blah blah blah...our metagame this...our metagame that...

hey -- that statement really got under SOMEBODY'S skin... let's take a look at it, shall we...? first of all, i'm an american, and i don't get out of the country much... if that limits my "meta-game," so be it... but i play sanctioned tournaments in 3 venues on a regular basis: our boston group, which now usually holds tourneys in waltham, which introduces another element to "the metagame;" seekonk, a pricedom encompassing southern massachusetts and much of rhode island; and springfield, a third princedom covering the western part of the state... all three areas are different, and each one is different each time i go there... i don't play the same decks all the time, and neither do the folks i play against... with a few exceptions, we're all watching each others' first vampire with great interest... in addition, at the northeast regional qualifier, i had the fantastic opportunity to play with some of the greatest names in this game [not including the greats i get to play with every week or every month: peal, swainbank, hirsch, williams, garvin, jenner, and a host of others], from all over the country: the tatus, kristoff, duffin, steele, watkins, bakija, bresnehan, and more... representing atlanta, columbus, detroit, new york, lansing [hi, bernie!], washington dc, and other areas... the american metagame, i guess... but there's no such thing... so i don't think my deck building approach suffers from myopia -- i'll go one step further: i don't take "metagame" considerations into account when building decks, at least not specific ones... i try to take into account the realities of the v:tes environment in general, instead... and i like to think that any of my decks can survive a transplanting into any environment as a result... i guess i'm trying to point out the existence of a sort of "uber-metagame" concept... here's an example: "ventrue law firm" -- classic deck archetype... but it sucks ass, can't win... why...? because anyone who can't muster up a single point of static intercept dosn't deserve a seat at a tourney table... that's not a metagame issue, that's a gaping flaw in the deck: if stopping your actions shuts you down, then someone will, and you will lose... end of story... does this make the usa better than england [or europe in general]...? of course not... but nobody here tries to play that thing here anymore, because it doesn't work... that's not a metagame issue -- it's facing the facts... if it were a metagame issue, after a while, when someone poppped it as a surprise, it'd wreak havoc all over the place -- but that's not what's going to happen... it's just gonna fizzle, because it has no way of making things happen... which is why stealth vote is coming into favor... which is why you're seeing on point of static intercept becoming two as a requirement... and which is why draba is such a strong card... and blah blah blah... and you can't say that the american metagame has evolved the need for a point of static intercept -- the GAME itself has done that... there are a stupid number of cards that are +1 stealth actions: if you like taking them up the hole, then don't be able to block them... your choice... and when jost, rebekka, muaziz, lucretia, or spider killer hit the table, drop 'em, grab yer ankles, and start singing "moon river" [with an assamite accent]... mind you, that's just one example of a larger issue... back to my play habits: i play in those three spots, mostly, and i did pretty well at the qualifier, which had no metagame [not one you could plan for, anyway]... i think it's important to build decks regardless of local considerations, decks that can stand up anywhere... i know that whatever i bust out at gencon is going to be something that i think can withstand almost anything... and i'm not talking about toolbox decks, though you have to address unexpected develeopments... i'm all for toolboxes, especially at the beginning of your "career," but that's not exactly what i'm trying to sell here... like this: 5 players sit down at a "torunament strength" table... it turns out your grand prey actually brought a really bad, casual-strength-at-best deck to the table... how does your deck respond to this...? that's not a metagame issue -- it's a game issue... i don't think i'm making my point very well, so i'll cut it here and let some better minds run with the ball for a while, see what bubbles to the surface... --khs looking for a betta meta

"kevin scribner" <kevins...@airbridge.net> wrote in message news:67327703.02051...@posting.google.com... > hey -- > > that statement really got under SOMEBODY'S skin... let's take a look > at it, shall we...? <snip> > "ventrue law firm" -- classic deck archetype... but it sucks ass, > can't win... why...? because anyone who can't muster up a single > point of static intercept dosn't deserve a seat at a tourney table... > that's not a metagame issue, that's a gaping flaw in the deck: if > stopping your actions shuts you down, then someone will, and you will > lose... end of story... > > does this make the usa better than england [or europe in general]...? > of course not... but nobody here tries to play that thing here > anymore, because it doesn't work... that's not a metagame issue -- > it's facing the facts... > > if it were a metagame issue, after a while, when someone poppped it as > a surprise, it'd wreak havoc all over the place -- but that's not > what's going to happen... it's just gonna fizzle, because it has no > way of making things happen... Of course it's a metagame issue. If everyone starts including intercept (as they did here a year ago) people will start to play without stealth (and probably add combat). The intercept player will jam on intercept and add less the next time. Until you have a low to no intercept environment (as we had until a month ago.) If, at this moment, someone brings a Ventrue law firm deck, he's almost certain to win. And people will again start using more intercept. Besides, some decks just don't have the room/ability to use intercept. And some decks just don't need it (classic example: weenie potence rush) so why bother? Jeroen

"jeroen rombouts" <jeroen.rom...@pandora.be> wrote in message news:Y0lD8.71332$Ze.1...@afrodite.telenet-ops.be... > > > > if it were a metagame issue, after a while, when someone poppped it as > > a surprise, it'd wreak havoc all over the place -- but that's not > > what's going to happen... it's just gonna fizzle, because it has no > > way of making things happen... > > Of course it's a metagame issue. If everyone starts including intercept (as > they did here a year ago) people will start to play without stealth (and > probably add combat). The intercept player will jam on intercept and add > less the next time. Until you have a low to no intercept environment (as we > had until a month ago.) If, at this moment, someone brings a Ventrue law > firm deck, he's almost certain to win. And people will again start using > more intercept. > > Besides, some decks just don't have the room/ability to use intercept. And > some decks just don't need it (classic example: weenie potence rush) so why > bother? > This I am very much confused by. Sure, weenie potence rush (strong, like bull) decks don't need intercept in a strict sense because you're using bum rushes and the like to get into combat. But you better believe that if some Ventrue vote deck or some presence bleed deck with Jost or Rebbekah is your prey, your life is a helluva lot easier if you thought to put in some intercept. Yes, yes, the easy answer is... well I bum rush them, that's the point of my deck. Indeed. But if your prey has any common sense at all, he has built his presence bleed deck with SOME measure of combat defense, be it a Secure Haven for Jost, some Gargoyles for Rebekkah... blah blah blah. The point is that it is insanely easy to generate +1 intercept in this game, that if you want to succeed in anything past casual play, you might as well find a way to put some in there. And I don't get the room/ability point. I'm sure everyone has heard of KRCG, London Evening Star and the Rumor Mill. For a measly 1 pool you have permanent intercept for as long as someone doesn't contest with you. What kind of decks are we building that we cant afford an expenditure of one pool? You do have Tastes and Blood Dolls in your Weenie Potence Deck don't you? Is your Weenie Potence deck so master heavy with Potence Skill Cards that you can't afford to squeeze in one of the intercept locations? Peteo > Jeroen > >

"Peter Oh" <ohb...@wam.umd.edu> wrote in message news:_0nD8.15293$Vm2.3...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net... [ quoted text not captured ] Presence bleed as prey? Intercept would help me... How? Yes, yes, the easy answer is... well I bum rush them, that's the > point of my deck. Indeed. But if your prey has any common sense at all, he > has built his presence bleed deck with SOME measure of combat defense, be it > a Secure Haven for Jost, some Gargoyles for Rebekkah... blah blah blah. The > point is that it is insanely easy to generate +1 intercept in this game, > that if you want to succeed in anything past casual play, you might as well > find a way to put some in there. > > And I don't get the room/ability point. I'm sure everyone has heard of > KRCG, London Evening Star and the Rumor Mill. For a measly 1 pool you have > permanent intercept for as long as someone doesn't contest with you. What > kind of decks are we building that we cant afford an expenditure of one > pool? You do have Tastes and Blood Dolls in your Weenie Potence Deck don't > you? Is your Weenie Potence deck so master heavy with Potence Skill Cards > that you can't afford to squeeze in one of the intercept locations? IIRC (is quite a time ago) 6 blood doll, 3 Archon Investigation, 3 Sudden . And I really don't want to go above 12. Problem here is 1. the locations and Mr Winthrop are unique, and present in a lot of decks. Sport bikes are for 1 minion only, and therefore kinda defeat the purpose of 'almost disposable' vamps 2. my weenie potence deck doesn't have FA and only 1-2 wake. 3. most people here play with obscene amounts of Sudden Reversals Besides, I'm not advocating to play without intercept. I was just pointing out that including it has its disadvantages too. And that in a smaller metagame, it really is a metagame issue. At the moment, locally, people are either playing High stealth or no stealth, so casual intercept isn't really effective against either of them. And then there are these things like Elder Impersonation and Call of the hungry death. J

"jeroen rombouts" <jeroen.rom...@pandora.be> wrote in message news:a8uD8.72726$Ze.1...@afrodite.telenet-ops.be... [ quoted text not captured ] YOu guys seem to be getting off topic here. It seems to me the issue is if you take into consideration the metagame when building decks. I think the answer is no when going to tournaments and yes when local play is involved. Local play generally involves a much smaller group of friends whom you know and have an idea of how they play. At a tournament, people come from all around show up (Montreal) and the playing philosophy is much different as opposed to Ottawa where the play is very aggressive (7 agg damage, unblocakable mind rapes, etc) It seems to me that the issue becomes whether the metagame is passive or aggressive. Passive usually indicating that players negotiate more to get there actions through. Aggressive being players that make sure their actions pass based on the decks they build. It's simple. The Ventrue law firm deck can win in a passive game, not an aggressive one, unless you build a very specific (re. aggressive) deck (obf, pre with banish, protect thine own, paritiy, Hostile takeover) I beleive it is always safer to build an aggressive deck for tournaments because you never know who your friends are. YOu may not get much help and the passive approach will fall flat.

"jeroen rombouts" <jeroen.rom...@pandora.be> wrote in message news:a8uD8.72726$Ze.1...@afrodite.telenet-ops.be... [ quoted text not captured ] HAHA, I of course meant predator not prey.... D'OH! Peteo > >

[snip] > I beleive it is always safer to build an aggressive deck for tournaments > because you never know who your friends are. YOu may not get much help and > the passive approach will fall flat. I think a great weakness in the passive approach is that not all players are willing to negotiate. You'll often see rush decks that will rush you when you're it's predator simply because of your deck type, without even opening up negotiations. If you can't get ppl to negotiate then you need to force them into a position where they have to, and the only way to do that is to "open up a can of whoop-ass", i.e. play agressively. Being able to play a good passive game is a great strength however, don't open "The Can" if you don't have to. Most games that I've won I have done so by starting quitely and inoffensively, the rest of the table is focusing on someone else whose started agressively, then they realise that my unstoppable juggernaught of destruction is complete, but it's all too late.

