malkav oot and sacrificial lamb

One thing I've noticed in all these malkav oot decks is that nobody's playing the free diablarie card in them. Why not? If you can only rush one vamp a turn and you've got all these extra actions laying around after you've played your rot-shreck <g>, you ought to be able to burn the action to burn the vamp... ...then again, I've never seen one played before, so...

On Sat, 24 Apr 1999 04:00:51 -0400, "Robert C Campbell Jr" <bj...@mindspring.com> wrote: >One thing I've noticed in all these malkav oot decks is that nobody's >playing the free diablarie card in them. I assume you mean Amaranth? >Why not? If you can only rush one vamp a turn and you've got all these extra >actions laying around after you've played your rot-shreck <g>, you ought to >be able to burn the action to burn the vamp... Because diablerie is bad, and vampires who Amaranth without the vote power to back it up get burned THEMSELVES very quickly in bloodhunts. =) -- Derek (replying by email? remove the nospam from my domain :)

Derek S. Ray wrote in message <1594AEB1CC083F38.0712DF92...@library-proxy.airnews.ne t>... >On Sat, 24 Apr 1999 04:00:51 -0400, "Robert C Campbell Jr" ><bj...@mindspring.com> wrote: > >>One thing I've noticed in all these malkav oot decks is that nobody's >>playing the free diablarie card in them. > >I assume you mean Amaranth? No.. Sacrificial Lamb. Obfuscate action in the first expansion to "diablarize" without the blood hunt. here's the text: (I don't believe its been eratta'd) OBF Action (Costs 3) Burn a vamp in topor you control. The acting miniom gains blood equal to the burned vamp's *capacity* (Ignore excess blood) You may also transfer equipment from the burned vamp to this one. This action is *not considered diablarie*. (now here's the fun part) Superior: (D) As above, but you may choose a vamp in another Methuselah's torpor reigon So what you do is put blood dolls on all your vamps, rush your prey's dudes, toporizing them out of turn, and SACRIFICAL LAMB to burn them, steal their equipment, and fill your vamp up to capacity WHETHER THEY HAD BLOOD LEFT ON THEM OR NOT. Then you suck from the blood doll(s). Notice, that the cost for playing the card comes back onto your vamp after you're done. In essence, you'd turn your fast rush deck into a blood gaining machine as well, while your prey's vampires fall to out of turn diablarie actions that can't be blood hunted. Why isn't anybody doing this? >Because diablerie is bad, and vampires who Amaranth without the vote >power to back it up get burned THEMSELVES very quickly in bloodhunts. Hehe, your answer is above. It takes an extra minion action than amaranth, but it works soooo much better. Are you one of the dudes around here that's running a malkav oot rush deck? I'd like to work with somebody on this concept, but I just don't have the cards to run it. (only own one madness network, etc..) -beej

I've played a malkie oot deck a few times and they've all been less than successful based on the fact that you DON'T have extra actions too often(with the exception of oot Protean-Homunculus decks). When you really look at the table, you have no more actions available to you than you would have if you didn't have the Madness network and you spend more time defending the madness netwrok than you do actually using it for the oot actions like you hope(even with the homunculus actions going). The only times I've really gotten this deck concept to work is when I have the table set up before dropping the Madness Network and are relatively able to clear most of the board because everyone else immediately targets the Madness Network for removal(except everyone else that is playing a Malkie oot deck). In this particular case I'd have to say i'm more concerned with using my vamps to send multiple vampires to torpor rather than dealing with the ones that have to take a turn (or more from Rot) to return from torpor. The other thing to examine is the fact that most Malky-OOT decks are bulky to begin with and often rely on large or multiple combos and you really want to ensure getting the key ones for your style of the deck. Adding cards to the mix, generally means you've got to eliminate other cards that might be more important overall. Vince

On Sat, 24 Apr 1999 16:11:42 -0400, "Robert C Campbell Jr" <bj...@mindspring.com> wrote: >No.. Sacrificial Lamb. Obfuscate action in the first expansion to >"diablarize" without the blood hunt. Ah, OK. More sense now. (snip) > (now here's the fun part) >Superior: >(D) As above, but you may choose a vamp in another Methuselah's torpor >reigon Hm, went back and looked at legbiter's OOT deck (He's the person who you should talk to about this) and I see two problems. First: his library is 90 cards already, so you hafta give something else up for the Sacrificial Lambs. Second: the guys who are doing the rushing, torporizing, and Rotschrecking are the only ones packing superior OBF, which is what you need to pull this off - but they're already tapped from the Rush. Third: The action is at zero stealth naturally, so you are going to NEED some stealth backup, or be able to guarantee that he's totally out of vampires - not always possible. Problem: There are no stealth cards in that deck right now, either. =) Well, there are some token +1 specials, but not much. (Like how I can count to two? me too) >In essence, you'd turn your fast rush deck into a blood gaining machine as >well, while your prey's vampires fall to out of turn diablarie actions that >can't be blood hunted. Well... from what I can see, its natural backup is being an intercept combat deck. Judging from the toys it has, nothing you put in torpor with this deck is coming out of torpor, ever - and it appears to intend to naturally diablerize as well with the munchkins. >Why isn't anybody doing this? Legbiter can put a much finer and more accurate spin on what I just said, I'm sure. =) [ quoted text not captured ]

Vince Johnson wrote in message <7ftiod$blb$1...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>... [ quoted text not captured ] Several good points, all well taken. Have you thought about using obedience to defend the madness network? The way I figure it, I'd build a deck to do this: 1) sit around and defend the madness network, using obedience for combat unless I'd blocked my predator or prey, in which case I'd ifght with std oot faggot shit, probably disguised weapon, sat nite special, dragon breath rounds, rot. 2) On my predator's turn, if the defence had allowed me to toporize a predator or prey's vampires, I'd sac-lamb them with the one dude left untapped. 3) I'd leave my dudes untapped on my turn. The other way to go about it is the protean/homonculus/wolfs claws style. You'd think it'd be harder to incorperate sac-lams into this style of deck (because of the unusual ability draw and whatnot) except for two important facts: 1) Zebulon is the perfect sized vamp to sac lamb with. 2) Sac-lamb restores all your vamp's blood to capacity (or close) so you can use the homonculus more. See what I mean? It's not *that* hard to get the right cards in your hand to run that. Eldar Library and a fragment of the book of nod will do it. And you just admitted that nobody's gonna come steal the fragment because they're all to busy comming to kill the madness network.

In article <7ft88i$lvp$1...@nntp1.atl.mindspring.net>, Robert C Campbell Jr <bj...@mindspring.com> writes >Why isn't anybody doing this? Lots of reasons. - It's expensive in blood cost, if the vampire you "diablerise" is low on blood. - It requires obfuscate in the deck, whereas the current situation tends to rely more on malks with pro/aus. - It takes an action, which the deck may prefer to use as a rush. - It takes up card slots, where combat/rush may be preferable. There are legitimate reasons for playing it, but they may not outweigh the disadvantages. I can see that getting rid of the vampires is a Good Thing, but diplomacy and a weenie may be preferable to using up valuable card space etc. -- James Coupe (Prince of Mercia, England) Vampire: Elder Kindred Network http://madnessnetwork.hexagon.net http://www.obeah.demon.co.uk

