Deck clinic please

As I am not very used with high level playing, I would like some help about a few decks. Thanks for "healing" them. Gangrel control deck The objective is to neutralize your predator then start bleeding your preys for one. 4 Camille 4 Raven 4 Gitane St Claire Master cards 15 3 Animalism 1 Barrens 2 KRCG News Radio 1 Zoo Hunting Ground 1 Eco terrorists (a pretty but rare card) 7 Rotschreck Minion cards 1 Mister Wintrop | 5 Sport Bike | 12 2 Raven Spy | 2 Crimson Sentinel | 2 Bang Nakh | 8 Cat's guidance | 6 Rats Warning | 20 6 Forced awakening | 12 Bone Spur | 3 Earth Meld | 12 Rolling with the punches| 33 5 Indomitability | 1 Canine Horde | 7 Forms of the ghost | 10 3 Arson | -- ___ (_ _ _ _ _ / /__//)//)(//)(/(-( (E-mail : Emmanue...@supaero.fr)

Emmanuel Martin wrote: > > As I am not very used with high level playing, I would like some > help about a few decks. Thanks for "healing" them. > > Gangrel control deck > >The objective is to neutralize your predator then start bleeding your > preys for one. A very difficult concept to win with. Usually the best you can hope for with an intercept deck is to get your predators killed one at a time, then be the last man standing and win 2 VPs to everyone else's 1, and even that isn't terribly easy. > > > 4 Camille > 4 Raven > 4 Gitane St Claire Um... I hate to have to be the one to tell you, but Camille and Raven are officially the same card so you really only have two vampires in this crypt. I do approve of the strategy you were trying for here (I used a similar tact with my Ravnos intercept deck), but I would use at least four different vampires. With four each of three you run the (admittedly slight) risk of drawing all four of one of them. With three of four you always get at least two and quite often (someone who's better than me at math can figure out the exact percentage) get three. Four is much rarer, but since you use mostly medium-large vamps that have all the disciplines you need, you really don't want to pay for four vampires anyway. I suggest that you use 3 Camille (could be Raven, but Camille is way hotter), 3 Gitane St. Clair, 3 Badger and 3 Bear Paw. You might also consider adding Gunther, Beast Lord, Caitlin and Monique and use auspex to beef up your intercept, but you won't rally need to do this if you don't play in an environment with heavy stealth. > Master cards 15 > > 3 Animalism Obviously, the number of Animalism cards you need depends on the crypt you decide to use. You will always need some because all your vamps need to be able to play cat's guidance at superior. If you go for the auspex angle you will also want to add some skill cards for that. > 1 Barrens > 2 KRCG News Radio > 1 Zoo Hunting Ground > 1 Eco terrorists (a pretty but rare card) I'd probably play with two of each of these so that you can discard one if you get it at a time you can't play it and still be able to play it later. This is especially important becuase these are the only blood gain in your deck. The exception is the barrens. Instead of doubling it, add three other "cycling" cards, maybe fragment, elder library and dreams of the sphinx. Intercept decks tend to not play many cards, so cycling masters are key. > 7 Rotschreck Good 'ol Rotschreck... You should probably take out some of your damage prevention and add more rotschreck, because rotschreck stops your opponent from avoiding going to torpor and also wacks him before he does damage which you'd need to prevent. On the other hand, intercept combat generally can't do anything but kill its predator and make its grandpredator win, so I would strongly suggest that you make an intercept-s:ce deck, in which case you'd want to take out all of the rotschrecks. > Minion cards > > 1 Mister Wintrop | > 5 Sport Bike | 12 > 2 Raven Spy | Good, good, permanent intercept. Very important to the endgame, which this deck tends to get to after prolonging the game. > 2 Crimson Sentinel | > 2 Bang Nakh | Weapons are bad in general and are even worse if you are using claws because they don't do agg. Take them out. > 8 Cat's guidance | > 6 Rats Warning | 20 > 6 Forced awakening | Probably need more of all of these. Untapping is key to intercept strategies because otherwise you can't ever take actions, which equals death. Cat's guidance is one of the best cards available to this deck, so 8 is an absolute minimum. Add more. > 12 Bone Spur | > 3 Earth Meld | If you try to include both combat contingencies in your deck, its more likely that you will have them at the wrong time than the right. Go all one way or the other, and overall you will come out ahead. > 12 Rolling with the punches| 33 > 5 Indomitability | > 1 Canine Horde | Canine horde is lousy. Take it out. Aid from bats is far superior, but only in large numbers. > 7 Forms of the ghost | 10 > 3 Arson | You have no stealth in this deck, so anytime there's somthing worth arsoning, the action'll get blocked. Might as well be a bum's rush.

