Poll: Is Assamite Loss/Glory Tier 1?

Yes No Wha? best - chris -- Super Fun Cards www.superfuncards.com *NEW Website!* auct...@superfuncards.com

On Aug 4, 8:53 pm, librarian <aucti...@superfuncards.com> wrote: > Yes > No > Wha? > > best - > > chris > -- > Super Fun Cardswww.superfuncards.com*NEW Website!* > aucti...@superfuncards.com We'll have to wait and see. If Loss and K:Glory are on the top of the list of most used cards in the TWDA stats for 2008 (a la Govern and Conditioning), then yes. Personally I don't think so. Inferior Govern is a Superior Loss. Superior Govern is better than inferior Loss.

[ quoted text not captured ] As Wookie said, the comparison is in plain sight. Burning equipment/locations on minions can be hugely beneficial against certain decks, but a three pool gain & added crypt acceleration is just too strong to compete with. All in all, Loss's best use is when employed in conjunction with Assamite combat, burning havens/hostile equipment and converting to ousting power after the coast is clear. For uses beyond that, you're probably better off just using a pure bleed discipline. Drain

On Aug 4, 5:53 pm, librarian <aucti...@superfuncards.com> wrote: > Yes > No > Wha? > > best - > > chris > -- > Super Fun Cardswww.superfuncards.com*NEW Website!* > aucti...@superfuncards.com The answer is a resounding NO. Bleedy Loss requires superior Quietus. There are not enough small vampires to make that a reality like you can with weenie Presence and Legal Manipulations (and Majesty) or Dominate and Govern the Unaligned (and Deflection). Loss/Glory brings Clan Assamite to the point where they are knocking on the door to tier 1. Ravnos are in the same boat as Assamites: Their in-clan special discpline is decent, but they don't get quite enough mileage out of it. Giovanni and Setites can easily splash weenie support from other clans for Dominate or Presence. We'll never get that for Assamites or Ravnos because their key disciplines are too narrowly focused among vampires in any given grouping to achieve crypt critical mass to swarm bleed. Jeff

On Mon, 4 Aug 2008 21:11:40 -0700 (PDT), Wookie813 <veknp...@yahoo.com> wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] Also, Dominate has much better combat than Quietus for this kind of deck - they have a free, replacable Dodge card, whereas Quietus doesn't have anything like that, you need to rely on the irreplacable "Dodge" card - and don't even think about trying any of the Quietus combat cards, we're talking about a serious deck here that actually tries to win! :) -- Regards, Daneel

On 5 ago, 07:03, Daneel <dan...@eposta.hu> wrote: > On Mon, 4 Aug 2008 21:11:40 -0700 (PDT), Wookie813 <veknpont...@yahoo.com> [ quoted text not captured ] I definitely think that Selective silence (+ taste of death, occasionally) is better combat than dodging. Greetings, Iñaki.-

On Aug 5, 3:53 am, librarian <aucti...@superfuncards.com> wrote: > Yes > No > Wha? > > best - > > chris > -- > Super Fun Cardswww.superfuncards.com*NEW Website!* > aucti...@superfuncards.com Not really. There's 4 Assamites of capacity 5 and below with sup Quietus. 2 of them missing obfuscate totally, and the other 2 have it at inferior. On top of that, they are split evenly on g2 and g4/5. Want to count the vampires in the game of capacity 5 and below, that bleed with govern/public trust/legal? Loss just was a needed card for the Assamites to make them viable in tournaments. Stealthbleed being the easiest way for the ousts at the moment, but I would wait for a while, and see when people get over from obf/QUI bleeders, and start working with bruise/bleeds.

On Aug 4, 8:53 pm, librarian <aucti...@superfuncards.com> wrote: > Yes > No > Wha? I notice that every other reply has ignored your actual question, and instead focused on Loss, comparing it to Govern. The proper question is "Loss PLUS K:G." And I think the answer is yes, it is Tier 1. A card that ups your bleed and gives you 10 pool for a VP, is free, clan- based, and at stealth, can not just be ignored. The gain 10 aspect enables certain other things, such as eschewing bounce, block, and master card based bloat. This gives you a lot of room to focus on the speedy ousts, to keep the 10 pool refreshes coming. You just ignore what is behind you and out-race them. It also lets you get an obscene number of counters on Alamut. Either they sudden it, contest it, or play an (unlikely to be seen) burn location action, or you rule the entire political game with an iron fist. I wouldn't make too much out of one decent tournament performance (which, in the end, I didn't win). But I brought it as my choice to a qualifier, and my first tournament in a couple of years, for a reason. -- David Cherryholmes

On 5 Aug, 14:18, bluedevil <david.cherryhol...@gmail.com> wrote: > I notice that every other reply has ignored your actual question, and > instead focused on Loss, comparing it to Govern. The proper question > is "Loss PLUS K:G." And I think the answer is yes, it is Tier 1. Agreed. Jeff Kuta had a fair point and the assamites pretty much lacks 1-2 (At least) semi good weenie-midcapers per group, but other than that theres a bunch of Assamite martyrdom :P The power level of 'smites have risen so high it would be silly to not call them tier 1 nowdays...there is several strategies that would win a tournament (and has).

On Aug 5, 9:29 am, alex.pun...@gmail.com wrote: > On 5 Aug, 14:18, bluedevil <david.cherryhol...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > I notice that every other reply has ignored your actual question, and > > instead focused on Loss, comparing it to Govern. The proper question > > is "Loss PLUS K:G." And I think the answer is yes, it is Tier 1. > > Agreed. It is quite vicious and fast. Definantly, Tier 1 Comments Welcome, Norman S. Brown, Jr XZealot Archon of the Swamp

On Aug 5, 8:18 am, bluedevil <david.cherryhol...@gmail.com> wrote: > The proper question > is "Loss PLUS K:G." And I think the answer is yes, it is Tier 1. A > card that ups your bleed and gives you 10 pool for a VP, is free, clan- > based, and at stealth, can not just be ignored. I dunno. My experiences with Glory haven't been all that great, and tend to boil down to one of these two results: 1) I have a lot of them in my deck. This means that every turn I have a subpar Computer Hacking and a card or two in my hand that I can't play until my next minion phase. 2) I don't have a lot of them in my deck. So either it's a subpar Computer Hacking or I have a card in my hand that I don't play for quite a while, hoping to use it when I get an oust. The extra pool for ousting is great when it happens, of course, but given the negative factors above it seems like I frequently oust less when I'm running Glory than when I'm not. I'm more than open to the possibility that I'm just doing something wrong with it, but the card quickly stopped wowing me once I started actually playing it. John Eno

On Aug 5, 1:36 pm, Kushiel <invisibleking...@gmail.com> wrote: > I dunno. My experiences with Glory haven't been all that great, and > tend to boil down to one of these two results: > > 1) I have a lot of them in my deck. This means that every turn I have > a subpar Computer Hacking and a card or two in my hand that I can't > play until my next minion phase. Really? So if you have 8, then most turns of the game you are going to play one and stare at *several* others? Like, all game? Hhhmmmmm. > 2) I don't have a lot of them in my deck. So either it's a subpar > Computer Hacking or I have a card in my hand that I don't play for > quite a while, hoping to use it when I get an oust. Yeah. I think that's where most people go wrong. They want to just chuck a few in their decks and then are disappointed when they don't have it in play on time. I have decks that use a few because, heck, worst case it's a +1 bleed that might draw a fight (decks with just a few are probably trying to fight, hence the inability to find room for more than a few), but I also play with Storage Annexes quite frequently, too. > The extra pool for ousting is great when it happens, of course, but > given the negative factors above it seems like I frequently oust less > when I'm running Glory than when I'm not. I'm more than open to the > possibility that I'm just doing something wrong with it, but the card > quickly stopped wowing me once I started actually playing it. Don't know what to tell you, man. They've been working pretty well for me across many different deck styles pretty much since the card was printed. The synergy between K:G and Loss bumped it up a notch, but K:G alone has seemed like a good card to me. -- David Cherryholmes

On Aug 5, 12:52 am, Jeff Kuta <jeff.k...@gmail.com> wrote: > Bleedy Loss requires superior Quietus. There are not enough small > vampires to make that a reality like you can with weenie Presence and > Legal Manipulations (and Majesty) or Dominate and Govern the Unaligned > (and Deflection). I would just point out that we aren't talking about weenie swarm bleed here. We're talking about obf + [payload discipline] which pretty much puts it in the same class as Kindred Spirits bleed or Malk94, i.e. about 3 midcaps bleeding hard every turn and stealthing the payload through. That said, there are enough nerds -- 1 cap qui, 2 cap obf, 4 cap QUI/obf, 4 cap QUI -- to round out the crypt. And then there's Web of Knives, which you *are* using, right? Standard bleedzooka recipe, ass-style: You've got 3 minions. They act every turn. Every single action you take should be only one of three things: 1) Prey, take 3 to the dome (could be 2, could be 4, you have the flexibility to move your bleeds around as tactics dictate). You should have Spying Missions out the whazoo because you have so much room for it, what with the not blocking or fighting. Let them try to bounce. Or let them try to jam you on stealth and you just drop spying missions and the bleeds become bleeds for 5. 2) I will gain 2 pool right now 3) I will make a nerd for 1 pool. That's it. Put the hammer down and drive it home. -- David Cherryholmes

On Aug 5, 8:18 am, bluedevil <david.cherryhol...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Aug 4, 8:53 pm, librarian <aucti...@superfuncards.com> wrote: > > > Yes > > No > > Wha? > The proper question > is "Loss PLUS K:G." And I think the answer is yes, it is Tier 1. > David Cherryholmes I dunno, man. QUI doesn't have a bounce, don't tap card. Deflection makes Govern + Conditioning bleed so much easier to do. I'm not trying to "Martyr" Assamites. Loss + K:G is STRONG. In fact, it's VERY STRONG. Assamites can now be a considerable ousting threat to any prey due to their bleed and bruise potentials. The days of employing 8x Majesty and ignoring assamite bleeds as the way to beat them are over. I don't think it's going to supplant Dominate bleed as the favored ousting method by the majority of the VtES community, however. Ergo, it is not Tier 1. It might be Tier 2. Time will tell.

[ quoted text not captured ] Every tournament winning deck uses a Tier 1 strategy? Every reply that has said NO also said to the effect of "but close". If you are going to call Assamite QUI bleed Tier 1, you are agreeing to expand what is considered Tier 1.

[ quoted text not captured ] I don't see how you can make that leap. People use Dominate as a crutch and always have, I think Dave is saying people are not going to be able to switch due to a fixed mindset and inability to move away from the tried and tested, not that its not good, as good, better or comparable. I could also be wrong, I've never really used the AssMites, but your logic there seemed suspect to me :O) Anthony

On Aug 5, 2:09 pm, Wookie813 <veknpont...@yahoo.com> wrote: > I dunno, man. QUI doesn't have a bounce, don't tap card. Deflection > makes Govern + Conditioning bleed so much easier to do. You're still not getting it, man. One of the strengths of solid K:G and fast-forward motion is that you don't *have* to bounce anymore. Your bloat covers that. So not having access to bounce is a non- issue. -- David Cherryholmes

[ quoted text not captured ] What is the standard amount of Spying missions for that type of deck anyway?

One thing I wonder about this whole thread if why it's tacitly assumed that Assamite stealth bleed with Glory has to revolve around Loss, and that the crypt has to be 100% Assamite. There are a fair number of reasonably cheap Assamites with dominate. It seems feasible to me that a classic obf/dom bleeder with enough Assamites to play Glory, and perhaps Alamut, Leadership, etc. would be quite good.

