My inability to play combat well

Let's see if I can get some advice here. I enjoy playing combat decks because, due to the interaction of cards, I get much tougher choices and more fun consequences than would otherwise be possible. Anyway, before I start a flame-war, I just like playing combat decks. Now, the problem that I keep finding I have with them is my predator. Doubtless, if I had a really good go at my prey, I could probably torporise his vampires and then slowly drain his pool. Of course, though life (and undeath) is never quite so easy :( My predator, of course, is bleeding me. If I was playing a vote deck, I would probably be getting three pool back from every vote - Bribes and Voter Captivation. If I was playing a weenie deck, I could throw in a few Tribute to the Masters and spend a turn hunting every now and then. A stealth-bleed deck would be getting me directly closer to killing my prey and the extra blood I gained then would probably help me offset the losses that my predator caused (damn his eyes). Also, stealth and bleed isn't incredibly blood intensive for the results it produces in the way that a combat deck is. Of course, I have to make sure that my predator doesn't just rip me apart, so dealing with his vampires in combat is a real concern. If he as my prey, I would probably just burn or torporise all his vampires, depending on the cards I drew. But I can't just destroy all his vampires because then his predator will just walk right through him. The problem I am finding is that I'm having to spend almost all of my time dealing with my predator, due to my lack of competence. A case in point was this afternoon in Portsmouth. My predator, John, brought out Ozmo, Cornelius Ottavio and Zoe (slight delay with Zoe, I think). My prey, Barney, had three of the mid-range Ventrue Antitribu - Vanessa, Billy and someone else. I had brought out Beast, Bianca and Sarah Brando. Ozmo and Cornelius were killing me - the latter especially because of my non-Camarilla vampires. I was finding that I was having to spend a lot of time dealing with them without wanting to outright kill them. Even if I had wanted to, I wouldn't really have been able to because John eventually had Presence on both of them, and I don't think that I managed to pull a single Immortal Grapple that game. But someone please tell me just what I was supposed to do. Pretty please? Ah, go on. I'll be your best friend... -- James Coupe (Prince of Mercia, England) Vampire: Elder Kindred Network http://madnessnetwork.hexagon.net

> I enjoy playing combat decks because, due to the interaction of cards, I > get much tougher choices and more fun consequences than would otherwise > be possible. Anyway, before I start a flame-war, I just like playing > combat decks. > > Now, the problem that I keep finding I have with them is my predator. > Doubtless, if I had a really good go at my prey, I could probably > torporise his vampires and then slowly drain his pool. Of course, > though life (and undeath) is never quite so easy :( *nods* Pool management is tough with combat decks. If you use mid-high cap vampires, you should use Minion Taps and for mid-low cap, Tribute to the Master. Amaranth is a great card to get pool back for doing your job...but since it's a vote that requires a prince, it's really only reliable in a Brujah deck since they have young princes and the Presence needed to push it through. If you keep your crypt to 3-7 capacity vampires in combat decks, you should be in good shape. Remember that if you are playing with 3 disciplines, you should have all three present in any vampire 5 cap and higher. If you are playing with 2 disciplines, 6 caps and higher should have both at superior or a kick-ass bennie in the card text. Pool damage to your prey can be tough in a combat deck...so I toss in a healthy amount (usually 6) Computer Hacking cards. If I'm using Dominate or Presence, I always toss in Govern the Unaligned & Scouting Mission or Legal Manipulations & Social Charm respectively for pool management and heavy bleed. I'm aware that this may dilute the combat deck a bit....but if you don't go too hog wild, you'll find that after you've beaten the vampires into submission, you can make the bleeds count. Sometimes you have to wage war on two fronts with a combat deck. If you can keep your predator weak but alive (go across the table if his predator gets too strong) you should be in good shape, since he'll be stuck concentrating on his predator after you've killed a vampire or two (assuiming it's not a weenie deck). Towards this end, I recommend a fair amount of Wakes and some static intercept (Sport Bikes, for example) to block the plethora of stuff that happens at +1 stealth. Vote decks are much more careful if they know you can intercept their votes. Noal -- "DISCUSSION, n. A method of confirming others in their errors." -Ambrose Bierce. -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own

