Blood Brothers

Are nasty. For, Pot, Sanguines (San), all sterile, are recommended for individual clan play. Sabbat. Something stupid about Circle special rule. Most importantly, the combat card. Otcopod Combat card: costs one blood. Usable by another blood brother of the same circle as the vampire in combat or the vampire in combat. San: Preranged gain additional strike for each round of this combat. SAN: As above, but two additonal strikes. Conclusion: Now we're going to see lots of newbies that want to do nothing but fight play blood brothers. And the other players are going to to have a new 'combo'. Immortal Grapple, Improved Strength, Otopod, Torn Signpost, 'Prevention'. I just hope there's like 7 different circles and each one has 2 vampires. ~SV

In message <f987c6cd.01111...@posting.google.com>, vermillian <vermil...@yahoo.com> writes: >Something stupid about Circle special rule. [...] >I just hope there's like 7 different circles and each one has 2 >vampires. Hmm... -- James Coupe Everybody knows that "No" means "Yes" PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D Just like glasses come free on the NHS EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 But the more I look through them the more I see 13D7E668C3695D623D5D I'm becoming more like Alfie

A little mistake in the preview, obviously : Octopod Combat. Sanguinus. 1 blood Requires a ready Blood Brother of the same circle as another one in combat. Can be used by a vampire even if he or she is not involved in the combat. Sanguinus: Only usable before range is chosen. The Blood Brother in combat gets an additional strike each round this combat. Superior Melpominee: As above, but with two additional strikes each round. yes, it said Superior MELPOMINEE !!! :-) Well, no big deal, but I got confused for a few seconds there... Question is : will there be any more preview now that all the Bloodlines are up ? They said "until december the 3rd", so... And are we hoping for circles of 2 ? No, I don't think so, because they would then be quite useless, or let's say hard to play. I'm sure they will be well balanced for the game. - Orpheus http://cypheranima.free.fr news://news.zoo-logique.org/VTES-francophone audio...@yahoogroups.com "vermillian" <vermil...@yahoo.com> a écrit dans le message news: f987c6cd.01111...@posting.google.com... [ quoted text not captured ]

>Question is : will there be any more preview now that all the Bloodlines are >up ? They said "until december the 3rd", so... Answer: Baali and Salubri Antitribu (?) are supposed to be left /Henrik

Vermillian wrote: >>Conclusion: Now we're going to see lots of newbies that want to do nothing but fight play blood brothers. And the other players are going to to have a new 'combo'. Immortal Grapple, Improved Strength, Otopod, Torn Signpost, 'Prevention'.>> Who cares about the circles and Sanguinarius or whatever? We now have a clan of all Potence and Fortitude vampires--completely ignore the circles and Sanguitacularity, combine with Jimmy Dunn, and cause unparalelled havok. Rush someone, manuver with Unflinching Persistance as needed, Immortal Grapple, hit with some Potence strike, prevent all their damage with Skin of Steel, Disarm, Decapitate. Taste as needed. Ultimate fighting champion. Why is the extra moving part that is San-Quentin even remotely necessary? The circle rule and extra discipline is simply a hinderance. Is this going to be a good deck? I dunno--depends on what the vampire selection looks like, but it will certainly be the ultimate combat trump deck. Peter D Bakija PD...@aol.com http://www.geocities.com/bakija6 "...and the only person I can stand to be around is a neutered vampire who cheats at kitten poker!" -Buffy

"Henrik" <henri...@spray.se> a écrit dans le message news: 9t8u6s$12k2h$1...@ID-99227.news.dfncis.de... [ quoted text not captured ] Right, I forgot these. Dunno if the Salubri! will have their own preview, though. And even with these, it takes us, what to the end of next week ? Still one week to go to the 3rd... Orph > /Henrik > >

Peter D Bakija wrote: > > Vermillian wrote: > >>Conclusion: Now we're going to see lots of newbies that want to do > nothing but fight play blood brothers. And the other players are going > to to have a new 'combo'. Immortal Grapple, Improved Strength, Otopod, > Torn Signpost, 'Prevention'.>> > > Who cares about the circles and Sanguinarius or whatever? We now have a clan of > all Potence and Fortitude vampires--completely ignore the circles and > Sanguitacularity, combine with Jimmy Dunn, and cause unparalelled havok. > > Rush someone, manuver with Unflinching Persistance as needed, Immortal Grapple, > hit with some Potence strike, prevent all their damage with Skin of Steel, > Disarm, Decapitate. Taste as needed. Ultimate fighting champion. > > Why is the extra moving part that is San-Quentin even remotely necessary? The > circle rule and extra discipline is simply a hinderance. > > Is this going to be a good deck? I dunno--depends on what the vampire selection > looks like, but it will certainly be the ultimate combat trump deck. The first part of your last sentence is the key, I guess. I don't know what you mean by "the ultimate combat trump deck" (did Donald Trump need combat?) but it really does depend on what the vampires actually look like. I mean, sheesh, Helena Casimir, Natasha Volchek, Wynn, Zack North, Gwendolyn, Chester Dubois, Tereza Rotas, Vaclav Petalengro, Nakova, and Faruq all have both potence and fortitude if that's all you need for combat fun. KnowwottImean, Vern? Fred

"Peter D Bakija" <pd...@aol.comANTISPAM> wrote in message news:20011118143654...@mb-mi.aol.com... > Vermillian wrote: > >>Conclusion: Now we're going to see lots of newbies that want to do > nothing but fight play blood brothers. And the other players are going > to to have a new 'combo'. Immortal Grapple, Improved Strength, Otopod, > Torn Signpost, 'Prevention'.>> > > Who cares about the circles and Sanguinarius or whatever? We now have a clan of > all Potence and Fortitude vampires--completely ignore the circles and > Sanguitacularity, combine with Jimmy Dunn, and cause unparalelled havok. > > Rush someone, manuver with Unflinching Persistance as needed, Immortal Grapple, > hit with some Potence strike, prevent all their damage with Skin of Steel, > Disarm, Decapitate. Taste as needed. Ultimate fighting champion. > > Why is the extra moving part that is San-Quentin even remotely necessary? The > circle rule and extra discipline is simply a hinderance. > > Is this going to be a good deck? I dunno--depends on what the vampire selection > looks like, but it will certainly be the ultimate combat trump deck. > wich, as always, will be trumped by 1) itself and a better draw 2) Tremere/Assamite ranged steal blood/unpreventable combat.

"Orpheus" <orph...@wanadoo.fr> wrote in message news:9t97n9$jv0$1...@wanadoo.fr... [ quoted text not captured ] Well the last week is most likely when they'll release the cardlist of rarities, so one would assume all previews would have to be up by then. At least it would be a good idea. Roger

> > Is this going to be a good deck? I dunno--depends on what the vampire > selection > > looks like, but it will certainly be the ultimate combat trump deck. > > > wich, as always, will be trumped by > 1) itself and a better draw > 2) Tremere/Assamite ranged steal blood/unpreventable combat. You're wrong on this one, pot + for beats it since they can play IG at close range (unflinching persistance can provide the maneuvers) and then it will beat the Assamites unpreventable strikes and Tremeres steal blood strikes plus dealing out good damage too. Roger

Fred wrote: >>The first part of your last sentence is the key, I guess.>> Well, it does all depend on how big the vampires are. If they are all 7 and larger, then they won't be any better than what you could already build. If, however, they have a 3 with pot/for and then a bunch of 4's and 5's with various combinations of POT and FOR, then they'll be rather effective. >>I don't know what you mean by "the ultimate combat trump deck">> It'll pretty much be the trump card that beats all other combat. Plenty of manuvers, IG, damage prevention. It'll kill regular potence combat, it'll survive agaist the Gangrel, it'll not have much problem against the Assamites, and it will laugh at the Tremere. That is pretty trumpy. >>(did Donald Trump need combat?)>> He will when I find him... >>but it really does depend on what the vampires actually look like. I mean, sheesh, Helena Casimir, Natasha Volchek, Wynn, Zack North, Gwendolyn, Chester Dubois, Tereza Rotas, Vaclav Petalengro, Nakova, and Faruq all have both potence and fortitude if that's all you need for combat fun. KnowwottImean, Vern?>> Nah--you need reasonaby sized vampires, which there curently aren't for a Pot/For deck. There are no vampires smaller than 9 or so (there is Gwendolyn at 11 and Lasvernus at 10, and there might be someone in Final Nights that I don't remember off hand) with POT/FOR, so you need lots of skill cards to make such a deck reliable. If, however, there are Blood Brothers that are, say 5 or smaller with POT/FOR, POT/for, and pot/FOR, then you got a deck. [ quoted text not captured ]

Jeroen wrote: >>wich, as always, will be trumped by 1) itself and a better draw 2) Tremere/Assamite ranged steal blood/unpreventable combat.>> Nah. Unflinching Persistance is, given available FOR, a really good manuver card--if you need the manuvers, there they are, and they can be cycled easily as damage prevention if you don't need the manuvers. That is why the Blood Brothers will be very effective if they have smallish vampires with POT/FOR, POT/for and pot/FOR. You out manuver the Tremere and Assamites (which is harder than the Tremere, sure, but certainly possible in any situation) and Immortally Grapple them. They wiggle around helplessly, you hit them, prevent their damage, Disarm and Decapitate them. Poof. [ quoted text not captured ]

Peter D Bakija wrote: > > Fred wrote: > >>The first part of your last sentence is the key, I guess.>> > > Well, it does all depend on how big the vampires are. If they are all 7 and > larger, then they won't be any better than what you could already build. If, > however, they have a 3 with pot/for and then a bunch of 4's and 5's with > various combinations of POT and FOR, then they'll be rather effective. Right. That was kind of my point. You asked, "Who cares about the circles and Sanguinarius or whatever?" But as you don't know yet what the Blood Brothers actually look like, I'm saying that that question is rather premature. Fred

"Orpheus" <orph...@wanadoo.fr> wrote in message news:<9t8t8m$oge$1...@wanadoo.fr>... > A little mistake in the preview, obviously : > > Octopod > Combat. Sanguinus. 1 blood > Requires a ready Blood Brother of the same circle as another one in combat. > Can be used by a vampire even if he or she is not involved in the combat. > Sanguinus: Only usable before range is chosen. The Blood Brother in combat > gets an additional strike each round this combat. > Superior Melpominee: As above, but with two additional strikes each round. > > yes, it said Superior MELPOMINEE !!! :-) > > Well, no big deal, but I got confused for a few seconds there... > > Question is : will there be any more preview now that all the Bloodlines are > up ? They said "until december the 3rd", so... > > And are we hoping for circles of 2 ? No, I don't think so, because they > would then be quite useless, or let's say hard to play. I'm sure they will > be well balanced for the game. And yes, I'm hoping for circles of two, as then no one would play blood brothers, and there would be no more (but no less) of the IG vs. Majesty BS... heh. ~SV

On 18 Nov 2001 18:10:39 -0800, vermil...@yahoo.com (vermillian) wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] Why would noone play them if they were limited to pairs?

"Peter D Bakija" <pd...@aol.comANTISPAM> wrote in message news:20011118202606...@mb-me.aol.com... > Jeroen wrote: > >>wich, as always, will be trumped by > 1) itself and a better draw > 2) Tremere/Assamite ranged steal blood/unpreventable combat.>> > > Nah. Unflinching Persistance is, given available FOR, a really good manuver > card--if you need the manuvers, there they are, and they can be cycled easily > as damage prevention if you don't need the manuvers. > > That is why the Blood Brothers will be very effective if they have smallish > vampires with POT/FOR, POT/for and pot/FOR. > > You out manuver the Tremere and Assamites (which is harder than the Tremere, > sure, but certainly possible in any situation) and Immortally Grapple them. > They wiggle around helplessly, you hit them, prevent their damage, Disarm and > Decapitate them. Poof. Being able to play pot/FOR with small-mid vampires will be highly unplesant, and if you can work it in you can even use Octopod to get additionals. Although I expect that the new disciplines will feature fairly stongly in the smaller vampires. We will see soon enough but I think it would be silly to further limit the aready limited numbers of vapmires with the new disciplines by not stongly representing the new disciplines in the new vampires. Even then, I'd love to see small vampires with pot/for/???

I'm not very familiar with the Blood Brothers, how did they come about and why are they sterile? "vermillian" <vermil...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:f987c6cd.01111...@posting.google.com... [ quoted text not captured ]

Quoting got wrecked. ?jeroen rombouts? ?jeroen....@pandora.be? wrote in message news:?BbWJ7.42891$XM4....@afrodite.telenet-ops.be?... >which, as always, will be trumped by >1) itself and a better draw >2) Tremere/Assamite ranged steal blood/unpreventable combat. 3) The Gargoyles.

> I'm not very familiar with the Blood Brothers, how did they come about and > why are they sterile? I believe they were created when the !Tremere and Tzimice worked together on a variant of the ritual that created the Gargoyles. The ritual that created the Gargoyles had a few limitations that restricted the usefulness of the new bloodline (it used two vampires to make one Gargoyle, and the Gargoyles were able to self-replicate -- especially annoying once some of them started to break free from their masters). The ritual that created the Blood Brothers took existing vampires, and morphed them into the Blood Brothers. They're generally made a circle at a time, if I recall correctly. They're sterile as a result of the ritual. This is especially bad news, since the majority of the folks who knew how to make them were !Tremere, and they're mostly all gone. I'm surprised they weren't Scarce AND Sterile. There again, it'd be really difficult to use Sanguinus in conjunction with Scarcity. Fanboy

In article <20011118202121...@mb-me.aol.com>, pd...@aol.comANTISPAM (Peter D Bakija) wrote: >>>I don't know what you mean by "the ultimate combat trump deck">> > >It'll pretty much be the trump card that beats all other combat. Plenty of >manuvers, IG, damage prevention. It'll kill regular potence combat, it'll >survive agaist the Gangrel, it'll not have much problem against the Assamites, >and it will laugh at the Tremere. That is pretty trumpy. Animalism combat might be able to hurt it some. Terror frenzy, crows, bats, some maneuvers and presses from other cards. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Mail: santiago [at] umug [dot] org || Web: http://santiago.umug.org --------------------------------------------------------------------- "Ceci n'est pas un 'sig block'."