On Aug 5, 1:57 pm, bluedevil <david.cherryhol...@gmail.com> wrote: > Really? So if you have 8, then most turns of the game you are going > to play one and stare at *several* others? Like, all game? Hhhmmmmm. Generally at least one, yeah. And if I try to go all-out forward like you're suggesting here, that handjam is only likely to intensify. Granted, I live in the land of intercept, so that's probably skewing my experiences, because I can't play a stealth/bleed deck that taps out bleeding every turn and not get blocked sooner than later due to steath/Loss ratios, particularly if I also try to run a bunch of other stuff that I can't play right away if I have to (like Glory). I'm more than happy to blame that on my metagame. Mostly, I just wanted to offer some play experience to bring up the possible downsides of Glory (since, as you correctly pointed out, nobody was really talking about Glory either way before you brought it up). > Yeah. I think that's where most people go wrong. They want to just > chuck a few in their decks and then are disappointed when they don't > have it in play on time. I have decks that use a few because, heck, > worst case it's a +1 bleed that might draw a fight (decks with just a > few are probably trying to fight, hence the inability to find room for > more than a few), but I also play with Storage Annexes quite > frequently, too. Right on. The stupid Dream World/Community deck that I built was definitely the best use I've gotten out of Glory, and that one had a couple of Annexes in it. > Don't know what to tell you, man. They've been working pretty well > for me across many different deck styles pretty much since the card > was printed. The synergy between K:G and Loss bumped it up a notch, > but K:G alone has seemed like a good card to me. Hey, I'm glad for you. In my experience, Loss was a pretty good addition to the Assamite arsenal. Glory...not so much. (Leadership was even better, because I've never had as much trouble ousting with the Assamites as I've had not getting ousted while playing them...but that's probably fodder for a different topic.) John Eno

On Aug 5, 3:15 pm, "adam.hu...@gmail.com" <adam.hu...@gmail.com> wrote: > What is the standard amount of Spying missions for that type of deck > anyway? In the 75 card version I just ran, I played 6. In an 80 card deck I'd put it up to 7 or 8. I tend to only play 90 card decks if they are very fighty or have an anarch module bolted onto them. -- David Cherryholmes

On Aug 5, 3:32 pm, Kushiel <invisibleking...@gmail.com> wrote: > Granted, I live in the land of intercept, so that's probably skewing > my experiences, because I can't play a stealth/bleed deck that taps > out bleeding every turn and not get blocked sooner than later due to > steath/Loss ratios, particularly if I also try to run a bunch of other > stuff that I can't play right away if I have to (like Glory). Well, I did have weenie AUS one round, which is about as bad as it gets in terms of trying to stealth bleeds past. I did fail to oust him, but it was damn close. In the final round where I had it as a predator and was trying to get off undirected Glories, Leaderships, and WoK's it took most of his resources to stop it, which I think contributed to him getting killed. I'm not trying to slight that player, just noting how it seemed to fair against totally dedicated intercept. I saw other intercept in other rounds, and mowed right through them. > I'm more than happy to blame that on my metagame. Mostly, I just > wanted to offer some play experience to bring up the possible > downsides of Glory (since, as you correctly pointed out, nobody was > really talking about Glory either way before you brought it up). None of these cards are "I win" i.e. they aren't broken. It isn't always going to work. But you could say that about any strategy, and in a balanced game their *ought* to be something that papers your rock. But all that said, the strategy seems to work well for me. Focus your stealth on Faceless Night, Elder, and Spying Mission, and round it out as you choose. That ought to work. In a 75 card deck I was running 30 stealth cards and never jammed. That ought to handle all but the most focused of intercept decks. -- David Cherryholmes

I think there's too much that can go wrong for this kind of deck to say that it's as good as weenie Auspex or Kindred Spirits bleed or Arika&pals. Solidly Tier Two, definitely. If you're looking for Tier One Assamite decks, I'd suggest checking out Amaravati breed/boon. John Eno

[ quoted text not captured ] Amaravati is certainly proven, while this isn't. So you're making a strong argument, so far as it goes. But just thinking theoretically about it, what makes the Amaravati deck better? It seems to have more moving parts. Amaravati is a special guy, so nothing can happen to him or the deck... well, if not falls apart, at least it will be seriously handicapped. Then you have to pass votes, which means you probably have to have Alamut out and successfully bleed for a bit. Or you have to have a pretty good blood management thing going on. And then you have to spend all that time breeding. Like, I know it's strong, but think about all the steps that have to go into it. And I guess the Boon angle is part of why people think it's so strong, but I'm not sure it's any better than gaining 10 plus gaining 2 for an action that isn't a vote. So compared to that, what's this deck got to do? Bleed, and keep on bleeding, and the "Con Boon" effect just lands as a side effect. I think if this type of deck got played more, it *might* develop a record to put it on par with Amaravati. Until enough people try, though, it's all just speculative. -- David Cherryholmes

[ quoted text not captured ] Agreed. Looking at the TWDA, there has been one deck with a total of 2 copies of Loss in it (Christian Chenard's winner) since Lords of the Night became legal for tournament play. 4 of the 7 Assamite winners in the same period were Alamut+Amaravati breed-boon. Looks like the onus is on the Loss-Glory decks to show otherwise. The big problem I see is that a Loss-Glory deck is a straight-up around-the-circle deck, with little to no cross-table impact. Cross- table ability is what sets Kindred Spirits bleed apart from other stealth bleeders and helps put it in Tier 1. I guess if you're looking for a similar around-the-circle stealth bleed deck for comparison, compare Loss-Glory to Giovanni power bleed. If you can out-blast that one, maybe you're on to something. Other good (Tier 1?) around-the-circle decks (not necessarily stealth-bleed) would be Ruben Feldman's tap 'n bleeder (can't argue with success!), Palla Grande weenie (the Foundation Exhibit flavor adds cross-table power), and Bima Blitz. Maybe Ravnos Clown Car, but that hasn't hit the TWDA much in the past few years (though there are a few). - Ben Peal

David Cherryholmes wrote: > But just thinking theoretically about it, what makes the Amaravati > deck better? It seems to have more moving parts. Amaravati is a > special guy, so nothing can happen to him or the deck... well, if not > falls apart, at least it will be seriously handicapped. Then you have > to pass votes, which means you probably have to have Alamut out and > successfully bleed for a bit. Or you have to have a pretty good blood > management thing going on. Well, being a weenie deck, it can be tough for a rush deck to drop Amaravati 'cause the weenies keep getting in the way. Secure Haven and Yoruba Shrine are certainly gonna be in there (and if you draw them). Amaravati has the black diamond, so intercept decks have a tough time getting in his grill. It's not that Amaravati likes seeing either archetype, certainly, but the countermeasures are there. Speaking of countermeasures (and in this case, a key component), Alamut goes a long way towards making Amaravati less critical, and you can see that in the more recent Amaravati-Alamut breed-boon designs - usually only 3 copies of Amaravati in the crypt. > And then you have to spend all that time breeding. Takes a little time to get set up, sure, but it's time well-spent. You have access to Deflection if you want it, or you can make up the lost pool with Con Boons. > Like, I know it's strong, but think about all the steps that have to go into it. > And I guess the Boon angle is part of why people think it's so strong, but > I'm not sure it's any better than gaining 10 plus gaining 2 for an action that > isn't a vote. Con Boon is a pile of pool for an action that isn't a bleed (maybe it'll get DT'ed but it ain't gettin' bounced) and isn't dependent upon ousting someone. Given the vote push of the deck, it's basically a pile of pool when you draw it with far less of an opportunity cost.. C'mon, it's not like playing Glory means you gain 10 pool - there's an awful lot more that has to go on. There's far less that has to go on in order to gain for Con Boon. Back to cross-table ability, don't discount the ability to Con Boon someone else. In addition, you're packing KRCs and other damaging votes - good ousting oomph which the nerds can play and there's cross- table ability there, too. > So compared to that, what's this deck got to do? Bleed, and keep on > bleeding, and the "Con Boon" effect just lands as a side effect. I > think if this type of deck got played more, it *might* develop a > record to put it on par with Amaravati. Until enough people try, > though, it's all just speculative. Well, for what's a fairly simple strategy, it hasn't really shown itself much out there since Lords of the Night came out. That isn't to say that it absolutely hasn't been overlooked as a strategy, and if it shows itself to be a force on the tournament scene I'm not gonna refute that evidence. However, on an empirical level, it isn't there and given the simplicity of the strategy I'd be surprised if it _was_ overlooked. On a theoretical level, I want it to show me more than Giovanni power bleed. - Ben Peal

On Aug 5, 3:20 pm, jcrossnicker...@gmail.com wrote: > One thing I wonder about this whole thread if why it's tacitly assumed > that Assamite stealth bleed with Glory has to revolve around Loss, and > that the crypt has to be 100% Assamite. Well, the thread title kind of points us in that direction. :) > There are a fair number of > reasonably cheap Assamites with dominate. It seems feasible to me that > a classic obf/dom bleeder with enough Assamites to play Glory, and > perhaps Alamut, Leadership, etc. would be quite good. The only reasonably cheap Assamite with Dominate is Badr al-Budr. The rest are all 8-caps and larger. At that point, you probably might as well just go with Amaravati. That's not to say it couldn't be done, but doing so is probably jumping through hoops for entertainment value rather than win-some- games value at that point. And while that's a totally good reason to build a deck, it isn't all that likely to turn out to be Tier One, because T1 decks tend to avoid hoop-jumping. And T1 is what the discussion is about. John Eno

On Aug 5, 2:57 pm, bluedevil <david.cherryhol...@gmail.com> wrote: > You're still not getting it, man. One of the strengths of solid K:G > and fast-forward motion is that you don't *have* to bounce anymore. > Your bloat covers that. > David Cherryholmes I don't get the benefits of bloat as defense? C'mon, brother. It's me.

On Aug 5, 4:34 pm, bluedevil <david.cherryhol...@gmail.com> wrote: > But just thinking theoretically about it, what makes the Amaravati > deck better? It seems to have more moving parts. ... > And then you have to spend all that time > breeding. Like, I know it's strong, but think about all the steps > that have to go into it. Maybe it's just a playstyle difference, but I tend to think of "slow- building" as a feature, not a bug. The player who gets the first VP is usually the player who gets the table hate, and my tabletalk skills definitely aren't up to deflecting that kind of attention away from what looks like a strong position (even if it's really a glass cannon kind of deal, like the Loss/Glory deck we're talking about here). John Eno

[ quoted text not captured ] And I'm saying if four people figure out to consistently win with Loss + Glory bleedy decks, but the rest of the community still bleeds with DOM, Loss + GLory is not Tier 1. Perhaps my only hang up is what I consider "Tier 1" to mean, but to me, it means it is widely accepted by the players of the game as the best means to an end, that being tournament wins. When Loss and Glory start showing up in the TWDA as often as other Tier 1 tech, then yeah, it's Tier 1. I predict that won't happen. All I'm sayin.

On Aug 5, 11:04 am, bluedevil <david.cherryhol...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Aug 5, 12:52 am, Jeff Kuta <jeff.k...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Bleedy Loss requires superior Quietus. There are not enough small > > vampires to make that a reality like you can with weenie Presence and > > Legal Manipulations (and Majesty) or Dominate and Govern the Unaligned > > (and Deflection). > > I would just point out that we aren't talking about weenie swarm bleed > here. We're talking about obf + [payload discipline] which pretty > much puts it in the same class as Kindred Spirits bleed or Malk94, > i.e. about 3 midcaps bleeding hard every turn and stealthing the > payload through. That said, there are enough nerds -- 1 cap qui, 2 > cap obf, 4 cap QUI/obf, 4 cap QUI -- to round out the crypt. And then > there's Web of Knives, which you *are* using, right? Web of Knives? I thought you weren't talking about swarm bleed? > Standard bleedzooka recipe, ass-style: > > You've got 3 minions. They act every turn. Every single action you > take should be only one of three things: > > 1) Prey, take 3 to the dome (could be 2, could be 4, you have the > flexibility to move your bleeds around as tactics dictate). You > should have Spying Missions out the whazoo because you have so much > room for it, what with the not blocking or fighting. Let them try to > bounce. Or let them try to jam you on stealth and you just drop > spying missions and the bleeds become bleeds for 5. > > 2) I will gain 2 pool right now > > 3) I will make a nerd for 1 pool. > > That's it. Put the hammer down and drive it home. > > -- > > David Cherryholmes But now you're not talking about a K:G/Loss deck. You're talking about K:G/Loss with KL:L/WoKR support which is a very different thing. I'll point out that two of the cards in this setup have different vulnerabilities: 1) KL:L requires you to have the fattest Assamite; and 2) K:G is unique, can be contested and must be the first action taken, creating some cycling issues. These may be uncommon problems, but a tier 1 deck shouldn't have these weaknesses. Don't get me wrong. I like K:G/Loss and think it is very strong. Ask anyone who's played me recently in person or on JOL. About 2/3rds of my decks seem to be Loss stealth bleed with some variation on the theme. But calling something Tier 1 requires just a bit more in my book to put it over the top. Speed is questionable. You can't just "huck 5+ in the pipe" with Loss bleed because QUI doesn't give you anything else. Hucking 4 in the pipe requires that your predator also play along with your game and not try to block your bloat (which they should). You're also reliant on a second discipline to deliver the payload. Dominate has Seduction and Bonding, both free. Presence has Majesty which may allow for a follow-up hunt at the very least, or a possible Enchant, Entrance, or Mind Numb at best. Dementation is very strong. Kindred Spirits is useful at inferior Dem and is free at both levels. It also has access to three stealth with Confusion, Deny, and Mind Tricks. Quietus has...well, Loss at superior! Those three other archteypes are clearly Tier 1 in my mind. Glory/Loss is still just a bit of a stretch. We could just be getting into a semantics argument between our respective definitions of Tier 1 decks. Time will tell. I'm doing my part when possible to keep getting those Assamite decks into the TWDA. Wish I had more time. :) Jefff