In article <Y8RVnNBHd$c2E...@obeah.demon.co.uk>, James Coupe <ve...@obeah.demon.co.uk> wrote: Well, I think that Peter or James will probably have some useful comments to make, but I feel like saying something, cause I don't see anything from them yet. And admittedly, I haven't had a chance to play a Potence rush deck in a while, but I think I remember the basics...and *whatever* you do, don't listen to anything that nasty, evil Jasper has to say. He just doesn't know what he's talking about. :P Hehehe. [snip] > Now, the problem that I keep finding I have with them is my predator. This is the major problem for all combat decks, I imagine... > My predator, of course, is bleeding me. If I was playing a vote deck, I > would probably be getting three pool back from every vote - Bribes and > Voter Captivation. If I was playing a weenie deck, I could throw in a [snip other examples of pool management/gain] As I picked up from poring over Peter's deck, the ideal way to do it is to have a number of Blood Dolls, and keep them full with Taste of Vitae. Then draw one back from each (if possible) each turn & keep rushing...I myself never seem to draw Tastes when I need them, but that *should* work. [snip more]. > The problem I am finding is that I'm having to spend almost all of my > time dealing with my predator, due to my lack of competence. Hmm...I think you might be getting a little too down on yourself here. Although a game usually works out differently, I think that at *most* you should be aiming one of every four attacks at your predator's vampires. Don't do it consistently, and generally just as a warning. Or, if he bleeds you a bunch, hit his two best vampires. Once they're in torpor, he will likely lay off for a while. Weenies will always give you problems, but there's not much you can do about that. Maybe send a few more attacks his way. He will likely tap out on his turn anyway, accepting the losses from his predator. If he has to hunt or get out more vampires, this leaves you more time to act. > A case in point was this afternoon in Portsmouth. My predator, John, > brought out Ozmo, Cornelius Ottavio and Zoe (slight delay with Zoe, I > think). My prey, Barney, had three of the mid-range Ventrue Antitribu > - Vanessa, Billy and someone else. I had brought out Beast, Bianca and > Sarah Brando. Okay. I don't think this is a good example. You are stuck in probably the worst possible hole for a Potence rush deck. Your predator is S&B, and your prey has (and in all likelihood, used) Fortitude. With different seating in this game, you might have done better, but you were stuck in a bad bad place here. Most of your rushes have to be directed at your prey, because you need to blow through his Fortitude. However, you could really stand to direct some at your predator so he backs off. You can't send enough at each, especially with Beast out. Ouch. You had a pretty big investment in pool there. 7+6?+? hmm...can't remember Sarah's cap. There wasn't much you could do here, I think. It doesn't get much worse than this. If you had some deflections... > Ozmo and Cornelius were killing me - the latter especially because of my > non-Camarilla vampires. I was finding that I was having to spend a lot > of time dealing with them without wanting to outright kill them. Even > if I had wanted to, I wouldn't really have been able to because John > eventually had Presence on both of them, and I don't think that I > managed to pull a single Immortal Grapple that game. But someone please > tell me just what I was supposed to do. Pretty please? Ah, go on. I'll > be your best friend... Hmm...not pulling an Immortal Grapple? That's bad. What percent of your deck is IG? This part could be a deck-tuning issue, or as Peter could verify, it could simply be a bad draw on the last game. Whatever it is, I think you're probably okay, just keep at it. And stop playing Potence if everyone is playing Fortitude. Xian "they look at you funny when you attack things like a hungry mountain lion on crack" --greensea [ quoted text not captured ]

James Coupe wrote: "I enjoy playing combat decks because, due to the interaction of cards, I get much tougher choices and more fun consequences than would otherwise be possible. Anyway, before I start a flame-war, I just like playing combat decks." Who is gonna start a flame war, especially when there are jackbooted thugs around here like me, Xian, Jasper, Josh, and James :-) "Even if I had wanted to, I wouldn't really have been able to because John eventually had Presence on both of them, and I don't think that I managed to pull a single Immortal Grapple that game. But someone please tell me just what I was supposed to do. Pretty please? Ah, go on. I'll be your best friend..." Ok. Playing a Rush combat deck is all about table management. Its not about speed, like a S+B or Vote deck (it has an important speed aspect, but that is not its main goal), nor is it about resilience, like an intercept or pool gain deck. It is about being in control of the table. You need to get out a good spread of worthwhile vampires and kill your prey with impunity while keeping your predator at acceptable levels (and consequently not giving your grand predator a free ride). First off, to make an effective Rush combat deck, you need to have small vampires. KoKo, Lupo, Hesina and Dre are your pals. Marty Lechtansi, Constanza, and Lambach, while real scary seeming, are not. You need to have lots of little killer vampires out, so that you can take out every vampire you see when you want to, not after they bleed you for 15. In the situation you described (your predator had 3 vampires out bleeding you), of course you were going to die. You need to kill your predators vampires almost as quickly as you kill your prey, but you need to be able to deal with and accept your predators bleeds of 3-5 a turn (only one of them, however...) while you kill your prey, so your predator can defend himself. Having small vampires (average of about 3) means you get out 4 vampires for, like, 14 pool, giving you a big cushion of defense. Having 4 vampires means you kill 4 vampires a turn (if you aren't killing with impunity, you need to redesign your combat deck). If you kill ever vampire your prey gets out before he acts, your prey gets nowhere. If you kill your predators vampires as quickly as they get out, they don't hurt you much. Again, combat decks are all about control. If your predator is fast and your prey is slow, you can spend more effort on your predator. If your prey is fast and your predator is slow, you can spend more effort on your prey. If your predator is really dangerous and your grand predator is not so scary, mangle mangle your predator and let him be ousted. If it keeps you alive, so be it. Pool management is difficult, but a good supply of blood dolls and Tastes helps a lot. Occasionally, you will be sitting between a really fast S+B/vote deck and a fortitude/Gangrel deck. Then you will die. However, in situations where this is not the case, if you think about table control, you should do ok. Peter D Bakija PD...@aol.com "I'm a street walking cheeta with a heart full of napalm. I'm the renegade son of a nuclear A-bomb." -Iggy Pop