Against a halfway decent Assamite deck, Pot/for won't ever get to play the IG. Assamites have 5 1/2 cards that give them maneuvers: Flash Pursuit Rapid Thought Alacrity (I count this as half, since it's an action madifier) Behind You! Swallowed by the Night Pot/For has: Unflinching Persistence Thrown Gate For an idea, see Jack Yang's tale from Atlanta http://whitestar.ddg.com/vtes/sections.php?op=viewarticle&artid=66 It'll really suck if we see Blood Brothers with Celerity, or god help us, Protean. -Brian "Roger Carhult" <rogc...@student.luth.se> wrote in message news:9t9m0r$17279$1...@ID-104455.news.dfncis.de... [ quoted text not captured ]

pd...@aol.comANTISPAM (Peter D Bakija) wrote in message news:<20011118202606...@mb-me.aol.com>... > Jeroen wrote: > >>wich, as always, will be trumped by > 1) itself and a better draw > 2) Tremere/Assamite ranged steal blood/unpreventable combat.>> > > Nah. Unflinching Persistance is, given available FOR, a really good manuver > card--if you need the manuvers, there they are, and they can be cycled easily > as damage prevention if you don't need the manuvers. > > That is why the Blood Brothers will be very effective if they have smallish > vampires with POT/FOR, POT/for and pot/FOR. I don't think (WoD background and all) that the BB will have a lot (if any) small vampires. Maybe combined with small Gargoyles (who won't be that small either), there will be enough to make a rounded crypt. Another problem will probably be the discipline spread; the unique clan/bloodline discipline (in this case Sanguinus) will probably be more present than the pot/for combination > > You out manuver the Tremere and Assamites (which is harder than the Tremere, > sure, but certainly possible in any situation) and Immortally Grapple them. > They wiggle around helplessly, you hit them, prevent their damage, Disarm and > Decapitate them. Poof. you're assuming the Tremere don't use cel for manuevres or presses or ani for Terror Frenzy. Both Tremere and Assamites can be build around ranged damage, and then 1 manuevre won't do it. They die when you can get a hold of them, of course. Jeroen

"Jeroen" <joen...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:5f0d2397.01111...@posting.google.com... [ quoted text not captured ] Terror Frenzy ( and set range effects ) is about the only thing that you'd have to watch out for. Sure cel & tha have manuvers but I think it's going to be a case of luck of the draw really. A cel deck might have 6 Flash, 6 Pursuit and 4 Blur but a pot/FOR deck will have 16 Unfliching Persistence. The close range deck will also have an advantage in that range always starts at close.

On Mon, 19 Nov 2001 07:03:57 GMT, "Brian Reed" <cap...@austin.rr.com> wrote: > Against a halfway decent Assamite deck, Pot/for won't ever get to play the > IG. > Assamites have 5 1/2 cards that give them maneuvers: > Flash > Pursuit > Rapid Thought > Alacrity (I count this as half, since it's an action madifier) > Behind You! > Swallowed by the Night You forgot Silence of Death. (Don't laugh! Harika Guljan loves it! ;-) > Pot/For has: > Unflinching Persistence > Thrown Gate ..and everybody has Fake Out. Variety means little in a NCL game. They only have to stock up on UF (they don't even have to worry about jamming, it can be used to prevent damage too), and it seems likely that Sanguinus gives them a few maneuvers itself if needed. You can never really depend on outmaneuvering your target if they're truly expecting a long range deck (example: I recently outmaneuvered a Brujah pitch deck through a whole game with an OBF-only deck, and I wasn't even using any Fake Outs). There are only four ways to set range to long currently: Terror Frenzy, Sniper Rifle, Shadow Step, and Cailean. They all have heavy costs or restrictions, and are hard/impossible to use with Assamites or Tremere for combat defense. Seting range to short will always be easier, you just don't expect it to be necessary that often. I now think that Assamites might have a better chance against Pot combat by using Disease, Thin Blood and Scorpion's Touch than trying to set the range to long, because you'll always find someone with enough maneuvers to get you at short. On Mon, 19 Nov 2001 02:03:52 -0500, Santiago <sant...@nastyPinkCannedMeat.umug.org> wrote: > Animalism combat might be able to hurt it some. Terror frenzy, > crows, bats, some maneuvers and presses from other cards. Animalism can stay at long and make some damage, but they can still prevent it with FOR and if they see it coming they can load up on Sewer Lids/Gates/Cars and do some damage too, so at best they come out even. The only thing hurting Pot/For decks so far is vampire selection. With two new bloodlines with Pot/For that can only get better, the only question is how much better will it be? Flux

>There are only four ways to set range to long currently: Terror Frenzy, >Sniper Rifle, Shadow Step, and Cailean. They all have heavy costs or >restrictions, and are hard/impossible to use with Assamites or Tremere for >combat defense. Mr. Technicality speaking now: =) Terror Frenzy doesn't actually set range, though for most purposes it acts like it does (since you can't manuever to close). But if you Terror Frenzy Cailean or someone with Obtenebration (Shadow Step), then they can still set the range to long (though Sniper Rifle is hosed since it's equipment). So while the *real* range-setters (including close-range setters like Storm Sewers and Gang Tactics) are first-come-first-served (since the range can be "set" only once), Terror Frenzy doesn't automatically trump any of them if played first (and can still be played after range is set to cycle). End of spiel. =) Halcyan 2

In message <20011118202121...@mb-me.aol.com>, Peter D Bakija <pd...@aol.comANTISPAM> writes: >>>but it really does depend on what the vampires actually look like. I mean, >sheesh, Helena Casimir, Natasha Volchek, Wynn, Zack North, Gwendolyn, Chester >Dubois, Tereza Rotas, Vaclav Petalengro, Nakova, and Faruq all have both >potence and fortitude if that's all you need for combat fun. KnowwottImean, >Vern?>> > >Nah--you need reasonaby sized vampires, which there curently aren't for a >Pot/For deck. This isn't *entirely* true - especially in the case of Wynn. Since you are playing pot/for, you can legitimately include Freak Drive. Throw a Haven down during your master phase, rush, untap, Bum's Rush. Wynn can untap *again* and use his built in action. It compensates for the larger capacity using the library, to get an effective capacity per rush of something lower. Still pretty tricky, though. [ quoted text not captured ]

smci...@onesourcecorp.com (Shaun McIsaac) wrote in message news:<8f507d2e.0111...@posting.google.com>... [ quoted text not captured ] The problem with them is that half of their deck is going to be messed up with getting over the slave limitation thing. Sure, I guess we could play 5 copies of some cheap 2 cap Tremere, get it out, and then go Gargoyle crazy, or we could bring out an indy gargoyle and then clan impersonate... But a STRAIGHT pot/for deck would be better than this deck, as its not caught up in a few card slots trying to overcome some limitation. Of course, now if the Gargoyle Disc and Flight have good cards to them, this might be a different story... ~SV

pd...@aol.comANTISPAM (Peter D Bakija) wrote in message news:<20011118202121...@mb-me.aol.com>... > Fred wrote: > >>The first part of your last sentence is the key, I guess.>> > > Well, it does all depend on how big the vampires are. If they are all 7 and > larger, then they won't be any better than what you could already build. If, > however, they have a 3 with pot/for and then a bunch of 4's and 5's with > various combinations of POT and FOR, then they'll be rather effective. > > >>I don't know what you mean by "the ultimate combat trump deck">> > > It'll pretty much be the trump card that beats all other combat. Plenty of > manuvers, IG, damage prevention. It'll kill regular potence combat, it'll > survive agaist the Gangrel, it'll not have much problem against the Assamites, > and it will laugh at the Tremere. That is pretty trumpy. I think you're overstating it. The limiting factor on combat decks like this is card slots. You need a zillion Unflinching Persistence maneuvers to outmaneuver a long-range combat deck (eg Assamite or Tremere), which leaves not nearly enough slots for beating them up once you catch them. Plus you need superior Fortitude, which means your vampires won't be that small, and superior Potence as well if you want to be able to really hurt people (or else a metric assload of Disarms). And after all that, you'll still fail when your opponents have Fortitude of their own. At least the Assamites can beat that. :-) On the whole, I'd expect that the Blood Brothers will be as good at combat as the Brujah, Nosferatu, and Gargoyles, but probably not really better than any of them. Potence-based combat is always card-intensive, and the second discipline you use may determine how well you do against certain other combat decks, but within combat archetypes you have the same kind of rock/paper/scissors that you do in the bleed/vote/combat metagame, just because if you have 15 Unflinchings, 10 Skin of Steel, 15 Torn Signposts, 15 Undead Strengths, 15 Immortal Grapples, and 15 Bum's Rushes, you only get 5 other cards, and have to leave out the Tastes of Vitae, the master cards, the Disarms, the Pulled Fangs, and your deck still only works if you have POT/FOR. On the other hand, having in-clan Freak Drive is super cool. :-) Josh counting sheep never helped me get to sleep

"Roger Carhult" <rogc...@student.luth.se> wrote in message news:<9t9m0r$17279$1...@ID-104455.news.dfncis.de>... [ quoted text not captured ] Long range combat beats close range combat. You just can't pack that many manuevers, whose sole purpose is to counter other manuevers that may or may not be there, and do anything worthwhile. Never mind what happens when they get a sniper rifle (which you can't block w/o media outlets, and even then it's questionable) or Cailean, or OBT. Good Tremere combat will still hose those guys. Good Tremere combat has fortitude, and will get to second round. Then you can either unflinching persistence to long, and get thefted/walked for free, or stay close and lose all your blood (blood->h2o), and still eat a walk.

"Shaun McIsaac" <smci...@onesourcecorp.com> wrote in message news:8f507d2e.0111...@posting.google.com... [ quoted text not captured ] Blood to Water could be potentially nasty but even w/ 0 blood a pot/FOR deck can dish it out and take it. The point was also made elsewhere that you *will* have enough manuvers, you can always dump UPs to prevent damage if you don't need the manuvers so you use shiteloads of them ( read as "enough to outmanuver anyone except maybe a Quick Meld deck" ). You can't get round range-setting effects of course. Sure, Tremere combat deck has fortitude, but I rarely see FOR in a Tremere deck and certainly not on many of it's minions. Even if it does that means there are even more different combat cards that reduce the potential for having a manuver when you need it. Not only that but *every round* you need to have more manuvers that your opponent. This is the reason why I play with Terror Frenzy in my Aid from Bats deck instead of IR Goggles or Fake Out. I can't guarantee that I'm going to out manuver my opponent every round of every combat ( which I really need to be able to do ) so I make it so they can't get to close.

GreySeer wrote: > "Shaun McIsaac" <smci...@onesourcecorp.com> wrote in message > > "Roger Carhult" <rogc...@student.luth.se> wrote in message > > > > 2) Tremere/Assamite ranged steal blood/unpreventable combat. > > > > > > You're wrong on this one, pot + for beats it since they can play IG at > > Long range combat beats close range combat. > > You just can't pack that many manuevers, whose sole purpose is to > > counter other manuevers that may or may not be there, and do anything > > worthwhile. > The point was also made elsewhere that you *will* have enough manuvers, you > can always dump UPs to prevent damage if you don't need the manuvers so you > use shiteloads of them ( read as "enough to outmanuver anyone except maybe a > Quick Meld deck" ). You can't get round range-setting effects of course. You can't dump UPs to prevent damage if: 1) no damage is being done (theft of vitae) 2) the damage done cannot be prevented with fortitude (Blood Ire). -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and tournament rules: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/

On 19 Nov 2001 01:26:06 GMT, pd...@aol.comANTISPAM (Peter D Bakija) wrote: >Jeroen wrote: >>>wich, as always, will be trumped by >1) itself and a better draw >2) Tremere/Assamite ranged steal blood/unpreventable combat.>> > >Nah. Unflinching Persistance is, given available FOR, a really good manuver >card--if you need the manuvers, there they are, and they can be cycled easily >as damage prevention if you don't need the manuvers. Certainly. But it takes up just as many slots as other maneuver cards, and it directly reduces your ass-kicking ability in proportion. >That is why the Blood Brothers will be very effective if they have smallish >vampires with POT/FOR, POT/for and pot/FOR. > >You out manuver the Tremere and Assamites (which is harder than the Tremere, >sure, but certainly possible in any situation) and Immortally Grapple them. >They wiggle around helplessly, you hit them, prevent their damage, Disarm and >Decapitate them. Poof. (head shake) You can't catch the Assamites if they want to stay at long. They'll be packing Flash and Pursuit -- and you just won't have that much Unflinching Persistence available. Most good Assamite decks pack Wakes and assorted intercept, so your Bum's Rush manuever is gone -- meaning you'll need two maneuvers. Trying to catch the Tremere isn't quite as hopeless, but comes with its own pitfalls: the first being Apportation. It's well worth it to chuck 9,000,000 Apportations in a Tremere deck, since you can dump them effectively. Staying at close range for a 2nd round gets you Blood to Water, which means at best, you just traded one of your vamps for one of theirs; a questionable decision. The second is Thoughts Betrayed, which will wang up a lot of things for you. The third is the reappearance of the Thelerity deck in numerous forms -- good luck catching a deck that has only superior CEL and carries 15 Flash for the maneuver/press/Blood to Water 2nd round. Worse for you, the Flash is a press to end if they don't have the cards in hand to survive round 2. I don't see POT/FOR being any kind of combat trump. It's great for surviving close range combat where people are trying to punch you for 30, but decks that want to get away have learned how to get away; and packing enough maneuvers to catch them mean you can't beat up decks that aren't trying to get away. -- Derek ...Vampire Squirrel has come to bite your nuts!

On Mon, 19 Nov 2001 19:38:32 +1100, "GreySeer" <e...@i.think.not> wrote: >Terror Frenzy ( and set range effects ) is about the only thing that you'd >have to watch out for. Sure cel & tha have manuvers but I think it's going >to be a case of luck of the draw really. A cel deck might have 6 Flash, 6 >Pursuit and 4 Blur but a pot/FOR deck will have 16 Unfliching Persistence. >The close range deck will also have an advantage in that range always starts >at close. A deck with 16 Unflinching Persistence will die against anyone not trying to get away from it. If you can't use it as maneuvers, you can only cycle 1 per combat to prevent the punch for 1 -- and you'll have a hand full of them in no time. [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] Not true. Some cards have Superior's. Raille

"Raille" <rai...@mich.com> wrote in message news:3BFA34ED...@mich.com... ( >> = derek's post here) > > A deck with 16 Unflinching Persistence will die against anyone not > > trying to get away from it. If you can't use it as maneuvers, you can > > only cycle 1 per combat to prevent the punch for 1 -- and you'll have a > > hand full of them in no time. > > > > Not true. Some cards have Superior's. > > Raille What do you MEAN ?? reyda

> > The point was also made elsewhere that you *will* have enough manuvers, you > > can always dump UPs to prevent damage if you don't need the manuvers so you > > use shiteloads of them ( read as "enough to outmanuver anyone except maybe a > > Quick Meld deck" ). You can't get round range-setting effects of course. > > You can't dump UPs to prevent damage if: > 1) no damage is being done (theft of vitae) > 2) the damage done cannot be prevented with fortitude (Blood Ire). I was taking that as a given but there's little shortage of damage to prevent. If you're fighting ranged unpreventable than you'll typically be using UPs to bring it back to close. If you're fighting close range then there's a very high chance there will be something to prevent. Also, Walk of Flame & Taste of Death are both preventable.