On Aug 5, 11:31 pm, Kushiel <invisibleking...@gmail.com> wrote: > Maybe it's just a playstyle difference, but I tend to think of "slow- > building" as a feature, not a bug. The player who gets the first VP is > usually the player who gets the table hate, and my tabletalk skills > definitely aren't up to deflecting that kind of attention away from > what looks like a strong position (even if it's really a glass cannon > kind of deal, like the Loss/Glory deck we're talking about here). If you only plan to have 3 minions, your deck cycles fast, and you have 2 Yorubas, 2 Secure Havens, 2 DI's, and 4 Sleep Unseens, and the odds of ever being blocked are really really small..... is it really a glass cannon? -- David Cherryholmes

Wookie813 wrote: > Perhaps my only hang up is what I consider "Tier 1" to mean, but to > me, it means it is widely accepted by the players of the game as the > best means to an end, that being tournament wins. I think that may be a point of disconnect, yes. "Tier" implies a range -- First tier is the top range of decks not just the single best means to an end (or the decks "tied" for that single top position, if such things could be measured so accurately as to warrant a "tie" designation), second tier is the range of next best decks, and so on.

On Aug 5, 5:13 pm, benp...@gmail.com wrote: > Well, being a weenie deck, it can be tough for a rush deck to drop > Amaravati 'cause the weenies keep getting in the way. Except for rushes at stealth. Haven Uncovered, Contracts, Nose of the Hound, the new hotness, Sense the Savage Whatever, and clans that pack Swallowed by the Night or other multi-purpose stealth. But sure, for rushes at zero stealth, chucking a nerd under the bus is a very effective defense. > Con Boon is a pile of pool for an action that isn't a bleed (maybe > it'll get DT'ed but it ain't gettin' bounced) and isn't dependent upon > ousting someone. Given the vote push of the deck, it's basically a > pile of pool when you draw it with far less of an opportunity cost.. > C'mon, it's not like playing Glory means you gain 10 pool - there's an > awful lot more that has to go on. There's far less that has to go on > in order to gain for Con Boon. I think I'd call the act of gaining the pool between the two about a wash. One is slower (for it to be worth anything you must have nerds, and that takes time) and requires a passed vote in a deck lacking PRE. K:G requires an oust via bleeding, which also takes some time (about the same time for the first oust as the first Boon called worth a damn, IMO, although likely less). > Back to cross-table ability, don't discount the ability to Con Boon > someone else. In addition, you're packing KRCs and other damaging > votes - good ousting oomph which the nerds can play and there's cross- > table ability there, too. Yes. Amaravati clearly smokes K:G/Loss in terms of cross table ability. And while I would never, ever discount the utility of being able to interact cross table, I also think those are crappy games. If I could, you know, just have my pony, I'd like to play a straight game. The ideal deck would be bullet-proof to all cross table hostility against itself, and never have to waste actions on doing that kind of stuff. As far as stopping an oust.... again, super- useful tool. But I think you could also say that your bleedzooka is go, go, go and if a VP drops over yonder then, oh well, you don't sweep that round. As far as Booning your predator into a meatshield, you have your own meatshield, your pool from those go-go-go ousts. The entire deck depends on moving forward quickly, inexorably, and not getting fucked with by votes or getting rushed/Spirit Marrionetted/ Sense Depped/whatever. That's what it's built for. > Well, for what's a fairly simple strategy, it hasn't really shown > itself much out there since Lords of the Night came out. It is a simple strategy. Now after 10 years of tournament play I can no longer say "I've never brought a stealth bleed deck to a tourney" but I kind of wanted to prove a point, to myself if to nobody else. And I don't think it's that obvious. I think people looked at K:G and said "that's neat, I'll add six." And they kept their untap. They kept their bounce. They kept their combat defense, if not outright combat itself. They kept their blood dolls, etc etc. I don't know of anybody who's mentioned "hey, if I just go all-in on this Glory Bleed stuff, and I really make use of these clan cards I've got my bases covered." Or maybe people did, saw what I'm not seeing, and moved on. If I'm wrong I'll get the message eventually. But I don't think "we haven't seen it before so it must not be good" is *that* strong of an argument. Somebody is always first to point something out, and you and I both know there were combos lurking for years in this game before anybody pointed them out in any kind of high profile way. > That isn't > to say that it absolutely hasn't been overlooked as a strategy, and if > it shows itself to be a force on the tournament scene I'm not gonna > refute that evidence. However, on an empirical level, it isn't there > and given the simplicity of the strategy I'd be surprised if it _was_ > overlooked. On a theoretical level, I want it to show me more than > Giovanni power bleed. Yes, if people don't win tournaments with it, then all the talk is just a bunch of hot air. But people have to try it before it can win. Maybe nobody will and I'll just be "that guy" (although being predictable in your deck styles is a self-limiting behavior). I plan to ramp up my tourney attendance this year, so maybe I'll get a few more opportunities. Despite the theoretical interest, stealth bleed bores the hell out of me, though, so I can't see myself playing this thing to death. -- David Cherryholmes

On Aug 6, 3:25 am, Jeff Kuta <jeff.k...@gmail.com> wrote: > Web of Knives? I thought you weren't talking about swarm bleed? I'm not. Having 2 - 4 WoK in the deck doesn't make it in any way a swarm. It means you can count on having one replacement minion slide in mid to late game, to make up for a minion you may have lost due to card flow or a chink in your armor. And at least in the builds I've run so far, the nerd could never have QUI, because I'm not playing QUI skill cards, so they'll never be a loss bleeder. Could K:G, though, and can pop Assault Rifles and such. > But now you're not talking about a K:G/Loss deck. You're talking about > K:G/Loss with KL:L/WoKR support which is a very different thing. I'll > point out that two of the cards in this setup have different > vulnerabilities: 1) KL:L requires you to have the fattest Assamite; Yes, and once upon a time worrying about this would make soda fly out of people's noses. As they get better and more popular it does become a concern. There were 3 Assamite decks at the DC tourney, with only 16 players. So, noted. > and 2) K:G is unique, can be contested and must be the first action > taken, creating some cycling issues. These may be uncommon problems, > but a tier 1 deck shouldn't have these weaknesses. Every deck has weaknesses. Every single one. So it is possible to see, like, 4 K:G in your hand and say "man, my hand is so jammed." That's why in my build I have a Dreams, a Storage Annex, and (gasp!) Visit from Capuchin. It's amazing what *other* weaknesses you can cover when you don't have to bolt 4 Blood Dolls/Vessels into every deck. > Don't get me wrong. I like K:G/Loss and think it is very strong. Ask > anyone who's played me recently in person or on JOL. About 2/3rds of > my decks seem to be Loss stealth bleed with some variation on the > theme. But calling something Tier 1 requires just a bit more in my > book to put it over the top. Actually I never would have hung it out their and said "hey guys! Tier 1!" because I agree with the other posters that, basically, the proof is in the pudding. Let's say I have my *suspicions* this *might* be Tier 1. Only one way to know for sure, though. > Speed is questionable. You can't just "huck 5+ in the pipe" with Loss > bleed because QUI doesn't give you anything else. Hucking 4 in the > pipe requires that your predator also play along with your game and > not try to block your bloat (which they should). You're also reliant > on a second discipline to deliver the payload. Sure you are reliant on a second discipline. It's a midcap deck. You'll have the disciplines. I don't see how this is any different than Kindred Spirits. Is that not Tier 1? And yes, your predator can try to block your undirected actions. He can try. I had a weenie Auspex predator in the final and he did try, and he died before I did because he shot his wad trying to do it (it certainly did give my game a kick in the nuts though). But all that is saying is any deck that is not 100% focused on Directed Actions to its prey gets kicked in the junk by weenie Auspex. OK, I'll take that hit. Next? > Dominate has Seduction and Bonding, both free. Presence has Majesty > which may allow for a follow-up hunt at the very least, or a possible > Enchant, Entrance, or Mind Numb at best. Dementation is very strong. > Kindred Spirits is useful at inferior Dem and is free at both levels. OK, wait. Hold up. Full stop. Loss isn't useful at inferior? Do you know how many times I've popped a Heart of Cheating with a nerd? Or an Assault Rifle? I think it's a fair debate to weigh Govern vs. Loss and Govern probably comes out on top, but no way I would describe inferior loss as "not useful." I guess you meant "not useful to bleed" but, hey..... the whole damn crypt has QUI (except Basir, who can do plenty of other stuff and dare people to piss away intercept stopping it). > It also has access to three stealth with Confusion, Deny, and Mind > Tricks. Quietus has...well, Loss at superior! Those three other > archteypes are clearly Tier 1 in my mind. Glory/Loss is still just a > bit of a stretch. We could just be getting into a semantics argument > between our respective definitions of Tier 1 decks. Yeah, the "Tier 1" thing makes the entire discussion difficult. I think the deck is strong, strong enough to go toe to toe in the big leagues. Whether that makes it "Tier 1" or not in somebody's mind isn't a huge concern to me. But since librarian threw it out there, and it's a yes/no kind of thing, I'd lean more towards yes than no. -- David Cherryholmes

On Aug 5, 9:24 pm, Wookie813 <veknpont...@yahoo.com> wrote: > I don't get the benefits of bloat as defense? C'mon, brother. It's me. Yeah, I know you know your stuff. But there you were saying "it doesn't have bounce so, ergo, it's weaker." (paraphrase). I would say it's designed not to need bounce, therefore not having bounce is a non- issue. -- David Cherryholmes

On Aug 6, 7:25 am, bluedevil <david.cherryhol...@gmail.com> wrote: > Yes. Amaravati clearly smokes K:G/Loss in terms of cross table > ability. Should have thought of this while I was replying but, you know.... early morning, low coffee count, fuzzy head. A Con Boon/KRC deck still clearly has it all over a straight bleeder like Loss/K:G for cross table ability, but I did throw in a Life Boon, possibly on the Storage Annex, with an eye towards that. I figure you ought to have the pool to give away and you'll have some time to cycle into it before it's really necessary. Not a lot, but it's something. In the end, though, I'd rely on just giving it the gas and outracing everybody FTW. Decks that can bleed for 5 are still going to be screwing around with crap like untap and bounce, and the weenie decks need to breed. You ought to be faster than them. -- David Cherryholmes

[ quoted text not captured ] I think that "It doesn't have bounce so, ergo, it is weaker" is a crutch that so many players lean on that it requires a paradigm shift for them to understand what you are saying. That shift would require a first-hand experience of this deck in the hands of a skilled player. Comments Welcome, Norman S. Brown, Jr XZealot Archon of the Swamp

> > We'll have to wait and see. If Loss and K:Glory are on the top of the > list of most used cards in the TWDA stats for 2008 (a la Govern and > Conditioning), then yes. > > Personally I don't think so. Inferior Govern is a Superior Loss. > Superior Govern is better than inferior Loss. Entries in TWDA since start of 2007 549 Govern the Unaligned 2 Loss Govern is every way superior to Loss. Loss is still very good for assamites, although I advise to play govern instead. Greetz, Oortje

[ quoted text not captured ] Yes, this is a really good call. 4 Assamites out of the box can play it. None of them are in the group 4-5. You seriously want to hinder the play for Thetmes/Ur-Shulgi/Badr/ Yazid?

