DragonCon 2004
Atlanta, Georgia
September 4th, 2004
24 players
3R + F
Jay Kristoff won this tournament handily with 4 VP in the finals. I
believe that he had 2 game wins going in.
Jay's winning deck with his comments:
Vote Nos 2004
Crypt [avg=4.83]
Koko
Dimple
Duck
Regilio, The Seeker of Akhenaten
Sammy
Agrippina
Calebros, The Martyr
Tusk, The Talebearer
Murat
2x Nikolaus Vermeulen
Selma the Repugnant
Library
Bleeding the Vine
6x Blood Doll
Club Zombie
2x Direct Intervention
2x The Labyrinth
2x Obfuscate
Slum Hunting Ground
Storage Annex
Temptation of Greater Power
6x Consanguineous Boon (Nos art)
2x Disputed Territory
Domain Challenge
2x Dramatic Upheaval
Justicar Retribution
8x Kine Resources Contested
5x Nosferatu Justicar
Praxis Seizure: Athens
Praxis Seizure: Berlin
Praxis Seizure: Barcelona
Praxis Seizure: Cairo
Praxis Seizure: Glascow
Praxis Seizure: London
Destructive Secrets
6x The Embrace
3x Fourth Tradition: The Accounting
3x Judgement: Camarilla Segregation
6x Kindred Intelligence
Rampage
J.S. Simmons, Esq.
Tashan Morgan
12x Cloak the Gathering
4x Cryptic Rider
4x Forgotten Labyrinth
(90)
There are too many masters thanks to some last minute card additions.
The Rampage really ought to be an Arson, but Rampage is so much
cooler. I never got to use Destructive Secrets, but I think it would
be quite good in an end game. The deck can wrestle for vote control
with the "I (re)vote my Nos Justicar, it passes easily, Cryptic Rider,
Praxis Seizure" trick. I had fun stealing Living Manse and Palatial
Estate with Disputed Territory. Club Zombie's intercept is meant to be
given to Embraces to block nasty actions, or it's just an expensive
hunting ground. When the deck is up and running well, it tends to lots
of vamps and pool. Special thanks to Will Kristoff, Nick Smith, and
Mark Loughman for loaning me cards to complete my deck.
-----------------------------------------
DragonCon 2004
Atlanta, Georgia
September 5th, 2004
16 players
2R + F
Jeffrey Thompson won using this deck with 4 victory points in every
round, including the finals. Only 1 victory point was acquired via
Dramatic Upheaval, that happened in the first round. This was the
same deck he played at the North American Continental Championship
where he also took 1 game win.
Deck Name: A Sudden Anarch Troublemaker
Created By: The Lasombra
Description: Get the Anarch Troublemaker in play early. Use it on the
turn you expect to finish your prey, or on a turn where it will make a
big enough difference that you can afford to have it used by your
prey. Optimally, you will play another one on the turn you give it to
your prey to prevent them from using it should they survive your
attack. Sudden Reversal is key to preventing other decks from
destroying you or your strategy. Successful Sudden targets included
Minion Taps, Blood Dolls, Fame, and Ventrue Headquarters.
