"Playing to win" vs "Playing for fun"

Derek wrote: >>Which isn't true. You can make equally vicious and cut-throat decks under 4CL, and that will hurt the game's popularity with women just as much. Attempting to blame NL is missing the ACTUAL problem.>> This comes up a lot (not the 4CL, I'm staying far away from that...)--the idea of "cut-throat" vs "fun" decks, and "playing for fun" vs "playing to win", and I'm kind of interested in seeing other folks views on this. When I play VTES, I play to win. Winning is not the be all and end all of the game, and I am perfectly happy when I lose, and I certainly don't play like a dick for the sake of winning (i.e. I suggest that people take back obviously stupid moves, I don't hide my pool in a little cup, whatever), but I find that I have a much better time with the game when I am playing to win, and my opponents are playing to win. I like when my opponents are playing effective decks that can sweep the table, and go out of their way to kill me (ya know, without being dicks), and I like playing effective decks that can sweep the table, and I try my darndest to kill my opponents. It isn't about *winning*, it is all about *trying* to win. When I play VTES, I'm not looking for role-playing (I'm not a role-player and I have no interest in the Vampire RPG, except as source material for VTES), I'm not looking for amusing new card combos (although I certainly appreciate good ones), and I'm not looking to see lots of different cards (I've pretty much seen them all already). I'm looking for a good, solid strategy game, where there is interesting interaction between deck *strategies*, not cards (how does Pot Rush work against Ventrue Bonding? How does Gangrel Wall of Untap work vs Malk S+B?). I have no problem with my opponents using decks that have 20 of the same card in them--I like to see how that affects their chances at winning, and I make decks like that, 'cause they are effective (one of my best decks has 22 S:CE cards in it). When my opponent plays Conditioning for the 13th time, my reaction is not "Man. Play a different card.", it is "Man. How do I make my deck more effective so it can deal with an opponent using13 Conditionings." When I play with people who have different victory conditions that I do (i.e. I'm trying get victory points, they are trying to get 12 Werewolf Packs into play), neither of us have a good time--they feel screwed 'cause they didn't get off their goofy card combo, and I feel screwed 'cause my opponent wasn't really trying. Thus, I prefer to play with folks who have the same view of the game as I do. Where do the rest of y'all stand here? Peter D Bakija PD...@aol.com http://www.geocities.com/bakija6 "She's a hero you see. She's not like us." -Giles

"Peter D Bakija" <pd...@aol.comANTISPAM> wrote in message news:20010621154050...@ng-cq1.aol.com... > This comes up a lot (not the 4CL, I'm staying far away from that...)--the idea > of "cut-throat" vs "fun" decks, and "playing for fun" vs "playing to win", and > I'm kind of interested in seeing other folks views on this. I always enjoy your posts on this. I absolutely agree with it. IMO, the game is most fun when everybody is trying to win and the players aren't being regulated by the local guilt trip over playing certain deck styles, etc. > I have no problem with my opponents using decks that have 20 of the > same card in them--I like to see how that affects their chances at winning, and > I make decks like that, 'cause they are effective (one of my best decks has 22 > S:CE cards in it). When my opponent plays Conditioning for the 13th time, my > reaction is not "Man. Play a different card.", it is "Man. How do I make my > deck more effective so it can deal with an opponent using13 Conditionings." Yep. The whole "cheese deck" concept bugs me a bit. There is typically an assumption that these types of decks are easier to build (probably *some* truth here...at least until people develop counters-then they get harder) and easier to win with. It is actually a self-fullfilling prophesy when you plop down a weenie presence bleed deck into a local culture that doesn't believe in decks like this. The weenie deck will probably win. On the other hand, when the environment encourages all deck styles, players are ready for all deck styles and take them into account when they build decks and play thier game. > When I play with people who have different victory conditions that I do (i.e. > I'm trying get victory points, they are trying to get 12 Werewolf Packs into > play), neither of us have a good time--they feel screwed 'cause they didn't get > off their goofy card combo, and I feel screwed 'cause my opponent wasn't really > trying. Thus, I prefer to play with folks who have the same view of the game as > I do. Those are the most frustrating games I've ever played in. Probably one of the few ways I will lose my cool while I'm playing. > Where do the rest of y'all stand here? Preach it brotha. YMMV, of course, but yes, players should play the game with those who feel the same way as they do. Then, at the tournaments, hopefully we can all get along. -Robert

On 21 Jun 2001 19:40:50 GMT, pd...@aol.comANTISPAM (Peter D Bakija) wrote: >Derek wrote: >>>Which isn't true. You can make equally vicious and cut-throat decks >under 4CL, and that will hurt the game's popularity with women just as >much. Attempting to blame NL is missing the ACTUAL problem.>> > >This comes up a lot (not the 4CL, I'm staying far away from that...)--the idea >of "cut-throat" vs "fun" decks, and "playing for fun" vs "playing to win", and >I'm kind of interested in seeing other folks views on this. Heh. It turns into a big mess, I think. =) >When I play VTES, I play to win. Winning is not the be all and end all of the >game, and I am perfectly happy when I lose, and I certainly don't play like a >dick for the sake of winning (i.e. I suggest that people take back obviously First problem. Quite a lot of gamers are willing to do this. I've seen it more in other games, but it'll creep into V:TES more and more as we get a larger following. And worse, about the only thing you can do for it is to smack each individual gamer on their heads and shout "LOSER!" every time something like that happens. >stupid moves, I don't hide my pool in a little cup, whatever), but I find that >I have a much better time with the game when I am playing to win, and my >opponents are playing to win. I like when my opponents are playing effective The emphasis here needs to be "when EVERYONE is playing to win." V:TES is a multiplayer game, and it has a multiplayer mechanic. The prey-to-the-left theory helps quite a bit, but it still leaves one problem; what happens when one person is not trying to win? In a 4-player game, its problem is immediately seen; one person has low pressure from their predator, and one person has low opposition from their prey. The person who is NOT sitting next to the "dead slot" is at an immediate, acute disadvantage. The chances of winning lean heavily towards the person who is the predator of the "dead slot", as he will basically get 1 VP with little opposition, and then have the advantage of momentum. This makes it difficult though, as the rabid opposition one will receive for SUGGESTING that people should play to win demonstrates. This isn't to say that everyone should play a tournament-quality deck at all times, but maybe that each deck should perhaps have a CONCEPT of "how to oust prey" and "how not to be ousted", at least. But some people will even disagree with that, and say "i should be allowed to make my 12-werewolf pack deck if i want to". OK, yep, you're allowed. In an ideal world, there would be plenty of other players for you to play with, and for me to play with, so that we don't have to frustrate each other at the same table. But that ain't so yet... so we have clashes of opinion. And those clashes of opinion are the second problem. >When I play VTES, I'm not looking for role-playing (I'm not a role-player and I >have no interest in the Vampire RPG, except as source material for VTES), I'm Third problem. The "pure strategy" approach actually appeals to very few people; most everyone tends to want a something else out of the game as well. What that may be is left to them. >not looking for amusing new card combos (although I certainly appreciate good >ones), and I'm not looking to see lots of different cards (I've pretty much >seen them all already). I'm looking for a good, solid strategy game, where >there is interesting interaction between deck *strategies*, not cards (how does >Pot Rush work against Ventrue Bonding? How does Gangrel Wall of Untap work vs >Malk S+B?). I have no problem with my opponents using decks that have 20 of the >same card in them--I like to see how that affects their chances at winning, and >I make decks like that, 'cause they are effective (one of my best decks has 22 >S:CE cards in it). When my opponent plays Conditioning for the 13th time, my >reaction is not "Man. Play a different card.", it is "Man. How do I make my >deck more effective so it can deal with an opponent using13 Conditionings." I prefer to think of it in this fashion: Focus equals predictability. If I think your deck has 13 Conditionings in it, I can assume that every bleed is going to potentially be for 3 or more. This allows me to construct my own strategy accordingly, and answers a lot of questions that I would normally otherwise have ("is it worth the risk this turn? maybe he doesn't have one. how much of a risk is it?"), and so on. Generally, duplicate cards beyond 10 or so carry their own inherent flaws. Majesty is one such card - it's neat to have 16, and it means that you can sure end combat and untap a whole lot, but what if you never get into combat? Same with the bleed cards, etc. - if you have 13 Conditionings, but people keep blocking or bouncing your bleeds, when will you ever get to play one to advantage? About the only cards that do NOT carry inherent drawbacks are action cards; they generally require only a vampire with the appropriate discipline, and if you don't have one of those, you're already in heaps of trouble. But the action cards themselves are rarely, if ever, effective on their own... exceptions are things like Cryptic Mission, Corruption, Jar the Soul, and Shadow Twin, which have a small individual effect, built-in stealth, and produce a major effect over a longer period of time. Such cards lend themselves well to the 30-in-a-deck idea. It's difficult to get new players to understand this, though, when they have a deck that's designed to get a bunch of Brujah on Sport Bikes and beat hell out of everything, and they're sitting in front of the Malk S&B deck that's carrying 10 Lost in Crowds, 10 Cloak the Gatherings, and 10 Faceless Nights. In their view, the deck behind them is stupid and broken, without realizing that their own deck just HAPPENS to play into its hands perfectly. Fourth problem; being able to explain that effectively. >Where do the rest of y'all stand here? On my feet? -- Derek

> Derek wrote: >>> Which isn't true. You can make equally vicious and cut-throat decks > under 4CL, and that will hurt the game's popularity with women just as > much. Attempting to blame NL is missing the ACTUAL problem.>> > > This comes up a lot (not the 4CL, I'm staying far away from that...)--the idea > of "cut-throat" vs "fun" decks, and "playing for fun" vs "playing to win", and > I'm kind of interested in seeing other folks views on this. > > When I play VTES, I play to win. Winning is not the be all and end all of the > game, and I am perfectly happy when I lose, and I certainly don't play like a > dick for the sake of winning (i.e. I suggest that people take back obviously > stupid moves, I don't hide my pool in a little cup, whatever), but I find that > I have a much better time with the game when I am playing to win, and my > opponents are playing to win. I like when my opponents are playing effective > decks that can sweep the table, and go out of their way to kill me (ya know, > without being dicks), and I like playing effective decks that can sweep the > table, and I try my darndest to kill my opponents. It isn't about *winning*, > it > is all about *trying* to win. [snip] > Where do the rest of y'all stand here? I think I'm with you, except I'm a bit more about "winning with style." I always TRY to win; the example of "get an Assault Rifle and Soul Gem on Fransiscus" or somesuch as a "goal" cheezes me off, and don't even get me started on "I'm just role-playing as a Malkavian!" players. My goal is to get in there and get VPs, no matter what the deck. But, after that, I've usually got some neat trick or combo that I'd like to see, and work at it to make it VP-viable. Usually, this gets me 0 to .5 VPs, but when I bring a deck "purely designed to win," I make the finals. For non-tournament play, I'm almost always trying some new "trick." It's all about the deckbuilding and interaction, and doing it in a way that no one else has. When I decide what deck to make and play, I'm ALL about creativity, without losing the goal of viability. Once I'm in there and playing, it's all about VPs, though. I like to get my "trick" off, but usually because that's what makes the deck GO, and thereby start winning. I'm not as in to pure table-sweepers, not that I don't try to sweep tables every chance I get. I like winning, I guess, but I'd rather win in a way that makes people say "Wow!" instead of "Fuck you!" =) -- Pat Ricochet Soul Jar'rn Fool of Atlanta

Peter D Bakija wrote in message <20010621154050...@ng-cq1.aol.com>... [ quoted text not captured ] Very good post. I have to agree 100%. I play to win and nothing is more frustrating then somebody going across the table just to show everyone how he use a 7 card combo to burn someones vampire. It really messes up the game for those playing to win. On the other side I can easily see how us competitive types would make the game less fun for the guy trying to play his Tortured Confession-Aura Reading-Owl companion mind reading deck. It's too bad there isn't a way for groups to co-exist in the same game better. Steve Bucy -- "The only human commander to survive combat with the Minbari fleet is behind me. You are in front of me. If you value your lives be somewhere else!" - Delenn Check out http://vtesinla.org/ for all V:TES information in Los Angeles area.

Robert wrote: >>I always enjoy your posts on this. I absolutely agree with it. IMO, the game is most fun when everybody is trying to win and the players aren't being regulated by the local guilt trip over playing certain deck styles, etc.>> I know! Yeah, that whole guilt trip thing ("You suck! You always play those cheesy decks! Play something imaginative!") is totaly lame--and it doesn't actually work (how do you avoid playing in a way that someone doesn't like when they can't actually articulate what the problem is?). >>Yep. The whole "cheese deck" concept bugs me a bit.>> Yeah, that bugs me too. It comes up in lots of games--but the concept of "cheese" equates to little more than "a deck that beats me, and I don't like". How do you avoid building a deck that fits those conditions? >>Preach it brotha. YMMV, of course, but yes, players should play the game with those who feel the same way as they do. Then, at the tournaments, hopefully we can all get along.>> Oh, certainly--I'm sure there are playgroups out there where everyone has a simialar view of how to "play for fun", and everyone in the group plays goofy decks that aren't real effective but are funny, and everyone has a good time, which is great, but they'll doubtlessly have less fun when playing with other play groups, or in tournaments. [ quoted text not captured ]

Derek wrote: >>Heh. It turns into a big mess, I think. =)>> Yeah, I love that part :-) >>First problem. Quite a lot of gamers are willing to do this. I've seen it more in other games, but it'll creep into V:TES more and more as we get a larger following.>> (playing like an idiot)--yeah, I can deal with it, but I don't enjoy it. I figure the best way to deal with it is to set a good example, and then kick their asses anyways :-) >>But some people will even disagree with that, and say "i should be allowed to make my 12-werewolf pack deck if i want to". OK, yep, you're allowed. In an ideal world, there would be plenty of other players for you to play with, and for me to play with, so that we don't have to frustrate each other at the same table. But that ain't so yet... so we have clashes of opinion. And those clashes of opinion are the second problem.>> Which is certainly a valid point, but it strikes me as weird that someone would go to a tournament and assume that everyone was going to be playing to get 12 werewolf packs into play rather than getting VPs, and then get sore when they are killed. [ quoted text not captured ]

Peter D Bakija wrote: > When I play VTES, I play to win. Winning is not the be all and end all of the > game, and I am perfectly happy when I lose, and I certainly don't play like a > dick for the sake of winning (i.e. I suggest that people take back obviously > stupid moves, I don't hide my pool in a little cup, whatever), but I find that > I have a much better time with the game when I am playing to win, and my > opponents are playing to win. I like when my opponents are playing effective > decks that can sweep the table, and go out of their way to kill me (ya know, > without being dicks), and I like playing effective decks that can sweep the > table, and I try my darndest to kill my opponents. It isn't about *winning*, it > is all about *trying* to win. I put it this way: the game is designed with the understanding in mind that players are trying to win. If players have some other motivation in mind, the rules don't work right. It's like buying a car and then using it to pound nails: it might work or it might not but it wasn't designed to pound nails. It was designed to drive. Same with games designed for people to win. Just like a car, if you use it for what it was designed for, you'll usually find that that's the way you get the most fun out of it. Fred

One thing that I find that kills the game is a player that just rolls over and dies because they have to go somewhere or they foresee destruction or whatever. If someone plays cheese, my goal basically comes down to how long I stay in the game. There are different levels of victory but when people give up because they realize they will not get a single VP, that is just poor sportsmanship. The other day I was playing in a 4 player game where my crosstable ally was doing basically dick. Because of this, My predator was extra aggressive and my prey was extremely defensive/stealthy. I was getting the shaft from both sides. It was a bit upsetting and I mentioned something to my ally who responded with 'I can't do anything because I don't have the cards'. At one point my prey deflected a small bleed and my ally was ready to cream my vamp for some reason just so he could 'play his killer combo'. After I ousted my prey, he changed gears and let me run right over him, not even blocking my actions. The whole point here is that even though I ended up with the majority of the victory points in the end, it was an empty victory. I really should have only earned one VP. I won, but I didn't care because it was not my deck that won or my great wisdom but because there was another player on the table that did not have the dedication to play. The point is that if my deck does even half of what its supposed to do like call votes, bleed heavy or intercept, etc.. its a victory. No one I know commends someone for playing a deck that sweeps but when someone plays an original deck, eyebrows are raised "Peter D Bakija" <pd...@aol.comANTISPAM> wrote in message news:20010621154050...@ng-cq1.aol.com... [ quoted text not captured ]

On Thu, 21 Jun 2001 18:19:04 -0500, Pat Ricochet <sp...@socrates.gatech.edu> wrote: >> Where do the rest of y'all stand here? > > I think I'm with you, except I'm a bit more about "winning with style." >I always TRY to win; the example of "get an Assault Rifle and Soul Gem on >Fransiscus" or somesuch as a "goal" cheezes me off, and don't even get me >started on "I'm just role-playing as a Malkavian!" players. My goal is to >get in there and get VPs, no matter what the deck. Let me tack this one on for my own personal opinion, too. I tend to go after the stuff that people can't make win consistently, and then to figure out why. Intercept has been a frequent appearance in my tournament decks recently, because consistently making intercept decks get more than "the last 2" VPs is a challenge. I like challenges. Combat is an even bigger challenge, and my last run at a bruise/bleed deck discovered that if enough vote decks are on the table, you lose when they team up on you. Information noted. But just because you see me sitting there with Omaya, Gunther, Caitlin, and a couple Raven Spies doesn't mean that I'm intending to go to my right all game. My qualifier deck's basic intent was "put enough permanents, toys, Blood Dolls, etc. out that I can consistently gain 4 pool per turn, and consistently intercept anything that happens near me that I don't like." Its secondary intent was "now that I'm gaining 4 pool per turn, get out my entire crypt and bleed for 1 lots." My goal is always to gain VPs. =) >creativity, without losing the goal of viability. Once I'm in there and >playing, it's all about VPs, though. I like to get my "trick" off, but >usually because that's what makes the deck GO, and thereby start winning. > I'm not as in to pure table-sweepers, not that I don't try to sweep >tables every chance I get. I like winning, I guess, but I'd rather win in a >way that makes people say "Wow!" instead of "Fuck you!" =) Hm. About all I can say in support of that one is that I've played the Crypt Machine twice in "real" competition in the 3 years since I first played it. I knew after its first outing that it had a good chance of sweeping any given table -- and I immediately retired it from my own active play list, as I have several other decks that I consider to be "sweep-quality". While I have every confidence in bringing any of these decks to a tournament, and would expect to reach the finals (after a small update to include some Final Nights cards, of course), I will rarely do so. Even if I'm playing the Continental Championships, it will STILL be a tossup as to whether I play something "experimental-but-good", or something "ridiculously good". I could, of course, play the tried-and-true stuff like Minion Tap/5th with Big Obfuscate Malkavians, who then wander around bleeding with Conditioning at +3 stealth. But such decks are very boring. Winning itself is nice, but I prefer to have fun when I play... and ah, the thrill of winning with something that ISN'T the tried-and-true formula. Or just the thrill of realizing that your deck may not have won, but represented an important advance in the search for HOW to win - and next time you'll be able to use it. Besides, there's always the knowledge that if you're going crosswise to the typical "tournament metagame", you have a great chance of catching a bunch of decks with their pants down. If any Minion Tap/5th deck had been seated near me in Atlanta, they'd have been toast; unfortunately, I think there were only 1 or 2 decks at the whole qualifier who were using that combo, and I never saw any of them even at my TABLE. d'oh! Bad luck for me. -- Derek

"Pat Ricochet" <sp...@socrates.gatech.edu> wrote in message news:B757D14C.4BEB%sp...@socrates.gatech.edu... [snip] > > Where do the rest of y'all stand here? > > For non-tournament play, I'm almost always trying some new "trick." > It's all about the deckbuilding and interaction, and doing it in a way that > no one else has. It's always fun to see what wierd things people come up with, i.e. "what the hell is julius doing?" But Ethan made a good point when we were playing last week against a Tor vote-bloat, that it's just not fun playing against a deck like that in a non-tournament setting: predictable, and yes, kicking my ass. But i'd rather get my ass kicked by julius than Anson and majesty. I mean, where's the challenge y'know. I started playing !Malk S+B, my first deck, at least a little harder to do than Malk DOM S+B but you get tired of it. In a non tournament setting aim to win but have fun. > I'm not as in to pure table-sweepers, not that I don't try to sweep > tables every chance I get. I like winning, I guess, but I'd rather win in a > way that makes people say "Wow!" instead of "Fuck you!" =) > I'm a big fan of "Daaaaaaaaaaamn!, but you....i mean..... how could.......oh now i'm pissed." > -- > Pat Ricochet > Soul Jar'rn Fool of Atlanta > hi Pat, by the way making a deck around Laz is just "cheese", hehe. -- Oscar Garza Prince of College Station Tx The Crazy Aggie

Pat wrote: >> I think I'm with you, except I'm a bit more about "winning with style.">> Oh, don't get me wrong here--I'm certainly entertained by clever combos and goofy decks and stuff, and certainly try to come up with fun new ways to do stuff when possible (heck, my favorite new deck addition is Meat Hook, 'cause what goes with Meat Hook better than Garou?), but my decks are designed (in theory) to be able to win. Yeah, sometimes my designs suck arse, and my clever plan to win involves influencing out 24 points of vampires and getting ousted by one bleed, but in general, my decks can win, have defenses, and put up a good fight, making the game more worthwhile (at least in theory) for my opponents. >>I always TRY to win; the example of "get an Assault Rifle and Soul Gem on Fransiscus" or somesuch as a "goal" cheezes me off, and don't even get me started on "I'm just role-playing as a Malkavian!" players.>> Yeah, that kind of thing is just a nightmare, but hey, what are you gonna do? As I said, I'm not really interested in role-playing in general (I'm a strategy gamer), and the sole purpose of the WoD in my eyes as as source material for VTES. Yeah, I'm entertained by the characters and stuff, and I'm always a little happier when my favorites get into play, and will occasionally do mildly irational stuff to protect my favorite vampires ("No! Not Ramona! Take me instead!" yelled Daliyah...) just to keep them in play, but in general, the game is about the strategic interaction between decks, not an eternal struggle between methusalae. As Steve Wampler once said, if the rules were identical, we'd be playing this game if it were Muppets: The Eternal Juggling ("Gonzo is gonna kick your ass!"). >> I like winning, I guess, but I'd rather win in a way that makes people say "Wow!" instead of "Fuck you!" =)>> Well, yeah, but should people be saying such things when they lose anyways? I know when I lose horribly 'cause all of my vampires have been taken away by Temptation of the Greater Power, or whatever, I say "That could have worked better for me..." If someone kills me because they have a good deck, and I just couldn't keep up, how is it their fault for trying to play the game well? [ quoted text not captured ]

>It isn't about *winning*, it >is all about *trying* to win. With you here. However, I believe I have a view more similar to Pat's, which I'll expand upon below. >When I play VTES, I'm not looking for role-playing (I'm not a role-player and >I >have no interest in the Vampire RPG, except as source material for VTES), I'd prefer to do more role-playing but not with CCGs. There are plenty of RPGs on the market. So, no disagreement about the play of V:TES here. I'm >not looking for amusing new card combos (although I certainly appreciate good >ones), Problem is that if you discourage amusing card combos, you may very well see less creativity overall and miss some good ones. and I'm not looking to see lots of different cards (I've pretty much >seen them all already). I haven't seen them all already, especially not in all the possible combinations. Also, the game changes over time, especially when new cards come in. A shift in the metagame can suddenly make a really bad card playable as it happens to mess over one or more of the new tier 1 decks. I'm looking for a good, solid strategy game, where >there is interesting interaction between deck *strategies*, not cards (how >does >Pot Rush work against Ventrue Bonding? How does Gangrel Wall of Untap work vs >Malk S+B?). This is probably where we differ the most. Match up analysis is interesting to me on a theoretical level, but I'm far more interested in individual card interactions when I'm playing games. I have no problem with my opponents using decks that have 20 of >the >same card in them--I like to see how that affects their chances at winning, >and >I make decks like that, 'cause they are effective (one of my best decks has >22 >S:CE cards in it). When my opponent plays Conditioning for the 13th time, my >reaction is not "Man. Play a different card.", it is "Man. How do I make my >deck more effective so it can deal with an opponent using13 Conditionings." I don't mind seeing a lot of the same card if it is necessary to get a concept to work - Corruption, for instance. But, I do find lots of copies of vanilla cards like Conditioning or Majesty (course, S:CE is obnoxious because it reduces deck diversity) to be boring. Also, as a related issue, I don't find playing or playing against the same decks often to be interesting. Pat mentions "winning with style". I'd go a step farther? Winning and losing mean nothing to me by themselves. The reason I've gotten so heavily into CCGs rather than other games is that the number of possible interactions is so much higher than in other competitive games (games with winners). But, getting back to the thrust of your post, if I don't try to play the game as well as possible, which means trying to win, I'm invalidating those interactions. So, if I have a good (serious, tournament, whatever the right word is) deck, I tend to end up playing along your lines; the difference is that when I go to build decks, they often won't be well built in terms of winning.

>>>Yep. The whole "cheese deck" concept bugs me a bit.>> > >Yeah, that bugs me too. It comes up in lots of games--but the concept of >"cheese" equates to little more than "a deck that beats me, and I don't >like". >How do you avoid building a deck that fits those conditions? It comes up because some cards are superior to others. I remember a very long thread for another game where everyone tried to define what cheesy meant. It's a bit of "I know it when I see it", but the way I try to describe it is any strategy that consistently does well without putting much thought into devising it and/or does well when played by a bad player.

Spot on, Peter. Couldn't agree more with what you said. Alex

Well, the trite answer is that i ALWAYS play for fun. And since i like winning better than losing, i ALWAYS play to win, too. But since there are things more important than winning - eg one's sense of integrity, friendship, showing new people the glory of our darkly-majestic game, not having to sleep in the bath - i won't do ANYTHING to win. But it's not solely how you play and your attitude that determines whether you and others are going to have fun - it's everybody singing from the same hymn-sheet. This is one of the reasons i like sealed deck so much - everybody starts off with a similar pool of cards. If i differ from Peter at all significantly, it's in admitting that i like best of all to see a card or combo that i'd never have thought of come up in a game; and perhaps also i'd make a distinction between different forms of the game as it's played in different groups. For example, it would be no fun at all for me to make killer decks for playing with at home - Sarah and Michael don't actually have ANY cards, so i make all the decks and they and guests get to choose what they are going to play, while i pick one at random. This is to offset the inevitable advantage that i know what the decks contain, while they do not. Additionally, we tried playing really competitive decks at home, and Sarah and Andrew didn't like it because at home we get together to play Jyhad as a social occasion, and in this environment it is really much more like a complicated board-game with role-playing aspects bolted on and less like a strategy game. i don't want to overstate the role-playing here, though. A CCG is, on one level, an RPG with no GM where your deck is your character. But in VTES you are NOT a malkavian [though you might PRETEND to be one] even if all your minions are. You are an unimaginably ancient and indestructible vampire completely above the petty nonsense of sects and clans, motivated by inhuman notions of hatred, lust and power. All this is in the basic game, but since it is a complicated card-based strategy game too there are opportunities to subvert the structure and to play on a much higher and more abstract level. i like this too, and play this way in non-home playgroups and tournaments, but i'm quite clear that these are, and should be, different fora. Thus it is that i can have quality fun at home, in the local playgroups and at tournaments, and not sleep in the bath.

[snip exellent post] Peter, I could not agree more. I also think that it doesn't matter what kind of deck you play, which cards are in it, or whether you play focussed, toolbox, NL or CL. It is all about *intention* No matter what you play, you should attempt to maximize your VP's or die trying. When I play I try to win, or better to maximize my VP amount. That is MY way of fun. (I am just a competative bastard) Now I have been called too focussed on winning, degenerative and that I take away the other players' fun. I can understand that from their point of view, most of our playgroup play for fun and as a way to relax. Which is a way of playing the game. NOT my way. IU know I cannot change their way of playing an d sometimes adapt to their playstyle, e.c.g. play a nonfocussed, "fun"deck (like the !brujah Waste Vote deck). Still no matter what the deck, which players sit at the table, my intention is to achieve as many vp's as possible in the current game (which can be none, or a sweep). I am not saying that every game should be cuthroat, final-like games. But I feel that all players at least should have the decency to try and win. That way there are no problems between the players. I mean a situation with a play-to-win player and a have-fun player is a no win situation for them both. I do feel that it is important that people play *any* game according to the rules, which clearly state that the object of the game is to gather as many vp's as possible in any given game. This should be represented in deck design, playstyle and intentions. I know I rather die trying in a good competative game, than have a simple sweep due to the lack of intention. My most enjoyable games are games in which we all play to win, and I end up with 0 vp's due to the fact that someone else simply kicks my ass. That way you become better players, think about the game and stop making stupid mistakes. Just my thoughts, Tim Eijpe

First, lets clear up some perception issues. Both Peter's Camp (which includes the chairman of VEKN, which pretty much means people like me have no place in the NWO of VEKN tourney Jyhad. Makes me sad) and mine are using unfair stereotyping characterizations. I'll outline them below. Peter depicts anyone with a deck concept that doesn't fit his mold of play as a little kid who will stomp his feet and get mad when his 7 card combat combo or 12 Werewolf packs don't come out. I depict players with decks like Peter advocates as imaginationless cheeze-weasels who must win at any cost to validate themselves rather than just play a damn GAME. Both are extremes. A player or two at a given tourney will fit Peter's definition and a player or two may fit mine, and the bulk of the players fall in the middle. So, if we can both acknowledge that few people fit my depiction AND few people fit his depiction then we're better off as a community. Ok, that said, what I wish for every tourney is that the people at Peters end of the spectrum could move a smidge to the Derek philosophy and thereby make the game 1000000 times better. The Derek side (also props to Pat): Quoth Derek: Winning itself is nice, butI prefer to have fun when I play... and ah, the thrill of winning with something that ISN'T the tried-and-true formula. Or just the thrill of realizing that your deck may not have won, but represented an important advance in the search for HOW to win - and next time you'll be able to use it. End Quoth: CCG's have two parts to their game: Deck construction and Play Skill. Magic, as a game, no longer rewards the first aspect. Players get their decks off the Net as generated by a handful of players and use them at tourneys. The winner at the end of the day is the one who had the best matchups and for the most part showed the best Play skill Prior to last year, the Jyhad community rewarded both aspects via peer approval. I won quite a few big tourneys "in my day" and what made the wins special is the 18-20 people who shook my hand after each table and said "Thats a really neat deck. Good luck at the next table. Can I see the whole deck when you are done?" I gain no joy from seeing a player with 22 S:CE cards. I gain no joy from seeing a person with 22 stealth cards and 22 bleed modifiers. I gain no joy because these people have decided to throw away a whole aspect of the game (the deck construction portion) by using a cookie cutter deck. And yes Robert, I believe that these decks are infinitely easier to build than the more creative decks that I have used and have had used against me. I am going to continue to laud the people like Derek who choose to win with creativity and style, and I am going to continue to feel decks like the ones Peter advocates kills a bit of the spirit of the game, because every new player than emulates the cookie-cutter winner is another person who will ignore the first aspect of Jyhad. Don't give up on style. Please please please. Matt

Ian wrote: >>I don't mind seeing a lot of the same card if it is necessary to get a concept to work - Corruption, for instance. But, I do find lots of copies of vanilla cards like Conditioning or Majesty (course, S:CE is obnoxious because it reduces deck diversity) to be boring.>> (I'm not picking on you here, Ian, you just have interesting concepts to respond to) But where do you draw the line? How is it ok to have 15 Corruptions ("I need it for my deck concept to work!") but not ok to have 15 Majesties? What if the deck concept is "I bleed you with weenie vampires with Presence, and if you block me, I play Majesty to avoid dying." The 15 Majesties are clearly necessary for such a concept to work. I agree that S:CE is a questionable mechanic--it is overpowered, and I would prefer if it worked differently (say, as Strike: Round Ends instead)--but it is the one we have. If I am concerned about my opponents playing S:CE, I plan to deal with it (IG, Psyche, TB, or I don't plan on fighting being an important part of my deck)--I don't expect them not to be using it, 'cause it is "boring". [ quoted text not captured ]

Ian wrote: >>It comes up because some cards are superior to others. I remember a very long thread for another game where everyone tried to define what cheesy meant. It's a bit of "I know it when I see it", but the way I try to describe it is any strategy that consistently does well without putting much thought into devising it and/or does well when played by a bad player.>> See, and that is where I see a problem--that people try to define "cheesy" at all. Everyone has (theoretically) the same access to the basic components of the game. Yes, some cards *are* superior to others--why is it my (or anyone's) responsibility to *not* use these cards and not build the most effective possible decks? If there are cards that are too good, it is the responsibility of the players to make this known to the game designers, and it is the responsibility of the game designers to fix things, bit I don't really see it as a players responsibility to not use the powerful cards simply because somone might think it was "cheesy". How do you define a strategy that consistiently does well without putting much thought into devising it and/or does well when played by a bad player? What is such a strategy? One might think Malkavian S+B right off the bat, but I would challenge someone to make a really good Malk S+B deck that can consistiently win, in the hands of a bad player, in a well developed play environment (i.e. an environment where the deck is just as likely to run into, for example, a strong intercept deck, a bounce deck, a speedy bleed deck, a rush deck, or a rampant pool gain deck). The main problem with the concept of "cheesy" (among the many others) is that it is completely subjective ("I can't describe it but I know it when I see it"), and I, for one, am not interested in trying to avoid building decks that might be deemed "cheesy" by a random subjective observer. I build decks that are effective and legal, and I hope that my opponents are doing the same thing. Yeah, sometimes my decks are funny, sometimes they aren't, but I always try to make them effective without regard to what is or is not "cheesy". [ quoted text not captured ]

"Matt Latham" <sv...@chartermi.net> wrote in message news:978c2422.01062...@posting.google.com... > First, lets clear up some perception issues. Both Peter's Camp (which > includes the chairman of VEKN, which pretty much means people like me > have no place in the NWO of VEKN tourney Jyhad. Makes me sad) To the contrary. The camp that Peter and I fall into is a camp of inclusion and not exclusion. While I personally like to play new and varied decks (and it seems Peter does as well), there is no effort to make people feel bad for playing "cheesy" decks. I can easily play with you or any people in your camp. > Ok, that said, what I wish for every tourney is that the people at > Peters end of the spectrum could move a smidge to the Derek philosophy > and thereby make the game 1000000 times better. > > The Derek side (also props to Pat): > > Quoth Derek: > > Winning itself is nice, butI prefer to have fun when I play... and ah, > the thrill of winning with something that ISN'T the tried-and-true > formula. Or just the thrill of realizing that your deck may not have > won, but represented an important advance in the search for HOW > to win - and next time you'll be able to use it. > > End Quoth: I certainly agree with this. I suspect Peter does as well. For the most part we probably play with decks as varied and wierd as anybody out there. > CCG's have two parts to their game: Deck construction and Play Skill. > Magic, as a game, no longer rewards the first aspect. Players get > their decks off the Net as generated by a handful of players and use > them at tourneys. The winner at the end of the day is the one who had > the best matchups and for the most part showed the best Play skill With the many deck archives out there this is happening more and more. Frankly, its the clever deck ideas that are more likely to get copied off the net. No one needs to find a Malk Stealth Bleed or Weenie Presence Bleed deck on a deck archive to be able to make one. (Note: One local player got trounced by thier own original deck (off an archive) when visiting another town.) > Prior to last year, the Jyhad community rewarded both aspects via peer > approval. I won quite a few big tourneys "in my day" and what made the > wins special is the 18-20 people who shook my hand after each table > and said "Thats a really neat deck. Good luck at the next table. Can I > see the whole deck when you are done?" Prior to last year? This is still the case. When someone has a new deck concept that is actually effective, I'm very interested. When someone does well with another weenie presence bleed deck I'm not interested. Players who win with something new and different do still gain peer approval. All I'm saying is that I don't want someone to feel unwelcome at the event because their deck wasn't "a really neat deck". > I gain no joy from seeing a player with 22 S:CE cards. I gain no joy > from seeing a person with 22 stealth cards and 22 bleed modifiers. I > gain no joy because these people have decided to throw away a whole > aspect of the game (the deck construction portion) by using a cookie > cutter deck. > > And yes Robert, I believe that these decks are infinitely easier to > build than the more creative decks that I have used and have had used > against me. I agree that they are easier to build. No argument. But, for example, a stealth/bleed deck is more difficult to build in an environment where people know they are a threat (as oppossed to an environment where people just try to shame others out of playing it). In my playgroup, players are smart enough to jam up a player with a high-stealth version of the deck. So, the designer has to decide whether to go with a lower-stealth version of the deck to not get jammed. The lower stealth versions tend to get intercepted more. Then, there's combat. If there is a good chance of being rushed then the malk/stealth+bleed deck needs to make room for combat defense, etc. Yes, these decks *are* easier to build but there is more to consider during design if they are being actively defended against. > I am going to continue to laud the people like Derek who choose to win > with creativity and style, and I am going to continue to feel decks > like the ones Peter advocates kills a bit of the spirit of the game, > because every new player than emulates the cookie-cutter winner is > another person who will ignore the first aspect of Jyhad. 1) How many of us didn't have a malk/stealth/bleed deck in our early days of playing? It seems to me that the unoriginal deck is something that is typically the domain of the new player. You don't have to shake their hand and drool over their deck. Just don't make 'em feel like crap. 2) Some people, (not necessarily you) people have some kind of belief that certain deck styles are somehow "easy wins" and that is why we have to shame people out of playing them. In a playing environment that doesn't discourage any decks, all deck styles are prepared for and defended against. Nobody has an easy win. -Robert

Interesting points Robert. Lets debate them. > > To the contrary. The camp that Peter and I fall into is a camp of inclusion and > not exclusion. You may. Peter clearly advocates that anyone who does not "play to win" as he puts it screws up his table dynamic. That mentality is just as exclusionary as the one you say others do in terms of "shaming out" unimaginative deck archtypes. <While I personally like to play new and varied decks (and it seems Peter does as well), there is no effort to make people feel bad for playing "cheesy" decks. I can easily play with you or any people in your camp.> See the comment above. You talk about how frustrating that "uncontrollable" (or said differently counter to your belief on winning the game) element is. I talk about how frustrating unimaginative deckbuilding is. Same exclusionary thinking from two different sides. > > Ok, that said, what I wish for every tourney is that the people at > > Peters end of the spectrum could move a smidge to the Derek philosophy > > and thereby make the game 1000000 times better. > > > > The Derek side (also props to Pat): > > > > Quoth Derek: > > > > Winning itself is nice, butI prefer to have fun when I play... and ah, > > the thrill of winning with something that ISN'T the tried-and-true > > formula. Or just the thrill of realizing that your deck may not have > > won, but represented an important advance in the search for HOW > > to win - and next time you'll be able to use it. > > > > End Quoth: > > I certainly agree with this. I suspect Peter does as well. For the most part > we probably play with decks as varied and wierd as anybody out there. I look forward to seeing this in practice. > > CCG's have two parts to their game: Deck construction and Play Skill. > > Magic, as a game, no longer rewards the first aspect. Players get > > their decks off the Net as generated by a handful of players and use > > them at tourneys. The winner at the end of the day is the one who had > > the best matchups and for the most part showed the best Play skill > > With the many deck archives out there this is happening more and more. Frankly, > its the clever deck ideas that are more likely to get copied off the net. No > one needs to find a Malk Stealth Bleed or Weenie Presence Bleed deck on a deck > archive to be able to make one. You just proved my "ease of construction" argument. > > Prior to last year, the Jyhad community rewarded both aspects via peer > > approval. I won quite a few big tourneys "in my day" and what made the > > wins special is the 18-20 people who shook my hand after each table > > and said "Thats a really neat deck. Good luck at the next table. Can I > > see the whole deck when you are done?" > > Prior to last year? This is still the case. When someone has a new deck > concept that is actually effective, I'm very interested. When someone does well > with another weenie presence bleed deck I'm not interested. Good. Thats important. What I should have said was "before last year in my experience." I competed a few times last year (my first since WW and VEKN took over) and the big talk wasn't about creativity, it was about winning. The peer group only cared about the unimaginative, 22 card SCE decks that won. I should have been more specific. Thanks for making me be more clear. >Players who win > with something new and different do still gain peer approval. A Ha! Here it is. Before widespread sanctioning any interesting and moderately effective deck received peer approval. It just seemed we were less about fierce competition and more about community. This is just my observation, but I want more community and less cutthroat. When we were under the gun (by this I mean fighting for every tourney, getting bumped to a dark corner of the convention so the Overpower tourney could have our tables, that sort of thing) we banded together. My experiences last year sort of shocked me, that after a year off we had lost that sort of connection. The big Schizm over the LSJ July rulings I'm sure were a factor too (the NJL vs LSJ and such). >All I'm saying is > that I don't want someone to feel unwelcome at the event because their deck > wasn't "a really neat deck". Here James has made great point concerning how Arbritrary "really neat decks" are. Thats why I've made it crystal clear what I consider putting an effort forth toward creativity and what I don't. > 1) How many of us didn't have a malk/stealth/bleed deck in our early days of > playing? It seems to me that the unoriginal deck is something that is typically > the domain of the new player. You don't have to shake their hand and drool over > their deck. Just don't make 'em feel like crap. First: Nope. I didn't have one. Had a Malk Disguised weapons deck that used to run the table with alarming regularity (Malks are really flexible) Second: Theres a fine line. Most people who advocate creativity don't give guff to new players. Far from it. We try to inspire them to NOT be a cookie cutter. However, someone who I believe has played enough to do better I do have distain for. Win creatively is all I have ever asked of myself. > 2) Some people, (not necessarily you) people have some kind of belief that > certain deck styles are somehow "easy wins" and that is why we have to shame > people out of playing them. In a playing environment that doesn't discourage > any decks, all deck styles are prepared for and defended against. Nobody has an > easy win. I disagree. S:CE is a great example of a degenerate function with little foil, and the foil that does exist requires further degeneracy to counter. I discourage degeneracy James (and tacitly you) discourage "lack of focus" I am going to continue doing so. I expect you will to. As we said to each other in private email, we'll have to agree to disagree. Matt

In Boston, we like to play both for "fun" and to "win". However, we've found that it's no fun for anyone if we get a table of mixed "fun" decks and tournament-caliber decks. So, we'll ask before we play how strong the decks we're playing are, and then match up accordingly. For the most part, we just play "fun" decks at our gaming nights, but every so often people want to test out tournament decks. As much as I enjoy tournament play and "playing to win", I've found that with tournament decks, you're only ever really using 10-20% of your card collection. The rest of your collection - being deemed not tournament worthy - ends up sitting on a shelf and collecting dust. Why let the other 80-90% go to waste? Build some "fun" decks, play some no-stress, non-competitive games, and put those cards to use. Every so often you'll dig up a card that has tournament potential, too. I think there's also something to be said for not bringing your "A" game against less-experienced players. There isn't much for them to learn from getting the crap kicked out of them, and you might end up discouraging them from playing. However, if you bring a less potent deck and ease back on your opponents, you can let them try out the ideas they have and see for themselves how certain cards and strategies work against each other. V:TES is possibly the most difficult CCG, and it takes a while to develop a solid familiarity with the cards and strategies. Demonstrating these concepts only goes so far for new players, and it takes a lot of learning by doing to get the hang of things. - Ben Peal, Prince of Boston fu...@mindstorm.com

"Matt Latham" <mla...@diamondtoolmfg.com> wrote in message news:9gvtuf$br6$1...@nntp2-cm.news.eni.net... > > To the contrary. The camp that Peter and I fall into is a camp of > > inclusion and not exclusion. > > You may. Peter clearly advocates that anyone who does not "play to win" as > he puts it screws up his table dynamic. > That mentality is just as exclusionary as the one you say others do in terms of "shaming out" > unimaginative deck archtypes. I think he was only talking about the extreme player who wants to show style and overtly isn't playing to win. > <While I personally like to play new and varied decks (and it seems Peter > does as well), there is no effort to make people feel bad for playing > "cheesy" decks. I can easily play with you or any people in your camp.> > > See the comment above. You talk about how frustrating that "uncontrollable" > (or said differently counter to your belief on winning the game) element is. > I talk about how frustrating unimaginative deckbuilding is. Same > exclusionary thinking from two different sides. I'm not sure that was me who talked about that but I guess I'd agree with whoever it was (Peter?). Still, only upset about players at the extreme ends of not playing to win. > > > Ok, that said, what I wish for every tourney is that the people at > > > Peters end of the spectrum could move a smidge to the Derek philosophy > > > and thereby make the game 1000000 times better. > > > > > > The Derek side (also props to Pat): > > > > > > Quoth Derek: > > > > > > Winning itself is nice, butI prefer to have fun when I play... and ah, > > > the thrill of winning with something that ISN'T the tried-and-true > > > formula. Or just the thrill of realizing that your deck may not have > > > won, but represented an important advance in the search for HOW > > > to win - and next time you'll be able to use it. > > > > > > End Quoth: > > > > I certainly agree with this. I suspect Peter does as well. For the most > > part we probably play with decks as varied and wierd as anybody out there. > > I look forward to seeing this in practice. So, when are you coming to L.A.? :) I am curious about one thing. How do you feel about focussed decks in general? Most of my decks are not toolbox decks. They are very focussed. I play a lot of different decks but I don't necessarily play with 5 different concepts crammed into one deck very often. A, Weenie Cryptic Mission deck, for example. > > > CCG's have two parts to their game: Deck construction and Play Skill. > > > Magic, as a game, no longer rewards the first aspect. Players get > > > their decks off the Net as generated by a handful of players and use > > > them at tourneys. The winner at the end of the day is the one who had > > > the best matchups and for the most part showed the best Play skill > > > > With the many deck archives out there this is happening more and more. > Frankly, > > its the clever deck ideas that are more likely to get copied off the net. > No > > one needs to find a Malk Stealth Bleed or Weenie Presence Bleed deck on a > deck > > archive to be able to make one. > > You just proved my "ease of construction" argument. Yes, I agree with it. [clip] > >Players who win > > with something new and different do still gain peer approval. > > A Ha! Here it is. Before widespread sanctioning any interesting and > moderately effective deck received peer approval. It just seemed we were > less about fierce competition and more about community. This is just my > observation, but I want more community and less cutthroat. This is probably the crux of it. As we've said in email, just differnt likes and dislikes. No big deal. > >All I'm saying is > > that I don't want someone to feel unwelcome at the event because their > >deck wasn't "a really neat deck". > > Here James has made great point concerning how Arbritrary "really neat > decks" are. Thats why I've made it crystal clear what I consider putting an > effort forth toward creativity and what I don't. Yeah, the best way to deal with it is to just build and play things you like. [clip] > >In a playing environment that doesn't discourage > > any decks, all deck styles are prepared for and defended against. Nobody > > has an easy win. > > I disagree. S:CE is a great example of a degenerate function with little > foil, and the foil that does exist requires further degeneracy to counter. Really? Is that "degeneracy" you need to counter it a deck with 12 Immortal Grapples by any chance? I'm just trying to get an idea of what you consider degenerate or unimaginitive decks. Is it simply an issue of multiples of a card that creates this boredom for you or is it OK to have 50 Weather Control in a deck? > I discourage degeneracy Most of us do. We probably just define it differently. -Robert

>But where do you draw the line? How is it ok to have 15 Corruptions ("I need >it >for my deck concept to work!") but not ok to have 15 Majesties? What if the >deck concept is "I bleed you with weenie vampires with Presence, and if you >block me, I play Majesty to avoid dying." The 15 Majesties are clearly >necessary for such a concept to work. I agree that S:CE is a questionable >mechanic--it is overpowered, and I would prefer if it worked differently >(say, >as Strike: Round Ends instead)--but it is the one we have. If I am concerned >about my opponents playing S:CE, I plan to deal with it (IG, Psyche, TB, or I >don't plan on fighting being an important part of my deck)--I don't expect >them >not to be using it, 'cause it is "boring". > Corruption produces an archetype. Majesty is a utility card that can be tossed into any deck that plays presence. I've grown to disdain effective utility cards as they tend to make decks look alike by squeezing out inferior cards, which makes the game on a metagame level more predictable.