Peter Oh wrote: > This I am very much confused by. Sure, weenie potence rush (strong, like > bull) decks don't need intercept in a strict sense because you're using bum > rushes and the like to get into combat. But you better believe that if some > Ventrue vote deck or some presence bleed deck with Jost or Rebbekah is your > prey, your life is a helluva lot easier if you thought to put in some > intercept. Putting in intercept weakens the foundation of your deck, as it adds more moving parts which get in the way. Sure, it isn't that difficult to get, like, a single KRC in your deck, but having 1 intercept location does not intercept equate, and without untap available, it is much less effective as a defense--thus you start putting in untap and more intercept locations, making the Rush aspect of the deck more dilute and less effective. The Rush deck is all about drawing the hard line. Yes, yes, the easy answer is... well I bum rush them, that's the > point of my deck. Indeed. But if your prey has any common sense at all, he > has built his presence bleed deck with SOME measure of combat defense, be it > a Secure Haven for Jost, some Gargoyles for Rebekkah... blah blah blah. The > point is that it is insanely easy to generate +1 intercept in this game, > that if you want to succeed in anything past casual play, you might as well > find a way to put some in there. I disagree completely. And I succeed in many things past casual play. Putting 1 card that provides permanent intercept in a deck is not adding intercept defense. It is adding a lark card that might, once and a while, possibly be useful, but more often than not will either never come up or when it does not actually be useful (what is the pointof having a single KRC when your predator is a deck with reliable +2 intercept?). Putting 2 cards in that provide permanent intercept is leaving the deck in the same place, only slightly less so. Putting 4 cards in is starting to build a deck with reliable light intercept, but also starting to compromise the main focus of the deck. Sure, putting in 1 prayer card isn't going to hurt the deck, but it is going to be just that--a prayer card. Sometimes it will help out, but most of the time it won't come up or make a difference. I could put a single intercept card in my Rush deck, but it wouldn't be as effective as any other prayer card that I have tried out. Heck, right now my single prayer card is a stinking Hell Hound, as I am more concerend about weenie horde bleeds than +1 stealth. > And I don't get the room/ability point. I'm sure everyone has heard of > KRCG, London Evening Star and the Rumor Mill. For a measly 1 pool you have > permanent intercept for as long as someone doesn't contest with you. Again, 1 intercept location isn't going to help you. It is a lark. >What kind of decks are we building that we cant afford an expenditure of one > pool? It isn't the expenditure of the 1 pool (or 2 or 3). It is that the single card isn't, in most cases, going to make a difference. It isn't worth paying 2 or 3 pool for a card that isn't going to be that useful most of the time, especially when the Master slot could be spent on something tha you *know* will be useful (like Fame or hand cycling). >You do have Tastes and Blood Dolls in your Weenie Potence Deck don't > you? Is your Weenie Potence deck so master heavy with Potence Skill Cards > that you can't afford to squeeze in one of the intercept locations? Again, squeezing one in isn't the point. I could include one without much effort. On the other hand, would doing so: -Be particularly useful on a regular basis? -Be worth spending the pool on? -Be better than another Master card that I know will always be useful? In the end, the answers to these questions in the context of my Rush deck is no. And my rush deck does just fine without the +1 intercept. I have other decks that use intercept, 'cause they need it and can use it well. The Rush deck, however, doesn't really need it, and couldn't use it that well anyway, so why include it? Peter D Bakija PD...@bigplanet.com http://www.myplanet.net/pdb6 "Can I be blind too?" -Xander

"Peter D Bakija" <PD...@bigplanet.com> wrote in message news:B90408C0.2269%PD...@bigplanet.com... > I have other decks that use intercept, 'cause they need it and can use it > well. The Rush deck, however, doesn't really need it, and couldn't use it > that well anyway, so why include it? > I'm not advocating that casual intercept should go in every single deck you build necessarily, and I aslo understand that casual intercept like locations is mostly prayer. I'm just saying that there are a whole lot of +1 stealth actions in the game and not everyone is playing with stealth in every pocket, so there are instances where +1 intercept will save your ass or at least help you out. (i.e. the Ventrue or Toreador vote deck as your Prey is playing a 5th Tradition, it'd sure be nice if i can block it since I'm not a bleed deck and probably will have a hard time eating through him if he keeps on bloating). It just seems to me that (and maybe I'm being overly influenced by the likes of Ben Peal when I say this) +1 intercept is one of the more overlooked tools in this game. Thats all I'm getting at really. The Rush Deck as a starting point for my argument was poor, since I know that Rush decks don't have much room for cards anyway being so combat card intensive and always pushing 90. Not to mention I should have known Mr. Bakija would have come to the rescue and defended the good ole Rush deck =) Peteo [ quoted text not captured ]

Peter Oh wrote: > It just seems to me that (and maybe I'm being > overly influenced by the likes of Ben Peal when I say this) +1 intercept is > one of the more overlooked tools in this game. Oh, sure--+1 intercept is easy to come by and very often useful, but generally speaking, I build decks in terms of their offenses and their defenses, and if I'm gonna have reliable +1 intercept be one of my defenses, I like to have reliable +1 intercept, which'll mean enough cards that provide intercept that I'll always have it when neccessary and enough untap that wanting to use the intercept doesn't slow me down. I'll rarely include larky intercept (like one or two locations and nothing else) in my decks, as without enough of it it is simply too random. I like consistiency in my decks. I have, like, a dozen working decks at any given time, and generally speaking, the ones that have any intercept at all usually have a lot (lots of transient or permanent; lots of untaps; I have one deck that uses, like, eight 2nds which doubles as two cards at once). The ones that don't have a lot of intercept generally don't have *any*--they rely on other defenses (killing, speed, bloat, whatever). But that is me. >Not to mention I should have known Mr. Bakija would have come to the rescue and >defended the good ole Rush deck =) Hey--I gotta be good for something :-) [ quoted text not captured ]

>the american metagame, i guess... but there's no such >thing... My sense is that there is one. It may not be clear by virtue of the fact that it's an amalgamation of numerous submetagames (what a cool word that sounds like total BS). If nothing else, my sense is that a crossregional metagame would be one where local biases are minimized. >so i don't think my deck building approach suffers from myopia -- i'll >go one step further: i don't take "metagame" considerations into >account when building decks, at least not specific ones... i try to >take into account the realities of the v:tes environment in general, >instead... and i like to think that any of my decks can survive a >transplanting into any environment as a result... > >i guess i'm trying to point out the existence of a sort of >"uber-metagame" concept... > >here's an example: > >"ventrue law firm" -- classic deck archetype... but it sucks ass, >can't win... why...? because anyone who can't muster up a single >point of static intercept dosn't deserve a seat at a tourney table... >that's not a metagame issue, that's a gaping flaw in the deck: if >stopping your actions shuts you down, then someone will, and you will >lose... end of story... Is there anything wrong with saying a crossregional/uber/whatever metagame is one where "good stuff" works? The way to test this would probably be to see if you can come up with a deck that beats "good stuff" fairly reliably. But, because this is a multiplayer game, navigating a deck to victory against good players requires something besides a good deck. It requires having good table management skills. So, it's likely to be very hard to test anything. >if it were a metagame issue, after a while, when someone poppped it as >a surprise, it'd wreak havoc all over the place -- but that's not >what's going to happen... it's just gonna fizzle, because it has no >way of making things happen... Even assuming a Ventrue Law Firm deck can't pop up out of nowhere and wreak havoc, that doesn't mean there aren't a number of other decks that could. >and i'm not talking about toolbox decks, though you have to address >unexpected develeopments... i'm all for toolboxes, especially at the >beginning of your "career," but that's not exactly what i'm trying to >sell here... Beginning? I find toolbox requires a lot more thought and experience to get to work. In the thread that produced this one, the defense module thread, someone mentioned about taking a look at the top decks (of some major or something, whatever they were from isn't the point) and saying to oneself "how did these decks win?". Discussing that *is* the epitome of CCG analysis. What wins? Why? How do you beat what wins? These are the essential questions to analyzing games.

<snip Kevin's thoughts> > > --khs > > looking for a betta meta Hmmm, that's all very interesting, and i feel that as a VTES tourist i should have something awfully profound to say about it, but i don't. All i can do is offer some observations based on what has happened to me when i've gone abroad and played good foreign players, plus some impressions of what has happened to good foreign players when they have come here. i've played with quite a lot of the good E seaboard US players in the USA, and in general i find that my good decks do ok against them [though tweaking for the local play-style WAS beneficial]. Maybe they were pulling their punches a bit, but i don't think so, not ALL the time anyway. i've had a LOT of trouble trying to play American decks in the UK [but see comments on Rehlow's Baron deck, below], though i have to admit that one of my two constructed-deck tourney wins was with a slightly-tweaked version of one of David Zopf's decks. Possibly the moral of all that is that there isn't a PROFOUND difference between the metagames or player abilities either side of the pond. i actually met Ben Swainbank at the 2001 Euros where he did OK and i did ABYSMALLY BADLY, partly because i lost my temper, but mainly because my deck sucked donkey. And yet it didn't do so GLOBALLY, because i swept up all the UK contingent with it on the boat going over, and we all thought it was going to STORM into the finals in Paris. But as it turned out, it wasn't focussed enough for the games in which it actually played - ie this was a deck that was tuned for the UK metagame, and it didn't work once outside our Sceptr'd Isle. One of the other UK players [Barney Baker] got to the final there as top seed, so once again we are not looking at big differences in player ability but perhaps, this time, we DO have evidence of a metagame difference between Europe and the UK. As further evidence of that i played in the sealed-deck LOSERS tourney whilst the finals were going on in Paris and i got to the final of that [Hi, 2nis! Hi Klav!] but, sadly, had to leave before playing in it or miss my boat. The previous year i had the pleasure of playing in the Lisbon tourney and i got to the final there and shoulda won, really, but i took a STUPID decision about seating and got weenie dominate-swarmed. Again, evidence that the metagame and player abilities are less different than you might think, either side of the Bay of biscay. i've been lucky enough to entertain a number of good American players at Legbiter Hall and to play both casual and competitive games with them, with ROUGHLY even honours all round. i feel i have to single out SSgt Michael Eichler here as AFAIK the ONLY foreign player who has come to a UK tourney and actually WON; he did this essentially by playing his own game and keeping his head down in the face of UK-style agitation IIRC, but perhaps his personal reflections would be useful here. Off-topic Michael, if you are reading this, can you get Beef Jerky off whatever the USAAF equivalent of the NAAFI is? If so, can you lay by a store for me? Finally at least in terms of factual stuff, one of my favourite decks right now is Rehlow's Baron deck tweaked for the UK metagame. This is an American deck and in its original form it was a trick-deck and UTTERLY HOPELESS against good UK players fielding proper decks. But the concept is sound, because now [after tweaking] i can sweep up tables of good players with it, both here and the other side of the channel. Contrary to what you might think, the key to making Rehlow's idea work in Europe was FOCUSSING the deck, NOT toolboxing it, and i actually used a pair of techniques which were invented by the American players David Tatu ["Tatuisation"] and Ethan Burrow ["Modules"] to help me do this. i want to finish off by saying something about the issue which started all this name-calling, ie Hunting Grounds and whether putting them into your deck or not is a metagame issue. My view is that it is not a metagame issue, but rather a ferocity issue. i am not ideologically opposed to HGs and most of my decks contain one. However, of the four decks i would currently pick from if my life depended on winning the next game of Jyhad, NOT ONE contains even a SNIFF of a hunting-ground. Why? Simply put, there are more powerful Master cards [including SR] occupying their slot. So i think the nub of the difference between, on the one hand Matt and Tony, and on the other Ben and Kevin, is that Matt and Tony and i rate the OFFENSIVE potential of Master cards/slots higher than the Newer Englishmen do. As evidence for this view, consider Kevin's comment about the Ventrue Law Firm deck being hosed by blocking. Not in its UK form it isn't, Kev - it'll be Arika or Queen Anne or Suhailah who is calling the Parity shift [and/or they'll be doing it in daylight], and what will be killing you isn't primarily the votes anyway, but rather the takeover cards, and the fact that you've already spent too much pool because the deck has just been hanging around apparently-innoccuously until its hand has been built for the killer blow. Well, i hope some of this helps. Ah, soddit, all this being reasonable is too much for me. Tony, Kev called your pint a limp-wristed Limey Fag, he did too, i heard him. Kev, Tony wipes his bottom on the American flag [AND its mother] at LEAST twice a day [bottom is British for Ass]. Now, gentlemen and ladies, form a ring there i say, and let the Proper Business of the newsgroup continue.

