General Questions

1. Can you use more than one damage prevention card against the same attack? EG: I am hit for a tonne of damage from Death of My Conscience. Can I play more than one unflinching persistence, or a combination of several fortitude cards and things like sideslip (ADV) to prevent all the damage, or am I stuck only being able to prevent with one card? 2. With the Waste Management Operation, I assume I can take any card from my ash heap, not just the top one, and stick it in the bottom of my deck, right? 3. My vampire's opponent has two blood, and I play a blur, gaining 2 additional strikes. If I send the vampire into torpor with the first strike, can I use the second strike to inflict agg, thus burning the vampire, or is the second strike wasted? 4. If your vampire's hand damage is aggravated, does he or she have the option of striking with non-agg damage? IE Can Thetmes use just regular damage instead of agg? 5. What are the opinions of people on card limits? I personally think that playing with more than 4 of any type of card, while being more able to create theme decks, creates a situation along the lines of a gambler with $5 to his name playing against another with $200. Briefcase players will always walk away with the game because of a single card combo that gets used 20 times, whereas the starting player is stuck with a bunch of cards that are nice, but not overpowering.

umur...@cc.umanitoba.ca wrote: > > 1. Can you use more than one damage prevention card against the same > attack? Yes. > EG: I am hit for a tonne of damage from Death of My Conscience. Can > I play more than one unflinching persistence, or a combination of > several fortitude cards and things like sideslip (ADV) to prevent all > the damage, or am I stuck only being able to prevent with one card? Multiples are fine, even of the same card (except where card text limits the use of the same card, as in Sideslip's case). > 2. With the Waste Management Operation, I assume I can take any card > from my ash heap, not just the top one, and stick it in the bottom of > my deck, right? Yes. The ash heap is unordered - there is no "top" or "bottom" to it as far as the game is concerned. > 3. My vampire's opponent has two blood, and I play a blur, gaining 2 > additional strikes. If I send the vampire into torpor with the first > strike, can I use the second strike to inflict agg, thus burning the > vampire, or is the second strike wasted? Wasted, since combat ends as soon as one (or both) of the combatants is no longer ready. > 4. If your vampire's hand damage is aggravated, does he or she have > the option of striking with non-agg damage? IE Can Thetmes use just > regular damage instead of agg? If he can find some non-hand strike, sure. If he strikes with his hands, though, the damage he does will be agg. If he strikes with a Bastard Sword, the damage will not be agg from his special, since his special only makes the damage from his hand strikes agg. > 5. What are the opinions of people on card limits? I personally > think that playing with more than 4 of any type of card, while being > more able to create theme decks, creates a situation along the lines > of a gambler with $5 to his name playing against another with $200. > Briefcase players will always walk away with the game because of a > single card combo that gets used 20 times, whereas the starting player > is stuck with a bunch of cards that are nice, but not overpowering. Not true. The gambling parallel has almost no base to argue against. Card Limits in a game designed for no card limits from the ground up (as VTES) are superfluous at best. In the specific case of V:TES, a CL actually *favors* the "gambler with $200", since if he'll be able to substitute cards more easily - using, for example, 4 Legal Manips and 4 Intimidations instead of his 8 Legal Manipulations if the CL is 4, whereas the "gambler with $5" doesn't have access to 4 Intimidations and is stuck with just 4 Legal Manips and, say, 4 Social Charms. (Better examples of rare cards that closely mimic commons can be found, but that example should suffice for illustration). -- 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 Tue, 27 Mar 2001 21:29:45 -0500, LSJ wrote: >Not true. The gambling parallel has almost no base to argue against. >Card Limits in a game designed for no card limits from the ground up >(as VTES) are superfluous at best. In the specific case of V:TES, a CL >actually *favors* the "gambler with $200", since if he'll be able to >substitute cards more easily - using, for example, 4 Legal Manips and >4 Intimidations instead of his 8 Legal Manipulations if the CL is 4, >whereas the "gambler with $5" doesn't have access to 4 Intimidations >and is stuck with just 4 Legal Manips and, say, 4 Social Charms. >(Better examples of rare cards that closely mimic commons can be found, >but that example should suffice for illustration). That argument works when the rares are functionally equivalent to the commons but it's a strange card set that has that as a constant principle (apart from those games in which the rares are foil copies of the commons). Every card is, in fact, different and there are certainly cases of rares like Disarm or commons like Majesty which have no mirror at a different rarity. I'm making no attempt to collect a playset for this game because it's too hard. $200 wouldn't even get you a box of Sabbat, assuming you could find one. Andrew

LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:3AC14C99...@white-wolf.com... > umur...@cc.umanitoba.ca wrote: > > > > 1. Can you use more than one damage prevention card against the same > > attack? > > Yes. > > > EG: I am hit for a tonne of damage from Death of My Conscience. Can > > I play more than one unflinching persistence, or a combination of > > several fortitude cards and things like sideslip (ADV) to prevent all > > the damage, or am I stuck only being able to prevent with one card? > > Multiples are fine, even of the same card (except where card text limits > the use of the same card, as in Sideslip's case Duplicate combat cards can be played during the same action? So I can use Two Unflinching per. at superior to prevent 4 points of damage?

LSJ schrieb: > > 5. What are the opinions of people on card limits? I personally > > think that playing with more than 4 of any type of card, while being > > more able to create theme decks, creates a situation along the lines > > of a gambler with $5 to his name playing against another with $200. > > Briefcase players will always walk away with the game because of a > > single card combo that gets used 20 times, whereas the starting player > > is stuck with a bunch of cards that are nice, but not overpowering. > > Not true. The gambling parallel has almost no base to argue against. > Card Limits in a game designed for no card limits from the ground up > (as VTES) are superfluous at best. In the specific case of V:TES, a CL > actually *favors* the "gambler with $200", since if he'll be able to > substitute cards more easily - using, for example, 4 Legal Manips and > 4 Intimidations instead of his 8 Legal Manipulations if the CL is 4, > whereas the "gambler with $5" doesn't have access to 4 Intimidations > and is stuck with just 4 Legal Manips and, say, 4 Social Charms. > (Better examples of rare cards that closely mimic commons can be found, > but that example should suffice for illustration). Try telling that to a new player who tries to play Ventrue political - no stealth except maybe Bonding on the bleeds, and absolutely no way to get a key action through against a measly 1 intercept because he has, at best, a single one of the Day Operations or Daring the Dawns necessary to make Ventrue roll. He probably doesn't have Freak Drives or Hostile Takeovers, either... Alternately, Ventrue might be trying to get their actions through based on the aggrevated damage threat from a Dawn Operation - a hard to get uncommon that can't be substituted for, either. Locally, I'm seeing the return of Rötschreck (hard to get Jyhad only uncommon with no substitute)-Intercept decks, such as Tremere Auspex-Thaumaturgy, generally relying on Burst of Sunlight (rare with no good substitue) because aggrevated first round damage is a bit of a problem otherwise. Your reasoning of card limits being a bad idae because the "rich guy" can substitute in rares for commons is flawed so long as there's decks that have to use key rares that are not even anywhere near sufficiently mimicked by cards more easily available. And please, lets not forget the first sets were devised by WotC, and you can't possibly be naive enough to actually believe WotC would design a game to be anything other than a money game (have I mentioned key rares for Ventrue decks yet?) - sufficently proven I think by the already stated examples of the Ventrue and Tremere decks above. [You're welcome to try and play Ventrue political with commons alone. 20 Majestys will only get you so far.] Sabbat War definitely was a step in the right direction of making VTES less of a money game, best illustrated by the Tzimisce - the Path of Metamorphosis and Chiroptean Marauder are 2 cards sufficiently easy to get (an uncommon unique Master and a common card) that make the (non-ally) Tzimisce playable for anyone who got about 2 precons and 1 booster display. [I guess the same is true for all the clans that got precons in Sabbat War... haven't looked at them this much yet.] I hope something similar will happen for the independents in Final Nights; after that, and after Bloodlines, please, pretty, pretty please, make it happen for the Camarilla clans. [For pity's sake, make the Ventrue playable without a dozen Fortitude rares...] Thomas Pichler

[ quoted text not captured ] You bet, Jeff! Didn't you notice me doing just that a bunch of times last Thursday? (Well, I was actually doing at inferior for the most part but it's the same thing.) Fred

Thomas Pichler wrote: > > LSJ schrieb: (Elided, talked about the problems the card limit game causes poorer players). > > Your reasoning of card limits being a bad idae because the "rich guy" can > substitute in rares for commons is flawed so long as there's decks that > have to use key rares that are not even anywhere near sufficiently mimicked > by cards more easily available. You're mondo oversimplifying the situation. No, Jyhad is not a game you can play utterly without rares. At least, you'll be at a disadvantage most of the time if you do. Scott was reasonably assuming that even the poorer players can find the few rare cards they need to play most of the common, successful deck archetypes. Given that point, he's right: card limits turn against the poorer player whose decks are constricted to a much greater degree by them. > And please, lets not forget the first sets were devised by WotC, and you > can't possibly be naive enough to actually believe WotC would design a game > to be anything other than a money game (have I mentioned key rares for > Ventrue decks yet? Such cards get errataed where they've gone overboard. I find as many or more key common cards than key rare cards and the common cards are much more often the ones needed in large multiples. - sufficiently proven I think by the already stated > examples of the Ventrue and Tremere decks above. [You're welcome to try and > play Ventrue political with commons alone. 20 Majestys will only get you so > far.] You're right. You need to try 35, which will get you a lot farther. (No, I'm not being facetious. I have one or two decks with those kinds of numbers.) Anyway, single examples prove nothing in CCGs. In fact, arguing these things gets really tiring because of folks who raise one single example and think they've proved anything. There will always be an example to prove just about anything you want to say. I fully expect someone in the newsgroup to prove that bats fly out of his ass someday by posting an animalism deck. The real question is what happens in the long haul, with many decks playing many other decks. Unfortunately, that's always hard for people to use to prove anything to one another on the net. People only agree when they've had like experiences with the game, which is almost never true. Fred