On Sun, 13 Dec 1998 17:20:07 +0000, James Coupe <ve...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote: >Let's see if I can get some advice here. > >I enjoy playing combat decks because, due to the interaction of cards, I >get much tougher choices and more fun consequences than would otherwise >be possible. Anyway, before I start a flame-war, I just like playing >combat decks. Me too. They have, on most occasions, resulted in a prey with five pool and no minions, a predator with five pool and no minions, my four vamps tapped with about half their blood left on 'em, and me sitting there with three pool wondering how i'm going to bleed through my prey next turn without getting obliterated by my grand-predator who is about to come through my predator, ZOOM, and have a bunch of vamps handy that i may not be able to get all on the same turn due to not drawin' the Rushes. =) (And not drawing the Blood Dolls either, which is why i sit and look at my three pool and go "Dang." :) >Of course, I have to make sure that my predator doesn't just rip me >apart, so dealing with his vampires in combat is a real concern. If he >as my prey, I would probably just burn or torporise all his vampires, >depending on the cards I drew. But I can't just destroy all his >vampires because then his predator will just walk right through him. >The problem I am finding is that I'm having to spend almost all of my >time dealing with my predator, due to my lack of competence. i dunno if i'd call it lack of competence necessarily. I find that after I fry three 4 to 6-caps of my prey, who then fails to bring a vampire out on his turn, my predator becomes a very attractive target due to his having too MANY vampires out and pointed at me. :I >A case in point was this afternoon in Portsmouth. My predator, John, >brought out Ozmo, Cornelius Ottavio and Zoe (slight delay with Zoe, I >think). My prey, Barney, had three of the mid-range Ventrue Antitribu >- Vanessa, Billy and someone else. I had brought out Beast, Bianca and >Sarah Brando. > >Ozmo and Cornelius were killing me - the latter especially because of my >non-Camarilla vampires. I was finding that I was having to spend a lot >of time dealing with them without wanting to outright kill them. Even >if I had wanted to, I wouldn't really have been able to because John >eventually had Presence on both of them, and I don't think that I >managed to pull a single Immortal Grapple that game. But someone please >tell me just what I was supposed to do. Pretty please? Ah, go on. I'll >be your best friend... no IG's? surely the luck of the Dead Rat was with your deck, assuming you had enough in there to begin with. Days like that I usually just toss my hands up and go "Poot. Bad draw." what could you have done? well, I'm personally a fan of "kill the most dangerous vampire of your predator's every turn." Cornelius with a base bleed of 3 is a pain in the butt even if your predator draws no stealth and no bleed bonuses, so I'd probably have gone after him almost before going after my prey... just because if I kill my prey and get bled for EIGHT, all ive done is soften up my prey for my predator. :/ Ozmo is almost as much of a nuisance, but I think that as soon as Cornelius came out, I'd have rushed him and removed him. You're just begging for trouble if you leave a potential bleed for eight out there... I was in the same situation several weeks ago when I had a bleed-bouncer behind me and his grand-predator was a fast-bleed presence weenie deck. I had to rush the bouncer who had DOM right away, and then when my prey quit bringing out vampires and had to fish through his crypt for the "right" one after i killed his first two =(, i was stuck between a rock and a hard place. Had to hurt my predator too much since I had no hope of bleeding through 16 pool on my prey quickly enough. Still ended up going nowhere, but ... oh well. bad seating setup :/ Though, as others have pointed out, I suspect the biggest problem for combat decks is any kind of fast bleed deck, since it can be done quickly, with minimal cards, and can be done from weenies almost as well. So you were really in a crap table position, in a way. I've found that when I get "slow builders" behind me, ie people who equip a number of things onto a vampire, or people who recruit a bunch of retainers as support, it becomes -much- easier to defend, since you just wait a couple turns 'til they're finished equipping and recruiting, then kill the vampire once it's actually become dangerous. =) Same with vote decks; a lot of times just plowing through one big voter is enough to remove his vote lock, and very few people are willing to let you get actually -ousted- if they have a choice. Weakened severely, sure, but ousted? Nah. Only your prey will vote for that... and he has no votes if you're playing correctly. (No minions and all that. ;) I guess i'm just recommending being -certain- your deck can kill things with relative impunity, and tagging anything of your predator's (after your prey is beaten up) that might suddenly do Incredible Damage to you with a few cards - and all too often those are the bleed-bouncers or the big-bleeders, it seems. Oh well. =) -- Derek (replying by email? remove the nospam from my domain :)

