Ok, I've been trying to follow the various threads for the GT and other
rules for a few weeks now, and hopefully, I won't make any blaring errors
in this post.
Why is Weenie Vote Push so bad? It uses many small vampires to call
series after series of harmful votes. There are a few ways that I see
to stop this.
The first way is to make a limit on deck contruction by perhaps limitting
vote cards to 50% of a deck. Some say this would be hard to implement.
That may be true, but consider that not every deck needs to be checked.
And only those that still try to make some kind of WVP deck will probably
try to push the limit. Once their strategy is seen, the deck can be seen
and they lose/are disqualified/or you can kick the crap out of them. ;)
Second, is intercept. Really, if you expect to win consistently, you need
to have some kind of intercept. I don't mean you have to make it a key part
of your deck or be able to produce multiple points of intercept per turn.
There are several cards now, both permanent and non-permanent, that can give
intercept to about anyone. There's only +1 stealth on political actions.
Force the WVP deck to add in stealth if they want to continue to use their
twink deck. Cards from the basic set that come to mind include KRCG News Radio
and 3rd Tradition. No deck, IMHO, should have at least a means to produce
1 point of stealth.
Third is something that I haven't seen discussed quite yet: Ancilla
Empowerment. If everyone sees that someone is playing a WVP deck, they are
gonna vote for this (except the WVP, of course). You don't need to come up
with all the votes yourself. This allows the group, with a little bit of
harmful side-effect, to get rid of the WVP. Of course, if your group doesn't
play with title vampires very often, this may not work. But like the game
goes, you have to adjust or die.
What do all of you that play GT/NL do against S&B decks? If you aren't using
intercept, I am guessing you are deflecting the big bleeds or using AI.
Or do you just hope you don't get an S&B. Let me know how those of you
playing GT/NL deal with S&B and what you think of what I said above, and
we can continue discussion.
Mike
In article <4uritt$4...@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu>,
Mike Bohlmann <mboh...@students.uiuc.edu> wrote:
>
>What do all of you that play GT/NL do against S&B decks? If you aren't using
>intercept, I am guessing you are deflecting the big bleeds or using AI.
>Or do you just hope you don't get an S&B. Let me know how those of you
>playing GT/NL deal with S&B and what you think of what I said above, and
>we can continue discussion.
>
>Mike
>
Playing Golden Tenets with a combat deck, I tend to ignore interception
(a S&B deck will almost certainly have more stealth than I have intercept,
and if I try to intercept, I just clean his hand out for him), and instead
do some sort of Rush combat.
I'd rather not have a S&B pred I admit, since I have to put extra
effort into killing someone else's prey, but so it goes.
Interception is hardly neccesary.
Other possible defense against are pool gain (not overly effective)
possibly combined with a lesser bleed.
Also, quite a few times you can get the S&B deck's pred to help you
out, since he doesn't really want to see his prey gaining 6 pool.
-Jasper
--
/\ Jasper Phillips (Pit Fiend) ______,....----,
/VVVVVVVVVVVVVV|==================="""""""""""" ___,..-'
`^^^^^^^^^^^^^^|======================----------""""""
\/ http://www.cs.orst.edu/~philljas/
mboh...@students.uiuc.edu (Mike Bohlmann) writes:
>Ok, I've been trying to follow the various threads for the GT and other
>rules for a few weeks now, and hopefully, I won't make any blaring errors
>in this post.
[...]
>Or do you just hope you don't get an S&B. Let me know how those of you
>playing GT/NL deal with S&B and what you think of what I said above, and
>we can continue discussion.
You've done a marvelous job of following the discussion, as you have
reiterated every point made on the Card Limit side, and added an old
one that (AFAIK) didn't pop up in the latest round: S&B defense.
"Reply to WeenieVote with a AncillEmp": not likely. WVP has three or four
princes and seven votes in her hand by the time you can damage her
significantly with a vote - that vote won't pass.
"Every Deck needs mild intercept": No. Rush combat (unworkable in 4CL) does
very nicely with no intercept. Even so, you can only block 50% of the votes
called (maybe 75% if you Predator decides to sacrifice himself for your sake,
but that in itself is another BadThing(TM)), because *so many* votes are
being called each turn.
"What about S&B?": S&B is slaughtered by Rush Combat, done properly.
Bleed Bounce (as you mention) is another good defense.
Archon Investigation is a good, albeit brokenly over-powered, defense.
We've been playing NL/GT for a year now (every week) and S&B wins
sometimes, but not everytime
--
L. Scott Johnson (sjoh...@math.sc.edu) | Ensign Crusher, check that
http://www.math.sc.edu/~sjohnson | leaky warp core please.