Thomas Pichler wrote: > LSJ schrieb: > > Not true. The gambling parallel has almost no base to argue against. > > Card Limits in a game designed for no card limits from the ground up > > (as VTES) are superfluous at best. In the specific case of V:TES, a CL > > actually *favors* the "gambler with $200", since if he'll be able to > > substitute cards more easily - using, for example, 4 Legal Manips and > > 4 Intimidations instead of his 8 Legal Manipulations if the CL is 4, > > whereas the "gambler with $5" doesn't have access to 4 Intimidations > > and is stuck with just 4 Legal Manips and, say, 4 Social Charms. > > (Better examples of rare cards that closely mimic commons can be found, > > but that example should suffice for illustration). > > Try telling that to a new player who tries to play Ventrue political - no > stealth except maybe Bonding on the bleeds, and absolutely no way to get a > key action through against a measly 1 intercept because he has, at best, a > single one of the Day Operations or Daring the Dawns necessary to make > Ventrue roll. He probably doesn't have Freak Drives or Hostile Takeovers, > either... Day Op and Daring the Dawn are not "necessary" to make the Ventrue roll. The Ventrue political deck is a viable commons-only deck under no card limits. > Locally, I'm seeing the return of Rötschreck (hard to get Jyhad only > uncommon with no substitute)-Intercept decks, such as Tremere > Auspex-Thaumaturgy, generally relying on Burst of Sunlight (rare with no > good substitue) because aggrevated first round damage is a bit of a problem > otherwise. OK. There are, no suprise, examples of decks that *can* be made using lots of rares. The "poor" player couldn't play these, money or not, card limit or not. However, under a no card limit, the "poor" player *can* make viable decks. Under a, say, 4 card limit, a "poor" player is restricted to Malkavian Stealth Bleed if she wants to play competively against "rich" 4CL decks. > Your reasoning of card limits being a bad idae because the "rich guy" can > substitute in rares for commons is flawed so long as there's decks that > have to use key rares that are not even anywhere near sufficiently mimicked > by cards more easily available. No. It is not flawed so long as there are decks out there that can be made without rares that cannot be made (without rares) under a card limit. You're arguing a different point. > And please, lets not forget the first sets were devised by WotC, and you > can't possibly be naive enough to actually believe WotC would design a game > to be anything other than a money game (have I mentioned key rares for > Ventrue decks yet?) - sufficently proven I think by the already stated > examples of the Ventrue and Tremere decks above. [You're welcome to try and > play Ventrue political with commons alone. 20 Majestys will only get you so > far.] I guess I am that naïve. Sure they wanted to make money, but they had already shown that rarity=power was a good path to making money, but intentionally set out to abandon that idea when designing V:TES. The Ventrue Deck can be made (and played competively) with all commons. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Wed, 28 Mar 2001 09:47:50 +0200, Thomas Pichler <tom.p...@aon.at> wrote: >LSJ schrieb: > >> (as VTES) are superfluous at best. In the specific case of V:TES, a CL >> actually *favors* the "gambler with $200", since if he'll be able to >> substitute cards more easily - using, for example, 4 Legal Manips and >> 4 Intimidations instead of his 8 Legal Manipulations if the CL is 4, >> whereas the "gambler with $5" doesn't have access to 4 Intimidations >> and is stuck with just 4 Legal Manips and, say, 4 Social Charms. >> (Better examples of rare cards that closely mimic commons can be found, >> but that example should suffice for illustration). > >Try telling that to a new player who tries to play Ventrue political - no >stealth except maybe Bonding on the bleeds, and absolutely no way to get a >key action through against a measly 1 intercept because he has, at best, a >single one of the Day Operations or Daring the Dawns necessary to make >Ventrue roll. He probably doesn't have Freak Drives or Hostile Takeovers, >either... Hostile Takeover, while a definite improvement to any Ventrue deck, is not necessary. Nor is Freak Drive. One of the Ventrue's long-standing strengths was the ability to zero-stealth bleed, Majesty-untap if blocked, and then call a vote. Day Operations are nice, but I generally only put one in the deck myself. They are far from 'necessary'. >Alternately, Ventrue might be trying to get their actions through based on >the aggrevated damage threat from a Dawn Operation - a hard to get uncommon >that can't be substituted for, either. Suicidal, but amusing. >Locally, I'm seeing the return of Rötschreck (hard to get Jyhad only >uncommon with no substitute)-Intercept decks, such as Tremere >Auspex-Thaumaturgy, generally relying on Burst of Sunlight (rare with no >good substitue) because aggrevated first round damage is a bit of a problem >otherwise. Sure, Ralph-with-few-cards can't make these decks. But these decks are also wack, off-the-wall ideas that require a lot of work to make run properly. There are plenty of competitive decks that Ralph *can* make. >Your reasoning of card limits being a bad idae because the "rich guy" can >substitute in rares for commons is flawed so long as there's decks that >have to use key rares that are not even anywhere near sufficiently mimicked >by cards more easily available. This reasoning itself is flawed. Very few decks -have- to use key rares. And it still does not disprove the fact that under card limits, the "rich guy" now has an enormous advantage: he can use 4 Bewitching Orations, 4 Charming Lobby, and 4 Awe in his Ventrue deck. Poor ole Ralph is REALLY screwed now, with only 4 BO and maybe a couple CL, where he could otherwise have used the 4 extra BO that he got (being commons). >And please, lets not forget the first sets were devised by WotC, and you >can't possibly be naive enough to actually believe WotC would design a game >to be anything other than a money game (have I mentioned key rares for >Ventrue decks yet?) - sufficently proven I think by the already stated >examples of the Ventrue and Tremere decks above. [You're welcome to try and >play Ventrue political with commons alone. 20 Majestys will only get you so >far.] (shrug) Ventrue political with commons/uncommons alone can be lethal. Minion Tap for pool gain. Ventrue HQ and Elysium: Versailles for more votes. Bewitching Oration/Voter Cap to regain the blood onto the vamps and force your own votes through. Bribes/Consanguineous Boon for more pool gain. KRC/Con Ag for damage. Govern for pool gain and bleed. Bonding for token stealth. Majesty for defense and when you're blocked bleeding. Wake/Deflection to stop people bleeding you out. A deck like this is *plenty* effective. Sure, +1 intercept can stop all the votes, but not all decks will have +1 intercept. Not all decks will have ENOUGH +1 intercept, or will be able to kill the vamps when they catch them. And if you want, there's room to include Arika, Queen Anne, Obfuscate masters, and Lost in Crowds/Cloak the Gathering. note that i didn't include 2nd or 5th Tradition. They're nice, but not necessary. >I hope something similar will happen for the independents in Final Nights; >after that, and after Bloodlines, please, pretty, pretty please, make it >happen for the Camarilla clans. [For pity's sake, make the Ventrue playable >without a dozen Fortitude rares...] oh, they're QUITE playable. just try the above. you will be surprised. -- Derek "Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge." - C. Darwin, 1871

Frederick Scott schrieb: > Thomas Pichler wrote: > > > > LSJ schrieb: > (Elided, talked about the problems the card limit game causes poorer players). > > > > Your reasoning of card limits being a bad idae because the "rich guy" can > > substitute in rares for commons is flawed so long as there's decks that > > have to use key rares that are not even anywhere near sufficiently mimicked > > by cards more easily available. > > You're mondo oversimplifying the situation. No, Jyhad is not a game you > can play utterly without rares. At least, you'll be at a disadvantage most > of the time if you do. Scott was reasonably assuming that even the poorer > players can find the few rare cards they need to play most of the common, > successful deck archetypes. Given that point, he's right: card limits turn > against the poorer player whose decks are constricted to a much greater > degree by them. > He would be right - if the assumption that poorer players can easily find&get the few key rares (or uncommons) were correct. Now, check any store that offers Vampire singles, and unless they're so overpriced nobody buys them, the popular rares and uncommons are generally sold out. The assumption that the few cards necessary for popular deck archetypes are easy to get is, by and large, wrong. Anyway... > The real question is what happens in the long haul, with many decks playing many > other decks. Unfortunately, that's always hard for people to use to prove anything > to one another on the net. People only agree when they've had like experiences > with the game, which is almost never true. > Good point - from Derek's reply, I know that he must be playing in a totally different environment, where odds are on a four player table you might face less than two untap/intercept decks. Renders everything moot, I guess - but for Ventrue political to be playable in my area, where odds are either prey or predator is untap/intercept, some sort of affordable card giving the deck a chance to actually get a political action voted on is highly overdue... Thomas

-- "Jeffrey McKee" <jjm...@home.com> wrote in message news:nVew6.76300$Xt3.10...@news1.rdc1.az.home.com... [ quoted text not captured ] No, but you could prevent 2 damage with it, since they only prevent one damage each (even on inferior). Maybe you were thinking of Undead Persistence?

LSJ schrieb: > Thomas Pichler wrote: > > LSJ schrieb: > > Locally, I'm seeing the return of Rötschreck (hard to get Jyhad only > > uncommon with no substitute)-Intercept decks, such as Tremere > > Auspex-Thaumaturgy, generally relying on Burst of Sunlight (rare with no > > good substitue) because aggrevated first round damage is a bit of a problem > > otherwise. > > OK. There are, no suprise, examples of decks that *can* be made using lots > of rares. The "poor" player couldn't play these, money or not, card limit or > not. However, under a no card limit, the "poor" player *can* make viable > decks. Under a, say, 4 card limit, a "poor" player is restricted to > Malkavian Stealth Bleed if she wants to play competively against "rich" 4CL > decks. > Not any more than under NCL; firstly, there's lots of non-rare Fortitude damage prevention, different Auspex intercept, a number of Presence bleeds, etc.; secondly, under NCL, the "poor" guy will have to be prepared to face 6 Rötschrecks, 8 Disarms, whatever - making play under the assumption of intercept/combat decks at the table the same "stealth/bleed and hope they won't hate me for it" affair. Anyway, Derek's reply pretty much proves that apparently what really matters is local style of play - so all I can do is say, "please, come up with some common, affordable cards that make (cheap) Ventrue political playable in a heavy intercept environment, too". [Maybe you got something coming in Final Nights already, and I just don't know it yet? Sure hope so.] Right now, it's not. Just preventing the damage, doing 1 hand damage yourself and loosing the action card (or Majestying and loosing the action - the notion of a poor player having 30 Majestys being ridiculous in itself, if I might add) can't cut it - and Dawn Operation, which makes doing 1 hand damage and preventing attractive, is certainly not an easy to get affordable card. Thomas

