After hearing about a player using Wider View to contest a vampire, I
took it another step and thought of using Betrayer. It's cheaper than
paying to dig through your crypt or using a ton of anarch converts and
THEY'LL NEVER SEE IT COMING!
Brandon
On Mar 3, 12:48 pm, brandonsantacruz <brandonsantac...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
[ quoted text not captured ]
You can normally only do it 4 times a turn. So there goes that idea
(because that's obviously the only thing wrong with it... =) ).
Really, I'm sad that grouping rules mean that the Betrayer/Recruitment/
crypt tower deck isn't feasible anymore even in theory.
On Mar 3, 2:56 pm, Chris Berger <ark...@ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote:
> Really, I'm sad that grouping rules mean that the Betrayer/Recruitment/
> crypt tower deck isn't feasible anymore even in theory.
Can't have that, now can we?
Maybe a scarce knock-off would be better. Like:
When you move a crypt card from your uncontrolled region into play (or
into contestation) whose group number is more than 1 different than
any other crypt card you've moved from your uncontrolled region into
play (or into contestation) this game, remove that (new) crypt card
from the game instead.
On Mar 3, 11:56 am, Chris Berger <ark...@ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote:
> You can normally only do it 4 times a turn. So there goes that idea
> (because that's obviously the only thing wrong with it... =) ).
>
> Really, I'm sad that grouping rules mean that the Betrayer/Recruitment/
> crypt tower deck isn't feasible anymore even in theory.
I think that with the popularity of certain vampires, it could work,
particularly if you know the play group. I'm thinking of maybe the new
Laibon with 2 master phase actions, Wider View, Betrayer, Dreams,
other discard/draw tech, and Specialization to burn unwanted Wider
Views or Betrayers if they don't help. A few of the vampires I see a
lot are Arthur Denholm, Dmitra, and Lutz. It doesn't have to be 100
crypt cards, just the one(s) you want and a copy of 1-2 dozen others.
Info Highway is a must. Not exactly a tournament winning deck in the
making, but you never know.
Brandon
[ quoted text not captured ]
That'd certainly be very interesting as a change... might be worth
doing some casual testing at some point.
-John Flournoy
On Mar 3, 2:12 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
[ quoted text not captured ]
I do like the idea of making the Betrayer deck more viable. I guess
it's just a matter of playing around with the wording. For example,
with the current proposed wording, if works against transferring out
(in the influence phase) or bringing out the vampire in other phases
(master phase Thicker than Blood, minion phase Undue Influence).
However, it doesn't stop you from bringing the vampire into play from
your ash heap. (i.e. burn the out-of-group vampire with Might of the
Camarilla and then use Possession / Eternal Mask to bring that vampire
into play). That could be corner-case enough to be negligible. Or the
wording could be tightened up to prevent that from happening.
Oh and another further benefit, would be fewer DQ's in potential
tournaments. It's not uncommon for players to accidentally show up
with an illegal crypt (usually when they just built the deck). In such
cases, having vampires from an incompatible Grouping will still
penalize them (in that one of their crypt cards can't be brought into
play), but you no longer have to worry about being completely
disqualified from the game (and judges will no longer have to check
crypts to make sure they're legal).
It could also be interesting in that it might decrease the likelihood
of contesting in a game. Say you want to play a Kiasyd deck, but you
really don't care which particular minion you get out. If you choose
Group 2, you might include 2 copies of each of the 5 minions (plus 2
copies of the Group 3 guy). Alternatively, if you choose Group 4, you
could do something similar. But if another player is also choosing
Group 2 (or Group 4) Kiasyd, you're going to likely have contesting
problems.
Under the new rule, you actually would have the option of including 1
of each Kiasyd from Groups 2, 3, 4, and 5.If one Kiasyd then brought
out a Group 4 vampire, then you'd know you'd be safe with a Group 2
vampire. Such an arrangement would work especially well with Wider
View (getting rid of the vampires from the wrong Grouping) and would
essentially be like if you had duplicated your crypt (but with fewer
contesting liabilities).