Crypt: (13 cards, Min: 16, Max: 34, Avg: 6.31)
----------------------------------------------
1 Cameron dom pot 3, Lasombra:2
1 Ramiro dom obt vic 4, Lasombra:2
1 Ignacio dom obt pot 4, Lasombra:2
1 Banjoko obt pot DOM 5, Lasombra:3
1 Guido Lucciano dom obf OBT 5, Lasombra:2
1 Aurora Van Brande dom for OBT pot 6, Lasombra:2
1 Talley aus dom OBT POT 6, Lasombra:2
1 Tobias Smith DOM OBT pot PRE 7, Lasombra:3
1 Lucita cel DOM FOR OBT pot 8, Lasombra:2
1 Lucita (ADV) cel pot DOM FOR OBT 8, Lasombra:2, Archbishop
2 Gratiano DOM obf OBT pot 8, Lasombra:2, Priscus
1 Angelica cel DOM obf OBT POT 10, Lasombra:2, Cardinal
Library: (90 cards)
-------------------
Master (16 cards)
4 Anarch Troublemaker
1 Dia de los Muertos
1 Dreams of the Sphinx
1 Fame
2 Major Boon
1 Power Structure
6 Sudden Reversal
Action (12 cards)
12 Govern the Unaligned
Action Modifier (23 cards)
1 Blanket of Night
3 Foreshadowing Destruction
6 Seduction
3 Shadow Play
2 Shroud of Absence
3 Shroud of Night
5 Sleeping Mind, The
Political Action (10 cards)
5 Consanguineous Boon
3 Domain Challenge
2 Dramatic Upheaval
Reaction (26 cards)
9 Deflection
2 Delaying Tactics
7 Obedience
8 Wake with Evening's Freshness
Combat (3 cards)
3 Shadow Body
> DragonCon 2004
> Atlanta, Georgia
> September 4th, 2004
> 24 players
> 3R + F
LSJ, Can we have the final standings?
Finals escaped me due to a nasty betrayal in round 3. Then again I played
the "Evil Anson Master Deck" so probably I deserve the betrayal even though
I washed my hands between rounds to free myself from the guilt of playing
such a sleazy, dirty deck.
BTW : Anson is broken, AR is broken, Dreams is broken, Anthelios is broken,
D.I is broken. I love to play with decks made out of broken cards. This is a
totally broken game. :)
^^^^^^^^^^
Disclaimer: Sarcasm at work. If you do not have completed the "Unterstanding
Sarcasm Part 1" class you do not have the right to post on this subject.
--
johannes walch
> I washed my hands between rounds to free myself from the guilt of playing
> such a sleazy, dirty deck.
And of course from the cardinal sin of tampering with David´s Fatma Rush
Deck by refusing to influence out another Anson. Killing my predator is
always my first goal :-) Those who hunt me shall not win! :-)
Johannes Walch wrote:
> And of course from the cardinal sin of tampering with David愀 Fatma Rush> Deck by refusing to influence out another Anson. Killing my predator is
> always my first goal :-) Those who hunt me shall not win! :-)
Yes, it's too bad play to win is unenforceable in practice. I'm sure
Jay enjoyed the red carpet, though. Nice to have met you, regardless.
--
David Cherryholmes
"David Cherryholmes" <david.che...@duke.edu> wrote in message
news:2q8n0jF...@uni-berlin.de...
> Johannes Walch wrote:
>
> > And of course from the cardinal sin of tampering with David´s Fatma
Rush
> > Deck by refusing to influence out another Anson. Killing my predator is
> > always my first goal :-) Those who hunt me shall not win! :-)
>
> Yes, it's too bad play to win is unenforceable in practice. I'm sure
> Jay enjoyed the red carpet, though. Nice to have met you, regardless.
Play to win is enforceable in practice.
--
LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc.
V:TES homepage: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/
Though effective, appear to be ineffective -- Sun Tzu
LSJ wrote:
> Play to win is enforceable in practice.
Lot's of people disagree with you. I'm one of them. And note the
studious avoidance of the words "I think". ;)
--
David Cherryholmes
"David Cherryholmes" <david.che...@duke.edu> wrote in message
news:2q8nkrF...@uni-berlin.de...
> LSJ wrote:
>
> > Play to win is enforceable in practice.
>
> Lot's of people disagree with you. I'm one of them. And note the
> studious avoidance of the words "I think". ;)
:-)
Well, as long as we're throwing around vague and unsupportable
assertions, most of the players agree with me. :-)
[ quoted text not captured ]
LSJ wrote:
> Well, as long as we're throwing around vague and unsupportable
> assertions, most of the players agree with me. :-)
I'd support it, but I'd also just be repeating what could be easily
googled. And anyway, it's obvious by inspection. Nyah nyah.