On Sun, 7 Mar 1999, Steve Wampler wrote: > Um... I hate to have to be the one to tell you, but Camille and Raven > are officially the same card so you really only have two vampires in > this crypt. This is, AFAIK, not true at all. Camille Devereaux and Raven are officially different vampires, for the simple and practical reason that they have different names. It is a common house rule that they are the same, based on the logic that Raven (from V:tES) is a direct and identical replacement of the discontinued Camille (from Jyhad). Jyhad On Line still keeps a house rule that they are the same and will contest each other. (Personally, I don't see the logic in this house rule.) In spite of their being officially different, it is sometimes illegal to use them together in tournament play. This is because of the optional tournament rule that you cannot mix card backs in your crypt. The rule states that all cards in a crypt must be either all V:tES-backed cards or all Jyhad-backed cards. Since there is no V:tES-backed Camille, and no Jyhad-backed Raven, it is legally impossible to have them in the same crypt when this rule is in force. Even in this case, however, they are not considered the same vampire, and will not contest eachother if brought out by different players. This rule is optional, and according to DCI rules cannot be enforced unless advance notice was given to players as part of the tournament announcement. Thus, unless the tournament you wish to play in specifically announces that you cannot mix card backs in your crypt, it will be perfectly acceptable to play Camille and Raven together in that tournament. LSJ, please confirm if I got all this right. Lupus Australis ____ ____ \ \----/ / |()__()| __\ __ /__ / __\()/__ \ |/ \==/ \| | || |

In article <Pine.SUN.3.96.990307235827.19324A-100000@amanda>, [ quoted text not captured ] Actually, it is rather unfair to mix Jyhad and Vampire cards in your crypt, as there are mostly only 12 cards, and if you have only 3 Camilles, you just *know* when a Camille is on top of your crypt. To circumvent this, we always use black-shield sleeves. They look good, and you can mix VTES and Jyhad without marking the Camille-cards. :) And yes, both Camille and Raven *bite*. I have a very good "wall" deck that utilises vamps with a cap. below 6 (Atonment!!!!). The two come in very handy... ;) Carl (VEKN Prince of Vienna) -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own

Steve Wampler <swam...@clarityconnect.com> wrote: > Emmanuel Martin wrote: > > 4 Camille > > 4 Raven > > 4 Gitane St Claire > > Um... I hate to have to be the one to tell you, but Camille and Raven > are officially the same card so you really only have two vampires in > this crypt. Camille and Raven are officially two distinct vampires. They do not contest one another. -- L. Scott Johnson (vte...@wizards.com) VTES Net.Rep for Wizards of the Coast. Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and DCI (tournament) rules: http://www.wizards.com/VTES/VTES_Rules.html [ quoted text not captured ]