In article <7ftiod$blb$1...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>, Vince Johnson <Miste...@worldnet.att.net> writes >I've played a malkie oot deck a few times and they've all been less than >successful based on the fact that you DON'T have extra actions too >often(with the exception of oot Protean-Homunculus decks). That exception is how to play a OOT combat deck. You then have Protean for Homunculus and Claws. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <1594AEB1CC083F38.0712DF92...@library-proxy.airnews.net>, Derek S. Ray <lor...@nospam.nineball.org> wrote: >On Sat, 24 Apr 1999 04:00:51 -0400, "Robert C Campbell Jr" ><bj...@mindspring.com> wrote: > >>One thing I've noticed in all these malkav oot decks is that nobody's >>playing the free diablarie card in them. > >I assume you mean Amaranth? > >>Why not? If you can only rush one vamp a turn and you've got all these extra >>actions laying around after you've played your rot-shreck <g>, you ought to >>be able to burn the action to burn the vamp... > >Because diablerie is bad, and vampires who Amaranth without the vote >power to back it up get burned THEMSELVES very quickly in bloodhunts. >=) I suspect the main reason is that there are already enough moving parts in such an OOT rush deck, the adding a few more would push you over into some sort of card cycling abyss. The occasional gain you'd get from Amaranth just isn't worth it's cost unless you've got throwaway weenies, or some way to make it generaly work. -- /\ Jasper Phillips /VVVVVVVVVVVVVV|~"~"~"~"~"~"----------........____ jaz j^^^^^^^^^^^^^\/"~"~"~"~-----------........._____ ~"~--. * http://www.engr.orst.edu/~philljas/ "~"~'--`

In article <U7JxqPAH...@obeah.demon.co.uk>, James Coupe <ve...@obeah.demon.co.uk> wrote: >In article <7ftiod$blb$1...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>, Vince Johnson ><Miste...@worldnet.att.net> writes >>I've played a malkie oot deck a few times and they've all been less than >>successful based on the fact that you DON'T have extra actions too >>often(with the exception of oot Protean-Homunculus decks). > >That exception is how to play a OOT combat deck. You then have Protean >for Homunculus and Claws. Yah, what's the point if you don't use Homunculi? [ quoted text not captured ]

James Coupe wrote in message ... >In article <7ft88i$lvp$1...@nntp1.atl.mindspring.net>, Robert C Campbell Jr ><bj...@mindspring.com> writes >>Why isn't anybody doing this? > >Lots of reasons. > >- It's expensive in blood cost, if the vampire you "diablerise" is low > on blood. No.... Sac-Lamb says you get the vamps *capacity* in blood when you succeed, whether or not they had blood on them or not. Think of it as a creative restoration action for a homonculus deck... >- It requires obfuscate in the deck, whereas the current situation tends > to rely more on malks with pro/aus. Why the auspex? Why not run pro/obf, Zebulon likes obfuscate better anyway... >- It takes an action, which the deck may prefer to use as a rush. Again, Homonculus gives you the actions to burn, as long as you have the blood on your vamp, and sac lamb gives them the blood... >- It takes up card slots, where combat/rush may be preferable. Hmm. Mabee all this is true and mabee its not. Imma try and put together a sac-lamb version with proxys and play it at Tatu's tuesday (or wherever we're playing)

In article <723B78A1503B4A2B.B5554F18FC33802F.482F268E3E1A999F@library- proxy.airnews.net>, [ quoted text not captured ] > >Why isn't anybody doing this? > > Legbiter can put a much finer and more accurate spin on what I just > said, I'm sure. =) No i can't. Your summary is exactly right. You don't need amaranth because either your prince will wake, block and diablerize [if the voting situation is safe] or one of his expendable progeny will. However, let me emphasise once again that this deck is VERY new, there are at least two versions of it, and the card-mix is not set in stone. i'd HATE to discourage people from experimenting with it. Just don't get too cocky and try to do too much on your own turn [like i did on Saturday]; remember that all your best tricks happen when it is NOT your turn. -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own

James Coupe <ve...@obeah.demon.co.uk> wrote: > - It's expensive in blood cost, if the vampire you "diablerise" is low > on blood. Irrelevent. Sacrificial Lamb returns the victim's capacity in blood. A 4-cap vampire with no blood will still net 1 additional blood. > - It requires obfuscate in the deck, whereas the current situation tends > to rely more on malks with pro/aus. *shrug* I have my own Malk oot deck and I use both Sac. Lamb and Graverobbing. > - It takes an action, which the deck may prefer to use as a rush. If you finish off the job, you won't have to take actions to attack the same vampire over and over. > - It takes up card slots, where combat/rush may be preferable. A weak argument at best. If you're going to make a rush combat, you need to finish the job. If you can burn vampires without diablerie, you don't losing your vampires. I'd go with 5 Sac. Lambs and 5 Graverobbing cards in a Malk Combat deck. If you have Malk Time Auctions, play with more Graverobbing cards. You can put them into torpor, steal them with Graverobbing and sell them to the highest bidder. It's an amusing combo...and great for pool gain. Noal -- "The time for action is past! Now is the time for senseless bickering!" -Ashleigh Brilliant [ quoted text not captured ]

Noal wrote >> Irrelevent. Sacrificial Lamb returns the victim's capacity in blood. A 4-cap vampire with no blood will still net 1 additional blood.>> But you need to have OBF and 3 blood to use it (as well as the action to waste and the stealth to pull it off). As this is a combat deck using Wolf Claws and no damage prevention (and Taste won't help in any case), it is likely that your vampires will often not have enough blood to pull this off (Wolf Claws+Homonculous+damage=Low Blood) when the opportunity arises. >>If you finish off the job, you won't have to take actions to attack the same vampire over and over.>> If a combat deck is working, it doesn't have to. You put him in torpor. He stays there. In this particular deck, you have intercept to keep him or anyone else from rescuing him and the votes to survive a blood hunt. >>A weak argument at best. If you're going to make a rush combat, you need to finish the job. If you can burn vampires without diablerie, you don't losing your vampires. I'd go with 5 Sac. Lambs and 5 Graverobbing cards in a Malk Combat deck.>> In a working combat deck, the "card slot" argument is one of the strongest arguments to be made about any card you wish to include. A combat deck including 10 non-combat specific actions, as you suggest above, simply isn't going to be real good at combat, as you'll spend an awful lot of time drawing non combat actions when you need Bum's Rush and Wolf Claws. That, and these are actions with a very high opportunity cost--there needs to be a good target and a available vampire to pull it off. It just won't work real well against any determined opposition. >>If you have Malk Time Auctions, play with more Graverobbing cards. You can put them into torpor, steal them with Graverobbing and sell them to the highest bidder. It's an amusing combo...and great for pool gain.>> And a good way to get killed. In a non combat related deck, sure, it'd be great, but in a deck whose main offense is combat and main defense is combat, you are simply adding too many spices to the soup. Peter D Bakija PD...@aol.com "I dunno, Marge. Trying is the first step towards failure." -Homer