--
David Cherryholmes
"David Cherryholmes" <david.che...@duke.edu> wrote in message
news:2q8o5bF...@uni-berlin.de...
[ quoted text not captured ]
Hmm. You lost me.
Google holds the key to the unsupportability of "Play to Win is
unenforceable", contrary to what you appear to be positing above.
The first step to enlightenment (the subsequent steps should be
clear once the journey is begun): can an unenforceable rule be
enforced?
[ quoted text not captured ]
LSJ wrote:
> Google holds the key to the unsupportability of "Play to Win is
> unenforceable", contrary to what you appear to be positing above.
I'm saying the discussion has been had before, and anyone who wants to
revisit the arguments can dig it up. You're overanalyzing things again.
> The first step to enlightenment (the subsequent steps should be
> clear once the journey is begun): can an unenforceable rule be
> enforced?
Place more emphasis on my use of "practically", and see if it makes more
sense. In theory, of course it can. First of all, all it takes is an
excercise of "judgement" from the judge. In practice, it was *my*
judgement that bothering to call you over would have been an enormous
waste of time for every party concerned. And that was with a player
with no vampires (by choice) stating publicly that he wasn't playing to
win. While it is all now safely within the realm of speculation, I'd
bet my last dollar that you would not have stepped in and played his
deck for him under those circumstances, nor would almost any judge. He
was free to be a tool.
--
David Cherryholmes
"David Cherryholmes" <david.che...@duke.edu> wrote in message
news:2q8uddF...@uni-berlin.de...
> LSJ wrote:
>
> > Google holds the key to the unsupportability of "Play to Win is
> > unenforceable", contrary to what you appear to be positing above.
>
> I'm saying the discussion has been had before, and anyone who wants to
> revisit the arguments can dig it up. You're overanalyzing things again.
>
> > The first step to enlightenment (the subsequent steps should be
> > clear once the journey is begun): can an unenforceable rule be
> > enforced?
>
> Place more emphasis on my use of "practically", and see if it makes more
"practically" wasn't in there.
Your assertion, "play to win is unenforceable in practice," is the one
that derailed the thread into the thread at hand.
Play to win is enforceable in practice. It has been enforced in practice,
in fact.
> sense. In theory, of course it can. First of all, all it takes is an
> excercise of "judgement" from the judge. In practice, it was *my*
> judgement that bothering to call you over would have been an enormous
> waste of time for every party concerned. And that was with a player
> with no vampires (by choice) stating publicly that he wasn't playing to
> win. While it is all now safely within the realm of speculation, I'd
> bet my last dollar that you would not have stepped in and played his
> deck for him under those circumstances, nor would almost any judge. He
> was free to be a tool.
His statement that he was not playing to win was in error -- he, like
others, is free to choose his words poorly or to engage in ire-raising
as he sees fit.
As it was explained to me, his situation was lost and he chose to
lose in one manner over another. This is not an example of a
violation of play to win, so, if the situation was explained to
me properly, you are correct that I would not have stepped in
and changed a legal play.
[ quoted text not captured ]
LSJ wrote:
> "practically" wasn't in there.
I don't believe there is a difference between "practically" and "in
practice". If there is a subtle semantic difference, it is not
important to the point I'm trying to make, and I believe you understand
my intent.
> Your assertion, "play to win is unenforceable in practice," is the one
> that derailed the thread into the thread at hand.> Play to win is enforceable in practice. It has been enforced in practice,
> in fact.
I'm sure examples can be produced where it has been enforced. After
all, we both agree that a simple exercise in judgment is all that it
takes to enforce it. But in most cases where one would think playing to
win is in question, it is left to the player's self-determination
whether he is playing to win or not, and it is trivial to satisfy that
condition in order to play to lose.
> His statement that he was not playing to win was in error -- he, like
> others, is free to choose his words poorly or to engage in ire-raising
> as he sees fit.
On what grounds do you not take his statement at face value? If saying
you aren't playing to win, and then going on to conclude the game having
taken no steps to play to win.... if those conditions aren't sufficient
to enforce the rule, then I conclude again that it is practically
unenforceable.