On Wed, 28 Mar 2001 17:58:19 +0200, Thomas Pichler <tom.p...@aon.at> wrote: >> The real question is what happens in the long haul, with many decks playing many >> other decks. Unfortunately, that's always hard for people to use to prove anything >> to one another on the net. People only agree when they've had like experiences >> with the game, which is almost never true. > >Good point - from Derek's reply, I know that he must be playing in a totally different >environment, where odds are on a four player table you might face less than two >untap/intercept decks. Time for you to shift your metagame. When people get untap/intercept crazy, I start playing zero-stealth combat. This tends to remind people that intercept is not always such a fun thing. Eventually your metagame will settle into "totally random" mode, where nobody even bothers trying to guess what everyone else will bring, and so your odds ARE low that you'll sit next to two intercept decks... since intercept decks are difficult to win with, and the assumption is that everyone will want to win. >Renders everything moot, I guess - but for Ventrue political to be playable in my area, >where odds are either prey or predator is untap/intercept, some sort of affordable card >giving the deck a chance to actually get a political action voted on is highly >overdue... That's the Ventrue Law Firm's weakness, though. Intercept. If it didn't have this problem, it would steamroll damn near everything; it can pass ALL its votes 100% of the time with Presence and inherent titles, it can countervote anything it feels like with Kindred Coercion/Elder Kindred Network, it can survive combat with Majesty/Skin of Steel, it handles bleed with Plain Old Deflection, and it can pool gain via Minion Tap/5th/Voter Cap, or via Cons. Boon/whatever. So no, I don't see there being a need for such a card. As far as needing rares to make it happen... pfft. OK, so you make a KRC unblockable with Day Op. Great. Now you have someone in torpor, who has to be rescued somehow, ... oops, wait, intercept works against rescue actions too. d'oh! One copy of Day Op is sufficient. Dawn Op is a two-edged sword and untidy. Hostile Takeover is neat, but far from necessary. [ quoted text not captured ]

Thomas Pichler wrote: > Good point - from Derek's reply, I know that he must be playing in a totally different > environment, where odds are on a four player table you might face less than two > untap/intercept decks. > > Renders everything moot, I guess - but for Ventrue political to be playable in my area, > where odds are either prey or predator is untap/intercept, some sort of affordable card > giving the deck a chance to actually get a political action voted on is highly > overdue... Given those odds, probably the best course of action would be to switch to a pure rush combat deck or a straight stealth-bleed deck or a Nosferatu stealth vote deck (at least until the metagame shifts again in response). Naturally if your environment is heavily weighted against a certain type of deck, then building a successful deck of that type is difficult (if not impossible). -- L. Scott Johnson (sjoh...@math.sc.edu) | Friends help you move. http://www.math.sc.edu/~sjohnson | Real friends help you Graphics Specialist and V:TES Rulemonger | move bodies.

On Wed, 28 Mar 2001 18:26:13 +0200, Thomas Pichler <tom.p...@aon.at> wrote: >LSJ schrieb: > >> OK. There are, no suprise, examples of decks that *can* be made using lots >> of rares. The "poor" player couldn't play these, money or not, card limit or >> not. However, under a no card limit, the "poor" player *can* make viable >> decks. Under a, say, 4 card limit, a "poor" player is restricted to >> Malkavian Stealth Bleed if she wants to play competively against "rich" 4CL >> decks. > >Not any more than under NCL; firstly, there's lots of non-rare Fortitude damage >prevention, different Auspex intercept, a number of Presence bleeds, etc.; >secondly, under NCL, the "poor" guy will have to be prepared to face 6 >Rötschrecks, 8 Disarms, whatever - making play under the assumption of >intercept/combat decks at the table the same "stealth/bleed and hope they won't >hate me for it" affair. If you are safe against someone with Potence hitting you for 5, you are safe against someone with Potence hitting you for 2 and Disarming you. Disarm is not the problem (although I still think its torpor-effect should be limited to superior). Rotschreck can only be played once per turn. It is inherently limited. Besides, what rare card exists to get around Rotschreck? Defense isn't the issue. No, a poor player can't make the Rotschreck deck. There are plenty of decks he CAN make though. If you constantly see intercept/combat, MAKE A DECK THAT BEATS IT. Use all those common Fortitude cards and take a bunch of 0-stealth actions. Watch the intercept jam their hand, and watch their combat go *splat* off your vampires. I bet I can make a decent all-commons or uncommons deck that'll survive well, if you give me a little idea of what you're looking at out there. (Tzimisce intercept/poke? toreador? gangrel?) >Anyway, Derek's reply pretty much proves that apparently what really matters is >local style of play - so all I can do is say, "please, come up with some common, >affordable cards that make (cheap) Ventrue political playable in a heavy intercept >environment, too". See other reply: Ventrue political doesn't need to be *easily* playable in a heavy intercept environment. Your premise is flawed. You want to make something work that isn't EVER going to work, and are holding it up as an example of how newbies are hosed. C'mon already. >Right now, it's not. Just preventing the damage, doing 1 hand damage yourself and >loosing the action card (or Majestying and loosing the action - the notion of a >poor player having 30 Majestys being ridiculous in itself, if I might add) can't Really? How many does your poor player want? I can send him some. We have a box of "free commons/uncommons" in Atlanta composed of the combined deck-dreck from what we've purchased; anyone in our group is free to go raid the box and grab whatever they feel they need. I personally only keep 12 Majesties in my "active" box; don't usually need any more in a deck, and if I need them back, I can disassemble. Not to mention that bleed/Majesty-untap/vote doesn't do poorly against pesky untap-intercept decks, who will eventually run out of transients when all four of your vampires do this. >cut it - and Dawn Operation, which makes doing 1 hand damage and preventing >attractive, is certainly not an easy to get affordable card. No, but why should the Ventrue have it so good? [ quoted text not captured ]

Derek Ray schrieb: > On Wed, 28 Mar 2001 18:26:13 +0200, Thomas Pichler > <tom.p...@aon.at> wrote: > >Anyway, Derek's reply pretty much proves that apparently what really matters is > >local style of play - so all I can do is say, "please, come up with some common, > >affordable cards that make (cheap) Ventrue political playable in a heavy intercept > >environment, too". > > See other reply: Ventrue political doesn't need to be *easily* > playable in a heavy intercept environment. Your premise is flawed. > My premise was that that any clan should be successfully playable under the assumption that about one deck in two is good on intercept [because almost half of the clans have Auspex to begin with] and that the first thing to pop into a new Ventrue player's mind would be using them for politics (as opposed to a Fortitude deck that knows it's never going to get an action through) - just like the first thing that pops into mind for Brujah is Potence/Celerity combat, the first thing that'd pop into mind for Gangrel is aggrevated claws and the first thing that pops into mind for Malkavian is stealth/bleed. The last three work nicely though, regardless of environment - no, wait... the Brujah and Gangrel need rush ability in case of a heavy stealth environment, but that's easy to add... > You want to make something work that isn't EVER going to work, Yes - because it'd be nice to see what one would expect to be the "logical" Ventrue deck to *also* work in a presumably "average" environment (where more likely than not, at least one of prey or predator can muster +1 intercept), without too many impossible to get cards or a discipline stretch. Is that so wrong? > and are > holding it up as an example of how newbies are hosed. C'mon already. > Okay, it's probably not well put like that - even though the problem will affect people who haven't heared yet the (apparently) logical Ventrue deck can't work. But, pointless discussion aside, it's not that much of a problem really... if my interested party actually does take up the game, I'll just advise him to play a clan I know can work (without lots of expensive cards) in an average environment - which is 5 out of 7 for the Camarilla, anyway. Thomas

>Try telling that to a new player who tries to play Ventrue political - no >stealth except maybe Bonding on the bleeds, and absolutely no way to get a >key action through against a measly 1 intercept because he has, at best, a >single one of the Day Operations or Daring the Dawns necessary to make >Ventrue roll. He probably doesn't have Freak Drives or Hostile Takeovers, >either... Well of course non-stealth clans are going to have problems with people intercepting them! Not all clans are supposed to be equally good at everything! Other people have already mentioned the merits of Majesty. Do an action, get blocked, and then Majesty to untap. Gradually it will tap out your opponenets and weed out the Wakes and Forced's. Besides Day and Dawn Ops, there is also Seduction (which helps a little). And if you're bleeding, Propaganda and Slaughtering the Herd also weed out titled vampires and allies from blocking, respectively. And in addition to using Majesty to get rid of the Wakes, there's also Change of Target. I play a lot of Tremere decks and I also have problems with getting blocked (and I don't even have Majesty to rely on). All I can do is throw in a few Change of Targets. But I don't complain about it. I just acknowledge that it's one of the weaknesses of the clan. >Locally, I'm seeing the return of Rötschreck (hard to get Jyhad only >uncommon with no substitute)-Intercept decks, such as Tremere >Auspex-Thaumaturgy, generally relying on Burst of Sunlight (rare with no >good substitue) because aggrevated first round damage is a bit of a problem >otherwise. > Even though others have pointed it out, I'd like to reiterate that LSJ is not saying that anyone can make *any* deck. Betrayer and ToGP decks are not things you can just whip up out of nowhere. But you can make competitive decks that are on par with the decks filled with rares. Halcyan 2

"Thomas Pichler" <tom.p...@aon.at> wrote in message news:3AC24113...@aon.at... [ quoted text not captured ] The Sleeping Mind, Seduction, Mind Numb, Misdirection, The Kiss of Rah, Majesty... None of these are rare (though a few are Uncommon and from AH, which does make them harder to get). If your group is leaning to intercept, try tapping them out. If they still get enough wakes AND intercept, then chances are that their deck is unbalanced with too much reaction. Then try taking a few 0 stealth actions (like straight bleeds) and watch their hands jam with reaction. Even if don't win, next time they'll lose some of that intercept. > > You want to make something work that isn't EVER going to work, > > Yes - because it'd be nice to see what one would expect to be the "logical" Ventrue > deck to *also* work in a presumably "average" environment (where more likely than not, > at least one of prey or predator can muster +1 intercept), without too many impossible > to get cards or a discipline stretch. Is that so wrong? +1 intercept is easy. +1 intercept on every action is hard. When you play a Political Deck you get +1 stealth on every action. And decks with intercept might not be so common. Of the last 10 decks I built, only 2 had any serious intercept, and those weren't even the most sucessfull. That was simply due to the current metagame, where stealth has been scarce, and I ended up discarding most intercept anyway. Flux

>My premise was that that any clan should be successfully playable under the >assumption >that about one deck in two is good on intercept [because almost half of the >clans have >Auspex to begin with] and that the first thing to pop into a new Ventrue >player's mind >would be using them for politics (as opposed to a Fortitude deck that knows >it's never >going to get an action through) As has been pointed out, your premise is not one that most players subscribe to. Just because clans have access to auspex doesn't mean they will use it. Rather than make the effort to adjust to your environment, you are trying to get the environment to adjust to one deck. That isn't a way to make a game work well. And, this has nothing to do with card limits. This seems to have everything to do with playing in a heavy intercept environment. A heavy intercept environment screws a number of strategies regardless as to how many rares they use.