"Derek Ray" <lor...@yah0o.com> wrote in message news:31qjvtcim3c9r9pon...@4ax.com... [ quoted text not captured ] Yes, but the only disadvantges of having a hand full of UP are: * You can't hit for as much as you like ( not that bad really ). * You're still going to be stuck with them if the damage you are taking cannot be prevented. The only unpreventable damage that I see much of is Blood Fury, Blood Rage, Sould Burn ( they're not *that* common ) and Blood Sweat. Blood Sweat requires long range and hence UP is playable if you have FOR. Most decks that use Theft or Soul Burn also like to be at long. There's also DotB and Dagon's Call but there's few decks that use their unpreventable on their own to great effect. ( Hmm, mind you Dagon's Call + Thin Blood is pretty unplesant, that's a min of 3 blood gone that cannot be prevented, assuming no S:CE or Dodge )

In message <tvkidr9...@news.supernews.com>, GreySeer <e...@i.think.not> writes: >If you're fighting close range then >there's a very high chance there will be something to prevent. However, if you're fighting against non-combat, you can't maneuver and you'll only be able to prevent one. Not fun. (Anyway, I still like Quick Meld. But I'm odd.) [ quoted text not captured ]

> You can't catch the Assamites if they want to stay at long. They'll be > packing Flash and Pursuit -- and you just won't have that much > Unflinching Persistence available. Most good Assamite decks pack Wakes > and assorted intercept, so your Bum's Rush manuever is gone -- meaning > you'll need two maneuvers. It doesn't matter how many manuvers you need, a CR deck has that advantage ( unless someone has a permenant manuver, which the CR deck has equal access to ) because every range starts at close. The LR deck will have a 1 manuver deficit every round. Worse still, if you IG them, the next round is at close reguardless. I also don't see how Flash + Pursuit is any better than Unflinching Persistence + Hidden Strength. Both have highly useable alternates uses. In fact, I would argue that UP + HS is _more_ useable than Flash + Pursuit. ) e.g If you send your opponent to torpor with your first stike in the first round you can still prevent. > Trying to catch the Tremere isn't quite as hopeless, but comes with its > own pitfalls: the first being Apportation. It's well worth it to chuck > 9,000,000 Apportations in a Tremere deck, since you can dump them > effectively. Staying at close range for a 2nd round gets you Blood to > Water, which means at best, you just traded one of your vamps for one of > theirs; a questionable decision. The second is Thoughts Betrayed, which > will wang up a lot of things for you. The third is the reappearance of > the Thelerity deck in numerous forms -- good luck catching a deck that > has only superior CEL and carries 15 Flash for the maneuver/press/Blood > to Water 2nd round. Worse for you, the Flash is a press to end if they > don't have the cards in hand to survive round 2. I also don't see how apportation is better than UP + HS for the same reasons. Apportation is no more playable than UP + HS. Remember, you're not just fighting only Tremere. Full of HS? Rush someome who can't manuver much and use some. Then rush the Tremere, get range close, no need for IG, hands for one, prevent ( not even necesseary if they Theft ) Disarm. If you've got 2 blood, Decapitate. Against your Thelerity, let them out manuver you & blood to water you, when range is close IG ( so no unpreventable if they're even using it ), prevent, Disarm. You might not even need to Disarm since Blood to Water costs 2. > I don't see POT/FOR being any kind of combat trump. It's great for > surviving close range combat where people are trying to punch you for > 30, but decks that want to get away have learned how to get away; and > packing enough maneuvers to catch them mean you can't beat up decks that > aren't trying to get away. LR decks have the same problem as the kind of pot/FOR decks we're taking about with trying to get the right number of manuvers but I think pot/FOR has the advantage in that it's damage dealing cards are more useable ( close being easier to get to by virtue of the fact that every round starts at close ). There's been a lot of talk of manuvering but POT does have one card that is just as effective at short and long. Sacrament of Carnage, don't even bother manuvering. It costs 1 but that's not a big deal when you have damage prevention. I don't know that pot/FOR will be *the* combat combo to play but I think it has the potential to be very powerful.

"James Coupe" <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote in message news:D3YEG4Yn...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk... > (Anyway, I still like Quick Meld. But I'm odd.) In this case i'm odd too. I like quick meld. Even if didn't use it for ages. I've experienced a !gangrel gun deck with some Quick meld, and yes it works great. But it does nothing except great gunfights... Why is quick meld underrated and underused ? First who has superior protean anyway ? 1-Gangrel : -can still use Drawing out the beast if they want to stay close. -why the hell a gangrel would like long range combat, providing they have plenty of aggravated claws and mucho prevention ? -the only thing you want to play at long range is Body Flare. Hell, if your opponent dodges or end combat, its's 2 blood wasted. 2-City Gangrel : -they also have Celerity, which have a lot of similar effects : maneuvers, dodges, combat ends (preternatural), presses and cards that provides multiple/various effects : dodge+additional, maneuver + press, maneuver or additional strike... -they also have obfuscate which grants maneuver, dodges, presses In fact even city gangrel won't use quick meld because some cards provide alternate effect : Pursuit and Swallowed by the night. So Maybe if we see new clans/bloodlines with PRO as inclan disc, we'll see a Quick meld boom on ebay ? by the way: Imho the city gangrel have a mix of disciplines who's cool for combat but nothing else. And the disciplines overlap but don't quite complete each other, which is another flaw. Too bad, since their master cards and vampires really suits me. reyda

On Tue, 20 Nov 2001 05:48:13 -0500, Raille <rai...@mich.com> wrote: >Derek Ray wrote: >> >> A deck with 16 Unflinching Persistence will die against anyone not >> trying to get away from it. If you can't use it as maneuvers, you can >> only cycle 1 per combat to prevent the punch for 1 -- and you'll have a >> hand full of them in no time. > >Not true. Some cards have Superior's. Er, yeah. Read card text and all. Unflinching's is a maneuver. If you can't use the maneuver, you can only use the inferior of "prevent 1". Prevent 1 is nice and all, but you'll be wedged up on them fast since you can't cancel your own maneuvers and someone who isn't trying to hit you back won't let you prevent more than 1 per combat; and you can't splash prevent without damage to prevent. Feel free to put 16 in your next tourney deck though. [ quoted text not captured ]

GreySeer wrote: > > > > The point was also made elsewhere that you *will* have enough manuvers, > you > > > can always dump UPs to prevent damage if you don't need the manuvers so > you > > > use shiteloads of them ( read as "enough to outmanuver anyone except > maybe a > > > Quick Meld deck" ). You can't get round range-setting effects of course. > > > > You can't dump UPs to prevent damage if: > > 1) no damage is being done (theft of vitae) > > 2) the damage done cannot be prevented with fortitude (Blood Ire). > > I was taking that as a given but there's little shortage of damage to > prevent. But the premise "as given" (quoted in my response, but which you snipped for some reason) was: "Tremere/Assamite ranged steal blood/unpreventable combat." Conversing is more than one person speaking. [ quoted text not captured ]

"GreySeer" <e...@i.think.not> wrote in message news:<tvkj0u...@news.supernews.com>... > The only unpreventable damage that I see much of is Blood Fury, Blood Rage, > Sould Burn ( they're not *that* common ) and Blood Sweat. What, no one uses Weather Control? Weather Control/Ex Nihilio is the combat trump. You can't prevent, you can't dodge, you can't S:CE, you can't maneuver away, and unless you have Undead Persistance, you can't even hit back. Thoughts Betrayed is worthless. All you can do is hope they run out of cards.

> >"James Coupe" <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote in message >news:D3YEG4Yn...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk... > >> (Anyway, I still like Quick Meld. But I'm odd.) > >In this case i'm odd too. I like quick meld. Even if didn't use it for ages. >I've experienced a !gangrel gun deck with some Quick meld, and yes it works >great. But it does nothing except great gunfights... Reyda, Check out the September Caitiff Newsletter for my deck of the month "Basilia's Brigade". >Why is quick meld underrated and underused ? >First who has superior protean anyway ? >1-Gangrel : >-can still use Drawing out the beast if they want to stay close. >-why the hell a gangrel would like long range combat, providing they have >plenty of aggravated claws and mucho prevention ? >-the only thing you want to play at long range is Body Flare. Hell, if your >opponent dodges or end combat, its's 2 blood wasted. Or pull out a disguised FlameThrower backed by flesh of marble or skin of night. Taste as neccessary >2-City Gangrel : >-they also have Celerity, which have a lot of similar effects : maneuvers, >dodges, combat ends (preternatural), presses and cards that provides >multiple/various effects : dodge+additional, maneuver + press, maneuver or >additional strike... >-they also have obfuscate which grants maneuver, dodges, presses > >In fact even city gangrel won't use quick meld because some cards provide >alternate effect : Pursuit and Swallowed by the night. Like Gangrel need stealth :-) >So Maybe if we see new clans/bloodlines with PRO as inclan disc, we'll see a >Quick meld boom on ebay ? > >by the way: >Imho the city gangrel have a mix of disciplines who's cool for combat but >nothing else. And the disciplines overlap but don't quite complete each >other, which is another flaw. >Too bad, since their master cards and vampires really suits me. It's all in what you make with what you have. Maybe I should post my Gangrel AntiTribue Bomb deck.. >reyda BernieTime

"BernieTime" <berni...@aol.com> wrote in message news:20011120171053...@mb-fj.aol.com... (snip)> It's all in what you make with what you have. Maybe I should post > my Gangrel AntiTribue Bomb deck.. oh you had the same silly idea too ? I dismantled the deck but the idea was kind of : enter combat, play flesh of marble, see what opponent is doing then Blur and pop out 2 bombs from pocket with disguised weapon to hit the other vampire for 10 damage. It was really, really funny except when opponent played drawing out the beast... I had around 15 flesh of marble, 12 bombs, 12 disguised weapons and some bangh nakh for backup... Of course this was before final nights. I could now add sargon fragment or Reinforcment to fetch the bombs back =) how's yours ? reyda

On Tue, 20 Nov 2001 23:26:02 +1100, "GreySeer" <e...@i.think.not> wrote: >"Derek Ray" <lor...@yah0o.com> wrote in message >news:31qjvtcim3c9r9pon...@4ax.com... >> A deck with 16 Unflinching Persistence will die against anyone not >> trying to get away from it. If you can't use it as maneuvers, you can >> only cycle 1 per combat to prevent the punch for 1 -- and you'll have a >> hand full of them in no time. > >Yes, but the only disadvantges of having a hand full of UP are: >* You can't hit for as much as you like ( not that bad really ). This is just about as terrible as it gets, actually. If you're a POT/FOR deck, the vast majority of your deck is based around combat -- it HAS to work, or you're going to die. Rushing your predator's Ozmo and only being able to punch him for 3 instead of 6 is going to make a difference of 6 pool to you. Rushing your prey's Sheldon and only hitting him for 4 means the Temptation of Greater Sleaze will still hit the table. >* You're still going to be stuck with them if the damage you are taking >cannot be prevented. Not exactly relevant, since if you're taking unpreventable damage something is much more wrong than just being stuck with a handful of UP. >The only unpreventable damage that I see much of is Blood Fury, Blood Rage, >Sould Burn ( they're not *that* common ) and Blood Sweat. Blood Sweat Weather Control. But I wouldn't worry about unpreventable damage; I'd worry about being only able to prevent 1 point of damage, which is almost as bad. >requires long range and hence UP is playable if you have FOR. Most decks >that use Theft or Soul Burn also like to be at long. There's also DotB and >Dagon's Call but there's few decks that use their unpreventable on their own >to great effect. > >( Hmm, mind you Dagon's Call + Thin Blood is pretty unplesant, that's a min >of 3 blood gone that cannot be prevented, assuming no S:CE or Dodge ) (whistling quietly) Ya think? And Thin Blood will still cost you 2 no matter what. Of course, there's also good old Wave of Lethargy, where you will be coughing up one blood PER manuever (so much for your prevent) you try to chase them down with. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Tue, 20 Nov 2001 23:51:21 +1100, "GreySeer" <e...@i.think.not> wrote: >> You can't catch the Assamites if they want to stay at long. They'll be >> packing Flash and Pursuit -- and you just won't have that much >> Unflinching Persistence available. Most good Assamite decks pack Wakes >> and assorted intercept, so your Bum's Rush manuever is gone -- meaning >> you'll need two maneuvers. > >It doesn't matter how many manuvers you need, a CR deck has that advantage >( unless someone has a permenant manuver, which the CR deck has equal access >to ) because every range starts at close. The LR deck will have a 1 manuver >deficit every round. Worse still, if you IG them, the next round is at close >reguardless. Several things. First, a close-range deck generally does NOT pack permanent maneuvers, as they're a waste of its time. Long-range decks, on the other hand, frequently do, even if it's only in the form of Zip Guns which can then be backed up by transient maneuvers. Second, a long-range deck gets to play at least one maneuver every combat. It can afford (in fact, is forced) to overload itself on maneuvers, because it will be able to cycle them much more freely. A close-range deck CANNOT afford to put too many maneuvers in, or it will simply jam up on them and die when faced with non-maneuvering decks. >I also don't see how Flash + Pursuit is any better than Unflinching >Persistence + Hidden Strength. Both have highly useable alternates uses. In Hidden Strength is irrelevant; it doesn't provide a maneuver. Flash and Pursuit both provide a maneuver, but most importantly, Pursuit provides additional strikes and can be cycled in that fashion when maneuvers aren't necessary. If you're a POT deck maneuvering back to close, your strategy (IG) is painfully obvious, and a long-range deck will gleefully waste its Pursuits to stay at long range, knowing that the first strike will be effective. What this means is that while you have only one source for maneuvers, a long-range deck can put in twice as many maneuvers as you while still being able to cycle all its cards freely when it doesn't need to run away from people. >fact, I would argue that UP + HS is _more_ useable than Flash + Pursuit. ) >e.g If you send your opponent to torpor with your first stike in the first >round you can still prevent. Of course, if you can't catch them you can't send them to torpor. >I also don't see how apportation is better than UP + HS for the same >reasons. Apportation is no more playable than UP + HS. Remember, you're not HS is not playable against the Tremere, because there's no damage to prevent from a Theft of Vitae. So if you fail to catch and grab them, then you're screwed and won't be pressing to end. You can play it on the Walk of Flame, of course, ...unless you're empty and can't pay the 1 to prevent both agg. >just fighting only Tremere. Full of HS? Rush someome who can't manuver much >and use some. Then rush the Tremere, get range close, no need for IG, hands You can't prevent more damage than you take. How can you guarantee Rushing someone who won't punch you for more than 1? Also, if you're wasting Rushes against someone just to cycle your prevent cards, you've screwed up your deck design badly. >for one, prevent ( not even necesseary if they Theft ) Disarm. If you've got >2 blood, Decapitate. Uh-huh. So now you have superior in both, AND you've included Hidden Strength, Disarm, and Decapitate in this deck, while the Tremere have simply tossed in 9,000 Apportations, stayed at long range, and completely emptied you with Thefts that your Hidden Strength was useless against. >Against your Thelerity, let them out manuver you & blood to water you, when >range is close IG ( so no unpreventable if they're even using it ), prevent, >Disarm. You might not even need to Disarm since Blood to Water costs 2. Right. So you'll gladly sacrifice all the blood off a full X-cap (the capacity of a Blood Brother, whatever it is) to play Disarm and watch a vampire who won't care about its -1 strength anyway rescue itself (or be rescued by someone else)... just so you can hunt next turn while it bleeds you for 6? This is what we call a losing strategy. >LR decks have the same problem as the kind of pot/FOR decks we're taking >about with trying to get the right number of manuvers but I think pot/FOR No. LR decks can toss in TONS of maneuvers, because they get to play one every single combat. At least. And cards like Pursuit and Apportation make things much easier for those decks. >has the advantage in that it's damage dealing cards are more useable ( close >being easier to get to by virtue of the fact that every round starts at >close ). This is the advantage that POT decks have against any NON-combat deck. However, a well-built long range deck is prepared for POT in any form, and won't be bothered by the few UP you'll have room for. >There's been a lot of talk of manuvering but POT does have one card that is >just as effective at short and long. Sacrament of Carnage, don't even bother >manuvering. It costs 1 but that's not a big deal when you have damage >prevention. Loses to Dodge and S:CE, which is why you don't see it very much except as a sideline. >I don't know that pot/FOR will be *the* combat combo to play but I think it >has the potential to be very powerful. I think it won't be that much better than plain old POT, myself -- if even better at all. Relying on two disciplines is much trickier than relying on one -- if you have a handful of POT cards you'll really be hating the guy with the Zip Gun/Mass Reality intercept deck. [ quoted text not captured ]

