Hi all,
Since the last tournament rules, the fact that winning tables wa more
important than victory points has switched tournament play to, say, an
steadier mode.
Don't misunderstand me, i'm glad of that fact since the weenies and full
forward stealth-bleed or tap and bleed didn't give a chance to cross table
metagame, and now combat decks have (but just a little bit) more chance to
become tournament decks. But players, at least around here in spain, has
switched their games to a "catenaccio". I mean, bloat decks had seen some
kind of boost, as long as blockers like mono animalism, tzimi, and so. At
the last tournament we attended only 25% of the games ended on time,
throwing in the longest "half point" cards we've seen for long. We all
understand that the table points rule has developed the game to a more
"multiplayer" like level, but everyone is turning to decks that will bring
them to the end of a game, no matter if he only wins to victory points as
long as they give them a table point.
Discussing about this, someone reminded me that there was a "blood bank
limit" optional rule, something like 5 additional blood points per player in
the original rules.
So here is my proposal for discussion, may this rule be aplied to tournament
rules? I'm not sure if this will bring up another kind of metagame, but
surely will thwart some players for playing bloat/block decks or so.
At least, thanks to this rule, in the last Crusade: Hospitalet there were
weird decks in the final round: a warghoul deck, a salubri antitribu and a
brujah weenie deck (with not a few brujah debates). But the final round
lasted for more than 3 hours...
Tom,Mad&Co
On Thu, 6 Jun 2002, Tom, Mad & Co wrote:
> So here is my proposal for discussion, may this rule be aplied to tournament
> rules? I'm not sure if this will bring up another kind of metagame, but
> surely will thwart some players for playing bloat/block decks or so.
It would seem to me that instituting this rule would make weenie decks
even more prevelant. With the option to bloat removed, pool-minded
players will take the only road left, which would be to spend less.
David Cherryholmes
Duke Radiology
P.E.T. Facility
(919) 684-7714
d...@petsparc.mc.duke.edu
David Cherryholmes <d...@petsparc.mc.duke.edu> escribió en el mensaje de
noticias Pine.GSO.4.21.020606...@petsparc.mc.duke.edu...
> On Thu, 6 Jun 2002, Tom, Mad & Co wrote:
>
> > So here is my proposal for discussion, may this rule be aplied to
tournament
> > rules? I'm not sure if this will bring up another kind of metagame, but
> > surely will thwart some players for playing bloat/block decks or so.
>
> It would seem to me that instituting this rule would make weenie decks
> even more prevelant. With the option to bloat removed, pool-minded
> players will take the only road left, which would be to spend less.
Or ousting his prey, in wich case its pool will engross the blood bank. I
know that the 5 pool to blood bank per player will trail back to weenie
hordes, but that's what playtesting is about. Maybe a 10 pool add per player
will allow bloat, but will limit it to a lesser extend. If the blood
bocomes "scarce", the game will accelerate. If someone starts to bleed
heavily those pool will add to blood bank, so increasing the capability for
bloat decks or so to defend themeselves more properly. We play this game for
fun, at least most of us, and in the final round of that tournament, we all
get bored. If the players were bored, imagine the ones who were watching the
game.
I know this is not any panacea, but imho the way the tournament rules are
(which I prefer rather than the older ones) by now freezes the game.
Tom Mad&Co
[ quoted text not captured ]
On Thu, 6 Jun 2002, Tom, Mad & Co wrote:
<snip explanation of bled pool adding to bank>
Sorry, I missed the part about lost pool returning to the bank. That
changes things somewhat. Still, my experience doesn't gel with yours. I
don't see a problem with decks sitting on their hands and bloating out the
clock, either in casual play or the tournaments I've attended lately. If
there is a bloat-heavy, local metagame, then your proposal may very well
be a good fix, but I don't know how I'd test it. Further, I think it's
better to look for answers to metagame problems by using that metagame
against the people who insist on playing predictably[1]. Have you tried
playing a deck that bleeds well and maybe uses a high amount of Sudden
Reversals to counter the bloat?