> As it was explained to me, his situation was lost and he chose to
> lose in one manner over another.
That's the problem. All you have to do is decide for yourself "my
position is lost", and the door swings wide open to not play to win. He
had 30 pool. Plenty of minion taps to make the consequences of
torporing any given instance of Anson minimal. Plenty of Golcondas to
foil Contracts and Fame. Anthelios to recycle them. IMO, he still had
a perfectly reasonable chance to win the game. However, that is the
crux, isn't it? It's not my determination, nor even yours as a judge
(again, practically.... in most cases judges will yield their own
judgments to the judgment of the player in question).
> This is not an example of a
> violation of play to win, so, if the situation was explained to
> me properly, you are correct that I would not have stepped in
> and changed a legal play.
Your definition of "properly" is a loaded one. If he says he isn't
playing to win and acts that way, what more do you need? Are you
suggesting you put words in his mouth to the effect of "what you really
mean is [x]"?
--
David Cherryholmes
"David Cherryholmes" <david.che...@duke.edu> wrote in message
news:2q91gpF...@uni-berlin.de...
> I'm sure examples can be produced where it has been enforced. After
> all, we both agree that a simple exercise in judgment is all that it
> takes to enforce it. But in most cases where one would think playing to
> win is in question, it is left to the player's self-determination
> whether he is playing to win or not, and it is trivial to satisfy that
> condition in order to play to lose.
Not true. In all cases it is left to the judge's determination.
Unless you're counting cases in which no judge is called, which aren't
cases at all.
> > His statement that he was not playing to win was in error -- he, like
> > others, is free to choose his words poorly or to engage in ire-raising
> > as he sees fit.
>
> On what grounds do you not take his statement at face value? If saying
> you aren't playing to win, and then going on to conclude the game having
> taken no steps to play to win.... if those conditions aren't sufficient
> to enforce the rule, then I conclude again that it is practically
> unenforceable.
I take it on the grounds that I wasn't there -- no judge was called, as
you noted. Being presented with only one description of the play, I
base my statements on that description.
> > As it was explained to me, his situation was lost and he chose to
> > lose in one manner over another.
>
> That's the problem. All you have to do is decide for yourself "my
> position is lost", and the door swings wide open to not play to win. He
Not true. You have to convince the judge (assuming not all of the
players at the table agree with your decision, and one of the
dissenters calls for a judge).
> had 30 pool. Plenty of minion taps to make the consequences of
> torporing any given instance of Anson minimal. Plenty of Golcondas to
> foil Contracts and Fame. Anthelios to recycle them. IMO, he still had
> a perfectly reasonable chance to win the game. However, that is the
> crux, isn't it? It's not my determination, nor even yours as a judge
> (again, practically.... in most cases judges will yield their own
> judgments to the judgment of the player in question).
Not true. If a judge had been called, it would then have been the
judge's determination. Once the judge is called, the players'
determination is irrelevant.
> > This is not an example of a
> > violation of play to win, so, if the situation was explained to
> > me properly, you are correct that I would not have stepped in
> > and changed a legal play.
>
> Your definition of "properly" is a loaded one. If he says he isn't
> playing to win and acts that way, what more do you need? Are you
He didn't act that way (as explained to me), as I noted.
> suggesting you put words in his mouth to the effect of "what you really
> mean is [x]"?
No. I'm suggesting that a player who cannot win and who misstates
his actions in that regard as not playing to win (either because
he doesn't understand the ins and outs of the play to win rule or
because he wants the reaction such a statement will garner) is
still in the "cannot win" position.
This applies uniformly in both cases -- the player's judgment of
his adherence or violation of the play to win rule is not what
matters -- it's the judge's judgment that matters.
[ quoted text not captured ]
>That's the problem. All you have to do is decide for yourself "my
>position is lost", and the door swings wide open to not play to win. He
But, why does someone decide the position is lost? How often is it because
someone is intentionally not trying to win?