"jeroen rombouts" <jeroen.rom...@pandora.be> wrote in message news:<Y0lD8.71332$Ze.1...@afrodite.telenet-ops.be>... > Of course it's a metagame issue. If everyone starts including intercept (as > they did here a year ago) people will start to play without stealth (and > probably add combat). The intercept player will jam on intercept and add > less the next time. Until you have a low to no intercept environment (as we > had until a month ago.) If, at this moment, someone brings a Ventrue law > firm deck, he's almost certain to win. And people will again start using > more intercept. of course it's NOT a metagame issue... it's a reality issue... how many action cards, plus default actions, are at +1 stealth...? this game cannot regress, now, to the point where a point of static intercept is not a necessary component in the game... unless you're playing a deck that purposedly ignores that necessity -- a "bully" deck, a hyper-bloat thing, a weenie-bleed lemming attack, whatever... so i doubt that ventrue law firm will ever rock another table again -- nobody's sleeping anymore... > Besides, some decks just don't have the room/ability to use intercept. And > some decks just don't need it (classic example: weenie potence rush) so why > bother? lots of good reasons to bother... something to offer the table, for one... the ability to fend off cross table weirdness... table control... options...

cur...@aol.commetal (Curevei) wrote in message news:<20020513000402...@mb-da.aol.com>... > Is there anything wrong with saying a crossregional/uber/whatever metagame is > one where "good stuff" works? no, except that ventrue law firm WAS good stuff, but just isn't anymore... i guess i expect good stuff to stand the test of time, else i don't consider it good stuff... > Even assuming a Ventrue Law Firm deck can't pop up out of nowhere and wreak > havoc, that doesn't mean there aren't a number of other decks that could. correct... but if the reasons those decks have gone rogue is the same reason that vlf has, they'll likely suffer the same grueling fate... > >and i'm not talking about toolbox decks, though you have to address > >unexpected develeopments... i'm all for toolboxes, especially at the > >beginning of your "career," but that's not exactly what i'm trying to > >sell here... > Beginning? I find toolbox requires a lot more thought and experience to get > to work. okay, i guess we evolved in different ways... i started working with the toolbox stuff first, to get me through the initial period of discovering all the nasty stuff my fellow jyhadsters could spring on me... as time went on and i got better, my decks became more focused and tighter, less diffuse, as i began to distinguish between what was merely possible, and what was actually likely... but i can see where it would go just as well the other way... start with one core concept, then start adding in things to defend against the factors that hork that core concept... > In the thread that produced this one, the defense module thread, someone > mentioned about taking a look at the top decks (of some major or something, > whatever they were from isn't the point) and saying to oneself "how did these > decks win?". Discussing that *is* the epitome of CCG analysis. > > What wins? Why? How do you beat what wins? These are the essential > questions to analyzing games. true, dat... but i'm not trying to analyze games... i'm trying to analyze the vaccuum the game occurs in, if you follow me... i'm looking for the universal stuff, that overrides what we traditionally call "metagame issues..." peace -- --khs

kevins...@airbridge.net writes: >of course it's NOT a metagame issue... it's a reality issue... how >many action cards, plus default actions, are at +1 stealth...? this >game cannot regress, now, to the point where a point of static >intercept is not a necessary component in the game... unless you're >playing a deck that purposedly ignores that necessity -- a "bully" >deck, a hyper-bloat thing, a weenie-bleed lemming attack, whatever... >so i doubt that ventrue law firm will ever rock another table again -- >nobody's sleeping anymore... Nobody's sleeping, but not a lot are playing intercept either. I've been in 5 tournaments in LA and I've seen minimal intercept - maybe 4 decks that could intercept enough to squash a sneakless vote deck. You don't have to get *every* vote through to win. When I tried a vote deck, I was trying a Toreador vote deck that was packed with Majesty and Aching Beauty because I've always had so much trouble with intercepted votes. It was a waste. Nobody intercepted. I lost anyway, mostly since there were so many votes on the table. (a problem a law firm deck could deal with). There was also a problem with IG rush decks; oh, if I only had had a little For -... Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com) "It is better to be wrong than to be vague" - Freeman Dyson

legb...@mailandnews.com (legbiter) wrote in message news:<22fea992.0205...@posting.google.com>... > <snip Kevin's thoughts> ouch! > Hmmm, that's all very interesting, and i feel that as a VTES tourist i > should have something awfully profound to say about it, but i don't. damn... we've all got used to you having something insightful, piercing, and usually profound to say... :) [ quoted text not captured ] i have to be pretty diplomatic here... if the deck swainbank played there was the one i'm thinking of, it's not the traditional s&b that somebody mistakenly referred to it as in an earlier post... it's a way-outside-the-box thing, and i'm going to assume, never having built and played it, that it requires a great deal of skill to play -- i've watched it in action plenty of times... swainbank manages to make it work for him into the finals on a regular basis, which i find a little puzzling: i don't think it's a particularly strong deck, so i chalk his record with it up to his strong play and his ability to work tables... he and i have gone 'round and 'round a few times, so i want it clear that i'm not cracking on him with this statement: i'm seeing his presence at the eurochampionship as a good u.s. player who crossed the pond and fielded a mad.scientist.com deck, and fell a little flat... thumbs up for the courage to pull a strange angle... [ quoted text not captured ] okay... here's the meat of it... arika/queen anne/suhailah isn't ventrue law firm... that's stealth vote, which has developed to surmount the difficulties that ventrue law firm was squashed by... and that's a solid deck... coincidentally enough, swainbank played it at the last tournament i faced up with him at... that's an evolution from ventrue law firm, but they're not even remotely similar... peal has a way of looking at things that talks about payloads and delivery systems: without going into that whole thing, vlf had a great payload but no delivery system... stealth vote [which has the option to swing into stealth bleed mode when necessary [mmm... options]] is an addressing of those issues... compromising the payload somewhat to implement an infinitely more effective delivery system... and, back to the hunting ground thing [which was not really what started all the ugliness, as far as i can tell], i do use some of my master slots, in that and most decks, for offensive purposes... that particular deck runs 3 sudden reversals and a pair of antediluvian awakenings... but i'm not including the hunting ground[s] as purely defensive measures... they're there to increase my options... a free blood to keep a vampire up in the late game is an offensive option... and it's all the better, in my thinking, if i also gain a defensive option out of it: taking a blood from a vampire if i'm feeling a little shaky about my pool... i don't know when the results of the washington dc qualifier will get posted, but in the preliminary report i read on our local mailing list, apparently joshua duffin beat matt hirsch in the finals due pretty much to the fact that he had a hunting ground and matt didn't... they were both playing stealth bleed, had a stealth location [josh's opium den to matt's elysian fields] -- peal's assessment was that all other factors were pretty much equal, and that the hunting ground was a big part of what carried the day for duffin... mmm... vindication... > Well, i hope some of this helps. Ah, soddit, all this being reasonable > is too much for me. Tony, Kev called your pint a limp-wristed Limey > Fag, he did too, i heard him. Kev, Tony wipes his bottom on the > American flag [AND its mother] at LEAST twice a day [bottom is British > for Ass]. Now, gentlemen and ladies, form a ring there i say, and let > the Proper Business of the newsgroup continue. agreed... i still don't think peal's blah blah was something that should have spawned all of this, but maybe the translator microbes were on the fritz... and, heck, in a pinch, i've been known to wipe my bottom on the first flag in arm's reach myself... by the way -- you ever plan to update your happy families script page...? one of our guys did one, and a fine one, but i liked your layout, and it was the original... peace -- -- khs

Legbiter wrote: > Hmmm, that's all very interesting, and i feel that as a VTES tourist i > should have something awfully profound to say about it, but i don't. > All i can do is offer some observations based on what has happened to > me when i've gone abroad and played good foreign players, plus some > impressions of what has happened to good foreign players when they > have come here. Some things I've noticed within the US: The Northeast Regionals, while won by Peter Bakija, were largely dominated by the New Englanders. 7 of the top ten were from New England. Nobody from the DC, Michigan, or Ohio groups qualified. At the North Central Regionals, 6 of the top 11 were from Michigan, and 4 were from Ohio (including the winner). We haven't yet seen the tournament report, but the Mid-Atlantic Qualifier, at least three from DC qualified, along with 2 from New England. I got smacked around a bit, but I was also trying out this 5-discipline Ravnos deck, so I probably deserved it. :) So, my rough estimation is that despite the fair amount of cross- pollination among American players, each group still has a definable metagame of its own, and one will tend to do better within their local metagame. At the same time, it kinda makes sense that at a qualifier in New England, a lot of people from New England are going to be there, and a lot of them may qualify. Same for DC players at a DC qualifier, and Michigan players at a Michigan qualifier. > i want to finish off by saying something about the issue which started > all this name-calling, ie Hunting Grounds and whether putting them > into your deck or not is a metagame issue. My view is that it is not a > metagame issue, but rather a ferocity issue. i am not ideologically > opposed to HGs and most of my decks contain one. However, of the four > decks i would currently pick from if my life depended on winning the > next game of Jyhad, NOT ONE contains even a SNIFF of a hunting-ground. > Why? Simply put, there are more powerful Master cards [including SR] > occupying their slot. So i think the nub of the difference between, on > the one hand Matt and Tony, and on the other Ben and Kevin, is that > Matt and Tony and i rate the OFFENSIVE potential of Master cards/slots > higher than the Newer Englishmen do. I don't think that's necessarily the case. I think it's more the case that here in New England we look at cards in terms of their short-term, medium-term, and long-term application and potential. We feel that a Hunting Ground is a very powerful long-term card, and that we've seen enough games go to a long-term situation that it's typically worth putting one in a deck. A deck from New England will typically contain a Hunting Ground and 3-4 Sudden Reversals (which are primarily used for the offensive purpose of negating Blood Dolls and Minion Taps - though not exclusively so). Ben Swainbank is weird and doesn't play with either Hunting Grounds or Sudden Reversals, and yet still has a lot of success. In some decks, I think Hunting Grounds can actually be considered to be part of the decks' offensive infrastructure. Intercept-combat decks over here tend to use Hunting Grounds, the Rack, P-base Montreal, Blood Dolls, and so on as part of an infrastructure that gradually builds more and more minions, while the intercept-combat part of the deck fends off assailants. Perhaps a more accurate take on it is that English players place a stronger emphasis on transient effects? *shrug* > As evidence for this view, consider Kevin's comment about the Ventrue Law > Firm deck being hosed by blocking. Not in its UK form it isn't, Kev - it'll > be Arika or Queen Anne or Suhailah who is calling the Parity shift [and/or > they'll be doing it in daylight], and what will be killing you isn't > primarily the votes anyway, but rather the takeover cards, and the fact > that you've already spent too much pool because the deck has just been > hanging around apparently-innoccuously until its hand has been built > for the killer blow. Heh...part of what got me to play so many Suddens in my tournament decks was looking at the quantity of Hostile Takeovers and ToGPs in English decks. Partly that, and partly wanting to shut down Minion Taps. To what extent do you see independent or Bloodlines clans in tournaments in the UK? From the UK decks in the TWD Archive, it's been almost entirely pre-Final Nights technology that's been winning (save for a Meddling and 4 Read the Winds), but that's only a small sample of the decks being played. I've been seeing a ton of the newer cards in tournaments over here (both locally and in other places in the country). - Ben Peal, Prince of Boston fu...@mindstorm.com