[1] This is what I've tried to do as an answer to the Weenie Hordes of
Durham. In this case, I've still found that response to be
unsatisfying. I'm playing mostly nothing but vote-decks these days and
now have the joy of two or three opposing decks full of Delaying
Tactics. My enthusiasm for our weekly games is about snuffed out. Any
nuggets o' wisdom would be much appreciated.
David Cherryholmes
Prince of Durham
David Cherryholmes <d...@petsparc.mc.duke.edu> wrote:
>better to look for answers to metagame problems by using that metagame
>against the people who insist on playing predictably[1].
>>[1] This is what I've tried to do as an answer to the Weenie Hordes of
>Durham. In this case, I've still found that response to be
>unsatisfying. I'm playing mostly nothing but vote-decks these days and
>now have the joy of two or three opposing decks full of Delaying
>Tactics. My enthusiasm for our weekly games is about snuffed out. Any
>nuggets o' wisdom would be much appreciated.
Sounds like your group has taken your advice and that you're playing
too predicably. Since they're stuffed up on DTs, switch to intercept
combat to handle the weenies. Or Corruption. Or, better, both and
switch between all three (incl. the vote deck) as you feel the
meta-game shifting to handle the others.
--
L. Scott Johnson (sjoh...@math.sc.edu)
http://www.math.sc.edu/~sjohnson
On Thu, 6 Jun 2002, L. Scott Johnson wrote:
> Sounds like your group has taken your advice and that you're playing
> too predicably. Since they're stuffed up on DTs, switch to intercept
> combat to handle the weenies. Or Corruption. Or, better, both and
> switch between all three (incl. the vote deck) as you feel the
> meta-game shifting to handle the others.
Thanks for the advice, Scott. I should add that the DT's were already
pretty prevelant due to all the Anarch Revolts getting played by the
weenies, but I've exacerbated it by playing vote decks. Anyway, it's not
so much that I feel put in a box in terms of winning, but that the games
I've been playing have been predictable and boring. This has been
building for a while, and was a big motivator for ramping up my recruiting
efforts a couple of months ago. Unfortunately, I've found a couple of
really nice, but really poor, grad students who aren't in a position to
support the hobby financially. I've given them what I could out of my
commons, but that only goes so far. This fall may see a further expansion
of the player base, though.
[ quoted text not captured ]
David Cherryholmes <d...@petsparc.mc.duke.edu> escribió en el mensaje de
noticias Pine.GSO.4.21.020606...@petsparc.mc.duke.edu...
> On Thu, 6 Jun 2002, Tom, Mad & Co wrote:
>
> <snip explanation of bled pool adding to bank>
>
> Sorry, I missed the part about lost pool returning to the bank. That
> changes things somewhat. Still, my experience doesn't gel with yours. I
> don't see a problem with decks sitting on their hands and bloating out the
> clock, either in casual play or the tournaments I've attended lately. If
> there is a bloat-heavy, local metagame, then your proposal may very well
> be a good fix, but I don't know how I'd test it. Further, I think it's
> better to look for answers to metagame problems by using that metagame
> against the people who insist on playing predictably[1]. Have you tried
> playing a deck that bleeds well and maybe uses a high amount of Sudden
> Reversals to counter the bloat?
I guess my poor english didn't help. I 'll try to explain again, in other
words. It's not just the last tournament, it has been every tournament
played since january. Here the metagame changes from tournament to
tournament, even though most of us didn't play together every week. Of
course every kind of metagame has its opposite, and this is one of the best
things about this game. What I'm trying to say is that in a few tournaments
with the new rules (i've participated in 5 for the last 4 months) from
tournament to tournament everyone changed their decks to a steadier one, as
metagame grew in strength, achievig limits like "hey, that buddy has 2
minions more than the rest" and the whole table turns at the poor guy
targeting him with every rush, banishment and so in their arsenal. Ok,
that's fine for me, I always prefered that kind of metagame rather than the
prey-predator full forward one. But when I realised that everyone was
playing at the same level and that only 25% of the games ended on time
suspected that something wasn't going ok.