Matt wrote: >>Peter depicts anyone with a deck concept that doesn't fit his mold of play as a little kid who will stomp his feet and get mad when his 7 card combat combo or 12 Werewolf packs don't come out.>> Where do I do any such thing? The trouble I was highlighting with that example is when folks go into a game with wildly different perceptions of what the purpose of the game is--if player A is playing to maximize VPs, and player B is playing to pull off a funny new card combo, with no mind towards VPs or survival, neither player is going to have a good time. >>I depict players with decks like Peter advocates as imaginationless cheeze-weasels who must win at any cost to validate themselves rather than just play a damn GAME.>> And when have I said at any point that I (or anyone) must win at any cost to validate myself rather than just play a damn game? Nowhere. In fact, I was rather clear about how I play to win, but am actually rather unconcerned about whether or not I actually do. >>So, if we can both acknowledge that few people fit my depiction AND few people fit his depiction then we're better off as a community>> No one is not acknowledging that there are different play styles. There is a problem, however, when play style A interacts with play style B, as the two don't work well together, and no one has a good time. As "playing to win" is far more definable and quantifyable than "playing for fun", it strikes me as only prudent to assume that most people who are playing the game are "playing to win", and when I sit down at a table with 4 other unknown players, to assume that they are going to be playing effective decks that will do their very best to kill me, so I will sit down with the same. Going into such a situation assuming that the other players are going to be "playing for fun", whatever that means, will doubtlessly result in most people having not such a good time--some decks will be too good, and some will be useless. >>(Derek wrote:) Winning itself is nice, butI prefer to have fun when I play... and ah, the thrill of winning with something that ISN'T the tried-and-true formula. Or just the thrill of realizing that your deck may not have won, but represented an important advance in the search for HOW to win - and next time you'll be able to use it.>> And again, I have never, ever, advocated "winning at any cost". I have advocated playing the game to win, and consequently using effective decks, and expecting other to do the same. If you can make an effective deck that is new and exciting, more power to you. >>Prior to last year, the Jyhad community rewarded both aspects via peer approval. I won quite a few big tourneys "in my day" and what made the wins special is the 18-20 people who shook my hand after each table and said "Thats a really neat deck. Good luck at the next table. Can I see the whole deck when you are done?">> Which is great, but A) where does the "prior to last year" have anything to do with this and B) why can't people shake your hand after each table when you win with *any* deck, rather than a clever, unseen angle deck? >>I gain no joy from seeing a player with 22 S:CE cards. I gain no joy from seeing a person with 22 stealth cards and 22 bleed modifiers.>> Why not? Why does it matter what cards your opponent is using? Either they have a good deck, or they don't. Why does it matter if there are 34 different cards by name in the deck rather than 12? Does seeing a Bonding this time and a Conditioning next time really make the game more interesting than seeing a Conditioning both times? >>I gain no joy because these people have decided to throw away a whole aspect of the game (the deck construction portion) by using a cookie cutter deck.>> What exactly is a "cookie cutter" deck? And how does using a lot of a given card result in throwing away the deck construction aspect of the game? Using my 22 S:CE deck as an example (as it is a pretty extreme one), the deck in question (an all Protean bleed deck, with light permanent intercept, lots of untap, copious pool gain, Garous and Meat Hooks) seems unlikely to fit anyone's "cookie cutter", and has been slowly evolving for literally years--every time I play it, I adjust ratios, swap new cards in and out, tweak the crypt, whatever. It has 22 S:CE cards because that is the best number for the deck--it has enough to work, but not too many that it hand jams on them (some are offensive S:CE, some are for use when blocking). How is this a "cookie cutter" deck? I'm not taking this as a personal affront or anything, but you seem to be throwing around an awful lot of misconceptions. >>And yes Robert, I believe that these decks are infinitely easier to build than the more creative decks that I have used and have had used against me.>> I'd debate that point. There is nothing "easy" about building a deck with a lot of a single card--how many is too many? How often do you need to draw such a card? How do you avoid gumming up your hand? Yeah, it is easy to build certain deck designs (Malk S+B for instance) by throwing together a handfull of the appropriate cards--you are bound to get some sort of sucess out of it, but it is very difficult to build *any* deck that will do consistiently well against a varied and well evolved field of opposition. >>I am going to continue to laud the people like Derek who choose to win with creativity and style, and I am going to continue to feel decks like the ones Peter advocates>> And what kind of decks are those? I advocate using decks that can win. Some decks that can win are single minded and focused, doing only one thing over and over (if their prey can't deal with this one thing, they win, but if their prey can, they lose...); some decks that can win are all over the place, do a lot of everything, and do it in varied ways. How is one of these any *better* on an absolute sense than the other? I'm not looking for everyone to play Weenie Dom/Misdirect Bleed decks, but I am looking for everyone to play effective decks that can win, and not have people say "Fuck you" because I chose to play an effective deck at ina given game. >>kills a bit of the spirit of the game, because every new player than emulates the cookie-cutter winner is another person who will ignore the first aspect of Jyhad.>> The "sprit of the game" What is that, exactly? Might I find the defenition in the same book as the one for "cheesy"? "The spirit of the game" is a completely subjective concept, and you can't expect that others will think the same thing you do. My idea of what is "the spirit of the game" is clearly different than yours, which is fine, but what is my idea of "the spirit of the game" is is supported by the rule book, and thus, if someone assumes that I am playing the game as per the instructions in the rule book, they are likely to be correct. It is unlikely that anyone could guess as to what your idea of "the spirit of the game" is on a blind meeting, and consequently can't live up to your ideas without knowing what your ideas are. >>Don't give up on style. Please please please.>> And I have never advocated giving up on style. As long as the style makes for an effective deck. When I sit down to play a game of VTES, I do so because I enjoy playing games and I enjoy hanging out with my friends. I play with effective decks, and hope my friends/opponents do the same thing. As a player, it is my responsibility to be pleasant to play with, entertaining, considerate, and good natured (just like in all other areas of social life), and so I am, and hope my opponents act in kind. It is not, however, my responsibility to build my decks such that they fit other people's ambigiously defined defenition of "fun" or "uncheesy". I build my decks such that they can win VPs, as that is why I am playing a CCG, rather than an RPG, where there are no well defined victory conditions, and hope that my opponents are doing the same, as that way we all have a good time, and no one gets miffed because their poorly defined idea of "fun decks" weren't adhered to. [ quoted text not captured ]

>One might think Malkavian S+B right off the bat, but I would >challenge someone to make a really good Malk S+B deck that can consistiently >win, in the hands of a bad player, in a well developed play environment (i.e. >an environment where the deck is just as likely to run into, for example, a >strong intercept deck, a bounce deck, a speedy bleed deck, a rush deck, or a >rampant pool gain deck). Does a well developed play environment consist of only tournament level decks or, at least, a highly competitive mentality? I've played with about 4 different groups since I started playing. None consistently played tournament decks. Some decks just rip apart such environments regardless as to who plays them. While it may seem stupid not to put answers in decks, there's a point where you aren't building the decks that interest you but are building metagame decks just so you can compete. That can be a turn off for a lot of the casual players I've played with. On a more general CCG level, CCGers need to play against people of like mind (to some extent, anyway), echoing what you said in the initial post. If people want to screw around rather than try to win, that can be okay if everyone is of that mind. Similarly, if people want to test their tournament decks until they are perfectly tuned, that works when the others are doing the same thing. My preference is somewhere in the middle, where people try to get rogue decks (which may be awful or may be the next big tournament play, though it isn't possible to know that playing just in a casual environment) to work.

Good Meat Here.... "Robert Goudie" <rrgo...@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:aFLY6.1519$m2.1...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net... > "Matt Latham" <mla...@diamondtoolmfg.com> wrote in message > news:9gvtuf$br6$1...@nntp2-cm.news.eni.net... > > > To the contrary. The camp that Peter and I fall into is a camp of > > > inclusion and not exclusion. > > > > You may. Peter clearly advocates that anyone who does not "play to win" as > > he puts it screws up his table dynamic. > > That mentality is just as exclusionary as the one you say others do in terms > of "shaming out" > > unimaginative deck archtypes. > > I think he was only talking about the extreme player who wants to show style and > overtly isn't playing to win. And I'm only talking about the extreme player that puts 22 Majesties in his deck. I'm just trying to prevent this player from becoming more common than he already is, and seeing James advocate this action is what set me off. > So, when are you coming to L.A.? :) I am curious about one thing. How do you > feel about focussed decks in general? Most of my decks are not toolbox decks. > They are very focussed. I play a lot of different decks but I don't necessarily > play with 5 different concepts crammed into one deck very often. A, Weenie > Cryptic Mission deck, for example. I play very focused decks (except my old Tremere deck that was a utility monster!) but I do it with only 6 copies of a particular card (once I built a deck with 10 Flashes in it because it needed long range and a second round. I felt dirty but did it) > Yeah, the best way to deal with it is to just build and play things you like. True, but I'm not gonna stop trying to inspire people to be more creative, and I cannot stop feeling like a part of the game dies when at the end of a round I see 22 Majesties in someone's graveyard. > > I disagree. S:CE is a great example of a degenerate function with little > > foil, and the foil that does exist requires further degeneracy to counter. > > Really? Is that "degeneracy" you need to counter it a deck with 12 Immortal > Grapples by any chance? Sure. Something like that. I don't like any tactic that requires so many copies of one card. Its sad and removes deck slots from being dedicated to creative strategies. 12 Grapples does not foil 22 Majesties. Degeneracy is not an archtype. Stealth/bleed can be creative if done with some style, and its up to the individual to determine what "style" is. I've been clear as to what style means to me. >I'm just trying to get an idea of what you consider > degenerate or unimaginitive decks. Is it simply an issue of multiples of a card > that creates this boredom for you or is it OK to have 50 Weather Control in a > deck? My Tourney winning weather control deck had 6 weather controls in it. Decks with tricks can also have forward focus. Thats why I said James's characterizations of the Werewolf Pack guy is as unfair as my characterizations. > > I discourage degeneracy > > Most of us do. We probably just define it differently. Ok.. tell me how you discourage degeneracy, and how you define it. Matt

"Matt Latham" <mla...@diamondtoolmfg.com> wrote in message news:9h02rc$j9n$1...@nntp1-cm.news.eni.net... > Good Meat Here.... [clip] > > So, when are you coming to L.A.? :) I am curious about one thing. > >How do you feel about focussed decks in general? Most of my > >decks are not toolbox decks. > > They are very focussed. I play a lot of different decks but I don't > > necessarily play with 5 different concepts crammed into one deck very often. > > A Weenie Cryptic Mission deck, for example. > > I play very focused decks (except my old Tremere deck that was a utility > monster!) but I do it with only 6 copies of a particular card (once I built > a deck with 10 Flashes in it because it needed long range and a second > round. I felt dirty but did it) See you say you desire creativity but instead what you desire is variety *within* each deck. I value creativity and variety across the landscape of many decks and care not about how much variety is within each deck. My Cryptic Mission deck is creative. It has a lot of CM in it. A lot! It sounds like you'd give it a black eye because it has so many CMs. I can build countless numbers of Tremere decks using all different kinds of focuses. Wouldn't all of yours start to look the same after a while with "a little bit of everything". In my view of the game I can build every deck you can build plus countless others. > > > I disagree. S:CE is a great example of a degenerate function with little > > > foil, and the foil that does exist requires further degeneracy to > > > counter. > > > > Really? Is that "degeneracy" you need to counter it a deck with > > 12 Immortal Grapples by any chance? > > Sure. Something like that. I don't like any tactic that requires so many > copies of one card. Its sad and removes deck slots from being dedicated to > creative strategies. All it does is lessen variety within each deck. I can't see how its more *creative* to inflict upon myself a restriction that would force me to play 6 Bums Rush and 6 Ambush when I really want to make a rush melee weapons deck that doesn't mind the hand-slot loss of a Bum's Rush and would be better served by 12 Bum's. >12 Grapples does not foil 22 Majesties. Really? If someone packs 22 majesty then they likely think its the end-all be-all of combat killers. They probably aren't bothering to play with Obedience or any damage prevention or any manuevers. If I have the cards in hand I can rush you and burn with certainty. It only takes one grapple. [clip] > > > I discourage degeneracy > > > > Most of us do. We probably just define it differently. > > Ok.. tell me how you discourage degeneracy, and how you define it. When we had brief periods of broken cards (old Mind Rape, RTI, etc.) we did have to encourage players not to play with such obvious garbage. If we ever reach that point again I'd hope that the cards are fixed. -Robert

Matt wrote: >>And I'm only talking about the extreme player that puts 22 Majesties in his deck. I'm just trying to prevent this player from becoming more common than he already is, and seeing James advocate this action is what set me off.>> Not James. Peter. But that's ok. Why do you feel it is necessary to use peer pressure (or abuse or scorn or whatever) to attempt to circumvent the natural flow of the game? Decks with 22 Majesties have plenty of problems of their own, regardless of outside of game influence (What if no one blocks them? What if their opponent is using IG?) and thus are self regulating. There is no need to attempt to force this evolution. >>I play very focused decks (except my old Tremere deck that was a utility monster!) but I do it with only 6 copies of a particular card (once I built a deck with 10 Flashes in it because it needed long range and a second round. I felt dirty but did it)>> And this goes back to the age old argument--you feel like you are a "good" person becasue you never use more than 6 of a given card in a deck. Do you ever use 6 each of two different cards that give a similar effect (like 6 Skin of Steel and 6 Superior Mettle)? Or do each of you 6 of a single card provide a completely discrete effect with no redundancy whatsoever? Do your bleed decks contain a total of 6 bleed modifiers? In a sweeping sense, what is the difference between having 18 Conditionings instead of 6 Conditionings, 6 Govern, and 6 Threats? There are subttle differences, but on the level you describe, the difference is nill. >>True, but I'm not gonna stop trying to inspire people to be more creative, and I cannot stop feeling like a part of the game dies when at the end of a round I see 22 Majesties in someone's graveyard.>> Part of the game dies? The game was designed specifically to allow such things, and specifically designed so that they were self regulating. How does part of the game die from playing by the rules? >>Sure. Something like that. I don't like any tactic that requires so many copies of one card. Its sad and removes deck slots from being dedicated to creative strategies. 12 Grapples does not foil 22 Majesties.>> Yes it does. Quite nicelty, at that. >>My Tourney winning weather control deck had 6 weather controls in it. Decks with tricks can also have forward focus. Thats why I said James's characterizations of the Werewolf Pack guy is as unfair as my characterizations.>> Peter. Not James. But that's ok. How did I characterize the "Werewolf Pack guy"? I was illustrating how players with two different ideas of how to play the game are bound to not have a good time playing together. [ quoted text not captured ]

Matt wrote: >>You may. Peter clearly advocates that anyone who does not "play to win" as he puts it screws up his table dynamic. That mentality is just as exclusionary as the one you say others do in terms of "shaming out" unimaginative deck archtypes.>> "My" table dynamic? It has been shown many times that when a single player in a multi player game is playing [poorly/randomly/ineffectively], it has a vast effect on the game as a whole--his prey has a much easier time, his grand prey has a much harder time, etc. This affects the whole game. I don't tell people *not* to play stupid decks, but I expect that they won't get sore when they are killed becasue they are using them. And how is hoping that people will play to win in anyway exclusionary? Come, sit down, play a game. Hopefully you will try hard to win. If not, you'll probably be killed, and you can play in the next game. The big difference I see here is that under play style A) (playing to win), all players can play--hopefully trying to win. under play style B) (playing for "fun"), people who play "overly effective" decks aren't welcome to play--they get insulted and called "cheesy". >>See the comment above. You talk about how frustrating that "uncontrollable" (or said differently counter to your belief on winning the game) element is. I talk about how frustrating unimaginative deckbuilding is. Same exclusionary thinking from two different sides.>> I'm not excluding anyone--if someone wants to play a game with a weak or pointless deck, that's fine--I'd rather they didn't, but I'm not going to brow beat them for it. On the flip side, I expect that they don't get mad when they lose, because someone was playing a "cheesy" deck. >>You just proved my "ease of construction" argument.>> Yeah, I still don't buy it. Yes, building a deck out of 12 random Malkavians with 20 random Master cards, 35 random bleed cards and 35 random stealth cards is going to work better than a deck made of 12 random Assamites with 20 random master cards, 35 random Celerity cards and 35 random Quietus cards, but it is difficult to make a malkavian deck that is consistiently effective in a varied and robust environment. >>Here James has made great point concerning how Arbritrary "really neat decks" are. Thats why I've made it crystal clear what I consider putting an effort forth toward creativity and what I don't.>> And so you browbeat and scorn players who don't live up to your arbitrary defenition of "creativity" is? Could you please detail the crystal clear defenition you expect people to live up to? >>First: Nope. I didn't have one. Had a Malk Disguised weapons deck that used to run the table with alarming regularity (Malks are really flexible)>> What does this prove? >>I disagree. S:CE is a great example of a degenerate function with little foil, and the foil that does exist requires further degeneracy to counter.>> Then advocate that the game deisgners fix S:CE (I know I do) or to create more cards that help deal with S:CE (i.e. increase the number of foils). Don't belittle opponents who use it. [ quoted text not captured ]

pd...@aol.comANTISPAM (Peter D Bakija) wrote in message news:<20010621154050...@ng-cq1.aol.com>... > Derek wrote: > >>Which isn't true. You can make equally vicious and cut-throat decks > under 4CL, and that will hurt the game's popularity with women just as > much. Attempting to blame NL is missing the ACTUAL problem.>> > > This comes up a lot (not the 4CL, I'm staying far away from that...)--the idea > of "cut-throat" vs "fun" decks, and "playing for fun" vs "playing to win", and > I'm kind of interested in seeing other folks views on this. OK <snip playing to win> I agree that all people involved should have the same goals for the current game however, in my experiance just choosing winning can be a bit siffling. > When I play with people who have different victory conditions that I do (i.e. > I'm trying get victory points, they are trying to get 12 Werewolf Packs into > play), neither of us have a good time--they feel screwed 'cause they didn't get > off their goofy card combo, and I feel screwed 'cause my opponent wasn't really > trying. Thus, I prefer to play with folks who have the same view of the game as > I do. > > Where do the rest of y'all stand here? a while back I issued a challenge to my group to have a sunday where everyone brought a weird and/or wacky deck. They broad constraints were nothing that they were currently playing, and a deck that would attempt to win (so yeah the same victory conditions). I did this in responce to feelings in the group that to much of our play had devolved into cut throught competition, and not enough innovation was occuring. The day happened, and several people got a new deck out of it (mine was Anneke with an assult rifle... ahh the mayhem). Some of the decks are even playable in on a regular day, we just weren't getting anything done. THE POINT: that rambled a bit so the bold is for my benefit. winning is great but in relentless pursuit of victory you have to be careful that you are not blinding yourself to innovation, and thus the full enjoyment of this complex game. Cameron PS - Go Anneke, Go [ quoted text not captured ]

On Fri, 22 Jun 2001 14:27:24 -0400, "Matt Latham" <mla...@diamondtoolmfg.com> wrote: >> I think he was only talking about the extreme player who wants to show >style and >> overtly isn't playing to win. > >And I'm only talking about the extreme player that puts 22 Majesties in his >deck. I'm just trying to prevent this player from becoming more common than >he already is, and seeing James advocate this action is what set me off. You can't prevent it, though. You can only provide a counterexample, and hope that players will follow -that-. (though I appreciate the kudos and quoth-tations and such =) The inherent problem is that it's just lots easier to put bunches of the same card in your deck. New players tend to do this sort of reflexively, without realizing what they're doing to THEMSELVES. And if they're in a playgroup which is ALSO relatively new, then they probably tend to win more, as people haven't learned how to deal with stuff like that yet. About the only thing you can really do is to teach people how to deal with extreme focus. Sometimes extreme focus is necessary - a Tremere combat deck, for example, NEEDS to have a whole bunch of Theft of Vitae in it. The way you go about the REST of the combat is up to you, but including 10-12 Theft of Vitae is probably best-guess in any given environment. But to deal with extreme focus, the trick is to recognize the focus and STOP playing into its hand. If a deck wants to move its stealth, quit blocking it. If a deck has tons of intercept, stop taking +1 stealth and/or undirected actions, and just bleed for awhile. >I play very focused decks (except my old Tremere deck that was a utility >monster!) but I do it with only 6 copies of a particular card (once I built >a deck with 10 Flashes in it because it needed long range and a second >round. I felt dirty but did it) Can't support any sort of card limit, voluntary or otherwise. Some cards need to be in more than multiples of just 6, or just 8, etc.... or your deck DOES defocus itself. You mention a Weather Control deck, but with only 6 WCs in the deck, WC was undoubtedly a feature of only half the combats in your games. See the contradiction? =/ As you say yourself, you need long range and a 2nd round EVERY time; that means ten Flashes, or you won't be getting it every time. (THA/CEL by any chance?) This doesn't make the deck any less creative, it's just that it's reaching towards a "corner case" scenario a little. Sometimes that leaves only one solution. >True, but I'm not gonna stop trying to inspire people to be more creative, >and I cannot stop feeling like a part of the game dies when at the end of a >round I see 22 Majesties in someone's graveyard. 22 Majesties is a great way to get handjammed. It generally provides its own counter -- if you suspect such a thing exists, then decide early on to either block everything (run them out of Majesty), or block nothing (let them bleed for 1 with 7 Majesty in hand). Of course, (evil grin), if you include "information" cards such as Tortured Confession, Owl Companion, or Scrying of Secrets, you can learn quickly what someone's deck is likely to look like. If their hand has 1 Master, 2 bleed cards, and 4 Majesties, you have adequate information to immediately assume the "grit your teeth and block nothing" stance, unless you -can- block everything. The rush-forward-and-Majesty style falls over to a deck that is willing to leave a bunch of minions untapped and sit patiently. >Sure. Something like that. I don't like any tactic that requires so many >copies of one card. Its sad and removes deck slots from being dedicated to >creative strategies. 12 Grapples does not foil 22 Majesties. "creative" and "bunch of different cards" don't mean the same thing, however. There are perfectly creative strategies that rely on 10-ish of a certain card - a Ravnos Trick of Danya/Cairo Int'l/Reality deck, for example. (idle note: 12 Grapples -does- foil 22 Majesties. Torporized vampires cannot bleed or play Majesty, and each Grapple usually results in a torporized vampire.) Just because something has a ton of the same card in it doesn't make it uncreative. If, for example, I decide to make the Spawning Pool deck, I'm going to need a whole BUNCH of Rat's Warning cards. Probably about 12, because that's the most card-efficient, and I can spend the rest of my card slots on toys such as Raven Spies, Owl Companions, or whatever else might seem appropriate for a Nossie intercept deck. Or I could just use the Spawning Pool angle as a "threat" if anyone tries to press, and use Guard Dogs/Carrion Crows/Sewer Lids for the first round. =) Hm. That sounds amusing. I may try that soon. =) -- Derek

Boy I enjoy debating with you.. you have a great grasp of language and back up your points well.... "Robert Goudie" <rrgo...@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:dGMY6.1617$m2.1...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net... > "Matt Latham" <mla...@diamondtoolmfg.com> wrote in message > news:9h02rc$j9n$1...@nntp1-cm.news.eni.net... > > Good Meat Here.... > [clip] > > > So, when are you coming to L.A.? :) I am curious about one thing. > > >How do you feel about focussed decks in general? Most of my > > >decks are not toolbox decks. > > > They are very focussed. I play a lot of different decks but I don't > > > necessarily play with 5 different concepts crammed into one deck very > often. > > > A Weenie Cryptic Mission deck, for example. > > > > I play very focused decks (except my old Tremere deck that was a utility > > monster!) but I do it with only 6 copies of a particular card (once I built > > a deck with 10 Flashes in it because it needed long range and a second > > round. I felt dirty but did it) > > See you say you desire creativity but instead what you desire is variety > *within* each deck. I value creativity and variety across the landscape of many > decks and care not about how much variety is within each deck. Both. I want creativity to both influence creation of the WHOLE deck and creativity in each card choice. > My Cryptic Mission deck is creative. It has a lot of CM in it. A lot! It > sounds like you'd give it a black eye because it has so many CMs. I can build > countless numbers of Tremere decks using all different kinds of focuses. > Wouldn't all of yours start to look the same after a while with "a little bit of > everything". In my view of the game I can build every deck you can build plus > countless others. Absolutely not. If the concept is creative then duplicates of cards is palatable. I think making an interesting and competitive deck around a not-obviously-powerful card like Cryptic Mission requires creativity. I don't think any deck with 22 Majesties (a clearly hyper-powerful card) can be creative either in deck concept or card choice. > All it does is lessen variety within each deck. I can't see how its more > *creative* to inflict upon myself a restriction that would force me to play 6 > Bums Rush and 6 Ambush when I really want to make a rush melee weapons deck that > doesn't mind the hand-slot loss of a Bum's Rush and would be better served by 12 > Bum's. An interesting point that I don't have an immediate counter for. I need to ponder it. This statement makes me wonder at my card limit philosophy. There were plenty of maneuvers and presses I could have used, but I loaded up on Flash's because they were a better fit for what I needed. > >12 Grapples does not foil 22 Majesties. > > Really? If someone packs 22 majesty then they likely think its the end-all > be-all of combat killers. They probably aren't bothering to play with Obedience > or any damage prevention or any manuevers. If I have the cards in hand I can > rush you and burn with certainty. It only takes one grapple. And more cards to back it up. Majesty can stand alone. Grapple cannot.

sv...@chartermi.net (Matt Latham) wrote in message news:<978c2422.01062...@posting.google.com>... > First, lets clear up some perception issues. Both Peter's Camp (which > includes the chairman of VEKN, which pretty much means people like me > have no place in the NWO of VEKN tourney Jyhad. Makes me sad) The NWO? I don't mean to be inflammatory, but what is a tourney if not a series of games that are all about winning? Has that not always been the definition of a tournament? If you don't like playing VTES in a playing-to-win environment, why would you ever want to play in a tournament? Why not just play the "fun creative" kind of games in a less-structured format? > CCG's have two parts to their game: Deck construction and Play Skill. > Magic, as a game, no longer rewards the first aspect. Players get > their decks off the Net as generated by a handful of players and use > them at tourneys. The winner at the end of the day is the one who had > the best matchups and for the most part showed the best Play skill I suspect that, to the extent that it's true, this is a result of the maturing of each particular CCG environment. As more and more people play a game, more and more useful strategies/cards/etc are discovered, and via the Internet this knowledge is easily distributed worldwide. Basically, it becomes much easier to learn how to make (or "copy") a good deck than to learn how to play the game especially well. > And yes Robert, I believe that these decks are infinitely easier to > build than the more creative decks that I have used and have had used > against me. > > I am going to continue to laud the people like Derek who choose to win > with creativity and style, and I am going to continue to feel decks > like the ones Peter advocates kills a bit of the spirit of the game, > because every new player than emulates the cookie-cutter winner is > another person who will ignore the first aspect of Jyhad. > > Don't give up on style. Please please please. This is all very well, but as time goes by, it becomes possible for *every* deck concept to seem noncreative and boring because everybody's seen them all before. Why not just accept that, to a new player, all the decks in the world are new and interesting, and be happy that they think so? It doesn't hurt anyone for you to play with "new" combos that you think are especially clever; nor does it hurt anyone for those who like the "old" combos to use them. It really is all relative, you know. At the Northeast Regionals I met Remy from Quebec playing a deck that intended to put Fortitude skill cards on other people's vampires, then Mind Rape them, Rave all but one of their blood off, and Force of Will/Daring the Dawn to bleed unblockably and burn them. To someone who's never thought of this, it's a brilliant and hilarious combo. But I remembered having read about the concept a few months back on the newsgroup (Noal was talking about a possibly-somewhat-different variant on it, I think), and so although I thought it was kinda cool that he'd actually built and played such a deck, I wasn't especially amazed by his creativity. (I certainly don't intend that as a slam. My deck was a very predictable Tzimisce intercept-combat and Smiling Jack thing.) Josh soon to build another one of those cookie-cutter shambling hordes decks (they shamble! they stride! they shamble and stride!)

Hey, at least in one post I got your name right... You ask me to define "spirit of the game". The fact that you wrote this thread to begin with shows that there is a difference in belief, and that there are numbers of players in both camps. Jyhad was made just after Magic as a game to appeal to those whom Magic may not appeal to. (This from a discussion I had with a guy in WotC) It has a group atmosphere, longer games, and, via politics, almost required socialization. "Back in the Day", tournaments were more an extension of your Saturday Jyhad game, more designed for social interaction rather than cutthroat competition. As I explained to Robert, the "before last year" should have been "before last year in my experience". Further definitions you asked for: A cookie cutter deck is an archetype that is designed by one and copied by hundreds. I'm sure you could make your own examples. > And when have I said at any point that I (or anyone) must win at any cost to > validate myself rather than just play a damn game? Exactly. Thats why I said it's unfair of me to do so. <In fact, I was rather clear about how I play to win, but am actually rather unconcerned aboutwhether or not I actually do.> Hmm.. this surprises me. I take you as a "winning is very important to me" kinda guy, which is not wrong or anything but the statement above clearly shows I'm wrong. I apologize. > No one is not acknowledging that there are different play styles. There is a > problem, however, when play style A interacts with play style B, as the two > don't work well together, and no one has a good time. As "playing to win" is > far more definable and quantifyable than "playing for fun", I disagree. Your prey bounces a bleed to me. My pred has a stealth deck and my prey bouncing me such that I haven't been able to get into combat. In combat with you I chuck sewer lids, press, and toss a car, because I have to clear my hand jam. I know few "focused winning" types that wouldn't call me an asshole for sending your minion to hell, but I've got to clear my hand to get some rush or intercept to deal with Stealth Pred, or a Divine Intervention to get around Bouncy Prey. Your line is only slightly clearer than mine. <<B) why can't people shake your hand after each table when you winwith *any* deck, rather than a clever, unseen angle deck?>> Because the person with the cookie cutter played you in one aspect of the game.. the person who beat you with a creative deck beat you in both aspects, and showed you the respect to dig around his vast collection for something new. (I know, you'll say that bringing a focused winning deck regardless of the creativity involved is showing respect to your opponents. I agree to disagree on this.) > >>I gain no joy from seeing a player with 22 S:CE cards. I gain no joy > from seeing a person with 22 stealth cards and 22 bleed modifiers.>> > > Why not? Why does it matter what cards your opponent is using? Either they have > a good deck, or they don't. Good to you is VP gaining. Good to me is different or clever. I agreed to disagree with Robert on this one. The crux of your issue is that my criteria of "good" is arbitrary and yours is "in the rules". If my criteria is so subjective, why are viewpoints like mine universal enough to warrant your original post? Why does the stigma exist? You acknowledge that you've been told "fuck you" on occasion? Why? My feeling as to why is because those people love Jyhad as a game because it has the potential to be different than most other games. Anyone can "win" any game. Jyhad allows one to "win with style" like Derek suggests, using different angles and different ideas, not just the cookie cutters that are "tried and true". Thats my opinion. This thread has convinced me that I am a snob, and that if I am going to play in tourneys nowadays that I best prepare for both people who believe in my win condition and people who don't. Further, its mean and rude of me to apply peer pressure in public to people who believe in your Jyhad, so I won't. If thats what you were going for, you win. Matt

"Matt Latham" <mla...@diamondtoolmfg.com> wrote in message news:9h063e$lrj$1...@nntp1-cm.news.eni.net... > Boy I enjoy debating with you.. you have a great grasp of language and back > up your points well.... Thanks. [clip weenie cryptic mission deck] > Absolutely not. If the concept is creative then duplicates of cards is > palatable. I think making an interesting and competitive deck around a > not-obviously-powerful card like Cryptic Mission requires creativity. OK. > > All it does is lessen variety within each deck. I can't see how its more > > *creative* to inflict upon myself a restriction that would force me to > > play 6 Bums Rush and 6 Ambush when I really want to make a rush > > melee weapons deck that doesn't mind the hand-slot loss of a Bum's > > Rush and would be better served by 12 Bum's. > > An interesting point that I don't have an immediate counter for. I need to > ponder it. This statement makes me wonder at my card limit philosophy. There > were plenty of maneuvers and presses I could have used, but I loaded up on > Flash's because they were a better fit for what I needed. And those Flashes are what make your deck unique and creative (though also having less variety). To take this to absurd extremes to make it easier to visualize, imagine creating a Gangrel Bleed deck with a 1 card limit. You would have perfect variety within each deck. However, everyone's Gangrel Bleed deck would look exactly the same and the deck-building process would nearly be stripped of decision-making altogether (just include one of each Fort. / Ani / and Prot. cards) Instead of an infinite number of possible decks you'd be reduced to maybe 25. You are obviously a long way from doing that but the philosophy is the same. > > >12 Grapples does not foil 22 Majesties. > > > > Really? If someone packs 22 majesty then they likely think its the > > end-all be-all of combat killers. They probably aren't bothering to play with > > Obedience or any damage prevention or any manuevers. If I have the > > cards in hand I can rush you and burn with certainty. It only takes one grapple. > > And more cards to back it up. Majesty can stand alone. Grapple cannot. And that's majesty's weakness. It does stand alone and can be counted on to be standing alone in an opponent's deck. Also, needing more cards to back up the grapple isn't a problem 'cause there's always plenty of those in the deck too (when you don't limit yourself). :) -Robert

Matt wrote: >>Hey, at least in one post I got your name right...>> Quite all right. At least you were calling a propper name, and not something like "prick face" :-) >>You ask me to define "spirit of the game". The fact that you wrote this thread to begin with shows that there is a difference in belief, and that there are numbers of players in both camps.>> I'd never deny that there are people that think differently than me. >>Jyhad was made just after Magic as a game to appeal to those whom Magic may not appeal to. (This from a discussion I had with a guy in WotC) It has a group atmosphere, longer games, and, via politics, almost required socialization. "Back in the Day", tournaments were more an extension of your Saturday Jyhad game, more designed for social interaction rather than cutthroat competition. As I explained to Robert, the "before last year" should have been "before last year in my experience".>> Back in the day ('95? '96?), I was playing more or less like I am now, with people who play more or less like I do now, so this isn't a matter of "old folks" vs "new folks". Nor am I an ex-Magic tourney player. >>Further definitions you asked for: A cookie cutter deck is an archetype that is designed by one and copied by hundreds. I'm sure you could make your own examples.>> But each Malkavian S+B deck (your archtypical "cookie cutter" deck) is going to be different than all of the other ones out there (unless it is coppied verbaitim from a deck listing)--it is going to have different card ratios, different defenses, different offenses. Yes, on a basic level, every Malk S+B deck is going to win by bleeding at stealth, but other than that, they are all going to be different. >>Hmm.. this surprises me. I take you as a "winning is very important to me" kinda guy, which is not wrong or anything but the statement above clearly shows I'm wrong. I apologize.>> Again, quite all right. That you are assuming that I am a "winning is very important to me" kind of guy enlightens my understanding of your world view, however. >>I disagree. Your prey bounces a bleed to me. My pred has a stealth deck and my prey bouncing me such that I haven't been able to get into combat. In combat with you I chuck sewer lids, press, and toss a car, because I have to clear my hand jam. I know few "focused winning" types that wouldn't call me an asshole for sending your minion to hell, but I've got to clear my hand to get some rush or intercept to deal with Stealth Pred, or a Divine Intervention to get around Bouncy Prey. Your line is only slightly clearer than mine.>> What I meant is that if I sit down with a well designed deck that is very effective at getting VPs, and you are my prey, and your deck is very good at getting out Giovanni Allies, and not much else, neither of us are going to have a good time--I'm not going to have a good time, 'cause you are going to provide no challenge. You are not going to have a good time because you are going to be steamrollered by a "cheesy" deck. >>Because the person with the cookie cutter played you in one aspect of the game.. the person who beat you with a creative deck beat you in both aspects, and showed you the respect to dig around his vast collection for something new. (I know, you'll say that bringing a focused winning deck regardless of the creativity involved is showing respect to your opponents. I agree to disagree on this.)>> For one, as I mentioned before, I have no need to see my opponents using new deck designs. Sure, when I see a clever new deck, I'm amused, but I'm not offended when my opponents play old standards. I'm no more impressed when someone kills me with something new than when they kill me with something old. A deck is a deck, and I'm happy to be playing, regardless. >>Good to you is VP gaining. Good to me is different or clever. I agreed to disagree with Robert on this one. The crux of your issue is that my criteria of "good" is arbitrary and yours is "in the rules".>> Precisely. How can you expect other people to play according to your arbitrary criteria of what is good? You are setting yourself up to be disapointed in every game. At least with a well defined criteria (i.e. play by the rules), it is easier to expect that people live up to your hopes. >>If my criteria is so subjective, why are viewpoints like mine universal enough to warrant your original post?>> Because lots of people hold a similar subjective view, and many of them seem to get upset when their arbitrary view of how to play VTES is not adhered to. And then they show up around here and malign people for playing "cheesy" decks. I just find it interesting. >>Why does the stigma exist?>> What stigma is that? >>You acknowledge that you've been told "fuck you" on occasion? Why?>> The only time I can recall is at a large tournament at Origins one year, I sat down with my Nosferatu Rush deck, and my prey was a Malkavian S+B deck. I torporized every vampire he brough out before it took a single action (as he had exactly zero combat defense), and after killing 4 or 5 of his vampires, he picked up his stuff, quit the game, and flipped me the bird (he never actually said "Fuck You"). I wasn't rude, unsportsman like, or in any way pricky. I just played the game according to the rules, and my opponent was unhappy with how it turned out. >>My feeling as to why is because those people love Jyhad as a game because it has the potential to be different than most other games. Anyone can "win" any game. Jyhad allows one to "win with style" like Derek suggests, using different angles and different ideas, not just the cookie cutters that are "tried and true".>> Yes you can win with style, but as there is no way to quantify what "style" is, there is no way to expect that everyone will live up to your expectations. I figure that if my expectation is little more than that my opponents will play by the rules and try to win, I am less likely to be disapointed. >>This thread has convinced me that I am a snob, and that if I am going to play in tourneys nowadays that I best prepare for both people who believe in my win condition and people who don't.>> I'm not quite sure why one would go to a tournament (where the default purpose is to try and win, otherwise why have a tournament?) and expect that people will be not playing to win. >>Further, its mean and rude of me to apply peer pressure in public to people who believe in your Jyhad, so I won't. If thats what you were going for, you win.>> If me winning means that less people are going to be berated for playing the game by the rules, then yaaa! [ quoted text not captured ]

> soon to build another one of those cookie-cutter shambling hordes decks > (they shamble! they stride! they shamble and stride!) How is a shambling hordes deck cookie cutter? Cookie cutter is regurgitating the same ideas over and over as "the way to win". I doubt a shambling hordes deck fits that description. And no, tournaments werent always as you described. For years, Jyhad was such a pocket game that you were lucky to have 5 people within 50 miles of you who played. So tournaments at major cons were more for meeting and playing with new people rather than gotta win gotta win gotta win. Also, we didn't have archetypes per say (I remember the splash weenie voter and weenie presence made the first time they were played...) so creativity and unusuality were the name of the day. Matt

Lot of great points there, both in support and to counter my thoughts. It'll take me some time to digest it all. But... Quoth Derek: As you say yourself, you need long range and a 2nd round EVERY time; that means ten Flashes, or you won't be getting it every time. (THA/CEL by any chance?) End Quoth: Nah. We had a tourney format here abouts some time back that only let you use base set cards. The deck in question was a long range Brujah deck with Sewer lids and Cars and RPG's and such. Was fairly effective and lots of fun. Matt

"Derek Ray" <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:3n47jtcm8pr9rv2rp...@4ax.com... > (idle note: 12 Grapples -does- foil 22 Majesties. Torporized > vampires cannot bleed or play Majesty, and each Grapple usually > results in a torporized vampire.) Ah-yup. :) [snip Spawning Pool variations] > Hm. That sounds amusing. I may try that soon. =) Argh. I tried this recently, and it was waaaaay too reactive. I still won the 4-player game (with 3 VP), but it was just painful, and I didn't win without getting my predator to lay off for an...injudicious (on his part) period. I still love Spawning Pool, but it just doesn't work as well as you want. Xian

> Again, quite all right. That you are assuming that I am a "winning is very > important to me" kind of guy enlightens my understanding of your world view, > however. > Im curious on how your understanding of MY worldview has been enlightened. Please share. > > What I meant is that if I sit down with a well designed deck that is very > effective at getting VPs, and you are my prey, and your deck is very good at > getting out Giovanni Allies, There it is. Decks I play are both unusual AND have a win condition. You can do both. Again you are addressing a rare, fringe situation. > . I'm no more impressed whensomeone kills me with something new than when they > kill me with something old. The fact that you find no additional joy in the creativity of others enlightens me to your worldview. In fact, this is why you and I will never understand each other fully on this topic. Which is all right. > > > >>Why does the stigma exist?>> > > What stigma is that? The stigma of the "cheezy" deck. Why is it prevalent enough to warrant your original posting? I realize you cannot speak definitively on this as it's subjective but I am curious as to your opinion. > > > I'm not quite sure why one would go to a tournament (where the default purpose > is to try and win, otherwise why have a tournament?) and expect that people > will be not playing to win. > You can play to win without being degenerate or uncreative. Further, as I said, in the past tourneys were more made up of people who wanted to meet other people who played this fringe-game than on sacrificing creativity for winning. Back in the day (and yes, I acknowledge gleefully that you've been around as long as I have. Its nice to have company.) you were lucky to have 5 people in your hood who played, so big cons were a chance for fresh air, and lots of people reveled in it. Origins 97 was an absolute ball! Yes, players wanted to win but they were also there to socialize and enjoy the company of people who enjoyed this rare game. At Origins 2k, tables were tense. Tourneys weren't always about Archetypes. In fact, it was a good chance for people to get fresh ideas outside their circles. > > If me winning means that less people are going to be berated for playing the > game by the rules, then yaaa! But it's ok to berate people who feel differently than you for berating people who feel like you do? Matt Who would never have packed my shit and gone when you torporized all my vamps. That was wrong and not indicitive of how people who share my "worldview" act.