Graphics Specialist and V:tES Rulemonger. |
mboh...@students.uiuc.edu (Mike Bohlmann) wrote:
>Third is something that I haven't seen discussed quite yet: Ancilla
>Empowerment. If everyone sees that someone is playing a WVP deck, they are
>gonna vote for this (except the WVP, of course). You don't need to come up
>with all the votes yourself. This allows the group, with a little bit of
>harmful side-effect, to get rid of the WVP. Of course, if your group doesn't
>play with title vampires very often, this may not work. But like the game
>goes, you have to adjust or die.
I'd just like to point out that I have won a game (swept the table) by
playing Ancilla Empowerment with my WVP deck with FOURTEEN vampires in
play. Often, this is a way to put out your prey.
How do expect to pass a vote when the WVP has several weenie princes
and seven (or eight--elder library) votes in his hand?
------------------------------- ------------------------------------------
Scoundrel [O] Decipher Lackey "Devastator" Chuck
a.k.a. Chuck Kallenbach II [O] Gold 2/SWCCG Tournament Team/St. Louis, MO
scou...@inlink.com [O] Ruler of the Universe and Coordinator of
http://www.inlink.com/~scoundrl On The Edge Conspiracy Cell Z
In article <4uritt$4...@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu>
mboh...@students.uiuc.edu (Mike Bohlmann) writes:
[snip]
>Why is Weenie Vote Push so bad? It uses many small vampires to call
Because it's necessary to adopt one particular defensive style in
order to stop it. No other strategy requires this.
Normally, vote decks deal with other vote decks by outvoting them,
either with titles or reactive vote cards. However, they must use
intercept to deal with WVP (WVP gains several titles early, and
can throw nearly 7 extra votes at any vote. A smart WVP deck will
contest titles and Praxis of Solomon to strip its opponents
of titles).
Normally, Rush decks deal with vote decks by rushing the voters.
WVP doesn't care if it loses vampires.
Now, both these basic strategies *must* pack intercept. Often,
they don't, having other ways to deal with S&B, votes, and combat.
>The first way is to make a limit on deck contruction by perhaps limitting
>vote cards to 50% of a deck. Some say this would be hard to implement.
[snip]
We'd rather avoid card limits, thank you.
>Second, is intercept. Really, if you expect to win consistently, you need
>to have some kind of intercept.
Not! I have a great Brujah rush combat deck, that does very well.
It has virtually no intercept, and I'm thinking of removing the
little that it does have -- it just seems to get in the way.
(Right now, it's 90 cards, with only 2 Sport Bikes). The deck
relies on almost no permanents (weapons, retainers, masters)
for combat. The cards flow through my hand like water, and I
*do* have to worry about running out of cards. But by then,
I've usually ousted a couple of people.
>Third is something that I haven't seen discussed quite yet: Ancilla
>Empowerment. If everyone sees that someone is playing a WVP deck, they are
>gonna vote for this (except the WVP, of course). You don't need to come up
How're you going to get it passed? The WVP will have more titles,
and an extra 7 votes to toss.
>What do all of you that play GT/NL do against S&B decks? If you aren't using
>intercept, I am guessing you are deflecting the big bleeds or using AI.>Or do you just hope you don't get an S&B. Let me know how those of you
>playing GT/NL deal with S&B and what you think of what I said above, and
>we can continue discussion.
Rush combat: rush the bleeders. S&B decks die miserably when preying
on a rush combat deck. If I have an S&B predator, they often are the first
person ousted from the game.
Intercept combat: Duh.
Vote: Deflection (being Toreador and Ventrue, mainly). Under NL,
you can load up your deck with deflection and/or bleed reduction,
enough so it becomes a viable strategy. Besides, you can
deflect them to an intercept combat deck :-)
Bleed: either deflection or out-bleeding, or intercept.
--
Tom Doehne
doe...@church.cse.ogi.edu (Thomas Doehne) writes:
>Normally, vote decks deal with other vote decks by outvoting them,
>either with titles or reactive vote cards. However, they must use
>intercept to deal with WVP (WVP gains several titles early, and
>can throw nearly 7 extra votes at any vote. A smart WVP deck will
>contest titles and Praxis of Solomon to strip its opponents
>of titles).
Praxis: Solomon only detemerines control of contested *cards*, not of
contested effects/abilities (like titles, which are the only example I
know of).
The only things that will strip an opponent's title (besides having him
yield - not likely vs. a weenie), are votes like Harpies and Wrath of
the Inner Circle (or the mis-ruled undirected action of Noble Blood,
which can be used to replace a Prince, Justicar or Inner Circle title
with that of "Primogen" - requires a primogen itself, tho', so won't
find it's way into most weenie decks).
[ quoted text not captured ]
On 14 Aug 1996, Mike Bohlmann wrote:
[snip]
> Second, is intercept. Really, if you expect to win consistently, you need
> to have some kind of intercept.