On Wed, 28 Mar 2001 21:52:51 +0200, Thomas Pichler <tom.p...@aon.at> wrote: >Derek Ray schrieb: > >> On Wed, 28 Mar 2001 18:26:13 +0200, Thomas Pichler >> <tom.p...@aon.at> wrote: >> >Anyway, Derek's reply pretty much proves that apparently what really matters is >> >local style of play - so all I can do is say, "please, come up with some common, >> >affordable cards that make (cheap) Ventrue political playable in a heavy intercept >> >environment, too". >> >> See other reply: Ventrue political doesn't need to be *easily* >> playable in a heavy intercept environment. Your premise is flawed. > >My premise was that that any clan should be successfully playable under the assumption >that about one deck in two is good on intercept [because almost half of the clans have >Auspex to begin with] and that the first thing to pop into a new Ventrue player's mind You have a number of flawed assumptions here. First, that 50% of all decks will be able to untap and muster +1 intercept constantly. Barring exceptional circumstances, this is simply not going to be true. Intercept decks are very difficult to win with, and as a result, not many people play dedicated intercept. A more accurate assumption would be to assume that, say, one in five decks is going to have a significant portion as intercept, and one or two more will have "light" intercept for use as necessary. A newbie who is killed by a dedicated intercept deck that then fails to gain any VPs itself will quickly draw the conclusions that the OTHER person's deck is not common. Second, that light intercept is sufficient to stop a dedicated Ventrue political deck. It's not, for a number of reasons. If it's your predator, it can't stop your bleed actions, only your votes. And it can't stop all your votes, since a good Ventrue deck will be calling three or four per turn... and if it stops all your votes, then it leaves itself defenseless against its own predator. You simply time your play properly, so that they run out of intercept just as you call the critical votes. If it's your prey, it runs right into the bleed/vote gotcha, where you bleed it, Majesty, untap, and call a vote. Odds are they simply WON'T have enough untap to stop everything you do, so they'll have to pick on your obnoxious actions. If your deck flows well, you have a good chance of getting past it. Third, that the Ventrue, possibly STILL the nastiest clan to be in front of, are somehow unplayable. Boggles the mind. >> You want to make something work that isn't EVER going to work, > >Yes - because it'd be nice to see what one would expect to be the "logical" Ventrue >deck to *also* work in a presumably "average" environment (where more likely than not, >at least one of prey or predator can muster +1 intercept), without too many impossible >to get cards or a discipline stretch. Is that so wrong? as above, this presumption is just not accurate. Average environments do not have two decks per table that untap and stop EVERY +1 stealth action. >But, pointless discussion aside, it's not that much of a problem really... if my >interested party actually does take up the game, I'll just advise him to play a clan I >know can work (without lots of expensive cards) in an average environment - which is 5 >out of 7 for the Camarilla, anyway. Don't be in too much of a hurry to pat yourself on the back. It's actually 7 out of 7 for the Camarilla, and judging from these past few posts, i'd be TERRIBLY curious to see which clan you think is the other "unplayable" one. :) [ quoted text not captured ]

> Derek Ray schrieb: > >> On Wed, 28 Mar 2001 18:26:13 +0200, Thomas Pichler >> <tom.p...@aon.at> wrote: >>> Anyway, Derek's reply pretty much proves that apparently what really matters >>> is >>> local style of play - so all I can do is say, "please, come up with some >>> common, >>> affordable cards that make (cheap) Ventrue political playable in a heavy >>> intercept >>> environment, too". >> >> See other reply: Ventrue political doesn't need to be *easily* >> playable in a heavy intercept environment. Your premise is flawed. >> > > My premise was that that any clan should be successfully playable under the > assumption > that about one deck in two is good on intercept [because almost half of the > clans have > Auspex to begin with] Well, it's not an assumption, it's a fact. Auspex is *the* most common discipline. The assumption that one in two decks is good at intercept is under the weak assumption that the discipline spread corresponds directly to type of decks played. Local metagame determines what types of decks are played. Some clans just don't stealth well, notably, the Ventrue. Although said several times already, I'll parrot along: THANK GOD. They can't stealth well, and they can't beat the crap out of you well, but they do EVERYTHING else so damn well, they have to be bad at *something*. If you *really* *really* want to play Ventrue in a high-intercept environment, you can drop OBF skill cards on them and stealth it by, and use Majesty and Change of Target both to run them out of intercept. Card intensive? Sure, but it wasn't my idea to play the wrong deck in the local metagame. =) >> You want to make something work that isn't EVER going to work, > > Yes - because it'd be nice to see what one would expect to be the "logical" > Ventrue > deck to *also* work in a presumably "average" environment (where more likely > than not, > at least one of prey or predator can muster +1 intercept), without too many > impossible > to get cards or a discipline stretch. Is that so wrong? Terribly, terribly wrong. See Derek's comment regarding "Ventrue" and "steamroller." Contemplate "play balance," and do a search on "X and anti-X" newsgroup discussions. >> and are >> holding it up as an example of how newbies are hosed. C'mon already. >> > > Okay, it's probably not well put like that - even though the problem will > affect people > who haven't heared yet the (apparently) logical Ventrue deck can't work. It can work, just not in an intercept environment. Just like Malk Sneak and Bleed doesn't work in a high-Deflection or high-Rush Combat environment. As well it shouldn't. > But, pointless discussion aside, it's not that much of a problem really... if Pointless discussion unless someone's insisting on playing a certain type of deck in the wrong environment. Which, well, you are. Or were. > my > interested party actually does take up the game, I'll just advise him to play > a clan I > know can work (without lots of expensive cards) in an average environment - > which is 5 > out of 7 for the Camarilla, anyway. Better yet, advise them to deliberately shift the metagame to what they want. If there's too much intercept, take Derek's suggestion to play 0-stealth decks for a while. And that's not pure boasting. Derek quite often swaps to 0-stealth "Ohpleasepleasepleaseblockme" decks when too much intercept gets around our group. =) -- Pat Ricochet Soul Jar'rn Fool of Atlanta

In message <3AC210A5...@aon.at>, Thomas Pichler <tom.p...@aon.at> writes >Anyway, Derek's reply pretty much proves that apparently what really >matters is local style of play - so all I can do is say, "please, come >up with some common, affordable cards that make (cheap) Ventrue >political playable in a heavy intercept environment, too". Why? Every deck needs a hole that can be exploited. For example, a focused stealth bleed deck falls down on combat defence. A Ventrue Political deck can pass lots of votes. If you want to stop yourself dying from intercept, you either have to add stealth (so, use big vampires like Arika and Queen Anne with Obfuscate), or mix and match (the "Star Chamber" deck concept - some vampires with Obfuscate call critical actions (say, Malkavians) but your Ventrue make the useful votes pass (titles etc.)). If it's dying from combat, it needs to water down the politics for some combat defence. That's why V:TES has an upper deck limit. No deck can or should be able to do everything. If a deck can do everything (e.g. bypass a heavy intercept environment regardless), it's too powerful. In a heavy intercept environment, you have a number of options. If you're mad (e.g. like Legbiter), there's the Betrayer deck. Since it focuses around so few actions, intercept can often be irrelevant. (The hole here is that defence on the deck's part can be difficult.) Decks that don't care about being blocked are also possible. Weenie hordes don't care about being blocked, they'll get through eventually. Throw in Computer Hacking and Laptop for bleed, Leather Jacket for defence etc. You can even try weenie vote if you think you've got the cards for it. A deck that can bypass combat. Something like Form of Mist can continue your action for you once you've been blocked, wasting that blocker's intercept. Or you can use (superior) Freak Drive and (superior) Majesty to take more actions, though watch out for the No Repeat Actions rule if you play with it (basically, if you get blocked on a vote action, you have to switch to something else - say a bleed action). This can work well in a Ventrue vote deck, with some bleed on the side (some Govern the Unaligned for flexibility on pool gain and bleed, say), or the other way around. Majesty is also useful (though not totally effective) combat defence. A rush deck can help lots. So, they block you. They can't block you if they're in torpor. Then you can waltz in and bleed them at your leisure. Intercept decks tend to focus around mid-range to high-range vampires. A good weenie rush deck can have double the number of vampires, torporising their vampires as necessary - generally, left, right and centre. Trying to do everything is kind of like saying "Can I have a card that lets my bleed deck ignore my prey's Deflections?" The defence is an integral part of the game. If you haven't got the right offence, you will and should come unstuck. -- James Coupe | PGP Key 0x5D623D5D "What's wrong with wanting more? If you can fly -- then soar! With all there is, why settle for just a piece of sky?"

