[Report] Spanish Continental Qualifier: Martorell 2005

Event Name: Spanish Continental Qualifier: Martorell 2005 Event Date: 14-May-05 Coordinator: Francesc Ros (Prince of Martorell) City: Martorell Format (Constructed/Limited): Contructed Number of Players: 45 Number of Rounds (including final): 4 Head Judge: Francesc Ros Assistant Judges: Juan Rodrigo TOURNAMENT PICTURES: http://www.vtes.net/novedades/EQ05_fotos.asp MY 1st ROUND: ------------- Ally deck with Hesha Ruhadze, Aristotle de Laurent and Marciana Giovanni -> !Ventrue bleed and intercept deck -> Me (Kindred Spirits S&B deck) -> High cap Malkavian Derange deck -> Toreador vote & bleed deck ------------- I could hardly bring out 3 vampires (Artemis, Dolphin Black and Claven), since my predator (!Ventrue) had more minions than I and the lack of reaction cards in my hand was... disturbing. And to top it all, I had burnt 6 pool due to 2 Petra Resonance played by my prey (who, by the way was gaining many pool via Minion Tap). The Toreador Methuselah ousted the Ally deck sooner than expected. But thank got, since my predator (!Ventrue) would have a real predator and, therefore, he would put so much pressure on me. I deflected some of my predator's bleeds to my prey, whom I ousted a turn after my predator unblockably attempted to bleed me for 3 (when I only had 3 pool left). Once the my prey was ousted I chose not to bring out more vampires to feel safer :-) I ousted the Toreador vote & bleed deck a couple of turns later. Then I realized that my library was almost exhausted (there were perhaps about 10-12 cards left in there). So I chose to play Gambit Accepted and bleed my prey each turn (for 2 or 3) to reduce his pool make him vulnerable to the Anarch Revolt I had in my hand and that I played on the turn before I ousted my prey. So I got the GW and 4 VPs MY 2nd ROUND ------------- Kindred Spirits S&B deck (Marco) -> Beast + Theo Bell rush deck -> Tzimisce bleed deck with Dominate -> Me -> Helena wall deck ------------- Marco began to bleed his prey like there was no tomorrow, since he knew that his prey would torporize his vampires given the chance. My prey brought out Helena after I bled him for 3. But on the following turn, my alarms went off when I could not block Helena's action to equip with the Bowl of Convergence. Si I decided not to take any actions until she got the Assault Rifle (which she did one turn afterward via Disguised Weapon when in combat with one of Marco's vampires). Although Marco's prey had torporized 2 of Marco's vampires, he could do nothing else but die. Then I attempted to bleed my prey with Quentin King (ADV) and Jason, the World's Voice (the only vampires I had in play with superior Obfuscate), and Helena was not able to block, so I ousted my prey, and Marco ousted the Tzimisce Methuselah (my predator) and contested my Quenting King (ADV). At that time, Marco had more vampires in play than I, But I realized that his hand was already jammed with stealth cards, so I chose not to attempt to block anything he did, and bleed him turn after turn. Once that Marco and I were the only remaining Methuselahs at the table, I played Victim of Habbit targetting his Kindred Spirits to increase his pool loss, and ousted him by the skin of my teeth one turn afterward. So I got the GW and 3 VPs. MY 3rd ROUND ------------- Anneke Toreador wall with Serpentis (Extortion) -> Malkavian S&B with Dementation -> Me -> Obf+Pre+Dom vote and bleed deck -> Tremere Cryptic Mission deck ------------- My predator brought out William Biltmore and have him play a Pulse of the Canaille. I