"Derek Ray" <lor...@yah0o.com> wrote in message news:n2dmvt8qlbd4aqhoq...@4ax.com... [ quoted text not captured ] There's no dbout that there are going to be some situations that are going to end badly for you when you've got a lot of one card in the deck, this is true reguardless of what the card is. When you've got a hand full of UP, go pick a fight with someone who is going to make you use them up. As always, luck of the draw will play a part but I still totally refute the statement that a LR deck ( cel, tha, whatever ) will hose a pot/FOR deck because of the simple fact that every round of every combat starts at close range.

"Derek Ray" <lor...@yah0o.com> wrote in message news:andmvt43l6spfvfs4...@4ax.com... > On Tue, 20 Nov 2001 23:51:21 +1100, "GreySeer" <e...@i.think.not> wrote: > > >> You can't catch the Assamites if they want to stay at long. They'll be > >> packing Flash and Pursuit -- and you just won't have that much > >> Unflinching Persistence available. Most good Assamite decks pack Wakes > >> and assorted intercept, so your Bum's Rush manuever is gone -- meaning > >> you'll need two maneuvers. > > > >It doesn't matter how many manuvers you need, a CR deck has that advantage > >( unless someone has a permenant manuver, which the CR deck has equal access > >to ) because every range starts at close. The LR deck will have a 1 manuver > >deficit every round. Worse still, if you IG them, the next round is at close > >reguardless. > > Several things. > > First, a close-range deck generally does NOT pack permanent maneuvers, > as they're a waste of its time. Long-range decks, on the other hand, > frequently do, even if it's only in the form of Zip Guns which can then > be backed up by transient maneuvers. I'll concede that CR decks don't typically pack pemenant manuvers but that's why you have a lot of UP, to counter permenant manuvers. If you don't need to counter the manuvers then you can prevent. > Second, a long-range deck gets to play at least one maneuver every > combat. It can afford (in fact, is forced) to overload itself on > maneuvers, because it will be able to cycle them much more freely. A > close-range deck CANNOT afford to put too many maneuvers in, or it will > simply jam up on them and die when faced with non-maneuvering decks. Which is why you use UP for your manuvers if playing pot/FOR, since when you don't need the manuvers you can use it for prevent. Since it only prevents one you can cycle quite a few if you like. The downfall is that you probably need to have a few Skin of Steel to soak big damage. > >I also don't see how Flash + Pursuit is any better than Unflinching > >Persistence + Hidden Strength. Both have highly useable alternates uses. In > > Hidden Strength is irrelevant; it doesn't provide a maneuver. Flash and > Pursuit both provide a maneuver, but most importantly, Pursuit provides > additional strikes and can be cycled in that fashion when maneuvers > aren't necessary. Yes, in the same way I can cycle UP by preventing damage if I don't need manuvers. > If you're a POT deck maneuvering back to close, your > strategy (IG) is painfully obvious, and a long-range deck will gleefully > waste its Pursuits to stay at long range, knowing that the first strike > will be effective. And if the dedicated LR deck gets IGed then it's stuck with striking hands for one. Whereas the pot/FOR deck has just cycled a whole bunch of UP and now has it's pot cards. > What this means is that while you have only one source for maneuvers, a > long-range deck can put in twice as many maneuvers as you while still > being able to cycle all its cards freely when it doesn't need to run > away from people. What I'm trying to say is that UP is just a cycleable as Flash or Pursuit. It has an inferior effect that sees just as much use as Flash or Pursuit so neither is more effective than the other. > >fact, I would argue that UP + HS is _more_ useable than Flash + Pursuit. ) > >e.g If you send your opponent to torpor with your first stike in the first > >round you can still prevent. > > Of course, if you can't catch them you can't send them to torpor. If I can't catch them I'm not that likely to end up worse for wear because I can potentially prevent the damage without playing additonal cards. If I do catch you though, you're in for a spot of bother. > >I also don't see how apportation is better than UP + HS for the same > >reasons. Apportation is no more playable than UP + HS. Remember, you're not > > HS is not playable against the Tremere, because there's no damage to > prevent from a Theft of Vitae. So if you fail to catch and grab them, > then you're screwed and won't be pressing to end. You can play it on > the Walk of Flame, of course, ...unless you're empty and can't pay the 1 > to prevent both agg. If Tremere Theft I don't really care, it's not damage. If I have no blood and only 1 of UP or HS then yes, I'm in trouble but we're not planning on that because we're packing a whole lot of them. > >just fighting only Tremere. Full of HS? Rush someome who can't manuver much > >and use some. Then rush the Tremere, get range close, no need for IG, hands > > You can't prevent more damage than you take. How can you guarantee > Rushing someone who won't punch you for more than 1? Also, if you're > wasting Rushes against someone just to cycle your prevent cards, you've > screwed up your deck design badly. The deck is should be designed so that this isn't necessary ( which is a metagame issue ) but it is a fallback position if you really have to do it. It's better than the alternatives. > >for one, prevent ( not even necesseary if they Theft ) Disarm. If you've got > >2 blood, Decapitate. > > Uh-huh. So now you have superior in both, AND you've included Hidden > Strength, Disarm, and Decapitate in this deck, while the Tremere have > simply tossed in 9,000 Apportations, stayed at long range, and > completely emptied you with Thefts that your Hidden Strength was useless > against. Decapitate is optional, you'd want to have some minions with POT/FOR but pot/FOR is the only mandator part of the equation discipline-wise. The Tremere are using Apportation + Theft, I'm using UP a few HS ( maybe ) + a few Disarm + a few IG. For Mr Tremere to be effective at all he's going to need what, 60/40 Apportation + Theft and then you need a Theft to be able to do more than 1 damage. All I need is to be at close and prevent your damage ( which I don't even have to do if you Theft at Close ) and I can disarm you. If you want to do more than just Theft me than that's more different cards that you need to add which reduces the chances you have of getting what you need when you need it. > >Against your Thelerity, let them out manuver you & blood to water you, when > >range is close IG ( so no unpreventable if they're even using it ), prevent, > >Disarm. You might not even need to Disarm since Blood to Water costs 2. > > Right. So you'll gladly sacrifice all the blood off a full X-cap (the > capacity of a Blood Brother, whatever it is) to play Disarm and watch a > vampire who won't care about its -1 strength anyway rescue itself (or be > rescued by someone else)... just so you can hunt next turn while it > bleeds you for 6? > > This is what we call a losing strategy. We're assuming a worst case scenario here and I win the combat. If I have to I'll diablerise your vampire to stop it bleeding for 6 or I'll go all your vampires so that you don't have anyone ready to rescue with. > >LR decks have the same problem as the kind of pot/FOR decks we're taking > >about with trying to get the right number of manuvers but I think pot/FOR > > No. LR decks can toss in TONS of maneuvers, because they get to play > one every single combat. At least. And cards like Pursuit and > Apportation make things much easier for those decks. And I'm arguing that there are always going to be oppourtunites to prevent damage to cycle UP if you need to. > >has the advantage in that it's damage dealing cards are more useable ( close > >being easier to get to by virtue of the fact that every round starts at > >close ). > > This is the advantage that POT decks have against any NON-combat deck. > However, a well-built long range deck is prepared for POT in any form, > and won't be bothered by the few UP you'll have room for. You need room for manuver + ranged strike. I need room for counter-manuver + non-ranged strike ( which is possibly only going to be hands for one if I want to go the disarm rounte ). I can afford to have slightly fewer manuvers because range always start at close. So how is it that I'll have less room for my UPs? Ok so you out manuver me in round one, you get a single strike, if you're lucky you might have a Pursuit that you didn't use for a manuver and get an additional. If it's not damage then I'm not concerned, I'm not going to torpor. If it is damage than the UPs I tried to being it back to close with will prevent. > >There's been a lot of talk of manuvering but POT does have one card that is > >just as effective at short and long. Sacrament of Carnage, don't even bother > >manuvering. It costs 1 but that's not a big deal when you have damage > >prevention. > > Loses to Dodge and S:CE, which is why you don't see it very much except > as a sideline. I've got a Giovanni deck ( although it doesn't have FOR ) that uses it quite well. Increased Strength, Sacrament, Burning Wraith and a handfull of IG. Burn those guys who want to dodge or S:CE and SoC those who want to be at long. > >I don't know that pot/FOR will be *the* combat combo to play but I think it > >has the potential to be very powerful. > > I think it won't be that much better than plain old POT, myself -- if > even better at all. Relying on two disciplines is much trickier than > relying on one -- if you have a handful of POT cards you'll really be > hating the guy with the Zip Gun/Mass Reality intercept deck. If I've got a handfull of POT cards, I'm not going to be rushing Mr Zip Gun/Mass Reality and he's not going to be intercepting me w/out Eagles Sight.

In message <andmvt43l6spfvfs4...@4ax.com>, Derek Ray <lor...@yah0o.com> writes: >>I also don't see how apportation is better than UP + HS for the same >>reasons. Apportation is no more playable than UP + HS. Remember, you're not > >HS is not playable against the Tremere, because there's no damage to >prevent from a Theft of Vitae. So if you fail to catch and grab them, >then you're screwed and won't be pressing to end. You can play it on >the Walk of Flame, of course, ...unless you're empty and can't pay the 1 >to prevent both agg. For the sake of completeness, if you're playing it against the Walk of Flame: 1) You can still cycle it. It will prevent one damage anyway, you move it from your hand. 2) If you can't prevent both agg, you probably want to prevent one anyway. You are empty, you will burn otherwise. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <n2dmvt8qlbd4aqhoq...@4ax.com>, Derek Ray <lor...@yah0o.com> writes: >This is just about as terrible as it gets, actually. If you're a >POT/FOR deck, the vast majority of your deck is based around combat -- >it HAS to work, or you're going to die. A deck with Rapid Change, Force of Will, Earth Control, Regeneration, Restoration, Rapid Healing, Movement of the Slow Body, Day Operation and Daring the Dawn could have a potentially solid focus, with Dawn Operation, Skin of Night and Flesh of Marble as a nice side-line rather than a focus. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <tvmvdbr...@news.supernews.com>, GreySeer <e...@i.think.not> writes: >> First, a close-range deck generally does NOT pack permanent maneuvers, >> as they're a waste of its time. Long-range decks, on the other hand, >> frequently do, even if it's only in the form of Zip Guns which can then >> be backed up by transient maneuvers. > >I'll concede that CR decks don't typically pack pemenant manuvers but that's >why you have a lot of UP, to counter permenant manuvers. Bum's Rush already provides a maneuver (which can be countered with a block, of course). You don't always need another. >If you don't need >to counter the manuvers then you can prevent. This is true - assuming you can, which may not be the case. (Fortitude being the 'persecuted' prevent, with all prevent damage having some problems.) >> Second, a long-range deck gets to play at least one maneuver every >> combat. It can afford (in fact, is forced) to overload itself on >> maneuvers, because it will be able to cycle them much more freely. A >> close-range deck CANNOT afford to put too many maneuvers in, or it will >> simply jam up on them and die when faced with non-maneuvering decks. > >Which is why you use UP for your manuvers if playing pot/FOR, since when you >don't need the manuvers you can use it for prevent. Since it only prevents >one you can cycle quite a few if you like. This assumes you're going up against a big combat deck. If you *are* going up against a big combat deck, it might be long range - in which case you can play for maneuver and prevent. Or it's close range, in which case you can play for prevent. However, the other case is that you are going up against a non-combat deck. Or a deck with lots of combat ignore tactics - Elysium, Ex Nihilo, Majesty. In which case, even if you do go up against them, and even if you get them to strike, you're only going to take one damage, most likely. This is where the problems with cycling quite a few can come in. How many combat decks will you likely sit at on a table? This is, of course, a meta-game issue - but in many instances, that's rather low. If you pile up too high, such that you can cycle against a big combat deck, you won't be able to cycle fast enough against a small combat deck. >The downfall is that you probably >need to have a few Skin of Steel to soak big damage. A Fortitude based deck will almost certainly have to include a variety of such cards, in order to combat many interesting and varied situations. (For instance, Skin of Steel usually sucks against "I strike for hands, that's all" deck.) >> Hidden Strength is irrelevant; it doesn't provide a maneuver. Flash and >> Pursuit both provide a maneuver, but most importantly, Pursuit provides >> additional strikes and can be cycled in that fashion when maneuvers >> aren't necessary. > >Yes, in the same way I can cycle UP by preventing damage if I don't need >manuvers. All three cards provide a maneuver, this is true. However, Pursuit provides a maneuver at inferior, as does Flash. This makes them inherently more usable. If we restrict ourselves to pot/FOR as a minimum, our smallest vampire is a 6 for that purpose. This, in part, will stock up your hand with them because you can't weenie the deck as easily. This makes them inherently less cyclable. Assuming both decks are still around for damage prevention (that is, the combat hasn't been ended), an additional strike will almost certainly be playable. A press to another round will almost certainly be playable. Prevention of damage - when up against another combat deck - is less certain. The Assamites are popular now, and the Tremere still get played. >> If you're a POT deck maneuvering back to close, your >> strategy (IG) is painfully obvious, and a long-range deck will gleefully >> waste its Pursuits to stay at long range, knowing that the first strike >> will be effective. > >And if the dedicated LR deck gets IGed then it's stuck with striking hands >for one. Whereas the pot/FOR deck has just cycled a whole bunch of UP and >now has it's pot cards. And when it's against a close range deck, it hasn't - and is stuck with a hand full of UP. >What I'm trying to say is that UP is just a cycleable as Flash or Pursuit. >It has an inferior effect that sees just as much use as Flash or Pursuit so >neither is more effective than the other. Flash and Pursuit don't rely on the other deck doing something. UP does. [ quoted text not captured ]