> Under the new rule, you actually would have the option of including 1
> of each Kiasyd from Groups 2, 3, 4, and 5.If one Kiasyd then brought
> out a Group 4 vampire, then you'd know you'd be safe with a Group 2
> vampire. Such an arrangement would work especially well with Wider
> View (getting rid of the vampires from the wrong Grouping) and would
> essentially be like if you had duplicated your crypt (but with fewer
> contesting liabilities).
Now that would be interesting. For decks that don't get out many
vampires, having a crypt with diverse groups might be an option.
Brandon
[ quoted text not captured ]
Actually, Gramle is the worst possible card to combine with
Betrayer......
So it is much worse than wider view, not better. Read both cards.....
Gramle
Type: Action
Cost: 1 pool
+1 stealth action. Do not replace until the end of the action.
Choose a card in play or in any ash heap by name. Search your library
or crypt for the chosen card, show it to all Methuselahs, and move it
to your hand (discard afterward) or uncontrolled region.
Betrayer
Type: Master
Master.
Put this card in play and name a Methuselah who controls a vampire who
is also in your uncontrolled region. The vampire's controller burns 1
pool during his or her untap phase. He or she can burn an additional
pool to attempt to guess the name of the vampire. If the guess is
correct, this card is burned.
[ quoted text not captured ]
Well, he'll know what vampire is the betrayer, but it will cost him 2
pool anyway.
I was thinking more about a betrayer-like deck (such as with Spell of
Life to contest the vampires) rather than playing Betrayer itself.
[ quoted text not captured ]
so as opposed to making a betrayer deck, which would use wider view
tech, you say that wider view is bad tech for a betrayer deck, and
your argument is that you were gonna make a spell of life deck using
gramle.
Just how, exactly, is any of that relevant?
Or are you not willing to admit you made a mistake when reading the
card?
Vincent wrote:
> > Do you know that Gramle is just plain better than your Wider View tech?
On Mar 4, 5:52 am, Blooded Sand wrote a tiny bit and quoted way too
much crap, he needs to learn how to trim a post:
> Actually, Gramle is the worst possible card to combine with
> Betrayer......
> So it is much worse than wider view, not better. Read both cards.....
Gramle does let them now what to guess, yes.
It still costs them 2 pool per turn to get rid of each Betrayer
played.
It isn't a 1-1 combo, you play a few Gramle and 15-20 Betrayers.
See also the historical deck:
http://www.thelasombra.com/decks/anson_betray.htm
Wider View doesn't let you search, it only pulls at the top crypt
card.
For a Betrayer deck that is almost completely worthless.
Targeted immediate pool loss is required.
> On Mar 4, 12:39 pm, Vincent <v.rip...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Well, he'll know what vampire is the betrayer, but it will cost him 2
> > pool anyway.
> > I was thinking more about a betrayer-like deck (such as with Spell of
> > Life to contest the vampires) rather than playing Betrayer itself.
On Mar 4, 10:21 am, Blooded Sand <sandm...@gmail.com> wrote a tiny bit
and quoted way too much crap:
> so as opposed to making a betrayer deck, which would use wider view
> tech, you say that wider view is bad tech for a betrayer deck, and
> your argument is that you were gonna make a spell of life deck using
> gramle.> Just how, exactly, is any of that relevant?
Gramle is the perfect library card to add to a Betrayer deck.
> Or are you not willing to admit you made a mistake when reading the
> card?
There is no mistake.
For a tower of crypt deck that plans to use Betrayer to win games,
Wider View should not appear anywhere near the deck.
"You may use a transfer to move the top card from your crypt to your
uncontrolled region"
as opposed to:
"Choose a card in play ... by name. Search your ... crypt for the
chosen card, show it to all Methuselahs, and move it to your ...
uncontrolled region."
Tower Crypt + Gramle + Betrayer = Win.
Tower Crypt + Wider View + Betrayer = Fail.
[ quoted text not captured ]
Dude, calm down. He *did* say he made a mistake ("I was thinking
about a betrayer-like deck..." etc). No need to be a Kevin M. about
it.
The other thing is that if you Gramle twice in one turn, he still has
to guess which of the two you put the Betrayer on (or which Betrayer
is on which named vampire).
On Mar 4, 4:52 am, Blooded Sand <sandm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 4, 11:20 am, Vincent <v.rip...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On 3 mar, 21:23, brandonsantacruz <brandonsantac...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 3, 11:56 am, Chris Berger <ark...@ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote:
>
> > > > You can normally only do it 4 times a turn. So there goes that idea
> > > > (because that's obviously the only thing wrong with it... =) ).