Most of us have been playing this game since 95, and in tournaments since
00. This is not the common metagame here basically because there is no
standard metagame, whenever we play a few games we use different decks (I
currently play a Cryptic mission deck, ahrimanes blocker, Palla grande tap
and bleed, brujah debate with low caps, Masquerade
enforcement-banishement-bloat deck and a true brujah combat). In tourneys,
everyone brings up their steadier one, becoming every round a marathonian
one.
Has anybody tried to play with a blood bank limit? I just asked that
Tom, Mad&Co
[ quoted text not captured ]
>I guess my poor english didn't help. I 'll try to explain again, in other
>words. It's not just the last tournament, it has been every tournament
>played since january. Here the metagame changes from tournament to
>tournament, even though most of us didn't play together every week. Of
>course every kind of metagame has its opposite, and this is one of the best
>things about this game. What I'm trying to say is that in a few tournaments
>with the new rules (i've participated in 5 for the last 4 months) from
>tournament to tournament everyone changed their decks to a steadier one, as
>metagame grew in strength, achievig limits like "hey, that buddy has 2
>minions more than the rest" and the whole table turns at the poor guy
>targeting him with every rush, banishment and so in their arsenal. Ok,
>that's fine for me, I always prefered that kind of metagame rather than the
>prey-predator full forward one. But when I realised that everyone was
>playing at the same level and that only 25% of the games ended on time
>suspected that something wasn't going ok.
I've found something similar, but I was attributing it to players becoming more
cognizant of the multiplayer dynamic as it pertains to winning.
However, the table win system may have made a number of players more cognizant
of how to play to get more than one VP.
I can almost see why bloat would creep in, but excessive bloat really isn't
useful. You still gain more from ousting and dying than from not dying.
One answer may be trying to go with speed. See if you can oust a couple
players quickly before you burn out or get table managed to death. In an
environment with a lot of timed out games, just getting some VPs could get you
into the finals.
>Most of us have been playing this game since 95, and in tournaments since
>00. This is not the common metagame here basically because there is no
>standard metagame, whenever we play a few games we use different decks (I
>currently play a Cryptic mission deck, ahrimanes blocker, Palla grande tap
>and bleed, brujah debate with low caps, Masquerade
>enforcement-banishement-bloat deck and a true brujah combat). In tourneys,
>everyone brings up their steadier one, becoming every round a marathonian
>one.
>
>Has anybody tried to play with a blood bank limit? I just asked that
While at the same time that I could see people wanting to bloat rather than
draw the ire of the table, I've seen a drop off in massive bloat. Putting a
limit on the blood bank doesn't sound like it would matter to us.
What concerns me is how many decks get built that don't "know" how they are
going to oust their prey. Besides the problem of games not going anywhere*,
decks that don't go forward can cause seating position to become far too
important as the other common occurrence we see is lots of sweeps - the deck
with the ineffectual predator builds up to the point where it can roll over
everyone.
* We had a final where no one ousted as most of the decks simply weren't well
equipped at going forward and there was plenty of crosstable aid.
> [1] This is what I've tried to do as an answer to the Weenie Hordes of
> Durham. In this case, I've still found that response to be
> unsatisfying. I'm playing mostly nothing but vote-decks these days and
> now have the joy of two or three opposing decks full of Delaying
> Tactics. My enthusiasm for our weekly games is about snuffed out. Any
> nuggets o' wisdom would be much appreciated.
>
> David Cherryholmes
> Prince of Durham
Atonement + Metro Underground is great for stopping weenies.
Good with Aabbt Kindred or disguised Sniper Rifles, works well with
the Victoria + Madness Network combo or even in a Smiling Jack deck.
I saw one guy use Atonement with Eagle's Sight and Millicent Smith to
good effect. I have been recently considering Atoning Gargoyles
(Defender of the Haven is AWESOME!). If Atonement's not your bag,
Justine, especially with a Sport Bike, can do wonders, and Eternal
Vigilance on Lazverinus is not half bad.