Lupus Australis <jbwh...@dorsai.org> wrote: > On Sun, 7 Mar 1999, Steve Wampler wrote: > > > Um... I hate to have to be the one to tell you, but Camille and Raven > > are officially the same card so you really only have two vampires in > > this crypt. > > This is, AFAIK, not true at all. Camille Devereaux and Raven are > officially different vampires, for the simple and practical reason that > they have different names. > > It is a common house rule that they are the same, based on the logic that > Raven (from V:tES) is a direct and identical replacement of the > discontinued Camille (from Jyhad). Jyhad On Line still keeps a house rule > that they are the same and will contest each other. (Personally, I don't > see the logic in this house rule.) > > In spite of their being officially different, it is sometimes illegal to > use them together in tournament play. This is because of the optional > tournament rule that you cannot mix card backs in your crypt. The rule > states that all cards in a crypt must be either all V:tES-backed cards or > all Jyhad-backed cards. Since there is no V:tES-backed Camille, and no > Jyhad-backed Raven, it is legally impossible to have them in the same > crypt when this rule is in force. Even in this case, however, they are > not considered the same vampire, and will not contest eachother if brought > out by different players. > > This rule is optional, and according to DCI rules cannot be enforced > unless advance notice was given to players as part of the tournament > announcement. Thus, unless the tournament you wish to play in > specifically announces that you cannot mix card backs in your crypt, it > will be perfectly acceptable to play Camille and Raven together in that > tournament. > > LSJ, please confirm if I got all this right. Confirmed. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Mon, 8 Mar 1999 carl.pi...@at.ccmail.philips.com wrote: > In article <Pine.SUN.3.96.990307235827.19324A-100000@amanda>, > > Actually, it is rather unfair to mix Jyhad and Vampire cards in your crypt, > as there are mostly only 12 cards, and if you have only 3 Camilles, you > just *know* when a Camille is on top of your crypt. I don't see anything particularly "unfair" about making use of a legal option that is available to all players. Any advantage gained would be minimal. Using this advantage does indeed violate the intent of the game design, but I think it far more unfair to rule that players can only use half their collection when designing crypts. > To circumvent this, > we always use black-shield sleeves. They look good, and you can mix > VTES and Jyhad without marking the Camille-cards. :) Well, yes. So do I. I don't like knowing, or anyone else knowing, anything about my cards before they are played. But I've never been particularly concerned about the advantage gained by others not using the sleeves. But if you are concerned about this problem, I'd like to point out that it is not limited to Jyhad vs. V:tES. There is also a difference between the V:tES/DS backs and the AH/Sabbat backs. It is not as obvious, but once you are aware, it is extremely simple to tell them apart. [ quoted text not captured ]

> Um... I hate to have to be the one to tell you, but Camille and Raven > are officially the same card Where did you read this? I just did a seach on LSJ's site and found no such reference. As far as I always knew, you could you both in the same crypt (even in a tournament) because they were indeed different vamps by the nature of them having different names. a0 ---- I told the priest - don't count on any second coming. God got his ass kicked the first time he came down here slumming. He had the balls to come, the gall to die and then forgive us. No, I don't wonder why, I wonder what he thought it would get us -- Concrete Blonde [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <Pine.SUN.3.96.990308075947.22044A-100000@amanda>, Lupus Australis <jbwh...@dorsai.org> wrote: > On Mon, 8 Mar 1999 carl.pi...@at.ccmail.philips.com wrote: > > > In article <Pine.SUN.3.96.990307235827.19324A-100000@amanda>, > > > > Actually, it is rather unfair to mix Jyhad and Vampire cards in your crypt, > > as there are mostly only 12 cards, and if you have only 3 Camilles, you > > just *know* when a Camille is on top of your crypt. > > I don't see anything particularly "unfair" about making use of a legal > option that is available to all players. Any advantage gained would be > minimal. Using this advantage does indeed violate the intent of the game > design, but I think it far more unfair to rule that players can only use > half their collection when designing crypts. Okay, I'm not really concerned about the advantage. It's open to all players. But, as you said, I dislike it as it violates the intent. > > > To circumvent this, > > we always use black-shield sleeves. They look good, and you can mix > > VTES and Jyhad without marking the Camille-cards. :) > > Well, yes. So do I. I don't like knowing, or anyone else knowing, > anything about my cards before they are played. But I've never been > particularly concerned about the advantage gained by others not using the > sleeves. > > But if you are concerned about this problem, I'd like to point out that it > is not limited to Jyhad vs. V:tES. There is also a difference between the > V:tES/DS backs and the AH/Sabbat backs. It is not as obvious, but once > you are aware, it is extremely simple to tell them apart. Hm, I wonder why it has been that way. WotC never screwed up the backs of Magic cards, so why with VTES? Someone should tell WotC to look closely at the colour of the backs when they print the new cards.... Btw, there was once talking about blank cards. Did that topic die with the infamous Ryan S. Dancey? Carl (VEKN Prince of Vienna) -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- [ quoted text not captured ]

carl.pi...@at.ccmail.philips.com wrote: > Btw, there was once talking about blank cards. Did that topic die with > the infamous Ryan S. Dancey? Dear lord, I hope so. If they ever do, I'll design a card called "Tactical Nuke" that burns all the vampires and half the pool of an opposing player. The only other card game that had blank cards (that I'm aware of) was Illuminati...and that game was just too amusing to have an overpowered card. Noal -- "Excuse me. Are you a yuppie?" -woman at a gas station in Detroit [ quoted text not captured ]