In article <7g0q20$kkc$1...@nntp5.atl.mindspring.net>, Robert C Campbell Jr <bj...@mindspring.com> writes >>- It requires obfuscate in the deck, whereas the current situation tends >> to rely more on malks with pro/aus. > > >Why the auspex? Why not run pro/obf, Zebulon likes obfuscate better >anyway... Obfuscate will not help you block out of turn. Obfuscate will not defend a Madness Network for you. Obfuscate will not defend a rack for you. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <7g1mki$7l1$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, dhar...@my-dejanews.com writes > James Coupe <ve...@obeah.demon.co.uk> wrote: >> - It's expensive in blood cost, if the vampire you "diablerise" is low >> on blood. > >Irrelevent. Sacrificial Lamb returns the victim's capacity in blood. >A 4-cap vampire with no blood will still net 1 additional blood. > Doh. I forgot that one. However, Sacrificial Lamb does require superior Obfuscate - quite a hefty price. >> - It requires obfuscate in the deck, whereas the current situation tends >> to rely more on malks with pro/aus. > >*shrug* I have my own Malk oot deck and I use both Sac. Lamb and >Graverobbing. Presumably working on a different take to this one. *THIS* deck couldn't work in a Sacrificial Lamb if its life depended on it. > >> - It takes an action, which the deck may prefer to use as a rush. > >If you finish off the job, you won't have to take actions to attack the same >vampire over and over. Nor does this one. It uses weenie vampires to diablerise, or uses Princes to block. 2nd Tradition and Auspex are invaluable. Having Protean/Obfuscate/Auspex makes things more difficult than just Protean/Auspex. > >> - It takes up card slots, where combat/rush may be preferable. > >A weak argument at best. Not really. If I take out the cards to get them into torpor, the cards I have to finish them off when they are in torpor may be more difficult to use. > If you're going to make a rush combat, you need to >finish the job. Yes, you do. You just don't necessarily need to do it with Sacrificial Lamb. >If you can burn vampires without diablerie, you don't losing >your vampires. No, you don't. Diplomacy, votes, weenie vampires and so forth are all viable options though. >I'd go with 5 Sac. Lambs and 5 Graverobbing cards in a Malk >Combat deck. You don't have the option in *this* deck. The Dominate and Obfuscate to do such are not readily available in wide numbers. [ quoted text not captured ]

James Coupe wrote in message ... >In article <7g0q20$kkc$1...@nntp5.atl.mindspring.net>, Robert C Campbell Jr ><bj...@mindspring.com> writes >>Why the auspex? Why not run pro/obf, Zebulon likes obfuscate better >>anyway... > >Obfuscate will not help you block out of turn. > >Obfuscate will not defend a Madness Network for you. > >Obfuscate will not defend a rack for you. Er? Use the sac lambs to bring your vamps to capacity and a) the homuncului let you block like fiends out of turn b) you don't need the rack Granted, obfuscate doesn't give you intercept, but you could run 2ndtrad-domain for the odd times they're trying to screw you at stealth... ...then send those stealthy guys to topor, sac lamb them, untap both your vamps with homonculi and double dare the next player to try something... I really don't see what the problem is.

"Robert C Campbell Jr" <bj...@mindspring.com> wrote: > Er? Use the sac lambs to bring your vamps to capacity and > > a) the homuncului let you block like fiends out of turn > b) you don't need the rack *nods* I agree. Sac. Lamb is better at blood gain than the Rack is. > Granted, obfuscate doesn't give you intercept, but you could run > 2ndtrad-domain for the odd times they're trying to screw you at stealth... > ...then send those stealthy guys to topor, sac lamb them, untap both your > vamps with homonculi and double dare the next player to try something... Hell, for that matter...since you have multiple untaps, equip a Sportbike, hire Mr. Winthrop, or play Atonement between turns. There's always exchanging the Rack for the Rumor Mill or KRCG. Permanent intercept is better since once you play it, you don't have to fill other cards slots with auspex cards. [ quoted text not captured ]

James Coupe wrote in message ... >In article <7g1mki$7l1$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, dhar...@my-dejanews.com >writes >>Irrelevent. Sacrificial Lamb returns the victim's capacity in blood. >>A 4-cap vampire with no blood will still net 1 additional blood. >> > >Doh. I forgot that one. However, Sacrificial Lamb does require >superior Obfuscate - quite a hefty price. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the two main vamps I'd use in an oot pro/aus deck are Zebulon and Greger Anderssen, both of which have superior obfuscate and minor protean and are malkavs... ...ie exactly what you need. And Greger's a prince, so you can domain with him. Imagine the following situation for me please: Both are untapped, both have homonculi, and you have a madness network out. Joe Schmo comes cross table to kill the madness network. Block with your heinous oot 2 card combo and torporize the attacker. If he comes again, you 2nd trad and do the same thing. Then (still on his turn) you go sac lamb the guy in torpor with Zeb, and untap both your dudes with homonculi and wait for Joe's prey, who's just watched one or two vamps get smacked, one of which got burned, and sees zeb with enough blood on him to sac lamb again. Joe's prey isn't gonna do shit to you. Stare him down. Madness network will survive. (oh yeah, on his turn you sac lamb joe's other dude in torpor with greger and fill him up to capacity too...) Don't forget, after the rest of the players realize you have ANY sacrificial lambs in your deck, nobody's going to tap out to come after the madness network, unless they really want their vamps burned. So the threat of free diablarie helps you defend the network as well... >Presumably working on a different take to this one. *THIS* deck >couldn't work in a Sacrificial Lamb if its life depended on it. Totally understood. The posts of oot decks I've seen here couldn't hold a sac lamb, but I really think sac lambs could work in decks like this. Unfortunately, my 2 madness network having, 5 rotchrek owning ass isn't going to build any of these decks... ...got plenty of sac lambs though..! <grin> >>If you finish off the job, you won't have to take actions to attack the same >>vampire over and over. > >Nor does this one. It uses weenie vampires to diablerise, or uses >Princes to block. 2nd Tradition and Auspex are invaluable. Having >Protean/Obfuscate/Auspex makes things more difficult than just >Protean/Auspex. So use your weenies as extra blockers instead of diablarie fodder. That can't be all bad.. >> If you're going to make a rush combat, you need to >>finish the job. > >Yes, you do. You just don't necessarily need to do it with Sacrificial >Lamb. Argh... Seems to me that absolutely any deck that does alot of diablarie and has guys who have superior obfuscate absolutely must have 2 or 3 sac lambs in the deck, minimum. >>I'd go with 5 Sac. Lambs and 5 Graverobbing cards in a Malk >>Combat deck. > >You don't have the option in *this* deck. The Dominate and Obfuscate to >do such are not readily available in wide numbers. I totally see that. No way to run dom-obf-pro-aus-tradition-heavy master all in the same deck. That's just silly. I really think you could run it w/ pro-obf and minimal minimal auspex with sac lambs, and it could be scary.