could not believe I had no bounce cards in my hand (argh!). Then he bleed me me for 5 with a Kindred Spirits. I knew I could not survive long enough with that player as my predator, so I used my Kindred Spirits to bleed backwards, contested my predator's Dolphin Black and told my grandpredator to attempt to bleed with his Anneke and Anson although he was a wall deck and needed to stay untapped. He agreed, and attempted to bleed with Anneke, but William Biltmore played Wake with Evening's Freshness and blocked Anneke, who was sent to torpor via a Coma. Then I ousted my predator and rescued Anneke from torpor (which I should not have done, IMO). In fact, I think I should have diablerized her although that meant the destruction of the diablerist, since that Toreador deck becomes stronger and stronger with each passing moment without a predator (which was already happening, since the Tremere player was under too much pressure by his predator (Arika, Gratiano, Maris Streck...) Several turns later, my prey ousted the Tremere Methuselah. By the time I ousted my prey (the obf+pre+Dom vote deck), my library was almost exhausted. Besides, my new prey and predator (The Toreador wall deck) had just played a Protected Resources, which kept me from ousting him on the next turn. So I just got 1 VP here :-) But enough to be in the final. FINAL ROUND ------------- High cap Malkavian Derange deck -> Toreador TGB Turbo Parity Shift -> Me -> Nosferatu and !Nosferatu intercept & rush deck -> Anneke wall deck with Serpentis (who was top seeded) ------------- My predator brings out Anson. I bring out Dolphin Black. My prey brings out Nikolaus Vermeulen, my grandprey brings out Anneke, and my grandpredator brings out Leandro :-) Anson calls a Parity Shift. The vote passes, so I burnt 5 pool (nice start). I play a Blood Doll on Dolphin Black and bleed for 3 with Dolphin Black. My prey attempts to block but fails. So I bring out Uncle George. Nikolaus Vermeulen attacks Dolphin Black and torporizes her empty. On my next turn, I play 1 Blood Doll on Uncle Goerge and move 1 blood to Dolphin Black. Uncle George rescues her from torpor, and she bleeds for 3 again (with Kindred Spirits + Confusion). My prey brings out Calebros. My grandprey brings out Tatiana Romanova. My grandpredator puts Esau in play, and my prey brings out Alexandra. Leandro plays Derange on Anson. Anson moved that Derange to Alexandra, so that Alexandra could use her special on him. A couple of turns thereafter my prey was at 6 pool. So I bled him for 3 with Dolphin Black (whom Anneke would not dare block, since she had superior Obfuscate), and attempted to bleed for 3 with Uncle George whom Anneke obviously attempted to block (because he has basic Obfuscate). Despite of that, Uncle George got +3 stealth and I finally ousted my prey (realizing Anneke had a bad hand, with almost no intercept cards in there). That were good news. Later, The Methuselah controlling Leandro played Malkavian Dementia on Alexandra, and used the Parthenon to play Golconda on her. My predator attempted a Parity Shift that I blocked. I bled my prey with my two only vampires. And on my prey's turn, Tatiana Romanova called a Parity Shift (which I blocked), and Anneke equiped with the Bowl of Convergence (ouch!). Leandro attempted to bleed my predator for 3 (my predator had 6 pool left at that time), but Anneke played a Second Tradition to untap and attempt to block (in the hope of blocking him to play a Majesty and leave her untapped to block me later). So I played Direct Intervention to that Second Tradition (my prey's face