>had 30 pool. Plenty of minion taps to make the consequences of
>torporing any given instance of Anson minimal. Plenty of Golcondas to
>foil Contracts and Fame. Anthelios to recycle them. IMO, he still had
>a perfectly reasonable chance to win the game. However, that is the
>crux, isn't it? It's not my determination, nor even yours as a judge
>(again, practically.... in most cases judges will yield their own
>judgments to the judgment of the player in question).
Having lots of pool is no guarantee that a winning chance remains. Now, with
an Anarch Revolt deck, it might be a different story. I'm a bit surprised that
this deck was involved in such a controversy as, having it at the table, should
collapse the game so quickly that the psychicness shouldn't be much of an
issue.
Anyone want to give a rough explanation of the situation beyond not bringing
out another Fatima target?
Also, anyone want to talk more about Gen Con and/or DragonCon's metagames,
tech, surprises, good/bad plays, etc.? You know, trying to find something that
can be said about the current state of the game.
Curevei wrote:
> But, why does someone decide the position is lost? How often is it because
> someone is intentionally not trying to win?
Oh, I think the vast majority of cases of not playing to win stem from
prematurely deciding one has lost.
> Having lots of pool is no guarantee that a winning chance remains. Now, with
> an Anarch Revolt deck, it might be a different story. I'm a bit surprised that
> this deck was involved in such a controversy as, having it at the table, should
> collapse the game so quickly that the psychicness shouldn't be much of an
> issue.
He didn't play any Anarch Revolts, because his prey was dropping
multiple con boons for 8 and they wouldn't have gotten him anywhere.
> Anyone want to give a rough explanation of the situation beyond not bringing
> out another Fatima target?
Wouldn't be me. With all the second hand descriptions of his play and
his deck, I'd imagine Johann will weigh in at some point.
> Also, anyone want to talk more about Gen Con and/or DragonCon's metagames,
> tech, surprises, good/bad plays, etc.? You know, trying to find something that
> can be said about the current state of the game.
Didn't make GenCon this year, but my other two rounds were thick with
animalism combat, making Fatima a pretty poor metagame choice.
--
David Cherryholmes
Johannes Walch asked:
>LSJ, Can we have the final standings?
What? These?
Dragon's Breath 2004
Final Standings
Final Rank Name Prelim GWs Prelim VPs Final VPs TPs
1 Jay Kristoff 2 7 4 162
2 Nate Foure 2 8 1 138
3 Gabriel Peoples 1 5.5 0 150
4 Jeffrey Thompson 1 5 0 126
5 David Shoup 1 5 0 108
6 David Tatu 1 4 132
7 Johannes Walche 1 4 126
8 Jeff Brandon 1 4 120
9 Mike Perlman 1 4 96
10 Jared Strait 1 3 112
11 Andreas Nusser 0 4 126
12 Joe Churchill 0 2 126
13 Derek Ray 0 2 112
14 Oscar Garza 0 2 90
15 David Cherryholmes 0 1.5 108
16 Robyn Tatu 0 1 96
17 Stephane Lavrut 0 1 90
18 Danielle Newquist 0 1 66
19 Jerry Jackson 0 0.5 88
20 Ira Knight 0 0.5 72
21 Jordan Beall 0 0 72
22 Shane Strait 0 0 54
23 John Newquist 0 0 42
24 Jason Clark 0 0 36
I just happend to have them lying around.
Jay
> Yes, it's too bad play to win is unenforceable in practice.
Agreed. And "play not to loose" <> "play to win" some times.
> I'm sure Jay enjoyed the red carpet, though.
He bribed me enough, though. :-))
> Nice to have met you, regardless.
Of course, same applies for me. Now I know that Reyda would stand a bad
chance against you in a close range fight.
[I usually don't get involved in these 'play-to-win' arguments, but I
was tangentially involved here, so I'll pitch an opinion.]