[snip] > >> Second, a long-range deck gets to play at least one maneuver every > >> combat. It can afford (in fact, is forced) to overload itself on > >> maneuvers, because it will be able to cycle them much more freely. A > >> close-range deck CANNOT afford to put too many maneuvers in, or it will > >> simply jam up on them and die when faced with non-maneuvering decks. > > > >Which is why you use UP for your manuvers if playing pot/FOR, since when you > >don't need the manuvers you can use it for prevent. Since it only prevents > >one you can cycle quite a few if you like. > > This assumes you're going up against a big combat deck. > > If you *are* going up against a big combat deck, it might be long range > - in which case you can play for maneuver and prevent. Or it's close > range, in which case you can play for prevent. Doesn't have to be big combat, 2 damage will let you use 2. Getting rid 2 should un-jam you. > However, the other case is that you are going up against a non-combat > deck. Or a deck with lots of combat ignore tactics - Elysium, Ex > Nihilo, Majesty. In which case, even if you do go up against them, and > even if you get them to strike, you're only going to take one damage, > most likely. > > This is where the problems with cycling quite a few can come in. > > How many combat decks will you likely sit at on a table? This is, of > course, a meta-game issue - but in many instances, that's rather low. > If you pile up too high, such that you can cycle against a big combat > deck, you won't be able to cycle fast enough against a small combat > deck. The meta-game will determine how many you will need. If you're not seeing many combat decks then you need less UP and more IG. In my meta-game nearly every deck packs some combat. > >The downfall is that you probably > >need to have a few Skin of Steel to soak big damage. > > A Fortitude based deck will almost certainly have to include a variety > of such cards, in order to combat many interesting and varied > situations. (For instance, Skin of Steel usually sucks against "I > strike for hands, that's all" deck.) > > >> Hidden Strength is irrelevant; it doesn't provide a maneuver. Flash and > >> Pursuit both provide a maneuver, but most importantly, Pursuit provides > >> additional strikes and can be cycled in that fashion when maneuvers > >> aren't necessary. > > > >Yes, in the same way I can cycle UP by preventing damage if I don't need > >manuvers. > > All three cards provide a maneuver, this is true. > > However, Pursuit provides a maneuver at inferior, as does Flash. This > makes them inherently more usable. If we restrict ourselves to pot/FOR > as a minimum, our smallest vampire is a 6 for that purpose. This, in > part, will stock up your hand with them because you can't weenie the > deck as easily. This makes them inherently less cyclable. This is how we got into the discussion in the first place. We might be seeing a lot more vampires of lower capacity makeing pot/FOR more viable. Given that the discussion is LR decks vs CR pot/FOR decks. I don't see how CEL is better than FOR. To me, UP has just as much cycle potential as Flash or Pursuit. > Assuming both decks are still around for damage prevention (that is, the > combat hasn't been ended), an additional strike will almost certainly be > playable. A press to another round will almost certainly be playable. > Prevention of damage - when up against another combat deck - is less > certain. The Assamites are popular now, and the Tremere still get > played. If the pot/FOR deck has caught you then you probably aren't going to get a second stike, the intent is to put you in torpor before additonals. If we're at long, then yes, chances are that that additional will be playable. My point is, by having lots of UP, I can be pretty sure of getting to close against those who try to manuver out. If I don't need the manuvers I can spend the UPs on prevention. > >> If you're a POT deck maneuvering back to close, your > >> strategy (IG) is painfully obvious, and a long-range deck will gleefully > >> waste its Pursuits to stay at long range, knowing that the first strike > >> will be effective. > > > >And if the dedicated LR deck gets IGed then it's stuck with striking hands > >for one. Whereas the pot/FOR deck has just cycled a whole bunch of UP and > >now has it's pot cards. > > And when it's against a close range deck, it hasn't - and is stuck with > a hand full of UP. Which can be cycled by preventing damage. > >What I'm trying to say is that UP is just a cycleable as Flash or Pursuit. > >It has an inferior effect that sees just as much use as Flash or Pursuit so > >neither is more effective than the other. > > Flash and Pursuit don't rely on the other deck doing something. UP > does. And how often do you fight combats where prevention is useless? There is going to be a minion of your predator or prey that you can rush where these UPs are going to get used, either as manuvers or prevention.

On Wed, 21 Nov 2001 20:34:12 +1100, "GreySeer" <e...@i.think.not> wrote: >pick a fight with someone who is going to make you use them up. As always, >luck of the draw will play a part but I still totally refute the statement Suggest looking up definition of "refute". You meant to say you totally disagree, since you completely ignored the post in question. >that a LR deck ( cel, tha, whatever ) will hose a pot/FOR deck because of >the simple fact that every round of every combat starts at close range. Doesn't matter where combat starts. The LR deck has twice as many maneuvers in, as well as the potential for permanents if it chooses to go that way ("gun"). A deck that wants to run away from you WILL get away from you the majority of the time; and that will wipe out any close-range deck. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Wed, 21 Nov 2001 10:46:12 +0000, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: >In message <n2dmvt8qlbd4aqhoq...@4ax.com>, Derek Ray ><lor...@yah0o.com> writes: >>This is just about as terrible as it gets, actually. If you're a >>POT/FOR deck, the vast majority of your deck is based around combat -- >>it HAS to work, or you're going to die. > >A deck with Rapid Change, Force of Will, Earth Control, Regeneration, >Restoration, Rapid Healing, Movement of the Slow Body, Day Operation and >Daring the Dawn could have a potentially solid focus, with Dawn >Operation, Skin of Night and Flesh of Marble as a nice side-line rather >than a focus. Where does the POT come into play, and how did PRO (Movement/Earth/Rapid Change/Flesh) get in that mix? =) POT/FOR, not PRO/FOR, James. =) [ quoted text not captured ]

"GreySeer" <e...@i.think.not> wrote in message news:<tvn5g9r...@news.supernews.com>... <Snip> > [snip] > If the pot/FOR deck has caught you then you probably aren't going to get a > second stike, the intent is to put you in torpor before additonals. If we're > at long, then yes, chances are that that additional will be playable. My > point is, by having lots of UP, I can be pretty sure of getting to close > against those who try to manuver out. If I don't need the manuvers I can > spend the UPs on prevention. Well, you might not get a second strike, but if you're Assimite, you might get a first strike... Which is why Cel might sometimes be better... Its really a rock paper scissors kind of thing. We can sit here and argue about how great rock is, but the thing is, is that it'll always be defeated by paper, and so on. Granted, it may not be a game with only 3 factors in it, and its not a game where only one thing counters the next, but the analogy is still applicable. Its this kind of point/counter point that makes this game so great. <Snippy> ~SV

In message <bi9nvtolc7tdatpe8...@4ax.com>, Derek Ray <lor...@yah0o.com> writes: >Where does the POT come into play, and how did PRO (Movement/Earth/Rapid >Change/Flesh) get in that mix? =) > >POT/FOR, not PRO/FOR, James. =) Shush. I'll try to remember to not post after 4 hours' sleep. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <tvn5g9r...@news.supernews.com>, GreySeer <e...@i.think.not> writes: >> If you *are* going up against a big combat deck, it might be long range >> - in which case you can play for maneuver and prevent. Or it's close >> range, in which case you can play for prevent. > >Doesn't have to be big combat, 2 damage will let you use 2. Getting rid 2 >should un-jam you. <preserved for reference> >> How many combat decks will you likely sit at on a table? This is, of >> course, a meta-game issue - but in many instances, that's rather low. >> If you pile up too high, such that you can cycle against a big combat >> deck, you won't be able to cycle fast enough against a small combat >> deck. > >The meta-game will determine how many you will need. If you're not seeing >many combat decks then you need less UP and more IG. In my meta-game nearly >every deck packs some combat. There is a significant difference, however, between "some combat" and "combat where this will be useful". I regularly see Ventrue decks pack "some combat" - mostly Obedience (combat avoidance), Elysium: The Arboretum (combat ends), Majesty (combat ends) and Skin of Something (damage prevention). Except in rare instances (drawing the one copy of Island of Yiaros, playing Luccia Paciola), if that deck gets Immortally Grappled, it will hit back for one. It's not maneuvered, it's not going to strike for 2 damage and it's a perfectly viable deck style. If, by your assertion, cycling two will unjam you, objective failed. >> However, Pursuit provides a maneuver at inferior, as does Flash. This >> makes them inherently more usable. If we restrict ourselves to pot/FOR >> as a minimum, our smallest vampire is a 6 for that purpose. This, in >> part, will stock up your hand with them because you can't weenie the >> deck as easily. This makes them inherently less cyclable. > >This is how we got into the discussion in the first place. We might be >seeing a lot more vampires of lower capacity makeing pot/FOR more viable. pot/FOR is still (by current standards) going to need at least 4 points of capacity, whereas pot/cel needs only 3. >Given that the discussion is LR decks vs CR pot/FOR decks. I don't see how >CEL is better than FOR. To me, UP has just as much cycle potential as Flash >or Pursuit. Against no maneuvers and combat ends, you can't cycle. It seems likely that a number of Necromancy based decks are going to use Ex Nihilo as combat defence (where it just won't care about your damage) where you'll be unable to convincingly maintain the integrity of your card flow. They're not going to maneuver, they're not going to hit you for *anything*. This is looking like a serious candidate for combat defence with a number of mooted big capacity Necromancy decks. >> Assuming both decks are still around for damage prevention (that is, the >> combat hasn't been ended), an additional strike will almost certainly be >> playable. A press to another round will almost certainly be playable. >> Prevention of damage - when up against another combat deck - is less >> certain. The Assamites are popular now, and the Tremere still get >> played. > >If the pot/FOR deck has caught you then you probably aren't going to get a >second stike, the intent is to put you in torpor before additonals. A number of cel/pot decks could well do similar. >If we're >at long, then yes, chances are that that additional will be playable. My >point is, by having lots of UP, I can be pretty sure of getting to close >against those who try to manuver out. If I don't need the manuvers I can >spend the UPs on prevention. You're continually ignoring the point that you can't just "spend" the UPs on prevention. >> >> If you're a POT deck maneuvering back to close, your >> >> strategy (IG) is painfully obvious, and a long-range deck will >gleefully >> >> waste its Pursuits to stay at long range, knowing that the first strike >> >> will be effective. >> > >> >And if the dedicated LR deck gets IGed then it's stuck with striking >hands >> >for one. Whereas the pot/FOR deck has just cycled a whole bunch of UP and >> >now has it's pot cards. >> >> And when it's against a close range deck, it hasn't - and is stuck with >> a hand full of UP. > >Which can be cycled by preventing damage. Not all close range decks will even bother to hit you for more than one - a lot will just strike for hands, because they're not combat decks. And *you* established that *two* will unjam you. No, sorry, two *should* unjam you. Blimey. Also, if UP is jamming you, and you need to assert two to unjam you, you're still jammed up until the moment of damage prevention - whereas the CEL based deck has already cycled them. >> >What I'm trying to say is that UP is just a cycleable as Flash or >Pursuit. >> >It has an inferior effect that sees just as much use as Flash or Pursuit >so >> >neither is more effective than the other. >> >> Flash and Pursuit don't rely on the other deck doing something. UP >> does. > >And how often do you fight combats where prevention is useless? This is the point. Prevention for 1 (a non-combative deck) is not effective, by your own standards. A number of deck styles are coming forward as viable now where your prevention is also useless. [ quoted text not captured ]

> >> >What I'm trying to say is that UP is just a cycleable as Flash or > >> >Pursuit. > >> >It has an inferior effect that sees just as much use as Flash or > >> >Pursuit so neither is more effective than the other. > >> > >> Flash and Pursuit don't rely on the other deck doing something. UP > >> does. > > > >And how often do you fight combats where prevention is useless? > > This is the point. Prevention for 1 (a non-combative deck) is not > effective, by your own standards. A number of deck styles are coming > forward as viable now where your prevention is also useless. But the assumption is that we're under IG, so all those 'unpreventable damage' decks are hosed from the start (since the only way to avoid IG is by maneuvering to long, and since the arguement is that UP is jamming your hand, that won't be an issue either). You'll always have at least one damage to prevent or, against many combat decks, more. Flux

Flux <fl...@netc.pt> wrote: > But the assumption is that we're under IG, so all those 'unpreventable > damage' decks are hosed from the start (since the only way to avoid IG is by > maneuvering to long, and since the arguement is that UP is jamming your > hand, that won't be an issue either). You'll always have at least one damage > to prevent or, against many combat decks, more. If you're jammed on UP, and at close range, you won't be able to reliably have IG in your hand (which you have to play before the damage prevention step). So the THA player will still be able to hit your with Blood Ire, and you'll still be unable to cycle UP (nothing to prevent). [ quoted text not captured ]