became an open book to me, where I could only read: "no wakes, no wakes"). On my next turn, my prey's vampires are tapped, so I bled him for 5 and ousted him. Leandro ousts his prey too, so I chose not to bring out more vampires, since I needed a pool shield strong enough to deal with Leandro's and Esau's bleeds. I played Gambit Accepted, and bled for 2 or 3 with my two vampires each turn (gaining some pool via Kindred Spirits and Gambit Accepted). I also played Malkavian Dementia on tapped Leandro to avoid his bleeds, and I ousted my prey not long afterward. QUALIFIED PLAYERS: 1 Gines Quiñonero (Damnans) 2 Francisco Ramirez 3 Ivan Zaldivar 4 Danilo Rodriguez 5 Juan Ortiz 6 David Fraile 7 Kevin Esteban 8 Miguel Pascual 9 Alejandro Rodriguez 10 Jordi Samper 11 Miguel Angel Ramos TOURNAMENT WINNING DECK ======================= Deck Name: Kindred Spirits S&B Created By: Damnans Crypt: (12 cards, Min: 16, Max: 31, Avg: 5,91) ---------------------------------------------- 1 Jason for AUS DEM OBF 8 Malkavian 1 Anatole dom for AUS DEM OBF 8 Malkavian 1 Korah ani AUS DEM OBF 7 Malkavian Antitribu 1 Quentin King III (ADV) cel pre AUS DEM OBF 7 Malkavian 1 Dolphin Black AUS DEM OBF 6 Malkavian Antitribu 1 Artemis aus cel for DEM OBF 6 Malkavian Antitribu 1 Persia aus obf DEM 5 Malkavian 1 Uncle George aus dom obf DEM 5 Malkavian Antitribu 1 Claven aus dem obf 4 Malkavian Antitribu 1 Adelaide Davis aus dem obf 4 Malkavian 1 Midget obf pre DEM 3 Malkavian Antitribu 1 Rodolfo pro AUS DEM OBF 8 Malkavian Antitribu Library: (90 cards) ------------------- Master (15 cards) 2 Blood Doll 1 Dreams of the Sphinx 1 Malkavian Dementia 1 Anarch Revolt 1 Pentex Subversion 1 Anarch Troublemaker 1 Secure Haven 1 Barrens, The 1 Storage Annex 1 Sudden Reversal 1 Fear of Mekhet 1 Gambit Accepted 2 Direct Intervention Action (18 cards) 13 Kindred Spirits 3 Madman`s Quill 1 Restructure 1 Victim of Habit Action Modifier (32 cards) 3 Eyes of Chaos 3 Faceless Night 3 Cloak the Gathering 4 Lost in Crowds 7 Confusion 3 Mind Tricks 3 Domain of Evernight 3 Spying Mission 3 Elder Impersonation Reaction (18 cards) 4 My Enemy`s Enemy 9 Wake with Evening`s Freshness 5 Telepathic Misdirection Combat (2 cards) 2 Zip Gun Combo (5 cards) 3 Swallowed by the Night 2 Deny STANDINGS Final Rank First Name Last Name City Prelim GWs Prelim VPs Final VPs TPs 1 Gines Quiñonero 2 8 4 162 2 Francisco Ramirez 2 6 1 144 3 Ivan Zaldivar 2 9 0 174 4 Danilo Rodriguez 2 9 0 156 5 Juan Ortiz 2 8 0 168 6 David Fraile 2 6 138 7 Kevin Esteban 2 5 144 8 Miguel Pascual 1 6,5 144 9 Alejandro Rodriguez 1 6 138 10 Jordi Samper 1 5 108 11 Miguel Angel Ramos 1 4 138 12 Alex Vallet 1 4 120 13 David Gimenez 1 4 108 14 Edgar Fondevila 1 3 126 15 Nick Mozo 1 3 102 16 Iñaki Jimenez 1 3 96 17 Roberto Amestoy 1 3 90 18 Carlos Martinez 0 5 144 19 Jordi Renom 0 3,5 138 20 Antonio Merino 0 3 120 21 Ferran Badenas 0 3 114 22 Armando Vicioso 0 3 108 23 Alex Casals 0 2,5 114 24 Tomas Lopez 0 2 108 25 Linus Garriga 0 2 102 25 Sergi Matalonga 0 2 102 27 Pablo Picon 0 2 96 28 Joan Montserrat 0 2 90 28 Marco Cortijo 0 2 90 30 Paolo Pasqualini 0 1,5 102 31 Nicolas Moscoso 0 1 96 31 Sergi Miralles 0 1 96 31 Ramon Mozo 0 1 96 34 Quim Miquel 0 1 90 35 Fco Jose Guerra 0 1 78 35 Pablo Diaz de Greñu 0 1 78 37 David Martinez 0 0,5 84 38 Fransesc Miquel 0 0 78 38 Jon Lopez Dicastillo 0 0 78 40 Xavier Bibiloni 0 0 72 40 Oscar Ramirez 0 0 72 42 Jordi Tomás 0 0 66 42 Adria Jordana 0 0 66 42 Ricard Diaz 0 0 66 45 Marc Casado 0 0 60 -- Damnans http://www.almadrava.net/damnans http://www.vtes.net http://es.groups.yahoo.com/group/vteshispania/