James Coupe wrote: > Now, the problem that I keep finding I have with them is my predator. The age old problem ;) I have it too... > Doubtless, if I had a really good go at my prey, I could probably > torporise his vampires and then slowly drain his pool. Of course, > though life (and undeath) is never quite so easy :( > The main strategy I believe is to cripple all vamps of your prey so that he must influence pool to stay in the game. (there are some folks who simply won`t get out more vamps as long as you are alife and you have the problem to bleed down 15 pool with 1 point bleeds) Another strategy is to first deal with your predator and deny him a good start (torporize or burn important vamps and so on) while attacking your prey only to keep him at bay. Let your prey soften your grandprey up for you (often he will spend enough pool so that ousting your prey should be not a big problem if the time is well chosen) and then anhiliate all his minions just the moment before your prey is going to oust his grandprey. Since you have spend most of your time with your predator (and general table control) yet, he should be only a minor problem, so now you can safely oust your prey AND your weakened grandprey. The time to strike is crucial, but usually you know when to strike when you see it. This strategy gained me more victory points than the above method, but it is most often only functional with opponents using mid-sized vamps. But: even weeny decks are susceptible to this - this is how I (nearly) swept the table in the 1st game in our last Portsmouth tournament. My prey was this 2 point weenie deck, and I got him in his pants with my Major Boon that gave me the time to oust him. Ousting my grandprey, that had only 1 pool left was no problem :) To the tactical part: If you wanna play a pure hard core rush deck, then use weenie Potence (Hasina, Koko, Lupo,...), for you can get out vamps fast and kill reliably fast and have lots of 1 point bleeders available. Or you can try weenie fortitude with Trap and Undead Persistence (and perhaps massive baby embracing). Not that reliable in the killing part, but is very nasty, too. The other way is to dillute the pure concept to get some flexibility. This tends to lead to Princes & Justicars, to be able to use 2nd Trads, 5th Trads + Minion Tap for better defense & pool management You may try to give your enemies something else to do: - play with Major Boon (on your Predator) to discourage big bleeds, - with Powerbase: Chicago you gain pool if vamps around the table have other problems than to steal the pool (for example being in torpor) - let them burn a Haven Uncovered and spend an action doing it and so on For the pool management: in pure decks you will most often rely on Blood Dolls / Tributes and refill your vamps using Taste of Vitaes, in dilluted decks you may use more effective methods of gaining pool (even Anathema as a fun method that I used in the last tournament) just my $0.02 Michael Beer