>
> > > > Really, I'm sad that grouping rules mean that the Betrayer/Recruitment/
> > > > crypt tower deck isn't feasible anymore even in theory.
>
> > > I think that with the popularity of certain vampires, it could work,
> > > particularly if you know the play group. I'm thinking of maybe the new
> > > Laibon with 2 master phase actions, Wider View, Betrayer, Dreams,
> > > other discard/draw tech, and Specialization to burn unwanted Wider
> > > Views or Betrayers if they don't help. A few of the vampires I see a
> > > lot are Arthur Denholm, Dmitra, and Lutz. It doesn't have to be 100
> > > crypt cards, just the one(s) you want and a copy of 1-2 dozen others.
> > > Info Highway is a must. Not exactly a tournament winning deck in the
> > > making, but you never know.
>
> > > Brandon
>
> > Do you know that Gramle is just plain better than your Wider View tech?
>
> Actually, Gramle is the worst possible card to combine with
> Betrayer......
> So it is much worse than wider view, not better. Read both cards.....
As noted elsewhere, in other forms...
I bring out Frederick the Weak.
You can enjoy waiting turn after turn while you spend the 127
transfers via Wider View needed to work your way down to where your
copy of Frederick is in your crypt (which is going to be several
hundred vampire cards.)
Or you could play Gramle and find it in one turn.
-John Flournoy
Chris Berger wrote:
> Dude, calm down. He *did* say he made a mistake ("I was thinking
> about a betrayer-like deck..." etc). No need to be a Kevin M. about
> it.
I'm famous! And Chris thinks about me! bwahahaa!
Kevin M., Prince of Las Vegas
"Know your enemy and know yourself; in one-thousand battles
you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, *The Art of War*
"Contentment...Complacency...Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier
Please visit VTESville daily! http://vtesville.myminicity.com/
Please buy my cards! http://shop.ebay.com/kjmergen/m.html
On Mar 4, 11:23 am, "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote:
> Chris Berger wrote:
> > Dude, calm down. He *did* say he made a mistake ("I was thinking
> > about a betrayer-like deck..." etc). No need to be a Kevin M. about
> > it.
>
> I'm famous! And Chris thinks about me! bwahahaa!
>
Haha. =) I was waiting to see how you reacted to that. Honestly, I
didn't mean it as a complete dig, but you do have a way of getting
involved in a minor misunderstanding that turns into a 10 page long
flame fest...
Chris Berger wrote:
> "Kevin M." wrote:>> Chris Berger wrote:>>> Dude, calm down. He *did* say he made a mistake ("I was thinking
>>> about a betrayer-like deck..." etc). No need to be a Kevin M. about
>>> it.>>
>> I'm famous! And Chris thinks about me! bwahahaa!>
> Haha. =) I was waiting to see how you reacted to that. Honestly,
> I didn't mean it as a complete dig, but you do have a way of getting
> involved in a minor misunderstanding that turns into a 10 page long
> flame fest...
Ah, you're a troll, too! ;) lol
If it makes you feel any better, I've pretty much given up
on this newsgroup ever being seriously useful ever again,
so I'm trying desperately to post as little as possible.
It may make Daneel, Blooded Sand, and all the other
KevinM groupies out there feel better, too. ;)
[ quoted text not captured ]
> Gramle is the perfect library card to add to a Betrayer deck.
Hadn't considered Gramle.... Honestly, it's a card I had written off
outside of draft. If you can spare the pool and an action, yeah it
should work. Works about the same as Recruitment for the purposes of a
"tower" crypt, I would think, depending on what the deck will look
like exactly.
> Tower Crypt + Gramle + Betrayer = Win.
>
> Tower Crypt + Wider View + Betrayer = Fail.
Between 20 and 40 crypt + Wider View + a few Betrayer = Win?
Vincent, I was thinking about a Spell of Life deck with Wider view,
too. You really want Halim Bey + 1-2 fos w/obf dorks and to drop extra
FoS in favor of 11 caps. Might be worth a crack at the TWDA....
Brandon