On Wed, 21 Nov 2001 21:09:48 +1100, "GreySeer" <e...@i.think.not> wrote: >"Derek Ray" <lor...@yah0o.com> wrote in message >news:andmvt43l6spfvfs4...@4ax.com... >> First, a close-range deck generally does NOT pack permanent maneuvers, >> as they're a waste of its time. Long-range decks, on the other hand, >> frequently do, even if it's only in the form of Zip Guns which can then >> be backed up by transient maneuvers. > >I'll concede that CR decks don't typically pack pemenant manuvers but that's >why you have a lot of UP, to counter permenant manuvers. If you don't need >to counter the manuvers then you can prevent. Here's the point that you're missing; if you have enough maneuvers in your deck to catch a long-range deck consistently, then you'll be screwed when you sit next to non-combat decks that do nothing but punch for 1 (if that). Assume your deck has enough UP that you can always have 2 of them in hand. This is enough to have a good shot at catching long-range decks, although the Assamites will probably still get away from you with Flash/Pursuit. Anyway; when you sit down next to the S:CE deck, you're going to be screwed, because it will be punching "hands for 1" every single time. You'll only be able to play one UP per combat, and as LSJ pointed out, that will be AFTER you need the IG to keep it from playing S:CE (and if it ends combat, you'll be playing NO UP whatsoever). If you have Hidden Strength in your deck as well (as you claimed elsewhere), now you're REALLY screwed up with prevent cards. I realize that your local metagame is heavy combat, and that's fine and all. But abstract deck theory such as this HAS to involve the assumption of a complete lack of knowledge of what you'll be sitting next to, and the assumption that whatever you sit next to will be effective at what it does. Given these two assumptions, and the knowledge that combat is much harder to win with, you can make a third assumption that you'll most often be sitting next to NON-combat decks. As such, you want to tailor the amount of UP in your deck for NON-combat, so you don't get screwed by sitting next to the S:CE deck... and when you do that, you no longer have enough UP to catch a long-range combat deck. The assumption that you can just Rush cross-table to find someone who'll punch you for 2 or more is also shown faulty here, as there may be NO combat decks at your table, much less ones who want to help you. Long-range decks, on the other hand, have the advantage during building; since they want to be at long range against either a combat deck OR a non-combat deck, they can put tons of maneuvers in. They get to play at least one every combat, no matter WHAT the other deck is playing. Their permanents are never wasted, as they can always maneuver with the transients to cycle cards, and save the permanents for when they have no transients. The long-range styles that can do unpreventable damage (Assamites, Tremere) both have the additional advantage of dual-purpose cards going for them; Celerity provides Flash/Pursuit, which can be cycled whether or not your opponent's deck hits you. Thaumaturgy provides Apportation, which is both a maneuver AND a press card; a THA deck in hand jam simply maneuvers with Apportation, strikes with hands at long range for 1, presses with Apportation, maneuvers with Apportation... and so on until it gets the cards it needs. Same with Celerity; you just Flash for maneuver to long, strike-hands, Pursuit for an additional strike-hands, press from the Flash, play a second Flash to maneuver... See where I'm coming from now? UP in a close range deck can't freely cycle itself; you have to be getting hit somehow or have someone maneuvering away from you. >> What this means is that while you have only one source for maneuvers, a >> long-range deck can put in twice as many maneuvers as you while still >> being able to cycle all its cards freely when it doesn't need to run >> away from people. > >What I'm trying to say is that UP is just a cycleable as Flash or Pursuit. >It has an inferior effect that sees just as much use as Flash or Pursuit so >neither is more effective than the other. Hardly. See above. I can use up an infinite supply of Flash/Pursuit in a single combat, assuming superior CEL and an opponent who plays no cards. You CAN'T do the same thing with UP/Hidden Strength, because when you maneuver to long with UP, I just strike-hands (and you can't press since you can't play HS)... and if you stay at close and prevent with HS, you can't play the UP because I'm only doing 1 point of damage. >If I can't catch them I'm not that likely to end up worse for wear because I >can potentially prevent the damage without playing additonal cards. If I do >catch you though, you're in for a spot of bother. You can't prevent Theft or Blood Sweat, which is what is most likely to happen to you if you don't catch me. >If Tremere Theft I don't really care, it's not damage. If I have no blood >and only 1 of UP or HS then yes, I'm in trouble but we're not planning on >that because we're packing a whole lot of them. Uh. Let's look at Saxum for a second. He's a 6-cap with pot/FOR, almost exactly what you need for this deck. He can be found in the Gargoyles preview: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/BLgar.html My current Thelerity deck can empty him in round 1 with Theft/Blur/Theft/Theft. Are you SURE you don't care about it not being damage? And just for additional nuisance, I'm going to retool that deck to be slightly different; Weather Control at inferior, Flash to long, Theft, Pursuit, Theft, use Flash's press... 6 points of blood lost, I gain 2 blood, and if you weren't full, you're in torpor at the start of round 2. If you ARE full, I can play Weather Control at superior and you will still be in torpor, though I'll only gain 1 blood. All your prevent cards will be worthless. If you're chasing after me, I play Pursuit at inferior, sacrificing the additional strike to guarantee long range. I also have the option to press to END if I don't have another Flash in hand for the next round; not perfect for me, but I'm still up 1 blood and you're down 3. See the problem? >> Uh-huh. So now you have superior in both, AND you've included Hidden >> Strength, Disarm, and Decapitate in this deck, while the Tremere have >> simply tossed in 9,000 Apportations, stayed at long range, and >> completely emptied you with Thefts that your Hidden Strength was useless >> against. > >Decapitate is optional, you'd want to have some minions with POT/FOR but >pot/FOR is the only mandator part of the equation discipline-wise. The >Tremere are using Apportation + Theft, I'm using UP a few HS ( maybe ) + a >few Disarm + a few IG. For Mr Tremere to be effective at all he's going to With only a few IG you'll die against S:CE, Dodge, and any Celerity combat deck. >need what, 60/40 Apportation + Theft and then you need a Theft to be able to Generally 16/16 suffice just nicely in a mono-THA deck. >do more than 1 damage. All I need is to be at close and prevent your damage Weather Control will handle any damage I require. A mono-THA deck is more powerful than advertised, although it loses badly against S:CE. The only cards required are Bum's Rush, Weather Control, and Apportation/Theft of Vitae in spades. Picture this scenario: Magdalena Schaefer Bum's Rushes a full Sheldon. Sheldon looks puzzled. -- round 1 -- Before range, she plays a Weather Control at superior. Both take 1 point of damage immediately. Sheldon looks annoyed. She maneuvers with Apportation. Sheldon idles and fondles his Torn Signpost. She strikes with Theft of Vitae superior and burns an additional blood (note card text on Magdalena carefully!). She is now empty. Strikes resolve, Magdalena fills up to 2, Sheldon is at 6. Magdalena presses with Apportation. -- round 2 -- Weather Control hits both vampires for 2 points of damage. Magdalena is empty, and Sheldon is at 4 and pissed off. Magdalena maneuvers with Apportation again, and strikes with Theft of Vitae superior. She burns an additional blood for using the strike, and remains empty (since empty vampires ignore "burn blood" effects, and Maggie's text does NOT use the "burn to" wording, this works). Strikes resolve, Magdalena fills up to 2, Sheldon is also at 2. Sheldon eyes his Skin of Steel and Unflinching Persistence ruefully. Magdalena presses with Apportation. -- round 3 -- Weather Control sends both vampires to torpor with 3 unpreventable damage. Who came out ahead here? Total cards used: 1 Bum's Rush, 1 Weather Control, 4 Apportation, 2 Theft of Vitae... and a full 9-cap torporized for the cost of my 2-cap weenie. An early version of this deck is archived at: http://people.atl.mediaone.net/intj/jpa/decks/, under my name and the title "Somebody get an Ashtray". This version was created before I owned more than 7 Apportations; to update it to a more modern, effective version, I'd remove all the Walk of Flame, add in 4 more THA skill cards instead of Havens, replace all the Dead End Alley with Apportation (which I actually own now and can do), replace 4 Thefts with 4 more Bum's Rushes, and replace 1 Mob Connections with 1 Coven. I'd also swap out one Merrill for one Aisling Sturbridge. The deck as listed torporized/burned 11 vamps in one game, however. Lots of fun, although a bit tricky to get multiple ousts with. >( which I don't even have to do if you Theft at Close ) and I can disarm >you. If you want to do more than just Theft me than that's more different >cards that you need to add which reduces the chances you have of getting >what you need when you need it. With 16 Apportation in my deck, how exactly do you plan to catch me? Put 16 UP in yours? You'll die against non-combat. >> Right. So you'll gladly sacrifice all the blood off a full X-cap (the >> capacity of a Blood Brother, whatever it is) to play Disarm and watch a >> vampire who won't care about its -1 strength anyway rescue itself (or be >> rescued by someone else)... just so you can hunt next turn while it >> bleeds you for 6? >> >> This is what we call a losing strategy. > >We're assuming a worst case scenario here and I win the combat. If I have to If you have an empty 6-cap and I have a 6-cap with 5 blood on it in torpor, *I* have won this combat. My 6-cap will be rescuing self on my next turn, assuming my other vampires don't pick it back up immediately (if it's my turn) or I don't make a deal with your prey to rescue my vamp so I can put more pressure on you. If you're my predator, even better; I simply rescue myself immediately. >I'll diablerise your vampire to stop it bleeding for 6 or I'll go all your >vampires so that you don't have anyone ready to rescue with. With what vampire do you intend to diablerize? Your guy is hunting next turn, and if you have more than 1 vampire out, so do I. I block your diablerie attempt and empty your NEXT vampire. Your prey will be DELIGHTED to help me out with a few rescue actions that he won't even have to pay for (your vampires are the ones spending the cost here). >> Loses to Dodge and S:CE, which is why you don't see it very much except >> as a sideline. > >I've got a Giovanni deck ( although it doesn't have FOR ) that uses it quite >well. Increased Strength, Sacrament, Burning Wraith and a handfull of IG. >Burn those guys who want to dodge or S:CE and SoC those who want to be at >long. Realistically, though, you'll usually end up having a BW/IG in hand when the guy maneuvers away, and a Sacrament/IS in hand when he plays S:CE. It's very tough to actually make the above deck work consistently -- it's highly dependent on opponents continuing to blindly walk into your combo. >> I think it won't be that much better than plain old POT, myself -- if >> even better at all. Relying on two disciplines is much trickier than >> relying on one -- if you have a handful of POT cards you'll really be >> hating the guy with the Zip Gun/Mass Reality intercept deck. > >If I've got a handfull of POT cards, I'm not going to be rushing Mr Zip >Gun/Mass Reality and he's not going to be intercepting me w/out Eagles >Sight. And what if he's your prey? [ quoted text not captured ]

"Emmit Svenson" <emmits...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:75bdf7ed.01112...@posting.google.com... [ quoted text not captured ] Going that route, Weather Control + Dawn Operation + Skin of Night is the ultimate combat trump, all the damage is aggrevated ( except for you )

"Derek Ray" <lor...@yah0o.com> wrote in message news:8d9nvt41gp3n4vitg...@4ax.com... > On Wed, 21 Nov 2001 20:34:12 +1100, "GreySeer" <e...@i.think.not> wrote: > > >pick a fight with someone who is going to make you use them up. As always, > >luck of the draw will play a part but I still totally refute the statement > > Suggest looking up definition of "refute". You meant to say you totally > disagree, since you completely ignored the post in question. I didn't ignore the post, I suggest you read mine again. In the first sentance I conceded that there are always going to be situations where it ends badly for you reguardless, especially if you have a lot of one card in a deck. I then went on to re-state why I diagree with the assertion that LR decks beat CR decks even if that CR deck is using UP for it's manuvers. I disagree that LR decks can out-manuver CR decks for the following reasons * There's no reason why I can't have more transient manuvers than a LR deck * Damage prevention can be cycled just as easily as presses or additionals * Range always starts at close * Permenant manuvers can be a problem but if they're that prevalent in my metagame then I can always put in some of my own. > >that a LR deck ( cel, tha, whatever ) will hose a pot/FOR deck because of > >the simple fact that every round of every combat starts at close range. > > Doesn't matter where combat starts. The LR deck has twice as many > maneuvers in, as well as the potential for permanents if it chooses to > go that way ("gun"). A deck that wants to run away from you WILL get > away from you the majority of the time; and that will wipe out any > close-range deck. I'll concede that a gun deck has potential for more manuvers than a pot/FOR deck since it doesn't need to dedicate combat card slots to anything other than manuvers whereas the pot/FOR needs cards other than manuvers to be effective.

"vermillian" <vermil...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:f987c6cd.01112...@posting.google.com... [ quoted text not captured ] I'll agree with that. That's what is so great about the game, no matter how good the combo looks on paper there's always a counter and that counter doesn't have to be specifically tailored to counter what you're trying to do. That counter is quite possible just a basic part of how some other deck functions. I was getting up in arms over the people who are trying to tell me that any LR deck will always out manuver a CR deck ( for reasons stated in another thread ).