David Cherryholmes <david.che...@duke.edu> wrote in message news:<2q91gpF...@uni-berlin.de>...
<snip thread>
> > As it was explained to me, his situation was lost and he chose to
> > lose in one manner over another.
>
> That's the problem. All you have to do is decide for yourself "my
> position is lost", and the door swings wide open to not play to win. He
> had 30 pool. Plenty of minion taps to make the consequences of
> torporing any given instance of Anson minimal. Plenty of Golcondas to
A few quick notes:
--minion taps would be useless in this case, as Anson would enter
torpor empty, courtesy Fatima's Assault Rifle.
--Golconda would indeed reclaim pool, assuming some supporting
weenie didn't diablerize Anson in the same turn as the torporization.
> foil Contracts and Fame. Anthelios to recycle them. IMO, he still had
> a perfectly reasonable chance to win the game. However, that is the
> crux, isn't it? It's not my determination, nor even yours as a judge
> (again, practically.... in most cases judges will yield their own
> judgments to the judgment of the player in question).
Not only is it a judgement call in this case, it's verifiable by the
decklists. If there's no combat defense, there's no chance to get a
VP, much less a win. Let's see 'em! :-)
>
> > This is not an example of a
> > violation of play to win, so, if the situation was explained to
> > me properly, you are correct that I would not have stepped in
> > and changed a legal play.
>
> Your definition of "properly" is a loaded one. If he says he isn't
> playing to win and acts that way, what more do you need? Are you
> suggesting you put words in his mouth to the effect of "what you really
> mean is [x]"?
Not only is the situation not an example of a violation, it's always
been a valid defense against dedicated combat. And specifically
toward the unicycle combat decks: I think they formerly were 0-VP
decks, and with cards like Dragonbound and Tension, they're now 1-VP
decks. A prey either hoses the unicycle or gets run over by it. In
the case of being run over, bringing vampires out only hands the
combat deck a VP.
As a counterpoint: I could have, arguably should have, done the same
thing in round 1. My game was lost the moment Fatima hit the table.
Instead of diablerizing vamp A with vamp B, and attempting to pass the
bloodhunt, I chose to suicide forward instead, using our 2-turn deal
to buy myself some actions. I knew Robyn (your pred., my grand-pred)
would sit on Anachronism (or similar hoser) until I was ousted, so
there was no benefit to me sitting there. I then tried to throw as
much momentum to your unicycle as possible.
You had two of three rounds in which you had a prey dead to rights.
One gave you a VP and 6-9 pool damage toward your next prey. One
played dead and made you work for it. I think either course is legal
for a dead-duck prey.
> A few quick notes:
> --minion taps would be useless in this case, as Anson would enter
> torpor empty, courtesy Fatima's Assault Rifle.
Correct.
> --Golconda would indeed reclaim pool, assuming some supporting
> weenie didn't diablerize Anson in the same turn as the torporization.
Correct. And what is the sense in constantly reclaiming the 8 pool you just
spend ?!? Beside that I hoped that you would start attacking Jay´s vampires
if there were none to attack on my side, but I guessed wrong.
> Not only is it a judgement call in this case, it's verifiable by the
> decklists. If there's no combat defense, there's no chance to get a
> VP, much less a win. Let's see 'em! :-)
My deck contained one single Staredown besides a lot of Obediences useless
against Fatima. A path to victory? Certainly no. In fact I had not given up
the game I was trying to look for a Recruitment for the entire game so I can
fish out Democritus from my crypt who would be able to play Obedience
against Fatima. Of course I pretended to have given up the game so no one
tried to mess with me too much, because I still had to spend 2+10 on
Democritus and stay alive for one round afterwards (till I can m-tap him).
The appearance of Democritus would then have allowed my to play some of the
Ventrue/Justicar cards I had e.g TogP or Hostile Takeover. The real point in
the game was really that I didn´t cycle into a Recruitment, and I tried hard
...
--
johannes walch
> Wouldn't be me. With all the second hand descriptions of his play and
> his deck, I'd imagine Johann will weigh in at some point.