In article <ae320ffb-5fa4-47ee...@j22g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, XZealot <xze...@cox.net> wrote: > I think that "It doesn't have bounce so, ergo, it is weaker" is a > crutch that so many players lean on that it requires a paradigm shift > for them to understand what you are saying. Ya know, I've been playing this game for an awful long time, and have built an awful lot of decks. And tried all sorts of different plans. And to this day, still, "It doesn't have bounce, so ergo, it is weaker" is a generally valid statement. > That shift would require a first-hand experience of this deck in the > hands of a skilled player. Well, that, or that decks without bounce weren't weaker. Which is, generally speaking, yet to be the case. Peter D Bakija pd...@lightlink.com http://www.lightlink.com/pdb6/vtes.html "It's too bad she won't live! But then again, who does?" -Gaff

[ quoted text not captured ] I think for one there is a certain amount of mitigation that you need to recognise. 1) Govern has been printed 9 times more than Loss (Sabbat War was printed twice) 2) Govern has been in circulation for 14 years, versus Loss that has been in circulation for 11 months 3) The general reticence of the player base to innovate at tournaments (i.e. the Swiss School). 4) Loss is the FIRST standard bleed action that gives +2 bleed to any discipline outside of presence and dominate (Force of Will has a huge downside that eliminates it from general use), ever. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Aug 6, 9:19 am, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > Well, that, or that decks without bounce weren't weaker. Which is, > generally speaking, yet to be the case. Something can be true at one point in time, and not be true at another point in time. Bounce is strong and will always be strong. But there are other strategies, which may be equally strong. But maybe you can not effectively try them without punching yourself in the junk, without letting go of the card slots and disciplines that non-token bounce requires. It's possible. Not certain, but possible. What is certain is that if nobody tries, because nobody can see past the wooby, we'll never know. -- David Cherryholmes

Hmmm, so did I understand things correctly, this deck (type) uses bloat from HL:L ang ousts (boosted with K:G) as the only defense? Sounds a bit weak, especially since the necessity of QUI means you can't play weenies... it'll take a while to get going and you'll use up a good chunk of your pool for you minions, and even then you're bloating at 2 (or maybe 4) per round -- assuming nobody is blocking your bloat, which means you're pretty lucky. A lot of your bleeds will get bounced, so your typical prey won't drop all *that* fast... and of course combat will murder you. Apparently it works for some, and that's cool... I'm just wondering how. Without playing such a deck, I get the feeling that any decently fast deck with good forward momentum will run all over you. What am I missing here? //Petri

On Aug 6, 9:51 am, Petri Wessman <or...@orava.org> wrote: > Sounds a bit weak, especially since the necessity of QUI means you > can't play weenies... Neither can Kindred Spirits bleed, nor can Malk94. There are a few really good nerds you can use as support, but it's solidly a 5 - 7 cap crypt. They worked, this can work. > it'll take a while to get going and you'll use > up a good chunk of your pool for you minions, No it won't. There are 2 4 caps you can have out on turn 1. Turn 2 you bleed for 4. Any minion in the crypt can be out and bleeding by turn 3. Etc etc. Slow compared to what? Weenie Presence or Weenie Dominate? OK, those two weenie decks are faster, but have delivery problems. And anyway, weenie decks are on the broken end of things and I'm not interested in trying to argue "better than Crypt Machine." obf/PRE and obf/dom are just as fast, but do not have access to K:L, K:G, Yoruba Shrine, or Alamut, all of which have a vast impact on what else the deck needs in order to not be "a glass cannon" > and even then you're > bloating at 2 (or maybe 4) per round -- assuming nobody is blocking > your bloat, which means you're pretty lucky. No, you are gaining 2 sometimes, probably not even every turn. But you are working quickly towards 10. And then another 10. And then 10 more after that. You just flat-out *ignore* your predator in most cases. Let them bleed into you. Let yourself get down to single digits. *Stop caring*. It works. > A lot of your bleeds will > get bounced, "A lot?" Again, you could make some thought experiment with weenie AUS, which is a problem (hey, that word "weenie" cropped up again... man, those decks must be good). But 80 card deck, 6 spying missions, you are cycling like mad. How many bounces do they have? 8? 10? More? Let them bounce. You will either SM it or they just chipped away at your next target after you mow through them. > so your typical prey won't drop all *that* fast... and of > course combat will murder you. 80 card deck. 2x Yoruba 2x Secure Haven 2x DI 4x Sleep Unseen And you are hitting the gas *hard*, so that rush deck does not have a lot of time to cycle into stuff. Will it stop everything, all day, all the time? No. But I'd trust what I just wrote a *hell* of a lot more than I'd trust 8 Majesties or 8 Dodges, and I didn't water my deck down like piss on something I don't really ever want to have to use in the first place. > Apparently it works for some, and that's cool... I'm just wondering > how. Without playing such a deck, I get the feeling that any decently > fast deck with good forward momentum will run all over you. There are a handful of decks that are faster. There are probably a dozen decks that are just as fast, but those decks will draw into combat cards and reactions, creating worse card flow issues, probably need Blood Dolls meaning they can't devote as many slots to improving your already superior card flow, and will get eaten alive by votes. It's a good concept, but you can't do it half-way. -- David Cherryholmes

On Aug 6, 5:02 pm, bluedevil <david.cherryhol...@gmail.com> wrote: > It's a good concept, but you can't do it half-way. Yeah. Thanks for the explanation, that cleared up some stuff for me at least. Plain ignoring your predator isn't something I'm used to -- but you're right, in a fast deck that gets extra pool per oust, it's probably a good strategy :). Without getting into the "tier1 or not" debate, it does sound like a pretty mean deck. Would not like to be prey to something like that. //Petri

Added: I like the use of Sleep Unseen there. I've never personally used that card (I tend to forget it exists, to be honest), but in a deck like this it's pretty golden. Must keep in mind :) //Petri

> 80 card deck. > > 2x Yoruba > 2x Secure Haven > 2x DI > 4x Sleep Unseen > > And you are hitting the gas *hard*, so that rush deck does not have a > lot of time to cycle into stuff. Will it stop everything, all day, > all the time? No. But I'd trust what I just wrote a *hell* of a lot > more than I'd trust 8 Majesties or 8 Dodges, and I didn't water my > deck down like piss on something I don't really ever want to have to > use in the first place. One thing. Instead of 2 Secure Havens, how about running 1x Secure, 3x Secret Passage?

> There are a handful of decks that are faster. There are probably a > dozen decks that are just as fast, but those decks will draw into > combat cards and reactions, creating worse card flow issues, probably > need Blood Dolls meaning they can't devote as many slots to improving > your already superior card flow, and will get eaten alive by votes. ....as a side issue have you considered Momentum's Edge and Gambit Accepted? [ quoted text not captured ]

On Aug 6, 10:20 am, Akantes <akan...@hotmail.com> wrote: > One thing. Instead of 2 Secure Havens, how about running 1x Secure, 3x > Secret Passage? Well, I don't know about swapping 2 slots for 4 slots, but going 1 and 1 might be good. I kind of like the permanency of SH, though, and I don't fear the discard. -- David Cherryholmes

David Cherryholmes wrote: > Ben Peal wrote: > > Well, being a weenie deck, it can be tough for a rush deck to drop > > Amaravati 'cause the weenies keep getting in the way. > > Except for rushes at stealth. Haven Uncovered, Contracts, Nose of the > Hound, the new hotness, Sense the Savage Whatever, and clans that pack > Swallowed by the Night or other multi-purpose stealth. But sure, for > rushes at zero stealth, chucking a nerd under the bus is a very > effective defense. Never mind the same Secure Havens and Yoruba Shrines one can put in the deck, or the weenies rescue and you have to stealth rush all over again - but we knew that already. Again, it's not the end of the world if Amaravati goes down (though it certainly hurts), which is why the more recent Assamite breed-boon decks use less of him in the crypt. > > Con Boon is a pile of pool for an action that isn't a bleed (maybe > > it'll get DT'ed but it ain't gettin' bounced) and isn't dependent upon > > ousting someone. Given the vote push of the deck, it's basically a > > pile of pool when you draw it with far less of an opportunity cost.. > > C'mon, it's not like playing Glory means you gain 10 pool - there's an > > awful lot more that has to go on. There's far less that has to go on > > in order to gain for Con Boon. > > I think I'd call the act of gaining the pool between the two about a > wash. One is slower (for it to be worth anything you must have nerds, > and that takes time) and requires a passed vote in a deck lacking > PRE. Do not wait to play Con Boon. Play it early and often. You'll draw more. You don't want to be in a situation where DT means you die on your predator's turn. As for it being slower, well, yeah, you're opting out of the early game to have one hell of a middle game. Having Amaravati or Alamut around is a hell of a lot better than having PRE for votes. > K:G requires an oust via bleeding, which also takes some time > (about the same time for the first oust as the first Boon called worth > a damn, IMO, although likely less). Sure, Loss-Glory is more likely to get an early oust because it comes out of the gate immediately. It still seems like less work to me to get off a couple of Con Boons than to oust one's prey entirely. > Yes. Amaravati clearly smokes K:G/Loss in terms of cross table > ability. And while I would never, ever discount the utility of being > able to interact cross table, I also think those are crappy games. If > I could, you know, just have my pony, I'd like to play a straight > game. The ideal deck would be bullet-proof to all cross table > hostility against itself, and never have to waste actions on doing > that kind of stuff. It's a multiplayer game. There's going to be multiplayer interation. It's impossible to avoid that. > As far as Booning your predator into a meatshield, you have your > own meatshield, your pool from those go-go-go ousts. One advantage of Booning your predator into a meatshield is that you have both his/her pool and his/her blockers in the way. Sometimes you get to keep someone in between you and the intercept wall so your undirected stuff continues to work. It's not a primary tactic of the deck, but it's a handy trick to have in the bag. > It is a simple strategy. Now after 10 years of tournament play I can > no longer say "I've never brought a stealth bleed deck to a tourney" > but I kind of wanted to prove a point, to myself if to nobody else. > And I don't think it's that obvious. I think people looked at K:G and > said "that's neat, I'll add six." And they kept their untap. They > kept their bounce. They kept their combat defense, if not outright > combat itself. They kept their blood dolls, etc etc. I don't know of > anybody who's mentioned "hey, if I just go all-in on this Glory Bleed > stuff, and I really make use of these clan cards I've got my bases > covered." Or maybe people did, saw what I'm not seeing, and moved > on. Well, it does seem similar to the old Obf-Pre Settite bleeders, though the crypt for that is better with the newer vamps (more PRE). While not Loss-Glory, there's a recent deck that uses the same design principle you mention above: http://thelasombra.com/decks/twd.htm#2k8swissecq It's certainly demonstration of concept. > If I'm wrong I'll get the message eventually. But I don't think > "we haven't seen it before so it must not be good" is *that* strong of > an argument. Somebody is always first to point something out, and you > and I both know there were combos lurking for years in this game > before anybody pointed them out in any kind of high profile way. Oh sure, it not having been tried in earnest before doesn't mean it can't be done. I'm certainly not telling you to not try, and Kamel's mono-Dem deck indicates that you _should_ try. The Loss-Glory deck is certainly lethal, and I'd much rather see people try to build lethal things than just fuck around while trying to build a ziggurat. At the same time, if the same set that spawned a few tournament-winning Kazar's Diary decks (somewhat complex decks) isn't also spawning tournament-winning, stripped-down Quietus bleed cannons, then I'm inclined to travel down a different design path. Like, y'know, Guruhi intercept-combat with the dreaded Crows-Majesty combo, or Yazid Tamari Black Hand Seraph Anarch untap-a-lot-and-get-ousted-anyway. *sigh* It's been a bad year. :) - Ben Peal