"jeroen rombouts" <jeroen.rom...@pandora.be> wrote in message news:<Y0lD8.71332$Ze.1...@afrodite.telenet-ops.be>... > "kevin scribner" <kevins...@airbridge.net> wrote in message > news:67327703.02051...@posting.google.com... > > "ventrue law firm" -- classic deck archetype... but it sucks ass, > > can't win... why...? because anyone who can't muster up a single > > point of static intercept dosn't deserve a seat at a tourney table... > > that's not a metagame issue, that's a gaping flaw in the deck: if > > stopping your actions shuts you down, then someone will, and you will > > lose... end of story... > > does this make the usa better than england [or europe in general]...? > > of course not... but nobody here tries to play that thing here > > anymore, because it doesn't work... that's not a metagame issue -- > > it's facing the facts... > > if it were a metagame issue, after a while, when someone poppped it as > > a surprise, it'd wreak havoc all over the place -- but that's not > > what's going to happen... it's just gonna fizzle, because it has no > > way of making things happen... > > Of course it's a metagame issue. If everyone starts including intercept (as > they did here a year ago) people will start to play without stealth (and > probably add combat). The intercept player will jam on intercept and add > less the next time. That's nice in theory, but you can't "jam" the best interceptors. The master locations are just playable. Contested, maybe. But you aren't going to jam someone on them. Similarly, Winthrop, Raven Spy, and Sport Bike just get deployed. 2nd trad is usable if you're tapped but don't need the intercept yet. Ditto for read the winds, speak with spirits. You'll want transients as well as those if you're playing dedicated intercept but you don't need a ton even if you are. You can try the zero stealth thing, but this limits you heavily. You can't get weapons other than GoB or DW. You can't get retainers and allies. You can't vote. You can't 3rd, 4th, or 5th trad, nor can you GtU @ superior. You can't rescue from torpor, you can't leave torpor. You can't get equipment. List goes on and on. You can do rush combat or bruise and bleed, but I'd hardly call those an auto-win no matter what the environment. > Besides, some decks just don't have the room/ability to use intercept. And > some decks just don't need it (classic example: weenie potence rush) so why > bother? Usually so that you aren't giving up GW/VP to things that would otherwise be stopped, as well as to create critical points for yourself. I agree that weenies in general don't need it. They don't want to block a lot. But they'll play delaying tactics or deflection at times, as well as some wakes. > Jeroen

legb...@mailandnews.com (legbiter) wrote in message > > Well, i hope some of this helps. Ah, soddit, all this being reasonable > is too much for me. Tony, Kev called your pint a limp-wristed Limey > Fag, he did too, i heard him. Kev, Tony wipes his bottom on the > American flag [AND its mother] at LEAST twice a day [bottom is British > for Ass]. Now, gentlemen and ladies, form a ring there i say, and let > the Proper Business of the newsgroup continue. I keep telling you james, more swear words. But, I can't argue against such rational level-headed-ness. Tony Literary thug

legb...@mailandnews.com (legbiter) wrote in message news:<22fea992.0205...@posting.google.com>... > <snip Kevin's thoughts> <snip some Legbiter's thoughts> > i've been lucky enough to entertain a number of good American players > at Legbiter Hall and to play both casual and competitive games with > them, with ROUGHLY even honours all round. i feel i have to single out > SSgt Michael Eichler here as AFAIK the ONLY foreign player who has > come to a UK tourney and actually WON; he did this essentially by > playing his own game and keeping his head down in the face of UK-style > agitation IIRC, but perhaps his personal reflections would be useful > here. Off-topic Michael, if you are reading this, can you get Beef > Jerky off whatever the USAAF equivalent of the NAAFI is? If so, can > you lay by a store for me? > Hi James You failed to mention that it took me 3 attempts to pull off the win. It was by no means a dash-in and win kind of thing. The first attempt was with a focused protean embrace combat deck - hammered into dust. Second attempt, I built a deck mimicking the toolbox style, based upon my observations. Made the final, but blew it by sitting in front of you and your Nosferatu Temptation of the Greater Power deck. Never had a chance as your deck worked flawlessly, undercutting my ability to even bring up a minion and then keep it. Third attempt was with a rebuilt political Lasombra deck on based off of Presence. Play style was pretty much head on with keeping my head down and plowing through the best I could. The fine art of deal making you and your cohorts have developed was something I knew I could never attempt to master, so I worked to keep myself as either invisible or as the swing voter. On the Beef Jerky, let me know what type are you seeking and I will go make the purchase. Michael

"Ramsteiner" <michael.eichler > > <snip Kevin's thoughts> > <snip some Legbiter's thoughts> > > i've been lucky enough to entertain a number of good American players > > at Legbiter Hall and to play both casual and competitive games with > > them, with ROUGHLY even honours all round. i feel i have to single out > > SSgt Michael Eichler here as AFAIK the ONLY foreign player who has > > come to a UK tourney and actually WON; he did this essentially by > > playing his own game and keeping his head down in the face of UK-style > > agitation IIRC, but perhaps his personal reflections would be useful > > here. Off-topic Michael, if you are reading this, can you get Beef > > Jerky off whatever the USAAF equivalent of the NAAFI is? If so, can > > you lay by a store for me? > > > Hi James > You failed to mention that it took me 3 attempts to pull off the win. > It was by no means a dash-in and win kind of thing. Right, but it didn't take you THAT long to pull off a win, and no other foreign player has done it. What i think it shows is that the UK metagame isn't impenetrable by a good foreign player. My own experiences in the USA and Europe suggest that this cuts both ways. i'ld go further [perhaps wrongly] and suggest that one doesn't adapt one's DECK during the process of adjusting to the local conditions, but rather that one makes subtle adjustments to one's playstyle. Would you agree? The first attempt was with a focused protean embrace combat deck - hammered into dust. Second attempt, I built a deck mimicking the toolbox style, based upon my observations. Made the final, but blew it by sitting in front of you and your Nosferatu Temptation of the Greater Power deck. Never had a chance as your deck worked flawlessly, undercutting my ability to even bring up a minion and then keep it. Third attempt was with a rebuilt political Lasombra deck on based off of Presence. Play style was pretty much head on with keeping my head down and plowing through the best I could. The fine art of deal making you and your cohorts have developed was something I knew I could never attempt to master, so I worked to keep myself as either invisible or as the swing voter. > > On the Beef Jerky, let me know what type are you seeking and I will go > make the purchase. O NOOOO, i HATE capitalism and its illusions of choice!!! To be honest, i didn't know there were several types. Erm, one spicy, one plain, please? <snip> -- Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG

"kevin scribner" <kevins...@airbridge.net> wrote in message news:67327703.02051...@posting.google.com > legb...@mailandnews.com (legbiter) wrote in message news:<22fea992.0205...@posting.google.com>... > > <snip Kevin's thoughts> > > ouch! Sorry, i didn't snip them so's to be rude. i snipped them because this wretched mailgate software gets all sniffy if i try to quote lots of text. i can get round that by deleting all the little > signs but it's a chore, and it makes it hard for readers to see who originally said what. But so's not to upset you again i will not snip any more of your thoughts from this reply, happy now? Me: Hmmm, that's all very interesting, and i feel that as a VTES tourist i should have something awfully profound to say about it, but i don't. > Kevin: damn... we've all got used to you having something insightful, > piercing, and usually profound to say... Me again: All i can do is offer some observations based on what has [ quoted text not captured ] Kevin: i have to be pretty diplomatic here... if the deck swainbank played there was the one i'm thinking of, it's not the traditional s&b that somebody mistakenly referred to it as in an earlier post... Me: Hmm, not sure whether or why this is an issue, but Jeroen and i were both at that tourney, and i agree with Jeroen that it looked like a fairly classical deck. But i didn't get to play against Ben, so i'm not sure. Clarification please, Ben? Kevin: it's a way-outside-the-box thing, and i'm going to assume, never having built and played it, that it requires a great deal of skill to play -- i've watched it in action plenty of times... swainbank manages to make it work for him into the finals on a regular basis, which i find a little puzzling: i don't think it's a particularly strong deck, so i chalk his record with it up to his strong play and his ability to work tables... he and i have gone 'round and 'round a few times, so i want it clear that i'm not cracking on him with this statement: i'm seeing his presence at the eurochampionship as a good u.s. player who crossed the pond and fielded a mad.scientist.com deck, and fell a little flat... thumbs up for the courage to pull a strange angle... Me: Strange is good. The deck with which Joschua Duell actually WON that tournament was stranger still. But i don't think we're disagreeing, are we? i mean i'm not saying that because Ben didn't win, therefore American decks/players are crap; to the contrary, i'm saying that he did well, which means that at least one American deck/player can compete at the highest level in Europe [and the same could be said of Kevin "The Hat" Mitcham, Sorrow, David Tatu and Michael Eichler]. i think there is a local metagame pretty much wherever you go. i basically agree with Ben's "blah-blah" comment, though, ie i don't think this means that the strongest decks from ANY metagame, fielded by the strongest players from ANY metagame, can't compete in ALL metagames. i suppose that's my hypothesis, really, and i accept that it's unlikely to be 100% true. <snip> Me again: i want to finish off by saying something about the issue which started all this name-calling, ie Hunting Grounds and whether putting them into your deck or not is a metagame issue. My view is that it is not a metagame issue, but rather a ferocity issue. i am not ideologically opposed to HGs and most of my decks contain one. However, of the four decks i would currently pick from if my life depended on winning the next game of Jyhad, NOT ONE contains even a SNIFF of a hunting-ground. Why? Simply put, there are more powerful Master cards [including SR] occupying their slot. So i think the nub of the difference between, on the one hand Matt and Tony, and on the other Ben and Kevin, is that Matt and Tony and i rate the OFFENSIVE potential of Master cards/slots higher than the Newer Englishmen do. As evidence for this view, consider Kevin's comment about the Ventrue Law Firm deck being hosed by blocking. Not in its UK form it isn't, Kev - it'll be Arika or Queen Anne or Suhailah who is calling the Parity shift [and/or they'll be doing it in daylight], and what will be killing you isn't primarily the votes anyway, but rather the takeover cards, and the fact that you've already spent too much pool because the deck has just been hanging around apparently-innoccuously until its hand has been built for the killer blow. Kevin again: okay... here's the meat of it... arika/queen anne/suhailah isn't > ventrue law firm... that's stealth vote, which has developed to > surmount the difficulties that ventrue law firm was squashed by... > and that's a solid deck... coincidentally enough, swainbank played it > at the last tournament i faced up with him at... that's an evolution > from ventrue law firm, but they're not even remotely similar... Erm ... if it's an evolution it HAS to be similar, doesn't it? peal > has a way of looking at things that talks about payloads and delivery > systems: without going into that whole thing, vlf had a great payload > but no delivery system... stealth vote [which has the option to swing > into stealth bleed mode when necessary [mmm... options]] is an > addressing of those issues... compromising the payload somewhat to > implement an infinitely more effective delivery system... Understood, Ben and i have talked a lot about the payload/delivery idea and i think it's a sound one. But now i'm a bit puzzled by something you said earlier ... i thought you said a classic Ventrue Law firm deck [in your terminology] had recently won a UK tourney? Either i wasn't at that tourney or i didn't get to the final of it, i have to admit. Are you SURE it was recent? > Kevin again: and, back to the hunting ground thing [which was not really what > started all the ugliness, as far as i can tell], i do use some of my > master slots, in that and most decks, for offensive purposes... that > particular deck runs 3 sudden reversals and a pair of antediluvian > awakenings... but i'm not including the hunting ground[s] as purely > defensive measures... they're there to increase my options... a free > blood to keep a vampire up in the late game is an offensive option... > and it's all the better, in my thinking, if i also gain a defensive > option out of it: taking a blood from a vampire if i'm feeling a > little shaky about my pool... Right, so we all agree about the substance of the thing; your master card slots are limited, and you have the choice to fill them up with defensive cards that gain you pool and blood [which you can, of course, use for offensive purposes], defensive cards that give you intercept and SRs/DIs, or you can fill them up with offensive cards. Which route you go down will, it seems to me, depend on what kind of player you are, and what kind of deck you are building. From my own perspective given the kind of player i am and the kinds of decks i usually build when i want to be cruel, HGs are quite far down the list of things i would choose. > > i don't know when the results of the washington dc qualifier will get > posted, but in the preliminary report i read on our local mailing > list, apparently joshua duffin beat matt hirsch in the finals due > pretty much to the fact that he had a hunting ground and matt > didn't... they were both playing stealth bleed, had a stealth > location [josh's opium den to matt's elysian fields] -- peal's > assessment was that all other factors were pretty much equal, and that > the hunting ground was a big part of what carried the day for > duffin... mmm... vindication... Erm, do i detect the merest SMIDGEN of the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy here? Not that i amn't perfectly happy to accept that HGs are sometimes the card that swings it for you. Sometimes it's an Info Highway or a Lucky Blow or a Faceless Night or a Skin of Steel or a Change of target. Does it follow that all these cards should go in all decks, do you think? > > > Well, i hope some of this helps. Ah, soddit, all this being reasonable > > is too much for me. Tony, Kev called your pint a limp-wristed Limey > > Fag, he did too, i heard him. Kev, Tony wipes his bottom on the > > American flag [AND its mother] at LEAST twice a day [bottom is British > > for Ass]. Now, gentlemen and ladies, form a ring there i say, and let > > the Proper Business of the newsgroup continue. > > agreed... i still don't think peal's blah blah was something that > should have spawned all of this, but maybe the translator microbes > were on the fritz... and, heck, in a pinch, i've been known to wipe > my bottom on the first flag in arm's reach myself... > > by the way -- you ever plan to update your happy families script > page...? one of our guys did one, and a fine one, but i liked your > layout, and it was the original... It wasn't me, it was James Coupe who did that. A fine piece of work indeed, but time-consuming, and James is awfully busy right now with studying for his English Finals at Cambridge. No really, this is actually true - left behind are the lazy mazy days and nights of carousing over the college port. Once his finals are over i expect he will redo the HF script. <sniP. [ quoted text not captured ]