Damnans wrote: > Me (Kindred Spirits S&B deck) -> Sad to see that in many cases even the best and most creative players rely on playing S&B to qualify. Without doubt a qualification system makes sense, but the current one creates very good incentives to play S&B if you don´t want to go to more than one qualifier. Same picture in the german qualifier where 3 heavy bleeders made the finals and among the qualified players we also had far more than 50% of S&B. Of course S&B is a valid and good strategy to win, I would even say the most basic one in the game. But the "one-shot" qualifying system makes it just too tempting to play S&B, because it´s usually now or never. But then again the qualifiers account for the majority of international tournaments with high attendance and high playing level. Quite bad for the diversity of the game that you see mainly S&B among the good players who want to qualify there (and probably the Arika Vote and very heavy intercept). As the situation was not allready bad before the banning of DU and KR caused another swing to S&B because now you didn´t need to fear the vote deck ousting the player that the S&B deck bled heavily before. This made S&B even more popular AND focused (=better) because know it´s possible not to include D.I and D.T in the deck. Of course I don´t want to start another rant about the rules changed or something alike, but I feel that on the one hand more and more cards for combat strategies are printed but on the other hand the games environment discourages the use of such decks in big tournaments. -- johannes walch

Johannes Walch wrote: > Damnans wrote: > > Me (Kindred Spirits S&B deck) -> > > Sad to see that in many cases even the best and most creative players > rely on playing S&B to qualify. Without doubt a qualification system > makes sense, but the current one creates very good incentives to play > S&B if you don´t want to go to more than one qualifier. Same picture in > the german qualifier where 3 heavy bleeders made the finals and among > the qualified players we also had far more than 50% of S&B. Truth be told, this has been the first time I played a S&B deck to qualify :-) In 2001, I qualified with a Ventrue Law Firm vote deck. In 2002, I qualified with a 13-15 Derange !Malk deck (with a very limited bleeding ability). In 2003, I did not even try to qualify, since I was co-organizing the EC :-) In 2004, I qualified with an Omaya wall deck. > Of course S&B is a valid and good strategy to win, I would even say the > most basic one in the game. And, therefore, the most easily counterable strategy. [...] [ quoted text not captured ]

Johannes Walch wrote: > Damnans wrote: > > Me (Kindred Spirits S&B deck) -> > Sad to see that in many cases even the best and most creative players > rely on playing S&B to qualify. Shame on you Ginés... :-) Of course you could explain that the first action each vampire was to transform himself in an Anarch just to minimize the situation!! >(...) > I feel that on the one hand more and more cards for > combat strategies are printed but on the other hand the games > environment discourages the use of such decks in big tournaments. I agree totally with you. I feel that it's getting more and more interesting to play combat decks, where the winning support it's better than ever (Dragonbound, Fame, Tension in the Ranks). IMO what's missing is some improvement in the defence against bleed, to avoid to do the stupid thing in a combat deck that is to act against your predator instead of your prey (where is the protection on the relation predator-prey that caused DU to be banned?) to defend yourself. Maybe more quality mid-caps with dominate or superior Auspex could do it or just another a new celerity/animalism/potence Anarch card that could reduce a Ginés bleed by 3, strike for +2 and maneuver! Something like that... ;-) On the other hand i see a decrease in weenie decks... .- Luis Duarte