See my other post for a few more details, but one important thing to add: A
had a promising Life Boon in play and then David played the dreaded Event
card which burns all Boons and disallows the playing of any further boons.
As boons are a key strategy in my deck this card hurt me really bad and made
winning the game hard if not impossible to me. Another problem for me is
that the Anson deck usually needs to make deal(s) to win the game, but no
one was in shape (the 2 preys of Jay), willing (David) or in need (Jay) to
deal with me. And with Jay that far ahead (30+ pool) laying down Anarch
Revolts wasn´t really a good idea, but then again it would have put you
under pressure so you would have started to attack Jay ... probably ... who
knows.
And before you complain, David, that I was no predator to Jay, where was
your predator? You had no predator either for the entire game and you were
not able to oust me, even though I had much less pool than Jay and no
defenses at all.
--
johannes walch
[ quoted text not captured ]
Fatima ousts using her preys vampire. When there are none, it's back
to the "Assamit-bleed-for-one TM" routine.
Which works wonders, right.
evil_poot_cat wrote:
> A few quick notes:
> --minion taps would be useless in this case, as Anson would enter
> torpor empty, courtesy Fatima's Assault Rifle.
> --Golconda would indeed reclaim pool, assuming some supporting
> weenie didn't diablerize Anson in the same turn as the torporization.
These are good points, and in another thread Johannes makes a further
point that brings me to admit he was playing to win as best he could,
given his position. However, when I said "he had 30 pool", I didn't
mean the same thirty the rest of us start with. He'd brought Anson out
a few times already, put many permenants into play, taken as many chump
bleeds as I could send his way, and was still back up to 30. My point?
You will take some lumps from your predator. If, in the course of
pursuing ousting his prey, he lost 8 pool.... to me, that is just the
normal course of the game, not a reason to put it in park.
> Not only is the situation not an example of a violation, it's always
> been a valid defense against dedicated combat. And specifically
> toward the unicycle combat decks: I think they formerly were 0-VP
> decks, and with cards like Dragonbound and Tension, they're now 1-VP
> decks. A prey either hoses the unicycle or gets run over by it. In
> the case of being run over, bringing vampires out only hands the
> combat deck a VP.
And not bringing out vampires hands yourself 0 VP and someone else the
game. It would be nice if we had the luxury of just denying our
predator the ability to bleed us by refusing to play, but we don't, so
everyone accepts that fact. Unfortunately, combat decks can be unwound
and stymied with very little effort.
However, I don't think they are "1 VP decks". If every prey you get
knee-jerks and says "fuck it" and waits out your death, then sure....
you both lose. The fact that many, many players will do this at the
drop of a hat doesn't, to me, immediately equate to the deck being bad
so much as players lacking the nuts to go for it. And barring getting
sandwiched between the combat that trumps yours (in my case, Animalism),
or someone who has brought a one vampire trick deck that has no answer
whatsoever to combat with an 8 cap, I still think it comes down to a
game of cards that could go any which way. One of the great things
about this game is that you always have more than one player to worry
about (unless, of course, one of the players at the table isn't playing).
> As a counterpoint: I could have, arguably should have, done the same
> thing in round 1. My game was lost the moment Fatima hit the table.
> Instead of diablerizing vamp A with vamp B, and attempting to pass the
> bloodhunt, I chose to suicide forward instead, using our 2-turn deal
> to buy myself some actions. I knew Robyn (your pred., my grand-pred)
> would sit on Anachronism (or similar hoser) until I was ousted, so
> there was no benefit to me sitting there. I then tried to throw as
> much momentum to your unicycle as possible.
Actually, it looked to me like she sat there until you were ousted
because that was the point at which Dave said "I won't touch you, get
him". But IMO you made the competitive play. Fatima is a fragile deck,
and all it would have taken is one bad DotB combat and I would be gone.