On Aug 6, 9:51 am, bluedevil <david.cherryhol...@gmail.com> wrote: > Something can be true at one point in time, and not be true at another > point in time. Bounce is strong and will always be strong. But there > are other strategies, which may be equally strong. But maybe you can > not effectively try them without punching yourself in the junk, > without letting go of the card slots and disciplines that non-token > bounce requires. > > It's possible. Not certain, but possible. What is certain is that if > nobody tries, because nobody can see past the wooby, we'll never know. I don't think it is a matter of "not trying". Plenty of people for plenty of years have tried plenty of decks without bounce. And I suspect the general consensus tends to be "Huh. That deck is pretty good. If I had some bounce in there, it'd be even better..." Bounce is incredibly strong. Not having bounce means you generally get killed by an aggressive bleed predator (as decks without bounce generally need some set up time to get around the lack of bounce-- weenie wall decks can operate otherwise, but they probably have bounce anyway....). Not having bounce also means that you are the bleed sink, as everyone *else* has bounce. Not having bounce means you don't get to transform your defensive not turn into an offensive not turn. Can you make decks that win without bounce? Sure. Decks without bounce win all the time. But I suspect that decks *with* bounce win more often than decks without bounce. Still. And not through lack of trying. I'm not saying that this makes Loss a bad card (I'm not actually remotely invested in the Assamite discussion going on around me--I just saw the bounce tangent pop up and decided to chime in on bounce, not Loss/KG/Assamite whatever). Heck--the Assamites with Loss are very strong. But the Assamites with Loss *and* good bounce are even better... -Peter

On Aug 6, 10:31 am, XZealot <xzea...@cox.net> wrote: > ....as a side issue have you considered Momentum's Edge and Gambit > Accepted? Considered both. Hard. I mean, there's the Storage Annex, sitting right there. Also thought about that new event that hoses bounce... Inconnu something or other? In the end, though, I felt like I was succumbing to card-creep and I wanted to keep it tight. Both those cards are good tricks, but I figure I've already got my own good trick going on. But I could see dropping the Life Boon and the Political Flux for both those cards. Maybe I'll give that a try, along with dropping the dupe Secure Haven for a Secret Passage. This is why I like playing and yakking about the game. No matter how good I think my idea is, it can always be a little better. ;) -- David Cherryholmes

On Aug 6, 7:19 am, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > In article > <ae320ffb-5fa4-47ee-a3f2-e519e3cd0...@j22g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, > > XZealot <xzea...@cox.net> wrote: > > I think that "It doesn't have bounce so, ergo, it is weaker" is a > > crutch that so many players lean on that it requires a paradigm shift > > for them to understand what you are saying. > > Ya know, I've been playing this game for an awful long time, and have > built an awful lot of decks. And tried all sorts of different plans. And > to this day, still, "It doesn't have bounce, so ergo, it is weaker" is a > generally valid statement. ...not in this case, the bloat is so big and the deck so fast that it actually jams it's predator up by ignoring him > > That shift would require a first-hand experience of this deck in the > > hands of a skilled player. > > Well, that, or that decks without bounce weren't weaker. Which is, > generally speaking, yet to be the case. Bloat is as good as bounce for protecting you and what you lose in forward momentum, you make up in disrupting your predator's card flow (as players build their decks to deal with "minion X attempts to block".) [ quoted text not captured ]

On Aug 6, 10:02 am, bluedevil <david.cherryhol...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Aug 6, 9:51 am, Petri Wessman <or...@orava.org> wrote: > > > Sounds a bit weak, especially since the necessity of QUI means you > > can't play weenies... > > Neither can Kindred Spirits bleed, nor can Malk94. I mentioned it in another response in this thread, but I'll mention it here: Kamel Senni demonstrated that you can do Kindred Spirits bleed with weenies. http://thelasombra.com/decks/twd.htm#2k8swissecq Oh, though credit should go where credit is due: Romain Naïm designed the deck, Kamel piloted it. Interestingly, the stripped-down, defense-through-bonus-pool-gain- bleeds approach of the deck demonstrates the concept you're talking about with Loss-Glory. - Ben Peal

On Aug 6, 10:53 am, benp...@gmail.com wrote: > Interestingly, the stripped-down, defense-through-bonus-pool-gain- > bleeds approach of the deck demonstrates the concept you're talking > about with Loss-Glory. First, I think the magnitude of pool gain in a KS-based deck would be less than Glory + assorted K:L. Second, I wouldn't focus on the K:G pool gain while ignoring the clan-based advantages you get: well shored-up against rush and a pretty good chance of p0wning the entire political dimension of the game. KS will never give you that. -- David Cherryholmes

On Aug 6, 8:46 am, bluedevil <david.cherryhol...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Aug 6, 10:31 am, XZealot <xzea...@cox.net> wrote: > > > ....as a side issue have you considered Momentum's Edge and Gambit > > Accepted? > > Considered both. Hard. I mean, there's the Storage Annex, sitting > right there. Also thought about that new event that hoses bounce... > Inconnu something or other? In the end, though, I felt like I was > succumbing to card-creep and I wanted to keep it tight. Both those > cards are good tricks, but I figure I've already got my own good trick > going on. But I could see dropping the Life Boon and the Political > Flux for both those cards. Maybe I'll give that a try, along with > dropping the dupe Secure Haven for a Secret Passage. ....just to mention that Gambit Accepted delivered to me a Game Win at the Texas Qualifier. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Aug 6, 10:43 am, benp...@gmail.com wrote: Probably a lot more I could reply to, but I did want to say a few things about these two comments. > Sure, Loss-Glory is more likely to get an early oust because it > comes out of the gate immediately. It doesn't have to come out of the gate immediately. It just can. You probably know more about driving stealth bleed decks than I do, but there are enough non-bleed actions in the game that you can feign harmlessness with K:L, WoK, bleeds for one, possible with a SM (limp like that bird in Rikki Tikki Tavvi!), or whatever. In fact, it's probably best to do so, so that your prey will spend some pool. But I'd say once you are up around 2 or 3 minions, go for it. More generally, once you hit the gas, don't look back, because it's "game on" time. > It's a multiplayer game. There's going to be multiplayer > interation. It's impossible to avoid that. It may be impossible. Heck, you're right... it's impossible. But to the extent that you can build a deck that makes it difficult for cross table people to get up in your grill, and minimizes the amount of actions you have to throw into the void on account of your sooper- sekrit convoluted strategy, I'd say that they are good things. -- David Cherryholmes

David Cherryholmes wrote: > Ben Peal wrote: > > Interestingly, the stripped-down, defense-through-bonus-pool-gain- > > bleeds approach of the deck demonstrates the concept you're talking > > about with Loss-Glory. > > First, I think the magnitude of pool gain in a KS-based deck would be > less than Glory + assorted K:L. The most pool you can get from Glory is 16. Romain's/Kamel's mono- Dem KS deck and even standard Obf-Dem KS decks pack 16+ Kindred Spirits. Loss-Glory isn't going to sweep every table and not every KS is gonna land (or be drawn?). I'd say the amount of pool gain either approach provides is about the same. > Second, I wouldn't focus on the K:G pool gain while ignoring the > clan-based advantages you get: well shored-up against rush > and a pretty good chance of p0wning the entire political dimension > of the game. KS will never give you that. Well, if the mono-Dem KS deck demonstrates your concept, and Loss- Glory offers additional advantages, then accept the demonstration of concept. :) (though the mono-Dem KS deck has its own advantages...more minions, aim-able bleeds) - Ben

On Aug 6, 11:42 am, benp...@gmail.com wrote: > The most pool you can get from Glory is 16. Romain's/Kamel's mono- > Dem KS deck and even standard Obf-Dem KS decks pack 16+ Kindred > Spirits. Loss-Glory isn't going to sweep every table and not every KS > is gonna land (or be drawn?). I'd say the amount of pool gain either > approach provides is about the same. IME with about 8 Glories, every oust you get should have them in play. So you've compared one Glory oust, and let's just say 10 b/c I'm not sure where you are getting 16 from. Not every one of those KS bleeds is going to land, either, but you get a max pool gain from glories of 40 (for a sweep, which you're right, isn't going to happen every game) and a minimum of 10. Say 20 pool in the middle sounds about right. The middle of KS is.... 8? > (though the mono-Dem KS deck has its own advantages...more minions, > aim-able bleeds) Oh absolutely. I'm not even trying to say "this deck is better than that deck." Too many variables. I'm just saying it's pretty good, and within the context of the question asked, possibly Tier 1. -- David Cherryholmes

On Aug 6, 11:47 am, bluedevil <david.cherryhol...@gmail.com> wrote: > IME with about 8 Glories, every oust you get should have them in > play. So you've compared one Glory oust, and let's just say 10 b/c > I'm not sure where you are getting 16 from. Because Glory gives you four extra pool, not 10. Four extra pool times four ousts equals 16 extra pool. John Eno

David Cherryholmes wrote: > Ben Peal wrote: > > The most pool you can get from Glory is 16. Romain's/Kamel's mono- > > Dem KS deck and even standard Obf-Dem KS decks pack 16+ Kindred > > Spirits. Loss-Glory isn't going to sweep every table and not every KS > > is gonna land (or be drawn?). I'd say the amount of pool gain either > > approach provides is about the same. > > IME with about 8 Glories, every oust you get should have them in > play. So you've compared one Glory oust, and let's just say 10 b/c > I'm not sure where you are getting 16 from. By card text, Glory provides 4 additional pool for an oust. Four ousts means a total of 16 addtional pool. Add that to the 24 pool gained for ousting 4 people and you get 40 pool Kindred Spirits provides 1 additional pool per successful bleed. 16 successful such bleeds means a total of 16 additional pool. Add that to the 24 gained in the event of a table sweep and you get 40 pool. > > (though the mono-Dem KS deck has its own advantages...more minions, > > aim-able bleeds) > > Oh absolutely. I'm not even trying to say "this deck is better than > that deck." Too many variables. I'm just saying it's pretty good, > and within the context of the question asked, possibly Tier 1. The anti-rush and anti-vote countermeasures are what make Loss-Glory most intriguing with respect to that discussion, IMO. - Ben Peal

On Aug 6, 12:02 pm, benp...@gmail.com wrote: > By card text, Glory provides 4 additional pool for an oust. Four > ousts means a total of 16 addtional pool. Add that to the 24 pool > gained for ousting 4 people and you get 40 pool OK, good point. Posting too fast to do math. (Thanks for correcting me as well, Kushiel). -- David Cherryholmes

On Aug 6, 6:03 am, bluedevil <david.cherryhol...@gmail.com> wrote: > If you only plan to have 3 minions, your deck cycles fast, and you > have 2 Yorubas, 2 Secure Havens, 2 DI's, and 4 Sleep Unseens, and the > odds of ever being blocked are really really small..... is it really a > glass cannon? Yes. It's a deck that doesn't have a lot of redundancy in its design in terms of defense, but has loads of offense. That's what a glass cannon is - it can very likely get some VPs, but if it's prevented from doing so for whatever reason, it falls over. John Eno

On Aug 6, 12:02 pm, benp...@gmail.com wrote: > The anti-rush and anti-vote countermeasures are what make Loss-Glory > most intriguing with respect to that discussion, IMO. Another good little point about the anti-Rush is that they are, after all, Assamites. I guess if it's the finals and your deck has been scouted all to hell and back it won't matter. But in a truly blind environment your opponents won't *know* that you can't hit back. Hell, I'd probably mix it up and play a version that drops some stealth for a tight set-spit module, just to keep them guessing. -- David Cherryholmes

On Aug 6, 12:25 pm, Kushiel <invisibleking...@gmail.com> wrote: > Yes. It's a deck that doesn't have a lot of redundancy in its design > in terms of defense, but has loads of offense. That's what a glass > cannon is - it can very likely get some VPs, but if it's prevented > from doing so for whatever reason, it falls over. What deck does not "fall over" if prevented from getting VPs? Isn't losing the game the ultimate form of "falling over?" To me, a glass cannon says "I hope I don't run into combat. I bet I won't, so I'll win." A deck built to say "Mwuahahaa, foolz! Your combat is useless against me! Lulz!" does not seem to fit the model. -- David Cherryholmes