In article <7g4sc5$4ki$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, dhar...@my-dejanews.com writes > "Robert C Campbell Jr" <bj...@mindspring.com> wrote: >> Er? Use the sac lambs to bring your vamps to capacity and >> >> a) the homuncului let you block like fiends out of turn >> b) you don't need the rack > >*nods* I agree. Sac. Lamb is better at blood gain than the Rack is. The Rack, however, allows people to foolishly try and steal it. Wake, Prince, Intercept, Bang. Sacrificial Lamb won't be doing that.... [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <7g4phe$hrn$1...@nntp1.atl.mindspring.net>, Robert C Campbell Jr <bj...@mindspring.com> writes > >James Coupe wrote in message ... >>In article <7g1mki$7l1$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, dhar...@my-dejanews.com >>writes >>>Irrelevent. Sacrificial Lamb returns the victim's capacity in blood. >>>A 4-cap vampire with no blood will still net 1 additional blood. >>> >> >>Doh. I forgot that one. However, Sacrificial Lamb does require >>superior Obfuscate - quite a hefty price. > > >Correct me if I'm wrong, but the two main vamps I'd use in an oot pro/aus >deck are Zebulon and Greger Anderssen, Actually, no. In *this* deck, just Greger Anderssen really. Zebulon isn't a prince. Since you need to be doing stuff out of turn, 2nd Tradition provides a wonderful way to do it with minimal cards. Since you're playing a combat deck, and you have Greger doing lots of cool stuff out of turn, you then want to weenie-ize the rest of the deck. If you have to spend 7 pool on Greger, you need to be watching your spending on other vampires to avoid getting yourself close to ousting if you get a bad draw one turn. > both of which have superior obfuscate >and minor protean and are malkavs... ...ie exactly what you need. But: If I have to rush with them or block with them AND do the sacrificing with them, I slow myself down by half. If I can do the two things "at once" (one with them, one with another vamp) then I'm doing better, I feel. And I can't really guarantee getting one of both of them since then I would only really be able to draw two vamps :( Or have to use the prohibitively expensive Recruitment. >And >Greger's a prince, so you can domain with him. Imagine the following >situation for me please: > >Both are untapped, Okay, possible. But how do you guarantee getting both out? It's more difficult than you imagine. >both have homonculi, Again, possible. >and you have a madness network out. James was having really bad luck with the Networks on Saturday, but still. >Joe Schmo comes cross table to kill the madness network. Fine. >Block with your >heinous oot 2 card combo and torporize the attacker. Okay. It's not such a difficult thing to pull off. >If he comes again, you >2nd trad and do the same thing. Yeah, sure. > Then (still on his turn) you go sac lamb the >guy in torpor with Zeb, Okay. Problems: 1) How do you make sure you have a Sacrificial Lamb in hand *NOW*? Excessive amounts of Sacrificial Lamb will water down the combat side of the deck. 2) How do you make sure you get the action through? If you now need to add stealth to the deck, you start "missing out" the necessary cards - the 2nds/intercept, the claws and the Rotschrecks. >and untap both your dudes with homonculi If only one of them has Sac Lambed, those start to add up. It's not a problem normally, but if I'm having to do even more actions, it could become so. >and wait >for Joe's prey, who's just watched one or two vamps get smacked, one of >which got burned, and sees zeb with enough blood on him to sac lamb again. What if Joe threw a Weenie at the Madness Network? eg Igo the Hungry. Net *loss* to Zeb, 2. >Joe's prey isn't gonna do shit to you. An assumption, at best. One you may live to regret, or not live to regret. Other decks do different things. They have stealth. Lots of it, sometimes. They have unblockable actions. Try as you might, your 2nd Traditions just won't cut the mustard against a Concoction of Vitality. >Stare him down. Madness network will >survive. It may well do. In fact, Madness Network has a tendency too. I don't believe the threat of burning his vampires is all *that* much though. People tend to stay as far away from you as possible just based on your torporising of their vampires, though the threat is a little lessened now with the change to aggravated damage rules (the deck doesn't just throw Rotschreck round willy nilly, it uses them as and when it needs to - eg against a "proper" combat deck). > >(oh yeah, on his turn you sac lamb joe's other dude in torpor with greger >and fill him up to capacity too...) So, I've torporised two vampires of Joe's and burned two of them. With the two actions I've got, I'd rather go and put some more of his vampires in torpor to prevent them from rescuing, and sit there smugly to block any rescue/leaving torpor actions. As I stress, with *this* deck. It would be possible to redesign the focus of the deck from the ground up. With this deck, nipping and tucking at the corners will have a dramatic effect on it. > >Don't forget, after the rest of the players realize you have ANY sacrificial >lambs in your deck, nobody's going to tap out to come after the madness >network, Not necessarily. If I take a similar situation, I put Majesties in "All Hail Mind Numb". People knew they were there, but when people saw I wasn't playing them, they hit me. If you have insufficient Sacrificial Lambs to be able to reliably play them as and when, your threat goes away. If you have so many that you can play them all the time, you start to lose your duplicate Networks, intercept, claws, rotschrecks, homunculi, protean masters and rushes. >unless they really want their vamps burned. So the threat of free >diablarie helps you defend the network as well... > It *can*. However, look at it this way: Two people in a game (several players, but we just need these two): Legbiter and Joe. Joe can see that Legbiter has his Madness Network out, and is going to make short work of his vampires. Okay, going to Legbiter will probably mean sacrificing one of his vampires. That *may* be a better trade off than just letting Legbiter have free reign over his deck and picking them off. If I get the Madness Network, I'll hopefully draw out his 2nds and have at least *some* vampires surviving at the end of it. >>Presumably working on a different take to this one. *THIS* deck >>couldn't work in a Sacrificial Lamb if its life depended on it. > > >Totally understood. The posts of oot decks I've seen here couldn't hold a >sac lamb, but I really think sac lambs could work in decks like this. They could. But you need to focus the deck on them. There aren't really any weenies with OBF - a three complementing Chandler Hungerford's PRO and Gideon's PRE would be sick (and fun) in a deck like this. I wouldn't actually want one printing in a hypothetical expansion because it would be too much, I feel. >Unfortunately, my 2 madness network having, 5 rotchrek owning ass isn't >going to build any of these decks... Me neither.... It's a deck I like to discuss with Legbiter and toy around with concepts myself, however. >>>If you finish off the job, you won't have to take actions to attack the >same >>>vampire over and over. >> >>Nor does this one. It uses weenie vampires to diablerise, or uses >>Princes to block. 2nd Tradition and Auspex are invaluable. Having >>Protean/Obfuscate/Auspex makes things more difficult than just >>Protean/Auspex. > > >So use your weenies as extra blockers instead of diablarie fodder. That >can't be all bad.. But when you block a vampire, torporise it. Blocking with the non- Protean weenies just isn't going to cut it. > >>> If you're going to make a rush combat, you need to >>>finish the job. >> >>Yes, you do. You just don't necessarily need to do it with Sacrificial >>Lamb. > > >Argh... Seems to me that absolutely any deck that does alot of diablarie and >has guys who have superior obfuscate absolutely must have 2 or 3 sac lambs >in the deck, minimum. The deck can't really spare those guys, though. Greger has it, Zebulon has it. That's about it. They need to be torporising the people and not having to clean up afterwards. Don't forget, the action is costing you 4 blood in your version (the Homunculus untap, and that costs extra too...). Never mind the blood difference they gain, will they have it to start with. Zebulon is only five, for instance. [ quoted text not captured ]

James Coupe <ve...@obeah.demon.co.uk> wrote: > Okay, possible. But how do you guarantee getting both out? It's more > difficult than you imagine. Not really. Make a crypt of 6 copies of the two of them. > 2) How do you make sure you get the action through? If you now need to > add stealth to the deck, you start "missing out" the necessary cards - > the 2nds/intercept, the claws and the Rotschrecks. You're continually operating under the misconception that you need stealth to pull off Sac. Lamb and Grave Robbing. The fact is you don't need it at all. It's a combat deck. You can't block with all of your vampires in torpor. > If only one of them has Sac Lambed, those start to add up. It's not a > problem normally, but if I'm having to do even more actions, it could > become so. Not really. The Homonculus ensures that you can take as many actions as you have blood for. Using Sac. Lamb increases those actions by giving you more blood. > As I stress, with *this* deck. It would be possible to redesign the > focus of the deck from the ground up. With this deck, nipping and > tucking at the corners will have a dramatic effect on it. However, the focus hasn't been entirely on _this_ deck, but Malk OOT decks in general. > >Don't forget, after the rest of the players realize you have ANY sacrificial > >lambs in your deck, nobody's going to tap out to come after the madness > >network, > > Not necessarily. Heh. I played my Malk OOT deck on a table of 6 combat decks. After I did the agg/Rotschreck/Graverobbing tango to my predator and prey, my predator decided to find greener pastures and attack decks across table. He didn't even make an attempt to attack me for something like five turns. > If you have insufficient Sacrificial Lambs to be able to reliably play > them as and when, your threat goes away. Thus is the nature of bluff. It's not what is in your deck that's important. It's what they _think_ is in there that counts most. > If you have so many that you > can play them all the time, you start to lose your duplicate Networks, > intercept, claws, rotschrecks, homunculi, protean masters and rushes. Agreed. Finding the right balance is the key. That's where play testing comes in. I'd start with five and work from there. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <7frtef$fhl$1...@nntp5.atl.mindspring.net>, "Robert C Campbell Jr" <bj...@mindspring.com> wrote: > One thing I've noticed in all these malkav oot decks is that nobody's > playing the free diablarie card in them. > > Why not? If you can only rush one vamp a turn and you've got all these extra > actions laying around after you've played your rot-shreck <g>, you ought to > be able to burn the action to burn the vamp... > > ...then again, I've never seen one played before, so... > Having now read all these posts and thought about them a bit i think the answer to your question is, cos i didn't think of it. it's a dam' fine idea, and much less cumbersome than my original concept of plan B being to create a weenie swarm via the progeny. Your idea frees up 7 actions [4th traditions and progenies] and 5 master slots [protean skill cards and the Rack]. Some combination of sacrificial Lambs, graverobbing, homunculi, Fragment, Eldar Library, barrens, Blood Doll, Milicent Smith, permanent intercept and Minor Boon is probably how to fill those slots. For different reasons i think Telepathic Misdirection needs to be among the intercept cards, probably replacing the Precogs [they were there because i thought there was a nifty precog/flesh of marble combo, but it doesn't work]. There's also crypt implications - 4 Greger, 4 Zebulon, 2 Marcellus and 2 Caitlin is my instinct, and maybe a clan impersonation or two wouldn't hurt. Maybe a malky Justicar, too, if there turns out to be a spare slot. Good work, robert and noal! [ quoted text not captured ]

