpor > >one per turn goes to torpor and never comes back! ever thought about >telephatic tracking by the way! trying to enforce that 'never comes back' is poor play for an intercept deck. You can't prevent someone from playing their deck, or you unbalance the table in the wrong direction - sure, you get one VP, but just like a sloppy Rush deck, it tends to explode. If you're going to use Rotshit, you have to target vamps carefully and rely on the "no untap" to keep them out of the picture for a bit. Intercept the self-rescue if they try to make it happen (no combat, so no cards wasted), but go ahead and let them waste actions with the other guys. False sense of security, see. Not to mention that Rotshit has its own weakness - NOT HAVING ONE IN HAND. :) And intercept also has its own weakness... heavy enough stealth and unblockable actions will beat it right where it hurts. >> bread and butter decks - sneaky bleed, politics... I found that >> all-combat environments are quite easy to exploit - maybe because >> people here don't build efficient combat decks, but I think because >> most combat decks are effective in killing, but not effective in eiher >> ousting or defending. > >thats why i said that combat intercept works best, you can defend against >everything!!!!! Except *true* stealth, or unblockable actions. Elder Impersonation backed by Lost in Crowds is usually an ugly surprise for most intercept decks - they generate +3 intercept and then POOF, have to find it again. [ quoted text not captured ]

> > > >>. Tzimisce Intercept works, > >> but won't be effective against the most common combat defense, S:CE. > >> Rötschreck on top? Fine, one goes to torpor > > > >one per turn goes to torpor and never comes back! ever thought about > >telephatic tracking by the way! > > > > I certainly have. But you misunderstood my point: I was not saying > that Tzimisce Intercept with or without Rötschreck is bad. And you can > certainly tweak it as necessary when you know what to expect - but my > point was that the pro-active character of rush decks on average works > better. my point was that this is not true due to table dynamics and other stuff >As Derek mentioned in his post: Tzimisce Intercept needs many > moving parts - transient intercept, untap and fierceness in combat. > Add Rötschreck and Telepathic Tracking, and the dreaded Bad Hand (tm) > is close by. The reliable hit for 3 Derek described is IMHO most > easily deliverd by a Potence Rush deck, when playing intercept you simply need to send the vamp to torpor, because your prey won´t be able to rescue him/her: > >thats why i said that combat intercept works best, you can defend against > >everything!!!!! > > Not to turn this into a discussion about the viability of intercept > decks (2 VPs, someone?) most of the time you´ll win 3 VP nevermind, but even 2 VP are more than the average rush deck will win. Rob was asking about the best combat deck and i simply said intercept combat is best. >: I agree, but only to a certain degree. Apart > from some decks the Tzimisce can do next to nothing against > (unblockable bleed for example): since auspex is the mian intercept discipline most intercept decks pack TM or MEE >Yes, they can handle "everything", IF > you know what this everything is going to be. But even in our local > environment you can expect to see ultra stealth bleed, weenie > animalism swarm stuff without any stealth, bruise and bleed like the > Frisbee Deck I posted a while ago in the Brujah Newsletter... Hunt, equip, rescue from torpor are all +1 stealth actions haven uncovered actions are +1 stealth so is army of rats etc. > Regards > Stefan

Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> schrieb in im Newsbeitrag: an25gtkjprq5ohopj...@4ax.com... > On Wed, 16 May 2001 14:25:35 +0200, "Ferenci Stefan" > <a950...@unet.univie.ac.at> wrote: > > > > >>. Tzimisce Intercept works, > >> but won't be effective against the most common combat defense, S:CE. > >> Rötschreck on top? Fine, one goes to torpor > > > >one per turn goes to torpor and never comes back! ever thought about > >telephatic tracking by the way! > > trying to enforce that 'never comes back' is poor play for an > intercept deck. You can't prevent someone from playing their deck, or > you unbalance the table in the wrong direction - sure, you get one VP, > but just like a sloppy Rush deck, it tends to explode. > most of the time you win 2-3 VP because you are the last player left in the game. and 90% of the time they stay in torpor because you block the rescue attempts. > If you're going to use Rotshit, you have to target vamps carefully and > rely on the "no untap" to keep them out of the picture for a bit. they stay out of the picture because i block the rescue attempts and sometimes diablerize them > Intercept the self-rescue if they try to make it happen (no combat, so > no cards wasted), but go ahead and let them waste actions with the > other guys. False sense of security, see. sorry don´t get your point why do i let them waste actions with the other guys? > > Not to mention that Rotshit has its own weakness - NOT HAVING ONE IN > HAND. :) And intercept also has its own weakness... heavy enough > stealth and unblockable actions will beat it right where it hurts. most unblockable actions send the vamp to torpor where they will stay. andmost of the time i´ll generate enough intercept. but you are right i won´t be able to block night moves :-) > > Except *true* stealth, or unblockable actions. Elder Impersonation > backed by Lost in Crowds is usually an ugly surprise for most > intercept decks - they generate +3 intercept and then POOF, have to > find it again. > if he plays with true stealth he will have to use that many cards that if you stop to block him he´ll have a hand jam. and won´t be able to do anything but 1 bleeds. Stefan

On Wed, 16 May 2001 17:06:27 +0200, "Ferenci Stefan" <a950...@unet.univie.ac.at> wrote: >> Not to turn this into a discussion about the viability of intercept >> decks (2 VPs, someone?) > >most of the time you´ll win 3 VP nevermind, but even 2 VP are more than the >average rush deck will win. Rob was asking about the best combat deck and i >simply said intercept combat is best. This isn't true. Intercept decks consistently perform at 2VP, for the reasons shown below: >>: I agree, but only to a certain degree. Apart >> from some decks the Tzimisce can do next to nothing against >> (unblockable bleed for example): > >since auspex is the mian intercept discipline most intercept decks pack TM >or MEE If you're an intercept deck packing bounce cards, go for it! I find that trying to get too carried away dealing with everything is a bad way to go, and while My Enemy's Enemy is a great card, it doesn't help out your offense. Saving grace is that it, and its inferior, are FREE, so you can go ahead and include a few "just in case". If you want to spend blood for Telepathic Misdirection, even better. That'll start to hurt like hell after awhile. >>Yes, they can handle "everything", IF >> you know what this everything is going to be. But even in our local >> environment you can expect to see ultra stealth bleed, weenie >> animalism swarm stuff without any stealth, bruise and bleed like the >> Frisbee Deck I posted a while ago in the Brujah Newsletter... > >Hunt, equip, rescue from torpor are all +1 stealth actions haven uncovered >actions are +1 stealth so is army of rats etc. Have you ever played an intercept deck against truly strong players? It's amazing how many decks can suddenly decide to do nothing except bleed forward or remain untapped when faced with an intercept predator. Yes, vote decks will go down hard, but there are a number of decks that simply don't have many stealth actions at all - and those decks can choose not to take those actions, forcing you to either waste time killing your predator or doing nothing. Time is of the essence for your deck. Round time limits are 2 hours, and with an intercept deck on the table, things tend to slow to a crawl as the deck's predator backs up and defends, ITS predator backs up and defends, and on around. If you intend to just kill predators repeatedly and gain 3 VP that way, you might find that your predators are not so willing to permit this to happen. [ quoted text not captured ]

> > >> Not to turn this into a discussion about the viability of intercept > >> decks (2 VPs, someone?) > > > >most of the time you´ll win 3 VP nevermind, but even 2 VP are more than the > >average rush deck will win. Rob was asking about the best combat deck and i > >simply said intercept combat is best. > > This isn't true. Intercept decks consistently perform at 2VP, for the > reasons shown below: > then you should tune up your intercept deck: > Have you ever played an intercept deck against truly strong players? > does winning the preliminary round and almost winning the finals (game was called on time, very bad for an intercept deck, if it hadn´t been called on time i am pretty sure i would have won it) of the 2000 EC count. i played an intercept deck and it perfromed well against all sorts of deck types. but somehow i get the feeling you never really played an intercept deck. > It's amazing how many decks can suddenly decide to do nothing except > bleed forward or remain untapped when faced with an intercept > predator. Yes, vote decks will go down hard, but there are a number > of decks that simply don't have many stealth actions at all - and > those decks can choose not to take those actions, forcing you to > either waste time killing your predator or doing nothing. i am saying you should kill your predator first. and about those straight forward bleeds ever heard about eagles sight? > >. If you intend to just kill predators > repeatedly and gain 3 VP that way, you might find that your predators > are not so willing to permit this to happen. well but my predators predator will help kill my predator and most decks lose when playing against two decks. STefan

> What is the best combat deck ? > > With the rise in combat, I am interested to find out what people value as > the best combat deck they have made or played against and why? I was > intrigued by a post on the group a while back that classified all combat > decks as varying degrees of bruise and bleed. This of course is very true as > even a 'pure' combat deck has to plough through the minions to get to the > pool and it made me ponder which deck consistently comes out on top in > combat? Is it numbers or punch power that wins the day? > > I realise the question is utterly situational and dependant on other decks, > players blah blah yada yada but is there one combat deck that you fear above > all others? Well, yada yada or not, I think it falls into 2 classes: "tournament" combat decks and "local" combat decks. Atlanta sees a LOT of combat, but you won't find us often rushing to the tournaments, much less to the finals, with combat decks. Flipside, you won't see weenie monopotence pure-rush Grapple decks, either, even in local games. And, oddly, you won't see Majesty that much either, but that's a side effect of that "sleazy feeling" that playing Presence gives. In a tournament when I'm not playing combat (re: most every time), I fear pure blind rush behind me, usually, since it will often take me down and give my grandpredator 2 easy VPs, unless the rush deck is going backwards also, giving my great-grand-preadator 3 VPs. I'm usually prepared for a deck that can fight and oust, not a deck that just fights. Anyway, to answer the "fear above all others" question, I'd say that Animalism combat is among the worst to fight against. Carrion Crows being *painfully* common after SW is non-strike damage flying all around, and Trap/CarrionCrows/SongOfSerenity is just damn annoying. Furthermore, Drawing out the Beast is such a gawdoffal hoser card for all-but-Caliean long-range combat decks. As Derek often says, Animalism combat often puts you in a "S:CE or die" situation. That being said, if I'm playing S:CE, I don't mind Animalism combat, and then I worry more about Immortal Grapple. I'm a big fan of Spirit's Touch/Majesty for S:CE-at-long-range, a great get out of combat. Put that together, and I think the "best" combat deck is the Gangrel+Potence. DotB/IG/WHACK, with possible SongOfSerenity/Trap/CarrionCrows stuff and/or prevention and/or making the damage aggravated and possibly Disarming or Decapitating. Animalism/Potence is bad enough, but "AND I prevent all of yours AND mine is agg" etc. make the Gangrel one royal pain in the tuckus. Wynn is a particular pain of an animal, because he's Old Dog that won't learn New Tricks, like simple Obedience. =) THAT being said, that doesn't mean I fear it most in a tournament; they may or may not be able to oust people after building the world's most kickass deck. But I sure fear for my vampires. I similarly fear for my vamps when facing Assamites (anyone who's seen Todd Bannister bring out Parnassus again and again DOES fear the Assamites), but since DotB basically hoses[1] Assamite combat, I'd have to put Potent Gangrel on top of THAT. But that's back to the tournament/local separation. In a combat-heavy metagame, you want the "trump combat," and I think the Potent Gangrel can trump most all others. In a combat-light environment, all that prevention/etc. could be better used card slots for say, speeding up the deck, or those huge vamps could be replaced with "smaller and more" for speed and more ousting actions. I have to say I'm not really sure what the "best" light-combat tournament "combat deck" is. Most of the assumptions (few-to-no maneuvers, little-to-no prevention) just aren't true in the post-SW scene. I have yet to personally see a combat deck win the finals in a tournament, so I'm hardly one to judge what it takes. [1] I may well revisit this assessment when FN comes out, if the Assamites get some "set range" effect or nasty close range combat. -- Pat Ricochet Soul Jar'rn Fool of Atlanta "You can't make a fact out of an opinion by raising your voice."