On Aug 6, 12:28 pm, bluedevil <david.cherryhol...@gmail.com> wrote: > What deck does not "fall over" if prevented from getting VPs? Isn't > losing the game the ultimate form of "falling over?" Not all decks tie their bloat and other defensive options directly into their ousting mechanism. If a deck separates the two, it means that a temporary failure of offense doesn't lead more or less directly to being ousted, because it can fall back and regroup. If a deck combines the two, it gets the benefit of streamlining, but if it's offense fails, its defense necessarily does the same. > To me, a glass cannon says "I hope I don't run into combat. I bet I > won't, so I'll win." A deck built to say "Mwuahahaa, foolz! Your > combat is useless against me! Lulz!" does not seem to fit the model. We're talking about two different things, then. The definition of "glass cannon" I've always seen has nothing to do with combat, except maybe tangentially. A glass cannon is a deck that's all offense and no/little defense, and which relies on oust-bloat in order to outrace its predator. The classic examples are Setite stealth/bleed and Baali stealth/bleed, since both have Death Star-like offensive capabilities but few ways to prevent being ousted if they're not getting oust-bloat. In other words, it's a glass (fragile in the face of other folks ousting it) cannon (capable of blasting other folks off the table). As an example of someone else using the term this way: http://preview.tinyurl.com/55etsl (newsgroup post by Emmit Svenson) Hopefully that makes my terminology a little more understandable. John Eno

On Aug 6, 1:53 pm, Kushiel <invisibleking...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hopefully that makes my terminology a little more understandable. Yup. Now I understand what you were saying. And you could see the different sense in which I was using the word. So we were just talking past each other. I will add this, though: the deck should be difficult to blow off the table via voting or minion control (rush, et al.). The deck is almost purely offense, so anything short of a wall will have a very hard time stopping it. Loss means being able to snipe the Super Bowl and various other intercept toys, making permacept harder to come by. So anything short of a wall ought to fall. Not always, but statistically very often, which I think in the real world of actual games is the best you can hope for. And wall decks are very good at making other people lose, but not so good at winning themselves (I might allow that weenie AUS is a bit better, because it has all those minions to fall back on, but you know.... weenies). So even by your definition, which I know understand, I'm not sure I'm ready to concede that it is particularly fragile. If it hits a superwall, it will get stopped, and die. That seems true to me of most decks. Perhaps bullies can smash their way through the wall, being paper to its rock, but then they have their own host of other problems, and bully bleed (which I think more highly of than other people, it seems) does not seem in danger of being declared Tier 1. -- David Cherryholmes

It seems like you are willing to talk about support cards for dom/pre/ dem, but not for Loss/K:G so here goes. narrow minds come to mind I have seen Alamut in this thread, but not as a card for Loss/K:G gain 4-7 votes a turn seems good enough to run w/ votes. Black Throne I like Con Boon, Revolutionary Council, KRC 6-8 votes in total this will give WoKR some thing useful to do. As you will be playing med. caps. Deed the Heart's Desire seems very good (for bleeds and votes) to either stop the bounce or force one minon to play them in repeated rounds/actions. Add to that a couple of Hide the Mind and you are in business. Nest of eagles/confusion of the eye has little comparison to bounce and in all honesty a do not think they are worth putting in, unless you run w/ a fair amount of DI's Market Square and Blood Awaking seems to be good for defense combat should be (if any) Selective Silence, Swallowed by the Night, Taste of Death Not nearly as good as majesty but better than the other options Path of Blood to mitigate blood loss. or Retain the Quick Blood Condemn the Sins of the Father seems good for tap and bleed. Anarch Troublemaker Reliquary: Shango Remains is almost a dreams that sticks around Khabar: Community what more need I say Obviously not all of these cards can go in one Loss/K:G deck, but it seems to me that there are options only available to the Assimites some of them very good(tier 1?) Of course there are other cards to help Loss/K:G, but those are all generic. The best decks to compare Loss/K:G is venture/obf and Malk/! w/titles. That said I think the real question is can Loss be tier 1(I think so). K:G is just one of the cards to help facilitate it. Matt

>A glass cannon is a deck that's all offense and no/little defense, and >which relies on oust-bloat in order to outrace its predator. The >classic examples are Setite stealth/bleed and Baali stealth/bleed, >since both have Death Star-like offensive capabilities but few ways to >prevent being ousted if they're not getting oust-bloat. In other >words, it's a glass (fragile in the face of other folks ousting it) >cannon (capable of blasting other folks off the table). >As an example of someone else using the term this way: While I agree with your definition of glass cannon I really don't think setite bleeding is that Death-Star-like.

On Aug 6, 10:42 pm, "Izaak" <m...@nospam.com> wrote: > While I agree with your definition of glass cannon I really don't think > setite bleeding is that Death-Star-like. Well, I think it's a fair comparison. One little *plink* from a decent offensive deck, and your typical Settite bleedmachine crumbles faster than the Death Star after one measly torpedo. They are also Evil (with capital "E"), and I'm sure Nakhorwhatshisname breathes with a distictly Darth-like sound from under that Anubis mask. Just saying. :D //Petri

On Aug 6, 3:38 pm, matt...@gmail.com wrote: > narrow minds come to mind > I have seen Alamut in this thread, but not as a card for Loss/K:G gain > 4-7 votes a turn seems good enough to run w/ votes. Black Throne > I like Con Boon, Revolutionary Council, KRC 6-8 votes in total this > will give WoKR some thing useful to do. I think part of what makes a good deck (perhaps sadly) is figuring out what you are trying to do, and do it well. Loading the deck up on votes would, IMO, dilute it. I did think along the same lines as what you are suggesting, but confined it to just 3 vote cards, few enough that if the vote angle isn't working out, they can be ditched as discards, off dreams, or in other political referendums painlessly. Card flow is king. Alamut is there for one thing: to defend yourself against hostile votes. Anything extra is just butter, and I think you should not get dragged down the path of doing too much with it. It is, after all, just two card slots in the deck. > As you will be playing med. caps. Deed the Heart's Desire seems very > good (for bleeds and votes) to either stop the bounce or force one > minon to play them in repeated rounds/actions. Add to that a couple of > Hide the Mind and you are in business. Not having Hide the Mind in my deck was purely a function of me leaving half my good decks at somebody's house. But yes, it should definitely be part of the package. I don't agree with Deed. It might be playable, but it might be a dead slot, and it imposes a blood cost. The blood costing cards are carefully balanced against the blood on your minions. Loss and Elder Impersonation are the two cards that cost blood in the deck. That's it, and that's deliberate. You have access to Elder and you have access to Spying Mission, and along with Faceless Night, these occupy the largest numbers of your stealth spread. IMO, this yields the best results. > Nest of eagles/confusion of the eye has little comparison to bounce > and in all honesty a do not think they are worth putting in, unless > you run w/ a fair amount of DI's No untap, no defense. It will just slow you down and not accomplish much. Go for the ten pool. > Market Square and Blood Awaking seems to be good for defense See above. > combat should be (if any) Selective Silence, Swallowed by the Night, > Taste of Death > Not nearly as good as majesty but better than the other options Yeah... none. > Path of Blood to mitigate blood loss. or Retain the Quick Blood Can't defend the Path, and Retain the Quick Blood is an action that neither gains you pool, causes your prey to lose pool, or makes a nerd. I love toolbox decks, but for this experiment I've resigned myself to focus, and hopefully winning some games. > Condemn the Sins of the Father seems good for tap and bleed. Anarch > Troublemaker Anarch Troublemaker might warrant a slot. In fact, I had Misdirection, but AT is just flat-out better. That's one good idea I did get from your advice, even if I seem to be slapping down the other stuff. > Reliquary: Shango Remains is almost a dreams that sticks around Maybe. Not sure I want to forego gain, dome, spawn in order to get it. > Khabar: Community what more need I say Yeah, thought about that one too. Can't defend it, but it also could justify a slot, especially what with the Storage Annex. Costs quite a bit of pool, though. In the end, I decided to just hang my hat on 30 stealth cards and just do it the straight-up way. > Obviously not all of these cards can go in one Loss/K:G deck, but it > seems to me that there are options only available to the Assimites > some of them very good(tier 1?) Of course there are other cards to > help Loss/K:G, but those are all generic. The best decks to compare > Loss/K:G is venture/obf and Malk/! w/titles. Yeah, these are all good cards for certain decks, maybe even certain other Loss/K:G-focused decks. I'm not sure many of them jive with my vision, but I'm just one guy. > That said I think the real question is can Loss be tier 1(I think so). > K:G is just one of the cards to help facilitate it. Agreed. -- David Cherryholmes

[ quoted text not captured ] but splitting it means you can potentially protect 2 of your guys instead of just 1... personally, i like Secret Passage. :) -- salem (replace 'hotmail' with 'gmail' to email)

On Aug 6, 1:30 pm, bluedevil <david.cherryhol...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Aug 6, 3:38 pm, matt...@gmail.com wrote: > > > narrow minds come to mind > > I have seen Alamut in this thread, but not as a card for Loss/K:G gain > > 4-7 votes a turn seems good enough to run w/ votes. Black Throne > > I like Con Boon, Revolutionary Council, KRC 6-8 votes in total this > > will give WoKR some thing useful to do. > > I think part of what makes a good deck (perhaps sadly) is figuring out > what you are trying to do, and do it well. Loading the deck up on > votes would, IMO, dilute it. I did think along the same lines as what > you are suggesting, but confined it to just 3 vote cards, few enough > that if the vote angle isn't working out, they can be ditched as > discards, off dreams, or in other political referendums painlessly. > Card flow is king. Alamut is there for one thing: to defend yourself > against hostile votes. Anything extra is just butter, and I think you > should not get dragged down the path of doing too much with it. It > is, after all, just two card slots in the deck. If I was going to use the vote angle I would have 3-4 Alamut > > As you will be playing med. caps. Deed the Heart's Desire seems very > > good (for bleeds and votes) to either stop the bounce or force one > > minon to play them in repeated rounds/actions. Add to that a couple of > > Hide the Mind and you are in business. > > Not having Hide the Mind in my deck was purely a function of me > leaving half my good decks at somebody's house. But yes, it should > definitely be part of the package. I don't agree with Deed. It might > be playable, but it might be a dead slot, and it imposes a blood > cost. The blood costing cards are carefully balanced against the > blood on your minions. Loss and Elder Impersonation are the two cards > that cost blood in the deck. That's it, and that's deliberate. You > have access to Elder and you have access to Spying Mission, and along > with Faceless Night, these occupy the largest numbers of your stealth > spread. IMO, this yields the best results. The ability to choose what minon bounces gets stronger when you have Narrow Minds in play. It is a mechanic as yet to be tested, but that does not mean it is not viable. Assimites have access to 3 of 6 bounce denial. It seems a shame not to use some(all) of them. The path can help. > > Nest of eagles/confusion of the eye has little comparison to bounce > > and in all honesty a do not think they are worth putting in, unless > > you run w/ a fair amount of DI's > > No untap, no defense. It will just slow you down and not accomplish > much. Go for the ten pool. > > > Market Square and Blood Awaking seems to be good for defense > > See above. I was not saying they were a good options but they are options. every deck w/ bounce has wakes of one form or another. Black Sunrise Wakes are just good > > combat should be (if any) Selective Silence, Swallowed by the Night, > > Taste of Death > > Not nearly as good as majesty but better than the other options > > Yeah... none. > > > Path of Blood to mitigate blood loss. or Retain the Quick Blood > > Can't defend the Path, and Retain the Quick Blood is an action that > neither gains you pool, causes your prey to lose pool, or makes a > nerd. I love toolbox decks, but for this experiment I've resigned > myself to focus, and hopefully winning some games. I don't like RtQB for this kind of deck but it does have a place in some. The path need not be defended, if you run 6. The Coven and Life in the City is the other option > > Condemn the Sins of the Father seems good for tap and bleed. Anarch > > Troublemaker > > Anarch Troublemaker might warrant a slot. In fact, I had > Misdirection, but AT is just flat-out better. That's one good idea I > did get from your advice, even if I seem to be slapping down the other > stuff. > > > Reliquary: Shango Remains is almost a dreams that sticks around > > Maybe. Not sure I want to forego gain, dome, spawn in order to get > it. It is untested but I think it can be as good as dreams for ousting(and is less likely to be contested) > > Khabar: Community what more need I say > > Yeah, thought about that one too. Can't defend it, but it also could > justify a slot, especially what with the Storage Annex. Costs quite a > bit of pool, though. In the end, I decided to just hang my hat on 30 > stealth cards and just do it the straight-up way. I agree if K:G is your only bloat and/or you are not breeding None of what I posted is a suggestion for your deck. They are just possibilities for Loss(tier1) Matt

Condemn the Sins of the Father +1 stealth action.[qui] Choose a clan. All younger vampires of that clan are tapped. Vampires of the chosen clan may attempt to block (in addition to the normally eligible blockers).[QUI] As above, and each younger vampire of the chosen clan burns 1 blood. This seems like a hell a good card for tap and bleed.