Much disagreement here. Really, if you expect to win consistently, you
need to have some kind of plan to win against common strategies.
Intercept is often one plan, but there are many others.
[snip]
> Third is something that I haven't seen discussed quite yet: Ancilla
> Empowerment. If everyone sees that someone is playing a WVP deck, they are
> gonna vote for this (except the WVP, of course). You don't need to come up> with all the votes yourself. This allows the group, with a little bit of
> harmful side-effect, to get rid of the WVP. Of course, if your group doesn't
> play with title vampires very often, this may not work. But like the game
> goes, you have to adjust or die.
Ancilla Empowerment, you'll note, is in the WVP deck I posted under DCI.
There are two things that will happen if someone else calls WVP (given
WVP is working):
1) It will fail (WVP will have more votes)
2) It will help pass it (without a doubt, it will sink everyone
farther in the hole. WVP usually hasn't lost much pool (bleeders hand
jam, fighters are acting against vamps not methuselah, voters sniffle),
and the Empowerment vote will hurt it, but even though the loss of pool
is not as much for other decks, it will be more detrimental.
> What do all of you that play GT/NL do against S&B decks? If you aren't using
> intercept, I am guessing you are deflecting the big bleeds or using AI.
My current decks:
1 The Rebekka Deck (8 Rebekkas in the Crypt...): Blood Gain/Change Seating
2 Cafe Vitae (Rav/Gan intercept): Blood Gain/Intercept
3 Blood for Blood (Assamite Rush): Rush
4 Malkavian Militiamen (Malk Int. Combat): Intercept/Bounce
5 Sowing Dissensions Seeds (Strange Anarchy deck): Change Seating/Blood Gain
6 Into That Good Night (Gio combat): Deflection/Rush/Carlotta'd clan hosers
7 Baiting the Enemy (Mal/Nos combat): (very)light intercept/bounce/blood gain
8 The SlumLords (Nos Politics): (huge)Blood Gain/Rush
9 Setite/Toreador Politics (unnamed): Race for Oust/Blood Gain
10 My League Deck (Gan/Ven Combat/Politics): Light intercept/Blood Gain
11 Burning Blood Brightly (Tre combat): Light intercept/Bounce/Rush
Against WVP:
1) Blood Gain/(D)-Bleed Pressure; 2) as above; 3) as above; 4) Intercept;
5) Set up Anarchy Situation (Haven Uncovereds and Blood Hunts fall on WVP);
6) Rush/Carlotta'd Weenie Hosers; 7) Light Intercept; 8) Rush/Early Titles;
9) Steal Vampires/Blood Gain/Race for Oust; 10) as above;
11) Light Intercept/Rush
I am confidant in NL/GT to be able to make decks that can handle WVP. I
am also sure that WVP decks can be made and win, but not
disproportionately (though usually, still boringly). I cannot say
anything similar in non-GT environments.
One thing I like about the Golden Tenets is that all the decks above are
viable against pretty much any basic deck, and they all didn't have to
keep a specific deck in mind. While certain decks have weaker defenses
against certain strategies, not once did I have to pander to specific
decks, only general strategies.
@ The Corrupter - Adrian Lee Sullivan @ GAT/CS/WS R+++* r(+)>++
# Gamer Coffee-Addict Scripter Author # C(+++)$ USX+$ N++ e+*
@#$ Comments ? sull...@cslab.uwlax.edu $#@ tv(+)> X++ b++(+++)
@#$ <http://cslab.uwlax.edu/~sulli_al/jyhad> $#@ PS+&-+ PE&-&++ z*+?
On Sat, 17 Aug 1996, Anise Sorghum wrote:
> Regarding Weenie Votes:
> I actually like vote pushing. However, having played on both sides of
> WVP decks, I agree that they are problematic.> Have you considered a house rule that only vampires of capacity 5 or
> greater can carry titles?
This would definately stop WVP, but curtail non-degenerate decks as well.
> Although it would be a major change, it is
> certainly in line with Of Noble Blood and all existing titled
> vampires. It seems like it would drastically cut down on the
> efficiency of Weenie Voting. It certainly fits into the
> quasi-roleplaying theme of the game (why would any Camarilla permit
> themselves to be ruled by a gnat?)
Because the gnat can somehow (a Methuselah's support, unbeknownst to the
city) keep the city under her control?
> I suppose the issue would be whether which of the following is most
> onerous:
> 1) Building decks to try to cope with WVP
I would say "_Having_to_ build decks to cope with WVP"
> 2) Restricting cards
> 3) Disallowing all vote pushing
> 4) Making title acquisition more difficult
Of the above, I would say the order (from worst to best) is: 2 1 4 3
[ quoted text not captured ]
Regarding Weenie Votes:
I actually like vote pushing. However, having played on both sides of
WVP decks, I agree that they are problematic.