On Wed, 16 May 2001 17:20:21 +0200, "Ferenci Stefan" <a950...@unet.univie.ac.at> wrote: >Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> schrieb in im Newsbeitrag: >an25gtkjprq5ohopj...@4ax.com... >> On Wed, 16 May 2001 14:25:35 +0200, "Ferenci Stefan" >> <a950...@unet.univie.ac.at> wrote: >> >> >one per turn goes to torpor and never comes back! ever thought about >> >telephatic tracking by the way! >> >> trying to enforce that 'never comes back' is poor play for an >> intercept deck. You can't prevent someone from playing their deck, or >> you unbalance the table in the wrong direction - sure, you get one VP, >> but just like a sloppy Rush deck, it tends to explode. >> >most of the time you win 2-3 VP because you are the last player left in the >game. That's 2 VP - not 3. >and 90% of the time they stay in torpor because you block the rescue >attempts. Question: What do you do against this sequence of actions? Assume you are a Tzimisce intercept/rotshit deck with Meshenka and Devin Bisley out. Your predator is a Potence Rush deck with Hugo, Hector, Lupo, and Koko, and has been spending his turns up til now killing the Malkavian deck behind HIM. 1) Hector rushes Meshenka, who uses Rotschreck against him. Hector goes to torpor, losing no blood. 2) Hugo rescues Hector, paying 1 each. Stop him? 3) Koko rescues Hector, paying 1 each. Stop him? 4) Lupo rescues Hector, paying 1 each. Stop him? Note that in this position, your predator will be perfectly willing to trade one-for-one on vamps - if he can torporise Meshenka, you will be in bad shape. Using Chiropteran Marauder at superior is not the best option here. You can, of course, attempt to block all the rescue actions, exposing yourself to three additional combats and probably getting either Devin or Meshenka dead in the process. Or you can ignore the first rescue action, knowing that Hector will be out of the picture for awhile, and save your combat to kill the two vampires who are less of a threat. >> If you're going to use Rotshit, you have to target vamps carefully and >> rely on the "no untap" to keep them out of the picture for a bit. > >they stay out of the picture because i block the rescue attempts and >sometimes diablerize them Diablerize? With what vote lock? One Priscus doesn't cut it around here... there's usually plenty of table votes. And with what stealth? >> Intercept the self-rescue if they try to make it happen (no combat, so >> no cards wasted), but go ahead and let them waste actions with the >> other guys. False sense of security, see. > >sorry don´t get your point why do i let them waste actions with the other >guys? Because rescuing from torpor costs 2 blood, and you want them to do at least a little bit of damage to your grandprey so that you have a hope of not being just the last man standing? >> Not to mention that Rotshit has its own weakness - NOT HAVING ONE IN >> HAND. :) And intercept also has its own weakness... heavy enough >> stealth and unblockable actions will beat it right where it hurts. > >most unblockable actions send the vamp to torpor where they will stay. >andmost of the time i´ll generate enough intercept. See above regarding "stay". >but you are right i won´t be able to block night moves :-) >> >> Except *true* stealth, or unblockable actions. Elder Impersonation >> backed by Lost in Crowds is usually an ugly surprise for most >> intercept decks - they generate +3 intercept and then POOF, have to >> find it again. >> >if he plays with true stealth he will have to use that many cards that if >you stop to block him he´ll have a hand jam. >and won´t be able to do anything but 1 bleeds. Again, Lost in Crowds/Elder Impersonation is only 2 cards, and it forces you to generate +2 intercept on two different vampires. We haven't even gone into the possibilities Seduction offers yet, if you want to go the plain old seduction/EI route. The Gangrel will do pesky things like use Earth Control/Form of Mist, and that Backways can get to be a real pain in the ass after awhile. [ quoted text not captured ]

>>>> Not to turn this into a discussion about the viability of intercept >>>> decks (2 VPs, someone?) >>> >>> most of the time you´ll win 3 VP nevermind, but even 2 VP are more than > the >>> average rush deck will win. Rob was asking about the best combat deck and > i >>> simply said intercept combat is best. >> >> This isn't true. Intercept decks consistently perform at 2VP, for the >> reasons shown below: >> > then you should tune up your intercept deck: > >> Have you ever played an intercept deck against truly strong players? >> > does winning the preliminary round and almost winning the finals (game was > called on time, very bad for an intercept deck, if it hadn´t been called on > time i am pretty sure i would have won it) of the 2000 EC count. Read the post you're responding to: Intercept decks often *slow* *down* tables, something you're supporting here, not refuting. It *is* bad for an intercept deck to time out, but they often support the table timing out. Also, I thought that VEKN finals don't have a time limit. That's usually not a problem, from my experience; usually the finals are pretty brutal, but again, I thought they had no time limit. > i played an > intercept deck and it perfromed well against all sorts of deck types. but > somehow i get the feeling you never really played an intercept deck. BWAHAHAHAHAHAhahahah..ha..hoo...oh, that's a good one. Derek's "never really played an intercept deck." Please, come to Atlanta some time, play a few rounds, have a few beers, and enjoy in the joke. =) [ quoted text not captured ]

On Wed, 16 May 2001 17:45:06 +0200, "Ferenci Stefan" <a950...@unet.univie.ac.at> wrote: >> Have you ever played an intercept deck against truly strong players? >> >does winning the preliminary round and almost winning the finals (game was >called on time, very bad for an intercept deck, if it hadn´t been called on >time i am pretty sure i would have won it) of the 2000 EC count. i played an >intercept deck and it perfromed well against all sorts of deck types. but >somehow i get the feeling you never really played an intercept deck. This is sort of amusing on the face of it, but it will suffice to simply say that yes, I do play intercept decks, and yes, I build very strong ones. I will note that all the European tourney decks I see posted seem to be heavy on the stealth vote, stealth bleed, etc... in other words, playing straight into the hands of intercept. The US metagame is nowhere near such a freebie. >> It's amazing how many decks can suddenly decide to do nothing except >> bleed forward or remain untapped when faced with an intercept >> predator. Yes, vote decks will go down hard, but there are a number >> of decks that simply don't have many stealth actions at all - and >> those decks can choose not to take those actions, forcing you to >> either waste time killing your predator or doing nothing. > >i am saying you should kill your predator first. and about those straight >forward bleeds ever heard about eagles sight? Oh, you have Eagle's Sight in that deck too? How many? When your prey has 6-7 minions who do nothing but bleed forward, how quickly can you get to those Eagle's Sights? Maybe you stop one or two, but what happens after that? You end up in "PARK", killing your predator and looking stupid. Are you playing with a 120+ card deck? Have you discovered a perfect way to shuffle so that you get ALL the cards you need right when you need them? You're stepping way off the bounds of reasonable here, man. You've got this mythical deck here that stops every action everywhere, no matter what stealth, has enough combat to survive and kill everything else out there even WITHOUT Rotschreck, because you can only play one of those per turn, can survive without Master actions (because you're playing lots of Rotschreck), and apparently plays against opponents that don't know how to deal with intercept. Forgive me if I find it perhaps a bit farfetched, especially considering my own experiences. >>. If you intend to just kill predators >> repeatedly and gain 3 VP that way, you might find that your predators >> are not so willing to permit this to happen. > >well but my predators predator will help kill my predator and most decks >lose when playing against two decks. Until your predator quits taking actions and only starts defending against his predator. You can, of course, be foolish and go out of your WAY to kill your predator by stopping even his non-threatening actions, and we call this "losing" over here. [ quoted text not captured ]

> > Read the post you're responding to: Intercept decks often *slow* *down* > tables, something you're supporting here, not refuting. It *is* bad for an > intercept deck to time out, but they often support the table timing out. i am not supporting slow down it happened during the finals, i wished it hadn´t. in general i have the feeling that an agressive intercept deck doesn´t slow down a game especially if you include such nice cards like smiling jack (don´t tell me it is not defendable i drop with max 3 players left including me). also weakening your predator helps your grandpredator to oust him and therefore speeding up the game. during the finals there was a very special constallation and i had a very bad draw (no intercept with 24 intercept cards in a 68 card deck). thats why it took so long 3+ hours. we played at a convention and the convention closed so we had to call the game with 3 players left. > Also, I thought that VEKN finals don't have a time limit. That's > usually not a problem, from my experience; usually the finals are pretty > brutal, but again, I thought they had no time limit. > > > i played an > > intercept deck and it perfromed well against all sorts of deck types. but > > somehow i get the feeling you never really played an intercept deck. > > BWAHAHAHAHAHAhahahah..ha..hoo...oh, that's a good one. Derek's "never > really played an intercept deck." > > Please, come to Atlanta some time, play a few rounds, have a few beers, > and enjoy in the joke. =) > i would love to come to the states and play some games; different domain different decks and metagame. Stefan

Pat Ricochet wrote: > Also, I thought that VEKN finals don't have a time limit. That's > usually not a problem, from my experience; usually the finals are pretty > brutal, but again, I thought they had no time limit. Every round has a time limit [VEKN 3.1.1]. "Untimed" finals generally equate to a 24-hour limit. :-) -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and tournament rules: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/