Lupus Australis wrote: > > On Mon, 8 Mar 1999 carl.pi...@at.ccmail.philips.com wrote: > > > In article <Pine.SUN.3.96.990307235827.19324A-100000@amanda>, > > > > Actually, it is rather unfair to mix Jyhad and Vampire cards in your crypt, > > as there are mostly only 12 cards, and if you have only 3 Camilles, you > > just *know* when a Camille is on top of your crypt. > > I don't see anything particularly "unfair" about making use of a legal > option that is available to all players. Any advantage gained would be > minimal. Using this advantage does indeed violate the intent of the game > design, but I think it far more unfair to rule that players can only use > half their collection when designing crypts. While it is legal to mix card backs when playing without the optional rule, it is not legal to mark cards, manipulate which cards are drawn from your deck, or use card backs as an identifying mark. This, from the DCI rules: "All library cards from the Jyhad or Vampire: The Eternal Struggle card sets must be of sufficiently mixed card type-that is, Master cards must appear with both Jyhad and V:TES card backs (or at least three different card types must have Jyhad backs)." Yes, this rule specifically applies to the library cards, but the DCI's list of types of cheating says that the provided list is not exhaustive. I don't think extending this precedent to a crypt is unreasonable. A player wishing to use Camille and Raven must still avoid having a marked crypt by adding other Jyhad backed cards. Robert Goudie rrgo...@earthlink.net http://madnessnetwork.hexagon.net

Dhar...@yahoo.com wrote: > > carl.pi...@at.ccmail.philips.com wrote: > > Btw, there was once talking about blank cards. Did that topic die with > > the infamous Ryan S. Dancey? > > Dear lord, I hope so. If they ever do, I'll design a card called "Tactical > Nuke" > that burns all the vampires and half the pool of an opposing player. The only > other card game that had blank cards (that I'm aware of) was Illuminati...and > that game was just too amusing to have an overpowered card. Just because the blank cards exist doesn't mean that anyone can design anything they want and it will be acceptable. They will certainly never allow any homemade cards into a tournament. I reminded the current Brand Manager of the promise made by the former Brand Manager with regard to the blank cards. I have not heard back yet. -- Robert Goudie, Chairman rrgo...@earthlink.net Vampire: Elder Kindred Network http://madnessnetwork.hexagon.net _________________________________________________________________ The Official Vampire: the Eternal Struggle Players Organization

In article <36E426B0...@earthlink.net>, Robert Goudie <rrgo...@earthlink.net> wrote: > Yes, this rule specifically applies to the library cards, but the DCI's > list of types of cheating says that the provided list is not > exhaustive. I don't think extending this precedent to a crypt is > unreasonable. A player wishing to use Camille and Raven must still > avoid having a marked crypt by adding other Jyhad backed cards. I always bring opaque sleeves for people's use. It makes things a little less tense as the issue never comes up. Plus, it's another free thing they get to keep. :) Mike -- Mike Bohlmann, MAIP http://www.shout.net/~mbohlman/ V:EKN Prince of Urbana-Champaign Editor of the Fragment of the Book of Nod [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <nFhKpFAT...@obeah.demon.co.uk>, James Coupe <ve...@obeah.demon.co.uk> wrote: >In article <7c0t7p$8t8$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, carl.pi...@at.ccmail.p >hilips.com writes >>WotC never screwed up the backs of >>Magic cards > >Wrong. > >Pro-Tour decks and the squarer corners to name two, and I'm not a Magic >buff. Not to mention that the print quality has been different on every single magic expansion. Someone who has played a long time can tell what set each of the cards in their deck is from just from the tint of the backs of the cards. Many people have been thrown out of tournaments for having all their lands from a different set as the rest of their deck. --Arkham : City of Lost Minds ( ver...@contoursoft.com )