Have you considered a house rule that only vampires of capacity 5 or
greater can carry titles? Although it would be a major change, it is
certainly in line with Of Noble Blood and all existing titled
vampires. It seems like it would drastically cut down on the
efficiency of Weenie Voting. It certainly fits into the
quasi-roleplaying theme of the game (why would any Camarilla permit
themselves to be ruled by a gnat?)
I suppose the issue would be whether which of the following is most
onerous:
1) Building decks to try to cope with WVP
2) Restricting cards
3) Disallowing all vote pushing
4) Making title acquisition more difficult
Morgan
mboh...@students.uiuc.edu (Mike Bohlmann) wrote:
>Why is Weenie Vote Push so bad? It uses many small vampires to call>series after series of harmful votes. There are a few ways that I see
>to stop this.
Yes. Pretty simple isn't it? Too bad it works too well. I know that
everytime I bring a WVP deck to the table I know within 2 turns there
will be a gang up situation.. on me. It makes the game boring as
well... as bad or worse then S&B.
>The first way is to make a limit on deck contruction by perhaps limitting
>vote cards to 50% of a deck. Some say this would be hard to implement.>That may be true, but consider that not every deck needs to be checked.
>And only those that still try to make some kind of WVP deck will probably
>try to push the limit. Once their strategy is seen, the deck can be seen
>and they lose/are disqualified/or you can kick the crap out of them. ;)
So why stop at 50% on political action. I think those combat decks
are getting too strong... only 50% combat cards. Hey, and those s&b
decks are killing everyone now... only 50% action modifiers.
>Second, is intercept. Really, if you expect to win consistently, you need>to have some kind of intercept. I don't mean you have to make it a key part
>of your deck or be able to produce multiple points of intercept per turn.
>There are several cards now, both permanent and non-permanent, that can give
>intercept to about anyone. There's only +1 stealth on political actions.
>Force the WVP deck to add in stealth if they want to continue to use their
>twink deck. Cards from the basic set that come to mind include KRCG News Radio
>and 3rd Tradition. No deck, IMHO, should have at least a means to produce
>1 point of stealth.
I should not have to have intercept in order to win. If I want to
play rush combat and can kill any vamp I want, I don't want to play
intercept. Saying you have to play intercept is like saying you need
to play stealth. Intercept is one way of defending against some
strategies, and it isn't going to work for or against every deck.
What you are saying is that intercept is like... the "Power blue" in
MtG - you need to use it to win (and yes the MtG reference is on
purpose).
Plus, are you saying that putting 3-4 intercept cards is going to stop
a WVP? Unless its a sportbike on Justine, you stop one vote per turn.
I just do the one's that are painful but not too much so until either
I've run out of good votes or you block one. Then I come with the big
guns.
>Third is something that I haven't seen discussed quite yet: Ancilla
>Empowerment. If everyone sees that someone is playing a WVP deck, they are
>gonna vote for this (except the WVP, of course). You don't need to come up
>with all the votes yourself. This allows the group, with a little bit of
>harmful side-effect, to get rid of the WVP. Of course, if your group doesn't
>play with title vampires very often, this may not work. But like the game
>goes, you have to adjust or die.
Oh... so I'm going to pack a bunch of Ancilla's just to screw with
weenie decks. And how exactly are you getting them to pass if there
is a WVP deck at the table. The point of WVP is that it has lots of
weenie titled vampires and the ability to call a bunch of votes that
it can then push pass everyone else. Since WVP will win every vote
thats called with all the table against it, fighting it with politics
just doesn't work.
>What do all of you that play GT/NL do against S&B decks? If you aren't using
>intercept, I am guessing you are deflecting the big bleeds or using AI.>Or do you just hope you don't get an S&B. Let me know how those of you
>playing GT/NL deal with S&B and what you think of what I said above, and
>we can continue discussion.
Those who play NL have many ways to deal with S&B. Rush combat is of
course a favorite. Bleed bounce is also good (my group's favored way
right now). If you are the 1st prey of a S&B deck you are probably
going to get hurt, maybe ousted, but the same can be said about all
the deck types. And light intercept against s&b is just stupid since
that lets the s&b cycle cards so he gets more bleed boosters and more
stealth cards. Unless you can consistently get +2 interfect, I advise
against blocking s&b decks... eventually they will hand jam themselves
with stealth cards but no boosters.
Charles
--
Charles T. Schwope | Every man is a spark in the darkness. By the
aka CT | time he is noticed, he is gone forever, a
sch...@infrared.csc.ti.com | retinal afterimage that fades, and is obscured
c-sc...@ti.com | by newer, brighter lights.