"skaffen_amtiskaw" <skaffen_...@runbox.com> wrote in message news:3b025576...@news.space.net... > <snip> > > In other posts I read a lot about scary combat decks, but I think they > all focus on single effective combats. Vampire A vs. Vampire B is not > what the question is about, but - as Derek rightly points out - > consistency. Consistency is the main word I am seeing quite rightly banded around. To me this seems a real important factor in whatever you do in the combat arena. If you want to intercept and pick your targets with a smattering of Tele Tracking added in you need to be able to do it a LOT. > Killing vampires doesn't win the game, although it may go > a long way towards this goal. No vamps, no more game for your unfortunate victim. > Combat as such has to be seen as part of > the game environment. So the question asked by Rob has an easy, but I > guess rather unsatisfying answer: The best combat deck is the one that > handles the metagame best, which sees not only combat, but mostly > combat defense (S:CE and friends, Fortitude etc.). If I build a deck I > never include such a thing as "casual combat" - it's either dedicated > killing capacity or dedicated defense. Do you define dedicated killing capacity as no wakes, no frills etc.? > So what IS the best combat deck then? The one that handles the > metagame best, I said. Without the local and situational context, this > means: The one that does combat well in the most common metagame > types. I think this is one of the reasons that toolbox decks do well as they deal with a number of metagame twists and turns. I think toolbox with a powerful theme or backbone can kick a wide variety of ass. At least down here good old honest Bleed is still the strategy > that wins most games, and the one everybody returns to if the > bloodshed gets too scary. Gangrel Potence is scary as hell, but > nothing that stops a fast bleeding predator. Tzimisce Intercept works, > but won't be effective against the most common combat defense, S:CE. > Rötschreck on top? Don't really rate Rotschreck decks myself. They eat master phase actions and are limited in kill potential to big vamp opponents. Fine, one goes to torpor... As Derek rightly > pointed out: These combat monsters are deadly when they work, but > Lazverinus offing Gideon Fontaine with 6 aggravated is just overkill, > especially if there are 4 or 5 Friends Of Gideon just waiting for you > to run out of your valuable transient cards, be it intercept our > untap. So the best combat deck to me is the one that can handle these > situations best, and that IMHO is potence rush (Nosferatu or Brujah > flavour, Antitribu welcome - whichever you prefer). Okay, they rule or > explode, but they have the best chance to kill Joe Vampire in the > average metagame, and each and every one of them - which is more > important, since your forward momentum is to fill out the vacuum in > your prey's active region, metaphorically speaking. > I played many wicked combat decks in my (un)life as a V:TES player, > but every time I look at the metagame, rush looks more promising then > most other ideas. Why? Because while IG/Potence combat has problems > with Gangrel poke etc, all these decks which sometimes come along > during a metagame shift are not as good as Potence rush against the > bread and butter decks - sneaky bleed, politics... A good point. Pot rush does handle the staple dirt of S+B and Vote rather well. But you say it falls against poke and IMO hates 'intelligent' and consistant defence. > I found that > all-combat environments are quite easy to exploit - maybe because > people here don't build efficient combat decks, but I think because > most combat decks are effective in killing, but not effective in eiher > ousting or defending. > > Interesting topic... Actually if I remember correctly the current > British metagame reads "Pack Fortitude or Die". Does that mean that > Tremere or Assamites will shine soon? If so, good, but then that would > mean that you are all too gentlemanly to deploy some real cheesy > weenie sneak & bleed or weenie politics. Oooh, make no mistake the dairy produce counter is just as well stocked over here. Just because a metagame shifts toward brutal combat there is still a fair quota of S+B and Vote etc. in most tourneys to HAVE to consider it in pre-tourney deck selection. These should handle the > situation without ever touching a vampire - the minions will be rushed > and killed, but I don't see a Gangrel Potence deck quick enough to > destroy them all reliably. > > Ah, my apologies for rambling as Derek did, without a proper warning > in the beginning. > > Regards > > Skaffen Goddamn news servers they can stick it up their butt. I've replied to a load of other posts in this thread but they have been 'selectively filtered'. I'll re-post tomorrow. Rob [ quoted text not captured ]

"skaffen_amtiskaw" <skaffen_...@runbox.com> wrote in message news:3b025576...@news.space.net... > <snip> > > In other posts I read a lot about scary combat decks, but I think they > all focus on single effective combats. Vampire A vs. Vampire B is not > what the question is about, but - as Derek rightly points out - > consistency. Consistency is the main word I am seeing quite rightly banded around. To me this seems a real important factor in whatever you do in the combat arena. If you want to intercept and pick your targets with a smattering of Tele Tracking added in you need to be able to do it a LOT. > Killing vampires doesn't win the game, although it may go > a long way towards this goal. No vamps, no more game for your unfortunate victim. (after a lot of annoying and humiliating one point bleeds :o) > Combat as such has to be seen as part of > the game environment. So the question asked by Rob has an easy, but I > guess rather unsatisfying answer: The best combat deck is the one that > handles the metagame best, which sees not only combat, but mostly > combat defense (S:CE and friends, Fortitude etc.). If I build a deck I > never include such a thing as "casual combat" - it's either dedicated > killing capacity or dedicated defense. Do you define dedicated killing capacity as no wakes, no frills etc.? > So what IS the best combat deck then? The one that handles the > metagame best, I said. Without the local and situational context, this > means: The one that does combat well in the most common metagame > types. I think this is one of the reasons that toolbox decks do well as they deal with a number of metagame twists and turns. I think toolbox with a powerful theme or backbone can kick a wide variety of ass. At least down here good old honest Bleed is still the strategy > that wins most games, and the one everybody returns to if the > bloodshed gets too scary. Gangrel Potence is scary as hell, but > nothing that stops a fast bleeding predator. Tzimisce Intercept works, > but won't be effective against the most common combat defense, S:CE. > Rötschreck on top? Don't really rate Rotschreck decks myself. They eat master phase actions and are limited in kill potential to big vamp opponents. Fine, one goes to torpor... As Derek rightly > pointed out: These combat monsters are deadly when they work, but > Lazverinus offing Gideon Fontaine with 6 aggravated is just overkill, > especially if there are 4 or 5 Friends Of Gideon just waiting for you > to run out of your valuable transient cards, be it intercept our > untap. So the best combat deck to me is the one that can handle these > situations best, and that IMHO is potence rush (Nosferatu or Brujah > flavour, Antitribu welcome - whichever you prefer). Okay, they rule or > explode, but they have the best chance to kill Joe Vampire in the > average metagame, and each and every one of them - which is more > important, since your forward momentum is to fill out the vacuum in > your prey's active region, metaphorically speaking. > I played many wicked combat decks in my (un)life as a V:TES player, > but every time I look at the metagame, rush looks more promising then > most other ideas. Why? Because while IG/Potence combat has problems > with Gangrel poke etc, all these decks which sometimes come along > during a metagame shift are not as good as Potence rush against the > bread and butter decks - sneaky bleed, politics... A good point. Pot rush does handle the staple dirt of S+B and Vote rather well. But you say it falls against poke and IMO hates 'intelligent' and consistant defence. > I found that > all-combat environments are quite easy to exploit - maybe because > people here don't build efficient combat decks, but I think because > most combat decks are effective in killing, but not effective in eiher > ousting or defending. > > Interesting topic... Actually if I remember correctly the current > British metagame reads "Pack Fortitude or Die". Does that mean that > Tremere or Assamites will shine soon? If so, good, but then that would > mean that you are all too gentlemanly to deploy some real cheesy > weenie sneak & bleed or weenie politics. Oooh, make no mistake the dairy produce counter is just as well stocked over here. Just because a metagame shifts toward brutal combat there is still a fair quota of S+B and Vote etc. in most tourneys to HAVE to consider it in pre-tourney deck selection. These should handle the > situation without ever touching a vampire - the minions will be rushed > and killed, but I don't see a Gangrel Potence deck quick enough to > destroy them all reliably. > > Ah, my apologies for rambling as Derek did, without a proper warning > in the beginning. > > Regards > > Skaffen Goddamn news servers they can stick it up their butt. I've replied to a load of other posts in this thread but they have been 'selectively filtered'. I'll re-post tomorrow. Rob --- [ quoted text not captured ]

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:3B02B6FB...@white-wolf.com... > Pat Ricochet wrote: > > Also, I thought that VEKN finals don't have a time limit. That's > > usually not a problem, from my experience; usually the finals are pretty > > brutal, but again, I thought they had no time limit. > > Every round has a time limit [VEKN 3.1.1]. > "Untimed" finals generally equate to a 24-hour limit. :-) I like it. Roll out the endurance decks..... :o) "Bring in the drip, pro-plus and some beds we are approaching 20 hours." Rob. > LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. > Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and tournament rules: > http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/ [ quoted text not captured ]

On Wed, 16 May 2001 21:45:41 +0100, "Rob Treasure" <rob.tr...@btinternet.com> wrote: > >"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message >news:3B02B6FB...@white-wolf.com... >> Pat Ricochet wrote: >> > Also, I thought that VEKN finals don't have a time limit. That's >> > usually not a problem, from my experience; usually the finals are pretty >> > brutal, but again, I thought they had no time limit. >> >> Every round has a time limit [VEKN 3.1.1]. >> "Untimed" finals generally equate to a 24-hour limit. :-) > >I like it. Roll out the endurance decks..... :o) 12 Autarkis Persecutions 8 Consanguineous Boons 6 Life Boons and awaaaaay we go! =) [ quoted text not captured ]

"Rob Treasure" <rob.tr...@btinternet.com> wrote in message news:9ds96i$m37$1...@taliesin.netcom.net.uk... > Not really. I meant the combat deck that will *consistently* come out better > than others from a 'standard' game if there is such a thing. By a standard > game I mean assume some combat, some sneak bleed, some votes etc. Hmm. Well, I keep meaning to (along with posting another Tremere newsletter) post my comments about Minneapolis' May 5th tournament, but then again, I keep expecting our prince to pop up and say something. Anyway, I took second place there with a fairly standard Potence-IG deck. 1st place was taken by a Tzimisce deck that I couldn't deal with well in combat (surprise), I should have thought over my seating choice in the final round more, and after 3 rounds of good draws, I got screwed in the final. Oh well, that's how it goes. > what I am trying to get at is whether players think there are basic do's and > don'ts of combat decks and then maybe examine any regional /national trends > have a few arguments...... you know the sort of thing. Woog. That's a lot. My instincts are that weenie potence IG is probably your best bet for combat at a big tournament. This could be wrong, as I haven't played at any *big* tournaments. However, from most of the reports we see, there's very little good/efficient combat at tournaments. Basic dos and don'ts? That's a pretty tall order. Here's a try, though: Do intimidate your predator into submission. Do work a deal with other combat decks if it's feasible. Do crush your prey. Do not go cross-table unless it is absolutely necessary. Do not load your crypt with big vampires, unless you have a method of getting that pool back. How's that for a start? Xian

Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:8473gtcrkflvn54v1...@4ax.com...> On Tue, 15 May 2001 20:03:13 +0100, "Rob Treasure" > <R.Tre...@btinternet.com> wrote: > > >What is the best combat deck ? > > The one that gets things dead the best. =) Ahhh. Simplicity, the mother of all invention. Or something like that :o) [snip original question] > It's not punch power. Hitting people for 7+ is not going to > consistently win. There simply aren't enough vampires with 6 blood on > them at any given point in time -- vamps tend to either have 1-4 or > 8-11 blood on them. Hmmm. So this would break down to concept #1'consistent efficiency'. That I can understand. It's not burnage. Burning guys is terribly complicated. Anathema is > nasty but not frightening, because of the amount of moving parts. > Trying to burn guys with the Tremere or Assamites is always good for a > giggle, but not for a win. And diablerie has its own inherent risks. If you combine consistent / permanent hand damage with maybe crows and some burnage claw type stuff you can work up to a 'break-even' point in the game where you are handing out consistent 3-4 damage with some agg easy burn options and a load of great permanents for your delectation in the mid to end game. > It's not sheer numbers of dead guys. The Gangrel can litter the > playing field with torporized vamps, but they don't win games any more > than anyone else... mostly because guys who get poked for 1 agg can > rescue themselves next turn I think you have hit an important combat point. The really successful combat decks leave the opposition on no blood to hinder rescue / recycle. When playing a combat deck (or beats as we affectionately call it) the value of environmental damage is IMO overlooked. Carrion Crows is bloody great but *is* the start of complicating a 2-3 card 'efficiency' combo. Then again I suppose it could be an integral part of said combo ?? Anyway, what I was trying to get at is that combat that leaves the opposition on no blood is 'better' TM. than combat that does not and Crows and pals. are a great way to get there. >, and putting in enough intercept to stop > all the rescues WHILE putting in enough combat to kill everything > WHILE putting in some way to oust your prey makes for a 150+ card > deck. We all know the misery of the 'great idea' 150 card deck. Not an easy thing to cut down 60 cards :o) >Well, what the hell is it, then? It's a combination of consistency > and "power at a point" (to steal a term from General A. Tacticus). > > "Consistency": a good combat deck must screw up the opposing vampire > damn near every time it gets into combat. Something as simple as a > Disguised .44 can be ridiculously effective over the long-term. Permanents. A version of consistency if you ask me, none the less useful though. I wonder if there is a 'good' VTES deck that uses 'mainly' permanents as its mechanics for a Magic style cycle-lockdown. Not really talking about your stock guns deck here, I mean wholesale equipment, locations retainers etc. Hmmmm. classic POT Rush deck does well on consistency - it has roughly 50+ > cards that all, in some form or other, read "I hit you." The 'best' > deck in this department, however, is the one that consistently hits > the opposing vamp for right around 3-5 points of damage. > > 3 points is too much to be blithely ignored, except for maybe your > local Inner Circle member - and you should have the advantage in > numbers on him. But most vampires will be 8-caps or fewer, and most > of THOSE vampires will not have full blood. Consider Jost Werner, a > common target. Hitting him for 3 when he's full leaves him with 3 > blood, and it's no longer quite so automatic to drop the Pulse on him. > And a Blood Doll is now more likely to be used to push blood TO him. > Did you torporize him? No -- but neither did you make yourself a > target to the rest of the table. * If Lisette Vizquel drops a Torn > Signpost, Immortal Grapple, Pushing the Limit, and Claws on her first > combat, totally vaporizing some pathetic 4-cap, then people are going > to be a bit edgy about sitting near the deck in the future, and will > go out of their way to help its prey. =) Not sure if I agree with this last part. I think an early show of strength can be a great psychological weapon in a game. If you don't have the fear factor, you are discounting one of the biggest advantages available to the astute player. [snip 3-5 point damage stuff] "Power at a point": So you have a deck that can do 4 points per > combat every time. Your deck will still suck if you can't apply that > damage to the vampires YOU want. Going back to the example above, > suppose Jost Werner goes and Pulses himself as his first action. You > now have a target. If you can't hit the target, you can expect pretty > consistent bleeds of 3 at +1 stealth coming your way. > > Classic POT Rush sometimes falls down pretty badly here, I'm afraid. > With its myriad 0-stealth actions and bleeds for 1, it doesn't have > any real way to guarantee that one specific vampire dies - so its > tactic is modified early on to "all vampires must die", under the > theory that if you kill them all, you definitely got the one you > wanted. This makes you a hell of a target, though, and can be a real > problem if people bring out more vamps than you can kill - or if you > are unable because of hand jam to kill -everything- fast enough. As > many have said, when it works, it works well - when it fails, it > explodes gloriously. Herein lies the problem and why, (as you later say) intercept combat has a notch over rush combat IMO. Possibly both could be they way to go ? Too dilute though ? As a side note, cards like Waste Management Op. and Telepathic Tracking WILL change the face of combat when we look back in a year or two's time. They effect other areas of the game apart from the obvious value of the cards. Telepathic tracking was a really intelligent card to bring out. Not 'hosing' combat ends but possibly weakening it slightly and allowing other clans / disciplines a stab at countering it. Sorry, I digress again. > Adding stealth to a Rush sounds like a great idea, until you realize > how many card slots in your deck it takes to pull off - and what might > happen when people quit blocking you. Oops. But it -has- worked for > decks in the past, although I might be inclined to use it with > permanents as opposed to transients. > > Intercept is, oddly enough, the premier option here - a well-built > intercept deck should certainly be able to get into combat with any > vampire it chooses (unless, of course, that vampire takes no actions, > in which case it can be reclassified under 'no threat'). But > Combining effective intercept with effective combat has been a puzzle > for as long as V:TES has been around. The Tzimisce are foremost here, > as they have two intercept disciplines (ANI/AUS) and two combat > disciplines (VIC/ANI) to draw from. But even they run into some > difficulty, since the best cards they have are transients and they'll > run out of those transients rapidly if they attempt to slaughter > everything. They can be made with some nasty permanents. War Ghouls IMO almost solely fill the 'permanents' gap. A good mix of Wakes, heavy combat and Ghouls for rushing can shut down a scary number of decks. I really rate the Tzimisce. They have a superb discipline spread, the weakness lies (as it so often does) when there are too many options to try to cram in and the deck becomes dilute, causing clogging, 'bad' draws etc. In the past I have 'toolboxed' the Tzimisce as it so easy to do it well, but lately I have really focussed a few Tzimisce decks with surprising and VERY successful results. I would add some kind of durability or resilience to the melting pot of the perfect combat deck . Maybe a smattering of For. (you gotta love it :o) in the right deck or even a Chantry, Humanitas or some such when applicable. IMO this REALLY makes a difference, adding an element of recycling and 'toughness' to the package allows you to carry on killing where other decks kill and fold. Putting in the right defence can (if carried out correctly) add to the offence. Classic example is punch with prevention (possibly even as simple as multiple Leathers) and Disarms by the boatload. [ quoted text not captured ]

<snip> > > "Consistency": a good combat deck must screw up the opposing vampire > > damn near every time it gets into combat. Something as simple as a > > Disguised .44 can be ridiculously effective over the long-term. > > Permanents. A version of consistency if you ask me, none the less useful > though. I wonder if there is a 'good' VTES deck that uses 'mainly' > permanents as its mechanics for a Magic style cycle-lockdown. Not really > talking about your stock guns deck here, I mean wholesale equipment, > locations retainers etc. Hmmmm. > What about 'ye olde Anneke - Millicent - reversal' deck?