"legbiter" <legb...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:68f2e9f8.01062...@posting.google.com... > Well, the trite answer is that i ALWAYS play for fun. And since i like > winning better than losing, i ALWAYS play to win, too. But since there > are things more important than winning - eg one's sense of integrity, > friendship, showing new people the glory of our darkly-majestic game, > not having to sleep in the bath - i won't do ANYTHING to win. But it's An adequate summation of my way of playing as well. Though I don't risk sleeping in the bath, as my girlfriend doesn't play. > If i differ from Peter at all significantly, it's in admitting that i > like best of all to see a card or combo that i'd never have thought of > come up in a game; and perhaps also i'd make a distinction between When does this happen? :) You're worse than I am at looking at all the "worst" cards. > if all your minions are. You are an unimaginably ancient and > indestructible vampire completely above the petty nonsense of sects > and clans, motivated by inhuman notions of hatred, lust and power. All Nicely put. As mentioned, I'm pretty much with Peter on this one...I like winning, it's nice when everyone is aimed at the same goal, but I don't get pissy when I lose...I just think about how I could have played that game better or how I should change the deck to deal with stuff I didn't think about. That being the case, there's definitely something to be said for winning with style, but style should never give way to basic common sense about what the goal of the game is. Xian ...still playing the Tremere...

"Peter D Bakija" <pd...@aol.comANTISPAM> wrote > I agree that S:CE is a questionable > mechanic--it is overpowered, and I would prefer if it worked differently (say, > as Strike: Round Ends instead)--but it is the one we have. Yeah, but what really bothers me is how the rules have come down to give S:CE even more power than it has on its face. I can think of no good reason why S:CE should trump first strike (or how you could dodge first strike for that matter). It just seems that, excepting 3 or 4 cards (Grapple, Thoughts Betrayed, Dog Pack), that mechanic has no limitation, and has been given extra consideration to maximize its power. It's so bad I had to make my own presence bleed deck with 12 or so of the darned things. - Jason Bell

"Robert Goudie" <rrgo...@earthlink.net> wrote > "Matt Latham" <mla...@diamondtoolmfg.com> wrote > > And more cards to back it up. Majesty can stand alone. Grapple cannot. > > And that's majesty's weakness. It does stand alone and can be counted on to be > standing alone in an opponent's deck. Also, needing more cards to back up the > grapple isn't a problem 'cause there's always plenty of those in the deck too > (when you don't limit yourself). :) I couldn't disagree with this sentiment more strongly. Because Majesty (does anybody else always spell that with a g and have to back up?) stands alone, there is all that extra deck space that can be used for cards to win the game, where the poor Grapple deck, after his 12 Grapples, has to pack another 10 undead strengths and then 5 disarms. Soon that deck hasn't any space for anything beyond combat, so it's stuck being a rush deck, while the Majesty deck has probably 10 more slots that would be combat slots if S:CE weren's so degenrate that can be used for actions, modifiers, stealth, intercept, or whatever it needs to accomplish other goals. And let's not even consider that the Grapple deck has to have at least a 2, and probably a 3 card combo in hand to be able to make the Majesty player pay for his one card combat solution. So when it comes right down to it, the only way for a deck to beat S:CE without being a pure combat deck is to block and hope for no Majesty, while keeping a devastating strike in reserve, or strike and hope for no Majesty, keeping the Wolf's Claws for use after you're sure there's no S:CE. That's pretty poor. And I don't even want to get into the extra actions or blocks that Majesty allows at superior. I really believe that S:CE untap this vampire (or continue at +1 stealth) is the most degenerate one card combo in the game (except maybe Grave Robbing), and to have the rulings that help it along is really frustrating. - Jason Bell

"Peter D Bakija" <pd...@aol.comANTISPAM> wrote > Then advocate that the game deisgners fix S:CE (I know I do) or to create more > cards that help deal with S:CE (i.e. increase the number of foils). Don't > belittle opponents who use it. I agree. Lobby for the end of S:CE beats first strike, maybe even for S:CE to end a round, not a combat. To get another sense of how sad the situation is currently, look at Dog Pack. For a retainer that allows ONE of your minions to foil S:CE, you have to give 2 POOL (retainers almost never cost pool), and you have to play Gangrel. That's horrible, considering that the 3 most common S:CE cards cost no blood (unless his Majesty wants to untap), one lets the action continue, and the third untaps the striking vampire for free. I'm looking for something in a common pre-range card that disallows S:CE for the duration of combat, for 1 blood or free. Not sure about discipline, though. If it's 1 blood, there should be no discipline, I figure. - Jason Bell

"Jason Bell" <Jason...@mail.com> wrote in message news:uBQY6.8162$Md.16...@typhoon.southeast.rr.com... > > To get another sense of how sad the situation is currently, > look at Dog Pack. For a retainer that allows ONE of your > minions to foil S:CE, you have to give 2 POOL (retainers > almost never cost pool), and you have to play Gangrel. > > That's horrible, considering that the 3 most common > S:CE cards cost no blood (unless his Majesty wants > to untap), one lets the action continue, and the third > untaps the striking vampire for free. All in all, it's not really that bad. As is, Gangrel combat basically trumps most other combat, so I don't know that the Gangrel *need* to beat S:CE as well. Otherwise, any time a Gangrel blocked basically anyone, it'd be time for another dirtnap. There are methods available to beat S:CE for almost every other clan (count the !clans as same as their parent clan...!Gangrel even sometims have Psyche available...leaving out Caitiff/Panders), even if you leave out Hidden Lurker/Fast Reaction... Assamite - Psyche (a little weak, but acceptable) Brujah - Immortal Grapple *and* Psyche Followers of Set - nothing (they're not much of a combat clan to date, but I'm experimenting) Giovanni - Thoughts Betrayed and Immortal Grapple Lasombra - Thoughts Betrayed and Immortal Grapple Malkavian - Thoughts Betrayed (strong, if expensive) and Telepathic Tracking Nosferatu - Immortal Grapple Ravnos - nothing Toreador - Psyche and Telepathic Tracking Tremere - Telepathic Tracking, Thoughts Betrayed, Perfect Clarity (yum) Tzimisce - Telepathic Tracking Ventrue - Thoughts Betrayed So, the Ravnos and the FoS are really the only ones left out, and their archetypal decks really aren't rush. Sure, there are definitely Ravnos rush decks, and we may see some FoS rush decks in the future, but it's not like they have to depend on combat half of the time (Nosferatu anyone?) to get the job done. > I'm looking for something in a common pre-range card > that disallows S:CE for the duration of combat, for 1 > blood or free. Not sure about discipline, though. If it's > 1 blood, there should be no discipline, I figure. That sounds *way* too powerful, IMO. Currently, all of the discipline-based cards that do this cost at *least* 1 blood, Immortal Grapple being the only exception. And I'm not sure it's that good an idea to begin with...S:CE is definitely very powerful, but I don't know that there need to be that many more cards that outright trump it. And almost certainly not readily available to clans that are *already* really good at combat. I wouldn't have been unhappy to see an Assamite anti-S:CE card, but I'm satisfied with the current state. Xian

In article <BoQY6.8103$Md.16...@typhoon.southeast.rr.com>, Jason Bell <Jason...@mail.com> wrote: >"Robert Goudie" <rrgo...@earthlink.net> wrote >> And that's majesty's weakness. It does stand alone and can be counted on >to be >> standing alone in an opponent's deck. Also, needing more cards to back up >the >> grapple isn't a problem 'cause there's always plenty of those in the deck >too >> (when you don't limit yourself). :) >I couldn't disagree with this sentiment more strongly. Because a smart Toreador player will always pack Flashes on a one-for-one ratio with the Majesties, because we can all SEE those Grapples coming. Pro is actually harder to catch, because it has Earth Meld (like Majesty, but free) and Quickmeld, the best maneuver card in the game (it's two! two! two maneuvers in one card!). But Pro isn't as bleedy as Pre. Anyway, I digress. >Because Majesty (does anybody else always spell that with >a g and have to back up?) stands alone, there is all that >extra deck space that can be used for cards to win the >game, where the poor Grapple deck, after his >12 Grapples, has to pack another 10 undead strengths >and then 5 disarms. Soon that deck hasn't any space >for anything beyond combat, so it's stuck being a rush >deck, while the Majesty deck has probably 10 more slots >that would be combat slots if S:CE weren's so degenrate >that can be used for actions, modifiers, stealth, intercept, >or whatever it needs to accomplish other goals. If you're not planning to fight, why are you trying to catch them? A deck with 12 Grapples and nothing else in the way of combat is a misdesign, as you're better off pitching the Grapples for something useful. Grapple is a support card; it does nothing useful in and of itself, in terms of torping vampires. It gets you a strength-damage handpoke and maybe a press at superior. And if you're not a fighty deck, why worry about Majesty at all? You're not trying to beat anyone's head in, you're trying to do whatever it is your deck does (intercept/ runaway, vote, bleed, corrupt, whatever). Majesty isn't frustrating to you under these circumstances because of SCE, it's frustrating because of the untap (also available with Earth Meld yarra yarra), which sets up extra actions or extra blocks. >And let's >not even consider that the Grapple deck has to have at least >a 2, and probably a 3 card combo in hand to be able to make >the Majesty player pay for his one card combat solution. Not a problem, as the Grapple deck is a fighty rush deck, so it has 90 cards worth of space for its combat solution, whereas the Majesty deck has 10-20 cards of deckspace for its own combat solution. >So when it comes right down to it, the only way for a >deck to beat S:CE without being a pure combat deck >is to block and hope for no Majesty, while keeping a >devastating strike in reserve, or strike and hope for >no Majesty, keeping the Wolf's Claws for use after >you're sure there's no S:CE. That's pretty poor. Or you could just oust it. Decks don't 'beat' SCE. Decks oust players. The only deck SCE stops from gaining VP is a combat deck. Grapples go in combat decks. Grapples stop SCE. A bleed or vote deck couldn't give a good shit about SCE (again, the untaps could be a problem, but SCE isn't), because they aren't looking to get into a fight in the first place. Bleedy decks, of course, can use Thoughts Betrayed (dom:malks, lasombra, ventrue) or The Jones (ser:followers of set) to hose SCE if they find it truly obnoxious -- but they're more likely to find SCE a relief, as it means their vampire won't get beaten up. Yah, there's bruise, but bruise decks will act as combat decks (bringing cards that hose SCE), and have their own card-balance issues (drawing bleed when they want fight and vice versa). >And I don't even want to get into the extra actions >or blocks that Majesty allows at superior. I really >believe that S:CE untap this vampire (or continue >at +1 stealth) is the most degenerate one card combo >in the game (except maybe Grave Robbing), and to have >the rulings that help it along is really frustrating. Oh come on. You hardly ever see Graverobbing played, because it isn't a freaking one-card combo. It kind of requires a torporized vampire and stealth. Who has dominate and stealth? Malks, who can't fight, and Lasombra, who can. Once Lasombra assault-and-robbery decks start dominating the tourney scene, I'll start to fret about Graverobbing, but excuse me for not breaking into a cold sweat just now. Also, there haven't _been_ any rulings that increase Majesty's power, or the power of SCE in general. It works as it always has. gomi -- Yes, I believe but I'd rather not pray What I believe in I'd rather not say, baby

In article <y4RY6.1518$7H4.3...@news.uswest.net>, Xian <xi...@NOSPAMwaste.org> wrote: >Followers of Set - nothing (they're not much of a combat clan to date, >but I'm experimenting) The Jones! You forgot The Jones! >So, the Ravnos and the FoS are really the only ones left out, and their >archetypal decks really aren't rush. Sure, there are definitely Ravnos >rush decks, and we may see some FoS rush decks in the future, but it's >not like they have to depend on combat half of the time (Nosferatu >anyone?) to get the job done. Ravnoids have decent intercept makings, so their SCE thing might just be having the other guy strike first. >That sounds *way* too powerful, IMO. Currently, all of the >discipline-based cards that do this cost at *least* 1 blood, Immortal >Grapple being the only exception. And The Jones, which is only usable on younger vamps. Which is kind of a kick in the nuts for Aabbt Kindred Rush decks, but you were going to have to layer a Ser card on them so they could use TJ superior anyhow, so you can spank the 4-and-under crowd. >I wouldn't have been unhappy to see an Assamite >anti-S:CE card, but I'm satisfied with the current state. Originally, I would have agreed, but now they're just so damn scary against everything _except_ SCE that I think their options should stay limited to Psyche! and Hidden Lurker with the occasional Fast Reaction chucked in. Assamites with a good SCE hoser would just be horribly unstoppable. [ quoted text not captured ]

Joshua Duffin wrote: > It really is all relative, you know. I would agree with that. While I understand where he's coming from, I don't get as offended as Matt does when someone plays a deck with 18 S:CE cards in it. After all, if my deck isn't combat based, it's no skin off my back if they end combat and save a blood from my vampire. On the other hand, if my deck is combat based, or has a strong combat element to it, I'll build it as if every time I enter combat, the other player has an S:CE (or Big Strike of Doom) to play. Most importantly, people are always going to have vastly different priorities and values. Some players are etiher too inexperienced or uncreative to expand beyond basic stealth-bleed and vote decks. Rather than get upset, I just try to lead by example. (merrily stealing and/or burning their vampires, locations, whatever isn't nailed down) I actually admire Peter for making rush combat a competitive strategy. Lord knows it's not easy. While a simple strategy is often the most effective one, I endeavor to find bizarre combos that nobody typically has a defense for in order to win. > At the Northeast Regionals I met Remy from Quebec playing a deck that intended > to put Fortitude skill cards on other people's vampires, then Mind Rape them, > Rave all but one of their blood off, and Force of Will/Daring the Dawn to bleed > unblockably and burn them. To someone who's never thought of this, it's a > brilliant and hilarious combo. But I remembered having read about the concept > a few months back on the newsgroup (Noal was talking about a > possibly-somewhat-different variant on it, I think) It started out as a Setite-based stratgey, but the thread eventually settled on a Giovanni implementation of the above combo being the best one. However, I waited until Final Nights to release the deck that made use of it (See the "Raped, Raved and Razed" deck posted earlier this month) as the existing card set didn't quite have the cards and vampires to pull it off effectively, IMO. Puppeteer was a huge boost to this deck. (Come here, y'little weenie bastard. I got a job for ya.) > and so although I thought it was kinda cool that he'd actually built and played > such a deck, I wasn't especially amazed by his creativity. Plagiarism!!! *grin* Actually, I'd be impressed anyway if he never read the newsgroup. Btw, how did he do with it? Regards, Noal

Gomi no Sensei wrote: > Oh come on. You hardly ever see Graverobbing played, You've obviously never played in Detroit. Everything is fair game for stealing. > It kind of requires a torporized vampire and stealth. Who > has dominate and stealth? Why do you need stealth? If you just sent one of their vampires to torpor, what makes you think they'll want to block and risk another vampire joining them. > Malks, who can't fight, Again, you've obviously never played in Detroit. Between Legbiter's Malk OOT Combat deck, a number of Thought's Betrayed/Disguised Weapon based decks, etc., I've seen my share of scary Malk combat decks. Very often, they involve sending a vampire to torpor, Graverobbing it and then giving everyone a chance to but it back with Malk Time Auction. > and Lasombra, who can. Once Lasombra assault-and-robbery > decks start dominating the tourney scene, I'll start > to fret about Graverobbing, Problem with Lasombra is that they don't have very many small cap vampires. It's really hard to spend that much pool on a combat machine when combat is a dicey game to begin with. One of these days, I'm going to force myself to sit down and do a decent Pitch deck with the Lasombra. Regards, Noal

On Fri, 22 Jun 2001 16:34:26 -0500, "Xian" <xi...@NOSPAMwaste.org> wrote: >[snip Spawning Pool variations] >> Hm. That sounds amusing. I may try that soon. =) > >Argh. I tried this recently, and it was waaaaay too reactive. I still >won the 4-player game (with 3 VP), but it was just painful, and I didn't >win without getting my predator to lay off for an...injudicious (on his >part) period. I still love Spawning Pool, but it just doesn't work as >well as you want. Well, that's why I shifted to the idea of just leaving the Pool out there as a Big Ugly Threat. Sewer Lids provide a press at superior, so you can always consider that option. People bleeding you will start to think twice after four counters get on the Pool. =) -- Derek

"Gomi no Sensei" <go...@best.com> wrote > > The Jones! You forgot The Jones! Also, all Methuselahs have access to Direct Intervention. Not cheap, and not that practical against cheezy, degenerate 22 Majesty decks, but I submit it as an option. > >I wouldn't have been unhappy to see an Assamite > >anti-S:CE card, but I'm satisfied with the current state. > > Originally, I would have agreed, but now they're just so damn scary > against everything _except_ SCE that I think their options should > stay limited to Psyche! and Hidden Lurker with the occasional > Fast Reaction chucked in. Assamites with a good SCE hoser would just > be horribly unstoppable. I agree. The problems Assamites have with S:CE seem somewhat appropriate now that they kick some major booty. Also, Thin Blood while not exactly hosing S:CE, does get in its damage before S:CE takes place. It's not an Immortal Grapple, but it does count for something I think. The main problem that they seem to suffer from is playing seven nasty and costly cards *before* their opponent plays S:CE. Sure you can play Psyche! but then you have to play *another* seven nasty and costly cards. I still think Animalism deserves a nice, albeit rare or costly, anti-S:CE card. Even something similar to Thin Blood would be welcome. Cheers, WES

"Peter D Bakija" <pd...@aol.comANTISPAM> wrote > > >>You acknowledge that you've been told "fuck you" on occasion? Why?>> > > The only time I can recall is at a large tournament at Origins one year, I sat > down with my Nosferatu Rush deck, and my prey was a Malkavian S+B deck. I > torporized every vampire he brough out before it took a single action (as he > had exactly zero combat defense), and after killing 4 or 5 of his vampires, he > picked up his stuff, quit the game, and flipped me the bird (he never actually > said "Fuck You"). I wasn't rude, unsportsman like, or in any way pricky. I just > played the game according to the rules, and my opponent was unhappy with how it > turned out. Is it just my experience, or are the players who are most likely to sit down with a Malk S+B deck also the most likely to react in this manner? I'm not implying that Malk S+B decks are broken, or that anyone that plays them is a sore loser, too competitive, etc... Just a disturbing trend I've noticed (though more in the old Jyhad days). Cheers, WES

Matt wrote: >>Im curious on how your understanding of MY worldview has been enlightened. Please share.>> Well, you made wild assumptions about me based on my posting to the effect that I liked playing with decks that can win, and I like when my opponents play with decks that can win and try to win. Thus, by getting a glimpse at your want to assume, and what your assumptions were, I get a glimpse at your views of the world (or at least the world of VTES). >>There it is. Decks I play are both unusual AND have a win condition. You can do both. Again you are addressing a rare, fringe situation.>> Just as an example. I have no desire to quash creativity in any way, shape, or form. I just also have no desire to quash competition in the name of creativity. Calling people "cheesy" for using decks that are too effective, or calling their decks degenerate in a vain attempt to get them to make decks more to *my* liking accomplishes nothing but pissing people off. I'd much rather be graciously killed by a deck I was unprepared for than go off saying "if he wasn't playing such a cheesy deck, he wouldn't have got me..." >>The fact that you find no additional joy in the creativity of others enlightens me to your worldview. In fact, this is why you and I will never understand each other fully on this topic. Which is all right.>> I certainly enjoy the creativity of others--I simply don't hold it against them when they don't live up to my expectations of creativity. >>The stigma of the "cheezy" deck. Why is it prevalent enough to warrant your original posting? I realize you cannot speak definitively on this as it's subjective but I am curious as to your opinion.>> Why do I think people are offended by "cheesy" decks? There are plently of reasons. They don't understand the game enough to see that there are ways to combat such decks, and that they are self regulating. They think that seeing the same card over and over again is boring. They are sick of their "fun" decks getting killed before they get to do anything. They think that card limits make the game a better place without realizing that card limits make certain deck strategies overly powerful and other deck strategies unplayable, and attempt to use peer pressure to fix the problems caused, rather than simply playing by the rules the game was designed for. I'm not saying that you fit under any of these categories necessarily, but they are reasons I have come across that result in the "cheezy" stigma. >>You can play to win without being degenerate or uncreative.>> And this goes back to what is degenerate and what is uncreative? You clearly have a defenition for these words in your mind, and don't like it when people fulfil these defenitions. I don't believe in a "degenerate" deck, and I find well designed decks to be creative. Thus, when someone wins with a well designed deck, regardless of what it does, they are, in my mind, playing to win without being degenerate or uncreative. >>Further, as I said, in the past tourneys were more made up of people who wanted to meet other people who played this fringe-game than on sacrificing creativity for winning.>> Again, making well designed decks is creative. How is this sacrificing creativity for winning? >>Back in the day (and yes, I acknowledge gleefully that you've been around as long as I have. Its nice to have company.) you were lucky to have 5 people in your hood who played, so big cons were a chance for fresh air, and lots of people reveled in it. Origins 97 was an absolute ball! >> Yeah, I think that is when the guy flipped me the bird. That might have been '98. Was the tournament in '97 at some rediculously late hour on Friday night? No, that was probably '96. I think '96 was the year that one of my opponents was a new player with a borrowed deck, so I very carefully told her how to kill me, so she did. Consequently, she got into the finals instead of me, and I think she ended up winning. That was really funny :-) >>Yes, players wanted to win but they were also there to socialize and enjoy the company of people who enjoyed this rare game.>> Every tournament I have been to, ever, has been like this. VTES players are, for the most part, a very amiable group. I always have a good time at tournaments. Yeah, one time Alex Harmon Mind Raped my Marty Lechtansi and killed me with him. And one time this guy Nate totally swarmed me over with weenie vote vampires that I couldn't stop. And I appreciated the creativity in their deck designs. Even the ones that did the exact same thing over and over again. And I thanked them for playing. >>But it's ok to berate people who feel differently than you for berating people who feel like you do?>> Yup. I'm clearly an internet trouble maker. [ quoted text not captured ]

Jason wrote: >>Because Majesty (does anybody else always spell that with a g and have to back up?) stands alone, there is all that extra deck space that can be used for cards to win the game, where the poor Grapple deck, after his 12 Grapples, has to pack another 10 undead strengths and then 5 disarms.>> But the cards that help him win the game don't do any good when his vampires are dead. >>Soon that deck hasn't any space for anything beyond combat, so it's stuck being a rush deck,>> Unless you are a Rush deck, why do you care if your opponent is playing Majesty? Unless combat is critical to your deck's sucess, your opponent Majestying has no bearing on you--yeah, he gets to pay 1 blood to untap, but he can't repeat his action at you, so what is he gonna do? If combat *is* critical to the functioning of your deck, use cards to get around Majesty, and assume that your opponent will always be able to play one. >>while the Majesty deck has probably 10 more slots that would be combat slots if S:CE weren's so degenrate that can be used for actions, modifiers, stealth, intercept, or whatever it needs to accomplish other goals.>> And again, if his vampires are dead, he can't use any of this to his advantage. If you want his vampires dead, use cards that defeat Majesty. If you don't care if his vampires are dead, the Majesties have no effect on you. >>And let's not even consider that the Grapple deck has to have at least a 2, and probably a 3 card combo in hand to be able to make the Majesty player pay for his one card combat solution.>> If you are playing a Rush deck, your deck exists to put people in Torpor. That is what the deck does. You rush someone and kill them. If you can neutralize their S:CE cards (IG, TB, Psyche, Telepathic Tracking, Dog Pack), all the Majesties in the world won't save them, and if their vampires are dead, all those extra card slots don't help them at all. >>So when it comes right down to it, the only way for a deck to beat S:CE without being a pure combat deck>> And unless you are a pure combat deck, why do you care if they Majesty? [ quoted text not captured ]

"Gomi no Sensei" <go...@best.com> wrote > Jason Bell <Jason...@mail.com> wrote > >And I don't even want to get into the extra actions > >or blocks that Majesty allows at superior. I really > >believe that S:CE untap this vampire (or continue > >at +1 stealth) is the most degenerate one card combo > >in the game (except maybe Grave Robbing), and to have > >the rulings that help it along is really frustrating. > > Oh come on. You hardly ever see Graverobbing played, > because it isn't a freaking one-card combo. It kind > of requires a torporized vampire and stealth. Who > has dominate and stealth? Malks, who can't fight, > and Lasombra, who can. Once Lasombra assault-and-robbery > decks start dominating the tourney scene, I'll start > to fret about Graverobbing, but excuse me for not > breaking into a cold sweat just now. In my games, there always seems to be at least one decent combat deck, so somebody's bound to be in torpor. Grave Robbing is a bit opportunistic, thus minimizing its degeneracy, but often useful, and gives you a free minion who costs 0 pool. > Also, there haven't _been_ any rulings that increase > Majesty's power, or the power of SCE in general. > It works as it always has. Oh well, I just pulled out the original Jyhad rulebook, and there it is, on page 36. You're right, S:CE has always been as stupid as it is right now. - Jason Bell

go...@best.com (Gomi no Sensei) wrote: >Also, there haven't _been_ any rulings that increase >Majesty's power, or the power of SCE in general. >It works as it always has. Sure there have. Once upon a time, Immortal Grapple lasted the entire combat. Once upon a time, Drawing Out the Beast hurt even if you CombatEnded. S:CE was certainly strengthened by those two rulings. ----------------------------------------------------------- Johan Lundstrom <jo...@algonet.se> "Knowledge is power. Power corrupts."

On 23 Jun 2001 06:00:06 GMT, pd...@aol.comANTISPAM (Peter D Bakija) wrote: >>>So when it comes right down to it, the only way for a >deck to beat S:CE without being a pure combat deck>> > >And unless you are a pure combat deck, why do you care if they Majesty? Interestingly, even my bruise/bleed decks aren't too frightened about someone packing Majesty. Since I normally design them in the form of "bleed for 1, block? no? modifier for 3...", I'm not wasting any of my precious bleed when they block and Majesty. All I'm doing is removing one from their hand. The concept of "they'll run out" is VASTLY underrated by today's players, I have to say. They WILL run out. Even a PRE weenie horde will run out. It's not that they'll run out in their deck, it's that they'll run out in their HAND. Majesty is a standalone trick. Every combat, to a Majesty deck, is a one-card affair. As a result, they don't get to move any cards, and if they only have one Majesty in hand, they have a less-than-50% chance of drawing up another Majesty. Everyone hear me out there? LESS than 50%. If you have 22 Majesties in a 90-card deck, and you have one in your hand, the chances of you drawing up another one are 21/83. That's approximately 25%. Even in a 60-card deck, it's still only 21/53... which is still only 39.6%. If you could find a roulette wheel in Vegas where your odds of winning were 60.4% on every spin, you would have to be pried away from it with a crowbar, wouldn't you? If you have 10 Majesties in a 90-card deck, and you have one in your hand, the chances go down to 9/83, which is pretty damn small. If you put such a deck in a situation where it needs to play 3 per turn, then you WILL, eventually, catch them... and it WILL happen sooner than you think. -- Derek

On Sat, 23 Jun 2001 01:00:23 -0400, "Wes" <gh...@NOSPAMmnsi.net> wrote: >I still think Animalism deserves a nice, albeit rare or costly, anti-S:CE >card. Even something similar to Thin Blood would be welcome. As if Trap/Carrion Crows/Song of Serenity, with Aid from Bats as necessary, wasn't enough already? Animalism combat is some of the nastiest FREE stuff out there right now. They require no assistance. =) -- Derek

In message <y4RY6.1518$7H4.3...@news.uswest.net>, Xian <xi...@NOSPAMwaste.org> writes >Malkavian - Thoughts Betrayed (strong, if expensive) and Telepathic >Tzimisce - Telepathic Tracking Don't forget that both of these have the (admittedly limited option) of out of turn rotschreck types. (Other decks also have that, I pick these as the two best examples of the ones in there.) -- James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D "You reinstall Dial-Up Networking. The Elf screams and becomes EBD690ECD7A1F an icon. *** CONGRATULATIONS! *** You completed the BT Internet B457CA213D7E6 Helpdesk training course in 15 out of a possible 9000 moves." 68C3695D623D5D

In message <uBQY6.8162$Md.16...@typhoon.southeast.rr.com>, Jason Bell <Jason...@mail.com> writes >To get another sense of how sad the situation is currently, >look at Dog Pack. For a retainer that allows ONE of your >minions to foil S:CE, you have to give 2 POOL (retainers >almost never cost pool), and you have to play Gangrel. Consider this hypothetical situation: We're back at Jyhad, nothing else EXCEPT bleed is doing exceptionally well, because the designers didn't think about putting bleed bounce in. So, we're now printing a hypothetical V:TES. We decide to put a bleed bounce type card in for it. Here it is: Bleed Bounce Master: Out-Of-Turn 2 pool Play this card when a minion is bleeding you. Tap an untapped vampire you control with a capacity above four. That minion is now bleeding a Methuselah of your choice (which may not be you or its controller). Now, we'd still have over-powered bleed, but citing Bleed Bounce regarding it wouldn't be the best thing to do. Bleed would be over-powered, but Bleed Bounce would be underpowered. In the current situation, that's basically what we have. Assume that S:CE is too powerful. (People can argue about that, of course, but let's just assume it.) Dog Pack is *under*powered. Dog Pack, were LSJ and the current Design Team writing it *today*, might read: Dog Pack Retainer 2 blood Requires Gangrel Any minion in combat with the Gangrel with this retainer may not use "combat ends" as a strike. Were we re-writing Jyhad from the ground up today, I think many of us would tend towards the suggestion that a number of people (I think Peter was the first one I recall seriously mentioning it, way back in the mists of time) have made, making it round ends. But Dog Pack is just weak. It being weak doesn't prove anything about S:CE. It just proves designers make mistakes. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <bf72a12e.01062...@posting.google.com>, Ben Peal <fu...@optical.mindstorm.com> writes >In Boston, we like to play both for "fun" and to "win". However, >we've found that it's no fun for anyone if we get a table of mixed >"fun" decks and tournament-caliber decks. The best thing to do, IME, is play the "fun" deck a few times, run through it with lots of hypothetical draws etc. and graft it down into a viable deck, too. That's how some of the best, most exciting, most creative, most innovative decks turn up. An initial Malk OOT Rotschreck deck that we might build first off would be pretty crappy, but consistent tweaking and plugging gets it up to the hugely intelligent deck it is today. [ quoted text not captured ]

"Derek Ray" <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:hb88jtkucnha1f1ro...@4ax.com... > On Fri, 22 Jun 2001 16:34:26 -0500, "Xian" <xi...@NOSPAMwaste.org> > wrote: > > >[snip Spawning Pool variations] > Well, that's why I shifted to the idea of just leaving the Pool out > there as a Big Ugly Threat. Sewer Lids provide a press at superior, Oh yeah, but even with Tier of Souls, Owl Companion, etc. it just wasn't going forward fast enough for me. Of course, I suppose that I had Tzimisce in front of me, so I wasn't *too* excited about getting into combat, but still. > so you can always consider that option. People bleeding you will > start to think twice after four counters get on the Pool. =) I managed to get it off once or twice, but...argh. Too slow. Then again, when I built my Nosferatu ToGP deck, I found myself wanting rush a lot. Maybe that's just the kind of guy I am. :) Xian

In article <3b3498c0...@news.algonet.se>, Johan Lundstrom <jo...@algonet.se> wrote: >go...@best.com (Gomi no Sensei) wrote: > >>Also, there haven't _been_ any rulings that increase >>Majesty's power, or the power of SCE in general. >>It works as it always has. > >Sure there have. Once upon a time, Immortal Grapple lasted the entire >combat. Once upon a time, Drawing Out the Beast hurt even if you >CombatEnded. S:CE was certainly strengthened by those two rulings. <shrug> so was Dodge. so was pressing. so was second-round combat. I can't really call rulings that tone down overpowered cards rulings that specifically strengthen SCE; the overpowered combat cards (old grapple, old DotB) get toned down, and the rest of the field rises slightly as a result. Not exactly the same thing as a ruling saying "SCE is now stronger." [ quoted text not captured ]

"Peter D Bakija" <pd...@aol.comANTISPAM> wrote in message news:20010623015717...@ng-cb1.aol.com... > And this goes back to what is degenerate and what is uncreative? You clearly > have a defenition for these words in your mind, and don't like it when people > fulfil these defenitions. I don't believe in a "degenerate" deck, and I find > well designed decks to be creative. Thus, when someone wins with a well I think that it would be useful to post strict the strict definition of degenerate here. Degenerate, as far as CCGs goes (and biology stuff, in some fashion), refers to the use of a single card, or a few cards in large numbers. A weenie presence bleed deck might fairly be called degenerate, in that you expect to see a lot of Majesty, a lot of presence bleed, and maybe a few Tribute to the Master, Misdirection, or Mind Numb. It's not hard to make this sort of degenerate deck in Jyhad. However, a large portion of gamers have also attached the connotation of "unbeatable" to the word degenerate. This sort of "degeneracy" in Jyhad is almost (if not completely) impossible to build. Weenie presence bleed isn't unbeatable. You just have to prepare for it. > Yeah, I think that is when the guy flipped me the bird. That might have been > '98. Was the tournament in '97 at some rediculously late hour on Friday night? > No, that was probably '96. I think '96 was the year that one of my opponents > was a new player with a borrowed deck, so I very carefully told her how to kill > me, so she did. Consequently, she got into the finals instead of me, and I > think she ended up winning. That was really funny :-) I think this story alone adequately demonstrates that you aren't a "win at any cost" guy. Heh. > Yup. I'm clearly an internet trouble maker. I thought it was "internet psycho." :P Xian

"Derek Ray" <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote [specious math argument deleted] > If you have 10 Majesties in a 90-card deck, and you have one in your > hand, the chances go down to 9/83, which is pretty damn small. If you > put such a deck in a situation where it needs to play 3 per turn, then > you WILL, eventually, catch them... and it WILL happen sooner than you > think. Of course, 3 per turn is a best case scenario. Only on defense can you get cards out of their hand at that rate. If they block, they get to look at your strike, then decide whether their dwindling supply of S:CE is worth the use. Also, the reason your otherwise sound math argument is not quite spot on is that the Majesty deck will be cycling cards at a normal rate, so that 25% chance to refresh into one increases rapidly as other cards are played, like masters, intercept, discard phase, what have you. Finally, it's hard to understate the importance of table dynamics in the presence of Majesty as well. If the table is light on Grapples (or the other few S:CE foils), it doesn't matter if the Majesty player is overdogging, as the combat decks do not want to waste cross-table actions on something that most likely won't even tap the problem minion. Don't believe it doesn't happen, I've been on both sides of it, with my FoS deck that no one would step in front of and my buddy's prince deck that no one would help out against. Mid-game actions need tangible results, and getting the next Majesty out of a player's hand is a tough sell. All I'm saying is that S:CE is a 12-20 card combat solution, that has far fewer downsides than almost any other combat strategy (Grapple costs 40 cards, weapons cost a lot of pool and actions to put into play, consistent agg damage requires Gangrel, Thoughts Betrayed costs 2 off the vampire before you even fight, yadda yadda yadda). And when you also consider how few foils there are to it compared to the other options (maneuver out of Grapple, weapons can be stolen or destroyed though not often, Gangrel's agg can be stopped by casual Fortitude), then you start to see how this is a problem: A complete combat solution with a minimum of foils for under 20 cards, with the enormous untap advantage thrown in to boot. And the solution is not a rare 2 pool retainer for one clan only. That card's cost, rarity, and effect show me clearly that the design team doesn't see S:CE as the problem I think it is, and that's discouraging. - Jason Bell

"Derek Ray" <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote "Wes" <gh...@NOSPAMmnsi.net> > wrote: > > >I still think Animalism deserves a nice, albeit rare or costly, anti-S:CE > >card. Even something similar to Thin Blood would be welcome. > > As if Trap/Carrion Crows/Song of Serenity, with Aid from Bats as > necessary, wasn't enough already? Animalism combat is some of the > nastiest FREE stuff out there right now. They require no assistance. Ironic that you mention 4 Animalism combat cards, all of which have to be played before strike announcement, which means a total hosing if the opposing minion S:CE out of it. Ha ha, you just wasted 3 or 4 cards to my 1, and I think I'll untap. Carrion Crows is a great card, but no match for Majesty. Here's an unrelated question. If I Aid from Bats at superior, and my opponent maneuvers back and plays Grapple, I understand that I don't get to strike. But do I get the press, or is it also lost? - Jason Bell