Damnans wrote: > Truth be told, this has been the first time I played a S&B deck to > qualify :-) People always get busted on the first occacsion, hehe ;-) >>Of course S&B is a valid and good strategy to win, I would even say > > the > >>most basic one in the game. > > > And, therefore, the most easily counterable strategy. Obviously it wasn´t too easy to counter for your preys :-) -- johannes walch

Johannes Walch wrote: [...] >>> Of course S&B is a valid and good strategy to win, I would even say >>> the most basic one in the game. >> >> And, therefore, the most easily counterable strategy. > > Obviously it wasn´t too easy to counter for your preys :-) That may have been dued either to bad luck or to poor deckbuilding, since I only brought out two vampires in the final round (who were enough to get 3 VPs). [ quoted text not captured ]

"Damnans" <damna...@ono.com> schreef in bericht news:1116952288.4...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com... Johannes Walch wrote: > Damnans wrote: > > Me (Kindred Spirits S&B deck) -> > > Sad to see that in many cases even the best and most creative players > rely on playing S&B to qualify. Without doubt a qualification system > makes sense, but the current one creates very good incentives to play > S&B if you don´t want to go to more than one qualifier. Same picture in > the german qualifier where 3 heavy bleeders made the finals and among > the qualified players we also had far more than 50% of S&B. Truth be told, this has been the first time I played a S&B deck to qualify :-) In 2001, I qualified with a Ventrue Law Firm vote deck. In 2002, I qualified with a 13-15 Derange !Malk deck (with a very limited bleeding ability). In 2003, I did not even try to qualify, since I was co-organizing the EC :-) In 2004, I qualified with an Omaya wall deck. I remember you playing a dem bleeder in Vienna too :p bleeding backwards on helpless potence weenies who were getting their head kicked in by a Gargoyle predator. Forshame ;)

Jeroen Rombouts wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] But that was not a Continental Qualifier, but the European Championship :-) So it is still true that it's been the first time I have used a S&B deck to qualify >:-) [ quoted text not captured ]

"Jeroen Rombouts" <jeroen....@NOSPAMtelenet.be> wrote > I remember you playing a dem bleeder in Vienna too :p bleeding backwards on > helpless potence weenies who were getting their head kicked in by a Gargoyle > predator. Forshame ;) That doesn't sound very fair...

"carl" <mist...@hotmail.com> schreef in bericht news:CJOle.3479$U4.4...@news.xtra.co.nz... [ quoted text not captured ] Indeed. bad Damnans, bad! no cookie for you ;)

Johannes Walch wrote: > Damnans wrote: > > Me (Kindred Spirits S&B deck) -> > > Sad to see that in many cases even the best and most creative players > rely on playing S&B to qualify. > > As the situation was not allready bad before the banning of DU and KR > caused another swing to S&B because now you didn´t need to fear the vote > deck ousting the player that the S&B deck bled heavily before. This made > S&B even more popular AND focused (=better) because know it´s possible > not to include D.I and D.T in the deck. > > Of course I don´t want to start another rant about the rules changed or > something alike, but I feel that on the one hand more and more cards for > combat strategies are printed but on the other hand the games > environment discourages the use of such decks in big tournaments. CAN WE HAVE OUR DISCIPLINELES BLEED-BOUNCE CARD YET??? Jeff

Damnans wrote: > Leandro attempted to bleed my predator for 3 (my predator had > 6 pool left at that time), but Anneke played a Second Tradition > to untap and attempt to block (in the hope of blocking him to play > a Majesty and leave her untapped to block me later). So I played > Direct Intervention to that Second Tradition (my prey's face became > an open book to me, where I could only read: "no wakes, no wakes"). Another example of the hideous power of DI. It definitely got you a VP, and probably the win. -- David Cherryholmes