On Thu, 17 May 2001 08:48:50 +0100, "shsoton" <shs...@dircon.co.uk> wrote: >Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote in message >news:8473gtcrkflvn54v1...@4ax.com...> On Tue, 15 May 2001 >20:03:13 +0100, "Rob Treasure" >> <R.Tre...@btinternet.com> wrote: >> >> >What is the best combat deck ? >> >> The one that gets things dead the best. =) > >Ahhh. Simplicity, the mother of all invention. Or something like that :o) like money, the root of all evil? =) (blatant misquote, i know =) >> It's not punch power. Hitting people for 7+ is not going to >> consistently win. There simply aren't enough vampires with 6 blood on >> them at any given point in time -- vamps tend to either have 1-4 or >> 8-11 blood on them. > >Hmmm. So this would break down to concept #1'consistent efficiency'. That I >can understand. ...And hitting people for 7+ is consistent, but it's INefficient since most of the time you only have to bop them for 3-4. >>It's not burnage. Burning guys is terribly complicated. Anathema is > >If you combine consistent / permanent hand damage with maybe crows and some >burnage claw type stuff you can work up to a 'break-even' point in the game >where you are handing out consistent 3-4 damage with some agg easy burn >options and a load of great permanents for your delectation in the mid to >end game. My Tzimisce finals deck from 2 years ago relied on getting 2 Murder of Crows on each intercepting vamp, and using Carrion Crows/Aid from Bats as "casual transient" to boost the damage up from 3 to ridiculous as necessary, or to run away if THAT was necessary. If Chiropteran Marauder had existed I'd have replaced all 12 Aid from Bats with -that-, and probably made a lot more ashes around me than I did. The Gangrel have an easier run of it, as they just need ANI/pro to play Trap/Crows/Song and Claws when appropriate. Bear Paw, Caitlin, Luther, Gunther, Gitane, and Omaya come up on the first run through a filter, and I'm sure it won't be difficult to find some weenies to handle the backup, along with a couple ANI skill cards to improve ones like Anastasia Grey. (I'll freely admit that I've been very tempted through this entire thread to sit down and try to build the above deck. But again, I wonder about its viability against other combat, since it really won't have the room OR the skills to be preventing big swats.) >> It's not sheer numbers of dead guys. The Gangrel can litter the >> playing field with torporized vamps, but they don't win games any more >> than anyone else... mostly because guys who get poked for 1 agg can >> rescue themselves next turn > >I think you have hit an important combat point. The really successful combat >decks leave the opposition on no blood to hinder rescue / recycle. When Yeah. A guy in torpor with no blood has to be rescued by someone else, and has to hunt when he comes out. That's two wasted actions to retrieve a vamp, and is usually the slowdown you wanted. A guy in torpor with ONE blood is only one wasted action - the rescue. And someone who can rescue themselves is NO wasted actions, since if he was in torpor he wasn't doing anything else ANYWAY. >playing a combat deck (or beats as we affectionately call it) the value of >environmental damage is IMO overlooked. Carrion Crows is bloody great but >*is* the start of complicating a 2-3 card 'efficiency' combo. Then again I >suppose it could be an integral part of said combo ?? Anyway, what I was >trying to get at is that combat that leaves the opposition on no blood is >'better' TM. than combat that does not and Crows and pals. are a great way >to get there. I've been amusing myself with a bunch of Crows/Song decks lately. The deck I played in the Atlanta qualifier was pretty much just that - intercept, Conquer the Beast, Crows, Song. Mostly intercept though, to defend all my powerbases and neat toys that I littered the table with. But I generally build the "combo" directly around Crows, knowing that Crows + punch is a good 3 points of damage, and if I use Crows + Bats, that's 6 points over two rounds and i could STILL only be punched for one. I'd say it's an integral part of the combo. the other advantage of stuff like that is: it's not strike damage. When I was chucking around Murder of Crows/Carrion Crows, it was very frustrating for a Ventrue Fortitude vote-deck to have to sit there with his Skin of Steel preventing my 1 point from Aid from Bats, because it wouldn't work against anything else. It can't be dodged, it can't easily be prevented... it really makes you revisit the whole idea. >>, and putting in enough intercept to stop >> all the rescues WHILE putting in enough combat to kill everything >> WHILE putting in some way to oust your prey makes for a 150+ card >> deck. > >We all know the misery of the 'great idea' 150 card deck. Not an easy thing >to cut down 60 cards :o) Have to start cutting out strategies wholesale. ("ok, time to get rid of the 8 body flares") >>Well, what the hell is it, then? It's a combination of consistency >> and "power at a point" (to steal a term from General A. Tacticus). >> >> "Consistency": a good combat deck must screw up the opposing vampire >> damn near every time it gets into combat. Something as simple as a >> Disguised .44 can be ridiculously effective over the long-term. > >Permanents. A version of consistency if you ask me, none the less useful >though. I wonder if there is a 'good' VTES deck that uses 'mainly' >permanents as its mechanics for a Magic style cycle-lockdown. Not really >talking about your stock guns deck here, I mean wholesale equipment, >locations retainers etc. Hmmmm. I have an intercepty-permanents deck like that, yeah. I'll post it in a separate message though - it's mostly OBF/AUS, using OBF to guarantee its weapons, and a bit of stealth for some retainers and locations it likes. >* > If Lisette Vizquel drops a Torn >> Signpost, Immortal Grapple, Pushing the Limit, and Claws on her first >> combat, totally vaporizing some pathetic 4-cap, then people are going >> to be a bit edgy about sitting near the deck in the future, and will >> go out of their way to help its prey. =) > >Not sure if I agree with this last part. I think an early show of strength >can be a great psychological weapon in a game. If you don't have the fear >factor, you are discounting one of the biggest advantages available to the >astute player. The fear factor is very important, but I think there is sometimes a thing as too MUCH fear. If someone gets into combat with you and you drop Trap/CC/Song and their vampire goes away, then the table says to itself "OK, that was unfortunately predictable; time to avoid combat with that guy unless I can afford the rescue actions." The above example is a PERMANENT result though, and while sometimes it's nice to have people not wanting to sit next to you, it -can- mean that you end up as a bit of a target, where people say "ok, that combat is just too scary, it needs to be off the board." I know I do, anyway. But I also grow attached to my minions. ;) I like having their little smiling* faces all looking up at me in the Happy Region, instead of empty in the Sad Region. (* perhaps smiling is an inappropriate word.) >[snip 3-5 point damage stuff] > >"Power at a point": So you have a deck that can do 4 points per >> combat every time. Your deck will still suck if you can't apply that >> damage to the vampires YOU want. Going back to the example above, > >Herein lies the problem and why, (as you later say) intercept combat has a >notch over rush combat IMO. Possibly both could be they way to go ? Too >dilute though ? Both would be nice, but I think you dilute your intercept capability. As it stands, cards like Forgotten Labyrinth are a real pain for an intercept deck; it's one card that makes an awful lot of actions turn into +4 stealth. If they're packing any Cloaks on top of it, it can get even worse. =/ Building an intercept deck without the ability to at least OCCASIONALLY catch Forgotten Labyrinth is ignoring the Nosferatu, which is just what they want. =) >As a side note, cards like Waste Management Op. and Telepathic Tracking WILL >change the face of combat when we look back in a year or two's time. They >effect other areas of the game apart from the obvious value of the cards. >Telepathic tracking was a really intelligent card to bring out. Not 'hosing' >combat ends but possibly weakening it slightly and allowing other clans / >disciplines a stab at countering it. Sorry, I digress again. Heh. I finally recently got round to playing my TT deck; it was great fun watching someone else play Majesty and being able to say "Actually, we will CONTINUE this combat..." Very satisfying. WMO might not change the face of -combat- exactly, but TT certainly will. As it stands I think nobody's really sat down and tried to make an "I get you on the first try" intercept-Tremere deck, which is one of the nastier uses of TT, to say the least. I may have to do that soon. =) >> for as long as V:TES has been around. The Tzimisce are foremost here, >> as they have two intercept disciplines (ANI/AUS) and two combat >> disciplines (VIC/ANI) to draw from. But even they run into some >> difficulty, since the best cards they have are transients and they'll >> run out of those transients rapidly if they attempt to slaughter >> everything. > >They can be made with some nasty permanents. War Ghouls IMO almost solely >fill the 'permanents' gap. A good mix of Wakes, heavy combat and Ghouls for >rushing can shut down a scary number of decks. I dunno about you, but I see a lot of gratuitous "i intercept the War Ghoul" going on, even when the intercepting minion is going to die as a result. Much safer to have one dead minion than lots. =) But yes, if you can get some War Ghouls out and moving, the Tzimisce are suddenly VERY ugly to deal with. >I really rate the Tzimisce. They have a superb discipline spread, the >weakness lies (as it so often does) when there are too many options to try >to cram in and the deck becomes dilute, causing clogging, 'bad' draws etc. >In the past I have 'toolboxed' the Tzimisce as it so easy to do it well, but >lately I have really focussed a few Tzimisce decks with surprising and VERY >successful results. Yep. There's no question that they are in great shape as far as clans go - bleed modifiers, permanent bleed access (Manse and Pulse), good solid defense (which goes for a long way), and the like. I think the trick to playing them is what you said - DON'T GET FANCY. Do what you came to do and get out of Dodge... trying to bleed, Rush, intercept, AND kill things is going to hose it up. Just picking "bleed and kill", "Rush and kill", or "intercept and kill" seems to do much better. >I would add some kind of durability or resilience to the melting pot of the >perfect combat deck . Maybe a smattering of For. (you gotta love it :o) in >the right deck or even a Chantry, Humanitas or some such when applicable. >IMO this REALLY makes a difference, adding an element of recycling and >'toughness' to the package allows you to carry on killing where other decks >kill and fold. Putting in the right defence can (if carried out correctly) >add to the offence. Classic example is punch with prevention (possibly even >as simple as multiple Leathers) and Disarms by the boatload. I've never really sat down and tossed in a Humanitas/Catacombs to some decks. I wonder if that might not be a viable alternative to the "how to kill you and avoid yours" problem; make a deck that has NO defense against other combat, but that can get its guys back out of torpor for cheap or free? Certainly provides an interesting view... especially if paired up with the Hungry Coyote so that empty rescued vamps can get in the fray again quickly. So ponder a Tremere deck, then... with: 2 Chantry 1 Humanitas 1 Catacombs that no longer bothers with maneuvers, but just has: 10 Trap 10 Weather Control 15 Theft of Vitae 6 Walk of Flame , has a few Apportations to give a bonus press if people have found presses to end from somewhere, and of course can cycle them as maneuvers. Then give it some Dominate bleed cards, some nice Rush actions, and ...? Unless you're sitting next to Ridiculously Dedicated Combat, your guys are going to be in good shape, as not that many should end up in torpor, and you can get the Tremere back with the Chantry, and the !Tremere back with the Humanitas/Catacombs stuff. Spending blood off the vamps is, of course, meaningless because of Theft. Could come out very interesting. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Thu, 17 May 2001 10:23:30 -0400, Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote: >On Thu, 17 May 2001 08:48:50 +0100, "shsoton" <shs...@dircon.co.uk> >wrote: >> >>Permanents. A version of consistency if you ask me, none the less useful >>though. I wonder if there is a 'good' VTES deck that uses 'mainly' >>permanents as its mechanics for a Magic style cycle-lockdown. Not really >>talking about your stock guns deck here, I mean wholesale equipment, >>locations retainers etc. Hmmmm. > >I have an intercepty-permanents deck like that, yeah. I'll post it in >a separate message though - it's mostly OBF/AUS, using OBF to >guarantee its weapons, and a bit of stealth for some retainers and >locations it likes. Separate message, behold! Although as I discover upon looking at it again, it doesn't have QUITE as many permanents as I thought and its offense is a bit weak. Maybe a few Pulse tossed in, but I'm pretty sure I know why I left them out of this one. =) Deck Name: Just the Guns Created by: DSR Description: simple pure intercept, with guns to defend and slowly wear down an opponent. More permanents for staying power. Crypt: (12 cards) [Min: 12, Max: 12, Avg: 3] 1 Aleph (AUS dom, Malkavian, 4) 1 Dancin' Dana (AUS cel obf, Malkavian, 6) 1 Dolphin Black (AUS DEM OBF, Malkavian Antitribu, 6) 1 Greta Kircher (AUS CEL obf PRE, Toreador Antitribu, 7) 1 Idalia (AUS dem, Malkavian Antitribu, 4) 1 Kite (AUS DEM obf pre, Malkavian Antitribu, 7, Bishop) 2 Ozmo (AUS dom obf, Malkavian, 6) 2 Quira (AUS OBF obt tha, Malkavian Antitribu, 6) 1 Victoria (AUS cel obf, Malkavian, 5) 1 Zöe (AUS cel obf, Malkavian, 3) Crypt note: Anton fits in this too, but he's awfully big. Library: (70 cards) Master (16 cards) 1 Asylum Hunting Ground 5 Blood Doll 1 Direct Intervention 1 Institution Hunting Ground 1 KRCG News Radio 1 London Evening Star, Tabloid Newspaper 2 Malkavian Prank 1 Millicent Smith, Puritan Vampire Hunter 3 Sudden Reversal notes: the game should last a LOT longer than 12 turns with you on the table. Millicent helps that, so the Hunting Grounds/Blood Dolls should pay for themselves quickly and let you shovel out tons of vampires -- and of course, a Hunting Ground attached to Greta is a lovely thing. Two intercept locations will provide a good "table warning" to anyone eyeballing your pool. As far as Millicent: DON'T burn anyone with her. Let her stay around and slow things down to your pace until you get COMPLETELY set up. Reaction (32 cards) 8 Eagle's Sight 6 Enhanced Senses 8 Forced Awakening 10 Spirit's Touch notes: good basic untap/intercept. Heavy on Spirit's Touch as a backup maneuver for the guns. Combat (11 cards) 6 Behind You! 5 Disguised Weapon Ally (1 card) Muddled Vampire Hunter Retainer (1 card) Mr. Winthrop Equipment (9 cards) 5 .44 Magnum 1 Pier 13, Port of Baltimore 3 Sport Bike A lot less equipment than I'd thought, but it is pretty much all critical to the deck. Kit everyone up with Sport Bikes as they come out to reduce your reliance on the transient intercept, and by the time you blow through it all, you should have three minions sitting pretty with .44s and Sport Bikes, and both intercept locations just lying there on the table saying "I can generate +3 intercept with no library." If you managed to get Mr. Winthrop on one of the guys with Bikes, even better. It doesn't have much offense, but there's a point in every game where people start wandering around with 1-2 blood on all their vamps, and then that .44 becomes truly obnoxious to have sitting there. And Quira and Ozmo DO at least have +1 bleed each. [ quoted text not captured ]