> Actually, no. In *this* deck, just Greger Anderssen really. Zebulon isn't a > prince. Since you need to be doing stuff out of turn, 2nd Tradition provides a > wonderful way to do it with minimal cards. > > Since you're playing a combat deck, and you have Greger doing lots of cool > stuff out of turn, you then want to weenie-ize the rest of the deck. If you > have to spend 7 pool on Greger, you need to be watching your spending on other > vampires to avoid getting yourself close to ousting if you get a bad draw one > turn. I think is *his* deck, he's aiming for it to be both Gregor and Zebulon. I don't know if he's wanting to just dupe those two alone for his crypt, or add weenies as you suggested. He may get screwed by another Malkavian deck if they know who to contest. > But: > > If I have to rush with them or block with them AND do the sacrificing with > them, I slow myself down by half. If I can do the two things "at once" (one > with them, one with another vamp) then I'm doing better, I feel. And I can't > really guarantee getting one of both of them since then I would only really be > able to draw two vamps :( Or have to use the prohibitively expensive > Recruitment. Well, you don't really slow yourself down. You can only Rotschreck once per each round anyway, so any extras actions you take, using the Homunculi, are just adding to the threat or gaining you blood/pool. > Okay, possible. But how do you guarantee getting both out? It's more > difficult than you imagine. With them both adding up to...what 12 pool? he should be able to get them both out if he stacks them both in generous amounts. He may suffer a little at the hands of a weenie bleed deck before he does, but that's something everyone risks when they put in bigger vampires. > Okay. Problems: > > 1) How do you make sure you have a Sacrificial Lamb in hand *NOW*? Excessive > amounts of Sacrificial Lamb will water down the combat side of the deck. It seems like he'll build the deck around the torporize/Sac. Lamb combo, so he should have them in there and they should be available. > 2) How do you make sure you get the action through? If you now need to add > stealth to the deck, you start "missing out" the necessary cards - the > 2nds/intercept, the claws and the Rotschrecks. He'll probably bluff a lot, and back it up from time to time if he's blocked. I don't think he needs to add the stealth. > If only one of them has Sac Lambed, those start to add up. It's not a problem > normally, but if I'm having to do even more actions, it could become so. I agree here, but The Rack should help out once you get it, and Blood Dolls if needed. Shouldn't be that big of a problem normally, I agree. > What if Joe threw a Weenie at the Madness Network? eg Igo the Hungry. Net > *loss* to Zeb, 2. I totally agree here. The main weakness of this deck idea is that a weenie deck would kill it. Not because you wouldn't be able to handle them, but because either your vampires would be very low on blood from Sac. Lamb'ing the weenies (and would thus be unable to untap using the Homunculi), or you would have a hand jammed with Sac. Lamb because you weren't using them (because it isn't worth it for a net loss in blood). > An assumption, at best. One you may live to regret, or not live to regret. > Other decks do different things. They have stealth. Lots of it, sometimes. > They have unblockable actions. Try as you might, your 2nd Traditions just > won't cut the mustard against a Concoction of Vitality. True against a Conc. of Vitality, but not many things do work there. And besides, lots of decks use bluffing. I've played neither of these guys, but I'm sure bluffing is a staple for many of Peter's decks and also Xian's decks. You have to bluff. True, you can't do it too often without backing it up (it ceases to be a bluff), but if you nail someone from time to time, which this deck should be able to do, they'll definitely think twice about it. > It may well do. In fact, Madness Network has a tendency too. > > I don't believe the threat of burning his vampires is all *that* much though. > People tend to stay as far away from you as possible just based on your > torporising of their vampires, though the threat is a little lessened now with > the change to aggravated damage rules (the deck doesn't just throw Rotschreck > round willy nilly, it uses them as and when it needs to - eg against a "proper" > combat deck). This is also very true. The added threat of burning your minions isn't that much greater than simply putting them into torpor. Especially if you're playing a weenie deck and aren't likely to want to pay to get any of them out anyway. > So, I've torporised two vampires of Joe's and burned two of them. With the two > actions I've got, I'd rather go and put some more of his vampires in torpor to > prevent them from rescuing, and sit there smugly to block any rescue/leaving > torpor actions. Well, as you said, the Rotschreck can't just be thrown around. And the aggro combos aren't nearly as effective without it. So it may be better to try and finish off one for good, rather than try to bounce another 1 or 2 into torpor. > As I stress, with *this* deck. It would be possible to redesign the focus of > the deck from the ground up. With this deck, nipping and tucking at the > corners will have a dramatic effect on it. Agreed. I definitely think this idea will warrant a new deck using the Malk. OOT theme. > >>Don't forget, after the rest of the players realize you have ANY sacrificial > lambs in your deck, nobody's going to tap out to come after the madness > network,<< > > Not necessarily. > > If I take a similar situation, I put Majesties in "All Hail Mind Numb". People > knew they were there, but when people saw I wasn't playing them, they hit me. Definitely agreed there. I've had it happen to me as well. Ugn. > If you have insufficient Sacrificial Lambs to be able to reliably play them as > and when, your threat goes away. If you have so many that you can play them > all the time, you start to lose your duplicate Networks, intercept, claws, > rotschrecks, homunculi, protean masters and rushes. True, but that's a balance issue we face whenever we are building a deck. What's the right amount? That will have to be tested and tweaked. I'd start low and work my way up. And I'd make sure to play the deck against weenie opponents. You're likely to see a few of them in the tourneys, and right now it looks as though they could give this deck idea trouble. > It *can*. However, look at it this way: > > Two people in a game (several players, but we just need these two): Legbiter > and Joe. Joe can see that Legbiter has his Madness Network out, and is going > to make short work of his vampires. Okay, going to Legbiter will probably mean > sacrificing one of his vampires. That *may* be a better trade off than just > letting Legbiter have free reign over his deck and picking them off. If I get > the Madness Network, I'll hopefully draw out his 2nds and have at least *some* > vampires surviving > at the end of it. I think that's just one of those risks you take in having a really good deck. I'm not sure if this deck will be as efficient as Legbiter's, but that may work in his favor, as fewer Methuselahs will go all out at him. > They could. But you need to focus the deck on them. There aren't really any > weenies with OBF - a three complementing Chandler Hungerford's PRO and Gideon's > PRE would be sick (and fun) in a deck like this. I wouldn't actually want one > printing in a hypothetical expansion because it would be too much, I feel. I absolutely agree. There a ump-teen 1 and 2 capacity vamps with obf already, and the discipline is too easy to add to a deck. A lot of decks already have those obf-weenie vamps thrown in for filler. > >>Unfortunately, my 2 madness network having, 5 rotchrek owning ass isn't going > to build any of these decks...<< > > Me neither.... It's a deck I like to discuss with Legbiter and toy around with > concepts myself, however. I don't even think I have that many, and I still haven't even seen one of these decks in action. I don't think I know anyone that could actually put it together. I may have to break down and buy some singles to do it. > But when you block a vampire, torporise it. Blocking with the non-Protean > weenies just isn't going to cut it. That's true if he adds the weenies. He'd probably need to add some Protean masters to keep them viable. If he just went with a crypt of his two stars (dangerous, I know), he could use the Asylum Hunting Ground, or maybe one of those "gain +1 blood for hunting" masters just to make sure that they're both full of blood and able to use those Homunculi to be ready to block. I know I'm delving into that "adding too many cards" area, but they're just ideas. > The deck can't really spare those guys, though. Greger has it, Zebulon has > it. That's about it. They need to be torporising the people and not having to > clean up afterwards. Don't forget, the action is costing you 4 blood in your > version (the Homunculus untap, and that costs extra too...). Never mind the > blood difference they gain, will they have it to start with. Zebulon is only > five, for instance. Yep. It's a tricky mix. That's for sure. Very delicate. If one thing goes wrong with it, the whole deck could stall. If someone does put it together, it'll probably be tweaked and tweaked and tweaked. p.