<snip interesting account of tendency for home-teams to win in USA> Europe is much smaller of course, but here i think it's the exception rather than the rule for the home-guys to win. > > > i want to finish off by saying something about the issue which started > > all this name-calling, ie Hunting Grounds and whether putting them > > into your deck or not is a metagame issue. My view is that it is not a > > metagame issue, but rather a ferocity issue. i am not ideologically > > opposed to HGs and most of my decks contain one. However, of the four > > decks i would currently pick from if my life depended on winning the > > next game of Jyhad, NOT ONE contains even a SNIFF of a hunting-ground. > > Why? Simply put, there are more powerful Master cards [including SR] > > occupying their slot. So i think the nub of the difference between, on > > the one hand Matt and Tony, and on the other Ben and Kevin, is that > > Matt and Tony and i rate the OFFENSIVE potential of Master cards/slots > > higher than the Newer Englishmen do. Ben: I don't think that's necessarily the case. I think it's more the case that here in New England we look at cards in terms of their short-term, medium-term, and long-term application and potential. We feel that a Hunting Ground is a very powerful long-term card, and that we've seen enough games go to a long-term situation that it's typically worth putting one in a deck. A deck from New England will typically contain a Hunting Ground and 3-4 Sudden Reversals (which are primarily used for the offensive purpose of negating Blood Dolls and Minion Taps - though not exclusively so). Ben Swainbank is weird and doesn't play with either Hunting Grounds or Sudden Reversals, and yet still has a lot of success. In some decks, I think Hunting Grounds can actually be considered to be part of the decks' offensive infrastructure. Intercept-combat decks over here tend to use Hunting Grounds, the Rack, P-base Montreal, Blood Dolls, and so on as part of an infrastructure that gradually builds more and more minions, while the intercept-combat part of the deck fends off assailants. Perhaps a more accurate take on it is that English players place a stronger emphasis on transient effects? *shrug* Me: Yes, i think that's insightful and fair. Maybe we are more concerned than you about the FRAGILITY of permanents. More than we should be, even - though Rob once memorably said that the best Hunting Ground is someone else's Hunting Ground. But even chez vous, other Ben is playing as it were the Old English way of eschewing HGs, so it seems we can agree that HG-less decks can thrive in both our metagames. Incidentally and maybe slightly off-topic, i think this thinking about the early, middle and late games has the potential to revolutionise the way we play Jyhad and to raise up the overall quality by several notches. The more we play out these "artificial" duels and threesomes that i talked about on the NG a while back, the more we find ourselves thinking new thoughts about these different phases of the game, the transitions between them, and the strategies and tactics of surviving through them. > <snip> > > To what extent do you see independent or Bloodlines clans in tournaments > in the UK? From the UK decks in the TWD Archive, it's been almost entirely > pre-Final Nights technology that's been winning (save for a Meddling and > 4 Read the Winds), but that's only a small sample of the decks being played. > I've been seeing a ton of the newer cards in tournaments over here (both > locally and in other places in the country). LOTS of Setites, some Kiasyds and Giovanni, some Blood Brothers. But i accept the implication that there aren't as many as you might expect and i've been wondering about that ... are we behind the curve, as Prescott would say? However, don't forget that mostly the deck that wins is Rob's deck, and Rob has strong preferences about what he plays/how he plays it. We chat together a LOT about VTES and i think it's fair to summarise our current views by saying that we both like the Kiasyds and Blood Brothers IMMENSELY, we quite like the Giovanni, Matt is the Setite guy really, Barney does the Assamites and Ravnos, the Salubri can be pretty good and apart from that we are a bit stuck. Well, maybe the Ahrimanes are OK, sometimes i do alright with them at least in semi-competitive play. > > > - Ben Peal, Prince of Boston > fu...@mindstorm.com [ quoted text not captured ]

Me: Well, i hope some of this helps. Ah, soddit, all this being reasonable is too much for me. Tony, Kev called your pint a limp-wristed Limey Fag, he did too, i heard him. Kev, Tony wipes his bottom on the American flag [AND its mother] at LEAST twice a day [bottom is British for Ass]. Now, gentlemen and ladies, form a ring there i say, and let the Proper Business of the newsgroup continue. Tony: I keep telling you james, more swear words. Me: Hey, last time i swore at you you offered to set my beard on fire. Do i detect a HINT of being able to dish it out but not to take it??? Anyway, Fag and Limey are quite rude words in America, especially the latter in Boston. The New englanders claim to have some small-minded resentment about our gunning down several dozen of them outside their State House [College Green IIRC] during the regrettable incidents of the late 1700s. Actually i think they are sore because now, TOO LATE, they realise that they are being PUNISHED for their WICKED sedition against the Crown and Empire by being FORCED to live in a REPUBLIC, and to pretend to believe in DEMOCRACY. Poor Darlings, one would feel sorry for them if it wasn't so hilariously amusing ;-) > > But, I can't argue against such rational level-headed-ness. O no, PLEASE do the fighty thing o pretty please. > > Tony > > Literary thug [ quoted text not captured ]

fu...@optical.mindstorm.com (Ben Peal) wrote in message > Ben Swainbank is weird and doesn't play with either Hunting Grounds > or Sudden Reversals Hehe. Am I the only one not on the SR bandwagon? I'm way too fond of my master phases (and card cycling) to make room for stuff that sits in my hand waiting for someone else to do something cool. I'd rather be doing the cool stuff (and getting SR'ed if need be) myself. Actually, speaking of SR and the international metagame, in a nod to my limited understanding of the European game, I actually included 2 SRs and 2 DIs in my EC deck (I took out the Hunting Grounds to make room). They did me no good whatsoever. I never got them when they would have been useful, and people still auctioned off my minions (although, I did pick up a very nice Goratrix for the bargain price of 3 pool during a qualifier round). So, that was the end of that experiment. I don't really have a philosophical objection to the Hunting Grounds. I have been playing lots of Bloodlines and/or experimenting with cheaper means of blood gain lately (hint: its all about Jake Washington...oh yeah...). But if the deck seems right for it, I'll toss in an HG. Sometimes. -Ben Swainbank

Ben Swainbank wrote: > Hehe. Am I the only one not on the SR bandwagon? I never use them. Ok, maybe I have one or two in a deck somewhere, but for the most part, I find having pro-active cards that I know will be useful as my Masters far more preferable to a re-active card that might not ever really be worth playing, and might not be in my hand when I really need it. On the other hand, I keep considering building a deck that has nohting *but* Suddens as my Masters. [ quoted text not captured ]

Legbiter wrote: > Ben: Perhaps a more accurate take on it is that English players place a > stronger emphasis on transient effects? *shrug* > > Me: Yes, i think that's insightful and fair. Maybe we are more concerned > than you about the FRAGILITY of permanents. More than we should be, even > - though Rob once memorably said that the best Hunting Ground is someone > else's Hunting Ground. Location destruction/stealing doesn't happen that often in New England, but every so often I'll come across a play group in the US that plays with more Arsons and Disputed Territories. > But even chez vous, other Ben is playing as it were the Old English way of > eschewing HGs, so it seems we can agree that HG-less decks can thrive in > both our metagames. Oh, I do think you can win without them. However, I also think that you may win more games over a series of games if you were to include a Hunting Ground, as you'd have an advantage in the occasional prolonged games. I don't think that the inclusion of a Hunting Ground will hurt your deck outside of those situations, unless you're only interested in a short-term strategy (ex. weenie bleed). While Ben Swainbank has had a lot of success, I think he'd have even more success if he'd at least put some freakin' Sudden Reversals in his decks. :) > Incidentally and maybe slightly off-topic, i think this thinking about > the early, middle and late games has the potential to revolutionise the > way we play Jyhad and to raise up the overall quality by several > notches. The more we play out these "artificial" duels and threesomes > that i talked about on the NG a while back, the more we find ourselves > thinking new thoughts about these different phases of the game, the > transitions between them, and the strategies and tactics of surviving > through them. Oh...wait...were those the games were you started off with some resources in play, and some "damaged" vampires? Got a link to an article or two? I ought to try that out. I've found that sealed and draft play can help one learn the ins and outs of late-game strategy, as well. > > To what extent do you see independent or Bloodlines clans in tournaments > > in the UK? From the UK decks in the TWD Archive, it's been almost > > entirely pre-Final Nights technology that's been winning (save for a > > Meddling and 4 Read the Winds), but that's only a small sample of the > > decks being played. I've been seeing a ton of the newer cards in > > tournaments over here (both locally and in other places in the country). > > LOTS of Setites, some Kiasyds and Giovanni, some Blood Brothers. But i > accept the implication that there aren't as many as you might expect and > i've been wondering about that ... are we behind the curve, as Prescott > would say? That's hard to say, but I don't think it's necessarily the case. While you may have fewer total decks/players using the newer cards, the UK also has considerably fewer players than the US. So, it might very well be the case that the UK scene has a percentage of use of new cards close to that of the US, but with the smaller total of decks/players using them, you're seeing less of a range of the newer material. > However, don't forget that mostly the deck that wins is Rob's > deck, and Rob has strong preferences about what he plays/how he plays > it. We chat together a LOT about VTES and i think it's fair to summarise > our current views by saying that we both like the Kiasyds and Blood > Brothers IMMENSELY, we quite like the Giovanni, Matt is the Setite guy > really, Barney does the Assamites and Ravnos, the Salubri can be pretty > good and apart from that we are a bit stuck. Well, maybe the Ahrimanes > are OK, sometimes i do alright with them at least in semi-competitive > play. I'm not sure how much I like the Kiasyds...Folderol is pretty spiffy, but I keep feeling that Mytherceria is a toolboxy discipline that's supporting another toolboxy discipline (Obtenebration). Right now I'm just waiting for a burst of inspiration with them, but I've got a bunch of other decks I'm working on in the meantime. The True Brujah have impressed me lately, especially after seeing Colin Riggs take them to the finals at the Mid- Atlantic Qualfier. There's a lot of Bloodlines that I really like, though. I just need more time and more tournaments to develop decks with them. :) Speaking of which, I gotta write another Salubri newsletter... [ quoted text not captured ]