shsoton wrote: > > > It's not burnage. Burning guys is terribly complicated. Anathema is > > nasty but not frightening, because of the amount of moving parts. > > Trying to burn guys with the Tremere or Assamites is always good for a > > giggle, but not for a win. And diablerie has its own inherent risks. > > If you combine consistent / permanent hand damage with maybe crows and some > burnage claw type stuff you can work up to a 'break-even' point in the game > where you are handing out consistent 3-4 damage with some agg easy burn > options and a load of great permanents for your delectation in the mid to > end game. Two problems with this: (1) Animalism has no way to deal with S:CE. I suppose the Tzimisce could do this with Telepathic Tracking, but Animalism isn't really their primary discipline. (2) While you're spending time buying Rats and Crows and Wolves (oh my), someone is bleeding or voting you to death. > If Lisette Vizquel drops a Torn > > Signpost, Immortal Grapple, Pushing the Limit, and Claws on her first > > combat, totally vaporizing some pathetic 4-cap, then people are going > > to be a bit edgy about sitting near the deck in the future, and will > > go out of their way to help its prey. =) > > Not sure if I agree with this last part. I think an early show of strength > can be a great psychological weapon in a game. If you don't have the fear > factor, you are discounting one of the biggest advantages available to the > astute player. Well, if you come out of the gates looking like a rabid dog, the rest of the table is going to try to put you down. You can expect cross-table votes and alliances to be against you. It may well be in the rest of the table's best interest to get you ousted quickly, and get back to business as usual. > Herein lies the problem and why, (as you later say) intercept combat has a > notch over rush combat IMO. Possibly both could be they way to go ? Too > dilute though ? I'll take your points one at a time. The problem with intercept combat it that you can't ever get more than 2 victory points. You can make yourself an impregnable wall, but if you never oust your prey, you'll never win the game. Putting intercept cards in a deck, as you suggest next, is tempting, but as Derek has said: a combat deck thrives on consistency. The more cards mucking up that consistency, the less effective the deck is. > As a side note, cards like Waste Management Op. and Telepathic Tracking WILL > change the face of combat when we look back in a year or two's time. They > effect other areas of the game apart from the obvious value of the cards. > Telepathic tracking was a really intelligent card to bring out. Not 'hosing' > combat ends but possibly weakening it slightly and allowing other clans / > disciplines a stab at countering it. Sorry, I digress again. Telepathic Tracking, a member of the rare club of anti-S:CE cards, is clearly a very significant card. Waste Management Op. looked very good to me at first, but now I just don't think there's room for it in a combat deck. Considering the length of games, WMO allows you to have maybe one additional combat at the end of the game, at the cost of a pool and (much more importantly) space in your deck. > I would add some kind of durability or resilience to the melting pot of the > perfect combat deck . Maybe a smattering of For. (you gotta love it :o) in > the right deck or even a Chantry, Humanitas or some such when applicable. > IMO this REALLY makes a difference, adding an element of recycling and > 'toughness' to the package allows you to carry on killing where other decks > kill and fold. Putting in the right defence can (if carried out correctly) > add to the offence. Classic example is punch with prevention (possibly even > as simple as multiple Leathers) and Disarms by the boatload. Leather Jackets is a bad idea because you have to take actions to go get them. Fortitude's bad because it doesn't come with good combat disciplines. What are you going to do, put For skill cards in the deck? Sketchy... I think a lot of these ideas seem OK in theory, but it practice, it's just too many moving parts. You're going to end up having a Humanitas when you want an Immortal Grapple, or a Leather Jacket when you really want a Bum's Rush. James -- James Hamblin ham...@math.wisc.edu "You seem to think you know it all Let me tell you something, you can't win." -- Pat McGee Band

>> I would add some kind of durability or resilience to the melting pot of the >> perfect combat deck . Maybe a smattering of For. (you gotta love it :o) in >> the right deck or even a Chantry, Humanitas or some such when applicable. >> IMO this REALLY makes a difference, adding an element of recycling and >> 'toughness' to the package allows you to carry on killing where other decks >> kill and fold. Putting in the right defence can (if carried out correctly) >> add to the offence. Classic example is punch with prevention (possibly even >> as simple as multiple Leathers) and Disarms by the boatload. > > I've never really sat down and tossed in a Humanitas/Catacombs to some > decks. I wonder if that might not be a viable alternative to the "how > to kill you and avoid yours" problem; make a deck that has NO defense > against other combat, but that can get its guys back out of torpor for > cheap or free? Certainly provides an interesting view... especially > if paired up with the Hungry Coyote so that empty rescued vamps can > get in the fray again quickly. This I can speak on from experience; I've found that Humanitas/Catacombs tossed in a Fame Dunking deck become essentially combat defense, especially if you have them on two different guys, (one one each, for 2 +1 stealth cheap rescues rather than one +2 stealth free rescuer, who simply becomes a target). Having +2 stealth on your OWN rescues and only paying one, and having that as a permanent, can be good combat defense in practice. It's not many cards, and allows you to weather a combat that may take 3 or more cards with a 1 blood, 2 stealth action. This kind of strategy is helped even further by tossing in a copy of the Coven, especially if your deck goes straight for pool, not caring which of the other player's vampires have how much blood on them. Having even only the Coven as my "combat defense" has won me VPs before (VPs I would have lost without the Coven, and that it wouldn't have helped to have scattered Fake Outs or Dodges). [ quoted text not captured ]

On Thu, 17 May 2001 10:24:54 -0500, James Hamblin <ham...@math.wisc.edu> wrote: > >shsoton wrote: >> >> > It's not burnage. Burning guys is terribly complicated. Anathema is >> > nasty but not frightening, because of the amount of moving parts. >> > Trying to burn guys with the Tremere or Assamites is always good for a >> > giggle, but not for a win. And diablerie has its own inherent risks. >> >> If you combine consistent / permanent hand damage with maybe crows and some >> burnage claw type stuff you can work up to a 'break-even' point in the game >> where you are handing out consistent 3-4 damage with some agg easy burn >> options and a load of great permanents for your delectation in the mid to >> end game. > >Two problems with this: (1) Animalism has no way to deal with S:CE. I Other than the good old classic "they'll run out" method, which works pretty well for weenie Animalism decks. >suppose the Tzimisce could do this with Telepathic Tracking, but >Animalism isn't really their primary discipline. (2) While you're >spending time buying Rats and Crows and Wolves (oh my), someone is >bleeding or voting you to death. Devin, Caliban, Dragos, Meshenka, Anton, Little Tailor -- all possessing ANI/AUS and 8-cap or under. A little big, yes, but when you're looking at intercept/combat, a little big is actually OK. One minion can do the work of many. As far as #2, again, when you're working with intercept combat, actions don't become as much of a problem as with a Rush deck - and those Crows you just got begin to really matter. The first Crows action is mean. The second Crows action is -nasty-... and since your deck is designed to untap and block, you don't have much of a problem. >> Herein lies the problem and why, (as you later say) intercept combat has a >> notch over rush combat IMO. Possibly both could be they way to go ? Too >> dilute though ? > >I'll take your points one at a time. The problem with intercept combat >it that you can't ever get more than 2 victory points. You can make Hm. I wouldn't say "can't ever". The idea of aggressive intercept combat is to oust one's initial prey WHILE making oneself an impregnable wall, giving you 3 VPs. I'd say that intercept done up the way most people normally do, with the kill-your-predator mentality, will gain you only 2 VPs. But if you focus forward properly, and use the intercept on your predator only judiciously, then you can even sweep. Done this way, it has its weaknesses too. You can actually BE ousted, as opposed to the classic "wall up like a big pig" deck. But it's no freebie, for sure. >Telepathic Tracking, a member of the rare club of anti-S:CE cards, is >clearly a very significant card. Waste Management Op. looked very good >to me at first, but now I just don't think there's room for it in a >combat deck. Considering the length of games, WMO allows you to have >maybe one additional combat at the end of the game, at the cost of a >pool and (much more importantly) space in your deck. Depends on the combat deck. In a Rush deck, maybe not, but in a mix-n-match, it could be used to grab some bleed cards or vote cards for later. >Leather Jackets is a bad idea because you have to take actions to go get >them. Fortitude's bad because it doesn't come with good combat >disciplines. What are you going to do, put For skill cards in the >deck? Sketchy... I think a lot of these ideas seem OK in theory, but >it practice, it's just too many moving parts. You're going to end up >having a Humanitas when you want an Immortal Grapple, or a Leather >Jacket when you really want a Bum's Rush. From the point of view of a Rush deck all this makes sense. But there are an awful lot of combat decks out there that aren't pure Rush, and are doing just as well as pure Rush these days. [ quoted text not captured ]