dhar...@my-dejanews.com wrote in message <7g4sc5$4ki$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>... > "Robert C Campbell Jr" <bj...@mindspring.com> wrote: >> Er? Use the sac lambs to bring your vamps to capacity and >> >> a) the homuncului let you block like fiends out of turn >> b) you don't need the rack > >*nods* I agree. Sac. Lamb is better at blood gain than the Rack is. > >> Granted, obfuscate doesn't give you intercept, but you could run >> 2ndtrad-domain for the odd times they're trying to screw you at stealth... >> ...then send those stealthy guys to topor, sac lamb them, untap both your >> vamps with homonculi and double dare the next player to try something... > >Hell, for that matter...since you have multiple untaps, equip a Sportbike, >hire Mr. Winthrop, or play Atonement between turns. There's always >exchanging the Rack for the Rumor Mill or KRCG. Permanent intercept is >better since once you play it, you don't have to fill other cards slots with >auspex cards. Total agreement. Is anyone keeping track of these ideas? What does the sac-lamb oot deck look like now?

James Coupe wrote in message <4jQtwpAX...@obeah.demon.co.uk>... >In article <7g4sc5$4ki$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, dhar...@my-dejanews.com >writes >> "Robert C Campbell Jr" <bj...@mindspring.com> wrote: >>> Er? Use the sac lambs to bring your vamps to capacity and >>> >>> a) the homuncului let you block like fiends out of turn >>> b) you don't need the rack >> >>*nods* I agree. Sac. Lamb is better at blood gain than the Rack is. > >The Rack, however, allows people to foolishly try and steal it. Hehe, so does madness network. And other people's friendly malkavs will help to defend it too...

James Coupe wrote in message ... >If I have to rush with them or block with them AND do the sacrificing >with them, I slow myself down by half. If I can do the two things "at >once" (one with them, one with another vamp) then I'm doing better, I >feel. And I can't really guarantee getting one of both of them since >then I would only really be able to draw two vamps :( Or have to use >the prohibitively expensive Recruitment. See, seems to me that the best way to go about this obf-pro style deck is to play MOSTLY malkavs and a few Nosferatu for blocking purposes. I'll get to explaining why here in a second.. >>Greger's a prince, so you can domain with him. Imagine the following >>situation for me please: >>Both are untapped, >>both have homonculi, >>and you have a madness network out. >>Joe Schmo comes cross table to kill the madness network. >>Block with your >>heinous oot 2 card combo and torporize the attacker. >>If he comes again, you >>2nd trad and do the same thing. [james's agreement clipped to this point to save space] > >Yeah, sure. > >> Then (still on his turn) you go sac lamb the >>guy in torpor with Zeb, > >Okay. Problems: > >1) How do you make sure you have a Sacrificial Lamb in hand *NOW*? >Excessive amounts of Sacrificial Lamb will water down the combat side of >the deck. A fragment (that nobody cares about because madness network is a much more pressing problem), a barrens, an eldar library, and Tusk Talebarer with a protean skill card on him. I totally agree that too many sac lambs are a bad thing. But so is intercept IMO.. >2) How do you make sure you get the action through? If you now need to >add stealth to the deck, you start "missing out" the necessary cards - >the 2nds/intercept, the claws and the Rotschrecks. Take out the rush action cards. Leave your opponents with a choice, either block the sack-lamb or don't. If they don't their dude gets burned. If they do, toporize that guy too. Who needs rushes when you have big heinous actions that people want to block? >>and untap both your dudes with homonculi > >If only one of them has Sac Lambed, those start to add up. It's not a >problem normally, but if I'm having to do even more actions, it could >become so. I can see that, but it seems to me that if you alternate who blocks and who sack-lambs for each turn then they'll both be gaining enough blood to continue to homonculi, right? With this deck you could *concieveably* burn four or five vamps by the time it got back around to you. >>and wait >>for Joe's prey, who's just watched one or two vamps get smacked, one of >>which got burned, and sees zeb with enough blood on him to sac lamb again. > >What if Joe threw a Weenie at the Madness Network? eg Igo the Hungry. >Net *loss* to Zeb, 2. Well you don't sack lamb igo. It's not like he's going to bring igo back out anyway. I can see that weenie horde decks might give this deck a problem, but don't weenie horde decks give the regular malkav oot deck problems as well? >>Joe's prey isn't gonna do shit to you. > >An assumption, at best. One you may live to regret, or not live to >regret. Other decks do different things. They have stealth. Lots of >it, sometimes. They have unblockable actions. Try as you might, your >2nd Traditions just won't cut the mustard against a Concoction of >Vitality. Yeah, and if David Tatu proxys the cards to run his unblockable bleed for eight per turn every turn deck then I'm probably going to get my ass kicked. And if somebody plays with 20 Sudden Reversals in their deck I'm not likely to get through either. These are trivialities as far as I'm concerned. Every deck has another deck that will beat it. >I don't believe the threat of burning his vampires is all *that* much >though. People tend to stay as far away from you as possible just based >on your torporising of their vampires, though the threat is a little >lessened now with the change to aggravated damage rules (the deck >doesn't just throw Rotschreck round willy nilly, it uses them as and >when it needs to - eg against a "proper" combat deck). And you're only allowed one per round. >>(oh yeah, on his turn you sac lamb joe's other dude in torpor with greger >>and fill him up to capacity too...) > >So, I've torporised two vampires of Joe's and burned two of them. With >the two actions I've got, I'd rather go and put some more of his >vampires in torpor to prevent them from rescuing, and sit there smugly >to block any rescue/leaving torpor actions. And block and block and block? Or diablarize when you block his dude trying to bring himself out and get burned on the blood hunt? >As I stress, with *this* deck. It would be possible to redesign the >focus of the deck from the ground up. With this deck, nipping and >tucking at the corners will have a dramatic effect on it. And more agreement from over here. No place for sac lambs in that intercept deck. I really think one could be built though... I'm working on a variation using hidden lurkers and agg damage that I hope to bust out at some point out here in atlanta, but it's even harder. To get it's combo off, you need three vamps, at least one with superiorobf and one with obf-pro. Minion one (normal, igo, whoever) bums rushes, maneuvers to long range, and does jack shit. Minion two hidden lurkers and wolf's claws the rushee. Minion three sac-lambs at stealth. But you need three dudes and five specific cards in your hand to get that off. You defend with the wolfs claws-rotchrek and you get your blood gain from blood dolls, 2 hunting grounds, and sac-lambs. >>Don't forget, after the rest of the players realize you have ANY sacrificial >>lambs in your deck, nobody's going to tap out to come after the madness >>network, > >Not necessarily. Idunno, Jyhad is as much about posturing and verbal threats as it is about playing cards, I believe. <grin> >If you have insufficient Sacrificial Lambs to be able to reliably play >them as and when, your threat goes away. If you have so many that you >can play them all the time, you start to lose your duplicate Networks, >intercept, claws, rotschrecks, homunculi, protean masters and rushes. Yup. I figure 7 or 8 in a 70 card deck. Mabee as many as ten, but then you run the risk of hand-jam. The way I usually build decks in general, I would rather my hand be jammed with combat cards than masters or minion actions, but that's just personal preference. Well, I've wasted enough time today on usenet. Come up with some sample deck configurations for the obf-pro oot deck if you get bored, post 'em and we'll argue.. ! <g> later -bj