On Sat, 23 Jun 2001 19:14:46 GMT, "Jason Bell" <Jason...@mail.com> wrote: >"Derek Ray" <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote > >> If you have 10 Majesties in a 90-card deck, and you have one in your >> hand, the chances go down to 9/83, which is pretty damn small. If you >> put such a deck in a situation where it needs to play 3 per turn, then >> you WILL, eventually, catch them... and it WILL happen sooner than you >> think. > >Of course, 3 per turn is a best case scenario. Only on defense can >you get cards out of their hand at that rate. If they block, they >get to look at your strike, then decide whether their dwindling >supply of S:CE is worth the use. No, it's a perfectly normal scenario. If you are playing a combat deck, you can guarantee that EVERY action will be one they need to S:CE for. If you are playing a bruise and bleed deck, either you can do almost as well, or you didn't put enough "bruise" in. As far as the "bruise" goes, well, if you rely too much on "before range" cards or Really Expensive Strikes(tm), then you'll get what you deserve. Nobody said it would be easy to play Burning Wrath, or that Carrion Crows/Scorpion Sting should be THAT powerful. If you aren't playing a deck where combat is a major factor, why do you care if someone plays S:CE? >Also, the reason your otherwise sound math argument is not >quite spot on is that the Majesty deck will be cycling cards >at a normal rate, so that 25% chance to refresh into one >increases rapidly as other cards are played, like masters, >intercept, discard phase, what have you. Masters, intercept, discard phase, ...all not relevant, since you're beating the hell out of the Majesty deck on YOUR turn, when he can't actually move any of those cards (especially the intercept, since you're taking a bunch of 0-stealth actions). As I stated above, he will be playing one card per combat... so my numbers are, in fact, completely valid. Reworking your deck to make use of Haven Uncovered is also an excellent option. If you are blocking them, then it doesn't matter, since your intent was to stop the action anyway. Again, this sheds light on a major V:TES misconception: that defensive intercept should be about killing something. It shouldn't. It should be about stopping the action, and only THEN about killing something as an incentive to not take the action again. >Finally, it's hard to understate the importance of table >dynamics in the presence of Majesty as well. If the table >is light on Grapples (or the other few S:CE foils), it >doesn't matter if the Majesty player is overdogging, >as the combat decks do not want to waste cross-table >actions on something that most likely won't even tap >the problem minion. Don't believe it doesn't happen, >I've been on both sides of it, with my FoS deck that >no one would step in front of and my buddy's prince >deck that no one would help out against. Mid-game >actions need tangible results, and getting the next >Majesty out of a player's hand is a tough sell. Nobody was suggesting that you should attempt to recruit the entire table to your side. I'm saying that you should be able to break through a Majesty deck by sheer force of numbers, if you have enough combat in your deck. A deck with 22 Majesties is its own downside - what does it do when it doesn't sit next to combat, or sits next to someone whose defense is "Deflect, bloat, and ignore"? >All I'm saying is that S:CE is a 12-20 card combat >solution, that has far fewer downsides than almost >any other combat strategy (Grapple costs 40 cards, >weapons cost a lot of pool and actions to put into >play, consistent agg damage requires Gangrel, >Thoughts Betrayed costs 2 off the vampire >before you even fight, yadda yadda yadda). Nobody is saying that S:CE isn't good. However, I simply don't think it's overpowered anymore, even Majesty. There is just too much combat out there in the game, and people are beginning to realize that the idea of "combat defense" is silly on the face of it; it's more worth your time to put in some cards that allow you to hit back. The more people in a game that are trying to hit you, the less useful S:CE becomes. >And when you also consider how few foils >there are to it compared to the other options >(maneuver out of Grapple, weapons can be >stolen or destroyed though not often, >Gangrel's agg can be stopped by casual Fortitude), >then you start to see how this is a problem: >A complete combat solution with a minimum of >foils for under 20 cards, with the enormous >untap advantage thrown in to boot. Complete combat solution EXCEPT for when you sit next to the Grapple deck. Or when you sit next to the Tzimisce intercept deck. Or when you sit next to the Animalism untap wall. Or when you have the Protean weenie-poke-horde behind you. Or when you have the Tremere chucking around Thoughts Betrayed. Or when you sit behind the deck that just Deflects all your bleeds, plays Minion Tap/5th, and ignores you completely. Majesty comes with its own risks. Relying on it, and it alone in a deck will work sometimes, and get you very dead other times. Again, sheer weight of numbers is frequently enough to handle the problem. Not to mention that the untap advantage is nice, but hardly overpowering. So you bleed me for 3, I block you, and you untap. Now what are you going to do? You can't bleed again. If you're the Ventrue, you can call a vote, but now your deck is RELYING on having all its bleed actions blocked so you can cycle the Majesties and get to your vote cards. What will you do if the vote gets blocked? You won't be able to play any of your vote cards. What will you do if someone just ignores the bleed action, or Deflects it? You'll be stuck with a bunch of votes in hand. >And the solution is not a rare 2 pool retainer >for one clan only. That card's cost, rarity, and >effect show me clearly that the design team >doesn't see S:CE as the problem I think it is, >and that's discouraging. This paragraph shows me clearly that you don't understand the current state of the game all too well. That's also discouraging. Dog Pack was printed in Ancient Hearts, several years ago. This is also the set that gave us Return to Innocence, so there's no question that the design team for AH was smoking crack at least part of the time. But what makes you think that the design team for AH bears even the remotest relation to the current design team? And what decks are you so worried about that aren't getting their fair shake against S:CE? The reason weapons are so hard to use isn't S:CE; it's that they cost pool and an action, and the action is interceptable. Big emphasis on "the action is interceptable". -- Derek

On Sat, 23 Jun 2001 19:22:02 GMT, "Jason Bell" <Jason...@mail.com> wrote: >"Derek Ray" <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote >> >> As if Trap/Carrion Crows/Song of Serenity, with Aid from Bats as >> necessary, wasn't enough already? Animalism combat is some of the >> nastiest FREE stuff out there right now. They require no assistance. > >Ironic that you mention 4 Animalism combat cards, all of which have >to be played before strike announcement, which means a total >hosing if the opposing minion S:CE out of it. Ha ha, you just wasted >3 or 4 cards to my 1, and I think I'll untap. Carrion Crows is a great >card, but no match for Majesty. You are totally, TOTALLY missing the point. Trap/CC/Song is an extremely powerful combo. All the cards are free. All the cards can be cycled easily (playable before range). It hoses Dodge. It hoses most "poke-for-1" agg decks. It hoses Fortitude (can't prevent Crows with Skin of Steel). It will make most combat decks pay for entering combat at all, and with the Aid from Bats, it's entirely possible to escape unscathed by pressing to end, if you need. If S:CE didn't exist, Trap/CC/Song would be ridiculously overpowered. As it stands now, S:CE provides a welcome alternative to including enough ranged combat to hit back at a Trap/CC/Song deck, or to including enough maneuvers to catch them and THEN hit them back. Making combat balanced with S:CE means that combat should win 50% of the time, and S:CE should win 50% of the time, NOT that combat should win 100% of the time. >Here's an unrelated question. If I Aid from Bats at superior, >and my opponent maneuvers back and plays Grapple, I understand >that I don't get to strike. But do I get the press, or is it also >lost? Your press is still there for your use. -- Derek

Jason wrote: >>Also, the reason your otherwise sound math argument is not quite spot on is that the Majesty deck will be cycling cards at a normal rate, so that 25% chance to refresh into one increases rapidly as other cards are played, like masters, intercept, discard phase, what have you.>> They won't be cycling cards in combat--if they have 1 Majesty in their hand when you get in a fight on a given turn, and they play it, they are unlikely to draw a second from the single card they play (the Majesty). >>All I'm saying is that S:CE is a 12-20 card combat solution, that has far fewer downsides than almost any other combat strategy (Grapple costs 40 cards, weapons cost a lot of pool and actions to put into play, consistent agg damage requires Gangrel, Thoughts Betrayed costs 2 off the vampire before you even fight, yadda yadda yadda).>> No one is debating that S:CE is incredibly efficient, and possibly overpowered. If that is your angle, then yes, you are correct. However, as I mentioned elsewhere, if you are playing a deck that cares if your opponent plays a Majesty, you play with ways to foil the Majesty. Otherwise, you don't care. The only decks that really care if their opponent plays a Majesty is a Rush deck (as pretty much every attack you make needs to result in a dead vampire, or you will fail), and they are good at foiling Majesty (IG, TB, Psyche, Dog Pack, whatever)--otherwise they aren't going to work anyway. Any other deck just isn't going to care if you Majesty--you block someone (or they block you), you attempt to punch them for 1, they Majesty. The end result is that you are up one blood--you weren't going to be doing much damage to them anyways, so how does it matter if they play the Majesty? >>And when you also consider how few foils there are to it compared to the other options (maneuver out of Grapple, weapons can be stolen or destroyed though not often, Gangrel's agg can be stopped by casual Fortitude), then you start to see how this is a problem: A complete combat solution with a minimum of foils for under 20 cards, with the enormous untap advantage thrown in to boot.>> But it isn't even close to a complete combat solution--decks that plan on gaining an advantage from killing things *need* to have S:CE foils inherrent in their design. Against such a deck, someone with 20 Majesties is still going to be killed. On the other hand, if you aren't using S:CE foils, then you should expect that your opponent will play S:CE, and thus not care about combat. When I play my Rush deck, I hope, no, pray that my opponents will be playing decks that have 20 Majesties in them. That is because it is a dedicated combat deck that laughs at Majesty. On the other hand, when I play my Protean bleed deck, I still hope that my opponent is playing with 20 Majesties 'cause, well, I just don't care--I have no interest in fighting them anyways. I agree that the entire combat environment in VTES is, pretty much, either "play S:CE, or play anti S:CE", but that is what we have until something changes it (and I'd be happy if something did, but until then, this is what we've got). In such an environment, half assed combat simply isn't worth playing--if you can't deal with S:CE, don't commit much deck space to combat offense, as you will be asking to be screwed. For instance, if you are playing, say, a Gangrel wall deck, if you aren't going to be using multiple Dog packs, it would be foolish to include more than a handfull of Bone Spurs. Sure, sometimes you'll get to poke someone in the eye, but often your opponent will just play S:CE. As this is going to happen, don't build your deck such that it you will spend a great deal of time saying "Man. If only they hadn't played that Majesty. Now my hand is gummed up..." [ quoted text not captured ]

Xian wrote: >>I think that it would be useful to post strict the strict definition of degenerate here. Degenerate, as far as CCGs goes (and biology stuff, in some fashion), refers to the use of a single card, or a few cards in large numbers.>> While from what I understand, the term "degenerate" has some sort of scientific use that involves continious repetition (Hey! I learned something from Andrew!), as far as I can tell, the common use of "degenerate" in CCGs generally means "That's a deck that I don't like playing against, and you are an uncreative loser for playing with it". >>A weenie presence bleed deck might fairly be called degenerate, in that you expect to see a lot of Majesty, a lot of presence bleed, and maybe a few Tribute to the Master, Misdirection, or Mind Numb. It's not hard to make this sort of degenerate deck in Jyhad.>> By the scientific defenition, I suppose that such a deck is "degenerate", but I'd guess more likely than not, most folks who use the term "degenerate" are thinking more in terms of the defenition that I provided above :-) [ quoted text not captured ]

> > And what decks are you so worried about that aren't getting their fair > shake against S:CE? The reason weapons are so hard to use isn't S:CE; > it's that they cost pool and an action, and the action is > interceptable. Big emphasis on "the action is interceptable". > > -- Derek This is a key and fundemental fact of Jyhad that is easy to miss... not only does gear cost pool, it costs an action that may be blocked. Thats why no matter how wacky my decks have been, my weapons come as unblockable actions (either disguised weapons or Horrid Reality.) Great point Derek. Matt

This is a truly excellent point. > > > I agree that the entire combat environment in VTES is, pretty much, either > "play S:CE, or play anti S:CE", but that is what we have until something > changes it (and I'd be happy if something did, but until then, this is what > we've got). In such an environment, half assed combat simply isn't worth > playing--if you can't deal with S:CE, don't commit much deck space to combat > offense, as you will be asking to be screwed. For instance, if you are playing, > say, a Gangrel wall deck, if you aren't going to be using multiple Dog packs, > it would be foolish to include more than a handfull of Bone Spurs. Sure, > sometimes you'll get to poke someone in the eye, but often your opponent will > just play S:CE. As this is going to happen, don't build your deck such that it > you will spend a great deal of time saying "Man. If only they hadn't played > that Majesty. Now my hand is gummed up..." I remember a time when this wasn't the case, but as it stands now if I want to resurrect my old "damned if you do damned if you dont" Tremere deck I'd best add a healthy dose of Thoughts Betrayed. Matt

Peter D Bakija wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] Gee... feeling a bit superior are we Peter? As a person who has used the term Degenerate (which is not the same as uncreative, although a deck can be both) I hold to the definition provided by Xian, and a casual reading of my postings in this thread will prove that out. Thanks for the scientific imput Xian Matt

In message <3B351995...@chartermi.net>, Matt Latham <sv...@chartermi.net> writes >As a person who has used the term Degenerate (which is not the same as uncreative, >although a deck can be both) I hold to the definition provided by Xian, and a >casual reading of my postings in this thread will prove that out. Degenerate tends to have negative connotations. Why is using lots of one card bad, other than that some people find it boring? [ quoted text not captured ]

go...@best.com (Gomi no Sensei) wrote: >Not exactly the same thing as a ruling saying "SCE is now stronger." Perhaps not, but that was one of the effects. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <3b352128...@news.algonet.se>, Johan Lundstrom <jo...@algonet.se> writes >>Not exactly the same thing as a ruling saying "SCE is now stronger." > >Perhaps not, but that was one of the effects. It depends on how, comparatively, it affects everything else. The old power scale thing again: - Too powerful | | <----------- C | | <----------- B - Powerful | <----------- A | <----------- Let's put S:CE here | <----------- D - Average | | <----------- E | _ Weak | | | | _ Too weak Now, S:CE might move up that scale, say, to A. But what if as a result, something else moved from D to C? Or from E to D? Or from A to E? What if S:CE became more powerful, as a result of a ruling, but it also seriously increased the power of Tremere combat? Or Dodge became even more powerful than S:CE? Or that, at the same time, a lot of other combat strategies got a lot more powerful, hence S:CE had to be upgraded to compensate? Sure, S:CE got more powerful - but lots of other changes happened too. You are taking one aspect of a number of complex changes, failing to take into account the intricacies of the situation, focusing on the one facet that supports your argument. In the grand scheme of things, your argument *might* be correct. However, an insistence on only addressing the situation from that one angle will and does undermine the credibility of your arguments. You need to address the whole picture, piece by piece, to avoid this. [ quoted text not captured ]

> Sure, S:CE got more powerful - but lots of other changes happened too. > > You are taking one aspect of a number of complex changes, failing to > take into account the intricacies of the situation, focusing on the one > facet that supports your argument. The bottom line is, IMO this is the best balanced CCG out there. S:CE is very powerful for a number of reasons... and it can be beat in a number of ways. (Who can win a game by only avoiding combat?) The best part of this game is, to me, that any strategy from stealth bleed, to weenie vote to rush combat can be destroyed by another kind of deck on another table. This is the reason why a deck that sweeps a table one night might be the first ousted the next... If there is a deck type or card or way of playing that is winning in your play group very consistantly...build a deck that destroys that deck type (and hopefully has a good chance of winning in its own right!). Minion Tap/Fifth getting you down? Play some light intercept...stealth bleed a problem, throw some bounces in... S:CE bugging you? Play stealth or immortal grapple combat types. There are good ways around any card. The more effective those ways are, (bleed bounce is very effective whereas Immortal Grapple combat is only minorly effective as its a less desirable deck type), the better the response is provided within the game. Really, I don't get upset when someone plays a majesty... what are they really accomplishing? They are hurting my minion as little as I am hurting theirs. Often, they spend a blood to untap and I did more to them then they did to me. Anyway, to make a roundabout argument and drawn out point, the more broken a card or combination appears to be, from my experience, is more often a result of the local metagame then it is an effective of a certain type of card. Off the soapbox. Tig

"Derek Ray" <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote "Jason Bell" <Jason...@mail.com> wrote: > >And the solution is not a rare 2 pool retainer > >for one clan only. That card's cost, rarity, and > >effect show me clearly that the design team > >doesn't see S:CE as the problem I think it is, > >and that's discouraging. > > This paragraph shows me clearly that you don't understand the current > state of the game all too well. That's also discouraging. Giggle. This after you've put forth that legitimate anti-S:CE strategies are overwhelm with sheer numbers (as if that is likely to happen since S:CE gives extra actions with Majesty, and we're all starting with the same 30 pool) or totally ignore it. That's weak. > Dog Pack was printed in Ancient Hearts, several years ago. This is > also the set that gave us Return to Innocence, so there's no question > that the design team for AH was smoking crack at least part of the > time. > > But what makes you think that the design team for AH bears even the > remotest relation to the current design team? My goodness, you're absolutely right. The costs of cards are never adjusted in reprints. - Jason Bell

"Derek Ray" <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote "Jason Bell" <Jason...@mail.com> > >"Derek Ray" <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote > >> > >> As if Trap/Carrion Crows/Song of Serenity, with Aid from Bats as > >> necessary, wasn't enough already? Animalism combat is some of the > >> nastiest FREE stuff out there right now. They require no assistance. > > > >Ironic that you mention 4 Animalism combat cards, all of which have > >to be played before strike announcement, which means a total > >hosing if the opposing minion S:CE out of it. Ha ha, you just wasted > >3 or 4 cards to my 1, and I think I'll untap. Carrion Crows is a great > >card, but no match for Majesty. > > You are totally, TOTALLY missing the point. Trap/CC/Song is an > extremely powerful combo. All the cards are free. All the cards can > be cycled easily (playable before range). It hoses Dodge. It hoses > most "poke-for-1" agg decks. It hoses Fortitude (can't prevent Crows > with Skin of Steel). It will make most combat decks pay for entering > combat at all, and with the Aid from Bats, it's entirely possible to > escape unscathed by pressing to end, if you need. Sorry, I was in the middle of my S:CE funk, so I was operating from that perspective. Yes, I've played against that animalism deck, minus the trap, and saw my weenie dodge defense get bruised up. But my point stands in the sense that I would have destroyed that deck with my PRE/OBF FoS deck, because of the Majesties. > If S:CE didn't exist, Trap/CC/Song would be ridiculously overpowered. > As it stands now, S:CE provides a welcome alternative to including > enough ranged combat to hit back at a Trap/CC/Song deck, or to > including enough maneuvers to catch them and THEN hit them back. Maybe it's just my play group, but I can't remember the last time an heavy animalism deck took a table.*** - Jason Bell ***(Sorry Dave, but as good as your Tzimisce deck is, I don't think I've seen it do better than wall up for 2.)

James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: >Now, S:CE might move up that scale, say, to A. > >But what if as a result, something else moved from D to C? Or from E to >D? Or from A to E? What if S:CE became more powerful, as a result of a >ruling, but it also seriously increased the power of Tremere combat? Did it? >Or Dodge became even more powerful than S:CE? Is it? >Or that, at the same time, a lot of other combat strategies got a lot more powerful, >hence S:CE had to be upgraded to compensate? Did they? >Sure, S:CE got more powerful - but lots of other changes happened too. I was talking about the specific rulings that (indirectly) increased the power of S:CE. *Of course* other hypothetical rulings could have decreased its relative power. The rulings, as a rule, decresed to power of cards, not increased. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Sun, 24 Jun 2001 05:56:18 GMT, "Jason Bell" <Jason...@mail.com> wrote: >"Derek Ray" <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote >"Jason Bell" <Jason...@mail.com> wrote: > >> >And the solution is not a rare 2 pool retainer >> >for one clan only. That card's cost, rarity, and >> >effect show me clearly that the design team >> >doesn't see S:CE as the problem I think it is, >> >and that's discouraging. >> >> This paragraph shows me clearly that you don't understand the current >> state of the game all too well. That's also discouraging. > >Giggle. This after you've put forth that legitimate anti-S:CE >strategies are overwhelm with sheer numbers (as if that is >likely to happen since S:CE gives extra actions with Majesty, Big deal. What are you going to do with those extra actions? Hunt? And AGAIN, I said that you do not run S:CE out while blocking it; you run it out by being PROACTIVE, and beating the crap out of it on your OWN turn. Although you CAN run them out while blocking, it just takes some judicious use of Cat's Guidance (look, another free untap card, and this one you can use AFTER you kill someone in combat) >and we're all starting with the same 30 pool) or totally ignore it. >That's weak. That's not weak... that's EXPERIENCE, playing combat decks for something on the order of three years now in a highly competitive environment, and taking bruise-and-bleed or intercept-combat decks to the tournaments I play in. That's playing against my own deck last Monday night and noticing that I can run it out of in-hand Fortitude in three Rush actions, even though the deck is designed to intercept and play one Fortitude card on every action. I have conducted a SIGNIFICANT amount of research into the whole "combat" question, and just because I don't blow my results all over the newsgroup every time I learn a small little thing doesn't mean I haven't spent a great deal of time studying the issue and trying different things. Again, simply put - combat is balanced with S:CE when each wins 50% of the time. And if you intend to overwhelm someone with combat, then you can run them out of S:CE with little difficulty. >> Dog Pack was printed in Ancient Hearts, several years ago. This is >> also the set that gave us Return to Innocence, so there's no question >> that the design team for AH was smoking crack at least part of the >> time. >> >> But what makes you think that the design team for AH bears even the >> remotest relation to the current design team? > >My goodness, you're absolutely right. The costs of cards are >never adjusted in reprints. My goodness, what reason was there to change Dog Pack? S:CE is no longer the be-all, end-all of the game. Again, you misunderstand the current state of things; especially since frankly, the Gangrel need absolutely NO help against S:CE anymore. They have plenty of lethal bits as it stands. Sure, it's risky to make a Rush deck with them, as their Rush deck is totally foiled by S:CE. But their Rush deck also pretty much slaughters everything else out there, so I call that "natural counter". -- Derek

On Sun, 24 Jun 2001 06:08:30 GMT, "Jason Bell" <Jason...@mail.com> wrote: >"Derek Ray" <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote >> You are totally, TOTALLY missing the point. Trap/CC/Song is an >> extremely powerful combo. All the cards are free. All the cards can >> be cycled easily (playable before range). It hoses Dodge. It hoses >> most "poke-for-1" agg decks. It hoses Fortitude (can't prevent Crows >> with Skin of Steel). It will make most combat decks pay for entering >> combat at all, and with the Aid from Bats, it's entirely possible to >> escape unscathed by pressing to end, if you need. > >Sorry, I was in the middle of my S:CE funk, so I was operating >from that perspective. Yes, I've played against that animalism >deck, minus the trap, and saw my weenie dodge defense get >bruised up. But my point stands in the sense that I would have >destroyed that deck with my PRE/OBF FoS deck, because of the >Majesties. But your point is misguided. Nothing is supposed to be perfect! The trap/ANI combat style beats up LOTS of things. S:CE makes a good counter for it. There are plenty of decks that S:CE doesn't make a good counter for - the IG Rush deck, for example. But the Gangrel poke it in the eye, prevent all its damage, and blithely go on about their business... see how the counters cycle? It's a big vicious circle. S:CE can beat Gangrel, who can beat IG, who can beat S:CE. There are many variations on this. Some with more points in the circle. But they really do come down to this. >> If S:CE didn't exist, Trap/CC/Song would be ridiculously overpowered. >> As it stands now, S:CE provides a welcome alternative to including >> enough ranged combat to hit back at a Trap/CC/Song deck, or to >> including enough maneuvers to catch them and THEN hit them back. > >Maybe it's just my play group, but I can't remember the last time >an heavy animalism deck took a table.*** Your playgroup, I'm thinking. I could lob you at least two, maybe four or five different ANI decks from Atlanta (not just mine, either) you could try out on your friends, and see what happens... I could probably even convince our newest player, recently a victim of the Temptation-of-Greater-Tatu, to cough up HER nasty-ass weenie animalism deck for you. =) -- Derek (subscribe now: alt.must.taunt.robert.goudie.ha.ha.ha. avoid the rush! =)

Matt wrote: >>Gee... feeling a bit superior are we Peter?>> Yup. What is the point of posting on usenet if you aren't always right :-) >>As a person who has used the term Degenerate (which is not the same as uncreative, although a deck can be both) I hold to the definition provided by Xian, and a casual reading of my postings in this thread will prove that out.>> And the same casual reading (as well as a closer reading) will support that you clearly seem to use "degenerate" as a negative adjective. The scientific defenition, as I understand it, is not a negative attribute. I find it hard to conceive that your (and most folks) use of the term "degenerate" is not rooted in subjecive negative criticism [ quoted text not captured ]

"Peter D Bakija" <pd...@aol.comANTISPAM> wrote in message news:20010624104138...@ng-co1.aol.com... > Yup. What is the point of posting on usenet if you aren't always right :-) Exactly. :) Good thing I'm a well-recognized Jyhad deity. Heh. > And the same casual reading (as well as a closer reading) will support that you > clearly seem to use "degenerate" as a negative adjective. The scientific Yeah, I posted the definition because *last* time this came around, Legbiter informed us all as to the strict definition of degenerate, and I thought it was enlightening. Lots of european players (from what I've seen on the newsgroup) tend to use the word degenerate...most of them mean the same thing as "cheesy" but some of them mean it as "redundant" which does not necessarily have a negative connotation. However, it's usually really hard to tell who's using it which way. And Peter, it was Legbiter who pointed it out. Though it was because Andrew was using the word so damned frequently, I think. So you could say you learned it from Andrew if you like. (I've been pleasantly surprised at some more recent posts, I have to admit.) > defenition, as I understand it, is not a negative attribute. I find it hard to > conceive that your (and most folks) use of the term "degenerate" is not rooted > in subjecive negative criticism Agreed. Most people who use the word degenerate tend to apply it in the same sentence as (or in place of) "uncreative". Which is hardly the case...speaking to an earlier post by Josh, he added something at the end about creating a degenerate/cookie-cutter Shambling Hordes deck, IIRC. Whether or not he was trying to make this point (Josh is trickier than he lets on...Yo! Can I get a witness?), there was a response that this couldn't be cookie-cutter, because it's not the same, therefore (by implication) it wouldn't be degenerate. My point (maybe not Josh's) is that yeah, since Shambling Hordes has just entered the environment, it's not yet degenerate (cheesy) nor cookie-cutter, but it is interesting. It could easily, however, be degenerate (repetitive)...let's say Josh includes about, oh 25 Shambling Hordes, some Necromancy stealth, and some Deflections along with a few master cards. That's pretty fucking degenerate, if you ask me. It's still completely fucking cool, and I intend to build one as soon as I get the chance. Face it, degenerate (repetitive) does not mean uncreative, and degenerate (cheesy) is just a subjective definition used to shame someone out of playing a deck style you haven't figured out how to deal with yet. Xian (attempting to use as many parentheses as possible) -- I'd tell the world and save my soul, But rain falls down and I feel cold. A cold that sleeps within my heart, It tears the earth and sun apart. --_Shellshock_, New Order www.waste.org/~xian

Xian wrote: >>Exactly. :) Good thing I'm a well-recognized Jyhad deity. Heh.>> See! And you are always right! It makes these discussions so much easier :-) >>Yeah, I posted the definition because *last* time this came around, Legbiter informed us all as to the strict definition of degenerate, and I thought it was enlightening.>> Oh, it *was* Legbiter, wasn't it. I guess if I did learn from Andrew, it was 'cause he kept using the term, and so Leg-mo got us a good defenition. >>Lots of european players (from what I've seen on the newsgroup) tend to use the word degenerate...most of them mean the same thing as "cheesy" but some of them mean it as "redundant" which does not necessarily have a negative connotation. However, it's usually really hard to tell who's using it which way.>> Yeah, still, I find it very difficult to fathom that anyone would use the word "degenerate" in any (non science lab) context and expect anyone to read it as anything *but* negative. I've looked it up in a few places, and have found few references to the scientific connotation of the word (as I haven't been looking in scientifically bent texts, apparently--mostly just, like, run of the mill dictionaries), mostly just lots and lots of reference to various negative connotations. Ok, somone might *mean* it in the non judgemental science lab sense (although I suspect that folks doing this are far and few between), but it is pretty much always going to be read in the subjective negative sense. Heck, I always use the word "degenerated" in the Reagan Youth sense. >>And Peter, it was Legbiter who pointed it out. Though it was because Andrew was using the word so damned frequently, I think. So you could say you learned it from Andrew if you like. (I've been pleasantly surprised at some more recent posts, I have to admit.)>> I'll thank them both! Yeah, Andrew has been rather entertaining of late, and much less flame-baity, which is good. >>Agreed. Most people who use the word degenerate tend to apply it in the same sentence as (or in place of) "uncreative". Which is hardly the case...speaking to an earlier post by Josh, he added something at the end about creating a degenerate/cookie-cutter Shambling Hordes deck, IIRC.>> Oh, that was clearly just Josh being tounge in cheek. >>Whether or not he was trying to make this point (Josh is trickier than he lets on...Yo! Can I get a witness?),>> Josh is the trickiest guy I know. He's tricky, heh, heh, he's tricky, as Run D.M.C. might say (at least I think it was Run D.M.C.) >>there was a response that this couldn't be cookie-cutter, because it's not the same, therefore (by implication) it wouldn't be degenerate.>> Yeah, that response was clearly based in "I didn't get that Josh was just being funny." >>My point(maybe not Josh's) is that yeah, since Shambling Hordes has just entered the environment, it's not yet degenerate (cheesy) nor cookie-cutter, but it is interesting.>> Perfectly strong point--but Josh's point was pretty much "I'm a wise guy" :-) >>It could easily, however, be degenerate (repetitive)...let's say Josh includes about, oh 25 Shambling Hordes, some Necromancy stealth, and some Deflections along with a few master cards. That's pretty fucking degenerate, if you ask me.>> In the sense that reproducing cells or something are degenerate, correct? >>It's still completely fucking cool, and I intend to build one as soon as I get the chance. Face it, degenerate (repetitive) does not mean uncreative, and degenerate (cheesy) is just a subjective definition used to shame someone out of playing a deck style you haven't figured out how to deal with yet.>> And it is the latter that I don't believe in. Just like Kennedy, Jesus, and the Beatles. >>Xian (attempting to use as many parentheses as possible)>> I love the parentheses! It is one of my favorite kinds of punctuation. I kind of like the elipses (...) (which I may or may not have spelled correctly) as well, but I find that unlike the parenthesis, the elipses defenitely is to be used sparingly for humorous emphasis, and not like some folks seem to do between every scentence. I hate that. On the other hand, the parentheses? I just can't get enough of that. I just can't get enough. (Yeah, I fell in to *way* too many song references there. Someone stop me.) [ quoted text not captured ]

>Again, simply put - combat is balanced with S:CE when each wins 50% of >the time. And if you intend to overwhelm someone with combat, then >you can run them out of S:CE with little difficulty. What I'm getting out of this discussion is that the only worthwhile combat is combat that can deal with S:CE due to the prevalence of S:CE. Isn't this a bad thing? Combat should be interesting. S:CE does nothing to make combat interesting. I believe it is entirely possible that its absence would have beneficial metagame effects as players focus less on how to defeat a single combat strategy. It seems likely that the combat component would increase overall, but the possibilities that become more viable should challenge combat players to find more diverse answers to how to beat up an opponent. Both ways, deck diversity should increase.

On 24 Jun 2001 17:58:08 GMT, cur...@aol.com (Ian Lee) wrote: >>Again, simply put - combat is balanced with S:CE when each wins 50% of >>the time. And if you intend to overwhelm someone with combat, then >>you can run them out of S:CE with little difficulty. > >What I'm getting out of this discussion is that the only worthwhile combat is >combat that can deal with S:CE due to the prevalence of S:CE. Isn't this a bad >thing? If you intend to build a deck that wins by killing everything in its path, you had better allow for S:CE in some fashion. And when you get right down to it, S:CE doesn't do enough to stop this sort of deck; if someone wants to get you, they'll get you. But whether or not they can oust anyone after they get you is the trick. If you intend to build a deck that wins by bleeding (or voting) and killing anything that blocks it, then S:CE could well be a problem for you. However, usually it works out that you've traded off your ability to beat up ANYTHING for the ability to bleed. You open yourself up to Deflection and S:CE, but you also have a lot more potential and probably haven't hurt yourself much against other combat. If you intend to build a deck that uses light combat as a deterrent, then you don't care very much about S:CE. Your primary intent is to keep your own guys from being beaten up or intercepted, and opposing S:CE handles the first job admirably. You DO want to beat up intercept decks, or at least make them pay for blocking, but Intercept/S:CE decks are not terribly prevalent, due to their difficulty in actually ousting anyone; intercept/combat is much more effective and popular, even if it's light "plink" combat that wears you down over time. And of course, if you intend to build a deck with no combat defense whatsoever, S:CE is a beautiful thing to see opposing you. You don't even get punched for 1. >Combat should be interesting. S:CE does nothing to make combat interesting. I S:CE provides a vital balance in the game. Without it, some strategies would become vastly overpowered. >believe it is entirely possible that its absence would have beneficial metagame >effects as players focus less on how to defeat a single combat strategy. It Players would quit focussing on how to beat S:CE, and would begin focussing on how to defeat whichever new "trump" combat strategy emerged, though. The Gangrel would be near-unstoppable with the simple PRO/FOR deck - the only cards required would be Claws and a prevent card. Include Drawing out the Beast and Scorpion Sting if you want people to REALLY stay put. The Assamites would be almost as strong; their Celerity and unpreventable damage cards would mow down minions left and right. The Brujah could trim down their thug-decks significantly, as they no longer would need to pack reams of IG and other cards. Non-combat decks would totally cease to see play, as they would simply become targets for the other combat decks, and the game would degenerate into a card version of the WWF, with vampire body parts flying everywhere. Is this TRULY what you are looking for? -- Derek

>The Gangrel would be near-unstoppable with the simple PRO/FOR deck - >the only cards required would be Claws and a prevent card. Include >Drawing out the Beast and Scorpion Sting if you want people to REALLY >stay put. The Assamites would be almost as strong; their Celerity and >unpreventable damage cards would mow down minions left and right. The >Brujah could trim down their thug-decks significantly, as they no >longer would need to pack reams of IG and other cards. You've just named three archetypes that all get stronger. How do they deal with each other? >Non-combat decks would totally cease to see play, as they would simply >become targets for the other combat decks, and the game would >degenerate into a card version of the WWF, with vampire body parts >flying everywhere. > >Is this TRULY what you are looking for? I don't think this would happen because you get into a situation where combat decks can't have all the answers for each other. Oh, it might happen at first, but players would get tired of having some other combat deck screw them and would get back to trying to oust. As I said, the general level of combat could very well increase, but this envisioned environment of nothing but combat strikes me as unlikely as winning is still defined by VPs. I certainly wouldn't mind an environment with a lot of combat variety, where maneuvers and presses can completely change the results of your typical fight.

"Ian Lee" <cur...@aol.com> wrote in message news:20010624151203...@ng-cj1.aol.com... [snip Gangrel/Assamite/Brujah rush] > You've just named three archetypes that all get stronger. How do they deal > with each other? Gangrel win. DotB kills the Assamites, Fortitude/Agg kills the Brujah. Pretty simple. [V:WWF] > >Is this TRULY what you are looking for? > > I don't think this would happen because you get into a situation where combat > decks can't have all the answers for each other. Oh, it might happen at first, > but players would get tired of having some other combat deck screw them and > would get back to trying to oust. Would they even be able to oust anyone if they weren't playing Ventrue Fortitude with presses to end combat? Seems unlikely if combat got that big of a boost. > As I said, the general level of combat could very well increase, but this > envisioned environment of nothing but combat strikes me as unlikely as winning > is still defined by VPs. I certainly wouldn't mind an environment with a lot If you can burn/torporize all of your prey's vampires, you can get VPs easily enough. Combat is an effective strategy currently. It's not the most frequently successful strategy, but it's getting better. I really don't think it needs that much of a boost, and I play a lot of combat. Xian

"Derek Ray" <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote "Jason Bell" <Jason...@mail.com> wrote: > >Giggle. This after you've put forth that legitimate anti-S:CE > >strategies are overwhelm with sheer numbers (as if that is > >likely to happen since S:CE gives extra actions with Majesty, > > Big deal. What are you going to do with those extra actions? Hunt? Well there you go. It seems clear from this that our gaming experiences are so radically different that we can't usefully discuss the value of untapping an acting minion after a block. Among the ways that my buddy's Ventrue deck can beat you after you block the first action (presumably a 1 bleed with an assumed Conditioning if unblocked): Govern down for 3 free blood Equip with .44 to ensure against running out of Majesty Parity Shift, oh my god Parity Shift (or Conservative) Fifth Tradition, Hospitality Any of these free actions can be taken without violating the NRA rule, and every one of them can swing the game significantly. And what really hurts is that each of these is +1 stealth, so you have to continually find the +1 intercept, the extra minion, and/or the Wake. And no, I don't think I've ever seen it hunt. - Jason Bell

On 24 Jun 2001 19:12:03 GMT, cur...@aol.com (Ian Lee) wrote: >>The Gangrel would be near-unstoppable with the simple PRO/FOR deck - >>the only cards required would be Claws and a prevent card. Include >>Drawing out the Beast and Scorpion Sting if you want people to REALLY >>stay put. The Assamites would be almost as strong; their Celerity and >>unpreventable damage cards would mow down minions left and right. The >>Brujah could trim down their thug-decks significantly, as they no >>longer would need to pack reams of IG and other cards. > >You've just named three archetypes that all get stronger. How do they deal >with each other? Whoever happens to have the cards in hand at the time. But damn near every other deck gets run over, as there's no longer any suitable defense against the easy-to-use combat disciplines PRO, QUI, or POT. Right now, what's slowing them down is that all three of these disciplines require a good chunk of supporting cards to make them viable against S:CE. >>Non-combat decks would totally cease to see play, as they would simply >>become targets for the other combat decks, and the game would >>degenerate into a card version of the WWF, with vampire body parts >>flying everywhere. >> >>Is this TRULY what you are looking for? > >I don't think this would happen because you get into a situation where combat >decks can't have all the answers for each other. Oh, it might happen at first, >but players would get tired of having some other combat deck screw them and >would get back to trying to oust. I repeat, non-combat decks would totally cease to see play, as they would simply get run over by the combat decks that would be everywhere. There was a time when weenie Misdirection was a feature of every single tournament - you went into things KNOWING that you'd see at least three/four weenie decks, and you knew that if you didn't plan to deal with it, you'd just die. An environment without S:CE would increase the number of combat decks played. This would decrease the number of non-combat decks played, as combat avoidance strategies that were previously viable would no longer be reliable. >As I said, the general level of combat could very well increase, but this >envisioned environment of nothing but combat strikes me as unlikely as winning >is still defined by VPs. I certainly wouldn't mind an environment with a lot Exactly. The person whose deck killed the best would win, because nobody near him would have any minions left, whether they were combat decks or not. OR, the person whose combat got the best draw; and while that is a GOOD thing, to some degree, if it degenerates too far it'll turn into a BAD thing. -- Derek

On Sun, 24 Jun 2001 20:13:37 GMT, "Jason Bell" <Jason...@mail.com> wrote: > >"Derek Ray" <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote >"Jason Bell" <Jason...@mail.com> wrote: > >> >Giggle. This after you've put forth that legitimate anti-S:CE >> >strategies are overwhelm with sheer numbers (as if that is >> >likely to happen since S:CE gives extra actions with Majesty, >> >> Big deal. What are you going to do with those extra actions? Hunt? > >Well there you go. It seems clear from this that our >gaming experiences are so radically different that we No, not especially. I've seen plenty of Ventrue-take-twenty-actions decks before. I know what they can do. But Freak Drive is a hell of a lot better option for them than Majesty-untap. >can't usefully discuss the value of untapping an acting >minion after a block. Among the ways that my buddy's >Ventrue deck can beat you after you block the first >action (presumably a 1 bleed with an assumed Conditioning >if unblocked): If you're that worried, quit blocking. Being bled for 3/4 also helps remove any problems of someone using Parity Shift on you... although where he'll get the cards when his hand is all jammed up with those Majesties, I don't know. >Govern down for 3 free blood Not my immediate problem - he's my predator, not my prey. >Equip with .44 to ensure against running out of Majesty Only my problem if I don't like fighting guns -- otherwise, sure, whatever, spend 2 pool. In a deck that intends to use Majesty to untap lots, this seems like a very unsafe action to be taking. >Parity Shift, oh my god Parity Shift (or Conservative) Of course, this requires that I have more pool than he does, which can be pretty damn tough to manage. I'd expect to see a damage vote included in a deck instead of Parity Shift -- see above. >Fifth Tradition, Hospitality Not my problem. Something my grandpredator should be very interested in interfering with, though. >Any of these free actions can be taken without violating >the NRA rule, and every one of them can swing the >game significantly. And what really hurts is that each Significantly? (puzzle) Whatever. >of these is +1 stealth, so you have to continually find >the +1 intercept, the extra minion, and/or the Wake. So tell me what the difference is between a deck behind you taking each of these actions you've mentioned with a different minion, and a deck behind you taking each of these actions with the same minion who uses Majesty to untap repeatedly? If you can block multiple actions, then you are prepared to block after someone untaps with Majesty. If you can't block multiple actions, then you just need to set priorities on which action you need to block. I would wait for the damage VOTE, myself. If your deck can't block multiple actions, then you had better have something in there like Deflection, or some OTHER non-blocking defense. If not, perhaps you've failed to consider deck design priorities. -- Derek

In message <3b358ff6...@news.algonet.se>, Johan Lundstrom <jo...@algonet.se> writes >>But what if as a result, something else moved from D to C? Or from E to >>D? Or from A to E? What if S:CE became more powerful, as a result of a >>ruling, but it also seriously increased the power of Tremere combat? > >Did it? > >>Or Dodge became even more powerful than S:CE? > >Is it? > >>Or that, at the same time, a lot of other combat strategies got a lot more powerful, >>hence S:CE had to be upgraded to compensate? > >Did they? That's the point. You need to address how S:CE altered *in the context of the entire environment*. I have no wish to do your research for you. If you want to make a valid, well-constructed, well-research point, do it yourself. If you want to construct straw-men arguments with no substance, just continue on as you are doing. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <sa5bjt0g6dphutj3n...@4ax.com>, Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> writes >I could probably even convince our newest player, recently a victim of >the Temptation-of-Greater-Tatu, Tatu, The Doubly Evil One. [ quoted text not captured ]

"Peter D Bakija" <pd...@aol.comANTISPAM> wrote > > I love the parentheses! It is one of my favorite kinds of punctuation. I kind > of like the elipses (...) (which I may or may not have spelled correctly) as > well, but I find that unlike the parenthesis, the elipses defenitely is to be > used sparingly for humorous emphasis, and not like some folks seem to do > between every scentence. I hate that. On the other hand, the parentheses? I > just can't get enough of that. I just can't get enough. Hey... I'm getting better, am I not?