Derek Ray wrote: > > On Thu, 17 May 2001 10:24:54 -0500, James Hamblin > <ham...@math.wisc.edu> wrote: > > >Two problems with this: (1) Animalism has no way to deal with S:CE. I > > Other than the good old classic "they'll run out" method, which works > pretty well for weenie Animalism decks. <shrug> I'm not sure how many Carrion Crows you'll have more than they have Majesty. Is the idea to load _lots_ of retainers on your guys (on the order of, say, two Crows and a Raven on each), then just block, block, block? > >suppose the Tzimisce could do this with Telepathic Tracking, but > >Animalism isn't really their primary discipline. (2) While you're > >spending time buying Rats and Crows and Wolves (oh my), someone is > >bleeding or voting you to death. > > Devin, Caliban, Dragos, Meshenka, Anton, Little Tailor -- all > possessing ANI/AUS and 8-cap or under. A little big, yes, but when > you're looking at intercept/combat, a little big is actually OK. One > minion can do the work of many. But the larger your minions, the less able you are to kill your prey (no weenie swarm option). I suppose you could Pulse... I'm not so sure anymore that this couldn't work. > >> Herein lies the problem and why, (as you later say) intercept combat has a > >> notch over rush combat IMO. Possibly both could be they way to go ? Too > >> dilute though ? > > > >I'll take your points one at a time. The problem with intercept combat > >it that you can't ever get more than 2 victory points. You can make > > Hm. I wouldn't say "can't ever". The idea of aggressive intercept > combat is to oust one's initial prey WHILE making oneself an > impregnable wall, giving you 3 VPs. I'd say that intercept done up > the way most people normally do, with the kill-your-predator > mentality, will gain you only 2 VPs. But if you focus forward > properly, and use the intercept on your predator only judiciously, > then you can even sweep. I guess I don't see what you're implying by "focus forward properly". If you have Eagle's Sights, then maybe you can block their directed actions, but otherwise you may be stuck with bleeding for 1, etc. > >Telepathic Tracking, a member of the rare club of anti-S:CE cards, is > >clearly a very significant card. Waste Management Op. looked very good > >to me at first, but now I just don't think there's room for it in a > >combat deck. Considering the length of games, WMO allows you to have > >maybe one additional combat at the end of the game, at the cost of a > >pool and (much more importantly) space in your deck. > > Depends on the combat deck. In a Rush deck, maybe not, but in a > mix-n-match, it could be used to grab some bleed cards or vote cards > for later. I just don't think it's as spectacular as he seemed to be implying. > From the point of view of a Rush deck all this makes sense. But there > are an awful lot of combat decks out there that aren't pure Rush, and > are doing just as well as pure Rush these days. IME, if you're not almost completely focused on combat, then you can't base your deck's strategy around being able to kill people. Decks which say "I'll bleed, and vote, and kill" end up doing very little of any of those things. That _is_ in my experience, however. Any tips on making a combat deck which is less focused but still good? I'll give them a try and let you know. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Thu, 17 May 2001 14:03:14 -0500, James Hamblin <ham...@math.wisc.edu> wrote: >Derek Ray wrote: >> >> On Thu, 17 May 2001 10:24:54 -0500, James Hamblin >> <ham...@math.wisc.edu> wrote: >> >> >Two problems with this: (1) Animalism has no way to deal with S:CE. I >> >> Other than the good old classic "they'll run out" method, which works >> pretty well for weenie Animalism decks. > ><shrug> I'm not sure how many Carrion Crows you'll have more than they >have Majesty. Is the idea to load _lots_ of retainers on your guys (on >the order of, say, two Crows and a Raven on each), then just block, >block, block? If you drop a Haven and all jump on them at once, usually you get them dead on the 2nd combat. And putting 12 Carrion Crows in a deck that's going to rely on it as a combat staple isn't unheard of - it's easily cyclable and it's free. If you're EXTRA worried about people chucking around Majesty, you can always only play a Trap and hang onto your Crows until the 2nd round. Or just play the Aid from Bats and press. Very few people will pass up the opportunity to cycle a Majesty on the first round and get OUT of a combat (as well as move a card). for the stack-the-retainers idea, weenie Animalism can usually get two Crows and two Ravens out fairly quickly, and then a simple Shepherd's Innocence wedges them all onto a "designated slaughter zone". And at that point, yeah, you just block anything you don't like and use some Aid from Bats, maybe the occasional Crows. Often your predator can be intimidated into not taking actions you don't like. I'm finding these days that you just don't see much more than 8 Majesties in a deck - there are an awful lot of decks that don't block actions at all, giving you no chance to cycle through the 12 or 15 that used to be appropriate and pretty much ruining your world. With only 8 Majesties in a deck, you can be almost certain they won't have more than 1 in hand at any given time, and since they're only playing 1 card, odds are they won't draw into another one. Just too many decks carrying light combat these days to rely on SOLELY Majesty anymore. Sabbat War has really changed things. These days, it almost seems that the only truly effective combat defense is to either carry loads of Fortitude, or find a way to fight back in some fashion. >> >suppose the Tzimisce could do this with Telepathic Tracking, but >> >Animalism isn't really their primary discipline. (2) While you're >> >spending time buying Rats and Crows and Wolves (oh my), someone is >> >bleeding or voting you to death. >> >> Devin, Caliban, Dragos, Meshenka, Anton, Little Tailor -- all >> possessing ANI/AUS and 8-cap or under. A little big, yes, but when >> you're looking at intercept/combat, a little big is actually OK. One >> minion can do the work of many. > >But the larger your minions, the less able you are to kill your prey (no >weenie swarm option). I suppose you could Pulse... I'm not so sure >anymore that this couldn't work. Well, you use the big minions, and include a couple copies of Horatio, Lolita, and Wendy Wade for token "bleed for 1!" guys. And the Tzimisce can, indeed, both Pulse themselves or use the Living Manse/Changeling approach - the Changelings are likely to be in your deck anyway to add an extra stealth on your Crows recruit action. That, and the potential pool gain available to the Tzimisce is pretty nice. (think Blood Dolls, Hungry Coyote, never losing pool, and nobody being stupid enough to block your hunt actions) >> Hm. I wouldn't say "can't ever". The idea of aggressive intercept >> combat is to oust one's initial prey WHILE making oneself an >> impregnable wall, giving you 3 VPs. I'd say that intercept done up >> the way most people normally do, with the kill-your-predator >> mentality, will gain you only 2 VPs. But if you focus forward >> properly, and use the intercept on your predator only judiciously, >> then you can even sweep. > >I guess I don't see what you're implying by "focus forward properly". >If you have Eagle's Sights, then maybe you can block their directed >actions, but otherwise you may be stuck with bleeding for 1, etc. Very few decks take *only* directed actions without great cost to themselves. A Presence bleed deck would STILL like to use cards like Enchant Kindred, and take actions to get Marijava Ghouls, etc. And occasionally it might have to hunt, if it's sloppy. If you're clever, you can also convince your grandprey to wall up for a turn or two, and perhaps your prey will take an undirected action just to be doing SOMETHING. Yes, Eagle's Sight is part of the equation - if you're going for true aggressive intercept, you HAVE to have 8 Eagle's Sight in the deck. There's just no other way to reach out and swat someone. But you also have to be careful not to get carried away - only Eagle's Sight and kill the key bleeders, for example, instead of trying to stop every action they take. The other half of "focus forward" means don't just kill your predator. He needs to be around to put backwards pressure on the table, and if you slaughter his minions who are taking non-threatening actions like hunting, getting Palatial Estates, etc, then you waste intercept and position. >> >combat deck. Considering the length of games, WMO allows you to have >> >maybe one additional combat at the end of the game, at the cost of a >> >pool and (much more importantly) space in your deck. >> >> Depends on the combat deck. In a Rush deck, maybe not, but in a >> mix-n-match, it could be used to grab some bleed cards or vote cards >> for later. > >I just don't think it's as spectacular as he seemed to be implying. I wouldn't call it spectacular, but it certainly adds a new benefit to combat for the !Brujah... who can ALSO use it in a 60-card deck to get perfect hand cycles quickly in a game. Eventually you -will- run out of cards, but a !Brujah permanents deck would possibly be able to make use of this efficiently... >> From the point of view of a Rush deck all this makes sense. But there >> are an awful lot of combat decks out there that aren't pure Rush, and >> are doing just as well as pure Rush these days. > >IME, if you're not almost completely focused on combat, then you can't >base your deck's strategy around being able to kill people. Decks which >say "I'll bleed, and vote, and kill" end up doing very little of any of >those things. That _is_ in my experience, however. Any tips on making >a combat deck which is less focused but still good? I'll give them a >try and let you know. (shrug) I made an extremely effective POT/PRE bruise-and-bleeder at one point - I included the smallest pot/pre vamps I could find, a few POT skill cards, Blood Dolls, the works. I left in about 8 Rush actions (you only need to Rush your predator), and added about 8 Legal Manipulations. I made room for this by cutting down the combat to Torn Signpost/IG/Undead Strength -only-, and a bit less of it, assuming that people will quit blocking after a certain point... which is what happens, much like Hidden Lurker decks. After the first time someone gets their head blown off by a lurking Watenda with a Disguised Flamethrower, they go out of their WAY to not block as long as Watenda is untapped. Max Hidden Lurker required in a deck: 6. Tops. And you'll discard half of those anyway for hand jam. Usually what happened is that I bled with a Legal, got blocked, whacked someone for 5 (sometimes pressed and hit for an extra 3), then didn't get blocked again for a couple turns. I saved combat for 'forward' mostly, but any time I ran out of Legals, I usually found that I had one or two Rush actions in my hand, so I went and killed something. Normally there was at least one vampire of my predator who looked threatening, so they made a good target to cycle through the combat and get a couple more Legals in hand. Occasionally I got Deflected - no big deal since the bleed is at 0 stealth, and you can often convince your grandprey to either punch for 1, or if they have S:CE, you can cycle tons of cards and "forget" to use the Immortal Grapple, letting them off the hook. The biggest weakness was, interestingly, any sort of weenie bleed behind me - just no way to kill them all. However, it could certainly move through its prey -very- quickly; as one person put it, "well, it's either lose 3 pool or lose a minion, a real sucky choice". [ quoted text not captured ]