In article <7c0t7p$8t8$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, carl.pi...@at.ccmail.p hilips.com writes >WotC never screwed up the backs of >Magic cards Wrong. Pro-Tour decks and the squarer corners to name two, and I'm not a Magic buff. -- James Coupe (Prince of Mercia, England) Vampire: Elder Kindred Network http://madnessnetwork.hexagon.net http://www.obeah.demon.co.uk

Robert Goudie <rrgo...@earthlink.net> wrote: > Just because the blank cards exist doesn't mean that anyone can design > anything they want and it will be acceptable. They will certainly never > allow any homemade cards into a tournament. I would certainly hope so. *grin* Even assuming that it wouldn't be legal, I'd design a "Tactical Nuke" card just to see the dumbfounded looks on people's faces...that and the good laugh that would result. Noal -- "...the concept of absurdity is something I'm attracted to." David Lynch [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <7c1ven$ksj$1...@shell5.ba.best.com>, con...@best.com (Stephen Latour) wrote: > In article <nFhKpFAT...@obeah.demon.co.uk>, > James Coupe <ve...@obeah.demon.co.uk> wrote: > >In article <7c0t7p$8t8$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, carl.pi...@at.ccmail.p > >hilips.com writes > >>WotC never screwed up the backs of > >>Magic cards > > > >Wrong. > > > >Pro-Tour decks and the squarer corners to name two, and I'm not a Magic > >buff. > > Not to mention that the print quality has been different on every > single magic expansion. Someone who has played a long time can tell > what set each of the cards in their deck is from just from the tint > of the backs of the cards. > > Many people have been thrown out of tournaments for having all their lands > from a different set as the rest of their deck. I don't play Magic. (I'd be lying if I said I never did, but you can forgive me that mistake.) I always had the impression that Magic had not such a bad colour choice for the backs as VTES had. But that's not the point. WotC should make sure that something never again happens, it sucks! Btw, how can such a thing happen, is there no quality assurance? Carl (VEKN Prince of Vienna) -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- [ quoted text not captured ]

On Mon, 8 Mar 1999, Robert Goudie wrote: > While it is legal to mix card backs when playing without the optional > rule, it is not legal to mark cards, manipulate which cards are drawn > from your deck, or use card backs as an identifying mark. This, from > the DCI rules: > > "All library cards from the Jyhad or Vampire: The Eternal Struggle card > sets must be of sufficiently mixed card type-that is, Master cards must > appear with both Jyhad and V:TES card backs (or at least three different > card types must have Jyhad backs)." > > Yes, this rule specifically applies to the library cards, but the DCI's > list of types of cheating says that the provided list is not > exhaustive. I don't think extending this precedent to a crypt is > unreasonable. A player wishing to use Camille and Raven must still > avoid having a marked crypt by adding other Jyhad backed cards. I agree in principle that players should not try to specifically design their crypts in order to maximize knowledge derived from differences in card backs. (I use the opaque card sleeves myself) Nonetheless, if there are different card backs in the crypt it will be impossible for the player to *not* know something he shouldn't based on this information. Maintaining an "appropriate mix" of cards only alleviates this problem slightly without eliminating it -- especially as relates to the crypt, where there are only 12 cards to begin with. So in spite of agreeing in principle, I cannot see how this constitutes a "rule" since rules must be enforceable to be meaningful. A rule of this nature is not even self-enforceable, since once you allow yourself the mix, you cannot prevent yourself from gaining information from the card backs. And once you have this information, how can you prevent yourself from gaining advantage from it? This sort of problem can be handled by handing a player a dozen black-backed card sleeves before the start of the game. No other method is particularly reasonable, once you allow mixing at all. Nor do I see much point in telling players their crypt must be "appropriately mixed" without specific guidelines as to what is "appropriate". Since no amount of mixing can eliminate the problem, what is appropriate is going to be a judgement call. The DCI rules do not provide any specific rule relative to crypt mixing, so I cannot see that any rule can be inferred. There is a rule against playing with marked crypts. This rule is directly contradicted in principle by specifically allowing a mix of Jyhad and V:tES, as well as by allowing players to mix V:tES/DS backed cards with AH/Sabbat backed cards. A tournament judge who is not willing to hand out opaque card sleeves would do best to just shrug his shoulders and ignore the issue, as I see no other way to resolve the contradiction. What would you consider appropriate card mixing in the following case: A deck using one or more Camille (Jyhad), one or more Raven (V:tES/DS), and several Gangrel Antitribu (AH/Sabbat). How is one to mix the three different card-backs approprately to prevent oneself from gaining knowledge therefrom? [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <7c12mb$e35$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, <Dhar...@yahoo.com> wrote: > carl.pi...@at.ccmail.philips.com wrote: >> Btw, there was once talking about blank cards. Did that topic die with >> the infamous Ryan S. Dancey? > >Dear lord, I hope so. If they ever do, I'll design a card called "Tactical >Nuke" >that burns all the vampires and half the pool of an opposing player. The only >other card game that had blank cards (that I'm aware of) was Illuminati...and >that game was just too amusing to have an overpowered card. Uhhh. And the people you play with would let you play it? I still think blank cards would be great, although really you can achieve the same effect with sleeves. -- /\ Jasper Phillips /VVVVVVVVVVVVVV|~"~"~"~"~"~"----------........____ jaz j^^^^^^^^^^^^^\/"~"~"~"~-----------........._____ ~"~--. * http://www.engr.orst.edu/~philljas/ "~"~'--`