[ quoted text not captured ] How's that? By that logic, every VP is gotten by a single card/action (rather than the work that went before to get to that position). The Anneke deck had a focussed defense -- leading to a weak point that could be exploited. That same focussed defense is very powerful in general, so that balances out in some way. -- LSJ (vtesr...@TRAPwhite-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep (remove spam trap to reply) Links to V:TES news, rules, cards, utilities, and tournament calendar: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/

In message <aYjme.9961$M36....@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net>, LSJ <vtesr...@TRAPwhite-wolf.com> writes: >The Anneke deck had a focussed defense -- leading to a weak point that >could be exploited. That same focussed defense is very powerful in general, >so that balances out in some way. Indeed. The same problem could have been caused with, for example, Call of the Hungry Dead or Elder Impersonation. -- James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D YOU ARE IN ERROR. EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 NO-ONE IS SCREAMING. 13D7E668C3695D623D5D THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.

LSJ wrote: > By that logic, every VP is gotten by a single card/action (rather > than the work that went before to get to that position). I see your point, and I vaguely recall a discussion with Fred where I was arguing your exact position. However, there are critical junctures in the game, and DI's broad applicability lets it collapse just about whatever needs collapsing at any time. And, I do not think a strategy has to be particularly focused for DI to crush it. I don't think the Anneke deck's defenses were particularly focused. And even if it was, once the 2nd is clipped, that means he'd also have to have a wake and probably intercept, possibly two cards of intercept, to recover. I'm just saying that's a lot of cards to have in hand to come back from getting the 2nd DI'd. Basically, my experience shows DI's tilting the game at critical cusps, more or less directly creating VP's and GW's. This doesn't seem like a radical opinion to me, but YMMV. -- David Cherryholmes

[ quoted text not captured ] Oh, I wasn't correcting your conclusions, just the road you choose to travel in order to reach them. Against some decks, some focussed and some toolbox, DI is largely worthless. Against others, it is merely too expensive. And against others, it can be used strategically at a few junctures each game (or even each turn, depending on the deck) (against a Freak Drive or a Second Tradition, for example) to disrupt the deck for a turn or at least for a minion. Occassionally those critical cusps will occur near a VP window as well. But many cards can, against some class of decks, be played at well-chosen critical cusps to more or less directly create VP's and GW's. Some cards do not even need to wait for "well-played" strategy or critical cusps. DI perhaps has a larger set of decks against which it can be played, but it also has a greater cost, in general.

[ quoted text not captured ] I think you somewhat underrate DI. It is a very powerful card. You can use it against many toolbox decks (to cancel a high opportunity cost, high effect card). You can use it against many focused decks (to cancel a critical cog in a multi-card combo). By the mid- endgame you can usually cancel a card played from a focused deck and have a decent chance there is no immediate replacement. And most importantly, it works cross-table. Q: How do you build a tournament deck? A: Take any deck and add Direct Intervention to it. -- Bye, Daneel

Daneel wrote: > I think you somewhat underrate DI. It is a very powerful card. You can > use it against many toolbox decks (to cancel a high opportunity cost, > high effect card). You can use it against many focused decks (to cancel > a critical cog in a multi-card combo). By the mid- endgame you can > usually cancel a card played from a focused deck and have a decent > chance there is no immediate replacement. And most importantly, it > works cross-table. > > Q: How do you build a tournament deck? > A: Take any deck and add Direct Intervention to it. > I think the real answer is a mid-road thing. D.I. is wonderful AT THE RIGHT TIME. However its general utility is not the ultimate winner. As David C stated, if you play it at the right moment versus an Anneke deck when the Second is played, then it can be a VP winner. However it has to be at the right moment. You cannot play a D.I. and get a VP, you must play the D.I. "just right". Decks that are generally not affected by a D.I. are those that don't rely on combos to do their work. Most of my tournament decks don't rely on combos, rather they rely on cards that perform the same function. My social decks, D.I. can shut them down in the middle of a combo run quite easily, you just have to guess which card the combo hinges on. With Daneel's comments that during the mid-game it has a higher impact. That is only true if they haven't stacked the cards in. For example a dedicated I.G. deck will have 8 or 9 of them. D.I. for just one may save a vampire at a crucial moment, however most of those decks can rush the same vampire on the same turn thus the D.I. was pretty much useless. Of course that one action delay could mean a chance at a VP but it doesn't give it to you with a nice ribbon. There is no arguing that D.I. is a great card, however it will inevitably be the good player that uses it effectively as opposed to just playing it and gaining a VP. D