Ben Swainbank wrote: > > fu...@optical.mindstorm.com (Ben Peal) wrote in message > > Ben Swainbank is weird and doesn't play with either Hunting Grounds > > or Sudden Reversals > > Hehe. Am I the only one not on the SR bandwagon? Definitely not. > I'm way too fond of my master phases (and card cycling) to make room > for stuff that sits in my hand waiting for someone else to do > something cool. I'd rather be doing the cool stuff (and getting SR'ed > if need be) myself. Exactly. Though I do admit, SRing your prey's Hunting Ground/Blood Doll/ Tribute to the Master/Minion Tap/Art-Museum-type-thingie or anything else ultimately useful to keep his pool up may make a huge difference, it's just not worth it holding onto an SR waiting for one of them to come up. SRs, in my decks, get built in _after_ I've sated myself with as many Dreams of the Sphinx as I want, that's how lowly I regard them. On the other hand, I like Hunting Grounds for basically all the reasons Ben Peal gives. And I'm not even sure he mentioned stuff like the extra actions you get by avoiding hunts and sometimes how they even protect you from Society of Leopold burnings. Fred

i'm glad to see that productive stuff has started coming out of this, and the other, thread, once again... :) all's well that's ends well...? peace -- -- khs

Legbiter mentioned the following: - Incidentally and maybe slightly off-topic, i think this thinking about - the early, middle and late games has the potential to revolutionise the - way we play Jyhad and to raise up the overall quality by several - notches. The more we play out these "artificial" duels and threesomes - that i talked about on the NG a while back, the more we find ourselves - thinking new thoughts about these different phases of the game, the - transitions between them, and the strategies and tactics of surviving - through them. which caused Ben Peal to ask: - Oh...wait...were those the games were you started off with some - resources in play, and some "damaged" vampires? Got a link to an - article or two? I ought to try that out. http://www.thelasombra.com/variants/endgame.txt Carpe noctem. Lasombra http://www.TheLasombra.com/variants.htm [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <67327703.02051...@posting.google.com>, kevins...@airbridge.net (kevin scribner) mumbled something about: >i'm glad to see that productive stuff has started coming out of this, >and the other, thread, once again... Well, hell, we can fix that. Let's ALL call Tony's pint's mum naughty names. -- "There's no gray. There's just white that's got grubby." -- T.P.

<snip> > > > Incidentally and maybe slightly off-topic, i think this thinking about > > the early, middle and late games has the potential to revolutionise the > > way we play Jyhad and to raise up the overall quality by several > > notches. The more we play out these "artificial" duels and threesomes > > that i talked about on the NG a while back, the more we find ourselves > > thinking new thoughts about these different phases of the game, the > > transitions between them, and the strategies and tactics of surviving > > through them. > > Oh...wait...were those the games were you started off with some > resources in play, and some "damaged" vampires? Yes. Got a link to an > article or two? I ought to try that out. "legb...@mailandnews.com (legbiter) wrote in message news:<22fea992.02040...@posting.google.com>... > It struck me the other day that ALL VTES games eventually break down > to two or three player games [ok, i know there are rare exceptions], > and that one way to play duels and threesomes might be to acknowledge > this and to structure the duel/threesome so's to replicate the mid/end > game of a REAL Jyhad match. Obviously one wouldn't want to copy the > rather boring mid/end games where one player is OBVIOUSLY going to > sweep, but rather the fun ones where everything is up for grabs." Jeff and Robyn have also tried it, and Jeff made some good suggestions for ways to make it work better. [ quoted text not captured ] Stone Travel is my favourite card for them, with Chanjelin Ward a close second. Right now I'm just waiting > for a burst of inspiration with them, but I've got a bunch of other decks > I'm working on in the meantime. The True Brujah have impressed me lately, > especially after seeing Colin Riggs take them to the finals at the Mid- > Atlantic Qualfier. Right, True Brujah are a proposition. i still haven't got them working really well yet, though.

Ben Swainbank wrote: > I'm way too fond of my master phases (and card cycling) to make room > for stuff that sits in my hand waiting for someone else to do > something cool. I'd rather be doing the cool stuff (and getting SR'ed > if need be) myself. Do you play with intercept? Do you play with bounce? Both are types of cards that sit in your hand while you wait for someone else to do something cool. While you'd certainly rather be spending your time doing the cool stuff, there are plenty of times when you need to be preventing your opponent from doing something. I don't see any reason to exclude master cards from this equation. > Actually, speaking of SR and the international metagame, in a nod to > my limited understanding of the European game, I actually included 2 > SRs and 2 DIs in my EC deck (I took out the Hunting Grounds to make > room). They did me no good whatsoever. I never got them when they > would have been useful, and people still auctioned off my minions > (although, I did pick up a very nice Goratrix for the bargain price of > 3 pool during a qualifier round). So, that was the end of that > experiment. Hey, you're the one who diluted your experiment with Direct Interventions. I would've gone with 4 Sudden Reversals (which I tend to do anyway). Direct Interventions are cards I consider more in special cases, rather than for general purpose use. [ quoted text not captured ]

Frederick Scott wrote: > On the other hand, I like Hunting Grounds for basically all the reasons > Ben Peal gives. And I'm not even sure he mentioned stuff like the extra > actions you get by avoiding hunts and sometimes how they even protect you > from Society of Leopold burnings. Somewhere in one of these threads, I mentioned the former but not the latter. I believe it was in response to a post by Xian. [ quoted text not captured ]

Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<eqm3euklt2f5hi2dm...@4ax.com>... > In message <67327703.02051...@posting.google.com>, > kevins...@airbridge.net (kevin scribner) mumbled something about: > > >i'm glad to see that productive stuff has started coming out of this, > >and the other, thread, once again... > > Well, hell, we can fix that. > > Let's ALL call Tony's pint's mum naughty names. Both my pint and his mum are fine, honourable creatures not deserving of your slandour. Tony Great big homo

On 15 May 2002, Ben Peal wrote: > Hey, you're the one who diluted your experiment with Direct Interventions. > I would've gone with 4 Sudden Reversals (which I tend to do anyway). > Direct Interventions are cards I consider more in special cases, rather > than for general purpose use. How is DI more of a special case than Sudden? It seems the likelihood of a good target for DI showing up is higher than for SR. On average, there's going to be 24 slots that could have a Sudden'able card in them, many of which will be empty due to neither predator nor prey playing a master card, or those master cards not being worth reversing. There will be many, many minions cards chucked in the same game. Granted, master card plays tend to be (or should be) prominent events in the game, but so is "take six to the dome" and "I rip that guy's head off." Even granting the fact that, with a DI, they have the opportunity in some cases to just play the same card again, if I play with one I usually play with the other. It was nice to finally meet you in person, BTW. Maybe I'll see you at the nationals. David Cherryholmes Prince of Durham

"legbiter" <legb...@mailandnews.com> wrote: > Right, but it didn't take you THAT long to pull off a win, and > no other foreign player has done it. What i think it shows is > that the UK metagame isn't impenetrable by a good foreign player. Is the UK metagame much different from the metagame in Germany or Europe as a whole? After all, it's been many a year since Michael and I sat together at a Jyhad table in Omaha. By now, Michael should be more accustomed to the metagame over there than the one in the U.S. > i'ld go further [perhaps wrongly] and suggest that one doesn't adapt > one's DECK during the process of adjusting to the local conditions, > but rather that one makes subtle adjustments to one's playstyle. > Would you agree? I don't know if I'd go that far. The metagame in Michigan is much more intercept and combat heavy than the metagame in Toronto. Linc, a local player, fielded a Tzimisce I&C deck at a tournament there and won with it. It was because of the insane amount of intercept being tossed around (including a Assamite with Auspex and Eagle Sight) that I even bothered to make Clan Loyalty a useful card. Regards, Noal

In message <19048d48.02051...@posting.google.com>, ztr...@yahoo.com (Tony) mumbled something about: [ quoted text not captured ] Good thing it'll all be libel then. [ quoted text not captured ]

"The Lasombra" <thela...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<07717ee9bf7e82c46ef...@mygate.mailgate.org>... > http://www.thelasombra.com/variants/endgame.txt you know, i've tried this method out a couple of times, and it's pretty hip... as is most of the stuff legbiter throws out there... if i had a complaint against it, though, it would be that [the three player version] didn't accurately reflect the state of a late game: maybe it's just our local playstyle, or whatnot, but it seemed to me like there should have been more permanents in play by the time the first couple of players were ousted... and it didn't place the edge... i came up with a couple of minor alterations to the "algorithm," which i will post later [they're on my palm -- gotta root 'em outta there], for comments, et cetera... peace -- --khs

"David Cherryholmes" <d...@petsparc.mc.duke.edu> wrote in message news:Pine.GSO.4.21.020515...@petsparc.mc.duke.edu... > On 15 May 2002, Ben Peal wrote: > > > Hey, you're the one who diluted your experiment with Direct Interventions. > > I would've gone with 4 Sudden Reversals (which I tend to do anyway). > > Direct Interventions are cards I consider more in special cases, rather > > than for general purpose use. > > How is DI more of a special case than Sudden? It seems the likelihood of > a good target for DI showing up is higher than for SR. But (IMO) it's less often that there's a minion card worth paying a pool and a master-phase action to cancel. Conditioning is generally worth it. Govern is generally not. Immortal Grapple is worth a shot but will often fail; Undead Strength there's not even any point. Disarm would be worth doing. But there's too much redundancy and too much ability to do something else bad with the minion (again IMO) for DI to be worth its slot as often as SR is. Master cards really do have "bigger swing effects" more often; Minion Tap, Hostile Takeover, Temptation of Greater Power, Fame, especially. > Granted, master > card plays tend to be (or should be) prominent events in the game, but so > is "take six to the dome" and "I rip that guy's head off." In other words, in my experience, you can rarely avoid taking six to the dome, or having your head ripped off, with DI. You might delay it a turn. You might not. Most of the time it wasn't worth a pool and a master card slot and a master phase action. At least, for me. This is probably in part due to my feeling that most minion-card stuff people will do to you, you need to have some minion-card plan of your own for dealing with anyway, whether or not you're playing with DI. So it seems "less worth it" to put in DIs as well, for when your plan fails or DI will supplement it effectively. Josh taking a few minutes

"kevin scribner" <kevins...@airbridge.net> wrote in message news:67327703.02051...@posting.google.com... > i guess i'm trying to point out the existence of a sort of > "uber-metagame" concept... I think Ian Lee (curevei) is right to point to this as being more of a "cross-regional" or "US" metagame than a "non-metagame" or "how the game is" situation. > "ventrue law firm" -- [SNIP] > does this make the usa better than england [or europe in general]...? > of course not... but nobody here tries to play that thing here > anymore, because it doesn't work... that's not a metagame issue -- > it's facing the facts... I think this is slightly wrong. It *is* a metagame issue. Ultimately (IMO) *everything* is a metagame issue. If people in some area play weird-ass shit that would never work in the group you play with, that doesn't *necessarily* mean that they're wrong and you're right about what's good. What's good *does* have to depend largely on what other people are playing. If everyone is playing heavy rush combat, Ventrue Law Firm with lots of Fortitude-prevent is very very good, and anything with stealth but not a ton of combat defense is very very bad. You can say that everyone shouldn't be playing heavy rush combat, but that's not really relevant: if they *are* playing that, in that metagame you have to adapt to it or lose. > which is why stealth vote is coming into favor... which is why you're > seeing on point of static intercept becoming two as a requirement... > and which is why draba is such a strong card... and blah blah blah... See, this is where you're really getting to the point: metagames evolve in response to what would be good in any particular metagame, and then evolve in response to the decks trying to take advantage of that, and so on. It's not exactly circular, but it is a continuous process, and any area that's at a different place than yours will have different results (and opinions on "what's good"). There are certainly some deck types and strategies that are more inter-metagame robust than others, and these are what I think you're defining as "good stuff". But even these can be vulnerable to having the metagame shift against them at some point, as a result of new cards being printed, or just a general shift in playstyle/strategies. > and you can't say that the american metagame has evolved the need for > a point of static intercept -- the GAME itself has done that... there > are a stupid number of cards that are +1 stealth actions: if you like > taking them up the hole, then don't be able to block them... I agree to a large extent, but at the same time, you're pointing at something else important by saying the GAME has evolved the need for a point of intercept: the game (cards available etc) *does* influence the metagame (what people actually play) and if there are a lot of strong +1 stealth actions then having +1 intercept becomes more valuable. Anyway, just some thoughts on the issue. Josh fashionably late