"James Coupe" <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote in message news:XJRhZyDB...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk... [ quoted text not captured ] I'm not sure what you're getting at there. I was just making the point that if you really have to cycle some UP, go pick a fight with a minion that can do > 1 point of damage. Getting rid of 2 UP should be enough to give you something more useful thana hand full of UP. > >> However, Pursuit provides a maneuver at inferior, as does Flash. This > >> makes them inherently more usable. If we restrict ourselves to pot/FOR > >> as a minimum, our smallest vampire is a 6 for that purpose. This, in > >> part, will stock up your hand with them because you can't weenie the > >> deck as easily. This makes them inherently less cyclable. > > > >This is how we got into the discussion in the first place. We might be > >seeing a lot more vampires of lower capacity makeing pot/FOR more viable. > > pot/FOR is still (by current standards) going to need at least 4 points > of capacity, whereas pot/cel needs only 3. pot/cel decks are typically CR, we're taking about LR vs CR decks. Specifically whatever/CEL LR decks vs pot/FOR CR decks. > >Given that the discussion is LR decks vs CR pot/FOR decks. I don't see how > >CEL is better than FOR. To me, UP has just as much cycle potential as Flash > >or Pursuit. > > Against no maneuvers and combat ends, you can't cycle. It seems likely > that a number of Necromancy based decks are going to use Ex Nihilo as > combat defence (where it just won't care about your damage) where you'll > be unable to convincingly maintain the integrity of your card flow. > They're not going to maneuver, they're not going to hit you for > *anything*. > > This is looking like a serious candidate for combat defence with a > number of mooted big capacity Necromancy decks. That's a problem for any deck that can't do agg damage. In that situation a cel deck can cycle some cards. But then again, how often is it that all of your predator's and preys minions are not manuvering and not dealing out any damage? This might be a result of my metagame but there's always a minion worth attacking that will allow me to cycle UPs if I need to. > >> Assuming both decks are still around for damage prevention (that is, the > >> combat hasn't been ended), an additional strike will almost certainly be > >> playable. A press to another round will almost certainly be playable. > >> Prevention of damage - when up against another combat deck - is less > >> certain. The Assamites are popular now, and the Tremere still get > >> played. > > > >If the pot/FOR deck has caught you then you probably aren't going to get a > >second stike, the intent is to put you in torpor before additonals. > > A number of cel/pot decks could well do similar. Not arguing that, we're talking about a cel deck that wants to be at long and is doing damage that isn't preventable. > >If we're > >at long, then yes, chances are that that additional will be playable. My > >point is, by having lots of UP, I can be pretty sure of getting to close > >against those who try to manuver out. If I don't need the manuvers I can > >spend the UPs on prevention. > > You're continually ignoring the point that you can't just "spend" the > UPs on prevention. Unflinching Persistence: Combat, Fortitude [for] Prevent 1 damage. [FOR] Maneuver; prevent up to 1 damage later this round. Only usable when choosing range. As long as damage is being dealt I can play it at inferior to prevent one. > >> >> If you're a POT deck maneuvering back to close, your > >> >> strategy (IG) is painfully obvious, and a long-range deck will > >gleefully > >> >> waste its Pursuits to stay at long range, knowing that the first strike > >> >> will be effective. > >> > > >> >And if the dedicated LR deck gets IGed then it's stuck with striking > >hands > >> >for one. Whereas the pot/FOR deck has just cycled a whole bunch of UP and > >> >now has it's pot cards. > >> > >> And when it's against a close range deck, it hasn't - and is stuck with > >> a hand full of UP. > > > >Which can be cycled by preventing damage. > > Not all close range decks will even bother to hit you for more than one > - a lot will just strike for hands, because they're not combat decks. > > And *you* established that *two* will unjam you. No, sorry, two > *should* unjam you. Blimey. > > Also, if UP is jamming you, and you need to assert two to unjam you, > you're still jammed up until the moment of damage prevention - whereas > the CEL based deck has already cycled them. UP shouldn't be jamming me for a start. Since I'm the one deciding who is getting attacked I should have a good idea about what response I'm going to get and what cards I'll need to achieve my objective. > >> >What I'm trying to say is that UP is just a cycleable as Flash or > >Pursuit. > >> >It has an inferior effect that sees just as much use as Flash or Pursuit > >so > >> >neither is more effective than the other. > >> > >> Flash and Pursuit don't rely on the other deck doing something. UP > >> does. > > > >And how often do you fight combats where prevention is useless? > > This is the point. Prevention for 1 (a non-combative deck) is not > effective, by your own standards. A number of deck styles are coming > forward as viable now where your prevention is also useless. It's not effective as an unjamming mechanism no, but I feel that there's is always going to be a combat worth fighting that will unjam you. That's also assuming that there will be a jam in the first place which is almost never the case in a cel deck and I'm saying that it's equally rare in a pot/FOR deck.

"Derek Ray" <lor...@yah0o.com> wrote in message news:r2covts2u82cfoui5...@4ax.com... [ quoted text not captured ] Given the assumptions any combat deck is in trouble unless it's the kind that dumps a whole bunch of cards before range is determined. Sure, you'll be cycling 1 card a combat as opposed to my 0 but that's not going to help either of us much. Even though we are taking in abstract, I always take the metagame into account when finalising a deck. I'll have the base of it on paper but I'll often make minor adjustments before I take it with me to playgroup X or to a tourney in region Y. If I'm in Sydney I'll add more UP, if I'm down south, I'll add more IG. > The long-range styles that can do unpreventable damage (Assamites, > Tremere) both have the additional advantage of dual-purpose cards going > for them; Celerity provides Flash/Pursuit, which can be cycled whether > or not your opponent's deck hits you. Thaumaturgy provides Apportation, > which is both a maneuver AND a press card; a THA deck in hand jam simply > maneuvers with Apportation, strikes with hands at long range for 1, > presses with Apportation, maneuvers with Apportation... and so on until > it gets the cards it needs. Same with Celerity; you just Flash for > maneuver to long, strike-hands, Pursuit for an additional strike-hands, > press from the Flash, play a second Flash to maneuver... > > See where I'm coming from now? UP in a close range deck can't freely > cycle itself; you have to be getting hit somehow or have someone > maneuvering away from you. Given that situation, yes, you can cycle a lot better than I can but in my experience there's two kinds of combat. S:CE and something other than just hands for 1. > >> What this means is that while you have only one source for maneuvers, a > >> long-range deck can put in twice as many maneuvers as you while still > >> being able to cycle all its cards freely when it doesn't need to run > >> away from people. > > > >What I'm trying to say is that UP is just a cycleable as Flash or Pursuit. > >It has an inferior effect that sees just as much use as Flash or Pursuit so > >neither is more effective than the other. > > Hardly. See above. I can use up an infinite supply of Flash/Pursuit in > a single combat, assuming superior CEL and an opponent who plays no > cards. You CAN'T do the same thing with UP/Hidden Strength, because > when you maneuver to long with UP, I just strike-hands (and you can't > press since you can't play HS)... and if you stay at close and prevent > with HS, you can't play the UP because I'm only doing 1 point of damage. HS is probably a bad example in hindsight, if I was using a lot of UP and wanted to press then I should be using Indomitability. Given that my opponent is doing absolutely nothing to me in combat, yes, CEL & THA is going to cycle a lot better than I am. [ quoted text not captured ] But now you're taking about using Blur, 3 Thefts and a Weather Control which all eat up manuver card slots, how do you plan on out manuvering me in the first place? Not that that strategy isn't highly unplesant and I'd love to see it in action. > >> Uh-huh. So now you have superior in both, AND you've included Hidden > >> Strength, Disarm, and Decapitate in this deck, while the Tremere have > >> simply tossed in 9,000 Apportations, stayed at long range, and > >> completely emptied you with Thefts that your Hidden Strength was useless > >> against. > > > >Decapitate is optional, you'd want to have some minions with POT/FOR but > >pot/FOR is the only mandator part of the equation discipline-wise. The > >Tremere are using Apportation + Theft, I'm using UP a few HS ( maybe ) + a > >few Disarm + a few IG. For Mr Tremere to be effective at all he's going to > > With only a few IG you'll die against S:CE, Dodge, and any Celerity > combat deck. Depends on what a few is, for me, a few in a combat deck is 5-6. [ quoted text not captured ] Non-combat in any playgroup I've played in = S:CE. With 16 Apportations you're going to have almost as much trouble as me and you've got little chance of doing anything except Weather Controlling both the opposing minion and yourself, at least I've got the potential to cycle some non-UP combat cards if I can IG. > >> Right. So you'll gladly sacrifice all the blood off a full X-cap (the > >> capacity of a Blood Brother, whatever it is) to play Disarm and watch a > >> vampire who won't care about its -1 strength anyway rescue itself (or be > >> rescued by someone else)... just so you can hunt next turn while it > >> bleeds you for 6? > >> > >> This is what we call a losing strategy. > > > >We're assuming a worst case scenario here and I win the combat. If I have to > > If you have an empty 6-cap and I have a 6-cap with 5 blood on it in > torpor, *I* have won this combat. My 6-cap will be rescuing self on my > next turn, assuming my other vampires don't pick it back up immediately > (if it's my turn) or I don't make a deal with your prey to rescue my > vamp so I can put more pressure on you. If you're my predator, even > better; I simply rescue myself immediately. > > >I'll diablerise your vampire to stop it bleeding for 6 or I'll go all your > >vampires so that you don't have anyone ready to rescue with. > > With what vampire do you intend to diablerize? Your guy is hunting next > turn, and if you have more than 1 vampire out, so do I. I block your > diablerie attempt and empty your NEXT vampire. Your prey will be > DELIGHTED to help me out with a few rescue actions that he won't even > have to pay for (your vampires are the ones spending the cost here). If you're playing THA only you are probably going to be at an advantage since your vamps are most likely smaller than mine and therefore you have more than me. Given the assumption that all I did was Disarm you and not actually belt you into Torpor. > >> Loses to Dodge and S:CE, which is why you don't see it very much except > >> as a sideline. > > > >I've got a Giovanni deck ( although it doesn't have FOR ) that uses it quite > >well. Increased Strength, Sacrament, Burning Wraith and a handfull of IG. > >Burn those guys who want to dodge or S:CE and SoC those who want to be at > >long. > > Realistically, though, you'll usually end up having a BW/IG in hand when > the guy maneuvers away, and a Sacrament/IS in hand when he plays S:CE. > It's very tough to actually make the above deck work consistently -- > it's highly dependent on opponents continuing to blindly walk into your > combo. I usually find that I have a BW, IG and a Sacrament in my hand all at the same time. Since I'm the one picking the fights, I tend not to rush a S:CE deck without an IG. That Giovanni deck's weakest point is actually the lack of any ability to prevent damage aside from Leather Jackets. If I play a BW or get hit for a reasonable amount in return and have no taste it starts to go downhill. That's a totally different discussion though. Just making the point that that deck seems to work just fine for me. > >> I think it won't be that much better than plain old POT, myself -- if > >> even better at all. Relying on two disciplines is much trickier than > >> relying on one -- if you have a handful of POT cards you'll really be > >> hating the guy with the Zip Gun/Mass Reality intercept deck. > > > >If I've got a handfull of POT cards, I'm not going to be rushing Mr Zip > >Gun/Mass Reality and he's not going to be intercepting me w/out Eagles > >Sight. > > And what if he's your prey? Focus on my predator until I don't have a hand full of POT cards. If I'm playing POT only then that's a totally different story. I'm yet to be convinced that CEL + whatever is better than pot/FOR but I will concede that with the addition of Weather Control, a THA only deck will best pot/FOT most of the time but pot/FOR will perform better against S:CE decks than THA. Now that I am actually slowly acquiring some Apportations. WC + Apportation + Theft sounds highly unplesant, I'll have to give it a go.

Reyda wrote: > > "Raille" <rai...@mich.com> wrote in message > news:3BFA34ED...@mich.com... > > ( >> = derek's post here) > > > A deck with 16 Unflinching Persistence will die against anyone not > > > trying to get away from it. If you can't use it as maneuvers, you can > > > only cycle 1 per combat to prevent the punch for 1 -- and you'll have a > > > hand full of them in no time. > > > > > > > Not true. Some cards have Superior's. > > > > Raille > > What do you MEAN ?? > > reyda Spoken out of context. Had some card text migration. ;) But if you block people that do 2 hand damage, you could cycle several a turn. Raille.

On Thu, 22 Nov 2001 12:38:57 +1100, "GreySeer" <e...@i.think.not> wrote: >"Derek Ray" <lor...@yah0o.com> wrote in message >news:8d9nvt41gp3n4vitg...@4ax.com... >> On Wed, 21 Nov 2001 20:34:12 +1100, "GreySeer" <e...@i.think.not> wrote: >> >> >pick a fight with someone who is going to make you use them up. As >always, >> >luck of the draw will play a part but I still totally refute the >statement >> >> Suggest looking up definition of "refute". You meant to say you totally >> disagree, since you completely ignored the post in question. > >I didn't ignore the post, I suggest you read mine again. In the first >sentance I conceded that there are always going to be situations where it >ends badly for you reguardless, especially if you have a lot of one card in >a deck. I then went on to re-state why I diagree with the assertion that LR >decks beat CR decks even if that CR deck is using UP for it's manuvers. Disagreement isn't refutation. Note my objection. >I disagree that LR decks can out-manuver CR decks for the following reasons >* There's no reason why I can't have more transient manuvers than a LR deck Disproven in the other post. There are plenty of reasons, not the least of which being that you'll be screwed when nobody is trying to get away from you. >* Damage prevention can be cycled just as easily as presses or additionals Disproven in the other post. I can always press and additional strike against someone who is punching for 1. You can't prevent more than 1. >* Range always starts at close If I have twice the maneuvers in my deck that you do, this is no longer relevant until the endgame, when we're both out of transients. >* Permenant manuvers can be a problem but if they're that prevalent in my >metagame then I can always put in some of my own. Disproven in the other post; realistically, you have no idea what you're going to come up against, so planning to come up against combat only works when you're playing against a metagame and decks that you know. >I'll concede that a gun deck has potential for more manuvers than a pot/FOR >deck since it doesn't need to dedicate combat card slots to anything other >than manuvers whereas the pot/FOR needs cards other than manuvers to be >effective. Actually, a gun deck (in most cases) really needs to be using additional strikes to be most effective. But that's handled by Pursuit, or just by Flash's press to continue (if you want to go the 20x Flash route). [ quoted text not captured ]