On 31 May 2005 17:10:33 -0700, quetzalcoatl <da...@vega.id.au> wrote: > Daneel wrote: > >> I think you somewhat underrate DI. It is a very powerful card. You can >> use it against many toolbox decks (to cancel a high opportunity cost, >> high effect card). You can use it against many focused decks (to >> cancel >> a critical cog in a multi-card combo). By the mid- endgame you can >> usually cancel a card played from a focused deck and have a decent >> chance there is no immediate replacement. And most importantly, it >> works cross-table. >> >> Q: How do you build a tournament deck? >> A: Take any deck and add Direct Intervention to it. > > I think the real answer is a mid-road thing. D.I. is wonderful AT THE > RIGHT TIME. However its general utility is not the ultimate winner. If you build a deck that has a reasonable chance to oust, you are likely labouring with a significant portion of your deck to approach that "right time". If you indeed succeed in doing so, holding DI can really help. I'm not saying DI gives you the VP, but it can cement the efforts of previous rounds. On a tangential note, I've been experimenting with specific defence cards like Emergency Preparations and Not to Be (I considered them a necessity because some G. cards turn the game upside down, so you need defences against them to be able to play normally). My experience was, the occasional "just in case" copies were never in the hand at the right time. Similar effect with Resilient Mind and The Diamnond Thunderbolt: even though I included both in a deck, any dedicated Temptation deck could ignore them safely. You can, however, safely include up to like 4 copies of DI in any deck. Well, most decks, anyway; Master slots are precious. But even if you include only a single DI, it will likely come in handy, because it greases your deck. Canceling a stealth card is like adding Intercept, etc. > As David C stated, if you play it at the right moment versus an Anneke > deck when the Second is played, then it can be a VP winner. However it > has to be at the right moment. You cannot play a D.I. and get a VP, you > must play the D.I. "just right". I missed that point from the original post. To clarify: I'm not arguing that DI always gives you VPs. You need an apt deck to do that. But DI is one of the more successful ways apt decks can further their goals. > With Daneel's comments that during the mid-game it has a higher impact. > That is only true if they haven't stacked the cards in. I'm referring to examples where selective exhaustion of one's hand has lead to one strategically plentiful resource becoming tactically scarce. A stealth bleeder may have lots of stealth and lots of bleed, but when you haven't been blocking for turns, and they end up discarding stealth, and start bleeding with no cards, you have a chance to cancel a Conditioning and not get hit by another one during the immediate next action. Sure, if decks can play in their own pace, they likely stack up on resources that may be needed for a plunge (or to deal with a plunge). But if the struggle is intense, that may not be an option. -- Bye, Daneel

> If you build a deck that has a reasonable chance to oust, you are > likely labouring with a significant portion of your deck to approach > that "right time". If you indeed succeed in doing so, holding DI can > really help. I'm not saying DI gives you the VP, but it can cement > the efforts of previous rounds. > > On a tangential note, I've been experimenting with specific defence > cards like Emergency Preparations and Not to Be (I considered them a > necessity because some G. cards turn the game upside down, so you need > defences against them to be able to play normally). My experience was, > the occasional "just in case" copies were never in the hand at the > right time. Similar effect with Resilient Mind and The Diamnond > Thunderbolt: even though I included both in a deck, any dedicated > Temptation deck could ignore them safely. > Well I own a total of ONE D.I. from a !Brujah starter. That's it. So my ability to survive and make finals doesn't seem affected by the card. In fact it has never afffected my own game when played on me. Watenda has been more a pain in the rear than D.I. with his limited D.I. ability. I have however been trying to experiment withe the xxx's Hold cards. They are effectively D.I.'s with limited scope, but with nice side effects. For example Regarghan's Hold. The 2nd Tradition costs 2 to play for an untap and block, and they have to spend 2 master phase actions to get rid of it. D