--Brian
"David Cherryholmes" <d...@petsparc.mc.duke.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.GSO.4.21.020606...@petsparc.mc.duke.edu...
> [1] This is what I've tried to do as an answer to the Weenie Hordes of
> Durham. In this case, I've still found that response to be
> unsatisfying. I'm playing mostly nothing but vote-decks these days and
> now have the joy of two or three opposing decks full of Delaying
> Tactics. My enthusiasm for our weekly games is about snuffed out. Any
> nuggets o' wisdom would be much appreciated.
Are they weenie intercept hordes? If not (ie if your +1
stealth actions can usually get through), Atonement +
Flak Jacket (or Guardian Angel) should equal a lot of very
sad weenie decks. Need enough Wakes/other blocks to protect
the Atonement for a turn, of course. I'd go the Smiling
Jack route with this deck. Creepshow Casino might be good
for beating KRCG/etc if they start putting that in to try
to stop your Atonements.
Otherwise, I dunno. If you can't beat 'em, join 'em? A
weenie-heavy metagame may be hard to move in another
direction without just waiting for people to get tired of
playing weenies all the live-long day (or trying to talk
them into being tired of playing weenies all the live-long
day). After all, one of the major strengths of weenie decks
is that they don't have a lot of easily exploitable
weaknesses (sure, you can do anti-weenie stuff to 'em, but
they can always buy more weenies, it's not like they cost
much pool).
Josh
five-caps 'r' us
"David Cherryholmes" <d...@petsparc.mc.duke.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.GSO.4.21.020606...@petsparc.mc.duke.edu...
[ quoted text not captured ]
The release of the Camarilla set will be a very interesting time for me and
those that I play with. In the last few months there's been quite a lot of
new players introduced to the game in the areas where I play. This has also
cause some players from way back to come out of the woodwork. Many of them
have been borrowing decks and give left over commons and suchlike. A vast
majority of them have overlooked Bloodlines but are saving up big bikkies to
buy lots of the Camarilla set. One group I play with have about 8 new
players ( out of 13 ) and easily half of them are looking at buying a box of
starters and 2 boxes of boosters as their initial purchase.
Hopefully marketing of the set by the local hobby stores will also get even
more new players in, being the first set since things really got going
around here that is good for new players.
t...@almadrava.net writes:
>achievig limits like "hey, that buddy has 2
>minions more than the rest" and the whole table turns at the poor guy
>targeting him with every rush, banishment and so in their arsenal. Ok,
>that's fine for me, I always prefered that kind of metagame rather than the
>prey-predator full forward one. But when I realised that everyone was
>playing at the same level and that only 25% of the games ended on time
>suspected that something wasn't going ok.
Stopping, or at least restricting, these kinds of interactions was an
explicit goal of the whole predator-prey business. "Sitzkreigs"
and neverending timeouts are an almost inevitable result of
a multiplayer game with negative interactions, 1 winner,
and unrestricted interactions. Between table wins and the superiority
of bloat over the measly 6 pool oust reward, the predator-prey
dynamic may no longer be strong enough to counter that drive.
Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com)
"It is better to be wrong than to be vague" - Freeman Dyson
On Thu, 6 Jun 2002, Joshua Duffin wrote:
> Otherwise, I dunno. If you can't beat 'em, join 'em? A
> weenie-heavy metagame may be hard to move in another
> direction without just waiting for people to get tired of
> playing weenies all the live-long day (or trying to talk
> them into being tired of playing weenies all the live-long
> day). After all, one of the major strengths of weenie decks
> is that they don't have a lot of easily exploitable
> weaknesses (sure, you can do anti-weenie stuff to 'em, but
> they can always buy more weenies, it's not like they cost
> much pool).
Yup. I think I've homed in on the vote-thing just because this is a
method that makes 'em *all* hurt.