In article <7g6v68$vhu$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, dhar...@my-dejanews.com writes > James Coupe <ve...@obeah.demon.co.uk> wrote: >> Okay, possible. But how do you guarantee getting both out? It's more >> difficult than you imagine. > >Not really. Make a crypt of 6 copies of the two of them. Which is what makes it more difficult. I now have a deck with only 2 vampires possible, and maybe only 1 vampire out. James tends to get three or four out, given him more flexibility. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <37272342...@alpinetaxi.com>, Patrick Harris <alp...@alpinetaxi.com> writes >I think is *his* deck, he's aiming for it to be both Gregor and Zebulon. I >don't >know if he's wanting to just dupe those two alone for his crypt, or add weenies >as you suggested. It seems very much to go for more weenies. >He may get screwed by another Malkavian deck if they know who >to contest. Indeed. James has noted the likelihood of being contested and has been screwed over by it before. To go for only two vampires would be risky. >Well, you don't really slow yourself down. You can only Rotschreck once per >each >round anyway, Ah, here is a point you miss. If I get to go against a deck with little-no combat defence, I don't *need* to play a Rotschreck. In fact, doing so would be silly and wasteful, except to cycle my hand. Why not go and torporise them merely with aggro damage? >> Okay, possible. But how do you guarantee getting both out? It's more >> difficult than you imagine. > >With them both adding up to...what 12 pool? he should be able to get them both >out if he stacks them both in generous amounts. And suffer greatly with regards to diversity of crypt. If he stacks too much, he may only get 1 or 2 vampires in his opening uncontrolled region. >> Okay. Problems: >> >> 1) How do you make sure you have a Sacrificial Lamb in hand *NOW*? Excessive >> amounts of Sacrificial Lamb will water down the combat side of the deck. > >It seems like he'll build the deck around the torporize/Sac. Lamb combo, so he >should have them in there and they should be available. Yes, but how would you propose to rework the deck? You need sufficient Sac. Lambs to pull it off. What would you propose removing? > >> 2) How do you make sure you get the action through? If you now need to add >> stealth to the deck, you start "missing out" the necessary cards - the >> 2nds/intercept, the claws and the Rotschrecks. > >He'll probably bluff a lot, and back it up from time to time if he's blocked. Back it up with what? >I >don't think he needs to add the stealth. Then when his actions don't get through, how does he deal with the lack of Sac. Lambs for the future? >> An assumption, at best. One you may live to regret, or not live to regret. >> Other decks do different things. They have stealth. Lots of it, sometimes. >> They have unblockable actions. Try as you might, your 2nd Traditions just >> won't cut the mustard against a Concoction of Vitality. > >True against a Conc. of Vitality, but not many things do work there. And Daring the Dawn and Day Operation - both fairly common cards. The Protean one (Horrific Countenance?) I've honestly never seen, but could be done. > >> So, I've torporised two vampires of Joe's and burned two of them. With the >two >> actions I've got, I'd rather go and put some more of his vampires in torpor to >> prevent them from rescuing, and sit there smugly to block any rescue/leaving >> torpor actions. > >Well, as you said, the Rotschreck can't just be thrown around. Nor does it *need* to be. >And the aggro >combos aren't nearly as effective without it. Well, since you're hitting for one damage, next loss of blood is 0 in either case. The Rotschreck is only needed to get round S:CE mainly. Excessive maneuvering would hurt the deck, and Rotschreck wouldn't help there (the damage has to be applicable at current range). >> But when you block a vampire, torporise it. Blocking with the non-Protean >> weenies just isn't going to cut it. > >That's true if he adds the weenies. He'd probably need to add some Protean >masters to keep them viable. These are there, but what if you don't draw them? The Rack and Madness Network are more important, IMHO. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <7g7g7e$5rl$1...@nntp6.atl.mindspring.net>, Robert C Campbell Jr <bj...@mindspring.com> writes >I totally agree that too many sac lambs are a bad thing. But so is intercept >IMO.. However, the intercept is doubly useful. Stop a rescue and torporise another vampire Stop a leave and diablerise Stop a burn of the Madness Network and torporise Stop a steal of the Rack and torporise Stop stealth-bleed and torporise Stop vote and torporise etc. etc. etc. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Wed, 28 Apr 1999 22:18:18 +0100, James Coupe <ve...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote: >>> An assumption, at best. One you may live to regret, or not live to regret. >>> Other decks do different things. They have stealth. Lots of it, sometimes. >>> They have unblockable actions. Try as you might, your 2nd Traditions just >>> won't cut the mustard against a Concoction of Vitality. >> >>True against a Conc. of Vitality, but not many things do work there. > >And Daring the Dawn and Day Operation - both fairly common cards. The >Protean one (Horrific Countenance?) I've honestly never seen, but could >be done. Idle note: the recent Atlanta tourney was won by a deck making extensive use of Horrific Countenance. =) we now return you to your regularly scheduled argument. -- Derek (replying by email? remove the nospam from my domain :)

On Wed, 28 Apr 1999 13:30:50 -0400, "Robert C Campbell Jr" <bj...@mindspring.com> wrote: >And more agreement from over here. No place for sac lambs in that intercept >deck. I really think one could be built though... > > I'm working on a variation using hidden lurkers and agg damage that I hope >to bust out at some point out here in atlanta, but it's even harder. To get >it's combo off, you need three vamps, at least one with superiorobf and one >with obf-pro. Minion one (normal, igo, whoever) bums rushes, maneuvers to >long range, and does jack shit. Minion two hidden lurkers and wolf's claws >the rushee. Minion three sac-lambs at stealth. But you need three dudes and >five specific cards in your hand to get that off. You defend with the wolfs >claws-rotchrek and you get your blood gain from blood dolls, 2 hunting >grounds, and sac-lambs. And most importantly, someone needs to block your action before you can Hidden Lurker them. I pretty much threw away Hidden Lurker as a functional card when I realized that it's no good unless someone blocks you. Although now that I mention it, I actually just thought of an idea for a decent HL deck. But it's made a LOT more tricky since Fast Reaction is so much easier to get off and make "go" than HL. (and dammit BJ, change that @!*#&$! realname on your posts! i couldnt figure out who the hell you were - we dont HAVE a 'robert' playing with us =) [ quoted text not captured ]

> Idle note: the recent Atlanta tourney was won by a deck making extensive use of > Horrific Countenance. =) Geez! How did they afford it? Isn't the cost 4 blood? p.