In article <Y8RVnNBHd$c2E...@obeah.demon.co.uk>, James Coupe <ve...@obeah.demon.co.uk> wrote: > Let's see if I can get some advice here. Of course you can, what else are we here for? > I enjoy playing combat decks because, due to the interaction of cards, I > get much tougher choices and more fun consequences than would otherwise > be possible. Anyway, before I start a flame-war, I just like playing > combat decks. Yeah, don't we all... [snip] > Ozmo and Cornelius were killing me - the latter especially because of my > non-Camarilla vampires. I was finding that I was having to spend a lot > of time dealing with them without wanting to outright kill them. Even > if I had wanted to, I wouldn't really have been able to because John > eventually had Presence on both of them, and I don't think that I > managed to pull a single Immortal Grapple that game. But someone please > tell me just what I was supposed to do. Pretty please? Ah, go on. I'll > be your best friend... Okay. Peter's advice is pretty much sound. (although, like all of us combat-deck devotees, he has a tendency to be dogmatic and inflexible on particular points that others might disagree with. ^_^) My rush- combat decks usually don't emphasize weenies quite as much as Peter likes, but it works for him. (Of course, Peter owns 4 Disarms or so, and I own none.) Hasina Kesi has never been a killing force of madness for me, for example. Lupo and Koko have, though. (I do also recommend Blood Dolls and Taste of Vitae for pool gain - it's the best I've done with combat decks, as Minion Taps are usually not real efficient with the relatively small vamps we like to use.) Anyway - table management is definitely the name of the rush-combat game. You must first have a deck that torporizes (or burns if you like; Decapitate/Taste of Vitae can work out pretty well sometimes) other people's vamps with impunity. You must next be able to get out your first vamp and start killing very quickly - if you only get one transfer on your first turn you might not be able to rush your second turn, but otherwise you should. You must finally be able to prioritize the threats on the table and talk people into behaving the way you want them to, on pain of annihilation. If your predator brings out Ozmo, you should probably rush and torporize him on your next turn, unless your predator can grovel convincingly enough that you believe Ozmo will in fact be causing you no immediate harm. In other words, you typically need to keep yourself alive as a higher priority than killing your prey, when playing rush combat. This means you do need to keep your predator weak. Obviously the difficulty is in weakening your predator enough that he doesn't oust you, but hopefully not so much that he gets ousted, leaving you with a new non-weakened predator. The preferable method of doing this is by intimidation. You let your predator keep some vampires alive as long as his fear keeps him from doing anything that would oust you. If your predator is playing a very aggression-oriented deck (eg stealth/bleed without significant defenses) this may not be very feasible. In that case you may end up having to simply get your predator killed rather than letting him kill you. But if you *can* keep your predator off your back, you do want to go on to beat up your prey's vamps. If your prey is playing heavy fortitude and you're playing Immortal Grapple potence rush, you may be screwed from the word go. All you can do is try your best to punch through the Skin of Steel. (In my opinion, the heavy-fortitude prey (or predator) is a much bigger problem for most rush-combat than a Malk-type standard stealth/bleed predator. Malk s/b without a great deal of specific combat defense (Obedience, tons of maneuvers, that sort of thing) is so extremely soft and weak that it is dead easy for a decent IG pot-rush-combat deck to torporize every vamp before it takes a single action.) Otherwise, you beat up your prey's vamps, diablerize them if you've got the votes, that sort of thing. Eventually, you hopefully oust your prey. But of course there are no guarantees... Pure rush combat does seem to be one of the most difficult deck types to win games with. The balancing-the-table act you have to do demands accurate judgment of the entire table position - and then you have to go and successfully remove the right vampires to put you in a good position for ousting without getting ousted. It's tricky. It definitely makes things easier to have more than one combat deck at the table, preferably sitting across from you: with two people beating up vampires, the pace of direct pool-reducing actions tends to decline drastically, which means that the game 'slows down' in terms of number of turns between oustings - which makes the balancing act rather easier since you have more time to make decisions, and reduced repercussions from making the wrong ones. (So talk your friends into playing more combat decks!) So, I would say that you often do have to spend a lot of time dealing with your predator, regardless of competence, when playing pure rush combat. It's your only defense. You should also be able to spend time dealing with your prey, though. Ideally you want to get a fairly blazing start in every game: your first action, on your second turn, should torporize a vampire, and you want to keep up the carnage from there. If you can do that, you then get to focus on the table management aspect. And if you can do *that*, you can win games. So much for my rant on how combat decks work. I have a strange feeling that I've done this before. ^_^ Josh 'if flesh could crawl, my skin would fall from off my bones and run away from here' [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <753v6a$kq9$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, Xian <xi...@waste.org> writes >Hmm...not pulling an Immortal Grapple? That's bad. What percent of your >deck is IG? This part could be a deck-tuning issue, 7 out of 90. I don't own more :( In the other games, I drew enough. I think it was just bad randomisation (not shuffling well enough) rather than anything else. [ quoted text not captured ]