"David Cherryholmes" <david.che...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:119ondq...@corp.supernews.com... > And, I do not think a strategy has to be particularly focused for DI > to crush it. Huh? Explain? I would think that the particularly focused deck is _less_ likely to be affected by DI than the toolbox deck. One of theories about why I'm less impressed with DI than some: I tend to play decks that are much more focused than toolboxy. Fred

"Daneel" <dan...@eposta.hu> wrote in message news:opsrnun0...@news.chello.hu... > I think you somewhat underrate DI. It is a very powerful card. You can > use it against many toolbox decks (to cancel a high opportunity cost, > high effect card). You can use it against many focused decks (to cancel > a critical cog in a multi-card combo). Ah - terminolgy nit: a focused deck is one in which the same card or cards are used over and over many times. They can use card combinations but if they do, they won't tend to be vulnerable to the loss of any one card. That is, if you're trying Disguise out a Flamethrower, the "focused deck" will have (say) eight Disguised Weapon cards and 10 Flamethrowers in order to greatly increase the likelyhood of both of them coming up together. A combo-based deck that is much more vulnerable to D.I. would be a many- moving-part type deck, like Huitzie, his Fortitude card, his Soul Gem of Etrius, his Daring the Dawn, and his handy-dandy Great Beast whistle. I wouldn't call that "focused". > Q: How do you build a tournament deck? > A: Take any deck and add Direct Intervention to it. Hmmm. Sounds like the formula for getting master-card-jammed to me. Fred

"Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> schreef in bericht news:bzyne.14954$7p.9294@fed1read06... [ quoted text not captured ] It all depends on WHAT your focus is. For actions, sure. But can you duplicate EVERY action modifier? Fr.ex., it used to be that a D.I. could completely destroy a multirusher's turn, by DI-ing the first Freak Drive. Now you can pack Forced March and/or Dual form. But it kind of unfocusses the deck, IMO

"Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> schreef in bericht news:KEyne.14955$7p.8938@fed1read06... >> Q: How do you build a tournament deck? >> A: Take any deck and add Direct Intervention to it. > > Hmmm. Sounds like the formula for getting master-card-jammed to me. > If you take it that literally, it would probably make for a 93 card deck. I think Daneel means: change a few master cards for DI's.

In message <KEyne.14955$7p.8938@fed1read06>, Frederick Scott <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> writes: >A combo-based deck that is much more vulnerable to D.I. would be a many- >moving-part type deck, like Huitzie, his Fortitude card, his Soul Gem >of Etrius, his Daring the Dawn, and his handy-dandy Great Beast whistle. >I wouldn't call that "focused". Or one with inherent limitations to certain cards. e.g. "Only playable once per round" in a combat, or something similar. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <djzne.108038$6o5.6...@phobos.telenet-ops.be>, Jeroen Rombouts <jeroen....@NOSPAMtelenet.be> writes: >It all depends on WHAT your focus is. For actions, sure. But can you >duplicate EVERY action modifier? Fr.ex., it used to be that a D.I. could >completely destroy a multirusher's turn, by DI-ing the first Freak Drive. >Now you can pack Forced March and/or Dual form. But it kind of unfocusses >the deck, IMO The "what DI screws up" thing is kinda interesting. I was thinking about combat, for instance, and a DI against a solid, repetitive defensive deck wouldn't do a whole lot. For instance, a deck with 12 Majesties (an arbitrary, large, but not-quite-jamming amount, alter to taste) would play one, DI, play another. It's not restricted from repeating them. [ quoted text not captured ]