I'm a little embarassed to admit this for two reasons: A) it smacks of a
"moral authority" approach, and B) it seems to be a departure from "play
to win," a foundational assumption of the game (and an outright rule, for
tournament play). I have thought about it though, prior to this
thread-jack. "B" is easier to address, since the cross-table damage is
going to someone playing a deck with a basement-level pool investment and
I intend to kill them, too. The votes have been about 75%-ish
take-one-per-guy, and about 25%-ish KRC and I figure that extra three to
my prey and only my prey should make the trees fall about right.
"A" is pretty much impossible to justify to someone who doesn't already
share your opinion that weenies are bad for the game. I do see weenie
decks I like. One guy I play with has a weenie celerity deck that's kind
of neat, and when Jason Bell hit on the Sabbat babies making babies with
the Hungry Coyote trick, I was impressed with the power of it in a "isn't
that mushroom cloud pretty?" kind of way. The storyline tournament was a
snapshot of exactly what I'd like to see the game be. I don't really know
any way to do it, though; dictating what decks other people are allowed to
play now that the cards are out there is obviously bad. But whacking
people who can't step a little bit away from the "play to win" line and
towards the "play for fun" one in the head with a big stick seems to me a
little less obviously bad.
My apologies to the old-timers for beating a dead horse, but the issue
seems current and pertinent to me, and I know there's lots of good advice
out there to be had.
David Cherryholmes
Prince of Durham, NC
"David Cherryholmes" <d...@petsparc.mc.duke.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.GSO.4.21.020606...@petsparc.mc.duke.edu...
> don't see a problem with decks sitting on their hands and bloating out the
> clock, either in casual play or the tournaments I've attended lately. If
Same here. I think that's probably a localized response to try to "make sure"
that someone else doesn't get the table win. It's definitely not the most
effective way to go about it.
[snip]
> against the people who insist on playing predictably[1]. Have you tried
> playing a deck that bleeds well and maybe uses a high amount of Sudden
> Reversals to counter the bloat?
Excellent suggestion. A few DTs might help as well, to slow down Parity Shifts
or Ancient Influence or whatever.
> [1] This is what I've tried to do as an answer to the Weenie Hordes of
> Durham. In this case, I've still found that response to be
> unsatisfying. I'm playing mostly nothing but vote-decks these days and
> now have the joy of two or three opposing decks full of Delaying
> Tactics. My enthusiasm for our weekly games is about snuffed out. Any
> nuggets o' wisdom would be much appreciated.
Well, aside from the previously mentioned Atonement/Metro Underground (Metro is
a *great* addition to that, not sure why I never think about it)...
So your local metagame is weenies with lots of DTs, hmm? Maybe it's just me,
but it sounds like a Shadow Twin/Cryptic Mission style deck (which also relies
on weenies) might be somewhat workable right now. Same with Corruption, as
someone else mentioned. Beyond that, bruise & bleed might work okay as well,
though it's probably not fast enough. Since votes are out, and combat doesn't
work too well against weenies, it looks like bleeding would be a good idea.
That or War Ghouls. :)
Xian
mmm...ghoul-y
> That or War Ghouls. :)
>
> Xian
> mmm...ghoul-y
A nice sythesis:
Nettie Hale
Zebulon
Monique
Bear Paw
Chandler Hungerford
Mirembe Kabbada
Raven
Camille Devereux
Take all your earth melds
add Atonements to Taste
Spice with blood dolls, Smiling Jack and some nice pool gain
locations. If you like a more robust, able to block deck add a few
Sports Bikes, a few newspapers, and a metro underground.
Garnish with 5 renegade Garou and some Eco-Terrorists.
Stir for 3 minutes, or until the three wolf claws begins to melt, and
unleash on your next weenified environment (regretably IG pot weenies
are immune, sorry.)
the gangrel with the intercept do that all day and all night for more
or less free (earth meld is a good good card if you don't have the
atonments out) let the Garou crush the weenies, meanwhile gain pool
from your locations and pay jack to destroy the rest of the table for
you.
Share and Enjoy,
Cameron