Thomas wrote: >>My premise was that that any clan should be successfully playable under the assumption that about one deck in two is good on intercept>> As others have pointed out, assuming that about one deck in two is going to have consisitient, solid intercept, is a deeply flawed assumption. Dedictaed intercept decks are very difficult to win with (generally getting 2 of 5 VPs, which isn't winning if someone else gets the other 3), and consequently not that common. If your particular play group is very intercept heavy, start playing decks that want to get blocked (Rush combat; Bruise/Bleed; Kiss of Ra). People will stop playing so much intercept. Second, your premise that somehow playing with a card limit will help the Ventrue work against intercept, you are deeply mistaken--with a card limit, you have access to a small number of Bonding (the only reliable stealth available to the Ventrue). With no card limit, you can use as many as you need (and they are common). >>Yes - because it'd be nice to see what one would expect to be the "logical" Ventrue deck to *also* work in a presumably "average" environment (where more likely than not, at least one of prey or predator can muster +1 intercept), without too many impossible to get cards or a discipline stretch. Is that so wrong?>> What is wrong is your assumption that reliable +1 intercept is as common as you think it is. Sure, it isn't that unlikely that your prey is going to be able to block one +1 stealth action per turn, but the likelyhood of running into a prey who can block multiple +1 stealth actions a turn is fairly slim. Yeah, if a Ventrue +1 stealth bleed or politics deck is sitting as the predator of a dedicated intercept deck, it is screwed, but if a Malkavian deck is sitting as the predator of a dedicated bounce deck, it is also screwed. Every deck gets shut down occasionally. And playing with a card limit does not change this. Peter D Bakija PD...@aol.com http://www.geocities.com/bakija6 "Why so many swords?" "I must kill many." -Kikuchiyo

"Thomas Pichler" <tom.p...@aon.at> wrote in message news:3AC24113...@aon.at... > My premise was that that any clan should be successfully playable under the > assumption that about one deck in two is good on intercept [because almost half > of the clans have Auspex to begin with] and that the first thing to pop into a new *Assamite, Brujah, Followers of Set, Gangrel, Giovanni, Lasombra, Nosferatu, Ravnos, Ventrue: no Auspex *Malkavian, Toreador, Tremere, Tzimisce: have Auspex Looks like about 1/3 to me. Anyway, your comments appear to be largely influenced by your local metagame where half of all decks have plenty of intercept. Hardly applicable to the world as a whole. > Ventrue player's mind would be using them for politics (as opposed to a > Fortitude deck that knows it's never going to get an action through) - just like the So? As Derek mentioned elsewhere, they can already do everything else, they don't need stealth also. > > You want to make something work that isn't EVER going to work, > > Yes - because it'd be nice to see what one would expect to be the "logical" > Ventrue deck to *also* work in a presumably "average" environment (where You're not basing your assumptions off of an average environment, you're basing them off of yours. > more likely than not, at least one of prey or predator can muster +1 intercept), Consistently? Most decks will never do that. They have KRCG out? Boo-hoo. One of your votes got blocked this turn. How will you survive? </sarcasm> > without too many impossible to get cards or a discipline stretch. Is that so > wrong? Yes. The Ventrue don't need access to every single major strategy except for proactive combat. They already have excellent offense and defense, I don't think there's any need to add more to them. Your comments have the sound of being heavily influenced (can I say it again) by your local environment and playing mostly Ventrue. Play something else for a change. Xian

> > "Thomas Pichler" <tom.p...@aon.at> wrote in message > news:3AC24113...@aon.at... >> My premise was that that any clan should be successfully playable under the >> assumption that about one deck in two is good on intercept [because almost > half >> of the clans have Auspex to begin with] and that the first thing to pop into > a new > > *Assamite, Brujah, Followers of Set, Gangrel, Giovanni, Lasombra, Nosferatu, > Ravnos, Ventrue: no Auspex > *Malkavian, Toreador, Tremere, Tzimisce: have Auspex > > Looks like about 1/3 to me. Oh, Xian, you're cheating and you know it. =) The guy was talking about Camarilla only anyway (i.e., really cheap cards), and that's 3/7, which is "almost half." And you can't add on the Tzimisce and *not* add the !Ventrue, not to mention the !Tremere, !Tories, and !Malks. That makes it 12 without Auspex (adding also the !Bru, !Nos, and !Gan) and 8 with Auspex, which is 2/5, admittedly pushing "almost half," but it's more than 1/3. Now, everything else you said was spot on, but you didn't need to obsfuscate the numbers to prove it. =) [ quoted text not captured ]

LSJ wrote: > I guess I am that naďve. Sure they wanted to make money, but they had already > shown that rarity=power was a good path to making money, but intentionally > set out to abandon that idea when designing V:TES. > The Ventrue Deck can be made (and played competively) with all commons. > > -- > 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/ From a personal note, the Malky Stealth/Bleed can be played competitely with only commons. When I first started playing, I could usually end up with at least 3 points, and at the last tourney in Watford, I came joint 4th, with a clean sweep of my first table. I find that the challenge is always to try to make successful decks with a few rares, but mostly commons/ uncommons. That way, my budget can be smaller. When I first started playing the only deck I consistently lost to was Gangrel Wolf Claws (again mostly common combat deck). It can be done. Andy Brown -- From the virtual world of 'Email by Andy' (a...@sanger.ac.uk/An...@operamail.com)

Thomas Pichler wrote: > My premise was that that any clan should be successfully playable under the assumption > that about one deck in two is good on intercept [because almost half of the clans have > Auspex to begin with] I don't think many people are going to agree with that. I think most people like the idea better that you need to adjust to the environment. For instance, play a heavy stealth deck with permanent bleed modifiers (e.g. Laptops) instead. There's not and shouldn't be any intention that the game be designed such that any clan is playable in all environments. Fred

<...> > Renders everything moot, I guess - but for Ventrue political to be playable in my area, > where odds are either prey or predator is untap/intercept, some sort of affordable card > giving the deck a chance to actually get a political action voted on is highly > overdue... > > Thomas > easy answer: play another deck. Your problem is not CL/NCL, your problem is a metagame were Ventrue politics don't stand a chance. That's exactly the beauty of vtes: each strategy has its hoser strategy. Try changing the metagame: play eg a version of the deck that got me in the final of a tourney in Antwerp (first place in the prelims, slaughtered by a ani-for deck in the final) (oops can't find the decklist) crypt: based on Nikolaus Vermeulen, Suhaila, small ventrue, Nosfy princes,... deck: votes, stealth, skin of steel, disarm, vote locations, minion tap/5th. OR: a deck that doesn't let them use their intercept: do only 0 stealth actions and see their hands getting filled with useless intercept which they can't play. Something like a (cheesy) weenie presence deck that swarm bleeds at +2 on 0 stealth When you do this, your metagame will change. When this happens, everybody will start making new decks (or keep losing) and after a sufficient period the intercept decks will be gone and Ventrue politics will be playable. Jeroen

I forot to mention one thing: Kiss of Ra. (not against Gangrel of course) play it once and you can threaten everybody out of blocking. "jeroen rombouts" <jeroen....@pandora.be> wrote in message news:1NDw6.43965$tk.45...@afrodite.telenet-ops.be... [ quoted text not captured ]

> > > > Duplicate combat cards can be played during the same action? So I can > > use Two Unflinching per. at superior to prevent 4 points of damage? > > You bet, Jeff! Didn't you notice me doing just that a bunch of times last > Thursday? (Well, I was actually doing at inferior for the most part but it's > the same thing.) > > Fred I thought you were playing different damage prevention cards. So does that mean I can play 3 copies of carrion crows if I have them ready in my hand before range is declared? Jeffrey

Okay... no use creating unnecessary traffic by replying individually to all the answers that, by and large, really all said the same thing anyway. So, the idea to make non-stealth non-combat decks more playable locally is to use a 0-stealth deck that renders all intercept obsolete (including all permanent +1 intercept bonuses such as verious retainers, Sport Bikes, Guardian Angel and Atonement, which, locally, about every other deck uses). So, what I'm now looking for is a 0-stealth deck that can hold it's own in combat (dying even more easily won't prove anything), but that will actually get blocked [nobody blocks Gangrel or Tzimisce going on a bleed for 1, normally]. I don't want to use a Majesty deck, either, because (locally) it wouldn't be possible for a new player to have 20 of them [unless he owns enough cards to play a Ventrue Dawn Op deck anyway], nor any other deck that uses more than about 8 of every card. My best idea right now would be Malkavian OBF DOM: it will get blocked (firstly because of the threat of high bleeds, secondly because people will expect I hit them with stealth, anyway), and instead of stealth I can use Disguised/Concealed Weapons (with a voluntary 8 card limit, that'd be 16, which should suffice). Does anybody have what they consider a better idea? [Imposing a 8/3/1 C/U/R card limit simulating the assumption a new player might not find a vet willing to give him larger quantities of cards] Thomas

>So does that >mean >I can play 3 copies of carrion crows if I have them ready in my hand before >range is declared? > >Jeffrey Of course you can... Unless of course there is a tiny tiny fineprint somewhere on the Carrion Crows card that say "A vampire can only play one Carrion Crows each combat"...

[ quoted text not captured ] It would, except for the explicit card text on Carrion Crows prohibiting that. [ quoted text not captured ]

-- "Henke" <d98...@stud.hh.se> wrote in message news:99vesb$gm5$1...@taliesin.netcom.net.uk... [ quoted text not captured ] Well I'm sure they wouldn't do that to me..??? :)