> > > Reliquary: Shango Remains is almost a dreams that sticks around > > > Maybe. Not sure I want to forego gain, dome, spawn in order to get > > it. > > It is untested but I think it can be as good as dreams for ousting(and > is less likely to be contested) I'd want to point out, that you can't contest it. It's not unique.

[ quoted text not captured ] Well that is just ridiculous. Not Heart of N'Cheatious ridiculous. But still, I thought burn 1 blood during every Meth's turn for +2 hand size was good enough. Although the requirements will diminish its efficiency.

[ quoted text not captured ] One word for that. Embrace. It is a good card, but I've yet to build a deck that would want to run 1 of those. Perhaps Loss/Glory breeder would be one? You'd cycle out of/into stealth/bleed-cards, when needed. Coupled with dreams, you clear out any handjam in notime.

[ quoted text not captured ] Embrace is no longer a vampire in the ash heap or uncontrolled region. Your best bet is to just pay the pool and be happy about it. Trying to make it free and be able to keep up w/ the blood cost will make for a bad deck. Matt

> Embrace is no longer a vampire in the ash heap or uncontrolled region. > Your best bet is to just pay the pool and be happy about it. Trying to > make it free and be able to keep up w/ the blood cost will make for a > bad deck. > > Matt Yea, was thinking of burning embrace when it's on the play, and not in ash heap. Though if you banish it, it's still a vampire. But that's not exactly what we would be looking for.

The biggest problem I see w/ Loss/K:G. The pool gain is tied to an oust. KS will feed a third minon. Loss/K:G you are stuck at two and no bounce. Grab your ankles. Two minons beg to be tool box. The only other option is to run the 4 and 6 caps w/ khabar: community which has its own problems. Whatever path you take for K:G you need STORAGE ANNEX or VERY GOOD CARD CYCLE. Or give up on K:G as your pool gain. Matt

benp...@gmail.com wrote: > David Cherryholmes wrote: > > Ben Peal wrote: > > Well, it does seem similar to the old Obf-Pre Settite bleeders, > though the crypt for that is better with the newer vamps (more PRE). Sorry for being too late for the discussion, but IMHO there is a need to define the terms prior to discussing. What does "Tier 1" mean? For me, it means "A good player is likely to win with it against non-Tier1 decks on average drawing luck, average seating luck and normal table reaction (the whole table isn't going to kill him)". Loss/obf bleeding deck is defenitely Tier1 in this sense: it can bleed at good stealth for good amounts, and it can thwart off rushes (not only with Yoruba Shrine, but with the offensive combat, too). Yes, it can bleed only its prey, but it can burn equipment or loquipments on its predator, too. And while it generally cannot bounce, it can block with Black Sunrises and Blood Awakenings/Market Square. Plus, it can accumulate a lot of counters on Alamut! I think that discussing just a couple of cards without a deck isn't very wise, either. There are no good cards, only good decks. There is one Loss deck in our playgroup, and a complete newbie not only got into the finals with it, but even grabbed 1VP in the finals. This alone demonstrates that the deck was very strong. It may be not as fast as the focused turbo-bleeds (especially DOM and PRE variants), but it can do many different things, and the opponents never know exactly what you can do and what you can't. Personally I don't believe that a "pure S&B" with Loss is going to be very good, but a deck with Black Hand tech (Djuhah, Reza Fatir, Joe "Boot" Hill and possibly even Izhim abd Azrael) or No Secrets (Kabede Maru, probably with Olugbenga) can be really brilliant. All these decks can have a lot of Losses as their primary bleeding/controlling cards, and - voila! - Kabede can even bounce with Telepathic Misdirections! > While not Loss-Glory, there's a recent deck that uses the same > design principle you mention above: > > http://thelasombra.com/decks/twd.htm#2k8swissecq > > It's certainly demonstration of concept. My version of DEM-weenie has 22 Kindred Spirits and some Veil the Legions. Fabrizia/Creation Rites is an interesting tech, but too risky IMHO, as you may fail to get Fabrizia or Dementation for her. Not to mention that having three triples is a very high risk of having just two unique vamps. Oops, sorry for the offtopic! I was able to implement bounce in DEM-weenie as well: double Uncle George + Tony + one Dominate skill card provided enough chances to play some Deflections. > Oh sure, it not having been tried in earnest before doesn't mean it > can't be done. I'm certainly not telling you to not try, and Kamel's > mono-Dem deck indicates that you _should_ try. The Loss-Glory deck is > certainly lethal, and I'd much rather see people try to build lethal > things than just fuck around while trying to build a ziggurat. At the > same time, if the same set that spawned a few tournament-winning > Kazar's Diary decks (somewhat complex decks) isn't also spawning > tournament-winning, stripped-down Quietus bleed cannons, then I'm > inclined to travel down a different design path. Like, y'know, Guruhi > intercept-combat with the dreaded Crows-Majesty combo, or Yazid Tamari > Black Hand Seraph Anarch untap-a-lot-and-get-ousted-anyway. *sigh* > It's been a bad year. :) It would be really, really much better to see a thread named "best Loss deck" or something like that. Deck Name: Loss with Kabede Created By: Ector Description: First draft version of Kabede Maru with Losses Crypt: (12 cards, Min: 13, Max: 36, Avg: 5,91) ---------------------------------------------- 1 Basir qui 1 Assamite 2 Sajid al Misbah QUI 4 Assamite 2 Kamau Jafari obf QUI 4 Assamite 1 Vardar Vardarian cel pre OBF QUI 6 Assamite 1 Hafsa auscel OBF QUI 6 Assamite 1 Reza Fatir obf pro CEL QUI 6 Assamite 4 Kabede Maru abo pot AUS CEL OBF QUI9 Assamite Library: (90 cards) ------------------- Master (18 cards) 1 Market Square 4 Vessel 1 Alamut 1 Khabar: Community, The 1 Heartblood of the Clan 1 Yoruba Shrine 2 Path of Blood, The 1 Underworld Hunting Ground 1 WMRH Talk Radio 1 Channel 10 1 Therbold Realty 2 Dreams of the Sphinx 1 Storage Annex Action (20 cards) 4 No Secrets From the Magaji 12 Loss 2 Khabar: Glory 2 Web of Knives Recruit Action Modifier (12 cards) 6 Veil the Legions 6 Cloak the Gathering Reaction (11 cards) 5 Telepathic Misdirection 6 Black Sunrise Combat (12 cards) 5 Selective Silence 2 Taste of Death 5 Disguised Weapon Retainer (1 cards) 1 Omael Kuman Equipment (6 cards) 1 Bowl of Convergence 2 Sniper Rifle 1 Ivory Bow 2 Mark V Combo (10 cards) 5 Blood Awakening 5 Swallowed by the Night Ector

On Aug 5, 2:53 am, librarian <aucti...@superfuncards.com> wrote: > Yes > No > Wha? > > best - > > chris > -- > Super Fun Cardswww.superfuncards.com*NEW Website!* > aucti...@superfuncards.com No, I don't think so. Why? Take a look at Lasombra's TWDA. If you search for "loss" you find one deck that uses 2 copies of it, as well as several entries for Wasserschloss Anif, Austria. If Loss was that much of a killer there should be more entries by now. Entries for other, randomly chosen cards from the same set (# of decks / average per deck): Public Trust (2 / 6.4) Khazar`s Diary (4 / 7.75) Narrow Minds (11 / 1,18) Preternatural Strength (6 / 2,17) Target Vitals (13 / 5,38) The Eternals of Sirius (3 / 4,33) Murmur of the False Will (6 / 2,5) My reasoning is: many decks using a certain number of the card --> at least the card is tear 1, or close to it. Kind regards, Marcus

[ quoted text not captured ] I think the reason is that people who play assimites are not drawn to build a S/B deck. Everyone else already has one that is tried and true,so there is no need to build another untested one.

On Aug 8, 11:33 am, matt...@gmail.com wrote: > I think the reason is that people who play assimites are not drawn to > build a S/B deck. I'm not sure where you get this reasoning from. I play both Assamites and stealth/bleed all the time. > Everyone else already has one that is tried and > true,so there is no need to build another untested one. I don't follow this either. You don't know people who build new decks just to build new decks? John Eno

On Aug 8, 9:29 am, Kushiel <invisibleking...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Aug 8, 11:33 am, matt...@gmail.com wrote: > > > I think the reason is that people who play assimites are not drawn to > > build a S/B deck. > > I'm not sure where you get this reasoning from. I play both Assamites > and stealth/bleed all the time. I have been wrong before. You may be an exception to the rule. I would guess 5% of players are in this group. > > Everyone else already has one that is tried and > > true,so there is no need to build another untested one. > > I don't follow this either. You don't know people who build new decks > just to build new decks? My play group is built out. No one has the time to build new decks. Life gets in the way. Sadly, the onus is mine.

On Aug 8, 2:21 pm, matt...@gmail.com wrote: > I have been wrong before. You may be an exception to the rule. I would > guess 5% of players are in this group. Where are you getting this number from? John Eno

> Where are you getting this number from? I meant regularly play Assamites. > > I have been wrong before. You may be an exception to the rule. >> I would guess >>5% of players are in this group. Matt

In article <d3adba3a-3c69-4c1c...@w24g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, mat...@gmail.com wrote: > I have been wrong before. You may be an exception to the rule. I would > guess 5% of players are in this group. That is certainly inventing statistics based on limited evidence. You are asserting that "people who play assamites" != "people who play S+B"? That is highly dubious theory. I play S+B some times. I play Assamites some times. I play Assamite S+B sometimes. I'm not a huge fan of Assamites. I'm not a huge fan of S+B. But I'll play either once and a while. > My play group is built out. No one has the time to build new decks. > Life gets in the way. > Sadly, the onus is mine. So you have a play group that doesn't build new decks a lot. Which isn't unreasonable. But assuming that all play groups look like your play group is unreasonable. I'll counter your example of "my play group doesn't have time to build new decks" with my own example of "my play group makes new decks all the time". Peter D Bakija pd...@lightlink.com http://www.lightlink.com/pdb6/vtes.html "It's too bad she won't live! But then again, who does?" -Gaff

On Aug 8, 4:06 pm, matt...@gmail.com wrote: > > Where are you getting this number from? > > I meant regularly play Assamites. I still have absolutely no idea how you're arriving at this conclusion, let alone a mathematical analysis. But okay. John Eno

Apparently "I would guess" was not a good enough dis-qualifier. At best it was a hypothesis. To me it says based on my intuition. I have seen ~40 players come though my play group 3 of which I thought of as an Assamite player. Those players did not like S/B(not that it hadn't been played by them). - - I will be wrong again. Kurshiel, I apologize if I upset you. Matt "Its in my nature" -the scorpion

On Aug 8, 6:20 pm, matt...@gmail.com wrote: > Apparently "I would guess" was not a good enough dis-qualifier. At > best it was a hypothesis. To me it says based on my intuition. I have > seen ~40 players come though my play group 3 of which I thought of as > an Assamite player. Those players did not like S/B(not that it hadn't > been played by them). - - Ah, okay. I tend to think of "an Assamite player" as anybody who's ever played an Assamite deck, which is why your statement didn't make a lot of sense to me. I don't really know anyone who has much in the way of actual clan loyalty in terms of deck choice. :) > Kurshiel, I apologize if I upset you. Oh, no, I just didn't get where you were coming from. > "Its in my nature" -the scorpion Ha! Nice one. John Eno

> > "Its in my nature" -the scorpion > Ha! Nice one. I didn't know if anyone would get it. Glad it was you.