James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: >You need to address how S:CE altered *in the context of the entire >environment*. Really, I fail to see the problem. When it comes to DOtB, S.CE was the only type of cards that were affected by the move of the damage-dealing to the press-stop. Hence, they got an advantage from that particular ruling, and no-one else did. As for Immortal Grapple, I would laugh at anyone who claimed he inluded IG's more for countering Dodges than S:CE. If it wasn't for S:CE, we would see very few IG's. Thus, a weakening of IG is more of an improvement for S:CE than for any other card-type. >I have no wish to do your research for you. If you want to make a >valid, well-constructed, well-research point, do it yourself. > >If you want to construct straw-men arguments with no substance, just >continue on as you are doing. Yes. I claim they were strengthened by these changes. If you want to come up with a reason why they were not really strengthened (unlike, say, giving purely hypothectial arguments), feel free to. So please, tell me just what other strategy or card type benefited more from the rulings on IG and DOtB? [ quoted text not captured ]

On Mon, 25 Jun 2001 04:25:43 GMT, jo...@algonet.se (Johan Lundstrom) wrote: >James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: > >>You need to address how S:CE altered *in the context of the entire >>environment*. > >Really, I fail to see the problem. > >When it comes to DOtB, S.CE was the only type of cards that were >affected by the move of the damage-dealing to the press-stop. Hence, >they got an advantage from that particular ruling, and no-one else >did. Not true. If you are a combat deck, and use, say, a Blur to punch the lights out of the DotB'er with the +1 hand damage, combat never reaches the press step, and you take no damage. So if you can send the Drawing vampire to torpor, then you can ALSO evade the DotB damage - which is a very good thing. >As for Immortal Grapple, I would laugh at anyone who claimed he >inluded IG's more for countering Dodges than S:CE. If it wasn't for >S:CE, we would see very few IG's. Thus, a weakening of IG is more of >an improvement for S:CE than for any other card-type. Shouldn't laugh so loudly. Not only does Immortal Grapple stop Dodges, very important in a Potence-only deck, it stops all kinds of nastiness like Entombment, Coma, Theft of Vitae, Fleshcraft, Acrobatics, etc.... take your pick. You would most CERTAINLY see just as many IG as you do now; it's an excellent way to make sure that the only way your opponent can hurt you is with hand strikes, which is YOUR arena as the POT deck. >Yes. I claim they were strengthened by these changes. If you want to >come up with a reason why they were not really strengthened (unlike, >say, giving purely hypothectial arguments), feel free to. > >So please, tell me just what other strategy or card type benefited >more from the rulings on IG and DOtB? See above. -- Derek

"Derek Ray" <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote "Jason Bell" <Jason...@mail.com> wrote: > >"Derek Ray" <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote > >> Big deal. What are you going to do with those extra actions? Hunt? > > > >Well there you go. It seems clear from this that our > >gaming experiences are so radically different that we > > No, not especially. I've seen plenty of Ventrue-take-twenty-actions > decks before. I know what they can do. But Freak Drive is a hell of > a lot better option for them than Majesty-untap. > > >can't usefully discuss the value of untapping an acting > >minion after a block. Among the ways that my buddy's > >Ventrue deck can beat you after you block the first > >action (presumably a 1 bleed with an assumed Conditioning > >if unblocked): > > If you're that worried, quit blocking. Being bled for 3/4 also helps > remove any problems of someone using Parity Shift on you... although > where he'll get the cards when his hand is all jammed up with those > Majesties, I don't know. These two responses, plus the rest of your post are such terrible game analysis and strategy advice that I can't imagine what you could be thinking. A player cannot allow his predator to bloat up and push out extra minions all game long with a blase "not my problem" attitude. Those minions will kill you, and all the faster if you take no blocking actions against large bleeds in some misguided desire to choke a hand with Majesty. It truly boggles my mind that you could think that soaking big bleeds is an acceptable Parity Shift solution. It's laughable. > >Govern down for 3 free blood > Not my immediate problem - he's my predator, not my prey. > > >Equip with .44 to ensure against running out of Majesty > Only my problem if I don't like fighting guns -- otherwise, sure, > whatever, spend 2 pool. In a deck that intends to use Majesty to > untap lots, this seems like a very unsafe action to be taking. Wow, this is amazing to me. When I see my friend's Ventrue Prince get his .44 on, he becomes far more difficult to deal with, since he can look at opposing minions disciplines to decide whether to 2nd Tradition into a free 2 damage or to get out with Majesty if there's any significant danger. That's the point his deck is truly difficult to stop, and that equip is one of the three or so points where I can effectively get in front of it to stop it. Once the Ventrue gets a gun, he's a triple threat, Majesty, Gun, and Damage Prevention. > >Parity Shift, oh my god Parity Shift (or Conservative) > > Of course, this requires that I have more pool than he does, which can > be pretty damn tough to manage. I'd expect to see a damage vote > included in a deck instead of Parity Shift -- see above. Have you seen Zillah's Valley? It's currently the fastest and easiest way to store 4 pool on uncontrolleds while you put yourself 5 down to Parity Shift range. And if that's too much trouble, then the prey's life total must be low enough for the Ventrue deck to Govern and Conditioning unblockable for the oust. If you think a deck with any extra influence capability would rather have damage than Parity, I don't know what to tell you besides: (X-1) damage < X damage + I get X life. Looks like the Parity Shift is at least twice as good as any damage vote. > >Fifth Tradition, Hospitality > > Not my problem. Something my grandpredator should be very interested > in interfering with, though. Not your problem indeed, see my first point. > >Any of these free actions can be taken without violating > >the NRA rule, and every one of them can swing the > >game significantly. And what really hurts is that each > > Significantly? (puzzle) Whatever. Every one of the above actions except the Superior Govern and the equip (including the bleed, if it's done with regular Govern), is likely to be a 6-8 pool swing on one action. My game analysis calls that a significant game swing at any point in the game. > >of these is +1 stealth, so you have to continually find > >the +1 intercept, the extra minion, and/or the Wake. > > So tell me what the difference is between a deck behind you taking > each of these actions you've mentioned with a different minion, and a > deck behind you taking each of these actions with the same minion who > uses Majesty to untap repeatedly? That's easy, the difference is that the upstream player doesn't have that many minions, especially since 2 of them require Prince or Justicar. The point you're making seems to be that I should assume the upstream player will untap and take another devastating action and therefore accept a devastating action. This is not an acceptable strategy, as I must get in front of the devastating action that's here now. What really hurts is Majesty's gift of no combat plus another potential action. It's the gift that keeps on giving. > If you can block multiple actions, then you are prepared to block > after someone untaps with Majesty. If you can't block multiple > actions, then you just need to set priorities on which action you need > to block. I would wait for the damage VOTE, myself. Even if the +2 bleed with Govern is here now? Even if I took last turn's Govern as well? At what point do I have to block what's here now, and not live in fear of what may happen after the Majesty? Yours is very bad game advice. > If your deck can't block multiple actions, then you had better have > something in there like Deflection, or some OTHER non-blocking > defense. If not, perhaps you've failed to consider deck design > priorities. Well that's the trick isn't it? We haven't begun to discuss the problems when the Majesty deck is the prey, which requires a different set of cards and different set of solutions than when it is the predator. And since I can't make my deck after I learn seating order, I have to balance my deck against both of these situations, plus all the other decks I'm liable to see in a variety of positions. My point is that the S:CE and untap provides too many answers to too many of those types of questions, and that's why you see so many of them in so many decks (as was mentioned recently in another thread). And that's why two of my seven current decks pack them, and a third packs the Form of Mist. - Jason Bell

"James Coupe" <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> a écrit dans le message news: JI7yPlL5...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk... > In message <sa5bjt0g6dphutj3n...@4ax.com>, Derek Ray > <lor...@yahoo.com> writes > >I could probably even convince our newest player, recently a victim of > >the Temptation-of-Greater-Tatu, > > Tatu, The Doubly Evil One. ah ha ha ha ha ha =) excellente =) I hope Robyn is not reading this !! ;) reyda

This is my final word on the subject. I had a chance to play Jyhad for the first time in a long while yesterday. We had quite an impressive turnout, so WW and VEKN must be doing something right :) I got to play with some Newsgroup notables like Wes, Noal, and Aaron, and they and all the blokes that played were a great bunch, and I owe them thanks for a wonderful day. This all may have seemed like a Peter vs. Matt pissing match, but it actually was a arguement over a difference in tournament philosophy. I have fun in Jyhad by seeing the interesting deck builds people come up with, and by socializing with these interesting deck builders I become a better, more creative deck builder. So, to me, attending a tournament means I get to see 60 different decks, some I'll like and some I won't. What I learned yesterday is that the fellas I was playing with could have pulled out the most redundant or uncreative decks and I still would have enjoyed myself immensely. So, while I may not like clinging to certain deck types or over-reliance on redundancy, I'll no longer socially revile those who choose to do so, because they may not share my win condition. While I may not have liked the tone of this discussion (I felt I was being talked down to, and that's never fun) I learned a whole lot from it, so I owe folks like Peter, Xian, Derek, and the rest a thank you. Thank you. Matt

On Mon, 25 Jun 2001 07:23:22 GMT, "Jason Bell" <Jason...@mail.com> wrote: >"Derek Ray" <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote >> If you're that worried, quit blocking. Being bled for 3/4 also helps >> remove any problems of someone using Parity Shift on you... although >> where he'll get the cards when his hand is all jammed up with those >> Majesties, I don't know. > >These two responses, plus the rest of your post are such terrible >game analysis and strategy advice that I can't imagine what you >could be thinking. No, Jason. I've read everything you've said, and by now, this hypothetical Ventrue deck of yours is so jammed up with Majesty and every single perfect card at every single perfect time, that not blocking WOULD, in fact, be highly effective. I have seen Ventrue decks. Good ones. I have seen what they do to win. They are FOCUSED. They do not have fifteen different kinds of crap in them. I could easily see a deck that consisted solely of Minion Tap/5th Tradition/Hostile Takeover/Parity Shift, and used Majesty for defense. I can also easily see a deck that consisted solely of Governs, Conditionings, Majesties, Freak Drive, and KRC. Or even Minion Tap/5th/Conditioning/KRC. But you keep tacking on SO MANY horrible things that the Ventrue might do that the deck seems full of unsupported horrible things, and not very full of 2nd Tradition, Bewitching Oration, Voter Cap, etc. I'm waiting for you to say "oh, and I have OBF skill cards and Forgotten Labyrinth in here too." The most common "untap and act again" decks bleed for 1 with Conditioning (note, no cards played), and then untap and call a KRC (two cards played). That's it. If you block BOTH actions, you normally put a strain on the deck, since they need to play Majesty twice, and may now be out. That really puts a cramp on the NEXT guy's action, since it's a bit risky for him to be running around bleeding if he can't defend himself. Believe it or not, some decks are entirely proactive and do not pack Wakes, nor leave minions untapped in futile attempts to block actions which merely play into other decks' hands. >A player cannot allow his predator to bloat up and push out extra >minions all game long with a blase "not my problem" attitude. What exactly is your grandpredator doing all this time? Sitting on his thumbs? You keep assuming that this Ventrue deck has no pressure behind it. Your GRANDPREDATOR should be blocking every single 5th/Govern-down action he can. If your grandpredator can't block stealth actions, he must be putting some OTHER form of pressure on the Ventrue deck. What could it be? And yes, if I am playing an intercept/combat deck, I typically ignore all "bloat" actions taken by my predator as not worth the time or resources to block. Bloat actions do not directly threaten me, and if I interfere with the "get set up and running" of the deck, then all I do is hand a VP to my grandpredator, who will be on my ass with a deck I COULDN'T stop from getting set up and running. Instead, I choose to save my resources to stop any of my prey's actions that benefit himself, and any actions my predator takes that threaten me. >Those minions will kill you, and all the faster if you take no blocking >actions against large bleeds in some misguided desire to choke a >hand with Majesty. It truly boggles my mind that you could think that >soaking big bleeds is an acceptable Parity Shift solution. It's laughable. *snort* If someone is going to untap and Parity Shift you for 5 if you block their bleed, and the bleed is only for 3/4, I suggest you do the math. Then I suggest you do the OTHER simple math that says "if I do what the deck wants me to do, then it runs better". You lose almost the same amount of pool either way, but you deny him the opportunity to play Majesty... and you also deny him the opportunity to play his Parity Shift, which will sit and rot in his hand. >> >Equip with .44 to ensure against running out of Majesty >> Only my problem if I don't like fighting guns -- otherwise, sure, >> whatever, spend 2 pool. In a deck that intends to use Majesty to >> untap lots, this seems like a very unsafe action to be taking. > >Wow, this is amazing to me. When I see my friend's Ventrue >Prince get his .44 on, he becomes far more difficult to deal >with, since he can look at opposing minions disciplines to decide >whether to 2nd Tradition into a free 2 damage or to get out >with Majesty if there's any significant danger. That's the Uh, yeah. If I don't like fighting against guns, then the .44 is a problem, AS I STATED ABOVE. If my deck isn't worried about guns, then he just spent 2 pool and will be playing Majesty every combat ANYWAY. >> Of course, this requires that I have more pool than he does, which can >> be pretty damn tough to manage. I'd expect to see a damage vote >> included in a deck instead of Parity Shift -- see above. > >Have you seen Zillah's Valley? It's currently the ACTUALLY, Jason, on the drive back to Atlanta from the pre-release, my friend and I were discussing a shotgun Zillah's Valley/Anson/Parity Shift deck. Blow out huge minions as fast as necessary with Zillah's Valley, Parity Shift since your prey has NO way to dump pool (you're not hurting him in any way, so the fastest he can dump pool is 4/turn, unless he can find expensive things to equip with), and roll over the first person. Minion Tap occasionally to save your own butt, since the minions you get with Zillah's Valley DO come out full. It works quite well. HOWEVER. In a classic Ventrue deck, especially one that is trying to get off tons of "damage" actions per turn, it is perfectly valid to simply make sure your pool is low enough. Last Monday I did just that, in fact; I sat there and let a Ventrue deck bleed me for 4, then bleed me for 1 twice because he was out of Conditioning and only had a Parity Shift and bunch of vote mods in hand. And I was pretty much a pure combat deck, although I did have some light intercept included just in case. Oh. Do your decks not pack pool gain? (I was eventually ousted by the Ventrue deck's -predator-, after ousting my own prey.) >fastest and easiest way to store 4 pool on uncontrolleds while >you put yourself 5 down to Parity Shift range. And if that's >too much trouble, then the prey's life total must be low enough >for the Ventrue deck to Govern and Conditioning unblockable >for the oust. If you think a deck with any extra influence >capability would rather have damage than Parity, I don't >know what to tell you besides: This must be the magic Ventrue deck that has no pressure at all behind it, and gets all the cards it wants at any given time. That's certainly what you're painting it as, and I can assure you that it just don't work that way. Unless, of course, you play in a group with absolutely no intercept, people who habitually try to block every action, ... the "old" style of V:TES. >(X-1) damage < X damage + I get X life. Looks like the >Parity Shift is at least twice as good as any damage vote. Except that all too often, you can't play it. Setting up a Parity Shift with a Conditioning is just a dumb move. Conditioning/Majesty/KRC makes much more sense. >> >Fifth Tradition, Hospitality >> >> Not my problem. Something my grandpredator should be very interested >> in interfering with, though. > >Not your problem indeed, see my first point. (shrug) Not my problem. Fifth Tradition is a refill action. If they want to Minion Tap/5th all day, that's great. I'll save my Sudden Reversals for the Hostile Takeover, thanks. >> >Any of these free actions can be taken without violating >> >the NRA rule, and every one of them can swing the >> >game significantly. And what really hurts is that each >> >> Significantly? (puzzle) Whatever. > >Every one of the above actions except the Superior Govern >and the equip (including the bleed, if it's done with regular >Govern), is likely to be a 6-8 pool swing on one action. >My game analysis calls that a significant game swing at >any point in the game. Your math sucks. A bleed announced with Govern is much more worth blocking than a bleed for 1 - it's a direct, OBVIOUS threat. 5th Tradition affects only vampire blood. A superior Govern is only 3 pool. A .44 Magnum is a 2-pool NEGATIVE swing. A KRC is only 3 pool. Only a Parity Shift can do 5 pool worth, and those can be (as demonstrated previously) kind of risky to be pitching around. You didn't list any other actions. >> So tell me what the difference is between a deck behind you taking >> each of these actions you've mentioned with a different minion, and a >> deck behind you taking each of these actions with the same minion who >> uses Majesty to untap repeatedly? > >That's easy, the difference is that the upstream player doesn't have >that many minions, especially since 2 of them require Prince or Uh, who cares? If you can deal with a deck with 4 minions behind you each taking 1 action, then you can deal with a deck that has 1 minion taking 4 actions. If you can't, does it really matter how they got there in the first place? >Justicar. The point you're making seems to be that I should >assume the upstream player will untap and take another devastating >action and therefore accept a devastating action. This is not an Perhaps it's significant that I don't consider most of those actions to be "devastating". Tell me, why do you think that is? Oh yeah. Pool gain and adequate defenses. Something every deck should have in the first place. How silly of me. >> If you can block multiple actions, then you are prepared to block >> after someone untaps with Majesty. If you can't block multiple >> actions, then you just need to set priorities on which action you need >> to block. I would wait for the damage VOTE, myself. > >Even if the +2 bleed with Govern is here now? Even if I took last >turn's Govern as well? At what point do I have to block what's >here now, and not live in fear of what may happen after the >Majesty? Yours is very bad game advice. I notice that the bleed has MAGICALLY changed from "1 with possible Conditioning" to "Govern". You obviously block the Govern, and make him waste the card. But you sit there and let the bleeds for 1 go on past, even though the first will probably have Conditioning on it. Otherwise, you can waste an awful lot of transients in "panic block mode". It's good to get out of the habit of thinking you need to block everything, unless you CAN block everything. Sometimes it'll kick you in the pants. Besides, look at it this way; if he's been playing Majesty-untap-act-again all game, you KNOW that he's got that floating around. >after I learn seating order, I have to balance my deck >against both of these situations, plus all the other decks >I'm liable to see in a variety of positions. My point is >that the S:CE and untap provides too many answers to >too many of those types of questions, and that's why And my original point (which you've long since ignored) still stands; a perfectly valid option for a combat deck is to just mob them with 4-5 minions in one turn, and run them out of Majesty, at which point you terminate several minions and move on. This works whether it's your predator OR prey packing it. Yes, it's a pretty unfortunate turn of events when you have to turn around and effectively oust your predator, and it doesn't guarantee you very much at all, but if it's a question of get-ousted-now or get-ousted-later, then you might as well go for get-ousted-later. -- Derek

"Matt Latham" <mla...@diamondtoolmfg.com> > > I got to play with some Newsgroup notables like Wes, Noal, and Aaron, and > they and all the blokes that played were a great bunch, and I owe them > thanks for a wonderful day. Good game Matt... Seems there are a lot of us from this area on the newsgroup lately. Strange. For a long time it was just me and occasionally Noal. Cheers, WES

Matt Latham <sv...@chartermi.net> wrote in message news:<3B33B849...@chartermi.net>... [I wrote] > > soon to build another one of those cookie-cutter shambling hordes decks > > (they shamble! they stride! they shamble and stride!) > > How is a shambling hordes deck cookie cutter? Cookie cutter is regurgitating the same ideas over and over as > "the way to win". I doubt a shambling hordes deck fits that description. Ah, I thought you meant "cookie cutter" as in "stamped out of a mold in exactly the same way as every other cookie". Once you start from the premise of "this will be a Shambling Hordes deck", you're probably gonna play 10+ Hordes and a bunch of the same support cards as anyone else who's designing a Shambling Hordes deck. The problem with hating "cookie cutter" decks as you describe them, as I wrote before, is that what seems like an obvious archetype to one person may not be to another, and the obvious archetypes only become more and more numerous over time. ie, four years ago, playing Temptation of Greater Power/stealth-parity-shift was probably not at all an "obvious archetype", but now it is. Likewise, six years ago, Tzimisce intercept-combat didn't even exist; now it's an obvious archetype. > And no, tournaments werent always as you described. For years, Jyhad was such a pocket game that you were lucky > to have 5 people within 50 miles of you who played. So tournaments at major cons were more for meeting and > playing with new people rather than gotta win gotta win gotta win. Also, we didn't have archetypes per say (I > remember the splash weenie voter and weenie presence made the first time they were played...) so creativity and > unusuality were the name of the day. I guess your experience has differed from mine on this. I've been playing since late '94 or early '95, and every group I've ever played in has taken the viewpoint that games define winning because it's what makes them what they are, and that they should be played to try to win. If you're just bouncing the volleyball back and forth over the net, you're not playing the game, right? The major-convention tournaments I've been to were the same way. Yeah, it's always fun to meet and play with new people - games are about social interaction, you bet - but they're about social interaction *within the framework* of the game's victory conditions. If I recall correctly, we all knew about Malk stealth-bleed and Ventrue presence-vote and weenie vote push from just about day one. Not to mention Nosferatu and Brujah potence rush combat, etc etc... there have always been archetypes, and you can either play within them or try to come up with things that people haven't seen before, but again, the longer the game exists, the fewer things there are that people haven't seen before. (Back in the day, it wasn't unusual to go to some other town and play Brujah Immortal Grapple pot/cel rush and have your opponents need to read Immortal Grapple several times before understanding that they couldn't play Majesty. I think just about everyone knows what IG does now...) Josh chillin' like a villain

Good points all Josh. As usual, different regions and different milage may vary. Matt

In message <r2hejt4012fb4srod...@4ax.com>, Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> writes >No, Jason. I've read everything you've said, and by now, this >hypothetical Ventrue deck of yours is so jammed up with Majesty and >every single perfect card at every single perfect time, that not >blocking WOULD, in fact, be highly effective. Indeed. This has long been an effective defence against stealth and bleed, allowing a player to jam up on stealth. I was gob-smacked that Niki, at Watford yesterday, didn't understand this in the final when he was being bled by Sorrow. -- James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D "You reinstall Dial-Up Networking. The Elf screams and becomes EBD690ECD7A1F an icon. *** CONGRATULATIONS! *** You completed the BT Internet B457CA213D7E6 Helpdesk training course in 15 out of a possible 9000 moves." 68C3695D623D5D

In message <3b36bbcc...@news.algonet.se>, Johan Lundstrom <jo...@algonet.se> writes >>You need to address how S:CE altered *in the context of the entire >>environment*. > >Really, I fail to see the problem. That's your loss then, as it seriously weakens any attempts at a coherent argument. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Mon, 25 Jun 2001 17:31:16 +0100, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: >In message <r2hejt4012fb4srod...@4ax.com>, Derek Ray ><lor...@yahoo.com> writes >>No, Jason. I've read everything you've said, and by now, this >>hypothetical Ventrue deck of yours is so jammed up with Majesty and >>every single perfect card at every single perfect time, that not >>blocking WOULD, in fact, be highly effective. > >Indeed. > >This has long been an effective defence against stealth and bleed, >allowing a player to jam up on stealth. > >I was gob-smacked that Niki, at Watford yesterday, didn't understand >this in the final when he was being bled by Sorrow. Well, it takes Great Big Brass Balls(tm) to try it, because if you guess wrong and he's packing only light stealth, then you're going to get an Express Exit. That might be why it's not seen more often. But sometimes it can be logical... block the first bleed, they Majesty, untap, and call a vote you can't block, then you might as WELL consider not blocking -- you're only playing into their hands if you do. If you see them do it twice in a row, then it's probably fairly predictable that any bleed action will be taken with a Majesty in hand, and an untap to follow after a block. A vote deck only has so many bleed modifiers in it. -- Derek

In message <f9rejtkd3f2n1ccig...@4ax.com>, Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> writes >Well, it takes Great Big Brass Balls(tm) to try it, because if you >guess wrong and he's packing only light stealth, then you're going to >get an Express Exit. The amount sorrow had played and was continuing to play seemed to suggest otherwise, from where I stood. [ quoted text not captured ]

Noal McDonald <dhar...@none-of-your-fscking-business.com> wrote in message news:<3B340948...@none-of-your-fscking-business.com>... > It started out as a Setite-based stratgey, but the thread eventually > settled on a Giovanni implementation of the above combo being the best > one. However, I waited until Final Nights to release the deck that made > use of it (See the "Raped, Raved and Razed" deck posted earlier this > month) as the existing card set didn't quite have the cards and vampires > to pull it off effectively, IMO. Puppeteer was a huge boost to this > deck. (Come here, y'little weenie bastard. I got a job for ya.) Yeah, I think Puppeteer may be good. I haven't put together a deck with them yet, but I have two so I might as well try it sometime... and they're not Unique and only cost one pool! [re Remy Auclair's Force of Will/Daring the Dawn/Mind Rape deck] > Plagiarism!!! *grin* Actually, I'd be impressed anyway if he never read > the newsgroup. Btw, how did he do with it? If I'm reading the standings correctly, he got 1 VP and came in 23rd out of 31. So, four places better than me. :-) I played in one game with him and he was pretty much not getting anywhere in that one; I think he may have pulled off the "burn somebody else's vamp with Force of Will" combo once. Josh losing with miller delmardigan but having fun doing it (he got diablerized both games! there's something rotten in the territory of washington dc. and it starts with an "f" and ends with an "ortitude".)

"Xian" <xi...@NOSPAMwaste.org> wrote in message news:<e5pZ6.704$1v2.2...@news.uswest.net>... > Exactly. :) Good thing I'm a well-recognized Jyhad deity. Heh. Well-recognized? I suspect not more than five or ten people on this newsgroup could recognize you. Counting me. ;-) > Agreed. Most people who use the word degenerate tend to apply it in > the same sentence as (or in place of) "uncreative". Which is hardly > the case...speaking to an earlier post by Josh, he added something at > the end about creating a degenerate/cookie-cutter Shambling Hordes > deck, IIRC. Whether or not he was trying to make this point (Josh is > trickier than he lets on...Yo! Can I get a witness?), Preach it, brother! Oh. I guess I shouldn't witness to my own trickiness. > there was a > response that this couldn't be cookie-cutter, because it's not the > same, therefore (by implication) it wouldn't be degenerate. My point > (maybe not Josh's) is that yeah, since Shambling Hordes has just > entered the environment, it's not yet degenerate (cheesy) nor > cookie-cutter, but it is interesting. It could easily, however, be > degenerate (repetitive)...let's say Josh includes about, oh 25 > Shambling Hordes, some Necromancy stealth, and some Deflections along > with a few master cards. That's pretty fucking degenerate, if you ask > me. It's still completely fucking cool, and I intend to build one as > soon as I get the chance. Face it, degenerate (repetitive) does not > mean uncreative, and degenerate (cheesy) is just a subjective > definition used to shame someone out of playing a deck style you > haven't figured out how to deal with yet. That's kinda what I meant, yeah: it would be a "cookie-cutter" deck in that, once you decide to play with a Big Stack of Shambling Hordes, most of your deck is probably already determined. But it would also be a new thing, because Shambling Hordes is new. But it's an extremely obvious thing to do, so it is (I think) in a sense a "cookie-cutter" deck. But I don't have any problem with that. Josh incidentally it'll only have about eleven Hordes in it at the moment, cause that's all I've got, but twenty might not be a bad number in the ideal. (since you might need to discard half of them to feed to the other half.) gonna need a fair amount of support cards to replenish blood, too - having them cost 3 blood makes 'em much more Hordeable than if it were 3 pool, but the vamps will run out pretty quick at 3 a pop.

pd...@aol.comANTISPAM (Peter D Bakija) wrote in message news:<20010624134047...@ng-fd1.aol.com>... > Xian wrote: > >>Agreed. Most people who use the word degenerate tend to apply it in > the same sentence as (or in place of) "uncreative". Which is hardly > the case...speaking to an earlier post by Josh, he added something at > the end about creating a degenerate/cookie-cutter Shambling Hordes > deck, IIRC.>> > > Oh, that was clearly just Josh being tounge in cheek. Well, sorta. I was being a smart-ass, but I was also half-serious about it being a cookie-cutter deck. On the other hand, even in this kind of cookie-cutter deck, there's quite a bit of room for individual decisions as to how to support the cookie-cutter core. > >>Whether or not he was trying to make this point (Josh is > trickier than he lets on...Yo! Can I get a witness?),>> > > Josh is the trickiest guy I know. He's tricky, heh, heh, he's tricky, as Run > D.M.C. might say (at least I think it was Run D.M.C.) To the bom bom diggy/who is he/me the Tricky. okay, so I'm not the Tricky. But I might be tricky. Or even crafty. Like ice is cold. > >>My point(maybe not Josh's) is that yeah, since Shambling Hordes has just > entered the environment, it's not yet degenerate (cheesy) nor > cookie-cutter, but it is interesting.>> > > Perfectly strong point--but Josh's point was pretty much "I'm a wise guy" :-) Ah yes, that is always my point. It sometimes seems to elude people. > I love the parentheses! It is one of my favorite kinds of punctuation. I kind > of like the elipses (...) (which I may or may not have spelled correctly) as > well, but I find that unlike the parenthesis, the elipses defenitely is to be > used sparingly for humorous emphasis, and not like some folks seem to do > between every scentence. I hate that. On the other hand, the parentheses? I > just can't get enough of that. I just can't get enough. I'm a wee bit partial to the semicolon, myself. > (Yeah, I fell in to *way* too many song references there. Someone stop me.) Won't be me... Josh i'm up to my neck like toulouse-lautrec

"Wes" <gh...@NOSPAMmnsi.net> wrote in message news:<9h7fp...@enews4.newsguy.com>... [ quoted text not captured ] Say thanks to google. And to the fact that we are finally showing some orginization. It's just too bad that time limit got me. Or else you would have all had to face down my OBF/PRE/NEC deck in all it's glory. :( Having finally met him for the first time yesterday, matt is my favorite kind of player: "Wow, thats a cool idea!" instead of "that won't work" or "{insert generic card combo} is better" I have once again proven my case that cross table actions, which made everyone at the table say...damn you're stupid, are still the best way to sweep!(sorry noal) Aaron

> I have once again proven my case that cross table actions, which made > everyone at the table say...damn you're stupid, are still the best way > to sweep!(sorry noal) > > Aaron That may be Aaron.. I really really rarely take actions more than one space away from me (predator/prey) and I rarely sweep. Yesterday I took 3-4 points from three different tables, yet never swept. Perhaps you have caught onto a tactic I better learn. Look forward to seeing you all again at Origins. Matt PS: Thank you for the kind words. That deck concept of yours is the most creative I've heard in a long time. Question though: If you are getting full bounce action, whom do you choose to bounce between (ie you and Predator or you and Prey?) (I'm being purposefully cryptic so that your deck remains pure so to speak)

"Aaron" <roans...@yahoo.com> > > I have once again proven my case that cross table actions, which made > everyone at the table say...damn you're stupid, are still the best way > to sweep!(sorry noal) No... you haven't. Cheers, WES

Matt wrote: >>This all may have seemed like a Peter vs. Matt pissing match,>> I certainly wasn't pissing. I was just doing what I do on this newsgroup, as I enjoy it--rabidly defending my point of view. >>While I may not have liked the tone of this discussion (I felt I was being talked down to, and that's never fun)>> That is probably something to let go of--this is usenet, where everyone who posts is the sole unquestioned expert on the subject they happen to be posting on at the moment. As I mentioned earlier (in a tounge and cheek sense), when I am posting, I am always right. This may not actually be the case, sure, but what is the point of having an opinion if you aren't going to defend it? I certainly wasn't intending on talking down to you, I was simply disagreeing with you and explaining in verbose detail why (in my mind...) I was correct and you were not. Again, in an absolute sense, this may or may not be actually true, but that is unimportant. The debate is the whole point. >>I learned a whole lot from it, so I owe folks like Peter, Xian, Derek, and the rest a thank you.>> I was invloved in this discussion 'cause I was having a good time. I was checking the newsgroup obsessively to see if anyone had responded to anything good, so I could respond. That is why I get involved in these debates--'cause they strike me as immensely enjoyable. If I'm not having a good time with a thread, I don't continue to be involved in it. Thus, if I am posting, I am enjoying myself. And this thread? This was a good one. Yeah, it's pretty much done now, but before you got involved, I was really sad, as no one was disagreeing with me. Thank you for calling me wrong. Hope to see you at Origins. Peter D Bakija PD...@aol.com http://www.geocities.com/bakija6 "She's a hero you see. She's not like us." -Giles

"Matt Latham" <mla...@diamondtoolmfg.com> wrote in message news:<9h80f0$hqu$1...@nntp1-cm.news.eni.net>... > > I have once again proven my case that cross table actions, which made > > everyone at the table say...damn you're stupid, are still the best way > > to sweep!(sorry noal) > > > > Aaron > > That may be Aaron.. I really really rarely take actions more than one space > away from me (predator/prey) and I rarely sweep. Yesterday I took 3-4 points > from three different tables, yet never swept. Perhaps you have caught onto a > tactic I better learn. Well, from the other 3 tables yesterday, I managed to sweep 2, and score another 2 VP from the other table.(not including the mega game we didn't get to finish) The one table sweep was the direct result of destroying someone 3 prey's away, in a 5 player game. By taking Noal out of the picture his predator went all out on him...followed by his predator(my prey) going all out on him. I just realized that my deck was the fastest bleeder on the table. Amazing because my Giovanni Predator was playing an amazingly strong stealth/bleed machine. If you can bring the table to the breaking point on your terms, they you are set. It could have easily exploded in my face and I could have given the sweep to my predator, or Bernie(my grand prey) I will say Noal was a good sport about it, and played till the very end! He could have easily transfered out, and left me in a world of hurt. Thanks Noal, you are the my favorite puppet. ;) > Look forward to seeing you all again at Origins. > > Matt > > PS: Thank you for the kind words. That deck concept of yours is the most > creative I've heard in a long time. Question though: If you are getting full > bounce action, whom do you choose to bounce between (ie you and Predator or > you and Prey?) (I'm being purposefully cryptic so that your deck remains > pure so to speak) No problem. I live to entertain. Actually I have a very, very...uhm really off the deep end deck in construction right now. I should have it for a premier this weekend if you make it out. The deck in question is prefered to bounce to a sympathetic predator. Helping your prey in this fasion is pretty much detramental to the entire table, as his prey will easily get wasted on defense. Unless someone on the board is in a terribly strong position, in which case you want to help everyone else screw that guy. See, the thing is most folks get lost in the novelty of the deck, and get wacked. It's flexiable enough to be able to do what it has to, and still kill someone. Usually that involved using **SUPERIOR**(10+ a turn) pool gain to bring out all 12 vampires from the crypt. Very easy to do. Bouncing to your predator gives him a sense of control, especially when you allow him to do severe damage, 7-8 bleed a turn, while never unbalancing the table. It's sucky folks like Wes, that burn every card I play as fast as possbile for fear of some terrible combo, that ruin my day. (even in my 'normal' decks) Aaron

"Xian" <xi...@NOSPAMwaste.org> wrote in message news:G3rZ6.1454$1v2.3...@news.uswest.net... > > "Ian Lee" <cur...@aol.com> wrote in message > news:20010624151203...@ng-cj1.aol.com... > [snip Gangrel/Assamite/Brujah rush] > > You've just named three archetypes that all get stronger. How do > they deal > > with each other? > > Gangrel win. DotB kills the Assamites, Fortitude/Agg kills the > Brujah. Pretty simple. > not true, Assamites can do very well now at close range. -- Oscar Garza Prince of College Station Tx The Crazy Aggie

Oscar wrote: >>not true, Assamites can do very well now at close range.>> Yeah, not so much. Vs the Brujah or the Nosferatu, they get Immortally Grappled (which works poorly for them, unless they are on the attack and Khobar Honoring someone). Against the Gangrel, they get a single strike (which had better be something that the Gangrel can't prevent...), as the Gangrel are going to hit them with an aggrivated Scorpion Sting. [ quoted text not captured ]

Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote: >jo...@algonet.se (Johan Lundstrom) wrote: >>When it comes to DOtB, S.CE was the only type of cards that were >>affected by the move of the damage-dealing to the press-stop. Hence, >>they got an advantage from that particular ruling, and no-one else >>did. > >Not true. If you are a combat deck, and use, say, a Blur to punch the >lights out of the DotB'er with the +1 hand damage, combat never >reaches the press step, and you take no damage. > >So if you can send the Drawing vampire to torpor, then you can ALSO >evade the DotB damage - which is a very good thing. Good point. You're right, of course. However, decks using DotB have an annoying tendency to back it up with more combat cards, and sending them to torpor is often less a consideration than avoid ending up there yourself. :-) Decks with masses of DotB were a real nightmare for S:CE end decks - you had 1 blood on the vamp, and someone intercepted you, dropped three DotB and went to long with Aid from Bats. Ouch! >>As for Immortal Grapple, I would laugh at anyone who claimed he >>inluded IG's more for countering Dodges than S:CE. If it wasn't for >>S:CE, we would see very few IG's. Thus, a weakening of IG is more of >>an improvement for S:CE than for any other card-type. > >Shouldn't laugh so loudly. Not only does Immortal Grapple stop >Dodges, very important in a Potence-only deck, it stops all kinds of >nastiness like Entombment, Coma, Theft of Vitae, Fleshcraft, >Acrobatics, etc.... take your pick. Alright, and I've known players to include Coma mainly so that they wouldn't be rushed when then the rusher didn't have an IG on hand. But while this is of course a nice side effect of IG, I think most decks include them primarily for use against S:CE. >You would most CERTAINLY see just as many IG as you do now; it's an >excellent way to make sure that the only way your opponent can hurt >you is with hand strikes, which is YOUR arena as the POT deck. I think the amount would be reduced - you would have more control of when to use it (as opposed to 'Every single time' when you rush Presence decks ;-)). For instance, only against Lasombras with superior OBT. Still, it's just an hypothesis, and certainly one of the lesser effects of removing S:CE... >>So please, tell me just what other strategy or card type benefited >>more from the rulings on IG and DOtB? > >See above. You really think POT rush benefited more than S:CE from the DotB change? I can't say I agree, but perhaps that's because I play a lot more Combat Ends-based decks than rush decks. :-) ----------------------------------------------------------- Johan Lundstrom <jo...@algonet.se> "Knowledge is power. Power corrupts."