You had vampires that could have been rescued from torpor and up and
running. Had you sat there, it would have taken longer to get back in
the game if Fatima had taken the dirt nap. Anyway, it's a game of
limited information, but I'd rather have a hand in so I can take
advantage of an opportunity.
> You had two of three rounds in which you had a prey dead to rights.
> One gave you a VP and 6-9 pool damage toward your next prey. One
> played dead and made you work for it. I think either course is legal
> for a dead-duck prey.
Yeah, but you weren't a dead duck prey. Don't you have Majesties?
Maybe some prevent? I guess people are imagining my build of Fatima as
being a certain kill, but IME it doesn't play out that way.
--
David Cherryholmes
Johannes Walch wrote:
> Correct. And what is the sense in constantly reclaiming the 8 pool you just
> spend ?!? Beside that I hoped that you would start attacking Jay´s vampires
> if there were none to attack on my side, but I guessed wrong.
I did rush him, twice. He DI'd my Freak Drive, twice. And this was
after you tried to set him up to loop the DI's indefinitely with Anthelios.
> My deck contained one single Staredown besides a lot of Obediences useless
> against Fatima. A path to victory? Certainly no. In fact I had not given up
> the game I was trying to look for a Recruitment for the entire game so I can
> fish out Democritus from my crypt who would be able to play Obedience
> against Fatima. Of course I pretended to have given up the game so no one
> tried to mess with me too much, because I still had to spend 2+10 on
> Democritus and stay alive for one round afterwards (till I can m-tap him).
> The appearance of Democritus would then have allowed my to play some of the
> Ventrue/Justicar cards I had e.g TogP or Hostile Takeover. The real point in
> the game was really that I didn´t cycle into a Recruitment, and I tried hard
This satisfies me that you were playing to win, for whatever it's worth.
--
David Cherryholmes
Johannes Walch wrote:
> And before you complain, David, that I was no predator to Jay, where was
> your predator? You had no predator either for the entire game and you were
> not able to oust me, even though I had much less pool than Jay and no
> defenses at all.
I had Presence bleeders behind me, who did bleed me a few times for
significant numbers, which in turn affected my allocation of resources.
Beyond that, my grandpredator was the pure Malk 1994 deck, with Ozmo
and Didi letting bleeds of 6 rip ad nauseum, and this deck could have
become me new predator on any given turn. I most certainly had a
predator that game.
As to not ousting you... c'mon man, you played Anson Golconda/Minion Tap
with no minions, I was playing non-weenie rush. And lastly, saying you
had "much less pool than Jay" is silly. Ok, so you had 25 pool instead
of his 40.
--
David Cherryholmes
> I did rush him, twice. He DI'd my Freak Drive, twice. And this was
> after you tried to set him up to loop the DI's indefinitely with
Anthelios.
Did I propose that ? I am a dirty bastard :-) But I asked a VP in return of
the favor, that would have been a fair deal, but unfortunately Jay was not a
great supporter of my sleazyness .... hehehe But then again making a deal
with me would have prevented the timeout (can I say Anarch Revolt) and would
have given him 3-4 VP instead of 2,5 and me 1-2 instead of 0...
> This satisfies me that you were playing to win, for whatever it's worth.
Well, I always play to win, that愀 why I end up in finals from time to time.
In the US was not my lucky days, though, at both Cons I missed the finals.
The Democritus as well as the Life Boons were a key to winning for me and
since I didn愒 get both I was kinda screwed (Would have ousted the Life Boon
Target with Anarch Revolts while saving the allready Life Booned one with
another Life Boon ...). Since my position was kinda desperate I tried to
stay alive and to jump on any occaision that would offer me a VP. The
Dramatic Upheaval killed me finally, no D.I in hand ...
Unfortunately trying to win screws your predator almost all the time, how
else can you win ? :-)
--
johannes walch
"Johannes Walch" <johanne...@vekn.de> a écrit dans le message de
news:chovqm$a6m$1...@stu1id2.ip.tesion.net...
[ quoted text not captured ]
my guess is that i stand bad chances against anyone =P