Dhar...@yahoo.com wrote: > >> I enjoy playing combat decks because, due to the interaction of cards, I >> get much tougher choices and more fun consequences than would otherwise >> be possible. Anyway, before I start a flame-war, I just like playing >> combat decks. >> >> Now, the problem that I keep finding I have with them is my predator. >> Doubtless, if I had a really good go at my prey, I could probably >> torporise his vampires and then slowly drain his pool. Of course, >> though life (and undeath) is never quite so easy :( > >Sometimes you have to wage war on two fronts with a combat deck. If you can >keep your predator weak but alive (go across the table if his predator gets >too strong) you should be in good shape, since he'll be stuck concentrating >on his predator after you've killed a vampire or two (assuiming it's not a >weenie deck). Towards this end, I recommend a fair amount of Wakes and some >static intercept (Sport Bikes, for example) to block the plethora of stuff >that happens at +1 stealth. Vote decks are much more careful if they know you >can intercept their votes. If you go with wakes and Sport Bikes, don't forget one of the best anti-bleed card around for combat decks: Minor Boon. It can take a while before one of your vamps goes into torpor! The playing conditions though are hard to meet for non-Malk decks. But if you manage to block a bleeder, you'll not only surprise the hell out of your predator, but also get to play the Minor Boon. For this strategy though, I'd rather suggest using either KRCG or Rumor Mill, probably both. You do want a good permanent, but Sport Bike is restricted to the owning vamp. With the locations, you can use it with the newly influenced and untapped vampire. Rumor will cost a blood from the vamp, but Taste of Vitae will fill him up quickly. This strategy also fits well with Assamite or Gangrel intercept decks. This way you either end up playing Rotschreck if he dodges or ends combat, or Minor Boon if he goes to torpor from the strike itself. Bleu

leg...@generation.net (Philippe Richer) wrote: > If you go with wakes and Sport Bikes, don't forget one of the best > anti-bleed card around for combat decks: Minor Boon. *nods* Minor Boons are good. Major Boons are very useful. Fame is really only useful for a rush combat deck now...but it does allow you to bleed your prey at the same time as putting his vampires down. If you use Fame with Amaranth....*chuckles* Pool management is paramount to a winning deck. Any strategy should keep this in mind. > But if you manage to block a bleeder, > you'll not only surprise the hell out of your predator, but also get to > play the Minor Boon. For this strategy though, I'd rather suggest using > either KRCG or Rumor Mill, probably both. You do want a good permanent, but > Sport Bike is restricted to the owning vamp. *nods* You make a good point. The flexibility that KRCG and so forth provides is nice, but it's a one-shot use per turn. Sport Bikes (and even better, Mr. Winthorp) are better if you are using a fair amount of wakes. If you're going to plan on intercept, I'd recommend using both strategies to give you the best of both worlds. Noal -- "DISCUSSION, n. A method of confirming others in their errors." -Ambrose Bierce. -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- [ quoted text not captured ]

Dhar...@yahoo.com wrote: >> If you go with wakes and Sport Bikes, don't forget one of the best >> anti-bleed card around for combat decks: Minor Boon. > >*nods* Minor Boons are good. Major Boons are very useful. >Fame is really only useful for a rush combat deck now...but it >does allow you to bleed your prey at the same time as putting his >vampires down. If you use Fame with Amaranth....*chuckles* >Pool management is paramount to a winning deck. Any strategy >should keep this in mind. The only ones who should be able to make good use of Amaranth in a pure rush deck would be Gangrel or aggravated weapons decks. And those two generally suck. Brujah either burn all the blood on their victims or burn them alltogether. >> But if you manage to block a bleeder, >> you'll not only surprise the hell out of your predator, but also get to >> play the Minor Boon. For this strategy though, I'd rather suggest using >> either KRCG or Rumor Mill, probably both. You do want a good permanent, but >> Sport Bike is restricted to the owning vamp. > >*nods* You make a good point. The flexibility that KRCG and so forth provides >is nice, but it's a one-shot use per turn. Sport Bikes (and even better, Mr. >Winthorp) are better if you are using a fair amount of wakes. If you're going >to plan on intercept, I'd recommend using both strategies to give you the best >of both worlds. I know, but we are speaking rush decks, so filling your hand with non-combat cards is not really an option, and you won't have many untapped vamps at the end of your turn. I don't really think you intend to block too many actions. Intercept is just there as a possibility, not a founding block of any such decks. Another nice thing with the Rumor Mill (and London Evening Star more than KRCG) is that the intercept can be given to your grand-predator to help him block your predator's action. Same goes with grand-prey. If combat ensues and the acting vamp goes to torpor, then you can play Minor Boon. Just don't rely on blocking everything coming your way.