"James Hamblin" <ham...@math.wisc.edu> wrote in message news:3B042072...@math.wisc.edu... [snip] > > Devin, Caliban, Dragos, Meshenka, Anton, Little Tailor -- all > > possessing ANI/AUS and 8-cap or under. A little big, yes, but when > > you're looking at intercept/combat, a little big is actually OK. One > > minion can do the work of many. > > But the larger your minions, the less able you are to kill your prey (no > weenie swarm option). I suppose you could Pulse... I'm not so sure > anymore that this couldn't work. Not a great fan of Pulse, never have been. Have to agree with you about the swarming but Pulse ain't the only way to go. >>But if you focus forward > > properly, and use the intercept on your predator only judiciously, > > then you can even sweep. > > I guess I don't see what you're implying by "focus forward properly". > If you have Eagle's Sights, then maybe you can block their directed > actions, What about all the directed and non-directed actions ? Might just be me, but a guns deck that cannot tool up with guns, a blood gain deck that cannot (or finds it hard to) 5th up, or even a prey that 'worries' and has to think about taking every action is pretty damn useful. >but otherwise you may be stuck with bleeding for 1, etc. Or 2 with Changeling or 3 with a Retainer or 4 with Pentax loves You Ok, so your going to get deflected but hey 3-4 bleed on a regular basis is not very funny. > > >Telepathic Tracking, a member of the rare club of anti-S:CE cards, is > > >clearly a very significant card. Waste Management Op. looked very good > > >to me at first, but now I just don't think there's room for it in a > > >combat deck. Considering the length of games, WMO allows you to have > > >maybe one additional combat at the end of the game, at the cost of a > > >pool and (much more importantly) space in your deck. > > > > Depends on the combat deck. In a Rush deck, maybe not, but in a > > mix-n-match, it could be used to grab some bleed cards or vote cards > > for later. > > I just don't think it's as spectacular as he seemed to be implying. 'He' has a name and doesn't recall saying that it was spectacular. Just that it would change some areas of the game and has value as a stand alone card. Rob. [ quoted text not captured ]

"Derek Ray" <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:r6l7gtstejnloem9j...@4ax.com... > On Thu, 17 May 2001 08:48:50 +0100, "shsoton" <shs...@dircon.co.uk> > wrote: > > My Tzimisce finals deck from 2 years ago relied on getting 2 Murder of > Crows on each intercepting vamp, and using Carrion Crows/Aid from Bats > as "casual transient" to boost the damage up from 3 to ridiculous as > necessary, or to run away if THAT was necessary. If Chiropteran > Marauder had existed I'd have replaced all 12 Aid from Bats with > -that-, and probably made a lot more ashes around me than I did. How did it fare in the final ? I'd be interested to read a report if there is one about. > the other advantage of stuff like that is: it's not strike damage. > When I was chucking around Murder of Crows/Carrion Crows, it was very > frustrating for a Ventrue Fortitude vote-deck to have to sit there > with his Skin of Steel preventing my 1 point from Aid from Bats, > because it wouldn't work against anything else. It can't be dodged, > it can't easily be prevented... it really makes you revisit the whole > idea. Environmental is powerful, there is no doubt there. Damage from multiple sources can be virtually impossible to counter. (ponder....ponder....project) I love Taste of Vitae :o) > >>Well, what the hell is it, then? It's a combination of consistency > >> and "power at a point" (to steal a term from General A. Tacticus). > >> > >> "Consistency": a good combat deck must screw up the opposing vampire > >> damn near every time it gets into combat. Something as simple as a > >> Disguised .44 can be ridiculously effective over the long-term. > The fear factor is very important, but I think there is sometimes a > thing as too MUCH fear. If someone gets into combat with you and you > drop Trap/CC/Song and their vampire goes away, then the table says to > itself "OK, that was unfortunately predictable; time to avoid combat > with that guy unless I can afford the rescue actions." The above > example is a PERMANENT result though, and while sometimes it's nice to > have people not wanting to sit next to you, it -can- mean that you end > up as a bit of a target, where people say "ok, that combat is just too > scary, it needs to be off the board." Fair point. Possibly *tempered* fear should be combat essential #4. > I know I do, anyway. But I also grow attached to my minions. ;) I > like having their little smiling* faces all looking up at me in the > Happy Region, instead of empty in the Sad Region. Hmmm. A Psychologists field day :o) Myself...... I favour picturing my minions as bad mother f*****s straining to get out of their cage to mess people up. Hmmmm again, i'm not well. > (* perhaps smiling is an inappropriate word.) > > >Herein lies the problem and why, (as you later say) intercept combat has a > >notch over rush combat IMO. Possibly both could be they way to go ? Too > >dilute though ? > > Both would be nice, but I think you dilute your intercept capability. > As it stands, cards like Forgotten Labyrinth are a real pain for an > intercept deck; it's one card that makes an awful lot of actions turn > into +4 stealth. If they're packing any Cloaks on top of it, it can > get even worse. =/ Building an intercept deck without the ability to > at least OCCASIONALLY catch Forgotten Labyrinth is ignoring the > Nosferatu, which is just what they want. =) See, I can't get over the fact that a 'few' intercept cards and a bit of casual intercept goes a long way. Given that you are not going to be able to stop stealth decks or even decks with a few Forgottens in, you will be able to worry decks that have no stealth or just +1's. Sort of argueing internally with myself about this one though, as I am almost gravitating toward the focus side of play at the moment. [ quoted text not captured ] Jon 'I'm gonna hit you fuckin' hard' Cooper has been exploring the Tremere..... actually forget Tremere, try Thaumaturgy quite a bit over the last 6 mths with good results. There is a lot to be said for Weenie disposables with Tha. > -- Derek > > [generic .signature file] Rob. [ quoted text not captured ]

<snip> >> Combat as such has to be seen as part of >> the game environment. So the question asked by Rob has an easy, but I >> guess rather unsatisfying answer: The best combat deck is the one that >> handles the metagame best, which sees not only combat, but mostly >> combat defense (S:CE and friends, Fortitude etc.). If I build a deck I >> never include such a thing as "casual combat" - it's either dedicated >> killing capacity or dedicated defense. > >Do you define dedicated killing capacity as no wakes, no frills etc.? > Not really at this point, although my conclusion (rush being best IMO) of course implies this. What I wanted to say: For me there are three way to apporach the combat "threat" in V:tES - ignore, defend or dominate. So either your deck is fast and cheap enough that it can afford losing a few minions, it has dedicated defense (like maneuvers plus S:CE or S:CE plus Fortitude) or it just tries to be better in combat then everybody else. Which - and that was my point - usually is easiest with rush, as it's (here it comes again) consistency in doing the job is unsurpassed. >> So what IS the best combat deck then? The one that handles the >> metagame best, I said. Without the local and situational context, this >> means: The one that does combat well in the most common metagame >> types. > >I think this is one of the reasons that toolbox decks do well as they deal >with a number of metagame twists and turns. I think toolbox with a powerful >theme or backbone can kick a wide variety of ass. > It certainly can, although I obviously don't think that the best combat deck is a toolbox deck. The thing you quoted - "all combat decks are varying degrees of bruise and bleed" - works the other way round as well: All bleed (politics, whatever) decks can be classified as various degrees of bruise and something, because as every minion can bleed for one, he will hit you for one. But that's philosophical, or do you want me to answer: Dominate weenie sleaze is the best combat deck, 'cause it can certainly fight, albeit not well, but it will win you more games then any other deck. So to restate my opinion. I think rush is best because it doesn't have to think about what its oponents do. And it gets the job (combat) done more often then other combat decks - not against other combat decks, but against most other archetypes. >At least down here good old honest Bleed is still the strategy >> that wins most games, and the one everybody returns to if the >> bloodshed gets too scary. Gangrel Potence is scary as hell, but >> nothing that stops a fast bleeding predator. Tzimisce Intercept works, >> but won't be effective against the most common combat defense, S:CE. >> Rötschreck on top? > >Don't really rate Rotschreck decks myself. They eat master phase actions and >are limited in kill potential to big vamp opponents. > Absolutely. >Fine, one goes to torpor... As Derek rightly >> pointed out: These combat monsters are deadly when they work, but >> Lazverinus offing Gideon Fontaine with 6 aggravated is just overkill, >> especially if there are 4 or 5 Friends Of Gideon just waiting for you >> to run out of your valuable transient cards, be it intercept our >> untap. So the best combat deck to me is the one that can handle these >> situations best, and that IMHO is potence rush (Nosferatu or Brujah >> flavour, Antitribu welcome - whichever you prefer). Okay, they rule or >> explode, but they have the best chance to kill Joe Vampire in the >> average metagame, and each and every one of them - which is more >> important, since your forward momentum is to fill out the vacuum in >> your prey's active region, metaphorically speaking. >> I played many wicked combat decks in my (un)life as a V:TES player, >> but every time I look at the metagame, rush looks more promising then >> most other ideas. Why? Because while IG/Potence combat has problems >> with Gangrel poke etc, all these decks which sometimes come along >> during a metagame shift are not as good as Potence rush against the >> bread and butter decks - sneaky bleed, politics... > >A good point. Pot rush does handle the staple dirt of S+B and Vote rather >well. But you say it falls against poke and IMO hates 'intelligent' and >consistant defence. > It's all about metagames. Gangrel poke I would classify as the worst threat, but Gangrel poke decks are limited in almost any other game situation. Tzmisce & Co., with their aggravated damage, are a challenge, but I would still go and rush Meshenka with Agatha, smack her good and proper, go to torpor and be rescued by her friend Hector. He might be blocked, but he can still dish out some huge damage... In the end it's a war of attrition, but I think Potence rush - which IMHO makes best use of Taste Of Vitae (if not going to torpor, of course) and uses mostly small minions - can still stay on top of these decks. Maybe not win, but still... The biggest thing in favour of rush is this: It forces the most dramatic metagame shift. Certain Fortitude strategies, excessive maneuvers and S:CE are one way, but against Rush this has to be really extreme, while most other combat decks are held in check with fewer sacrifices to your main strategy (in case of non-combat, that is). Switching to poke combat decks is another, but a welcome one at that, because these decks, as I stated, are really easily exploited by other non-combat strategies. One word about the "intelligent and consistant defence": You are right, because rush combat is very simple to read, and this game wouldn't be good if there'd be no defence against it. But as tried to explain above: The preparations are huge, and intelligence only pays off if everybody else takes rush into acount. At the end of the day someone will exploit this, and the metagame shifts again. So maybe here's one thing in favour of other combat decks - they are less destabilizing and thus their window of opportunity is longer open... <snip> >Oooh, make no mistake the dairy produce counter is just as well stocked over >here. Just because a metagame shifts toward brutal combat there is still a >fair quota of S+B and Vote etc. in most tourneys to HAVE to consider it in >pre-tourney deck selection. > I think after SW there is a general trend towards extreme combat, as this "strategy" got the biggest boost with the new cards. Tzimisce intercept is something I have to consider every time I build a deck for our local games, but while these decks are certainly good, I find it easier to adjust my decks to this situation then towards the speed bleed mayhem of old. Regards Skaffen Chantry Elder Of Munich "Des ganzen, langen Lebens kurze Freuden und vergebliche Hoffnungen Kommen in grauen Kleidern, wie Abendnebel nach der Sonne Untergang." (Novalis, 'Hymnen an die Nacht')