On Thu, 29 Mar 2001 15:45:50 +0200, Thomas Pichler <tom.p...@aon.at> wrote: >Okay... no use creating unnecessary traffic by replying individually to all the >answers that, by and large, really all said the same thing anyway. > >So, the idea to make non-stealth non-combat decks more playable locally is to >use a 0-stealth deck that renders all intercept obsolete (including all >permanent +1 intercept bonuses such as verious retainers, Sport Bikes, Guardian >Angel and Atonement, which, locally, about every other deck uses). Permanent +1 intercept is a little more tricky to jam up. But hopefully all the intercept decks will spend their time stopping the permanent intercept equip actions. And I like to think of Atonement as "four free Rush actions per turn until they quit blocking the attempts to remove it". >So, what I'm now looking for is a 0-stealth deck that can hold it's own in >combat (dying even more easily won't prove anything), but that will actually >get blocked [nobody blocks Gangrel or Tzimisce going on a bleed for 1, >normally]. Take a combo of Brujah and !Brujah, drop in a big pile of Potence and Celerity. Wasting 20 minutes with ELDB produces the following for me: Crypt: (11 cards) [Min: 14, Max: 25, Avg: 4.82] 1 Anvil (dom CEL POT pre tha, Brujah, 6, Primogen) 1 Beast (ani cel OBF POT, Nosferatu Antitribu, 7) 1 Bianca (CEL pot pre, Brujah, 6) 1 Black Cat (CEL pot pre, Brujah, 5) 1 Dre (cel pot, Brujah, 3) 1 Evangeline (cel pot pre, Brujah Antitribu, 4) 1 Jacob Bragg (cel pot, Brujah Antitribu, 3) 1 Rigby (aus CEL pot PRE, Brujah Antitribu, 5) 1 Sela (cel obt POT PRE, Brujah Antitribu, 6, Bishop) 1 Victor Tolliver (CEL pot, Brujah Antitribu, 4) 1 Yuri (cel pot pre, Brujah, 4) (This is only 11 guys. Double up on two vampires you like, and remove someone you don't. Personal preference: i would use two Rigby and two Bianca, and remove Anvil.) Library: (80 cards) Master (10 cards) 5 Blood Doll 2 Celerity 2 Potence 1 Waste Management Operation Action (19 cards) 7 Bum's Rush 6 Legal Manipulations 6 Social Charm COMBAT: (51 cards) Strike Cards (18) 6 Growing Fury 4 Mighty Grapple 8 Undead Strength Support Cards (8) 4 Torn Signpost 4 Increased Strength Celerity (25) 8 Acrobatics 5 Flash 4 Nimble Feet 4 Sideslip 4 Vampiric Speed Tourist Information: total presses (17) total dodges (16) additional strikes (12) You'll notice that this doesn't look a damn bit like the traditional Potence "beat their ass" deck, and has at least two cards that people will froth over. There's a few reasons. First, the classic Potence deck relies on increasing its hand damage with Torn Signpost or the like and using Immortal Grapple (not easy cards to get). Second, I'm assuming you'll HAVE to dodge their initial strike most of the time in an intercept-combat environment, and so you have a bunch of Dodge. Third, I'm leaning towards free cards so that you don't have to use Taste of Vitae (also a difficult card to get). Some of the advantages your metagame has given you: You don't have to worry about S:CE or Dodge, so you can slide a little more into press combat and be able to assume they'll stick around to get swatted - you don't have to kill them on round 1 the way you normally would. Because of this, you can use a lot more of the free dual-purpose Celerity cards such as Vampiric Speed, and your Brujah/!Brujah will have lots of superior Celerity for you. You can also mix and mismatch most of the above cards/strikes well, since you're getting multiple "start of rounds" where you can play TS/IS. And since you don't have to worry about monster-fast bleed decks when everyone and their grandmother is untapping and intercepting everything, you can go a bit lighter on the Rush actions. Presto, 80 card 0-stealth combat deck, and unless you're seeing a lot of Fortitude, or non-strike damage such as Carrion Crows, you're in pretty good shape. Even Fortitude will have trouble with the above, though, because Skin of Steel doesn't deal well with press combat. >I don't want to use a Majesty deck, either, because (locally) it wouldn't be >possible for a new player to have 20 of them [unless he owns enough cards to >play a Ventrue Dawn Op deck anyway], nor any other deck that uses more than >about 8 of every card. Mighty Grapple is included to satisfy this requirement, although my views on card limits are known far and wide. Fortunately, it DOES provide a press since that's where we're going with the above. >My best idea right now would be Malkavian OBF DOM: it will get blocked (firstly >because of the threat of high bleeds, secondly because people will expect I hit >them with stealth, anyway), and instead of stealth I can use >Disguised/Concealed Weapons (with a voluntary 8 card limit, that'd be 16, which >should suffice). ...Which will be way more than you need. I have an OBF/DOM Flamethrower deck that you might be amused by; if you like, I'll post it here. I think it has two stealth cards in the entire deck. >Does anybody have what they consider a better idea? [Imposing a 8/3/1 C/U/R >card limit simulating the assumption a new player might not find a vet willing >to give him larger quantities of cards] -- Derek [ quoted text not captured ]

On Thu, 29 Mar 2001 10:46:38 -0500, Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote: >On Thu, 29 Mar 2001 15:45:50 +0200, Thomas Pichler ><tom.p...@aon.at> wrote: > >>Okay... no use creating unnecessary traffic by replying individually to all the >>answers that, by and large, really all said the same thing anyway. >> >>So, the idea to make non-stealth non-combat decks more playable locally is to >>use a 0-stealth deck that renders all intercept obsolete (including all >>permanent +1 intercept bonuses such as verious retainers, Sport Bikes, Guardian >>Angel and Atonement, which, locally, about every other deck uses). Try things like Sudden Reversals, Direct interventions, and, if you don't have the cards (and I know I don't have the cards to fuel that), votes like Peace Treaty. Also, if you're playing Tremere, Chantries will aid in getting out of torpor fast, since a non-combat deck tends to either majesty its way out of trouble, or just get pummelled. >Permanent +1 intercept is a little more tricky to jam up. But >hopefully all the intercept decks will spend their time stopping the >permanent intercept equip actions. And I like to think of Atonement >as "four free Rush actions per turn until they quit blocking the >attempts to remove it". That's what Army of Rats is for! [ quoted text not captured ] The only problem I can forsee with this deck is that it might be hard to use all those strike cards in a game. I certainly found it problematic to pull off a decent amount of strikes without addtitional strike cards, and I think Nimble Feet's the only one with that possibility.

On Thu, 29 Mar 2001 16:15:20 GMT, umur...@cc.umanitoba.ca wrote: >On Thu, 29 Mar 2001 10:46:38 -0500, Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> >wrote: > >>Permanent +1 intercept is a little more tricky to jam up. But >>hopefully all the intercept decks will spend their time stopping the >>permanent intercept equip actions. And I like to think of Atonement >>as "four free Rush actions per turn until they quit blocking the >>attempts to remove it". > >That's what Army of Rats is for! I like to think of Army of Rats as another four free Rush actions, although the Gangrel are a little trickier to gratuitously Rush. (bits snipped) >>COMBAT: (51 cards) >>Strike Cards (18) >>6 Growing Fury >>4 Mighty Grapple >>8 Undead Strength >> >>Support Cards (8) >>4 Torn Signpost >>4 Increased Strength >> >>Celerity (25) >>8 Acrobatics >>5 Flash >>4 Nimble Feet >>4 Sideslip >>4 Vampiric Speed > >The only problem I can forsee with this deck is that >it might be hard to use all those strike cards in a game. I certainly >found it problematic to pull off a decent amount of strikes without >addtitional strike cards, and I think Nimble Feet's the only one with >that possibility. Acrobatics is an additional strike at inferior or superior (note the tourist information you snipped?), and there are plenty of presses available so you can get to a second round and play another strike. You should burn through cards reasonably quickly when you get into combat, certainly enough to get to a Rush or bleed action. Besides, I'd rather have too many strikes than too many additional-strike cards and only be able to punch for 1. [ quoted text not captured ]

(snip snip) >I like to think of Army of Rats as another four free Rush actions, >although the Gangrel are a little trickier to gratuitously Rush. I like using Ravnos a little more. People don't think of the Ravnos as a threat until you whip out a flamethrower that you didn't have to pay for. That, and Ravnos are arguably the best interceptors out there. >Acrobatics is an additional strike at inferior or superior (note the >tourist information you snipped?), and there are plenty of presses >available so you can get to a second round and play another strike. >You should burn through cards reasonably quickly when you get into >combat, certainly enough to get to a Rush or bleed action. > >Besides, I'd rather have too many strikes than too many >additional-strike cards and only be able to punch for 1. Very good point.

>Take a combo of Brujah and !Brujah, drop in a big pile of Potence and >Celerity. Wasting 20 minutes with ELDB produces the following for me: Sounded like the environment is mostly or entirely Jyhad. >Crypt: (11 cards) [Min: 14, Max: 25, Avg: 4.82] >1 Anvil (dom CEL POT pre tha, Brujah, 6, Primogen) >1 Beast (ani cel OBF POT, Nosferatu Antitribu, 7) >1 Bianca (CEL pot pre, Brujah, 6) >1 Black Cat (CEL pot pre, Brujah, 5) >1 Dre (cel pot, Brujah, 3) >1 Evangeline (cel pot pre, Brujah Antitribu, 4) >1 Jacob Bragg (cel pot, Brujah Antitribu, 3) >1 Rigby (aus CEL pot PRE, Brujah Antitribu, 5) >1 Sela (cel obt POT PRE, Brujah Antitribu, 6, Bishop) >1 Victor Tolliver (CEL pot, Brujah Antitribu, 4) >1 Yuri (cel pot pre, Brujah, 4) So, could do 2x Anvil, 2x Bianca, play some of the old folks like Crusher, etc. >Library: (80 cards) >Master (10 cards) >5 Blood Doll >2 Celerity >2 Potence >1 Waste Management Operation Would have to lose the WMO. Could add in a hunting ground and The Barrens. Not sure why this deck should run so few masters since it isn't a "rush until they all die" deck. Could add Fame and Haven Uncovered anyway. >Action (19 cards) >7 Bum's Rush >6 Legal Manipulations >6 Social Charm > >COMBAT: (51 cards) >Strike Cards (18) >6 Growing Fury >4 Mighty Grapple >8 Undead Strength Could throw some gates as well. >Support Cards (8) >4 Torn Signpost >4 Increased Strength > >Celerity (25) >8 Acrobatics >5 Flash >4 Nimble Feet >4 Sideslip >4 Vampiric Speed Why aren't there any Blurs? Since, apparently, 3 copies of an uncommon is acceptable, 3 Taste of Vitae sound appropriate.