James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: >Johan Lundstrom <jo...@algonet.se> writes >>>You need to address how S:CE altered *in the context of the entire >>>environment*. >> >>Really, I fail to see the problem. > >That's your loss then, as it seriously weakens any attempts at a >coherent argument. You snip quite roughly, you know. I thought the rest of my post would make the point clear: That even considering the rest of the environment, S:CE was increased (even relatively to other cards) in power. I argued for this - you can go back and check. If you deny that S:CE got more powerful or useful, given that two cards that could hurt S:CE were weakened, I would like to hear the argument. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Sun, 24 Jun 2001, Jason Bell wrote: > Maybe it's just my play group, but I can't remember the last time > an heavy animalism deck took a table.*** > > - Jason Bell > > ***(Sorry Dave, but as good as your Tzimisce deck is, I don't think I've > seen it do better than wall up for 2.) S'okay. That's not really a "heavy animalism" deck, nor is it a "heavy combat" deck. I went through a love affair with animalism and wound out of it right around the time you started playing with us regularly. Talk to Alex or Chris.... they were on the recieving end of that combo, A LOT. Come to think of it, I *started* playing with them in that phase, and you'll note how many of them lean toward animalism still. Think it made an impression.... David Cherryholmes

On Mon, 25 Jun 2001, Derek Ray wrote: > On Mon, 25 Jun 2001 07:23:22 GMT, "Jason Bell" <Jason...@mail.com> > wrote: > > >A player cannot allow his predator to bloat up and push out extra > >minions all game long with a blase "not my problem" attitude. > > What exactly is your grandpredator doing all this time? Sitting on > his thumbs? You keep assuming that this Ventrue deck has no pressure > behind it. Your GRANDPREDATOR should be blocking every single > 5th/Govern-down action he can. If your grandpredator can't block > stealth actions, he must be putting some OTHER form of pressure on the > Ventrue deck. What could it be? Actually, man, this guy Jason's referring to lucks out with the "kinder, gentler" predator a fair amount of the time, because there are a fair number of players in our group who heard the word "metagame" on some street corner and took it to mean god-knows-what. I almost never seem to sit next to him but I'd love to. In front, behind, I don't care. Not that his decks are bad, they're not. He has a good grasp of covering the bases of oust your prey, combat defense, and bleed defense. Hell, I respect him just for having the guts to play the big guys; it's weenie city up here. David Cherryholmes

On Tue, 26 Jun 2001 10:47:28 -0400, David Cherryholmes <d...@petsparc.mc.duke.edu> wrote: >On Mon, 25 Jun 2001, Derek Ray wrote: >> What exactly is your grandpredator doing all this time? Sitting on >> his thumbs? You keep assuming that this Ventrue deck has no pressure >> behind it. Your GRANDPREDATOR should be blocking every single >> 5th/Govern-down action he can. If your grandpredator can't block >> stealth actions, he must be putting some OTHER form of pressure on the >> Ventrue deck. What could it be? > >Actually, man, this guy Jason's referring to lucks out with the "kinder, >gentler" predator a fair amount of the time, because there are a fair >number of players in our group who heard the word "metagame" on some >street corner and took it to mean god-knows-what. I almost never seem to >sit next to him but I'd love to. In front, behind, I don't care. Not >that his decks are bad, they're not. He has a good grasp of covering the >bases of oust your prey, combat defense, and bleed defense. Hell, I >respect him just for having the guts to play the big guys; it's weenie >city up here. It's weenie city everywhere; we have Mike Perlman, remember. =) This is kind of interesting, actually; you've seen me play intercept with this style before, in the qualifier with Conor as my predator, Chris (Sorrow) as my prey, and you cross-table. I don't think I blocked a single one of Conor's actions all game long, and I know he successfully got off several MT/5th combos to get vampires out. The biggest problem I had was that Sorrow took one look at my deck and started discarding ALL his undirected actions, equipment, etc, and stuck to just bleeding forward with Claws - kind of a bad scene for your Beast/Potence rush deck. =/ That left me in a bad spot for awhile, where I'd bleed Sorrow for 2-3 each turn, leave one guy up in case Conor did anything bad and evil at me, and not be able to put enough pressure anywhere because I couldn't move cards. Killing Conor would have moved cards, but also moved your deck behind me, and I wasn't inclined to have my guys Rushed repeatedly... especially with so few maneuvers as I had running around. Anyway, I didn't intend to bash on the guy Jason's referring to; I'm assuming he's going to play as well as possible. But I just couldn't figure out where his PREDATOR was while all these undirected, interceptable actions were going on. =) -- Derek

On Tue, 26 Jun 2001, Derek Ray wrote: > On Tue, 26 Jun 2001 10:47:28 -0400, David Cherryholmes > <d...@petsparc.mc.duke.edu> wrote: > This is kind of interesting, actually; you've seen me play intercept > with this style before, in the qualifier with Conor as my predator, > Chris (Sorrow) as my prey, and you cross-table. I don't think I > blocked a single one of Conor's actions all game long, and I know he > successfully got off several MT/5th combos to get vampires out. The > biggest problem I had was that Sorrow took one look at my deck and > started discarding ALL his undirected actions, equipment, etc, and > stuck to just bleeding forward with Claws - kind of a bad scene for > your Beast/Potence rush deck. =/ That left me in a bad spot for > awhile, where I'd bleed Sorrow for 2-3 each turn, leave one guy up in > case Conor did anything bad and evil at me, and not be able to put > enough pressure anywhere because I couldn't move cards. Killing Conor > would have moved cards, but also moved your deck behind me, and I > wasn't inclined to have my guys Rushed repeatedly... especially with > so few maneuvers as I had running around. I was SO hosed that game: three gangrel decks, freak crypt-draw with the few cel minions in the deck (eg. Beast) so no Acrobatics, et cetera, ad nauseum :( > Anyway, I didn't intend to bash on the guy Jason's referring to; I'm > assuming he's going to play as well as possible. But I just couldn't > figure out where his PREDATOR was while all these undirected, > interceptable actions were going on. =) I think the reason this guy (who's name is Matt, BTW) is running wild is due to a lot of people thinking they can neglect casual intercept ability. IMHO if it's not dedicated rush, or it doesn't have a damn, damn, good chance of moving forward so fast you can wrap around, you'd better be able to muster the old +1 every now and then, at least. The new infusion of Kiss of Ra is putting a kink in just relying on the intercept, tho. David

On Tue, 26 Jun 2001 12:13:17 -0400, David Cherryholmes <d...@petsparc.mc.duke.edu> wrote: >On Tue, 26 Jun 2001, Derek Ray wrote: > >> enough pressure anywhere because I couldn't move cards. Killing Conor >> would have moved cards, but also moved your deck behind me, and I >> wasn't inclined to have my guys Rushed repeatedly... especially with >> so few maneuvers as I had running around. > >I was SO hosed that game: three gangrel decks, freak crypt-draw with the >few cel minions in the deck (eg. Beast) so no Acrobatics, et cetera, ad >nauseum :( Yeah, but I didn't have a single Claw in the whole deck. Everything I was doing was from Carrion Crows/Song of Serenity, and i'm afraid that Beast just isn't the musical type. I had to make sure you stayed cross-table, which meant leaving Conor alive instead of speed-bumping him; which meant leaving you out to dry over there. >> Anyway, I didn't intend to bash on the guy Jason's referring to; I'm >> assuming he's going to play as well as possible. But I just couldn't >> figure out where his PREDATOR was while all these undirected, >> interceptable actions were going on. =) > >I think the reason this guy (who's name is Matt, BTW) is running wild is >due to a lot of people thinking they can neglect casual intercept >ability. IMHO if it's not dedicated rush, or it doesn't have a damn, >damn, good chance of moving forward so fast you can wrap around, you'd >better be able to muster the old +1 every now and then, at least. The new >infusion of Kiss of Ra is putting a kink in just relying on the intercept, >tho. Heh. Looks like it'd be time for the Gangrel Untap Wall to make an appearance over there; Rat's Warning, Raven Spies, lots of Claws and prevent, a few DotB to make sure people stay put... and some nice Tier of Souls/Army of Rats. I often wonder if people even consider defense in their decks sometimes. You HAVE to ask yourself "what will I do against a vote deck taking 3-4 +1 stealth actions behind me?" And then design accordingly. -- Derek

On Tue, 26 Jun 2001, Derek Ray wrote: > Yeah, but I didn't have a single Claw in the whole deck. Everything I > was doing was from Carrion Crows/Song of Serenity, and i'm afraid that > Beast just isn't the musical type. That's one of the great things about the Gangrel. Protean has such high utility for doing other things and the mere threat of the claws (that are, in fact, usually there in some degree) holds people off or lets you sail through. My current Gangrel deck doesn't have a single one in it either, although people are starting to figure that out so I might make room for a handfull. > Heh. Looks like it'd be time for the Gangrel Untap Wall to make an > appearance over there; Rat's Warning, Raven Spies, lots of Claws and > prevent, a few DotB to make sure people stay put... and some nice Tier > of Souls/Army of Rats. Yeah. I'm going lately with the Tzimisce wall, mainly for access to Pulses and, while perma-cept is great and necessary and all that, having the auspex let's me flow cards a little better with the transient stuff. Haven't played it since FN came out. Might yank it out for tonight's game and chuck in a few Zilah's..... > I often wonder if people even consider defense in their decks > sometimes. You HAVE to ask yourself "what will I do against a vote > deck taking 3-4 +1 stealth actions behind me?" And then design > accordingly. Nope. I think most people think about combat (defense, mostly) and ousting their prey. Blocking actions is left to "those intercept decks." David

In message <3b3792d7....@news.algonet.se>, Johan Lundstrom <jo...@algonet.se> writes >That even considering the rest of the >environment, S:CE was increased (even relatively to other cards) in >power. I argued for this - you can go back and check. Assertion isn't argument, it's assertion. [ quoted text not captured ]

> On Tue, 26 Jun 2001, Derek Ray wrote: > > Heh. Looks like it'd be time for the Gangrel Untap Wall to make an > > appearance over there; Rat's Warning, Raven Spies, lots of Claws and > > prevent, a few DotB to make sure people stay put... and some nice Tier > > of Souls/Army of Rats. Of course the Gangrel would get around the Kiss, which I'm sure you meant. David

"Peter D Bakija" <pd...@aol.comANTISPAM> wrote in message news:20010625223732...@ng-fq1.aol.com... > Oscar wrote: > >>not true, Assamites can do very well now at close range.>> > > Yeah, not so much. Vs the Brujah or the Nosferatu, they get Immortally Grappled > (which works poorly for them, unless they are on the attack and Khobar Honoring > someone). Against the Gangrel, they get a single strike (which had better be > something that the Gangrel can't prevent...), as the Gangrel are going to hit > them with an aggrivated Scorpion Sting. > > IG will definately put a dent into Assamite combat but a Thin Blood + Dagon's or Scorpions Touch will do some damage, not to mention Thetmes and Bajazet with aggravated hand damage. Disease cripples the gangrels offense and a Vascular explosion or two will but em away. [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] That was sort of the idea, yeah. =) That, or the Ventrue Anti, who can intercept, prevent, AND bleed. But that's a bit trickier to make work, because they also curl up and die well. -- Derek

James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: >Johan Lundstrom <jo...@algonet.se> writes >>That even considering the rest of the >>environment, S:CE was increased (even relatively to other cards) in >>power. I argued for this - you can go back and check. > >Assertion isn't argument, it's assertion. And if you quit the bull-headedness for just one instance, you will see that I argued for my position. Which is a good deal more than strategic snippage and snide remarks, which is what you've contributed for these last posts. Go back and check it, if you can be bothered. You might want to contribute to the argument by responding to some of the points, while you're at it. Or not. Your choice. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <3b38ee5f...@news.algonet.se>, Johan Lundstrom <jo...@algonet.se> writes >>>That even considering the rest of the >>>environment, S:CE was increased (even relatively to other cards) in >>>power. I argued for this - you can go back and check. >> >>Assertion isn't argument, it's assertion. > >And if you quit the bull-headedness for just one instance, you will >see that I argued for my position. No, you've continually asserted things, rather than actually citing evidence, games, interactions, theories, potential problems, potential upsides and so forth. You have thus far done nothing other than state opinion and get annoyed when people tell you that that isn't going to wash, so far as I can see. [ quoted text not captured ]

James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: >>And if you quit the bull-headedness for just one instance, you will >>see that I argued for my position. > >No, you've continually asserted things, rather than actually citing >evidence, games, interactions, theories, potential problems, potential >upsides and so forth. > >You have thus far done nothing other than state opinion and get annoyed >when people tell you that that isn't going to wash, so far as I can see. I shouldn't have to re-post, of course, but anyway: *** "Once upon a time, Immortal Grapple lasted the entire combat. Once upon a time, Drawing Out the Beast hurt even if you CombatEnded. S:CE was certainly strengthened by those two rulings." *** "When it comes to DOtB, S:CE was the only type of cards that were affected by the move of the damage-dealing to the press-stop. Hence, they got an advantage from that particular ruling, and no-one else did." (I amended this after *good* input from Derek later, although I maintain S:CE got the *most* benefit from the ruling)" "As for Immortal Grapple, I would laugh at anyone who claimed he inluded IG's more for countering Dodges than S:CE. If it wasn't for S:CE, we would see very few IG's. Thus, a weakening of IG is more of an improvement for S:CE than for any other card-type." *** "Decks with masses of DotB were a real nightmare for S:CE end decks - you had 1 blood on the vamp, and someone intercepted you, dropped three DotB and went to long with Aid from Bats. Ouch!" *** Now, what are your contributions? If you really think S:CE *wasn't* strengthened by these rulings, then I think you should put up an argument, too. If you agree it was strengthened, then what are you complaining about? The one spouting opinions without any backup, who has done strategic snipping, and who has repeatedly avoided specific questions in order to rant, is you, mr Coupe. You've told me my position "doesn't wash". Now, what about some relevant arguments? [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <3b39045d...@news.algonet.se>, Johan Lundstrom <jo...@algonet.se> writes >Now, what are your contributions? I'm pointing out that you're talking shit. None of your quotes have proved anything. With IG, you failed to take into account what IG actually does - S:CE isn't the only thing, again you take a facet that fits your argument. Similarly, you have only taken one very small facet of how DotB works before and after. Taking tiny facets to prove a whole big thing doesn't work, dear. Stop talking shit and buck your ideas up. [ quoted text not captured ]

> "When it comes to DOtB, S:CE was the only type of cards that were > affected by the move of the damage-dealing to the press-stop. Hence, > they got an advantage from that particular ruling, and no-one else > did." (I amended this after *good* input from Derek later, although I > maintain S:CE got the *most* benefit from the ruling)" > > "As for Immortal Grapple, I would laugh at anyone who claimed he > inluded IG's more for countering Dodges than S:CE. If it wasn't for > S:CE, we would see very few IG's. Thus, a weakening of IG is more of > an improvement for S:CE than for any other card-type." I understand what you are saying. But the reality is that if you IG someone and don't plant their ass on the first round of combat. You should have just cycled about 3-6 cards. You probably are holding another IG in your hand if you built the deck to use immortal grapple and kill them with it. So your arguement that S:CE is now stronger is so marginal that you are talking fractions of percentages of increases in strength. So in theory, yes, S;CE is more powerful, but in reality their is no real effect on the game in reality. > *** > > "Decks with masses of DotB were a real nightmare for S:CE end decks - > you had 1 blood on the vamp, and someone intercepted you, dropped > three DotB and went to long with Aid from Bats. Ouch!" Decks with masses of DOTB were nightmares for everyone and really sort of existed outside the framework of how combat works. It didn't make any sense and was non-intuitive. Actually, it kind of sucked. > *** > > Now, what are your contributions? If you really think S:CE *wasn't* > strengthened by these rulings, then I think you should put up an > argument, too. If you agree it was strengthened, then what are you > complaining about? I will agree that S:CE was strengthened by these changes, but in such a marginal way that it had no real effect on the game. Perhaps you can realistically demonstrate how your S:CE deck can get survive sitting down next to a Grapple Rush deck. Please illuminate me. I am in the dark as to the real effect of this on any gaming scene where IG's occur on a regular basis. Toreador's, Setites, and Ventrue without Fortitude or Obedience are so much plant food in a high combat environment that it is not even funny. Comments Welcome, Norman S. Brown, JR. XZealot Archon of the Swamp

X_Ze...@email.msn.com (XZealot) wrote: >I understand what you are saying. Thanks. >But the reality is that if you IG someone and don't plant their ass on the first >round of combat. You should have just cycled about 3-6 cards. You probably >are holding another IG in your hand if you built the deck to use immortal grapple > and kill them with it. A typical POT rush deck has 15-20 % IG. It's in no way a given that you managed to cycle another one. >So your arguement that S:CE is now stronger is so marginal that you are >talking fractions of percentages of increases in strength. So in >theory, yes, S;CE is more powerful, but in reality their is no real effect on the game in >reality. I agree the effect isn't huge. But I think it has some effects, especially vs some particular decks. >> "Decks with masses of DotB were a real nightmare for S:CE end decks - >> you had 1 blood on the vamp, and someone intercepted you, dropped >> three DotB and went to long with Aid from Bats. Ouch!" > >Decks with masses of DOTB were nightmares for everyone and really sort >of existed outside the framework of how combat works. It didn't make any >sense and was non-intuitive. Actually, it kind of sucked. True, true :-) If you had a combat deck, at least you could hit back. Although "3 DotB + Earth Meld" was the worst of the gang. >I will agree that S:CE was strengthened by these changes, but in such >a marginal way that it had no real effect on the game. Perhaps you can >realistically demonstrate how your S:CE deck can get survive sitting >down next to a Grapple Rush deck. Please illuminate me. I am in the >dark as to the real effect of this on any gaming scene where IG's occur >on a regular basis. >Toreador's, Setites, and Ventrue without Fortitude or Obedience are so >much plant food in a high combat environment that it is not even >funny. Well, Ventrue *with* fortitude now has a chance of surviving until the grapples run out (in the old days, you just got pressed until you ran out. Now you only haveto have as many Skins of Steel on hand as the Rush deck). Vampires with enough blood on them to stay out of torpor on the first round also get a better chance of surviving the combat. But yes, vampires that go to torpor on round one anyway are just as f*cked. I never claimed S:CE received a *major* boost. But I think it's there, and, especially for Ventrues packing a bit of fortitude, a noticable one. [ quoted text not captured ]

James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: >Johan Lundstrom <jo...@algonet.se> writes >>Now, what are your contributions? > >I'm pointing out that you're talking shit. What was it that you said? "Assertion isn't argument, it's assertion." You've *still* given no reason why S:CE didn't improve after the rulings. And this is the fourth or fifth time I'm asking you. >None of your quotes have proved anything. With IG, you failed to take >into account what IG actually does - S:CE isn't the only thing It's certainly one of the bigger things. >, again you take a facet that fits your argument. Shame on me for actually considering the relevant stuff, eh? I should of course have taken a facet that *didn't* fit my argument. Yes, that's it. >Similarly, you have only taken one very small facet of how DotB works >before and after. I looked on the effects of the specific change to the card, correct. >Taking tiny facets to prove a whole big thing doesn't work, dear. Stop >talking shit and buck your ideas up. I have. You haven't. Since you so militantly refuse to participate in a meaningful discussion, or even provide any real arguments, I'm making this my last post on the matter with you. If you decide to actually start a reasonable discussion, let me know. [ quoted text not captured ]

> this on any gaming scene where IG's occur on a regular basis. > Toreador's, Setites, and Ventrue without Fortitude or Obedience are so > much plant food in a high combat environment that it is not even > funny. I have to disagree, Norm. It's still funny. =) -- Pat Ricochet Soul Jar'rn Fool of Atlanta

> >But the reality is that if you IG someone and don't plant their ass on the first > >round of combat. You should have just cycled about 3-6 cards. You probably > >are holding another IG in your hand if you built the deck to use immortal grapple > > and kill them with it. > > A typical POT rush deck has 15-20 % IG. It's in no way a given that > you managed to cycle another one. Okay, if you are playing with a 90 card deck, you start with 7.7% of your cards in your opening hand. Let's say that you cannot play a master card that first round, but you choose to discard so now you are at 9% of your deck. You influence out a 3 cap with pot and cel. Turn two, you play a master card, now you are at 10.1 % of your deck. Okay is there another vampire controlled by either your predator or your prey? There should be. Rush this vampire with a bums rush, Play a torn signpost. If you have a IG play it. Fists of Death and blur. Now Taste of Vitae. That was 6 cards. You are now 16.7% into your deck on round 2 with one vampire. Influence out another vampire. Discard a card. Now you are at 17.8% of your deck. On round three you should have two vampires..... Do you understand how fast a IG deck should cycle? Do you understand why it is really easy to draw into the next IG? > >So your arguement that S:CE is now stronger is so marginal that you are > >talking fractions of percentages of increases in strength. So in > >theory, yes, S;CE is more powerful, but in reality their is no real effect on the game in > >reality. > > I agree the effect isn't huge. But I think it has some effects, > especially vs some particular decks. > Please show an example of S:CE getting stronger > >> "Decks with masses of DotB were a real nightmare for S:CE end decks - > >> you had 1 blood on the vamp, and someone intercepted you, dropped > >> three DotB and went to long with Aid from Bats. Ouch!" > > > >Decks with masses of DOTB were nightmares for everyone and really sort > >of existed outside the framework of how combat works. It didn't make any > >sense and was non-intuitive. Actually, it kind of sucked. > > True, true :-) > > If you had a combat deck, at least you could hit back. Although "3 > DotB + Earth Meld" was the worst of the gang. Thank you for showing me how S:CE (Earth Meld) was weakened by the DotB errata. Now, thanks to the errata, S:CE can no longer inflict massive amounts of unpreventable damage. This is a good thing. > > >I will agree that S:CE was strengthened by these changes, but in such > >a marginal way that it had no real effect on the game. Perhaps you can > >realistically demonstrate how your S:CE deck can get survive sitting > >down next to a Grapple Rush deck. Please illuminate me. I am in the > >dark as to the real effect of this on any gaming scene where IG's occur > >on a regular basis. > >Toreador's, Setites, and Ventrue without Fortitude or Obedience are so > >much plant food in a high combat environment that it is not even > >funny. > > Well, Ventrue *with* fortitude now has a chance of surviving until the > grapples run out (in the old days, you just got pressed until you ran > out. Now you only haveto have as many Skins of Steel on hand as the > Rush deck). So what you are really saying is that Fortitude beats IG. I agree. You will still be pressed until you run out. If it is pot cel IG you probably will run out of Fortitude before the round ends. If you are going to say that superior Skin of Steel prevents all strikes in a round, Then the cheapest Ventrue you are going to be playing with are Heather Florent or Nakova. Both of these are six caps. You should be getting rushed with two vampires for the price of one of these. S:CE still gets mangled by IG. You haven't proved how it doesn't. > Vampires with enough blood on them to stay out of torpor on the first > round also get a better chance of surviving the combat. If you can take 6 to 9 points of damage on round one, then you are able to survive at least your first IG Rush combat. > But yes, vampires that go to torpor on round one anyway are just as > f*cked. Are you agreeing or disagreeing with me here? > I never claimed S:CE received a *major* boost. But I think it's there, > and, especially for Ventrues packing a bit of fortitude, a noticable > one. Please demostrate how it is the S:CE that saves the Ventrue and not the fortiude. Comments Welcome, Norman S. Brown Jr. [ quoted text not captured ]

pd...@aol.comANTISPAM (Peter D Bakija) wrote in message > When I play VTES, I'm not looking for role-playing (I'm not a role-player and I > have no interest in the Vampire RPG, except as source material for VTES), I'm I disagree , VTES is a role-playing game ! Just look at the first paragraph of the rule book more or less paraphrazed here: V:TES is a (trading card) game in which two or more players take on the ROLES of ancient vampires known as Mathuselahs. See , you assume a ROLE thus you are roleplaying. :) But wait , let愀 have a look at the goals of the game , especially first sentence : Your goal is to destroy the influence held by rival Methuselahs. Which basically means , you want to kill them all :) By combining the two result I get something like this : This is a role-playing game , you assume a role of a vicious selfish monster known as methusellah whose goals are to destroy other vicious selfish monsters so he can be the only one remaining. So unlike other role-playing games your character (Methuselah) is fixed as are fixed his goals (destroying others). You just don愒 get that much flexibility in this role-playing game like you get in some others. So what is my answer to people who play for fun , wants to bring 10 werewolf packs in the game or God forbid role-play malkavian ? My answer is that they don愒 role-play their character very well. Kajik

In message <3b397147....@news.algonet.se>, Johan Lundstrom <jo...@algonet.se> writes >What was it that you said? "Assertion isn't argument, it's assertion." > > >You've *still* given no reason why S:CE didn't improve after the >rulings. And this is the fourth or fifth time I'm asking you. Plenty of other people have already done this. The rulings affect a number of other combat decks, increasing their viability far more so than any benefit to S:CE. S:CE doesn't benefit from IG, since you'll be dead in the first round if the deck is being played half-way competently. DotB affects many, many, many decks - that it affects S:CE is just one of them. Again, you just pick the facets that "support" your argument, ignoring the rest of the real world. *sigh* [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <c0c36ed1.01062...@posting.google.com>, Karol Magda <kma...@my-deja.com> writes >I disagree , VTES is a role-playing game ! No, it's a card game. In Monopoly, you take on the role of a property agent. It's still a board game, however. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <82c154eb.01062...@posting.google.com>, XZealot <X_Ze...@email.msn.com> writes >Do you understand how fast a IG deck should cycle? >Do you >understand why it is really easy to draw into the next IG? If he did, he wouldn't be arguing about it. :( He clearly has no comprehension of the workings of the environment by the rules. Perhaps he should go and troll another group with ASD, or something. They seem perfectly suited. [ quoted text not captured ]

"James Coupe" <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote > Johan Lundstrom <jo...@algonet.se> writes > >What was it that you said? "Assertion isn't argument, it's assertion." > > > >You've *still* given no reason why S:CE didn't improve after the > >rulings. And this is the fourth or fifth time I'm asking you. > > > Plenty of other people have already done this. > > The rulings affect a number of other combat decks, increasing their > viability far more so than any benefit to S:CE. S:CE doesn't benefit > from IG, since you'll be dead in the first round if the deck is being > played half-way competently. The above is a naked, unsupported assertion with no support in fact or argument. And appartently, this was concocted just to avoid permitting that S:CE is improved by being available for use in the second round of combat after Immortal Grapple's press has been employed. My 5 cap Gangrel used Form of Mist in the second round of a combat vs. IG a few weeks ago, after losing 4 blood in the first round. My friend will be disappointed to learn that he cannot play his deck half-way competently, and I am amazed to learn that the Form of Mist is not improved by being available to play when I did, as opposed to being a dead card for that combat. > Again, you just pick the facets that "support" your argument, ignoring > the rest of the real world. > > *sigh* What about you and your "you'll be dead in the first round" so it doesn't matter "facet?" - Jason Bell

On Wed, 27 Jun 2001, Jason Bell wrote: > My 5 cap Gangrel used Form of Mist in the second > round of a combat vs. IG a few weeks ago, after losing > 4 blood in the first round. My friend will be disappointed > to learn that he cannot play his deck half-way competently, > and I am amazed to learn that the Form of Mist is not > improved by being available to play when I did, as opposed > to being a dead card for that combat. I'd like to hop in here and just say that I think Kiss of Ra is *so* much worse than S:CE. I mean, I know it's apples and oranges to a degree, but I'm still licking my wounds from last night's pounding. If I know ahead of time that I will be sitting anywhere near a deck that's packin' thwart-em-atitude either I'll play one, too, or one that just never blocks. Bleh. David

X_Ze...@email.msn.com (XZealot) wrote: (First of all I must tell you that I thoroughly respect your position. You make logically consistent arguments for your point, and behave in a civilized manner. I wish I could say that for everyone.) >Okay, if you are playing with a 90 card deck, you start with 7.7% of >your cards in your opening hand. Let's say that you cannot play a master card >that first round, but you choose to discard so now you are at 9% of your deck. >You influence out a 3 cap with pot and cel. Turn two, you play a master card, >now you are at 10.1 % of your deck. Okay is there another vampire >controlled by either your predator or your prey? There should be. >Rush this vampire with a bums rush, Play a torn signpost. If you have a IG play it. >Fists of Death and blur. Now Taste of Vitae. That was 6 cards. You are now >16.7% into your deck on round 2 with one vampire. Influence out >another vampire. Discard a card. Now you are at 17.8% of your deck. >On round three you should have two vampires..... Do you understand how fast a IG > deck should cycle? Do you understand why it is really easy to draw into the next IG? Let's look closer at this. You've made your first rush on per above. You've had a pretty decent card-flow, but that's OK. After you've played Bums/TS/FoD/IG/Blur/Taste you're 16.7% of the way through your deck. Now, if your deck is 20% IG (the standard amount, as far as i can tell. Correct me if I'm wrong), you will normally *not* have a second IG on hand at this point. If my vampire plays Skin of Steel (even inferior could be enough in this case), it can play Majesty on the second round of combat. This would leave me with an alive vamp rather than a torporized one - quite important against the first rush. This is of course just an example. As long as things run as one hopes they would, then yes, you'll be able to cycle IG decently well. However, as I'm sure anyone who has played a Pot Rush deck knows, sometimes you're out of luck. Having to spend more IG than usual increases the chance of not getting enough IG. It's not an incredibly serious problem (the way running out of rush is), but if just a few rushes fail, you may be in trouble. The current discussion notwithstanding, there are also more types of decks using IG than weenie potence rush. Nosferatu and Lasombra toolboxes are just a two examples. They would have nowhere near the IG density of potence weenie deck, and so their chance of replacing IG would be correspondingly smaller >Please show an example of S:CE getting stronger You get a chance to play it second round if you didn't go to torpor on the first round and the guy rushing you didn't have a second IG. For a specific example: Ventrue with Skin of Steel + Majesty (more on that below). >Thank you for showing me how S:CE (Earth Meld) was weakened by the >DotB errata. Now, thanks to the errata, S:CE can no longer inflict massive amounts >of unpreventable damage. This is a good thing. Yeah. You have to settle for a single point from Catatonic. And I agree, S:CE+DotB (for offensive use) was weakened by the ruling. S:CE as defence (against DotB) was strengthened by the same rule, as you don't suffer the damage from DotB any more. I think the second case was more common than the first, which resulted in a small overall strengthening of S:CE. >So what you are really saying is that Fortitude beats IG. I agree. >You will still be pressed until you run out. Before the ruling, this was totally true. Now, it's possible that the rushing deck runs out of IG's before you run out of prevent. >If it is pot cel IG you >probably will run out of Fortitude before the round ends. If you are going to >say that superior Skin of Steel prevents all strikes in a round, Then >the cheapest Ventrue you are going to be playing with are Heather Florent or >Nakova. Both of these are six caps. You should be getting rushed with >two vampires for the price of one of these. Possibly, but since I'm likely playing with the three 7-8 cap princes anyway, at least *they*, (who are more important than the weenies) get a better chance to survive. Always something. >S:CE still gets mangled by IG. You haven't proved how it doesn't. It does, yes. But not *quite* as badly as before. >> Vampires with enough blood on them to stay out of torpor on the first >> round also get a better chance of surviving the combat. > >If you can take 6 to 9 points of damage on round one, then you are >able to survive at least your first IG Rush combat. Pardon? The IG has a press on superior, and if you use Cel, you have flashes. Unless I can press against, you just go to second round and beat some more. This is where the ruling helped - unless you have a second IG, I can now S:CE. >> But yes, vampires that go to torpor on round one anyway are just as >> f*cked. > >Are you agreeing or disagreeing with me here? I'm agreeing in that vampires that don't survive round one anyway don't get any bonus from the ruling on IG. Disagreeing on that would be inane, as the change doesn't affect first round at all. However, vampires that *can* survive round one (one way or the other) get a chance of playing S:CE on round two, unless grappled again. >> I never claimed S:CE received a *major* boost. But I think it's there, >> and, especially for Ventrues packing a bit of fortitude, a noticable >> one. > >Please demostrate how it is the S:CE that saves the Ventrue and not >the fortiude. It's the combination. Just fortitude doesn't cut it (you'll be pressed until you run out). Just S:CE doesn't cut it (you'll be mangled on round one). The two of them together can save you. And a note for the record: I'm not claiming S:CE is unbeatable. Not at all. A potence weenie deck will likely smear you all over the countryside. But I can't for the life of me understand how anyone can argue that it didn't get any advantage from the rulings (and I realize you don't claim this - your argument that the improvements were *negligible* is a far more interesting one. I personally think the improvements were small but noticable, especially in some decks.) [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <t%p_6.32321$Md.95...@typhoon.southeast.rr.com>, Jason Bell <Jason...@mail.com> writes >What about you and your "you'll be dead in the first round" so >it doesn't matter "facet?" Please cite, say, 5 relevant decks which use IG at a successful, competitive level which don't expect to torporise a vampire in the first round, when faced with S:CE based defence. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Wed, 27 Jun 2001 18:56:25 GMT, "Jason Bell" <Jason...@mail.com> wrote: >"James Coupe" <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote >> Johan Lundstrom <jo...@algonet.se> writes > >> The rulings affect a number of other combat decks, increasing their >> viability far more so than any benefit to S:CE. S:CE doesn't benefit >> from IG, since you'll be dead in the first round if the deck is being >> played half-way competently. > >The above is a naked, unsupported assertion with >no support in fact or argument. And appartently, >this was concocted just to avoid permitting that >S:CE is improved by being available for use in the >second round of combat after Immortal Grapple's >press has been employed. Allow me to correct the statement, then. If you are playing an IG-based Potence deck, and you do not kill your opponent in the first round of 90% of your combats, then you have fucked up your deck design. (Barring the opponent's use of Fortitude, of course). Immortal Grapple was ridiculously powerful in its previous incarnation; play Torn Signpost, play IG, strike for 3, press with IG, strike for 3 again, opponent can merely strike-hands for whatever. If you were playing anything other than Gangrel aggravated poke, counter-Potence, or heavy Fortitude, you died. And that's from only two cards. Add a third card for the Bum's Rush. Simple, no? If you use the Brujah, they have access to Celerity and can play Flash to chase down heavy-maneuver decks. Now add in plenty of Legal Manipulations so that you can bleed lots, and you have a pretty strong deck. THIS is pretty damned broken. Currently, to take full advantage of IG, you need to include cards that will operate under the round IG is active. This makes IG balanced. >My 5 cap Gangrel used Form of Mist in the second >round of a combat vs. IG a few weeks ago, after losing >4 blood in the first round. My friend will be disappointed >to learn that he cannot play his deck half-way competently, >and I am amazed to learn that the Form of Mist is not >improved by being available to play when I did, as opposed >to being a dead card for that combat. Your friend should consider punching for more in the first round. A simple IG/Pushing the Limit is strong, but not perfect -- and nor should it be. Your vampire did not get away unscathed, of course, having lost 4 blood. This means that both S:CE and IG are equally useful, in my eyes... the 50-50 balance I talked about. >What about you and your "you'll be dead in the first round" so >it doesn't matter "facet?" If you build the deck right, they WILL be dead in the first round. -- Derek

"David Cherryholmes" <d...@petsparc.mc.duke.edu> wrote [ quoted text not captured ] Yeah, it's really tough. My favorite decks these days all have fortitude (innefective Ravnos, really effective Gangrel, ubiquitous Ventrue), so I'm either playing it (sorry for stealing your double Succulent Vitae'ed Blood Dolled 5 cap Assamite, Dave), or smug in blocking it, but I know it sucks. If only we could convince Matt to keep playing his awful Toreador deck instead of his dangerous Gangrel one, that would be one less worry. - Jason Bell

"James Coupe" <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote >, Jason Bell <Jason...@mail.com> writes > >What about you and your "you'll be dead in the first round" so > >it doesn't matter "facet?" > > Please cite, say, 5 relevant decks which use IG at a successful, > competitive level which don't expect to torporise a vampire in the first > round, when faced with S:CE based defence. Are you sure you're talking out of the correct end, because your poop don't stink. - Jason Bell

"Derek Ray" <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote "Jason Bell" <Jason...@mail.com>> wrote: > >What about you and your "you'll be dead in the first round" so > >it doesn't matter "facet?" > > If you build the deck right, they WILL be dead in the first round. Surely you can't actually believe this. Do you have an unpreventable aggrivated damage strike in the first round often enough to go with the IG to back this idiotic claim up? I tend to doubt it. If you decide to claim otherwise, I'll have to refer to your crappy tournament rating. - Jason Bell

In message <u9B_6.36654$Md.10...@typhoon.southeast.rr.com>, Jason Bell <Jason...@mail.com> writes >> If you build the deck right, they WILL be dead in the first round. > >Surely you can't actually believe this. Do you have an >unpreventable That's not S:CE related. >aggrivated That's not S:CE related. And you just do lots of damage. >damage strike in the first round >often enough to go with the IG to back this idiotic claim up? Remember what we were saying about the bigger picture dear? (At this point, Jason will make some unrelated comment about smelly poop, or something, when he realises he's missed the point again.) Are you now saying that you'd need S:CE and damage prevention to survive? Gosh. If S:CE was so upgraded by the change to IG, I'm surprised you need anything else because, clearly, S:CE rules everything. You're continuing to not look at the fact that the game includes many different interactions - and many other things were altered far more significantly than S:CE being usable in another round with a small change to S:CE. -- James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D EBD690ECD7A1F "Analogies can be dangerous, Amanda," he begins, smiling B457CA213D7E6 slightly, "because the world is like a sandcastle..." 68C3695D623D5D

In message <5UA_6.36484$Md.10...@typhoon.southeast.rr.com>, Jason Bell <Jason...@mail.com> writes >> Please cite, say, 5 relevant decks which use IG at a successful, >> competitive level which don't expect to torporise a vampire in the first >> round, when faced with S:CE based defence. > >Are you sure you're talking out of the correct end, >because your poop don't stink. So you still cannot back up the assertion that S:CE is significantly upgraded by IG being restricted to one round. Interesting. -- James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D [ quoted text not captured ]

Jason wrote: >>Surely you can't actually believe this. Do you have an unpreventable aggrivated damage strike in the first round often enough to go with the IG to back this idiotic claim up? I tend to doubt it. If you decide to claim otherwise, I'll have to refer to your crappy tournament rating.>> Speaking as the guy who plays, pretty much, only Rush decks in competetion, Derek is not off base here. If you are playing an IG Rush deck, the plan is to kill your opponent on the first round, and most of the time (barring Fortitude), it works. You need to go either heavy POT (Nosferatu) and stack up TS, FoD, and US (7 points) for a killer first round strike, or POT/cel (Brujah) with TS, US, Blur (8 points, assuming no CEL). Some would even advocate pot/CEL and use TS, US, Blur for 7 points. Adjust according to taste and/or need. And if all else fails, you have Disarm. If this doesn't kill them on round one, you might have to press into a second round to finish them off--that is why you play with 12 IG in your deck. If you are playing a Rush deck that can't reliably torporize an opponent in one round (again, barring Fortitude), then you aren't playing an effective Rush deck. Sure, sometimes things don't go according to plan (you don't draw the right cards, they have unforseen damage prevention) and you need to press. So you play another IG. Generally, however, you only need one per combat, 'cause your opponent is dead on the first round. When the 7/7 errata fixed IG, yeah, I grumbled and complained for a few days, but then I just tweaked my deck to take out the extra pressess and replace them with more FoD. And added a few more IGs. And my deck works great. And 90% of the time, I torporize an opponent on the first round. [ quoted text not captured ]

On 28 Jun 2001 12:33:31 GMT, Peter D Bakija wrote: >When the 7/7 errata fixed IG I'm confused. Are you saying that Immortal Grapple has errata? I can't find anything in the online errata but that doesn't mean much because of the MRP invisible-mending policy. I've looked in a copy of the 7/7 rulings and I can't find anything there either. I don't know why I'm bothering as I can't stand this kind of thing but I suppose it's like picking a scab ... Andrew

Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> wrote: >On 28 Jun 2001 12:33:31 GMT, Peter D Bakija wrote: > >>When the 7/7 errata fixed IG > >I'm confused. Are you saying that Immortal Grapple has errata? I >can't find anything in the online errata but that doesn't mean much >because of the MRP invisible-mending policy. I've looked in a copy of >the 7/7 rulings and I can't find anything there either. I don't know It was in the 23-JUN-1998 RTR. PDB was mistaken as to the source. That errata was incorporated into the MRP. >why I'm bothering as I can't stand this kind of thing but I suppose >it's like picking a scab ... IG currently works as originally printed (in Jyhad), by virtue of the MRP rules. As per the migration of texts list I gave you earlier, the V:TES version merged the then-current errata into the card, making it function strangely. So the MRP was errata'ed back to the original printing in RTR 23-JUN-1998. And that errata was included in the Sabbat War card text. -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and tournament rules: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/

> Let's look closer at this. You've made your first rush on per above. > You've had a pretty decent card-flow, but that's OK. After you've > played Bums/TS/FoD/IG/Blur/Taste you're 16.7% of the way through your > deck. Now, if your deck is 20% IG (the standard amount, as far as i > can tell. Correct me if I'm wrong), you will normally *not* have a > second IG on hand at this point. If my vampire plays Skin of Steel > (even inferior could be enough in this case), it can play Majesty on > the second round of combat. This would leave me with an alive vamp > rather than a torporized one - quite important against the first rush. Here is the problem with your arguement. You keep stating that S:CE got more powerful because you are packing Fortitude. Fortitude contains no S:CE. It is mainly used for damage prevention. You cannot support your case that S:CE is more powerful if you use Fortitude. That is non-sensical and illogical. That is like saying the Volkswagen Rabbit is the fastest car in the world if you strap it to the space shuttle. Do you follow what I am saying? > This is of course just an example. As long as things run as one hopes > they would, then yes, you'll be able to cycle IG decently well. > However, as I'm sure anyone who has played a Pot Rush deck knows, > sometimes you're out of luck. Having to spend more IG than usual > increases the chance of not getting enough IG. It's not an incredibly > serious problem (the way running out of rush is), but if just a few > rushes fail, you may be in trouble. You are right. Any deck that fails to do what it was designed to do, usually is in trouble. > The current discussion notwithstanding, there are also more types of > decks using IG than weenie potence rush. Nosferatu and Lasombra > toolboxes are just a two examples. They would have nowhere near the IG > density of potence weenie deck, and so their chance of replacing IG > would be correspondingly smaller Also true, but not relavent to the arguement of how the ruling on IG made S:CE stronger. > >Please show an example of S:CE getting stronger > > You get a chance to play it second round if you didn't go to torpor on > the first round and the guy rushing you didn't have a second IG. For a > specific example: Ventrue with Skin of Steel + Majesty (more on that > below). Once again, Your fortitude arguement is moot. What you are really saying is not that S:CE got stronger but the Ventrue did. Please defend S:CE not the Ventrue (that's Rob Tresure's Job) > >Thank you for showing me how S:CE (Earth Meld) was weakened by the > >DotB errata. Now, thanks to the errata, S:CE can no longer inflict massive amounts > >of unpreventable damage. This is a good thing. > > Yeah. You have to settle for a single point from Catatonic. > > And I agree, S:CE+DotB (for offensive use) was weakened by the ruling. > S:CE as defence (against DotB) was strengthened by the same rule, as > you don't suffer the damage from DotB any more. I think the second > case was more common than the first, which resulted in a small overall > strengthening of S:CE. I would contend that S:CE was weakened far more by the DotB errata than it was strengthen by either or both of the IG and Dotb errata. <snip Fortitude and IG> > Possibly, but since I'm likely playing with the three 7-8 cap princes > anyway, at least *they*, (who are more important than the weenies) get > a better chance to survive. Always something. > > >S:CE still gets mangled by IG. You haven't proved how it doesn't. > > It does, yes. But not *quite* as badly as before. Only if backed with Fortitude. BTW, Do you see many disarms in your group? > >> Vampires with enough blood on them to stay out of torpor on the first > >> round also get a better chance of surviving the combat. > > > >If you can take 6 to 9 points of damage on round one, then you are > >able to survive at least your first IG Rush combat. > > Pardon? The IG has a press on superior, and if you use Cel, you have > flashes. Unless I can press against, you just go to second round and > beat some more. This is where the ruling helped - unless you have a > second IG, I can now S:CE. I don't disagree with you there. When did you discover this errata which has been in effect for at the very least a year or two? IG was broken before. Now it has been fixed. > >> But yes, vampires that go to torpor on round one anyway are just as > >> f*cked. > > > >Are you agreeing or disagreeing with me here? > > I'm agreeing in that vampires that don't survive round one anyway > don't get any bonus from the ruling on IG. Disagreeing on that would > be inane, as the change doesn't affect first round at all. However, > vampires that *can* survive round one (one way or the other) get a > chance of playing S:CE on round two, unless grappled again. Once again, this is a fortitude arguement not a S:CE arguement. The errata to IG was nessasary in the extreme. > >> I never claimed S:CE received a *major* boost. But I think it's there, > >> and, especially for Ventrues packing a bit of fortitude, a noticable > >> one. > > > >Please demostrate how it is the S:CE that saves the Ventrue and not > >the fortiude. > > It's the combination. Just fortitude doesn't cut it (you'll be pressed > until you run out). Just S:CE doesn't cut it (you'll be mangled on > round one). The two of them together can save you. In the situation you are depicting. In reality, if you can survive to round two, then many things can save you, Dodge, S:CE, or more Fortitude. This is why IG was changed. <snip agreement> Mr. Lundstrom, you appear to be a new player with old cards. Welcome to the game. If you would like to see how the new IG is printed, then you should go buy a Sabbat War !Brujah Starter Deck. Comments Welcome, Norman S. Brown, Jr. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Thu, 28 Jun 2001 07:38:02 GMT, "Jason Bell" <Jason...@mail.com> wrote: > >"Derek Ray" <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote >"Jason Bell" <Jason...@mail.com>> wrote: > >> >What about you and your "you'll be dead in the first round" so >> >it doesn't matter "facet?" >> >> If you build the deck right, they WILL be dead in the first round. > >Surely you can't actually believe this. Do you have an >unpreventable aggrivated damage strike in the first round Did you see above where I mentioned "barring Fortitude"? Fortitude screws up ALL combat decks for awhile, until they run out. Superior Mettle completely hoses mono-Potence decks, which can press over and over again and never be able to generate additional strikes. Do you read? >often enough to go with the IG to back this idiotic claim up? >I tend to doubt it. If you decide to claim otherwise, I'll >have to refer to your crappy tournament rating. Nope. But I do have a Torn Signpost and Pushing the Limit. If I need to, I can use an Increased Strength on top of it. OR, I can use a Torn Signpost and Blur. Sum total: 6 damage, or 8 if I use an IS. That means I have to press against Emerson Bridges, but considering I can use Hugo and get that effect, that will make me happy. But if I use Jimmy Dunn, I don't have to press against Emerson anymore. And personally, I will not worry about killing 9-caps with one vampire. As I stated a few weeks ago, my vampires cost between 2 and 5. If I need to kill a 9-cap, I should have two actions to his one; if they both jump on him and hit him for 5, he goes away. -- Derek

"XZealot" <X_Ze...@email.msn.com> wrote > Mr. Lundstrom, you appear to be a new player with old cards. Welcome > to the game. If you would like to see how the new IG is printed, then > you should go buy a Sabbat War !Brujah > Starter Deck. I think the Giovanni starter had one or two as well...