leg...@generation.net (Philippe Richer) wrote: > The only ones who should be able to make good use of Amaranth in a pure > rush deck would be Gangrel or aggravated weapons decks. And those two > generally suck. Brujah either burn all the blood on their victims or burn > them alltogether. Quite the contrary. Amaranth only kicks in if you reduce the vampire to zero, not if you send them to torpor. Since Amaranth burns the vampire, you wouldn't put Fame and Amaranth on the same vampire. [ quoted text not captured ]

Dhar...@yahoo.com wrote: > > leg...@generation.net (Philippe Richer) wrote: > > The only ones who should be able to make good use of Amaranth in a pure > > rush deck would be Gangrel or aggravated weapons decks. And those two > > generally suck. Brujah either burn all the blood on their victims or burn > > them alltogether. > > Quite the contrary. Amaranth only kicks in if you reduce the vampire to > zero, not if you send them to torpor. Since Amaranth burns the vampire, you > wouldn't put Fame and Amaranth on the same vampire. I think you're talking about Anathema, not Amaranth. And I agree with Phillipe; while the Brujah can muster the votes to defend their diableries, they more often (and more easily) simply pound their victims to torpor with no blood, possibly following up with a Decapitate. OTOH, the Gangrel reap the most blood benefit from Amaranth, while they are generally weak politically. James -- James Hamblin ham...@math.wisc.edu "Sheep and Roll High School? I want to go there." -- Don Official Jyhad/V:tES FAQ Maintainer http://www.math.wisc.edu/~hamblin/faq.html

In article <75mhq1$srl$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, <Dhar...@yahoo.com> wrote: > leg...@generation.net (Philippe Richer) wrote: >> The only ones who should be able to make good use of Amaranth in a pure >> rush deck would be Gangrel or aggravated weapons decks. And those two >> generally suck. Brujah either burn all the blood on their victims or burn >> them alltogether. >Quite the contrary. Amaranth only kicks in if you reduce the vampire to >zero, not if you send them to torpor. Since Amaranth burns the vampire, you >wouldn't put Fame and Amaranth on the same vampire. You're thinking Anathema, not Amaranth. -- Justin Fang (jus...@ugcs.caltech.edu) This space intentionally left blank.

In article <75mhq1$srl$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, Dhar...@yahoo.com wrote: > leg...@generation.net (Philippe Richer) wrote: > > The only ones who should be able to make good use of Amaranth in a pure > > rush deck would be Gangrel or aggravated weapons decks. And those two > > generally suck. Brujah either burn all the blood on their victims or burn > > them alltogether. > > Quite the contrary. Amaranth only kicks in if you reduce the vampire to > zero, not if you send them to torpor. Since Amaranth burns the vampire, you > wouldn't put Fame and Amaranth on the same vampire. I think the problem is that Noal is thinking of Anathema, not Amaranth. Correct me if I'm wrong. Mike -- Mike Bohlmann, MAIP - Prince of Urbana-Champaign http://www.shout.net/~mbohlman/ [ quoted text not captured ]

> > The only ones who should be able to make good use of Amaranth in a pure > > rush deck would be Gangrel or aggravated weapons decks. And those two > > generally suck. Brujah either burn all the blood on their victims or burn > > them alltogether. > Quite the contrary. Amaranth only kicks in if you reduce the vampire to > zero, not if you send them to torpor. Since Amaranth burns the vampire, you > wouldn't put Fame and Amaranth on the same vampire. Couple of things: Noal, I believe you are thinking of Anathema not Amaranth. The point the Bleu makes is quite valid as the only way you can gain blood via Amaranth is if you diablerize a vamp that has blood. This, generally, only happens in a Gangrel combat since for Brujah to send a vamp to torpor, they have to do so by removing all their blood. Note: this is a generalization only. Second thing - If you are thinking of Anathema, it will kick in if you send them to torpor (reducing them to < 0 blood). So says LSJ. a0 [ quoted text not captured ]