Derek Ray schrieb: > >So, what I'm now looking for is a 0-stealth deck that can hold it's own in > >combat (dying even more easily won't prove anything), but that will actually > >get blocked [nobody blocks Gangrel or Tzimisce going on a bleed for 1, > >normally]. > > Take a combo of Brujah and !Brujah, drop in a big pile of Potence and > Celerity. Wasting 20 minutes with ELDB produces the following for me: > Yes, that does sound like a good idea... throwing in some presence bleeds in order to actually get blocked... > Crypt: (11 cards) [Min: 14, Max: 25, Avg: 4.82] > 1 Anvil (dom CEL POT pre tha, Brujah, 6, Primogen) > 1 Beast (ani cel OBF POT, Nosferatu Antitribu, 7) > 1 Bianca (CEL pot pre, Brujah, 6) > 1 Black Cat (CEL pot pre, Brujah, 5) > 1 Dre (cel pot, Brujah, 3) > 1 Evangeline (cel pot pre, Brujah Antitribu, 4) > 1 Jacob Bragg (cel pot, Brujah Antitribu, 3) > 1 Rigby (aus CEL pot PRE, Brujah Antitribu, 5) > 1 Sela (cel obt POT PRE, Brujah Antitribu, 6, Bishop) > 1 Victor Tolliver (CEL pot, Brujah Antitribu, 4) > 1 Yuri (cel pot pre, Brujah, 4) > > (This is only 11 guys. Double up on two vampires you like, and remove > someone you don't. Personal preference: i would use two Rigby and two > Bianca, and remove Anvil.) > I'm almost tempted to use a second Anvil instead... only vampire o the list with CEL POT. > > Library: (80 cards) > Master (10 cards) > 5 Blood Doll > 2 Celerity > 2 Potence > 1 Waste Management Operation > > Action (19 cards) > 7 Bum's Rush > 6 Legal Manipulations > 6 Social Charm > > COMBAT: (51 cards) > Strike Cards (18) > 6 Growing Fury > 4 Mighty Grapple > 8 Undead Strength > > Support Cards (8) > 4 Torn Signpost > 4 Increased Strength > Yes, this looks very good... no extremely hard to get cards... Torn Signpost is in the !Brujah SW precon, so even a new player should own 2-3 to begin with, so 4 is reasonably within range; Increased Strength is the only other slightly problematic card, being from Ancient Hearts. Overall though, looks like a fairly easy (and cheap) to assemble deck, which is what I was looking for. > Celerity (25) > 8 Acrobatics > 5 Flash > 4 Nimble Feet > 4 Sideslip > 4 Vampiric Speed > Presto, 80 card 0-stealth combat deck, and unless you're seeing a lot And most importantly, with the Presence bleeds, one that will get blocked, too. Perfect, exactly the kind of deck I was looking for! > >My best idea right now would be Malkavian OBF DOM: it will get blocked (firstly > >because of the threat of high bleeds, secondly because people will expect I hit > >them with stealth, anyway), and instead of stealth I can use > >Disguised/Concealed Weapons (with a voluntary 8 card limit, that'd be 16, which > >should suffice). > > ...Which will be way more than you need. True. The point was really that 8 of each for a total of 16 - probably 6-8 more than needed - is very easy to get even for a new player, quite unlike 20 of the same card (e.g. Majesty). And the entire deck can be built on commons and a few uncommons one might happen to have. Thomas

On Thu, 29 Mar 2001 16:49:08 GMT, umur...@cc.umanitoba.ca wrote: >(snip snip) > >>I like to think of Army of Rats as another four free Rush actions, >>although the Gangrel are a little trickier to gratuitously Rush. > >I like using Ravnos a little more. People don't think of the Ravnos >as a threat until you whip out a flamethrower that you didn't have to >pay for. That, and Ravnos are arguably the best interceptors out >there. > This last statement is extremely odd. How come you think the Ravnos are the best intercept clan? Because of Veiled Sight, which at best let's you annihilate a Forgotten Labyrinth? In almost every other circumstance it's an Enhanced Senses that costs 2 blood... Apart from that you only have Animalism with Cats Guidance and all those retainers, but so have the Tzmisce, and they pack Auspex on top - which leads to Eagles Sight and the ability to intercept +3 actions reliably. And they don't need their Horrid Reality'ed Flame Thrower, as one Chiropractical Murderer will do fine, and coupled with Scorpion Sting it can't even be dodged. Regards Skaffen Chantry Elder Of Munich "I'm alive and bleeding for everyone Pull me from this mire Hold me till I'm home." (My Dying Bride, 'Der Überlebende')

On Thu, 29 Mar 2001 16:49:08 GMT, umur...@cc.umanitoba.ca wrote: >(snip snip) > >>I like to think of Army of Rats as another four free Rush actions, >>although the Gangrel are a little trickier to gratuitously Rush. > >I like using Ravnos a little more. People don't think of the Ravnos >as a threat until you whip out a flamethrower that you didn't have to >pay for. That, and Ravnos are arguably the best interceptors out >there. How did you not pay for the Flamethrower? Ravnos Carnival? (shrug) I suppose that's one way, although you have to get 4 Ravnos out before you can get the free Flamethrower. And Ravnos Cache just reduces the cost to 2... although you have to defend it for a couple turns. Not my favourite way to nab one. Best interceptors? Tzimisce, hands down. The Ravnos can get a Raven Spy, play Ignis Fatuus, and then Veiled Sight, but that costs them three blood per blocked action (not counting the Spy), and once you're forced to drop the Veiled Sight, all it takes is one more stealth card. And how do you get the blood back onto them when they're done blocking? The Tzimisce just get a Revenant and start chucking Auspex cards like crazy - which are all free. Much prefer them. [ quoted text not captured ]

On 29 Mar 2001 17:45:08 GMT, cur...@aol.com (Ian Lee) wrote: >>Take a combo of Brujah and !Brujah, drop in a big pile of Potence and >>Celerity. Wasting 20 minutes with ELDB produces the following for me: > >Sounded like the environment is mostly or entirely Jyhad. Could be, but you never know. Force of habit for me to include !Brujah, since they had a starter deck in Sabbat War; I can't consider them even remotely difficult to obtain. >>Crypt: (11 cards) [Min: 14, Max: 25, Avg: 4.82] >>1 Anvil (dom CEL POT pre tha, Brujah, 6, Primogen) >>1 Beast (ani cel OBF POT, Nosferatu Antitribu, 7) >>1 Bianca (CEL pot pre, Brujah, 6) >>1 Black Cat (CEL pot pre, Brujah, 5) >>1 Dre (cel pot, Brujah, 3) >>1 Evangeline (cel pot pre, Brujah Antitribu, 4) >>1 Jacob Bragg (cel pot, Brujah Antitribu, 3) >>1 Rigby (aus CEL pot PRE, Brujah Antitribu, 5) >>1 Sela (cel obt POT PRE, Brujah Antitribu, 6, Bishop) >>1 Victor Tolliver (CEL pot, Brujah Antitribu, 4) >>1 Yuri (cel pot pre, Brujah, 4) > >So, could do 2x Anvil, 2x Bianca, play some of the old folks like Crusher, etc. Rather go cheaper, though... 1x Anvil, 2x Bianca, 2x Black Cat, ... you get the idea. Crusher is a hideous waste of pool, i'm afraid. =( >>Library: (80 cards) >>Master (10 cards) >>5 Blood Doll >>2 Celerity >>2 Potence >>1 Waste Management Operation > >Would have to lose the WMO. Could add in a hunting ground and The Barrens. >Not sure why this deck should run so few masters since it isn't a "rush until >they all die" deck. Could add Fame and Haven Uncovered anyway. Can't stand Hunting Grounds myself, although I suppose if it's all Brujah, it works a lot better. Fame should be in there, yes. It runs so few masters because it DOES have 19 action cards, most of which ought to result in a combat. And your combat is likely to look like: Torn Signpost, Vampiric Speed, Nimble Feet, Undead Strength... ... with the option of the press and Growing Fury if 4 points wasn't enough. You'll end up burning a LOT of cards this way, though, and in an 80 card deck that cycles fast, going much over 10 Masters is an invitation to "screwed player syndrome". >>Action (19 cards) >>7 Bum's Rush >>6 Legal Manipulations >>6 Social Charm >> >>COMBAT: (51 cards) >>Strike Cards (18) >>6 Growing Fury >>4 Mighty Grapple >>8 Undead Strength > >Could throw some gates as well. Gates don't do any useful damage, even with POT... and then all your additional strikes are at range, and no good. Not to mention that if you use the Gate's maneuver, you deny yourself a Dodge. >>Support Cards (8) >>4 Torn Signpost >>4 Increased Strength >> >>Celerity (25) >>8 Acrobatics >>5 Flash >>4 Nimble Feet >>4 Sideslip >>4 Vampiric Speed > >Why aren't there any Blurs? Costs a blood (big) and doesn't do quite what the deck needs - this deck leans more towards free stuff and press combat than bunches of first-round strikes. Acrobatics is the only blood-cost card in there, and at superior it comes with a free Dodge, which sounds like it will be worth more than the extra strike in his environment. >Since, apparently, 3 copies of an uncommon is acceptable, 3 Taste of Vitae >sound appropriate. Uncommon it may be, but it's an uncommon uncommon - look at what they go for these days. I was trying to avoid using too many of ANY "highly in demand" card. Torn Signpost is tough to avoid, though. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Thu, 29 Mar 2001 20:01:06 +0200, Thomas Pichler <tom.p...@aon.at> wrote: >Derek Ray schrieb: > >> Take a combo of Brujah and !Brujah, drop in a big pile of Potence and >> Celerity. Wasting 20 minutes with ELDB produces the following for me: > >Yes, that does sound like a good idea... throwing in some presence bleeds in order >to actually get blocked... A bleed for 3 is more or less the minimum amount that CAN'T be ignored. You have to deflect it, reduce it, or block it, but you can't just sit there and soak multiple bleeds for 3 without being rapidly ousted. >> Crypt: (11 cards) [Min: 14, Max: 25, Avg: 4.82] >> 1 Anvil (dom CEL POT pre tha, Brujah, 6, Primogen) >> 1 Beast (ani cel OBF POT, Nosferatu Antitribu, 7) >> 1 Bianca (CEL pot pre, Brujah, 6) >> 1 Black Cat (CEL pot pre, Brujah, 5) >> 1 Dre (cel pot, Brujah, 3) >> 1 Evangeline (cel pot pre, Brujah Antitribu, 4) >> 1 Jacob Bragg (cel pot, Brujah Antitribu, 3) >> 1 Rigby (aus CEL pot PRE, Brujah Antitribu, 5) >> 1 Sela (cel obt POT PRE, Brujah Antitribu, 6, Bishop) >> 1 Victor Tolliver (CEL pot, Brujah Antitribu, 4) >> 1 Yuri (cel pot pre, Brujah, 4) >> >> (This is only 11 guys. Double up on two vampires you like, and remove >> someone you don't. Personal preference: i would use two Rigby and two >> Bianca, and remove Anvil.) > >I'm almost tempted to use a second Anvil instead... only vampire o the list with CEL >POT. Yes, but Bianca's +1 strength is PERMANENT - means she can be stuck with a handful of Masters, play a Nimble Feet, and still hit for 4. Anvil needs to play TWO Potence cards to gain an extra point of damage on Bianca. If you're relying on Celerity at all, Bianca is usually a safer choice. >Yes, this looks very good... no extremely hard to get cards... Torn Signpost is in >the !Brujah SW precon, so even a new player should own 2-3 to begin with, so 4 is >reasonably within range; Increased Strength is the only other slightly problematic >card, being from Ancient Hearts. As mentioned in my reply to Wes, the !Brujah precon is the reason you can include some of these vamps/cards. Increased Strength is a small problem, but it was a "ridiculous-common" in Ancient Hearts, so it shouldn't be that difficult to find some on the 'net or somewhere. >> >My best idea right now would be Malkavian OBF DOM: it will get blocked (firstly >> >because of the threat of high bleeds, secondly because people will expect I hit >> >them with stealth, anyway), and instead of stealth I can use >> >Disguised/Concealed Weapons (with a voluntary 8 card limit, that'd be 16, which >> >should suffice). >> >> ...Which will be way more than you need. > >True. The point was really that 8 of each for a total of 16 - probably 6-8 more than >needed - is very easy to get even for a new player, quite unlike 20 of the same card >(e.g. Majesty). And the entire deck can be built on commons and a few uncommons one >might happen to have. Jyhad was carefully designed to be playable WITHOUT relying on rares. It just takes a different approach towards things. Sure, Disarm is great, and it's lovely to be able to make a deck that has 12 Torn Signpost, 12 Immortal Grapple, and 12 Blur as its combat base. But sometimes that can get you in a bind when you have only three IG and one Blur in hand, and two Presence bleeds and a Master. Oops. As far as Disguised Weapon.. I normally put 5 DW and 5-8 weapons in a 75 card deck (depending on if I have a variety of weapons, or just 5 Flamethrowers). That seems to be enough to get it in the first few turns. [ quoted text not captured ]