"James Coupe" <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote > > Please cite, say, 5 relevant decks which use IG at a successful, > competitive level which don't expect to torporise a vampire in the first > round, when faced with S:CE based defence. I've been wondering just how effective Immortal Grapple can be as a purely defensive card. Consider: In an average tournament it would be safe to expect a *lot* of Majesty, but generally speaking very little of Potence/Protean/Quietus, etc. Immortal Grapple prevents some crazy-strikes like Entombment, Coma, etc. which show up often enough as Obtenebration and Dementation are themselves common enough in tournaments. (Well, I assume !Malks are... I personally haven't seen any.) Against the Presence clans, it prevents S:CE... obviously, but this usually goes hand-in-hand with a major strike of our own. What if we use it just to cause their hand to jam up with all their spiffy combat cards? Both combatants will strike for 1... ooh scary... and they'll need to fight someone else to get rid of their S:CE. Of course, this assumes that you are at short range and that your opponent does not use a lot of Fortitude... Feasible? Cheers, WES

Andrew wrote: >>I'm confused. Are you saying that Immortal Grapple has errata? I can't find anything in the online errata but that doesn't mean much because of the MRP invisible-mending policy. I've looked in a copy of the 7/7 rulings and I can't find anything there either. I don't know why I'm bothering as I can't stand this kind of thing but I suppose it's like picking a scab ...>> Not really--when originally printed (in Jyhad), the duration of the "hand strikes only" effect of an IG card was somewhat ambigious. At some point long ago ('95?) it was ruled to last the entire combat. When it was reprinted in to VTES, that concept carried across, and the VTES version (I'm not sure what the Sabbat version says off hand) specifically says "entire combat". Somewhere around the 7/7 errata (it may have been later on, however), it was ruled that the IG "hand strikes only" effect only lasted for one round. The new Sabbat War/FN version (found in the !Bru and Giovanni starters) is very specific about the fact that the "hand strikes only" aspect of IG only lasting for the current round. I guess at one point you could say that yes, IG had errata. At this point, it does not, as the most recent printing of the card says what it does, and all previous versions are to be read as the current printing. [ quoted text not captured ]

"James Coupe" <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote >, Jason Bell <Jason...@mail.com> writes > >> Please cite, say, 5 relevant decks which use IG at a successful, > >> competitive level which don't expect to torporise a vampire in the first > >> round, when faced with S:CE based defence. > > > >Are you sure you're talking out of the correct end, > >because your poop don't stink. > > So you still cannot back up the assertion that S:CE is significantly > upgraded by IG being restricted to one round. > > Interesting. I suppose not, all I was able to do was summon an actual game experience wherein the newer ruling for S:CE allowed me to keep my vampire out of torpor and continue my action at +1 stealth (a significant game impact). I just feel terrible that I can't cite the 5 competitive level decks in such a way to quantify the extent to which S:CE is improved to satisfy your pointless and irrational demand. - Jason Bell

"James Coupe" <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote > Are you now saying that you'd need S:CE and damage prevention to > survive? Gosh. If S:CE was so upgraded by the change to IG, I'm > surprised you need anything else because, clearly, S:CE rules > everything. Talk about missing the point. Yeesh. - Jason Bell

In message <FfM_6.38541$Md.11...@typhoon.southeast.rr.com>, Jason Bell <Jason...@mail.com> writes >> Are you now saying that you'd need S:CE and damage prevention to >> survive? Gosh. If S:CE was so upgraded by the change to IG, I'm >> surprised you need anything else because, clearly, S:CE rules >> everything. > >Talk about missing the point. You are, and have been. If you're still having to combine S:CE with damage prevention to survive in an environment where a player lacking sufficient skill to play IG properly is around, you cannot use this as evidence that S:CE has been significantly upgraded. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <teM_6.38525$Md.11...@typhoon.southeast.rr.com>, Jason Bell <Jason...@mail.com> writes >> So you still cannot back up the assertion that S:CE is significantly >> upgraded by IG being restricted to one round. >> >> Interesting. > >I suppose not Thank you. Everyone can provide anecdotal corner case bits and pieces. And you are clearly not playing in an environment where IG is being used properly, and are arguing that S:CE has been significantly upgraded because you can combine it with the ability to survive the first round. Playing combos is a significantly different matter to upgrading something as a result of a ruling. You are *not* addressing the big picture, and continue to avoid doing so. [ quoted text not captured ]

"Derek Ray" <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote > Do you read? ... > Nope. But I do have a Torn Signpost and Pushing the Limit. If I need > to, I can use an Increased Strength on top of it. > > OR, I can use a Torn Signpost and Blur. > > Sum total: 6 damage, or 8 if I use an IS. That means I have to press > against Emerson Bridges, but considering I can use Hugo and get that > effect, that will make me happy. But if I use Jimmy Dunn, I don't > have to press against Emerson anymore. I read fine. That's officially a 4 card combo: Immortal Grapple Torn Signpost Increased Strength Pushing the Limit Or, alternately Immortal Grapple Torn Signpost Blur for lesser effect This is what I'm talking about. This is a lot of trouble and at least a little bit of luck, all to deal with *just* the S:CE side of the opposing deck. And to do it well, you need Superior Potence, and maybe Superior Celerity, or probably regular Celerity. That's an awfully small corner to live in for the claim that any "half decent" combat deck can torpor any vampire who relies solely on S:CE in the first round (which must be true to survive with the original claim that S:CE gets no better from its ability to be used second round vs. IG). This is just bizarre that I'm having to seriously defend this point. Furthermore, since you're relying on a second discipline to put away the S:CE opponent in one round, that opponent may as well use his own second discipline, say Fortitude, and why not, every Ventrue seems to come equipped with it. That means with a small handful of Rolling with the Punches, backed up with a hefty load of Majesty, and your combat deck is spinning its wheels, while the opposing one is standing in, at a cost of half of the cards or less. And you can't really even afford to use IG's press if you don't have another IG in hand, since you can't give the minion the extra action. Actions that your deck doesn't even have available, since all the space is filled with these 4-card combos. And getting back to all that extra space in the deck, this is where it all really hits home. Because the S:CE Combat Pack (TM, patent pending) takes so little space when compared to most other combat strategies, there's plenty of space to pair it up with something else. So obviously the Ventrue pack a smidgen of damage prevention, or a gun or two to back away from the crazies. My other S:CE deck uses stealth, figuring that most decks with enough intercept to consistently catch the little guys can't put the damage combo's on top of the IG and the intercept cards to make them pay, and uses a handful of Embraces and other small support minions to block any straight rush, which can't really afford the stealth to get to the minion it really wants. And finally, my Gangrel deck goes just the other way, being primarily a bruise deck, happy to use several Form of Mist for important actions or if the opposing strike is expected to suck, and one or two Earth Meld, so the designated blocker can hang around. It's all too efficient for one card. Combat ends, untap should be a two card combo, and Combat ends, continue at +1 stealth should be 3 or more, and sure as heck shouldn't cost 0 blood. - Jason Bell

Jason wrote: >>This is what I'm talking about. This is a lot of trouble and at least a little bit of luck, all to deal with *just* the S:CE side of the opposing deck.>> ???? Right. If you are playing a Rush deck, your whole deck exists to kill opposing vampires. Killing an opposing vampire means, at the very minimum, putting them in torpor with no blood on them (otherwise they just come out of torpor and all you have succeded in doing is make them waste an action). Assuming that this is your goal (and if you are a sucessful Rush deck, I assure you, this is your goal), your whole deck is designed to do this. It is not a lot of trouble, nor is there any luck involved--it is what the deck is designed to do and how it does it. Your whole deck is built to kill folks, otherwise, your Rush deck simply does not work. And again, if you are *not* playing a Rush deck, your opponent playing S:CE is of little consequence. >>And to do it well, you need Superior Potence, and maybe Superior Celerity, or probably regular Celerity.>> Correct. That is how you make a Rush deck. You rely on POT or POT/cel. Yeah, some of your vamps have pot, and they are used to either kill smaller vampires, or pack kill a large one, until they get POT. >>That's an awfully small corner to live in for the claim that any "half decent" combat deck can torpor any vampire who relies solely on S:CE in the first round (which must be true to survive with the original claim that S:CE gets no better from its ability to be used second round vs. IG). This is just bizarre that I'm having to seriously defend this point.>> That is a sucessful Rush deck. I have probably put more time and effort into making Rush decks viable and competetive than anyone on this newsgroup, and can say with fair certainty that a Rush deck that cannot put 90% of the vampires it attacks in to torpor on the first round of combat, it just isn't going to work. Really. Yeah, sometimes you run into fortitude that can be a problem. Sometimes you run into a lot of manuvers that can be a problem. Most of the time, however, you run into either S:CE or nothing (once the IG hits the table) as combat defense. >>Furthermore, since you're relying on a second discipline to put away the S:CE opponent in one round, that opponent may as well use his own second discipline, say Fortitude, and why not, every Ventrue seems to come equipped with it.>> If you are going to be using *both* fortitude and Majesty for combat defense, such that they will be a problem, how many are you going to be using? 5 Majesty and 5 Skin of Steel? Not a problem. 10 Majesty and 10 Skin of Steel? That can be a problem for the Rush deck, but they you have over 20% of your deck as combat defense that is just going to clog up your hand *unless* you are sitting next to a Rush deck. Are you willing to make that gamble? >>That means with a small handful of Rolling with the Punches, backed up with a hefty load of Majesty, and your combat deck is spinning its wheels, while the opposing one is standing in, at a cost of half of the cards or less.>> And if you aren't sitting next to a combat deck, then you are going to suck, as your hand is going to be full of combat defense that you can't cycle. And if all you have is a small handfull of Rolling with the Punches, they aren't going to help you--the Majesties are going to be useless, and the RwtPs, of which you have a small handfull, aren't going to show up when you need them. >>And you can't really even afford to use IG's press if you don't have another IG in hand, since you can't give the minion the extra action.>> Can't give the minion an extra action? Why do you care? A), you aren't blocking them, you are Rushing them on your turn (Rush decks don't block) and B), you aren't blocking them. And if you are going to press into the second round, you are doing it because A) you have the second IG in hand or B) you might as well, hoping to draw the secong IG. If you don't press, you are no better off than if you do press and let them Majesty. >>Actions that your deck doesn't even have available, since all the space is filled with these 4-card combos.>> That is the whole point of the deck. I can only assume that you are somewhat unfamiliar with industry standard Rush decks and how they work. The whole deck is *nothing* but combat and a few master cards. If you aren't playing 4 (or 7 for that matter) card combos, your deck isn't doing anything. It isn't like you are saving up for a 4 card combo now and then, that is all you do. If you need an example, go check out: http://www.geocities.com/bakija6/vtes.html And look for "The Nosferatu Hate You". >>And getting back to all that extra space in the deck, this is where it all really hits home. Because the S:CE Combat Pack (TM, patent pending) takes so little space when compared to most other combat strategies, there's plenty of space to pair it up with something else.>> How many cards are you talking? If it is close to the 10/10 split I mentioned above, I assure you that yes, it can bollux a Rush deck, but it makes your deck *much* less effective against non combat decks, and makes you a sub optimal choice for a competetive field, unless you *know* that you are going to be playing against a large number of combat decks. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <20010628213230...@ng-fq1.aol.com>, Peter D Bakija <pd...@aol.comANTISPAM> writes >Correct. That is how you make a Rush deck. You rely on POT or POT/cel. Yeah, >some of your vamps have pot, and they are used to either kill smaller vampires, >or pack kill a large one, until they get POT. There's always pot/obf, but in the current environment - where sufficient copies of fortitude cards can often be found to kill one strike - it's far more tricky. (For reference, rather than for Peter, who knows that.) [ quoted text not captured ]

"Jason Bell" <Jason...@mail.com> wrote in message news:75P_6.38958$Md.11...@typhoon.southeast.rr.com... > That's officially a 4 card combo: [snip] > This is what I'm talking about. This is a lot of trouble > and at least a little bit of luck, all to deal with *just* > the S:CE side of the opposing deck. And to do it > well, you need Superior Potence, and maybe Superior > Celerity, or probably regular Celerity. What sort of crack are you smoking, man? A 4-card combo is not hard to pull off repeatedly, if you base your deck around the damn thing. How hard is *this* four-card combo: Govern the Unaligned, Lost in Crowds, Command of the Beast, Conditioning? Wow. A 4-card combo. Tough. And to do it well, you need Superior Dominate, and maybe Superior Obfuscate, or probably regular Dominate. > That's an awfully small corner to live in for the claim > that any "half decent" combat deck can torpor any > vampire who relies solely on S:CE in the first round Hardly. Let's repeat this. "Repeat after me, class: any half-decent combat deck will torporize the opposing vampire in the first round." Tremere excluded. :) But they don't *need* to rely on IG. Though they can. > (which must be true to survive with the original claim > that S:CE gets no better from its ability to be used > second round vs. IG). This is just bizarre that I'm > having to seriously defend this point. No, it's not bizarre, and you're not seriously defending it, either. You're doing a pretty half-assed job of it, IMNSHO. > Furthermore, since you're relying on a second discipline > to put away the S:CE opponent in one round, that opponent Wow, do vampires even *come* with two disciplines? > may as well use his own second discipline, say Fortitude, > and why not, every Ventrue seems to come equipped with it. They could...and what happens when they sit down next to a non-combat deck? Or, what happens when they sit down next to an Assamite or a Tremere deck? Skin of Steel doesn't work too well... > That means with a small handful of Rolling with the Punches, > backed up with a hefty load of Majesty, and your combat > deck is spinning its wheels, while the opposing one is standing > in, at a cost of half of the cards or less. And you can't really Umm...no it doesn't. A small handful of RwtP nets you a slightly longer handful of turns that your vampires are alive. Probably not even that. More like a handful of actions. > even afford to use IG's press if you don't have another IG > in hand, since you can't give the minion the extra action. Buh? What are you talking about? And actually, most of my rush decks *always* have another IG in hand. 12 in a 90-card deck works pretty well. > Actions that your deck doesn't even have available, > since all the space is filled with these 4-card combos. What actions are you talking about? You are completely off in some weird Bizarro-world train of thought, because the "industry-standard" rush deck has enough Rush actions and Haven Uncovered to safely walk through at *least* the two inital prey unless they are packing shitpiles of Fortitude. > from the crazies. My other S:CE deck uses stealth, > figuring that most decks with enough intercept to > consistently catch the little guys can't put the > damage combo's on top of the IG and the intercept > cards to make them pay, and uses a handful of Who's blocking? And when I'm not blocking, what good is your stealth? > Embraces and other small support minions to block > any straight rush, which can't really afford the > stealth to get to the minion it really wants. Not usually, but who the hell cares? The little ones go down fast, and you can always place a Haven Uncovered on the ones you *really* need to take down. Not so tough. > And finally, my Gangrel deck goes just the other > way, being primarily a bruise deck, happy to > use several Form of Mist for important actions > or if the opposing strike is expected to suck, > and one or two Earth Meld, so the designated > blocker can hang around. What are you trying to say here? Your Gangrel deck uses S:CE aginst IG because it works? Again, you're in some other reality here...I totally don't get what you're trying to say. > It's all too efficient for one card. Combat ends, > untap should be a two card combo, and Combat > ends, continue at +1 stealth should be 3 or more, > and sure as heck shouldn't cost 0 blood. There are now *plenty* of ways to stop S:CE...it's not that big a threat. Xian

"Peter D Bakija" <pd...@aol.comANTISPAM> wrote > Jason wrote: > >>This is what I'm talking about. This is a lot of trouble > and at least a little bit of luck, all to deal with *just* > the S:CE side of the opposing deck.>> > > ???? > > Right. If you are playing a Rush deck, your whole deck exists to kill opposing > vampires. ... > And again, if you are *not* playing a Rush deck, your opponent playing S:CE is > of little consequence. This is about all I need in order to understand that we aren't even close to talking about the same thing, and there is no point in me continuing to try to make points about how unbalancing S:CE (esp. with untap or continue) is. You seem to have conceded that effective, consistent, and competitive S:CE defense consumes the entire deck, or must ignore combat entirely. That concession, if true (or even if it has ever met true), demonstrates the point to my satisfaction. You guys go ahead and believe that S:CE is balanced because a completely dedicated deck can cope with it, I'll be over here reading the other posts. - Jason Bell

"Xian" <xi...@NOSPAMwaste.org> wrote > "Jason Bell" <Jason...@mail.com> wrote > > That's officially a 4 card combo: > [snip] > > This is what I'm talking about. This is a lot of trouble > > and at least a little bit of luck, all to deal with *just* > > the S:CE side of the opposing deck. And to do it > > well, you need Superior Potence, and maybe Superior > > Celerity, or probably regular Celerity. >A 4-card combo is not hard > to pull off repeatedly, if you > base your deck around the da*n thing. Thanks. That's good enough for me. - Jason Bell

Jason wrote: >>You seem to have conceded that effective, consistent, and competitive S:CE defense consumes the entire deck, or must ignore combat entirely. That concession, if true (or even if it has ever met true), demonstrates the point to my satisfaction.>> Ok. Here is the deal with S:CE. Yes. It is a powerful effect that completely dominates how combat works. I have said that before. I'll say that again. If, from day one, had S:CE be designed differently (say as S:Round Ends instead), combat would be *very* different than it is now. However, it wasn't. So we have S:CE working the way it does and have to deal with it. Luckily, it isn't that hard to deal with in a deck that needs to torporize. What this means is that combat is VTES is, pretty much, an all or nothing strategy--either you can stop S:CE and will torporize vampires left and right, as that is what your deck is designed to to, or you can't stop S:CE, and occasionally you'll torporize someone, but it doesn't really matter one way or the other, as your deck isn't designed to torporize regularly. If you are Rush deck, who ousts people by killing all of their vampires, and defends itself by killing all of their vampires, and generally lives and dies by its ability to torporize vampires, then S:CE isn't a problem--you have designed your deck to get around it. If you are not a Rush deck, then you have other ways of ousting your prey or defending yourself such that an opponent playing S:CE isn't such a big deal. To wit: -A S+B deck: If your opponent blocks you and plays S:CE, you are happy, as you aren't dead. -A vote deck: If your opponent blocks you and plays S:CE, you are happy. And then you play your own S:CE. -Bloat deck: If your opponent blocks you and plays S:CE, you are happy, as you aren't dead. -An intercept deck: You generally work by stopping their actions, and that is what you are trying to do. If they S:CE, you don't get hurt, and their action is still stopped. Yeah, if they Majesty at superior, they can take another, different action, which may or may not be significant. Usually it isn't. If you are attempting to be an "Intercept/Burn" deck, you are destined for failure anyways, as dedicated intercept (as a viable defense) requires, like, 33% deck space for intercept, leaving not much space for combat. You could put in enough to mess up folks who don't have S:CE in their hand when you get them (and you get to see them play it before you play your strike) occasionally, but you are never going to be able to reliably torporize with an intercept deck, S:CE or no. Well, ok, as a caveat, a Gangrel intercept deck can torporize very reliably, but they can do so with a bare minimum of cards and effort (8-10 Bone Spur is all that a Gangrel intercept deck needs as killing power), and don't have to play the necessary card until after they see if their opponent plays a S:CE card. -A Bruise/Bleed deck: Same problem as an intercept deck, in terms of being able to torporize reliably, but you generally don't need to torporize so much anyways. You bleed for 1, and if they don't block, you play a modifier. If they do block, you are either stopped by S:CE or not, and it doesn't really matter if they end up in torpor--you don't oust your prey by killing their vampires. You oust them by bleeding them. You should have some IG or something in a B/B deck, so you can kill folks occasionally, just to encourage them not to block you, but in the long run, your combat is a secondary strategy to your bleeding--it is there simply to encourage folks not to block. >>You guys go ahead and believe that S:CE is balanced because a completely dedicated deck can cope with it, I'll be over here reading the other posts.>> Yes, a completely dedicated deck can stop it quite nicely, such that if they are played enough in a given environment, S:CE eventually disappears (as it is useless). Decks that aren't completely dedicated to combat don't (or shouldn't) care that their opponents play S:CE. At this point in the evolution of this game, if one is designing a deck with enough combat such that it is frustrating or debilitating when an opponent plays S:CE and doesn't have a way to counter S:CE, one is making a grave mistake in deck design. Does S:CE completely dominate combat in VTES? Yes. Would the game be a very different place if S:CE didn't exist? Yes. This being said, everyone knows this, and can act accordingly. This means don't make a deck with 33% combat, no way to stop S:CE, and then get upset when an opponent keeps playing Majesty. Play decks that either can stop S:CE or don't care if its opponent plays S:CE. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Fri, 29 Jun 2001 06:09:58 GMT, "Jason Bell" <Jason...@mail.com> wrote: >"Xian" <xi...@NOSPAMwaste.org> wrote [ quoted text not captured ] Peter has beaten me to saying most everything I was going to say, so I won't repeat it (and irritate myself even more). Put it this way, Jason: The three of us talking to you are well-known combat monkeys. We play combat. A lot. In all forms. I don't recall the last time I made a deck that didn't have something offensive in its combat. When the combat monkeys are telling you THEY don't think S:CE is overpowered... and they're the ones who get hurt worst by it... then you should probably listen, instead of sticking your fingers in your ears and going LALALALALALALA. My last constructed-deck tournament appearance, I played intercept/combat. I missed making the finals by half a VP, finishing 6th overall. I sat next to only one deck that made use of S:CE, and I wish I had sat next to more; I would've demolished any Majesty-untap deck that was near me. My biggest problems were in the 2nd round, where I had Gangrel aggravated poke in front of me (meaning I had to have a Song of Serenity in hand or have Omaya do the blocking) and could never quite manage to get forward pressure moving, and in the 1st round, where I had long-range Assamite combat in front of me (meaning I didn't dare intercept any action taken by a vampire with Quietus, since we'd BOTH have died). I would have been DELIGHTED to have more S:CE decks near me; I could've run them dry at no cost to myself, torched their vamps, and run them over. Before that, I played Brujah pitch. I sat next to S:CE several different times, and each time I ran them out and began toasting their vampires. (Two cross-table Dramatic Upheavals in the 1st and 3rd round robbed me of my VPs, but that was my own fault for not including some Delaying Tactics in the deck.) Let's see. I've played Tzimisce intercept and made the finals, erasing several S:CE decks along the way. I've played the Crypt Machine, which totally ignores S:CE and CONSISTENTLY makes the finals (in multiple peoples' hands). I've played an !Brujah vote/bruise deck, which doesn't really care about S:CE either and has swept the last 4 tables it's been played at. It has 18 combat cards and some Templars for offense, but if you S:CE away from it, that's fine too. In fact, for at least a year, maybe two, I can't remember playing a deck in tournament, pickup, or otherwise and saying "damn! all that S:CE is just screwing my deck!" Perhaps the way you build combat decks is somewhat lacking? Perhaps you misunderstand the purpose of combat? In any case, S:CE just doesn't impress me anymore. Too many things beating up too many other things. Actually, that's not true. I played a weenie THA rush deck that ran flat into an S:CE wall once. But i'm under no delusions that such an occurrence makes S:CE overpowered - just that my combat made no allowance for S:CE other than "if I run into it, I lose". -- Derek Maintenance: Keep the balls dry and clean and prevent them from violent collisions. Disclaimer: We make no claim that use of these balls will improve health.

>When the combat monkeys are telling you THEY >don't think S:CE is overpowered... and they're the ones who get hurt >worst by it... This may be a different topic than what has been argued recently. There is such a thing as light (offensive) combat. For instance, how can you be toolboxy without some combat component? If you focus your deck against S:CE, it better not be a problem. But, if you don't, it is. One of the reasons I hope to see S:CE go away is that I think I'd see a lot less IG as well. I spent some time trying to run through what the metagame would be like without S:CE based on the argument that combat would be king and certain combat clans would rule. I started with the idea that ANI/FOR/PRO would be the dominant strategy (not just among combat but overall, since combat *had* to be the only viable way to go). I looked at it against Assamite combat and (!)Brujah combat first. I eventually concluded that the Assamites could still go, but they would have to go to a close range, Disease/Thin Blood based strategy. Potence/Celerity just couldn't get around Drawing Out the Beast, Scorpion Sting, Skin of Steel or Flesh of Marble, aggropoke. Next, I started looking at the possibilities not brought up a while back matched up against the (!)Gangrel. Tzimisce can damage prevent with Horrid Form and aggropoke. And, they have Blood of Acid, which neither Skin nor Flesh will deal with. Lasombra will play more Entombments. !Malks more Comas. Etc. So, either (!)Gangrel weren't going to dominate in combat or they were, but others could still find ways to survive or hit back. Some of these options didn't seem to take much in the way of card slots where the 4 card combo obviously did. The eventual conclusion I came to was that decks would not become entirely combat oriented. The ubercombat deck still had to have just the right cards. Fortitude and other damage prevention beat it. Enough other strategies went even on it, while using far less cards. Obedience, Voice of Madness, Secure Haven still dealt with rush. Lots of effects can deal with intercept. So, getting into combat is not automatic. And, amusingly, Scorpion Sting becomes key to stop S:Dodge, which is tons more interesting to me than a metagame of "Grapple?".

Ian wrote: >>There is such a thing as light (offensive) combat. For instance, how can you be toolboxy without some combat component?>> You can be, and there are, but when playing such a deck, it isn't so tragic if your opponent plays S:CE--you are playing a toolbox deck that does a little bit of everything, so you aren't relying on torporizing your opposition. Sure, if it comes up and you can pull it off, that is great, but if your opponent keeps playing S:CE on you, and you have no counter, you can always fall back on the other aspects of your deck. Yeah, it is a pain in the ass if you get blocked, play Trap, Torn Signpost, Fists of Death, and try to hit them with a Burning Wrath, just 'cause you had them all in your hand at one time, and they just play Majesty, but unless your deck revolves around this strategy (killing stuff), what does it matter? The point of a toolbox deck is that it is prepared for everything. If your combat angle falls flat because you are facing a heavy S:CE opponent, just give up the combat angle for the time being and move on. Intercept their actions, bleed them, or whatever. Just say "Well, the combat isn't going to work against this guy" and move on. >>If you focus your deck against S:CE, it better not be a problem. But, if you don't, it is.>> But it isn't a problem, 'cause it doesn't matter if they S:CE. If you have a smattering of combat in a toolbox deck, and you are faced with S:CE, just ignore the combat. Use the combat cards in fights just to cycle them, and hope that they don't have blasters, erm, Majesties. Don't worry about it. Unless your deck *needs* to torporize someone on every action (in which case it should be designed to counter S:CE), combat should be a sideline--sometimes it will work, sometimes not, but if not, it shouldn't really matter. [ quoted text not captured ]

Peter D Bakija <pd...@aol.comANTISPAM> wrote in message news:20010628213230...@ng-fq1.aol.com... > Jason wrote: > >>That's an awfully small corner to live in for the claim > that any "half decent" combat deck can torpor any > vampire who relies solely on S:CE in the first round > (which must be true to survive with the original claim > that S:CE gets no better from its ability to be used > second round vs. IG). This is just bizarre that I'm > having to seriously defend this point.>> > > That is a sucessful Rush deck. I have probably put more time and effort into > making Rush decks viable and competetive than anyone on this newsgroup, and can > say with fair certainty that a Rush deck that cannot put 90% of the vampires it > attacks in to torpor on the first round of combat, it just isn't going to work. And doesn't that strike you as a design flaw? Only extremely focused ('degenerate', if you will) combat decks will work. Most other archetypes can afford to fail more 10% and still work quite adequately. A S&B deck might have nearly half of it's bleed actions deflected, and even more than that intercepted, yet it can still manage to oust it's prey: one bleed is sometimes enough, and it doesn't have to be the first one. > Really. Yeah, sometimes you run into fortitude that can be a problem. Sometimes > you run into a lot of manuvers that can be a problem. Most of the time, > however, you run into either S:CE or nothing (once the IG hits the table) as > combat defense. And then the question is: what does it take to make such a deck? Due to S:CE, the most reliable way to do it is IG. All other options (Hidden Lurker, Fast Reaction, Psyche!, Telepathic Tracking, Guard Dogs, Thoughts Betrayed... am I missing any?) have bigger costs (in blood, oportunity and/or disciplines) and/or more limited effects (and maybe more importantly, all cost more than Majesty). That coupled with the sheer brutality of pot combat makes it by far the best option against S:CE. So it is a very small corner indeed, because the best way to cope with combat is S:CE (meaning: it eliminates 90% of possible combat decks - note that I say 'possible', not 'viable', since many decks would be viable if it were not for S:CE), and the best way to deal with S:CE is IG (meaning: IG can deal with 90% of decks using S:CE, while other options are often less efficient due to increased costs or moving parts). How often do you see any of those other S:CE hoser cards played by combat decks with acess to IG? Compare that with other combat defenses: - dodge can be countered by pressing, additional strikes, Scorpion Sting, Skin Trap, Veil of Silence. Any combat deck can include at least some of these, and they usually have a similar cost to the dodge itself. There's little point in doing so though, since IG can do it also _and_ it can deal with S:CE, while none of these do. - damage prevention can be countered by pressing until they run out, steal blood effects, unpreventable damage. Again, any combat deck can include some of these, and it's costs are quite reasonable vs. the damage prevention cards (Skin of Rock mirrors Undead Strength nicely). - maneuvering to long can be dealt with by using long range strikes, maneuvering back, or DotB. Again, no big deal. If we didn't have IG, wouldn't S:CE become the only option for combat defense? This does look like the infamous X/anti-X situation that VtES should so gracefully avoid. <snip> > How many cards are you talking? If it is close to the 10/10 split I mentioned > above, I assure you that yes, it can bollux a Rush deck, but it makes your deck > *much* less effective against non combat decks, and makes you a sub optimal > choice for a competetive field, unless you *know* that you are going to be > playing against a large number of combat decks. Not really. I once made a weenie Ventrue bleed deck (only weenie deck I ever made, actually). It included lots of Majesty and Skin of Steel/Skin of Rock as combat defense. I could cycle those cards on any 'normal' combat (anytime it got blocked), though it didn't need to do so. Sure, it does not have a 0 cost to include that many of those cards in a deck, but they can be made part of the deck's mechanics against other non-combat decks - for example, if you intend to intercept your predator's actions, you'll probably enter combat quite often enough to cycle those cards if needed be. Of course, this is all academic, since we do have S:CE, and it is not going away. :-/ Flux

Peter D Bakija <pd...@aol.comANTISPAM> wrote in message news:20010629153701...@ng-co1.aol.com... > Ian wrote: > >>If you focus your deck against S:CE, it better not be a problem. But, if you > don't, it is.>> > > But it isn't a problem, 'cause it doesn't matter if they S:CE. If you have a > smattering of combat in a toolbox deck, and you are faced with S:CE, just > ignore the combat. Use the combat cards in fights just to cycle them, and hope > that they don't have blasters, erm, Majesties. Don't worry about it. Unless > your deck *needs* to torporize someone on every action (in which case it should > be designed to counter S:CE), combat should be a sideline--sometimes it will > work, sometimes not, but if not, it shouldn't really matter. Not really. In a Bruise & Bleed deck you don't depend on torporizing your prey's vampires, but if you can't get past S:CE, he'll just block all your actions and play S:CE, and you'll be SOL. Combat can be an essential part of your strategy without being the whole objective of it. Flux

Flux wrote: >>Not really. In a Bruise & Bleed deck you don't depend on torporizing your prey's vampires, but if you can't get past S:CE, he'll just block all your actions and play S:CE, and you'll be SOL. Combat can be an essential part of your strategy without being the whole objective of it.>> A) if you are a bruise bleed deck, you aren't going to be able to reliably torporize anyone, S:CE or no and B) if you really want to torporize folks, you should be using a S:CE deterrent (IG for the Brujah/Giovanni/Lasombra; TB for the Tremere/Giovanni/Lasombra). If, as a B/B deck you are faced with a deck that has enough S:CE to safely block every action you take, and you can't do anything about it, then you are screwed. Just like if you are faced with a deck that has enough Obediance to safely block every action you take. Or enough Fortitude to safely block every action you take. [ quoted text not captured ]

Flux wrote: >>And doesn't that strike you as a design flaw?>> Yes. Yes it does. That is neither here nor there, however. It is the system we have currently, and it works well enough. >>Only extremely focused ('degenerate', if you will) combat decks will work. Most other archetypes can afford to fail more 10% and still work quite adequately.>> Combat is a difficult strategy to pursue, for many reasons. S:CE is one of the least bothersome ones. >>A S&B deck might have nearly half of it's bleed actions deflected, and even more than that intercepted, yet it can still manage to oust it's prey: one bleed is sometimes enough, and it doesn't have to be the first one.>> It also might just oust its grand prey. >>And then the question is: what does it take to make such a deck? Due to S:CE, the most reliable way to do it is IG. All other options (Hidden Lurker, Fast Reaction, Psyche!, Telepathic Tracking, Guard Dogs, Thoughts Betrayed... am I missing any?) have bigger costs (in blood, oportunity and/or disciplines) and/or more limited effects (and maybe more importantly, all cost more than Majesty). That coupled with the sheer brutality of pot combat makes it by far the best option against S:CE.>> Yes, yes it does. Using celerity gives you plenty of other options (plentiful manuvers and presses, additional strikes that foil a lot of Fortitude), so while Psyche is not the perfect option against S:CE, it is certainly more effective than not. Thoughts Betrayed is perfectly effective--the only downside is the need for DOM--the cost is insignificant, as the Tremere have Theft of Vitae and anyone else using it can play taste. >>So it is a very small corner indeed, because the best way to cope with combat is S:CE (meaning: it eliminates 90% of possible combat decks - note that I say 'possible', not 'viable', since many decks would be viable if it were not for S:CE), and the best way to deal with S:CE is IG (meaning: IG can deal with 90% of decks using S:CE, while other options are often less efficient due to increased costs or moving parts). How often do you see any of those other S:CE hoser cards played by combat decks with acess to IG?>> Never. Just like you never see dodges played by clans that have access to S:CE. >>If we didn't have IG, wouldn't S:CE become the only option for combat defense?>> TB, Psyche, Perfect Clarity, Dog Pack would still be used. >>This does look like the infamous X/anti-X situation that VtES should so gracefully avoid.>> Too late. >>Not really. I once made a weenie Ventrue bleed deck (only weenie deck I ever made, actually). It included lots of Majesty and Skin of Steel/Skin of Rock as combat defense. I could cycle those cards on any 'normal' combat (anytime it got blocked), though it didn't need to do so. Sure, it does not have a 0 cost to include that many of those cards in a deck, but they can be made part of the deck's mechanics against other non-combat decks - for example, if you intend to intercept your predator's actions, you'll probably enter combat quite often enough to cycle those cards if needed be.>> So you are an intercept Ventrue deck? Seems questionable. I have played with and against plenty of heavy combat defense decks (due to the heavy combat meta game we had around here for a while)--they did very well against Rush decks. They did not so well against non Rush decks. [ quoted text not captured ]

Peter D Bakija <pd...@aol.comANTISPAM> wrote in message news:20010629175406...@ng-cl1.aol.com... > Flux wrote: > >>A S&B deck might have nearly half of it's bleed actions deflected, and even > more than that intercepted, yet it can still manage to oust it's prey: one > bleed is > sometimes enough, and it doesn't have to be the first one.>> > > It also might just oust its grand prey. Sure, that's why I said 'might'. :-) However, the margin of error is still much larger than what a combat deck can afford. <snip general agreement> > >>If we didn't have IG, wouldn't S:CE become the only option for combat > defense?>> > > TB, Psyche, Perfect Clarity, Dog Pack would still be used. Yes, but a deck relying on S:CE could still survive them at least long enough to get moving, I think. > >>Not really. I once made a weenie Ventrue bleed deck (only weenie deck I ever > made, actually). It included lots of Majesty and Skin of Steel/Skin of Rock > as combat defense. I could cycle those cards on any 'normal' combat (anytime > it got blocked), though it didn't need to do so. Sure, it does not have a 0 > cost to include that many of those cards in a deck, but they can be made > part of the deck's mechanics against other non-combat decks - for example, > if you intend to intercept your predator's actions, you'll probably enter > combat quite often enough to cycle those cards if needed be.>> > > So you are an intercept Ventrue deck? Seems questionable. I have played with Oh, no, I only mentioned intercept as another option for card cycling, not quite for Ventrue. Then again, you could do it with the Second Tradition. Gangrel could do it, with ANI for intercept, PRO for S:CE and FOR for damage prevention. And most intercept decks should probably include some Leather Jackets. > and against plenty of heavy combat defense decks (due to the heavy combat meta > game we had around here for a while)--they did very well against Rush decks. > They did not so well against non Rush decks. I find that when playing combat defense you might not need to do 'very well'. Just surviving for a while can be enough to get the combat deck ousted, and even if you can't win after that, he's likely to drop the combat for a while, or at least find some other targets on your next game. However, heavy combat meta game means several combat decks playing, and that is indeed much harder to survive. Much like having light bleed defense and being bled by two S&B decks due to deflections. Flux

On 29 Jun 2001 18:42:03 GMT, cur...@aol.com (Ian Lee) wrote: >>When the combat monkeys are telling you THEY >>don't think S:CE is overpowered... and they're the ones who get hurt >>worst by it... > >This may be a different topic than what has been argued recently. It's a different topic, but it's related in its own way. >There is such a thing as light (offensive) combat. For instance, how can you >be toolboxy without some combat component? yes, but what purpose does that combat serve in your deck? I think this is possibly another focus that people are missing. I consider light combat to be a deterrent against heavy combat. Against a heavy combat deck, if my deck is purely defensive, I'll run out and die eventually, and the combat deck KNOWS that he can take a free run at me whenever he has the Rush cards, or that he can bleed me for 1 repeatedly and I won't dare block. If I have some "surprise" combat in the deck, even if it's something as simple as Lucky Blow, then my actions are no longer predictable. Hasina Kesi, for example, can no longer Rush me freely, as a Lucky Blow sends her to torpor. 2-blood vamps can't afford to pay for a Blur. (countless other examples). If my deck is all S:CE/dodge/prevent, I'm totally dependent on the defensive combat working for me. Any deck that punches for more than 1 is a problem, and it's possible that even decks that punch for 1 are a problem (if I'm using a lot of blood off my guys). If someone is including light combat in their deck and expecting it to consistently kill people whenever they whip it out... they're sadly mistaken. Devoting only a small portion of your deck to anything puts you more at the mercy of what's around you. For example, a vote deck that includes just PAs and Praxis Seizures is totally at the mercy of table votes and the Edge, but also doesn't have a whole lot of card slots taken up. Adding Bewitching Orations increases your effectiveness, but takes more slots. Adding Bribes, Voter Cap, etc... still more slots. Five .44s in your deck is a good token deterrent, but it isn't going to beat combat defense, and it isn't going to save you from real combat. It -does- make people think twice about entering combat with you, which is really all you can ask out of 5 slots in your deck. >If you focus your deck against S:CE, it better not be a problem. But, if you >don't, it is. One of the reasons I hope to see S:CE go away is that I think >I'd see a lot less IG as well. (headshake) Potence needs to keep people from dodging just as much as it needs to keep people from playing S:CE -- and it needs to keep people from playing those dicky close-range strikes like Bonecraft, Entombment, etc. The IG quota might go down from 12 to 8 in a deck, but you'd still see plenty. pot/CEL, on the other hand, doesn't care much about Dodges due to its reliance on Blur, but can be somewhat more vulnerable to S:CE. (Idle note: converting S:CE to "strike: round ends" would make pot/CEL decks downright lethal, as all those Flashes and Psyches suddenly end up serving a new purpose: to press.) >Next, I started looking at the possibilities not brought up a while back >matched up against the (!)Gangrel. Tzimisce can damage prevent with Horrid >Form and aggropoke. And, they have Blood of Acid, which neither Skin nor Flesh >will deal with. Lasombra will play more Entombments. !Malks more Comas. Etc. !Malks won't be playing much Coma. I can find a number of better things to do with 3 blood - notably, pull 2 of it off with a Blood Doll and buy a .44. And speaking of .44s, what about weaponry? With no S:CE, the Assamites would possibly be almost untouchable. pack Disguised Weapons and .44s, and a stack of Blurs. Season to taste with Pursuit/Flash. Now you can outmaneuver everyone and shoot for lots, and Dodge really doesn't do very well against superior CEL. If the Gangrel play DotB, Disease at superior negates the Scorpion Sting strike totally and you're fine. You still can't use the .44, but the Blurs combined with the +1 strength from DotB will force them to have (and use) superior Fortitude. Most likely result: a number of "drawn" combats until someone doesn't get the Disease or DotB in hand. [ quoted text not captured ]

X_Ze...@email.msn.com (XZealot) wrote: >Here is the problem with your arguement. You keep stating that S:CE >got more powerful because you are packing Fortitude. Fortitude contains >no S:CE. Well, duh! >It is mainly used for damage prevention. You cannot support >your case that S:CE is more powerful if you use Fortitude. That is >non-sensical and illogical. I disagree. I'll re-iterate my point: Fortitude alone doesn't cut it. The combat deck will press until you run out. And before the change in IG, Fortitude + S:CE didn't cut it either, because IG lasted for the whole combat. Now, however, the combat guy must play IG *every round*, or you will S:CE. Thus, S:CE got *much* more useful, i.e. powerful, in *combination* with Fortitude. >That is like saying the Volkswagen Rabbit >is the fastest car in the world if you strap it to the space shuttle. Do you >follow what I am saying? I see your point, but I don't agree. It's like saying a bike works better when there's air in the tires. You can use it with a flat on a tire, but when the road is bumby, it won't be pleasant. Bike=S:CE, tires=Fortitude, bumpy road=Pot Rush. Responding, "oh, you're only talking tires here" doesn't cut it. >You are right. Any deck that fails to do what it was designed to do, >usually is in trouble. Yup. And the ruling on IG made it more difficult for the deck to do what was designed to do. >> The current discussion notwithstanding, there are also more types of >> decks using IG than weenie potence rush. Nosferatu and Lasombra >> toolboxes are just a two examples. They would have nowhere near the IG >> density of potence weenie deck, and so their chance of replacing IG >> would be correspondingly smaller > >Also true, but not relavent to the arguement of how the ruling on IG >made S:CE stronger. What?! The fact that S:CE, after the change in IG, can help the deck survive instead of going to torpor even when grappled on round 1, is not *relevant*?! Then what is, pray tell? >> You get a chance to play it second round if you didn't go to torpor on >> the first round and the guy rushing you didn't have a second IG. For a >> specific example: Ventrue with Skin of Steel + Majesty (more on that >> below). > >Once again, Your fortitude arguement is moot. What you are really >saying is not that S:CE got stronger but the Ventrue did. Please defend S:CE >not the Ventrue (that's Rob Tresure's Job) If a ruling makes card A very useful in combination with card B, while neither A nor B is enough on their own, then saying "Oh, but that's just B's doing", is no good. A=S:CE, B=Fortitude. And anyway, Fortitude *isn't* the only way to go to round 2 even after being grappled on round 1. Everyone who has argued for Pot rush decks puts the damage at 6-8 in the first round, and that's when the whole combo is in place. I'm sure Anson on turn 1 will be a disgustingly common sight from now on, and he can survive round 1. Since your combat deck likely does *not* yet have a second IG, he can Majesty on round 2, surviving the combat. >I would contend that S:CE was weakened far more by the DotB errata >than it was strengthen by either or both of the IG and Dotb errata. I disgree, as the recepient of the DotB damage was likely as not also a S:CE deck. And although DotB+S:CE was disgusting to be on the receiving end of, it didn't make for a good deck. DotB existed in many more decks than just DotB+S:CE. >> >S:CE still gets mangled by IG. You haven't proved how it doesn't. >> >> It does, yes. But not *quite* as badly as before. > >Only if backed with Fortitude. And whenever the damage is not enough to sink the vampire on turn 1. >BTW, Do you see many disarms in your group? Not that many. It's probably *the* most sought-after card in the game. And I don't see huge amounts of them in most posted decks, either. And anyway, as Peter Bakija said, sending the vampire into torpor with blood on it isn't good enough. It will leave torpor and you have to beat it down again. >> Pardon? The IG has a press on superior, and if you use Cel, you have >> flashes. Unless I can press against, you just go to second round and >> beat some more. This is where the ruling helped - unless you have a >> second IG, I can now S:CE. > >I don't disagree with you there. When did you discover this errata >which has been in effect for at the very least a year or two? When it first came on, obviously. But it's now that we're discussing it. And this is what I've been trying to say all along. S:CE got more useful/more powerful when IG was errata'ed. It's not impossible to beat in any way, but it became somewhat more difficult, particularly with fortitude involved and when the vamp is big with lots of blood. >IG was broken before. Now it has been fixed. So you agree it was better before? What was it better against? Combat Ends, for one thing. So now it's less good against S:CE than it was. Therefore, S:CE became more powerful. Do we even disagree here? >Once again, this is a fortitude arguement not a S:CE arguement. The >errata to IG was nessasary in the extreme. See above. >> >Please demostrate how it is the S:CE that saves the Ventrue and not >> >the fortiude. >> >> It's the combination. Just fortitude doesn't cut it (you'll be pressed >> until you run out). Just S:CE doesn't cut it (you'll be mangled on >> round one). The two of them together can save you. > >In the situation you are depicting. In reality, if you can survive to >round two, then many things can save you, Dodge, S:CE, or more Fortitude. Dodge - opponenent presses to next round (or additional strikes). Fortitude - opponent presses to next round. S:CE - the combat ends *here*. There's a *reason* people use S:CE over Dodge. >This is why IG was changed. And the change made S:CE more powerful. >Mr. Lundstrom, you appear to be a new player with old cards. Appearances would be deceiving, then. I bought Jyhad the first week it came to Sweden. I and another player, veteran wargamers both, spent a few hours to decode the rules (swearing a lot along the way, too, but not as musch as when the "simplified" rulebook came out), and then went at it. Since we didn't have many cards, and played two-player games, we weren't overly impressed. It was a few years later I picked up the game again, when there were more players playing it. But I've been a more or less active player since Sabbat came out. >Welcome to the game. If you would like to see how the new IG is printed, then >you should go buy a Sabbat War !Brujah Starter Deck. You don't think you could provide some more condescension? It *so* improves the quality of the discussion... I have it, obviously. It's the change from the old way IG (a few years back) worked to this new one that I have been talking about all along. Perhaps you missed that? ----------------------------------------------------------- Johan Lundstrom <jo...@algonet.se> "Knowledge is power. Power corrupts."