"Peter Oh" <ohb...@wam.umd.edu> wrote in message news:_0nD8.15293$Vm2.3...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net... > This I am very much confused by. Sure, weenie potence rush (strong, like > bull) decks don't need intercept in a strict sense because you're using bum > rushes and the like to get into combat. But you better believe that if some > Ventrue vote deck or some presence bleed deck with Jost or Rebbekah is your > prey, your life is a helluva lot easier if you thought to put in some > intercept. Yes, yes, the easy answer is... well I bum rush them, that's the > point of my deck. Indeed. But if your prey has any common sense at all, he > has built his presence bleed deck with SOME measure of combat defense, be it > a Secure Haven for Jost, some Gargoyles for Rebekkah... blah blah blah. The > point is that it is insanely easy to generate +1 intercept in this game, > that if you want to succeed in anything past casual play, you might as well > find a way to put some in there. This is a pretty key philosophy-of-decks issue, I think. Peter Bakija, of course, is on the "it does what it's supposed to do and I don't want it to try to do anything else" side. I agree (in theory) with your claim (and Kevin Scribner's) that it's often worthwhile to have the casual intercept available, even if it's not the main focus of your deck, because there's so much that can happen at +1 stealth that's worth stopping. But I do still agree with Peter that in weenie-potence-rush you don't likely gain enough by playing Wakes and intercept compared to what you lose by diluting the deck. It's more of a thing you do (or at least I do) in decks that already have/ need Wakes/untaps because they're not weeniefied enough to just rely on having enough action/blocking opportunities by having lots of minions. Josh catch up!

fu...@optical.mindstorm.com (Ben Peal) wrote in message news:<bf72a12e.02051...@posting.google.com>... > Ben Swainbank wrote: > > I'm way too fond of my master phases (and card cycling) to make room > > for stuff that sits in my hand waiting for someone else to do > > something cool. > > Do you play with intercept? Do you play with bounce? Both are types > of cards that sit in your hand while you wait for someone else to do > something cool. This is a good point. I think there is a slightly higher opporunity cost with SR. If you are mainly looking to disrupt your prey, you've got their 1 MP per turn in which they may or may not do something worth "Suddening". Whereas between predator and prey they're probabaly taking multiple actions during which you choose to play or hold your defense. And, with minion cards, under an optimal flow, I'm playing my offence during my turn, and drawing into the defense, which I'll play out of turn, drawing into my offense again. If everything is cooking along, I'm not really choosing between offense and defense. I'm playing both. With the Masters, I've got those limited MPAs. I can develop my own position, or disrupt someone else. And this is the problem I always run into during design. Lets say I'm building Generic Toolbox Deck X. I select the Masters I'll need for pool gain, blood gain, development acceleration, and discipline support. Then I estiminate the Anticipated Cycle Rate(tm) and figure I've got 4 Master slots to spare (this never happens to me. But speaking hypothetically...). I could go with the 4 Suddens, and hope to snipe a Blood Dool, Hunting Ground, Minion Tap or other resource critical to my prey (or predator). But I could also use those slots to add: Rumor Mill -- Static intercept and table control Dreams of the Sphinx -- Pool gain, acceleration, cycling Jake Washington -- Throw him in front of a bleed for 3. Or he's a late game snack for my Blood Doll. ...and I've got one slot left. So lets say... Society of Leopold -- Surpise! Lock down a minion with 1 blood, with an option to burn. +1 fun. Are the Suddens really better for my deck than *all* that? Obviously, these are just examples. But I got to go with the toys. Anywho. On the strength of your recommendation I'll have to give it a shot sometime. If only I could think of a deck where I can make the room.... -Ben Swainbank

"Noal McDonald" <dhar...@my-deja.com> wrote > > I don't know if I'd go that far. The metagame in Michigan is much more > intercept and combat heavy than the metagame in Toronto. Linc, a local > player, fielded a Tzimisce I&C deck at a tournament there and won with > it. It was because of the insane amount of intercept being tossed > around (including a Assamite with Auspex and Eagle Sight) that I even > bothered to make Clan Loyalty a useful card. Sorry to correct you but while Linc did make it into the finals, he did not actually win. I think he made it in with the most VPs or something... not sure. The winner of that tourney was a guy named Lee, the Prince of Burlington. But it was a good intercept deck and it was Linc's first tournament I think so he deserves the praise, as does the Michigan meta-game which can kick all the other meta-games' collective asses any day we want </troll>. Cheers, WES

Joshua Duffin wrote: > > "David Cherryholmes" <d...@petsparc.mc.duke.edu> wrote in message > > How is DI more of a special case than Sudden? It seems the likelihood of > > a good target for DI showing up is higher than for SR. > > But (IMO) it's less often that there's a minion card worth paying > a pool and a master-phase action to cancel. Conditioning is > generally worth it. Govern is generally not. Immortal Grapple > is worth a shot but will often fail; Undead Strength there's not > even any point. Disarm would be worth doing. But there's too > much redundancy and too much ability to do something else bad > with the minion (again IMO) for DI to be worth its slot as often > as SR is. Master cards really do have "bigger swing effects" > more often; Minion Tap, Hostile Takeover, Temptation of Greater > Power, Fame, especially. I suspect there's lots of times when canceling the minion action would be worth the 1 pool. Hell, Rewind Time costs 2 pool and I don't think it would only be an attractive card just for the SR function. But the MPA and, more to the point, the master card slot is usually not worth it. The one exception I've found is when there's a minion card you really, REALLY don't like. My weeny decks hate the sudden, untimely (and it's almost always untimely) appearance of Ancilla Empowerment and Domain Challenge. And since they tend to be toolbox cards, I figure a DI may save my life from time to time. So that's when I see if I can find the master card space in a deck to use a couple. Fred

Frederick Scott wrote: > [...] Rewind Time costs 2 pool [...] RT costs 2 blood. -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. Links to V:TES news, rules, cards, utilities, and tournament calendar: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/

legb...@mailandnews.com (legbiter) wrote in message news:<22fea992.0205...@posting.google.com>... [snip most of Legbiter, just have time for a quick quip or two] > Finally at least in terms of factual stuff, one of my favourite decks > right now is Rehlow's Baron deck tweaked for the UK metagame. This is I should have figured that you would take to this like a moth to flame when I first saw it, and I actually haven't seen Rehlow play it in a while, but that's probably because last I saw, he had a *different* trick Baron deck. > channel. Contrary to what you might think, the key to making Rehlow's > idea work in Europe was FOCUSSING the deck, NOT toolboxing it, and i You mean in England, right? Or did it do well in that Parisian tournament a bit back? > actually used a pair of techniques which were invented by the American > players David Tatu ["Tatuisation"] You added War Ghouls? :) (ref: http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=bxqH7.134512%24My2.78624713%40news1.mntp1.il.home.com&output=gplain ) > and Ethan Burrow ["Modules"] to help me do this. Doesn't that refer to the compartmentalization of beer? :) Also, I totally agree that Master cards should generally be used for offensive potential, or for trump-y defense (Sudden Reversal, sometimes DI, etc.). Maybe more thoughts later on. Xian back from an excellent extended weekend in Chicago

xb...@qwest.net (Xian) wrote in message news:<dbc1153.02051...@posting.google.com>... > legb...@mailandnews.com (legbiter) wrote in message news:<22fea992.0205...@posting.google.com>... > [snip most of Legbiter, just have time for a quick quip or two] > > Finally at least in terms of factual stuff, one of my favourite decks > > right now is Rehlow's Baron deck tweaked for the UK metagame. This is > > I should have figured that you would take to this like a moth to flame > when I first saw it, and I actually haven't seen Rehlow play it in a > while, but that's probably because last I saw, he had a *different* > trick Baron deck. Hehehehe ... how WELL you know me, brother. But you know, i think Rehlow's original Baron deck is the basis for something which is a bit more than a trick-deck. In its current form the Legbiterland version is robust, flexible and VERY hard to stop - not really the hallmarks of a trick-deck, i venture to suggest. However, it is certainly TRICKY to PLAY, and that's the main attraction for me. > > > > channel. Contrary to what you might think, the key to making Rehlow's > > idea work in Europe was FOCUSSING the deck, NOT toolboxing it, and i > > You mean in England, right? Or did it do well in that Parisian > tournament a bit back? i didn't play it in the tournament but i did play it in the pick-up games at Philippe "turbo-Arika" Lang's house. Two games, lost the first one to some well-timed/questionable SR's and a DI, won the second 5/6 VP, ALL the players on the table being REALLY good and two of them [Philippe himself and Francois Alix] being well-used to turbo decks and so, you would think, well-used to the ways of stopping them. But not a chink did the Baron offer to them. > > > actually used a pair of techniques which were invented by the American > > players David Tatu ["Tatuisation"] > > You added War Ghouls? :) Nah, Tatuisation is my term for slimming your library and crypt down to the minimum size at which the deck will still do its thing. > > (ref: http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=bxqH7.134512%24My2.78624713%40news1.mntp1.il.home.com&output=gplain > ) > > > and Ethan Burrow ["Modules"] to help me do this. > > Doesn't that refer to the compartmentalization of beer? :) Erm, if you say so. i meant i broke the deck down into its functional bits and then built it around those, RUTHLESSLY throwing away anything which didn't need to be there. > > Also, I totally agree that Master cards should generally be used for > offensive potential, or for trump-y defense (Sudden Reversal, > sometimes DI, etc.). Maybe more thoughts later on. > > Xian > > back from an excellent extended weekend in Chicago Viewing the excellent art galleries, no doubt? How MUCH i envy you.