>My best idea right now would be Malkavian OBF DOM: it will get blocked >(firstly >because of the threat of high bleeds, secondly because people will expect I >hit >them with stealth, anyway), and instead of stealth I can use >Disguised/Concealed Weapons (with a voluntary 8 card limit, that'd be 16, >which >should suffice). If you're going for Disguised/Concealed Weapon, might I suggest celerity as well? Since you don't need major stealth, you can probably settle for inferior obfuscate. Celerity will make those gun strikes all the more effective (and allow you to do some extra damage against DotB). Malkavians have a decent grasp of Celerity, though you might have to have some skill cards. But still, the celerity would make those hidden weapons so much more deadly! Halcyan 2

>How did you not pay for the Flamethrower? Ravnos Carnival? (shrug) >I suppose that's one way, although you have to get 4 Ravnos out before >you can get the free Flamethrower. And Ravnos Cache just reduces the >cost to 2... although you have to defend it for a couple turns. Not >my favourite way to nab one. Horrid Reality, admittedly costs two blood, but you get the flamethrower for the action. >Best interceptors? Tzimisce, hands down. The Ravnos can get a Raven >Spy, play Ignis Fatuus, and then Veiled Sight, but that costs them >three blood per blocked action (not counting the Spy), and once you're >forced to drop the Veiled Sight, all it takes is one more stealth >card. And how do you get the blood back onto them when they're done >blocking? > >The Tzimisce just get a Revenant and start chucking Auspex cards like >crazy - which are all free. Much prefer them. :) Well, I've been told! I was thinking Ravnos as Veiled Sight is pretty much the only way to get rid of those nasty Night Move/Spying Mission combos. I failed to take into account the blood cost, I admit.

Halcyan 2 schrieb: [ quoted text not captured ] I was toying with that idea, but looking at the vampires, of the 5 mid-capacity Malkavians with celerity, 3 lack dominate and 1 lacks obfuscate; all of them have Auspex (3 of them at superior), so they're far more suited for an intercept-combat deck, which is exactly what I don't want to be builiding. Thomas

Derek Ray schrieb: > On 29 Mar 2001 17:45:08 GMT, cur...@aol.com (Ian Lee) wrote: > > >>Take a combo of Brujah and !Brujah, drop in a big pile of Potence and > >>Celerity. Wasting 20 minutes with ELDB produces the following for me: > > > >Sounded like the environment is mostly or entirely Jyhad. > > Could be, but you never know. Force of habit for me to include > !Brujah, since they had a starter deck in Sabbat War; I can't consider > them even remotely difficult to obtain. > Okay... my news server doesn't seem to be receiving all the posts in this thread, which is bad... anyway, the environment is not mostly Jyhad, though for a new player, his card-base probably would be [Jyhad seems easier to get than SW right now]. Actually, the invironment is Tzimisce-heavy (untap/intercept/aggro-Rötschreck), and there's hardly a deck that doesn't at least use master cards, Sport Bikes, Atonements or retainers for intercept. > Costs a blood (big) and doesn't do quite what the deck needs - this > deck leans more towards free stuff and press combat than bunches of > first-round strikes. Acrobatics is the only blood-cost card in there, > and at superior it comes with a free Dodge, which sounds like it will > be worth more than the extra strike in his environment. Yes. At least dodge the Breath of Dragon/Chirpoptean Marauder/Burst of Sunlight/whatever and hope there's no Rötschreck coming. > >Since, apparently, 3 copies of an uncommon is acceptable, 3 Taste of Vitae > >sound appropriate. > > Uncommon it may be, but it's an uncommon uncommon - look at what they > go for these days. I was trying to avoid using too many of ANY > "highly in demand" card. Torn Signpost is tough to avoid, though. > Yes, I'm very happy you avoided something like Taste of Vitae; Torn Signpost is acceptable, for someone getting 2 !Brujah starters, they'll have 2, and some Jyhad, possibly a third... so 3-4 seems reasonable. Anything more would be bad. Thomas

>>Best interceptors? Tzimisce, hands down. The Ravnos can get a Raven >>Spy, play Ignis Fatuus, and then Veiled Sight, but that costs them >>three blood per blocked action (not counting the Spy), and once you're >>forced to drop the Veiled Sight, all it takes is one more stealth >>card. And how do you get the blood back onto them when they're done >>blocking? >> >>The Tzimisce just get a Revenant and start chucking Auspex cards like >>crazy - which are all free. Much prefer them. > >:) Well, I've been told! I was thinking Ravnos as Veiled Sight is pretty >much >the only way to get rid of those nasty Night Move/Spying Mission >combos. I failed to take into account the blood cost, I admit. > Actually, I'd also agree that Ravnos are potentially the best intercept clan. Besides untap/intercept from Animalism, Chimerstry has two key cards: Ignis Fatuus and Veiled Sight. Someone already noted they are blood intensive, but the best part about them is that they reduce stealth (as opposed to increase intercept). So a Tzimisce may play a bunch of intercept cards, but that only affects him. If he gets tapped or doesn't succeed, the other Tzimisce don't even have a chance. With Ignis Fatuus, every untapped Ravnos can play one. And Veiled Sight can completely obliterate stealth (though you have to try to block). And these cards can essentially provide intercept to other Methusaleh's minions. If someone crosstable is calling a nasty vote, you can help provide intercept (sort of like KRCG or London Evening Star), making them valuable bargaining chips. Halcyan 2

[ quoted text not captured ] Not quite sure of the premise here - do you want a cheap deck? If not, how about the following: Country gangrel-antitribu/Malkavian/[Toreador] DOM/pro bleed or just possibly presence-vote. Key cards: Caitlin Genevieve Gilbert Duane Zebulon Etrius Zachary, Kallista and Marcellus if you go for votes Path of the Feral Heart Legendary Vampire Pulse of the Canaille Auspex Dominate Protean. Key combo: Your DOM/pro vampire bleeds using Horrific Countenance for 7-13, or votes using the same modifier. The other players sit sadly riffling through their handsful of intercept and wondering whether they could more profitably use the cards to re-decorate the spare room. If you're afraid of being rushed, spice the mix up with Form of the Ghost, Flesh of Marble, and earth Meld. Don't forget to laugh and gloat. O, i forgot the Hunting Grounds, Racks, Revelations, Blood Dolls and gird Minions. You will have thought of that yourself, in the meantime.

legbiter schrieb: > Not quite sure of the premise here - do you want a cheap deck? Actually, yes, I was looking for a cheap deck that one could reasonably assume even a new player could assemble - but that doesn't mean I don't like your idea, it's just not quite what I was hoping for. Thomas

Thomas Pichler <tom.p...@aon.at> wrote in message news:3AC43831...@aon.at... > Yes, I'm very happy you avoided something like Taste of Vitae; Torn Signpost is > acceptable, for someone getting 2 !Brujah starters, they'll have 2, and some Jyhad, > possibly a third... so 3-4 seems reasonable. Anything more would be bad. There are exactly as many Taste of Vitae in the Brujah Antitribu Starter as there are Torn Signpost. Avoiding it as a building block is pointless. Carpe Noctem. Lasombra http://www.TheLasombra.com/decks.htm#precon

Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote: >Don't be in too much of a hurry to pat yourself on the back. It's >actually 7 out of 7 for the Camarilla, and judging from these past few >posts, i'd be TERRIBLY curious to see which clan you think is the >other "unplayable" one. :) While the Ventrue can feasibly be played with only commons (they suffer from it, of course, but it can be done), playing an all-common Nosferatu deck will be a losing proposition. You *badly* need the rares and uncommons for the Nossies. OTOH, my current Tzimisce deck is 85% commons. Forced wakes/Enhanced senses/Spirit's Touch/Carrion Crows/Aid from Bats/Cat's Guidance. ----------------------------------------------------------- Johan Lundstrom <jo...@algonet.se> "Knowledge is power. Power corrupts."

The Lasombra schrieb: > Thomas Pichler <tom.p...@aon.at> wrote in message > news:3AC43831...@aon.at... > > Yes, I'm very happy you avoided something like Taste of Vitae; Torn > Signpost is > > acceptable, for someone getting 2 !Brujah starters, they'll have 2, and > some Jyhad, > > possibly a third... so 3-4 seems reasonable. Anything more would be bad. > > There are exactly as many Taste of Vitae in the Brujah Antitribu Starter > as there are Torn Signpost. Avoiding it as a building block is pointless. > Whoop... got my lists wrong then, they have Taste of Vitae down for another precon... thanks for letting me know! Thomas