In article <7c2gqd$me2$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, <carl.pi...@at.ccmail.philips.com> wrote: >I always had the impression that Magic had not such a bad colour choice >for the backs as VTES had. >But that's not the point. WotC should make sure that something never >again happens, it sucks! >Btw, how can such a thing happen, is there no quality assurance? I don't think it's as easy as you guys think. And anyway, it's not actually WotC's fault (much as I've come to despise them), but the printers, right? [ quoted text not captured ]

Lupus Australis wrote: > > On Mon, 8 Mar 1999, Robert Goudie wrote: > [clip] > So in spite of agreeing in principle, I cannot see how this constitutes a > "rule" since rules must be enforceable to be meaningful. A rule of this > nature is not even self-enforceable, since once you allow yourself the > mix, you cannot prevent yourself from gaining information from the card > backs. And once you have this information, how can you prevent yourself > from gaining advantage from it? There are a number of rules that are only barely enforceable. Collusion, for example, will almost never be proven but is still against the rules and up to the judgement of the judge. It is self-enforceable to the extent that players who make an attempt to not have marked crypts will typically have a different mix of card backs than those who intend to mark their cyrpts. [clip] > What would you consider appropriate card mixing in the following case: A > deck using one or more Camille (Jyhad), one or more Raven (V:tES/DS), and > several Gangrel Antitribu (AH/Sabbat). How is one to mix the three > different card-backs approprately to prevent oneself from gaining > knowledge therefrom? If that was a 12 card deck with 4 of each and there are not other Jyhad versions available of the !Gan or Raven then it is fine. I agree that this is a mostly theoretical discussion. However, if I see a player cutting his crypt at the start of a game (the cut that is allowed right after the player's predator shuffles and/or cuts) and fanning the cards before he cuts, and I then discover that their the entire deck is made of Jyhad backed Malks save for Anson who has a V:TES back, I can see that the player did not make an effort to mix their crypt and that it was their intent to gain an advantage. [ quoted text not captured ]

Jasper Phillips wrote: > > In article <7c2gqd$me2$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, > <carl.pi...@at.ccmail.philips.com> wrote: > >I always had the impression that Magic had not such a bad colour choice > >for the backs as VTES had. > >But that's not the point. WotC should make sure that something never > >again happens, it sucks! > >Btw, how can such a thing happen, is there no quality assurance? > > I don't think it's as easy as you guys think. And anyway, it's not > actually WotC's fault (much as I've come to despise them), but the > printers, right? It's not easy at all. Even during the same print run with the same plates there will be differences. Printers with good quality control can minimize this effect but can only eliminate it by throwing out a whole lot of the cards that are outside of an ultra strict tolerance level. -- [ quoted text not captured ]