[ quoted text not captured ] It is! =) But it only requires inferior Protean, so I believe he used bunches of 5th Tradition, bunches of HUGE vampires, multiple Protean skill cards, bunches of Voter Cap, and for offense, a mix of KRC and Legal Manip/Conditioning. Conveniently, with his entire crypt being 300lb gorillas, they were all Prince or better - so vote lock was a little easier to obtain and could be backed up with only a few BO's. More conveniently, 9-and-above caps come with such a natural variety of disciplines that they often have things like Protean and Fortitude just sitting around - so I know he had several Freak Drives in, too. The truly rude trick in the deck is that you can Minion Tap one guy for a gazillion, and then have a DIFFERENT vampire 5th tradition him back up... and it can be made Horrific, so you can't stop it. Then the half-full bugger next turn can KRC, BO, and voter-cap, and can Horrific the vote as well if necessary. Starts a little slow, but if it lasts long enough to get even two minions out it can really start to hurt - and the Protean skill cards just make guys older and older and ... =) [ quoted text not captured ]

Derek S. Ray wrote in message ... > >And most importantly, someone needs to block your action before you >can Hidden Lurker them. I pretty much threw away Hidden Lurker as a Bull. You just gotta get to combat. Go bums rush somebody with normal, manuver to long, and wave. Hidden lurker with Dalya and wolf's claws. Instant un-majestyable torporization. Not effective in a good rotschchschshchrek based malkey oot deck mind you, but hidden lurker CAN work... >functional card when I realized that it's no good unless someone >blocks you. Although now that I mention it, I actually just thought >of an idea for a decent HL deck. But it's made a LOT more tricky >since Fast Reaction is so much easier to get off and make "go" than >HL. Yup. Since I started posting here, I've got some thirty new deck ideas... >(and dammit BJ, change that @!*#&$! realname on your posts! i couldnt >figure out who the hell you were - we dont HAVE a 'robert' playing >with us =) Shaddup. I haven't figured out how to do that with Outlook yet. (guess I'm too used to Unix and goodole Gatech.) -bj (happy now?)

"Robert C Campbell Jr" <bj...@mindspring.com> wrote: > Derek S. Ray wrote in message ... > > > >And most importantly, someone needs to block your action before you > >can Hidden Lurker them. I pretty much threw away Hidden Lurker as a > > Bull. You just gotta get to combat. Go bums rush somebody with normal, > manuver to long, and wave. Hidden lurker with Dalya and wolf's claws. > Instant un-majestyable torporization. Hidden Lurker can only be used after a block-induced combat (not after an unblocked rush combat). Card text on Hidden Lurker (both the Jyhad and V:TES versions) stipulate this, and the current errata hasn't changed that point. Current errata: Hidden Lurker - Action (obf) * Is an action modifier played by a vampire other than the acting vampire. Card text: "Usable only by an untapped vampire other than the acting minion after the acting minion is blocked and combat is over. Tap this vampire. This vampire now enters combat with the blocking minion. The first round of combat, the blocking minion cannot use any strikes. Superior: As above, but with an optional press." [RTR 960530] -- LSJ (vte...@wizards.com) VTES Net.Rep for Wizards of the Coast. Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and DCI (tournament) rules: http://www.wizards.com/VTES/VTES_Rules.html [ quoted text not captured ]

LSJ wrote in message <7gc554$h5s$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>... >"Robert C Campbell Jr" <bj...@mindspring.com> wrote: >> Bull. You just gotta get to combat. Go bums rush somebody with normal, >> manuver to long, and wave. Hidden lurker with Dalya and wolf's claws. >> Instant un-majestyable torporization. > >Hidden Lurker can only be used after a block-induced combat >(not after an unblocked rush combat). > >Card text on Hidden Lurker (both the Jyhad and V:TES versions) >stipulate this, and the current errata hasn't changed that point. > >Current errata: > >Hidden Lurker - Action (obf) > > * Is an action modifier played by a vampire other than the acting > vampire. Card text: "Usable only by an untapped vampire other than the > acting minion after the acting minion is blocked and combat is over. > Tap this vampire. This vampire now enters combat with the blocking > minion. The first round of combat, the blocking minion cannot use any > strikes. Superior: As above, but with an optional press." [RTR 960530] Well, That's changed slightly. Jyhad version said "Only usable after an acting minion that you control other than this vampire has just **completed combat.**" I can see where the errata comes from, though, and I'm not complaining. Hehe, the rest of my friends I beat up on thursday night are going to pitch a fit, though...

In article <7gctaa$9u9$1...@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net>, Robert C Campbell Jr <bj...@mindspring.com> wrote: >LSJ wrote in message <7gc554$h5s$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>... >> >>Hidden Lurker can only be used after a block-induced combat >>(not after an unblocked rush combat). >> >>Card text on Hidden Lurker (both the Jyhad and V:TES versions) >>stipulate this, and the current errata hasn't changed that point. > >Well, That's changed slightly. Jyhad version said "Only usable after an >acting minion that you control other than this vampire has just **completed >combat.**" I can see where the errata comes from, though, and I'm not >complaining. The text of the Jyhad meaning isn't as clear, but is the same as the V:tES meaning -- note that only blocking minions are valid targets: Card Text: Only usable after an acting minion that you control other than this vampire has just completed combat. This vampire now enters combat with the BLOCKING minion. This vampire is tapped. The first round of this combat, the blocking minion cannot use any strikes. -- /\ Jasper Phillips /VVVVVVVVVVVVVV|~"~"~"~"~"~"----------........____ jaz j^^^^^^^^^^^^^\/"~"~"~"~-----------........._____ ~"~--. * http://www.engr.orst.edu/~philljas/ "~"~'--`

Robert C Campbell Jr wrote: > LSJ wrote in message <7gc554$h5s$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>... > >"Robert C Campbell Jr" <bj...@mindspring.com> wrote: > >> Bull. You just gotta get to combat. Go bums rush somebody with normal, > >> manuver to long, and wave. Hidden lurker with Dalya and wolf's claws. > >> Instant un-majestyable torporization. > > > >Hidden Lurker can only be used after a block-induced combat > >(not after an unblocked rush combat). > > > >Card text on Hidden Lurker (both the Jyhad and V:TES versions) > >stipulate this, and the current errata hasn't changed that point. > > > >Current errata: > > > >Hidden Lurker - Action (obf) > > > > * Is an action modifier played by a vampire other than the acting > > vampire. Card text: "Usable only by an untapped vampire other than the > > acting minion after the acting minion is blocked and combat is over. > > Tap this vampire. This vampire now enters combat with the blocking > > minion. The first round of combat, the blocking minion cannot use any > > strikes. Superior: As above, but with an optional press." [RTR 960530] > > Well, That's changed slightly. Jyhad version said "Only usable after an > acting minion that you control other than this vampire has just **completed > combat.**" I can see where the errata comes from, though, and I'm not > complaining. Jyhad text also stipulates that the vampire playing Lurker enters combat "with the blocking minion". Which is impossible if there is no blocking minion. The errata serves only to make the card an action modifier, not to change the circumstances of using the card. [ quoted text not captured ]