agen...@my-dejanews.com wrote: > > > The only ones who should be able to make good use of Amaranth in a pure > > > rush deck would be Gangrel or aggravated weapons decks. And those two > > > generally suck. Brujah either burn all the blood on their victims or burn > > > them alltogether. > > Quite the contrary. Amaranth only kicks in if you reduce the vampire to > > zero, not if you send them to torpor. Since Amaranth burns the vampire, you > > wouldn't put Fame and Amaranth on the same vampire. > > Couple of things: > Noal, I believe you are thinking of Anathema not Amaranth. The point > [...] > Second thing - If you are thinking of Anathema, it will kick in if > you send them to torpor (reducing them to < 0 blood). So says LSJ. Anathema doesn't care about torpor, as Noal says. It cares only about the victim being "reduced" to zero blood in combat. And it will burn the newly-reduced-to-zero vampire before he goes to torpor (so Fame won't have any effect). It won't kick in if you punch an empty vampire, for instance, since he is not "reduced" to zero. And it won't kick in if you send the victim to torpor with aggravated damage while he still has blood left. -- L. Scott Johnson (vte...@wizards.com) VTES Net.Rep for Wizards of the Coast. Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and DCI (tournament) rules: http://www.wizards.com/VTES/VTES_Rules.html [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <75oioq$hpt$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, vte...@wizards.com (LSJ) wrote: [re Anathema] > It won't kick in if you punch an empty vampire, for instance, since > he is not "reduced" to zero. And it won't kick in if you send the victim > to torpor with aggravated damage while he still has blood left. (Okay, I admit I'm not checking LSJ's page for exact card text, so if it's "reduced to zero by damage" just let me know...) But anyway, does this mean that if you reduce a vampire with Anathema on it to zero by, say Cryptic Mission or Blood to Water to zero, does it still burn? That's it. Xian "they look at you funny when you attack things like a hungry mountain lion on crack" --greensea -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- [ quoted text not captured ]

agentzero wrote: > Couple of things: > Noal, I believe you are thinking of Anathema not Amaranth. Quite right. *nods* I wasn't feeling well when I posted yesterday. > The point > the Bleu makes is quite valid as the only way you can gain blood via > Amaranth is if you diablerize a vamp that has blood. This, generally, > only happens in a Gangrel combat since for Brujah to send a vamp to > torpor, they have to do so by removing all their blood. Note: this > is a generalization only. *nods* Yup. I have a Gangrel/!Gangrel Amaranth & Gagrel Conspiracy deck built. It's gone through a few tunings since I posted the Gangrel "Kill Anything That Moves" Deck. After I take a closer look at it to see if it needs Flesh of Marble, I'll post it here again. Vryce has already requested a list of contents since he's seen it go full tilt in person. One of the original problems was that while it collected dead bodies, it didn't collect victory points very easily. I looked at Tier of Souls and Computer Hacking together...but I've found that one Pentex Loves You! and six Computer Hackings were plenty enough to give it the extra edge it needed. Tier of Souls was simply an extra action that I didn't have time for. > Second thing - If you are thinking of Anathema, it will kick in if > you send them to torpor (reducing them to < 0 blood). So says LSJ. LSJ has already stated to the contrary, so I won't add anything further. Noal -- "DISCUSSION, n. A method of confirming others in their errors." -Ambrose Bierce. -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- [ quoted text not captured ]

On Wed, 23 Dec 1998 14:16:55 GMT, Dhar...@yahoo.com said: >> Second thing - If you are thinking of Anathema, it will kick in if >> you send them to torpor (reducing them to < 0 blood). So says LSJ. Dharzhak> LSJ has already stated to the contrary, so I won't add Dharzhak> anything further. Noal As far as I understood LSJ's rulings, things work like this: - Vampire A has 2 blood and gets hit for 2 damage (not prevented). Reduced to 0 blood, Anathema burns the vampire. - Vampire A has 2 blood and gets hit for 3 damage (not prevented). Reduced to 0 blood and would go to torpor, but Anathema burns the vampire before it would go to torpor. - Vampire A has 2 blood and gets hit for 2 aggravated. Reduced to 1 blood and goes to torpor. Anathema goes not kick in, since the vampire still has blood. - Vampire A has 1 blood and gets reduced to 0 blood by a Cryptic Mission. Anathema does not kick in, since the reduction was not done in combat. Is this correct? //Petri

Petri Wessman wrote: > As far as I understood LSJ's rulings, things work like this: > > - Vampire A has 2 blood and gets hit for 2 damage (not > prevented). Reduced to 0 blood, Anathema burns the vampire. > > - Vampire A has 2 blood and gets hit for 3 damage (not > prevented). Reduced to 0 blood and would go to torpor, but Anathema > burns the vampire before it would go to torpor. > > - Vampire A has 2 blood and gets hit for 2 aggravated. Reduced to 1 > blood and goes to torpor. Anathema goes not kick in, since the > vampire still has blood. > > - Vampire A has 1 blood and gets reduced to 0 blood by a Cryptic > Mission. Anathema does not kick in, since the reduction was not done > in combat. > > Is this correct? Correct on all points. LSJ's statement was that whether the vampire is going to torpor (either from lots of damage or from Wolf Claws) is irrelevant. [ quoted text not captured ]