On Thu, 22 Nov 2001 13:54:01 +1100, "GreySeer" <e...@i.think.not> wrote: >Given the assumptions any combat deck is in trouble unless it's the kind >that dumps a whole bunch of cards before range is determined. Sure, you'll >be cycling 1 card a combat as opposed to my 0 but that's not going to help >either of us much. Well, there IS the assumption above that combat decks are more difficult to win with, and this is one reason why (dumping a whole bunch of cards before range is determined is highly vulnerable to S:CE, unless you can also play IG or Thoughts Betrayed). Moving 1 card per combat is significantly more helpful than 0, obviously. But there's an additional factor available for the CEL deck, and that's Psyche!. You dump a maneuver and strike hands at long, they play S:CE, you play Psyche! and restart combat. In situations where defeating S:CE is not necessary, you can always burn Psyche! for a press, or to restart against a Carrion Crows/Superior Mettle-playing vampire. As I note elsewhere, mono-THA is highly vulnerable to S:CE, although Perfect Clarity DOES go a long way towards helping that. But mono-THA makes up for it by being able to ignore Fortitude with impunity, something almost no combat deck can do. >Even though we are taking in abstract, I always take the metagame into >account when finalising a deck. I'll have the base of it on paper but I'll >often make minor adjustments before I take it with me to playgroup X or to a >tourney in region Y. If I'm in Sydney I'll add more UP, if I'm down south, >I'll add more IG. Hmmm. I've GOT to contend that this may work for you in theory, but in practice it's absolutely impossible to pull off. On our side of the pond (USA), even the most 'predictable' players tend to be nearly impossible to predict -- which makes for a quite interesting (and challenging) environment to play in. But it also means that trying to play the metagame can very much get you burnt. >Given that situation, yes, you can cycle a lot better than I can but in my >experience there's two kinds of combat. S:CE and something other than just >hands for 1. This is definitely where our experience differs. There are so many different ways to commit combat that I can't even begin to count them all. My most recent game consisted of decks with, as a combat sideline: - Carrion Crows/Pushing the Limit/Thrown Gate - Melee Weapon/Celerity/Blur - Darkness Within/Arms of the Abyss/strike-hands - !Ventrue prevent-the-world - THA/for Theft/Burst/prevent and some Rotschreck The first two decks would have given you plenty of damage to prevent, although you might have quickly run out against the first. But sitting next to the 3rd or 4th deck would have jammed you up on maneuvers rapidly, and sitting next to the 5th deck would have gotten you dead the first time you failed to play an IG, since you can't prevent Rotschreck or Theft. Two of the decks were, for your purposes, strike-hands for 1. Two of them were doing unpreventable damage, and one of them was doing too MUCH damage to easily prevent with UP alone -- it took several Skin of Steel/etc. to handle properly. And its damage all worked under IG. There are also many decks who disdain combat entirely, or whose combat defense is Obedience, bloat, having too many weenies to kill, etc. These decks will strike-hands for 1 over and over. >HS is probably a bad example in hindsight, if I was using a lot of UP and >wanted to press then I should be using Indomitability. Given that my Nope. You want to be using HS, because it's better than Indomitability in almost all situations (the ability to spend 1 blood and prevent 2 agg with a single card and inferior Fortitude is WELL worth it). And your deck isn't really going to WANT to press, since that's what IG is for, right? >opponent is doing absolutely nothing to me in combat, yes, CEL & THA is >going to cycle a lot better than I am. If you're playing IG on people, a lot of decks -can't- do anything more than strike-hands for 1 in combat. That Melee Weapon/Blur deck I cited above, for example, causes you some difficulty; if you IG it, it hits you for 1 and you jam up on maneuvers/prevent. If you DON'T IG it, it Dodges and hits you for 4-6 with a Blur. >But now you're taking about using Blur, 3 Thefts and a Weather Control which >all eat up manuver card slots, how do you plan on out manuvering me in the >first place? Not that that strategy isn't highly unplesant and I'd love to >see it in action. There's plenty of room in the deck for everything, although you end up going up to 90 cards and not having much more in the way of bleed offense other than a couple bleed retainers, Laptops, and Ur-Sluggy or Al-Ashrad's inherent +1 bleed. On the positive side, your Masters can be a Minion Tap down to 2-3, so you end up getting a goodly number of LARGE minions out, and have reasonably effective bloat potential. >> With only a few IG you'll die against S:CE, Dodge, and any Celerity >> combat deck. > >Depends on what a few is, for me, a few in a combat deck is 5-6. That's about what I thought a few was, too. When you're Rushing backwards to kill Jost Werner with a Pulse, it's sort of imperative to be able to guarantee that he dies. =) >> With 16 Apportation in my deck, how exactly do you plan to catch me? >> Put 16 UP in yours? You'll die against non-combat. > >Non-combat in any playgroup I've played in = S:CE. With 16 Apportations >you're going to have almost as much trouble as me and you've got little >chance of doing anything except Weather Controlling both the opposing minion >and yourself, at least I've got the potential to cycle some non-UP combat >cards if I can IG. As mentioned elsewhere, mono-THA *does* lose horribly against S:CE, although I suppose I could stick some Perfect Clarity in the deck for Merrill/Aisling to use on their Bum's Rushes. But non-combat is not always S:CE; a lot of times it's simply Dodge, Flesh of Marble, or lots of Fortitude. Occasionally it's Masochism, where they LET you hit them and then prevent. Sometimes it's just Zip Gun/transient maneuvers, to try to get out of the way. >If you're playing THA only you are probably going to be at an advantage >since your vamps are most likely smaller than mine and therefore you have >more than me. Given the assumption that all I did was Disarm you and not >actually belt you into Torpor. The objection was to the "prevent/Disarm/diablerize" idea, yes. It's much less effective than actually pounding all the blood off someone. >I usually find that I have a BW, IG and a Sacrament in my hand all at the >same time. Since I'm the one picking the fights, I tend not to rush a S:CE >deck without an IG. That Giovanni deck's weakest point is actually the lack What if it's your predator and bleeding you for about 70 per turn? This is my point. Sometimes you absolutely, positively, MUST Rush backwards in your own defense. >I'm yet to be convinced that CEL + whatever is better than pot/FOR but I >will concede that with the addition of Weather Control, a THA only deck will >best pot/FOT most of the time but pot/FOR will perform better against S:CE >decks than THA. Celerity is simply the BEST combat support discipline out there. If you're worried about getting caught at close range, an extensive mix of Flash/Pursuit/Psyche! will deal with most problems for you; a pot/CEL deck that carries nothing but Sewer Lids can do lots of damage this way at 3-6 per round (which also renders Skin of Steel's superior slightly less useful), and it's perfectly viable for them to include 16+ Flash in the deck. Against close-range combat, they escape and use the Psyche! to press, as opposed to the Flash's optional press. Against S:CE, they have Psyche! to restart combat and plenty of Flash to get back to long. Against wacko combat, they have multiple presses/maneuvers/restarts available as necessary, although other long-range combat will give them some trouble. In the above described deck, I'd consider using: 16 Flash 6 Pursuit 8 Psyche! although I might swap out the 6 Pursuit for 6 Side Strike, depending on whether or not I was REALLY worried about long-range combat being around. >Now that I am actually slowly acquiring some Apportations. WC + Apportation >+ Theft sounds highly unplesant, I'll have to give it a go. It really offends the heavy Fortitude players, I'll say that. The Ventrue definitely get kind of pissed off when Blythe wanders in, torporizes your vampire, and ends up only down 1 blood. A lot of quick math is called for to determine whether you should play the WC at superior or inferior -- vamps with 6 blood, for example, can be dealt with by WC/theft/press/theft/press, and while it's more intensive on the Thefts and presses, it's also a lot easier on your vamp. [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] Similar but different :-) Okay, Okay.. I dug it out of my archive, and posted it below. Doesn't whip out tons of bombs at once, but how many minions really want to suck up 5point of bomb damage or the occasional agg from a WPG? My combat training started out with Nossie rush (back in the day), and still like powerstriking on the first blow. Though probably include a few Acrobatics cards to deal with dodgers, maybe a Hidden Lurker/Psyche to deal with Combat Ending blockers. I cobbled this together before Final Nights, so would probably swap a few cards in/out. Note that the deck is currently running at 62 Cards having been thrown together to test the idea. Actually had very good results, just haven't taken the time to refine it. DECK: Christmas at Ellen's Created By: Bernie Bresnahan Last Updated: 1.15.2001 CRYPT 1x Huang (1-Pander) pro 1x Sadie (2-!Gangrel) pro 1x Chandler (3-Gangrel) PRO 1x Daliyah (4-Nosferatu) PRO obf 2x Wren (4-!Gangrel) pro obf cel 1x Zebulon (5-Malkavian) pro OBF aus dom 1x Pieter (6-!Gangrel) PRO OBF for tha 4x Ellen Fence(8-!Gangrel) Ambush Pred/Prey: PRO OBF CEL aus MASTERS: 11 Cards 3x Tribute to the Master 2x Twisted Forest (2): Tap} !Gangel +1 stealth 2x Legendary Vampire (2): +2 Bleed, +2 Vote 2x Pentex Loves You (2): Tap} Sabbat Vamp burn 1 blood for +1 bleed 2x Slave Auction OBFUSCATE: 16 Cards 9x Disguised Weapon 4x Faceless Night 3x Spying Mission PROTEAN: 18 Cards 8x Quick Meld: Maneuver; Burn 1 for add maneuver 10x Flesh of Marble 6x Computer Hacking OTHER: 17 Cards 2x Taste of Vitae 2x Inveraray, Scotland (1B) PRESENTS: 4x White Phospherous Grenade (1) 9x Bomb (1) I put the grenades in here to deal with the few lame-o's that can't deal with agg. damage. Even Beast might want to think twice about messing with Ellen (or Wren for that matter). One of these days I'll get around to tweaking this deck and make it REALLY nasty.. Bernie Bresnahan Prince of Lansing, MI.

"GreySeer" <e...@i.think.not> wrote in message news:<tvoq8g3...@news.supernews.com>... [snip Derek's stuff...snipping is good...snip lots...yay] > But now you're taking about using Blur, 3 Thefts and a Weather Control which > all eat up manuver card slots, how do you plan on out manuvering me in the > first place? Not that that strategy isn't highly unplesant and I'd love to > see it in action. No, it doesn't eat up all the Maneuver card slots. I built one of these a little while ago, and while it generally has to be a pure rush deck to cycle well, I did win a 4-player table with it. Even took out another combat deck. I think my proportions were something like: 4 Haven Uncovered 12 Bum's Rush 8-12 Flash, maybe a few more... 8-12 Blur 16 Theft of Vitae 6-8 Walk of Flame 8 Psyche Weather Control instead of Walk of Flame, and you're still doing fine. At the high end, that's only about 70 cards, so you have room for some more masters and a few Blood to Water or something else nasty. [snip Derek's looooooong example...was that really necessary to quote?] > Non-combat in any playgroup I've played in = S:CE. With 16 Apportations > you're going to have almost as much trouble as me and you've got little > chance of doing anything except Weather Controlling both the opposing minion > and yourself, at least I've got the potential to cycle some non-UP combat > cards if I can IG. Of course, by increasing the minion size a little and adding DOM, Derek can have Thoughts Betrayed, which allows long *and* no S:CE. > I usually find that I have a BW, IG and a Sacrament in my hand all at the > same time. Since I'm the one picking the fights, I tend not to rush a S:CE Gah. Expensive. > I'm yet to be convinced that CEL + whatever is better than pot/FOR but I CEL + stuff is better against another combat deck... CEL = maneuvers, guaranteeing that you get the range you want = additional strikes if necessary = possible jam against non-combat, but Psyche helps, and you can burn at least 1 maneuver per combat if nothing else. stuff (qui,tha) = unpreventable damage/blood loss, agg, whatever (pot) = big strikes at range (Increased Strength + Gate/Sewer Lid) FOR = prevent, sure...Skin of Steel works great against Gate/Sewer Lid. Doesn't work against qui/tha. = maneuvers, maybe...as Derek mentions, not freely cyclable against other close-range decks, as the pot/FOR wants close too. Jam bait against non-combat. Sorry...I guess I'm just restating what has been said elsewhere, but I thought I'd put it all right next to each other for clarity. > will concede that with the addition of Weather Control, a THA only deck will > best pot/FOT most of the time but pot/FOR will perform better against S:CE > decks than THA. True, but you're not really comparing equivalent decks, if you ask me. You can find DOM/tha for about the same cost as pot/FOR right now, possibly cheaper. Thoughts Betrayed is nice against S:CE, as I'm sure you're aware. > Now that I am actually slowly acquiring some Apportations. WC + Apportation > + Theft sounds highly unplesant, I'll have to give it a go. Apportation is the bomb. Really hope it gets reprinted, along with some other new THA stuff. Will sell soul to provide input. :) Hint, hint. Xian

vermil...@yahoo.com (vermillian) wrote in message news:<f987c6cd.01111...@posting.google.com>... > smci...@onesourcecorp.com (Shaun McIsaac) wrote in message news:<8f507d2e.0111...@posting.google.com>... > > >which, as always, will be trumped by > > >1) itself and a better draw > > >2) Tremere/Assamite ranged steal blood/unpreventable combat. > > 3) The Gargoyles. > > The problem with them is that half of their deck is going to be messed > up with getting over the slave limitation thing. > > Sure, I guess we could play 5 copies of some cheap 2 cap Tremere, get > it out, and then go Gargoyle crazy, or we could bring out an indy > gargoyle and then clan impersonate... But a STRAIGHT pot/for deck > would be better than this deck, as its not caught up in a few card > slots trying to overcome some limitation. > > Of course, now if the Gargoyle Disc and Flight have good cards to > them, this might be a different story... > > ~SV Based on rewind time, I'd imagine most vis cards to have thaum modes as well, making the integration fairly painless. The tremere already have good for and pot vamps: Ulugh Beg (both) Cardano (FOR) Spirodonas (pot) Muaziz (for) With a slave gargoyle out, spirodonas can bleed to force out a block, and then have the gargoyle eat the blocker. And stay untaped. I expect Vis to be pretty powerful based on the stuff we've seen so far.

pd...@aol.comANTISPAM (Peter D Bakija) wrote in message news:<20011118143654...@mb-mi.aol.com>... > Rush someone, manuver with Unflinching Persistance as needed, Immortal Grapple, > hit with some Potence strike, prevent all their damage with Skin of Steel, > Disarm, Decapitate. Taste as needed. Ultimate fighting champion. (SNIP) > Is this going to be a good deck? I dunno--depends on what the vampire selection > looks like, but it will certainly be the ultimate combat trump deck. I have followed the conversation on this thread with interest and have to remind that almost any potence (even if it had fortitude) combat deck can be overcome with a simple FOR-rush deck that uses bums rushes, trap (lots of those), undead persistence (lots of those too) and some extra prevent (intomidability mostly) and lots of weenies. It's easy, it's simple and efficient. Problems with basic potence decks come from disarms (ok sometimes from burning wrath, but that isn't very commonly used), but hey that's a rare card and none of the cards used in this rush deck are. Jukka L.

"GreySeer" <e...@i.think.not> wrote in message news:<tvolbd...@news.supernews.com>... > "Emmit Svenson" <emmits...@hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:75bdf7ed.01112...@posting.google.com... > > > > Weather Control/Ex Nihilio is the combat trump. You can't prevent, you > > can't dodge, you can't S:CE, you can't maneuver away, and unless you > > have Undead Persistance, you can't even hit back. Thoughts Betrayed is > > worthless. All you can do is hope they run out of cards. > > Going that route, Weather Control + Dawn Operation + Skin of Night is the > ultimate combat trump, all the damage is aggrevated ( except for you ) . . . but only if you're blocked. You can't rush or block and use this combo.

In message <75bdf7ed.01112...@posting.google.com>, Emmit Svenson <emmits...@hotmail.com> writes: >> Going that route, Weather Control + Dawn Operation + Skin of Night is the >> ultimate combat trump, all the damage is aggrevated ( except for you ) > >. . . but only if you're blocked. You can't rush or block and use this combo. ... and they don't use Skin of Night or Heart of Darkness for themself. -- James Coupe When correctly viewed PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D Everything is lewd EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 I could tell you things about Peter Pan 13D7E668C3695D623D5D And the Wizard of Oz, there's a dirty old man