[ quoted text not captured ] the parable about the scorpion that stung the animal that helped it or something? i got it! vaguely.... [ quoted text not captured ]

On Aug 8, 10:56 pm, Salem <kella...@hotmail.com> wrote: > matt...@gmail.com wrote: > > the parable about the scorpion that stung the animal that helped it or > something? i got it! vaguely.... > > -- > salem > (replace 'hotmail' with 'gmail' to email) The Scorpion and the Frog One day, a scorpion looked around at the mountain where he lived and decided that he wanted a change. So he set out on a journey through the forests and hills. He climbed over rocks and under vines and kept going until he reached a river. The river was wide and swift, and the scorpion stopped to reconsider the situation. He couldn't see any way across. So he ran upriver and then checked downriver, all the while thinking that he might have to turn back. Suddenly, he saw a frog sitting in the rushes by the bank of the stream on the other side of the river. He decided to ask the frog for help getting across the stream. "Hellooo Mr. Frog!" called the scorpion across the water, "Would you be so kind as to give me a ride on your back across the river?" "Well now, Mr. Scorpion! How do I know that if I try to help you, you wont try to kill me?" asked the frog hesitantly. "Because," the scorpion replied, "If I try to kill you, then I would die too, for you see I cannot swim!" Now this seemed to make sense to the frog. But he asked. "What about when I get close to the bank? You could still try to kill me and get back to the shore!" "This is true," agreed the scorpion, "But then I wouldn't be able to get to the other side of the river!" "Alright then...how do I know you wont just wait till we get to the other side and THEN kill me?" said the frog. "Ahh...," crooned the scorpion, "Because you see, once you've taken me to the other side of this river, I will be so grateful for your help, that it would hardly be fair to reward you with death, now would it?!" So the frog agreed to take the scorpion across the river. He swam over to the bank and settled himself near the mud to pick up his passenger. The scorpion crawled onto the frog's back, his sharp claws prickling into the frog's soft hide, and the frog slid into the river. The muddy water swirled around them, but the frog stayed near the surface so the scorpion would not drown. He kicked strongly through the first half of the stream, his flippers paddling wildly against the current. Halfway across the river, the frog suddenly felt a sharp sting in his back and, out of the corner of his eye, saw the scorpion remove his stinger from the frog's back. A deadening numbness began to creep into his limbs. "You fool!" croaked the frog, "Now we shall both die! Why on earth did you do that?" The scorpion shrugged, and did a little jig on the drownings frog's back. "I could not help myself. It is my nature." Then they both sank into the muddy waters of the swiftly flowing river.

I just played my version of the loss deck (I was the one who originally posted a deck list for one to PoB when LoN was released) at the large ropecon tournament last friday (84 players this year iirc). And while I didn't get to the finals, (I was 12th) I would mainly put that to bad luck. I sweeped the first round, despite having a predator that pretty much bled me for 7 each turn (had Nakhortheb and Ankh-sen- Sutekh both with heart of the city), I pretty much just bloated more than he bled. Second round got only 1 vp, but was very close to gaining 4,which would have got me in the finals. I put that on bad luck as I had my second prey (3 people left in the game at that point) at the very edge of being ousted for 4 turns, all the time was missing 1 loss/krc from the oust, despite having both dreams and barrens in play for the first 3 of those turns. Then at the last turn when I finally got enough to oust him, he reduced my initial bleed by 2 with confusion of the eye + ecstasy, after not having him either play or discard a single reaction the whole game before that (one of those two wouldn't have been enough to keep him alive), and after that I krced his prey, my predator, to 1 pool so he would oust him and I would get another turn to bloat more and get to 3 vp at least, but he failed to even get that 1 pool through, and my predator then ousted both of us the next turn. Last round was horrible, it was a 4 player table with euro brujah, old school toreador vote (Anson&Anneke) and weenie praxis + krc deck in addition to me. I still got the eurobrujah down to 1 pool, after which he rushed most of my vampires to torpor, but I would have still ousted him next turn as I had krc in hand and enough counters on alamut to vote down the whole table, but my grandprey golcondaed my preys Donal, failing that. Soon after that my predator ran over the table. So while I didn't make it to finals, it was mainly due to rather bad luck at round 2. The deck flowed pretty well at most times. Bloat is quite effective defense overall. Here is the deck list in case someone is interested. 1x Basir 1x Alu 1x Kamau Jafari 1x Sajid al Misbah 2x Hafsa, the Watcher 1x Reza Fatir, the Dark Angel 2x Vardar Vardarian 1x Djuhah, the Bronze Bow 1x Kashan 1x Olugbenga 4x Alamut 2x Dreams of the Sphinx 2x Obfuscate 1x Pentex Subversion 1x The Barrens 1x The Black Throne 1x The Coven 3x Tribute to the Master 4x Wash 2x Yoruba Shrine 7x Haqim's Law: Leadership 5x Khabar: Glory 11x Loss 4x Web of Knives Recruit 4x Cloak the Gathering 5x Elder Impersonation 5x Faceless Night 3x Lost in Crowds 5x Spying Mission 6x Swallowed by the Night 3x Veil the Legion 1x Reliquary: Shango Remains 5x Consanguineous Boon 5x Kine Resources Contested

On Aug 10, 5:28 pm, Klaita...@gmail.com wrote: > I just played my version of the loss deck (I was the one who > originally posted a deck list for one to PoB when LoN was released) at > the large ropecon tournament last friday (84 players this year iirc). Boy, I'm glad we didn't end up playing in same tables. :-) I managed to get 2GW 8VP with my version and went to the finals being 3rd after prelims. In the final table I got a super fast weenie Praxis deck (1st seed with 3GWs) as my predator and only got Hafsa in table. He even stole my opening-hand-Alamut with a Disputed Territory. :-) Not perfect, but Loss bleed _is_ a pretty strong archetype when paired with Alamut votes. It gave me the t-shirt that I wanted. My deck is based on John Eno's qualifier deck from early February. I just did the "go Swiss" version. After the tournament I would only change one card; PB:Zurich for one more K:Glory. I played the PB once or twice but never took the action. Crypt [12 vampires] Capacity min: 1 max: 7 average: 5 ------------------------------------------------------------ 2x Olugbenga 7 OBF QUI ani cel magaji Assamite:4 2x Hafsa, The Watcher 6 OBF QUI aus cel Assamite:5 2x Vardar Vardarian 6 OBF QUI cel pre Assamite:4 2x Kamau Jafari 4 QUI obf Assamite:4 1x Reza Fatir, The Da 6 CEL QUI obf pro Assamite:4 1x Layla bint-Nadr 5 CEL OBF qui Assamite:4 1x Alu 2 obf Assamite:5 1x Basir 1 qui Assamite:4 Library [90 cards] ------------------------------------------------------------ Action [28] 2x Embrace, The 9x Haqim's Law: Leadership 3x Khabar: Glory 13x Loss 1x Web of Knives Recruit Action Modifier [27] 4x Cloak the Gathering 6x Elder Impersonation 5x Faceless Night 5x Lost in Crowds 1x Marked Path 5x Spying Mission 1x Veil the Legions Action Modifier/Combat [6] 6x Swallowed by the Night Event [1] 1x Narrow Minds Master [18] 5x Alamut 1x Black Throne, The 1x Direct Intervention 3x Dreams of the Sphinx 1x Giant's Blood 1x Powerbase: Zurich 1x Underworld Hunting Ground 3x Vessel 2x Yoruba Shrine Political Action [10] 5x Consanguineous Boon 5x Kine Resources Contested Antti

[ quoted text not captured ] Looks like our decks are fairly similar overall, both in crypt and library, only few differences. Oh and yeah that weenie praxis deck was my predator in round 3. Really made me wish I would have played my blocky !nos instead so could have just smack his weenies down when they as much as flinched. :P But like they say, hindsight is 20/20.

On Aug 10, 11:07 am, atirila <atir...@gmail.com> wrote: > Not perfect, but Loss bleed _is_ a pretty strong archetype when paired > with Alamut votes. It gave me the t-shirt that I wanted. I think we're talking about two different deck archetypes. Cherryholmes was advocating not really using votes except as an occasional splash, whereas your and Klaital's decks have enough of a vote angle that it's an important part of the deck. Personally, I think the latter is probably better, though I haven't tried the former (yet) to know. John Eno

Ector schrieb: > > What does "Tier 1" mean? For me, it means "A good player is likely to > win with it against non-Tier1 decks on average drawing luck, average > seating luck and normal table reaction (the whole table isn't going to > kill him)". Huh? So basically any Tier 2 deck is a Tier 1 deck with that explanation, because the better player will beat non-Tier 1 decks... Tier 1 should read - An untrained Ape could win with it. If the deck has the necessity to require an excellent player in performing above standard it isn't Tier 1 imho.

xcver wrote: > Ector schrieb: > > > > What does "Tier 1" mean? For me, it means "A good player is likely to > > win with it against non-Tier1 decks on average drawing luck, average > > seating luck and normal table reaction (the whole table isn't going to > > kill him)". > > Huh? So basically any Tier 2 deck is a Tier 1 deck with that > explanation, because the better player will beat non-Tier 1 decks... I don't think that a better player has great chances of winning if his deck isn't better than the others unless other players are really bad (so he can convince them to do what he wants). His chances are somewhat higher, since he is better player, but not very much. Let's say that on the 5-player table he has 40% chance to win, while the other 4 players have 15% chance. When a good player plays a true Tier1 deck against worse decks and worse players, his chances to win is more than 50%. Actually, he can be stopped only by the united efforts of several players. > > Tier 1 should read - An untrained Ape could win with it. There is no contradiction - yes, an untrained ape also can win with some Tier1 decks, though its chances will be lower than the chances of the good player. > If the deck has the necessity to require an excellent player in > performing above standard it isn't Tier 1 imho. There are some Tier1 decks that aren't suitable for newbs - especially Wall decks where you have to bluff, to choose what you will block, and so on. The term "Tier1" usually refers to the tournament metagame, where you are unlikely to meet a lot of bad players. Ector

On Aug 11, 9:24 am, Ector <Ec...@mail.ru> wrote: > The term "Tier1" usually refers to the tournament metagame, > where you are unlikely to meet a lot of bad players. > > Ector You know, I agreed with most of what you said. Except this... You have never had the newbie player in a tournament playing some netdeck, and playing it badly?

On Aug 10, 1:53 pm, Kushiel <invisibleking...@gmail.com> wrote: > I think we're talking about two different deck archetypes. > Cherryholmes was advocating not really using votes except as an > occasional splash, whereas your and Klaital's decks have enough of a > vote angle that it's an important part of the deck. Personally, I > think the latter is probably better, though I haven't tried the former > (yet) to know. I also note that their decks are 90 cards, compared to my 70-ish, and they have even less K:G. Reliable K:G means your bleed *is* your bloat (or a lot of it anyway), while these decks make it an either/or proposition. Bug? Feature? I guess it's a matter of opinion, but the deck I've been playing looks faster, just as a matter of fact, and is proportionally more focused on being "bulletproof" (You can extract the 12 card bulletproof module out of mine for other decks). Given the number of times both these decks "almost got him" I think the extra boost in speed makes all the difference. -- David Cherryholmes

[ quoted text not captured ] I am gonna be forced to agree with David here. Have been playing a Loss/KG deck that has preety nothing but that lately, and it tends to get 3-4 VP's a game, minimum So i would definitely rate this as a deck type...

On Aug 11, 3:24 am, Ector <Ec...@mail.ru> wrote: > Let's > say that on the 5-player table he has 40% chance to win, while the > other 4 players have 15% chance. > When a good player plays a true Tier1 deck against worse decks and > worse players, his chances to win is more than 50%. Making up numbers to support your argument is bad. Please don't. John Eno

[ quoted text not captured ] I've heard about such situations, and I've seen a lot of netdecks in Magic and WoW TCG, but not in VTES. A complete newb in this game rarely plays netdecks - at least here in Belarus. Singles aren't easy to find, and the newbs have no such frustration of constant losing due to the bad decks compared to the duel games. Plus, there are thousands of tournament-winning netdecks in this game (compared to just dozens of Tier1 decks in duel games), so there is no need to play a netdeck - anyone can win with HIS OWN deck. I like this very much. Thus, our newbs usually build their decks from starters. Ector

[ quoted text not captured ] Okay, Ector, your meta vs rest of world meta. Singles are VERY easy to come by everywhere else. Which means lots of cheap easy decks. So there is quite a high level of not very experienced players playing in tournaments, playing netdecks, playing them badly and basically giving their pred/prey the table