"Flux" <fl...@netc.pt> wrote in message news:3b3c...@212.18.160.197... [Rush combat] > This does look like the infamous X/anti-X situation that VtES should so > gracefully avoid. Not really. Rush combat works against other deck styles as well...so it's not *really* X/anti-X deck building. Sure, it works *best* against Malk S&B with no combat defense or against Presence bleed with Majesty for combat defense, but it works against a lot of other deck styles as well. Xian

"Ian Lee" <cur...@aol.com> wrote in message news:20010629144203...@ng-mc1.aol.com... > I spent some time trying to run through what the metagame would be like without > S:CE based on the argument that combat would be king and certain combat clans > would rule. > > I started with the idea that ANI/FOR/PRO would be the dominant strategy (not > just among combat but overall, since combat *had* to be the only viable way to > go). I looked at it against Assamite combat and (!)Brujah combat first. I > eventually concluded that the Assamites could still go, but they would have to > go to a close range, Disease/Thin Blood based strategy. Potence/Celerity just Of course, they'd probably still want to pack some maneuvers, in case the Gangrel didn't have DotB in hand, and then do a Blood Sweat/Blur thing. But yeah, they'd probably have to assume that it was going to be mostly close range. > couldn't get around Drawing Out the Beast, Scorpion Sting, Skin of Steel or > Flesh of Marble, aggropoke. And straight Potence would be even worse off. > Next, I started looking at the possibilities not brought up a while back > matched up against the (!)Gangrel. Tzimisce can damage prevent with Horrid > Form and aggropoke. And, they have Blood of Acid, which neither Skin nor Flesh Blood of Acid would be covered by Flesh of Marble..." If the vampire takes [(and does not prevent)] more than 1 damage in a round, excess damage is prevented" and agg is covered at superior. Yeah, if *all* the damage is aggravated, the Gangrel are in trouble, but if the Tzimisce add in even 1 normal point of damage (Carrion Crows? No agg strike?), the Gangrel are fine. > will deal with. Lasombra will play more Entombments. !Malks more Comas. Etc. Perhaps. Mighty expensive, though. Won't work for too long. > So, either (!)Gangrel weren't going to dominate in combat or they were, but > others could still find ways to survive or hit back. Some of these options > didn't seem to take much in the way of card slots where the 4 card combo > obviously did. This is a much smaller proportion of combat decks that are viable, though. The Tremere are completely screwed, mono-potence decks are screwed, the Tzimisce are probably still screwed (mutual torporization is most likely), Pot/Cel is screwed, the Assamites are most likely okay, but at least half of their options are gone. Now, the non-combat decks...anyone without Fortitude is pretty much dead. The Ventrue would probably be fine, as would the Ravnos. Other Gangrel would be fine. > The eventual conclusion I came to was that decks would not become entirely > combat oriented. The ubercombat deck still had to have just the right cards. > Fortitude and other damage prevention beat it. Enough other strategies went There isn't *that* much other damage prevention. Flak Jacket, Leather Jacket, Blood Tears, Vicissitude, Flesh of Marble/Adaptability. Sideslip won't hack it. > even on it, while using far less cards. Obedience, Voice of Madness, Secure > Haven still dealt with rush. Lots of effects can deal with intercept. So, True, Obedience and the others would still work fine. > getting into combat is not automatic. And, amusingly, Scorpion Sting becomes No less automatic than it is today. Obedience and the like are really the only things that slow combat (in all its varieties) down today. These cards wouldn't increase in effectiveness, and they might see a slight increase in play, but since they (often) require 2 cards (Wake + card), it'd more lost deckspace for the reacting player. > key to stop S:Dodge, which is tons more interesting to me than a metagame of > "Grapple?". I thought you recently said something about being intrigued by the interaction between all the various cards, as opposed to interactions between decks, right? Wouldn't this simply reduce even *further* the number of viable combat decks, and Scorpion Sting would become the new IG? Dodge would be the most frustrating card for decks to deal with in the new environment, so the Gangrel would always be packing. Assamites and Gangrel would be virtually the only viable pure-combat clans, and the Assamites would be able to take down anyone the Gangrel couldn't. And the Gangrel would take down anyone without Fortitude along with the Assamites. I don't see how this makes things more interesting. You'd just be replacing IG with Scorpion Sting, and while some other decks could mutually torporize the Gangrel and the Assamites, very few would be able to *survive* combat against them...far fewer than can today. Xian

>> So, either (!)Gangrel weren't going to dominate in combat or they >were, but >> others could still find ways to survive or hit back. Some of these >options >> didn't seem to take much in the way of card slots where the 4 card >combo >> obviously did. > >This is a much smaller proportion of combat decks that are viable, >though. The Tremere are completely screwed, mono-potence decks are >screwed, the Tzimisce are probably still screwed (mutual torporization >is most likely), Pot/Cel is screwed, the Assamites are most likely >okay, but at least half of their options are gone. ~90% of the possible combat strategies do nothing to S:CE, a one card "combo". It does not reduce deck diversity if 90% of the possible combat strategies get hosed by a 4 card combo. >> The eventual conclusion I came to was that decks would not become >entirely >> combat oriented. The ubercombat deck still had to have just the >right cards. >> Fortitude and other damage prevention beat it. Enough other >strategies went > >There isn't *that* much other damage prevention. Flak Jacket, Leather >Jacket, Blood Tears, Vicissitude, Flesh of Marble/Adaptability. >Sideslip won't hack it. Equipment won't hack it if DOtB becomes ubiquitous, which is why I never mentioned using it. >> even on it, while using far less cards. Obedience, Voice of >Madness, Secure >> Haven still dealt with rush. Lots of effects can deal with >intercept. So, > >True, Obedience and the others would still work fine. > >> getting into combat is not automatic. And, amusingly, Scorpion >Sting becomes > >No less automatic than it is today. Obedience and the like are really >the only things that slow combat (in all its varieties) down today. >These cards wouldn't increase in effectiveness, and they might see a >slight increase in play, but since they (often) require 2 cards (Wake >+ card), it'd more lost deckspace for the reacting player. As far as I'm concerned, what slows down combat is trying to get VPs. Eventually, this was my point - deck diversity will expand as decks still seek VPs while not having the overly efficient combat defense of S:CE available. Would the absence of S:CE make combat generally more effective? Sure. Would you see nothing but carnage? No, because that doesn't produce VPs. One thing to keep in mind is that more combat means that more decks hit back, which means the long road to bleeding someone out takes even longer as you fish your guys out of torpor. >> key to stop S:Dodge, which is tons more interesting to me than a >metagame of >> "Grapple?". > >I thought you recently said something about being intrigued by the >interaction between all the various cards, as opposed to interactions >between decks, right? > >Wouldn't this simply reduce even *further* the number of viable combat >decks, and Scorpion Sting would become the new IG? Dodge would be the >most frustrating card for decks to deal with in the new environment, >so the Gangrel would always be packing. Assamites and Gangrel would >be virtually the only viable pure-combat clans, and the Assamites >would be able to take down anyone the Gangrel couldn't. And the >Gangrel would take down anyone without Fortitude along with the >Assamites. Again, S:CE is a single card combat strategy that kills ~90% of the possible offensive combat strategies. Scorpion Sting is not anywhere in its league. If anything, DOtB is the most important card as it stops maneuvering and equipment. >I don't see how this makes things more interesting. You'd just be >replacing IG with Scorpion Sting, and while some other decks could >mutually torporize the Gangrel and the Assamites, very few would be >able to *survive* combat against them...far fewer than can today. Replacing IG with SS, nothing else changing, would be incredibly interesting to me. Replacing IG with DOtB/SS/SoS/claws also sounds interesting. Combat is currently largely dictated by the play of 1-2 cards. I want to see combat where maneuvers and presses always matter, where each player is playing 3-4 important cards on a regular basis when a combat matters. I think Peter says in one of these posts that the game is currently balanced. I believe there are a number of balance issues, though the game as a whole is pretty balanced. On an individual action level, I find combat, often, to be the least interesting element of the game rather than the most interesting, as it should be. Clans are not balanced against each other, disciplines are not balanced against each other, discipline combinations are not balanced, but this is getting off topic. Eliminating S:CE is no more likely to upset the balance than introducing a new expansion. Players adjust, and they adjust to what wins.

Ian Lee <cur...@aol.com> wrote in message news:20010701134054...@ng-ft1.aol.com... > I think Peter says in one of these posts that the game is currently balanced. > I believe there are a number of balance issues, though the game as a whole is > pretty balanced. On an individual action level, I find combat, often, to be > the least interesting element of the game rather than the most interesting, as > it should be. Clans are not balanced against each other, disciplines are not > balanced against each other, discipline combinations are not balanced, but this > is getting off topic. Well, they're not supposed to if you only look at combat. Some clans are not supposed to survive combat easily, because they have other areas were they excel (Malkavians are the obvious example). Eliminating S:CE is no more likely to upset the balance > than introducing a new expansion. Players adjust, and they adjust to what > wins. While I also think S:CE is unbalanced, I think such an extreme change would be harmful to the game. I'd rather have a small change that would weaken S:CE. In fact the design team is already doing this by introducing cards like TT and Perfect Clarity, but they're doing it slowly and it could probably be done faster and more efficiently with a change to the base rules, IMHO. I must mention another effect that has always upset me at least as much as S:CE - Deflection. Just like S:CE, it's a one card 'combo' that totally hoses one strategy (S&B). It has a slightly bigger cost than S:CE, but there was little the acting minion could do against it until FN. That's why I once proposed a card that would be played by the acting minion to burn the deflection, at the cost of the action (I proposed that combat were started, because I was afraid that S&B decks would abuse it otherwise). I was pretty happy when I saw Contigency Planning in FN, it seems balanced just right (I don't play bleed decks very often so I haven't tried it yet. Besides, right now deflections aren't very popular around here anyway). Flux

"Flux" <fl...@netc.pt> wrote > I must mention another effect that has always upset me at least as much as > S:CE - Deflection. > Just like S:CE, it's a one card 'combo' that totally hoses one strategy > (S&B). It has a slightly bigger cost than S:CE, but there was little the > acting minion could do against it until FN. That's why I once proposed a > card that would be played by the acting minion to burn the deflection, at > the cost of the action (I proposed that combat were started, because I was > afraid that S&B decks would abuse it otherwise). I was pretty happy when I > saw Contigency Planning in FN, it seems balanced just right (I don't play > bleed decks very often so I haven't tried it yet. Besides, right now > deflections aren't very popular around here anyway). Sneak & Bleed badly needs (and needed) to be hosed. How about this card as a way to make S:CE less of a nuisance without changing any of the rules? Dark Alley Master: Unique Location Cost: 1 pool Your prey burns an extra blood to play S:CE cards. (Maybe a (D) burn clause too... dunno) This way S:CE remains powerul but harder to abuse. Cheers, WES

Wes <gh...@NOSPAMmnsi.net> wrote in message news:9homb...@enews3.newsguy.com... > > "Flux" <fl...@netc.pt> wrote > > > I must mention another effect that has always upset me at least as much as > > S:CE - Deflection. > > Just like S:CE, it's a one card 'combo' that totally hoses one strategy > > (S&B). It has a slightly bigger cost than S:CE, but there was little the > > acting minion could do against it until FN. That's why I once proposed a > > card that would be played by the acting minion to burn the deflection, at > > the cost of the action (I proposed that combat were started, because I was > > afraid that S&B decks would abuse it otherwise). I was pretty happy when I > > saw Contigency Planning in FN, it seems balanced just right (I don't play > > bleed decks very often so I haven't tried it yet. Besides, right now > > deflections aren't very popular around here anyway). > > Sneak & Bleed badly needs (and needed) to be hosed. Yes, but not with another broken card. Actually, intercept is now a lot easier than playing stealth, S&B will have a hard time against anyone who is prepared for it. The only problem is that intercept by itself is useless, and so few people try to make it work, but it's certainly viable. > How about this card as a way to make S:CE less of a nuisance without > changing any of the rules? > > Dark Alley > Master: Unique Location > Cost: 1 pool > Your prey burns an extra blood to play S:CE cards. > (Maybe a (D) burn clause too... dunno) > > This way S:CE remains powerul but harder to abuse. Maybe the cost would have to be adjusted, but generally I like it. But this is precisely the kind of thing the design team seems to want, only they're doing it much too slowly IMHO. Flux

jo...@algonet.se (Johan Lundstrom) wrote in message news:<3b3de0ba...@news.algonet.se>... > X_Ze...@email.msn.com (XZealot) wrote: > > >Here is the problem with your arguement. You keep stating that S:CE > >got more powerful because you are packing Fortitude. Fortitude contains > >no S:CE. > > Well, duh! Apparently you just don't get it. > >It is mainly used for damage prevention. You cannot support > >your case that S:CE is more powerful if you use Fortitude. That is > >non-sensical and illogical. > > I disagree. I'll re-iterate my point: Fortitude alone doesn't cut it. > The combat deck will press until you run out. And before the change in > IG, Fortitude + S:CE didn't cut it either, because IG lasted for the > whole combat. Now, however, the combat guy must play IG *every round*, > or you will S:CE. Thus, S:CE got *much* more useful, i.e. powerful, in > *combination* with Fortitude. Once again, yes, IG does not last the entire combat. Yes, it makes S:CE useful in the second round if you can survive that long. Here is where your arguement does not work. If you must play Fortitude to make your Magesties work, then it is not the Magesties which are the source of your survival, but the fortitude. You are misattributing your survival to the wrong source. > It's like saying a bike works better when there's air in the tires. > You can use it with a flat on a tire, but when the road is bumby, it > won't be pleasant. > > Bike=S:CE, tires=Fortitude, bumpy road=Pot Rush. Here is your problem, You are saying that the Bike is S:CE and the tires are Fortitude, but I would contend that you have them backwards. Your Bike is the Fortitude and your tires are the S:CE. Your fortitude works in the presence of Potence Rush, but it works better with S:CE, not the other way around because S:CE does not work in the presence of Pot Rush. > Responding, "oh, you're only talking tires here" doesn't cut it. No, your arguement doesn't cut it. > >You are right. Any deck that fails to do what it was designed to do, > >usually is in trouble. > > Yup. And the ruling on IG made it more difficult for the deck to do > what was designed to do. Yes, but not in any significantly measurable fashion. > >> The current discussion notwithstanding, there are also more types of > >> decks using IG than weenie potence rush. Nosferatu and Lasombra > >> toolboxes are just a two examples. They would have nowhere near the IG > >> density of potence weenie deck, and so their chance of replacing IG > >> would be correspondingly smaller > > > >Also true, but not relavent to the arguement of how the ruling on IG > >made S:CE stronger. > > What?! The fact that S:CE, after the change in IG, can help the deck > survive instead of going to torpor even when grappled on round 1, is > not *relevant*?! Then what is, pray tell? You need a little transition here. In no way does the fact that other clans besides Brujah, and !Brujah use IG prove your point of how a vampire can survive past round 1. > > >> You get a chance to play it second round if you didn't go to torpor on > >> the first round and the guy rushing you didn't have a second IG. For a > >> specific example: Ventrue with Skin of Steel + Majesty (more on that > >> below). > > > >Once again, Your fortitude arguement is moot. What you are really > >saying is not that S:CE got stronger but the Ventrue did. Please defend S:CE > >not the Ventrue (that's Rob Tresure's Job) > > If a ruling makes card A very useful in combination with card B, while > neither A nor B is enough on their own, then saying "Oh, but that's > just B's doing", is no good. > > A=S:CE, B=Fortitude. Once again you have mislabeled your A and B. S:CE does not allow you to survive round one, that is fortitude's job, so therfore you must concede that it is S:CE that improves fortitude not fortitude that improves S:CE. If you think this is not true, then please try your arguement with the Followers of Set. > > And anyway, Fortitude *isn't* the only way to go to round 2 even after > being grappled on round 1. Everyone who has argued for Pot rush decks > puts the damage at 6-8 in the first round, and that's when the whole > combo is in place. I'm sure Anson on turn 1 will be a disgustingly > common sight from now on, and he can survive round 1. Since your > combat deck likely does *not* yet have a second IG, he can Majesty on > round 2, surviving the combat. can you say Disarm? It is in the !Brujah starter, so it is not that hard to get. > >I would contend that S:CE was weakened far more by the DotB errata > >than it was strengthen by either or both of the IG and Dotb errata. > > I disgree, as the recepient of the DotB damage was likely as not also > a S:CE deck. If it was, Prior to errata it would have taken unpreventable damage. And although DotB+S:CE was disgusting to be on the > receiving end of, it didn't make for a good deck. DotB existed in many > more decks than just DotB+S:CE. Are you insane? Prior to errata DotB and S:CE created the only action that allowed you to torpor two vampires with one action. Now Granted it required Gitane with a Dog Pack and it required you to block with a vampire. It is also very card intensive. Let me lay it out for you. I rush a vampire. You block with another vampire. I play Dawn Op at superior (so you can't back out). I enter combat with your blocker. I play DotB. I strike with Form of Mist. Your blocker takes 1 unpreventable aggrivated damage. I continue my rush. I enter combat with the target vampire (assuming you are not foolish enough to block again). I play trap. I play Wolf's Claws. Your vampire goes to torpor. > >> >S:CE still gets mangled by IG. You haven't proved how it doesn't. > >> > >> It does, yes. But not *quite* as badly as before. > > > >Only if backed with Fortitude. > > And whenever the damage is not enough to sink the vampire on turn 1. But a disarm should do the trick. > >BTW, Do you see many disarms in your group? > > Not that many. It's probably *the* most sought-after card in the game. > And I don't see huge amounts of them in most posted decks, either. > As I said it is availible in the !Brujah starter. > And anyway, as Peter Bakija said, sending the vampire into torpor with > blood on it isn't good enough. It will leave torpor and you have to > beat it down again. Okay, Lets say I manage to inflict 6 point of damage, and I don't intercept your action to rescue yourself. Unless you are capacity 9 or greater, you are now empty and must hunt again next turn. You are doing a whole lot of nothing for a while. Plus I still have the possibility of intercepting you (Volker with a 2nd tradition for example) or rushing you after you have hunted. If you are a 9 cap, by the time you are put into torpor the first time. I will have another vampire in play who I will probably diablerize with as a disposable. > > >> Pardon? The IG has a press on superior, and if you use Cel, you have > >> flashes. Unless I can press against, you just go to second round and > >> beat some more. This is where the ruling helped - unless you have a > >> second IG, I can now S:CE. > > > >I don't disagree with you there. When did you discover this errata > >which has been in effect for at the very least a year or two? > > When it first came on, obviously. But it's now that we're discussing > it. > > And this is what I've been trying to say all along. S:CE got more > useful/more powerful when IG was errata'ed. It's not impossible to > beat in any way, but it became somewhat more difficult, particularly > with fortitude involved and when the vamp is big with lots of blood. This is what I am saying. Out of the 6 clans (Brujah, !Brujah, Toreador, !Toreador, Ventrue, Followers of Set) that have presence as a in clan discipline only the Ventrue have Fortitude. Of the 2 clans that have protean (Gangrel, and !Gangrel) most of the vampires have it at inferior and no vampire with capacity less than 6 has either a title or a bleed discipline and super protean. (as a side note, the Gangrel were the clan most hurt by the errata to DotB, as the above example shows) So stop showing how the Ventrue with Fortitude can beat IG, and start showing how S:CE was made more powerful by the ruling in a measurable way that applies to all clans with access to S:CE not just the Ventrue. > > >IG was broken before. Now it has been fixed. > > So you agree it was better before? What was it better against? Combat > Ends, for one thing. So now it's less good against S:CE than it was. > Therefore, S:CE became more powerful. > Did S:CE become more powerful in any signifigant way? No. If you are saying this you are making a unsupported conclusion, hence your arguement fails. > Do we even disagree here? We disagree that S:CE was signifigantly improved with the errata to IG > >Once again, this is a fortitude arguement not a S:CE arguement. The > >errata to IG was nessasary in the extreme. > > See above. > > >> >Please demostrate how it is the S:CE that saves the Ventrue and not > >> >the fortiude. > >> > >> It's the combination. Just fortitude doesn't cut it (you'll be pressed > >> until you run out). Just S:CE doesn't cut it (you'll be mangled on > >> round one). The two of them together can save you. > > > >In the situation you are depicting. In reality, if you can survive to > >round two, then many things can save you, Dodge, S:CE, or more Fortitude. > > Dodge - opponenent presses to next round (or additional strikes). > Fortitude - opponent presses to next round. S:CE - the combat ends > *here*. There's a *reason* people use S:CE over Dodge. And another IG shuts everything else down but damage prevention. > >This is why IG was changed. > > And the change made S:CE more powerful. > > >Mr. Lundstrom, you appear to be a new player with old cards. > > Appearances would be deceiving, then. I bought Jyhad the first week it > came to Sweden. I and another player, veteran wargamers both, spent a > few hours to decode the rules (swearing a lot along the way, too, but > not as musch as when the "simplified" rulebook came out), and then > went at it. Since we didn't have many cards, and played two-player > games, we weren't overly impressed. > It was a few years later I picked up the game again, when there were > more players playing it. But I've been a more or less active player > since Sabbat came out. Congradulations, Now that I understand that you are an experience player, do you still play in 2 player games or do you actually play in group games? > > >Welcome to the game. If you would like to see how the new IG is printed, then > >you should go buy a Sabbat War !Brujah Starter Deck. > > You don't think you could provide some more condescension? It *so* > improves the quality of the discussion... Apparently it gets through when nothing else does. > I have it, obviously. It's the change from the old way IG (a few years > back) worked to this new one that I have been talking about all along. > Perhaps you missed that? Perhaps you should have been here a few years ago to argue your point. Maybe then it would have been relavent. Comments Welcome, Norman S. Brown, Jr. XZealot Archon of the Swamp

"XZealot" <X_Ze...@email.msn.com> > You need a little transition here. In no way does the fact that other clans > besides Brujah, and !Brujah use IG prove your point of how a vampire > can survive past round 1. Just to tell i find your argument interesting. But both of you note that most of the potence decks won't make you survive a 2nd round, and if they do, they will just play another immortal grapple since range is automatically close. It's a common tactics here. > can you say Disarm? It is in the !Brujah starter, so it is not that > hard to get. and no, alas, disarm is not in the !brujah starter. That's why i owe only one. by the way, if the f***ng ba**rd who stole my second disarm by shuffling it in his own deck when he was ousted is reading this, i want to tell him i'm still working on cursing his family for eternity. Well, back to this !brujah starter : it contains a lot of useful stuff : Immortal grapple, Decapitate and Direct intervention. 3 good reasons to buy it. But sorry no disarm. > > >I would contend that S:CE was weakened far more by the DotB errata > > >than it was strengthen by either or both of the IG and Dotb errata. > > > > I disgree, as the recepient of the DotB damage was likely as not also > > a S:CE deck. > > If it was, Prior to errata it would have taken unpreventable damage. Just to say that the combo multiple DoTB+ Form of mist is/earth meld is against the spirit of combat ends : "you won't hurt me but i won't hurt you". With this silly combo, you could send a vampire in torpore without logic. I'm glad it's changed ! > And although DotB+S:CE was disgusting to be on the > > receiving end of, it didn't make for a good deck. DotB existed in many > > more decks than just DotB+S:CE. > > Are you insane? Prior to errata DotB and S:CE created the only action > that allowed you to torpor two vampires with one action. Now Granted it > required Gitane with a Dog Pack and it required you to block with a vampire. No, you don't need this Dog pack !! you only need ANI and PRO. plus FOR if you want to play the Dawn op version. > It is also very card intensive. Let me lay it out for you. I rush a > vampire. You block with another vampire. I play Dawn Op at superior > (so you can't back out). I enter combat with your blocker. I play > DotB. I strike with Form of Mist. Your blocker takes 1 unpreventable > aggrivated damage. I continue my > rush. I enter combat with the target vampire (assuming you are not > foolish enough to block again). I play trap. I play Wolf's Claws. Your > vampire goes to torpor. that was silly. > > And whenever the damage is not enough to sink the vampire on turn 1. > > But a disarm should do the trick. I'm sorry but o find this card a little silly... Especially when you prevented my strike for hands, inflicted me 1 damage and sent me to torpor with this card. At least the restriction on twisting the knife should have been on this Disarm text. But it's my personal opinion > > >BTW, Do you see many disarms in your group? > > > > Not that many. It's probably *the* most sought-after card in the game. > > And I don't see huge amounts of them in most posted decks, either. > > > As I said it is availible in the !Brujah starter. Alas again, no. It's a power rare card, difficult to find, as many people won't trade it away. (snip) Please, i understand you both have arguments, but don't go down on condescendent language. Hey Norm! sometime it's too difficult to explain people that being right or wrong is not the point : respecting the game is better. And changing S:ce while arguing the game mechansm is shitty as it is is clearly not respecting the game. reyda

> > can you say Disarm? It is in the !Brujah starter, so it is not that > > hard to get. > > and no, alas, disarm is not in the !brujah starter. That's why i owe only > one. by the way, if the f***ng ba**rd who stole my second disarm by > shuffling it in his own deck when he was ousted is reading this, i want to > tell him i'm still working on cursing his family for eternity. Well, back to > this !brujah starter : it contains a lot of useful stuff : Immortal grapple, > Decapitate and Direct intervention. 3 good reasons to buy it. But sorry no > disarm. Alas, my witty French friend has proven correct in his statement. I was wrong. I must have been thinking about Decapitate. > Please, i understand you both have arguments, but don't go down on > condescendent language. > Hey Norm! sometime it's too difficult to explain people that being right or > wrong is not the point : respecting the game is better. And changing S:ce > while arguing the game mechansm is shitty as it is is clearly not respecting > the game. Okay, but I am going to need a group hug. :) Comments Welcome, Norman S. Brown Jr. [ quoted text not captured ]

> > > So you agree it was better before? What was it better against? Combat > > Ends, for one thing. So now it's less good against S:CE than it was. > > Therefore, S:CE became more powerful. > > > Did S:CE become more powerful in any signifigant way? No. > If you are saying this you are making a unsupported conclusion, hence > your arguement fails. > > Hello! I've just recently found this newsgroup, so please bear with me. I followed the thread above trying to understand the heated discussion about S:CE (No matter whatever errata has changed anything or not). Anyway, the discussion rang a bell about 'cards are broken so you may only play with a limited amount of the' -complaints, so I tried to remember when my playgroup had gotten mad about my opverpopulating my deck with S:CE, and realized it never happened. My friends got thoroughly disgusted with my overuse of Auktarsis Persecution. So, where does S:CE come in here? One of my earliest deck-themes was weenie-hordes, packing the deck with Praxis Seizures, Auktarsis, Archons, permament intercept, Flack Jackets and guns. Mastercards always around 20 with half of it Chimestry and one third Blood Dolls. Mass Reality, wake-cards and Progeny filled the deck to the 90-limit. I used to LOVE people stacking their decks with S:CE. They got weak on intercept and of course kept my weenies alive during my build-up phase. However, I dreaded anything resembling manouver and IG - for obvious reasons. After half the round I'd start jumping minions with my archons equipped with +2 guns and bleed with the rest. At that time I seldom had less than 10 vamps out and usually around fifteen. And yes, I spent a lot of time hunting and resquing from torpor, but Auktarsis denies the other players from gaining VP:s and it's just so fun to get through two of them for fifteen pool each during one turn :) Only after abandoning the deck-theme above did I see a valid reason for playing S:CE, but liking weenies I still don't see S:CE as a problem. Ok, you stack up twenty of them I still empty your hand of them each turn with one-bleeds with four or so vamps. If you don't block I just stay untapped with the rest - I can live with only bleeding for 4 :) I still dread the rabid madman coming after my small innocent weenies with a torn signpost hunting for a wrestling-match. Sten During -- NetGuide Scandinavia AB http://www.netg.se/ Tankegangen 4 in...@netg.se 417 56 Goteborg Phone:+46 - (0)31 - 50 79 45 Sweden Fax: +46 - (0)31 - 50 79 39

> > Are you insane? Prior to errata DotB and S:CE created the only action > > that allowed you to torpor two vampires with one action. Now Granted it > > required Gitane with a Dog Pack and it required you to block with a > vampire. > > No, you don't need this Dog pack !! you only need ANI and PRO. plus FOR if > you want to play the Dawn op version. > You did need the Dog Pack to keep the second vampire from S:CE out of the second combat. If you have a Dog Pack on Gitane, then there are only twoo ways out of the second combat: you press to end the trap or you torpor Gitaine. If you cannot do either of these, then you will eventually run out of damage prevention and get sent to torpor. It is a moot point now as the change to DotB makes this combo ineffective and probably for a good reason. [ quoted text not captured ]

X_Ze...@email.msn.com (XZealot) wrote in message news:<82c154eb.01070...@posting.google.com>... [ quoted text not captured ] <HUG> > > Comments Welcome, > Norman S. Brown Jr. > XZealot > Archon of the Swamp Interesting thread, maybe should be retitled The Place of combat and SCE in VTES. My views about all this have changed recently, for two reasons: [1] it has become much easier to make a viable combat deck from the TACTICAL point of view. This has thrown the strategic inadequacy of some new and not-so-new players into painfully-sharp relief. IMO there's a danger that people just coming into the game will see rush-combat as only a spoiling tactic because that's what it is when a rush deck is played in a strategically-naive manner. [2] i've actually played in an all-combat tourney in Southampton [January this year IIRC]. i came second in the final [Malky OOT rush/rotshreck], Barney won [big titled Gangrels] and Rob [Tzimisce monsters] also got more VPs than me during the day. But you know what, it was actually quite boring - one really missed the stealth/bleed and vote decks, not to mention the funny off-the-wall stuff. Maybe the moral is similar to something Tom kassel once wisely said, to the effect that the last thing a rush-combat decks wants is a Fair Fight; you want to BULLY people, was the gist of Tom's post, and in that context SCE is the equivalent of running off to tell the teacher, so an essential element of play balance as Peter and co are, i think rightly, saying.

"James Coupe" <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote >, Jason Bell <Jason...@mail.com> writes > >> Please cite, say, 5 relevant decks which use IG at a successful, > >> competitive level which don't expect to torporise a vampire in the first > >> round, when faced with S:CE based defence. > > > >Are you sure you're talking out of the correct end, > >because your poop don't stink. > > So you still cannot back up the assertion that S:CE is significantly > upgraded by IG being restricted to one round. > > Interesting. Are you certain? Merely because you demand 5 relevant, competitive decks, and all I provide is game experience, plus the actual fact that S:CE can actually be played in more situations than it could before the IG restriction? I'd like you to rethink your position, if you are able. If you are not, then our discussion is over in any case. - Jason Bell

In message <NET07.75427$Md.20...@typhoon.southeast.rr.com>, Jason Bell <Jason...@mail.com> writes >> So you still cannot back up the assertion that S:CE is significantly >> upgraded by IG being restricted to one round. >> >> Interesting. > >Are you certain? I am noting you haven't, and apparently still cannot. -- James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D EBD690ECD7A1F "Analogies can be dangerous, Amanda," he begins, smiling B457CA213D7E6 slightly, "because the world is like a sandcastle..." 68C3695D623D5D

"Jason Bell" <Jason...@mail.com> wrote in message news:NET07.75427$Md.20...@typhoon.southeast.rr.com... > Are you certain? Merely because you demand 5 relevant, competitive > decks, and all I provide is game experience, plus the actual fact that I think you mispelled "anecdotes" there, right after "...all I provide is..." > S:CE can actually be played in more situations than it could before > the IG restriction? I'd like you to rethink your position, if you are The only situation that it can be played in that it couldn't before is during the second round of a combat against IG, if the IG player doesn't have another in hand. It could still be *played* against 10+ DotB, it just wasn't effective. Xian

X_Ze...@email.msn.com (XZealot) wrote: >Johan Lundstrom wrote: >Once again, yes, IG does not last the entire combat. Yes, it makes >S:CE useful in the second round if you can survive that long. Here is >where your arguement does not work. If you must play Fortitude to make your >Magesties work, then it is not the Magesties which are the source of your >survival, but the fortitude. You are misattributing your survival to the wrong >source. I feel like I'm repeating myself here. What fortitude does is not save you from the combat - fortitude *doesn't* save you from combats unless you have enormous amounts of it or if you hit back well. What it does is basically countering an IG so that you *can* end combat with S:CE. It's the majesty that really saves you. >> Yup. And the ruling on IG made it more difficult for the deck to do >> what was designed to do. > >Yes, but not in any significantly measurable fashion. I played a borrowed pot/CEL rush deck the other day. While it wasn't perfectly slimmed down, at least it had 15 IG's. Everyone else at the table played S:CE in large amounts. I had to go for smaller vampires than I wanted to *several times*, because I knew I couldn't torporize them in one round, and had no second IG on hand. I *did* manage to blow Alexandra into torpor on one round, which was fun, but the IG ruling was important on several occasions - there were only a few times when the opposing vampire *did* CombatEnd on round two, but it was a constant consideration. >> What?! The fact that S:CE, after the change in IG, can help the deck >> survive instead of going to torpor even when grappled on round 1, is >> not *relevant*?! Then what is, pray tell? > >You need a little transition here. In no way does the fact that other >clans besides Brujah, and !Brujah use IG prove your point of how a vampire >can survive past round 1. A full 8-cap vampire has a decent chance not be knocked into torpor on round 1 by most decks. Even Torn Signpost/Carrion Crows/Pushing the Limit (from a Nosferatu deck) won't sink it. Less dedicated Potence decks will be unlikely to conjure up a second IG. Since argument is that the ruling on IG made S:CE more powerful, I think that's highly relevant. >Once again you have mislabeled your A and B. S:CE does not allow you >to survive round one, that is fortitude's job, so therfore you must >concede that it is S:CE that improves fortitude not fortitude that improves >S:CE. If you think this is not true, then please try your arguement with the >Followers of Set. They combine wonderfully on defence. Each makes the other stronger. It's not like moderate amounts of fortitude will let you survive the combat, either. >can you say Disarm? It is in the !Brujah starter, so it is not that >hard to get. I wish it was. >> >I would contend that S:CE was weakened far more by the DotB errata >> >than it was strengthen by either or both of the IG and Dotb errata. >> >> I disgree, as the recepient of the DotB damage was likely as not also >> a S:CE deck. > >If it was, Prior to errata it would have taken unpreventable damage. Exactly. So another way of sneaking past S:CE was removed. >Are you insane? I hope not. [snip an example which, while it requires the receiving deck to help the aggressor along, shows just how disgusting the combo was.] >> And whenever the damage is not enough to sink the vampire on turn 1. > >But a disarm should do the trick. How many do you use in your deck? >Okay, Lets say I manage to inflict 6 point of damage, and I don't >intercept your action to rescue yourself. Unless you are capacity 9 >or greater, you are now empty and must hunt again next turn. >You are doing a whole lot of nothing for a while. Plus I still have >the possibility of intercepting you (Volker with a 2nd tradition for example) >or rushing you after you have hunted. If you are a 9 cap, by the time you >are put into torpor the first time. I will have another vampire in play who >I will probably diablerize with as a disposable. Could you post a deck, so we have something to argue about? Because right now, your deck always has the perfect combat combination, almost always has a second IG on hand, includes disarm which it always has when needed, plays with Volker and 2:nd Trad, and has spare vampires to spend for diablerie. It sounds a bit much to me... And *anyway*, without the ruling on IG, my vampire would be in torpor with *no* blood. The very existance of ruling as forced you to play in a somewhat less effective way, and has given my vampire a better chance of surviving, or at least forced you to spend a weenie on the diablerie. >So stop showing how the Ventrue with >Fortitude can beat IG, and start showing how S:CE was made more >powerful by the ruling in a measurable way that applies to all clans with access >to S:CE not just the Ventrue. See above, and lots of posts before that.. Ventrue got the bigger boost, but all vampires big enough to survive round one got helped. If you have to change tactics (by including Disarm), that in itself is a help, since it's better to go to torpor with blood than without. >> >IG was broken before. Now it has been fixed. >> >> So you agree it was better before? What was it better against? Combat >> Ends, for one thing. So now it's less good against S:CE than it was. >> Therefore, S:CE became more powerful. >> >Did S:CE become more powerful in any signifigant way? No. >If you are saying this you are making a unsupported conclusion, hence >your arguement fails. Then why was it broken before the ruling? >> Do we even disagree here? > >We disagree that S:CE was signifigantly improved with the errata to IG Perhaps it's the meaning of "significant" we disgree on. I don't in any way mean that S:CE rules supreme and unbeatable these days. I do think the change in IG gave a small but noticable improvement to S:CE in general (or at least to biggish vampires), and a goodly improvement to S:CE in Ventrue decks. >> >Once again, this is a fortitude arguement not a S:CE arguement. The >> >errata to IG was nessasary in the extreme. Why, if S:CE wasn't strengthened by it anyway? >> Dodge - opponenent presses to next round (or additional strikes). >> Fortitude - opponent presses to next round. S:CE - the combat ends >> *here*. There's a *reason* people use S:CE over Dodge. > >And another IG shuts everything else down but damage prevention. If you have it on hand. Pretty big 'if', in my experience. >Congradulations, Now that I understand that you are an experience >player, do you still play in 2 player games or do you actually play in group >games? Group, obviously. Was there a point to asking? >> I have it, obviously. It's the change from the old way IG (a few years >> back) worked to this new one that I have been talking about all along. >> Perhaps you missed that? > >Perhaps you should have been here a few years ago to argue your point. >Maybe then it would have been relavent. I was lurking. I remember the outcries. But surely the point is exactly as relevant today as it was then? [ quoted text not captured ]