legb...@mailandnews.com (legbiter) wrote in message news:<22fea992.02051...@posting.google.com>... > xb...@qwest.net (Xian) wrote in message news:<dbc1153.02051...@posting.google.com>... > > legb...@mailandnews.com (legbiter) wrote in message news:<22fea992.0205...@posting.google.com>... > > [snip most of Legbiter, just have time for a quick quip or two] > > > Finally at least in terms of factual stuff, one of my favourite decks > > > right now is Rehlow's Baron deck tweaked for the UK metagame. This is > > > > I should have figured that you would take to this like a moth to flame > > when I first saw it, and I actually haven't seen Rehlow play it in a > > while, but that's probably because last I saw, he had a *different* > > trick Baron deck. > > Hehehehe ... how WELL you know me, brother. But you know, i think > Rehlow's original Baron deck is the basis for something which is a bit > more than a trick-deck. In its current form the Legbiterland version > is robust, flexible and VERY hard to stop - not really the hallmarks > of a trick-deck, i venture to suggest. However, it is certainly TRICKY > to PLAY, and that's the main attraction for me. > > > > > > > channel. Contrary to what you might think, the key to making Rehlow's > > > idea work in Europe was FOCUSSING the deck, NOT toolboxing it, and i > > > > You mean in England, right? Or did it do well in that Parisian > > tournament a bit back? > Amusingly enough, here is rather more direct proof of the proposition that a tweaked/focussed Baron deck can do ok in Europe: Deck Name: Some shit from the internet that I tweaked Created By: Erik Torstensson [and used by him to win Aggressive tactics Umea tournament [Sweden]] Description: Crypt: (12 cards, Min: 19, Max: 31, Avg: 6,50) ---------------------------------------------- 1 Agaitas AUS for NEC 6, Harbingers of Skulls 1 Andrea Giovanni DOM NEC pot vic 7, Giovanni 1 Anisa Marianna Lopez aus FOR NEC QUI 8, Harbingers of Skulls 1 Carlotta Giovanni dom NEC obf POT 7, Giovanni 1 Egothha AUS FOR NEC obf 7, Harbingers of Skulls 1 Gillespi Giovanni aus DOM NEC POT 7, Giovanni 1 Gisela Harden aus dem FOR NEC 7, Harbingers of Skulls, Priscus 1 Isabel Giovanni DOM NEC pot 5, Giovanni 1 Kanimana Belghazi AUS DOM NEC pro 7, Nagaraja 1 Le Dinh Tho aus dom NEC 5, Nagaraja 1 Rudolfo Giovanni NEC 3, Giovanni 1 The Baron dom FOR NEC OBF THN 9, Samedi, 2 votes Library: (70 cards) ------------------- Master (27 cards) 1 Barrens, The 8 Coroners Contact 1 Dreams of the Sphinx 1 Elder Library 8 Minion Tap 2 Parthenon, The 6 Vast Wealth Action (20 cards) 10 Force of Will 10 Possession Action Modifier (12 cards) 8 Call of the Hungry Dead 4 Daring the Dawn Equipment (2 cards) 2 Soul Gem of Etrius Combo (9 cards) 9 Spectral Divination ..... well done, Erik! <snip>

"kevin scribner" <kevins...@airbridge.net> wrote in message news:67327703.02051...@posting.google.com... > okay... here's the meat of it... arika/queen anne/suhailah isn't > ventrue law firm... that's stealth vote, which has developed to > surmount the difficulties that ventrue law firm was squashed by... > and that's a solid deck... coincidentally enough, swainbank played it > at the last tournament i faced up with him at... that's an evolution > from ventrue law firm, but they're not even remotely similar... peal > has a way of looking at things that talks about payloads and delivery > systems: without going into that whole thing, vlf had a great payload > but no delivery system... stealth vote [which has the option to swing > into stealth bleed mode when necessary [mmm... options]] is an > addressing of those issues... compromising the payload somewhat to > implement an infinitely more effective delivery system... To my mind, Ventrue Law Firm is as vague an archetype as you could want, and its having "evolved" into stealth-vote is more a "subflavor" of VLF than a refutation of VLF. You're still using (or can still use) the cheap Ventrue princes (Cloaks for stealth may be enough for them, since they can also use Seduction to keep at least one vamp from blocking) in addition to your Arika/Queen Anne/(possibly)Suhailah. You're still using the vote/bleed/Prince-stuff core. It's still based on the Ventrue having ridiculously good disciplines to go with their titles. :-) Hostile Takeover still wrongs people (and is also good against interceptors). > i don't know when the results of the washington dc qualifier will get > posted, but in the preliminary report i read on our local mailing > list, apparently joshua duffin beat matt hirsch in the finals due > pretty much to the fact that he had a hunting ground and matt > didn't... they were both playing stealth bleed, had a stealth > location [josh's opium den to matt's elysian fields] -- peal's > assessment was that all other factors were pretty much equal, and that > the hunting ground was a big part of what carried the day for > duffin... mmm... vindication... The hunting ground and the Temptation, I think. I mean, Temptation's a pretty great card too. :-) Plus the fact that Matt wasn't able to draw +bleed fast enough to kill me before Hunting Ground/Blood Doll got far enough in keeping me alive. He was quite a bit of pool up on me when it got down to just us left, but Temptation on Gratiano forced him to Blood Doll on to keep me from "borrowing" him, and then HG/Blood Doll was paying off for me in our "bleed you for 3, done" race. (We each had a +1 bleed vampire and a non- +1 bleed vampire in play.) HG certainly also paid off in "actions not wasted hunting" for me, earlier, or maybe more accurately "pool not wasted Blood Dolling on" since I think I had the Dolls in play before the Ground. Josh way late

"Ben Peal" <fu...@optical.mindstorm.com> wrote in message news:bf72a12e.02051...@posting.google.com... > Some things I've noticed within the US: > > The Northeast Regionals, while won by Peter Bakija, were largely > dominated by the New Englanders. 7 of the top ten were from New > England. Nobody from the DC, Michigan, or Ohio groups qualified. To be fair, there were only three players from the DC group out of 48 people in the tournament. :-) > We haven't yet seen the tournament report, but the Mid-Atlantic > Qualifier, at least three from DC qualified, along with 2 from > New England. I got smacked around a bit, but I was also trying > out this 5-discipline Ravnos deck, so I probably deserved it. :) Yeah, the breakdown of "qualifying players at the Mid-Atlantic Qual" was: 4 from DC and vicinity 2 from Massachusetts 1 from New York City 1 from North Carolina 1 from Pennsylvania 1 from southern Virginia Which leaves more non-locals than locals, of course, but a plurality of locals, if you will. As far as "where the participants as a whole came from", it looks to me like there are 12 DC-area players out of 32 total players, so they're represented more or less proportionally in the top 10. So I guess that's "not much evidence either way" for the "it's the metagame" vs "it's just cause more locals show up" theories. :-) Josh still hasn't made an ahrimanes deck yet

legb...@mailandnews.com (legbiter) wrote in message news:<22fea992.0205...@posting.google.com>... > So i think the nub of the difference between, on > the one hand Matt and Tony, and on the other Ben and Kevin, is that > Matt and Tony and i rate the OFFENSIVE potential of Master cards/slots > higher than the Newer Englishmen do. Personally I want my MPAs/MCSs to be "big plays." This probably comes from watching too much football or something, but it's served me well enough. Minion Tap is primarily defensive, but it's still potentially a big play. > As evidence for this view, > consider Kevin's comment about the Ventrue Law Firm deck being hosed > by blocking. Not in its UK form it isn't, Kev - it'll be Arika or > Queen Anne or Suhailah who is calling the Parity shift [and/or they'll > be doing it in daylight] Arika calling parity shift might explain the success of VLF in the UK :) Seriously though, building an obf ventrue deck and saying it's classic ventrue, isn't really accurate. Sheldon fits that mold about as well as The Princess of Funk, Suhailah, since they both have exactly 1 ventrue discipline. Sure, Suhailah gives you Ventrue HQ (which you shouldn't need), Ventrue DA (ditto), and Hostile Takeover. But I've yet to see HT win games, or be better than ToGP. And that's not for lack of trying. >, and what will be killing you isn't primarily > the votes anyway, but rather the takeover cards, and the fact that > you've already spent too much pool because the deck has just been > hanging around apparently-innoccuously until its hand has been built > for the killer blow. I don't want to count on my opponent's fuck ups. While it's great when I've got Arika and Queen Anne ready, with some dom +bleed and stealth in hand, and they go down to <10 on their own, but it's not something that I count on.

legb...@mailandnews.com (legbiter) wrote in message news:<22fea992.02051...@posting.google.com>... > xb...@qwest.net (Xian) wrote in message news:<dbc1153.02051...@posting.google.com>... > > I should have figured that you would take to this like a moth to flame > > when I first saw it, [snip] > Hehehehe ... how WELL you know me, brother. But you know, i think > Rehlow's original Baron deck is the basis for something which is a bit > more than a trick-deck. Hmm. I think that it was incarnated as a trick deck, but you are probably right that there was something at the core which screamed out to be toyed with. Then again, Rehlow has been enthralled with Force of Will and (presumably) the Soul Gem for a long time...the first time I ever played against him, at GenCon, he was my prey, doing some sort of Isabel Giovanni + Fortitude Soul Gem thing. It was most strange. Good thing I ousted him. :) > In its current form the Legbiterland version > is robust, flexible and VERY hard to stop - not really the hallmarks > of a trick-deck, i venture to suggest. However, it is certainly TRICKY > to PLAY, and that's the main attraction for me. Understood. I find myself swinging back to "trick" decks to some degree, after having done the "back to the building blocks" thing for a while now. Still too many ideas left to explore from Bloodlines before I start getting too far out there, though. > i didn't play it in the tournament but i did play it in the pick-up > games at Philippe "turbo-Arika" Lang's house. Two games, lost the Ah, right. I knew I had read some mention of it over there. Good show, though. :) [Tatuisation] > > You added War Ghouls? :) > > Nah, Tatuisation is my term for slimming your library and crypt down > to the minimum size at which the deck will still do its thing. Gotcha. I recall hearing that now, but thanks to having played at the tournament Kevin won with the Smiling Jack/War Ghoul deck, I find it hard not to think Tatu = War Ghoul these days. [Modules] > > Doesn't that refer to the compartmentalization of beer? :) > > Erm, if you say so. Don't mind me. I was still loopy from being shuffled back into the mix of things at work after the vacation. Actually, modules are an amazing concept, and to some degree, I think that we all think in those terms...but like many great discoveries, no one (before Ethan) thought to put it into words, much less try to form it into a workable deck construction technique. > > back from an excellent extended weekend in Chicago > > Viewing the excellent art galleries, no doubt? How MUCH i envy you. Actually, no art galleries were viewed. We intended to go to one, but our native guides (who foolishly listened to me) allowed us to get on the wrong train, and we ended up on the South Side of Chicago, rather than the West Side. On the other hand, we did go to the Field Museum, and narrowly missed going to the Vietnam Veteran's Memorial Art Museum (not sure about the word order there - contains art created by veterans of Vietnam - the splash photo we saw on a brochure was a very creepy quasi-shroud of dogtags). Also, many Fine Meals were had, and there was Much Drinking, as well as a Vast Quantity of Shopping, General Carousing, and Dancing. But not a whit of V:tES, as there was no time (nor did I contact any of our fine Chicago-based brethren about such, knowing full well that there would be no time). Xian

"legbiter" <legb...@mailandnews.com> wrote in message news:718b10563937247d12b...@mygate.mailgate.org > "kevin scribner" <kevins...@airbridge.net> wrote in message > Kevin again: okay... here's the meat of it... arika/queen > anne/suhailah isn't ventrue law firm... > > > has a way of looking at things that talks about payloads and delivery > > systems: without going into that whole thing, vlf had a great payload > > but no delivery system... stealth vote [which has the option to swing > > into stealth bleed mode when necessary [mmm... options]] is an > > addressing of those issues... compromising the payload somewhat to > > implement an infinitely more effective delivery system... > > Understood, Ben and i have talked a lot about the payload/delivery idea > and i think it's a sound one. But now i'm a bit puzzled by something you > said earlier ... i thought you said a classic Ventrue Law firm deck [in > your terminology] had recently won a UK tourney? Either i wasn't at that > tourney or i didn't get to the final of it, i have to admit. Are you > SURE it was recent? May 1998. Played by Steven Wright was the last time by Kevin's definition of the decktype. Hardly recent. In other news, Hunting Grounds have been played in winner's decks twice in UK V:EKN sanctioned tournaments, most recently by ??? (it's on Google somewhere but i can't see it listed on Lasombra's site)in the two-day Cambridge event and previously by me at MiniCon (September 2000). mattgreen -been away at a woodworm conference, missed all the fun. [ quoted text not captured ]