Jyhad Deckbuilding Basics

I haven't written a Brujah Antitribu newsletter this month... but I haven't been lazy either. I've drawn up a deckbuilding guide for new players; it was originally requested by several local players as well as a few on the web. I would appreciate if you could read the document that follows this one and offer any additonal insight/criticism that will help make it more complete. I'm certain that I have missed some obvious points. Please keep in mind that this is *not* a finished document and that I will modify it based on your suggestions. Also, the scope is a bit on the broad side, so covering *every* angle is simply not possible. For example, instructing a new player with 100 cards how to make a Betrayer/TogP deck makes no sense so I have avoided focusing on obscure concepts. I'll cover that in Deckbuilding 201 heh. Thanks in advance for your collective wisdom. Cheers, WES

JYHAD DECKBUILDING BASICS Players who are new to V:tES often wonder how to put together an effective deck that is capable of winning games. There are many diverse strategies that are tried and tested winners, however many of these are not accessible to a new player who has limited card resources. I have endeavoured in this document to compile advice for players in building a good deck without relying on hordes of rare cards. Keep in mind that this advice is mostly based on my own personal experience playing V:tES and not necessarily useful for all environments. The first thing you should consider is what you would like your deck to do. Win, certainly... but how? Generally, there are three core strategies: 1) Bleed 2) Politics 3) Combat Each has a direct or indirect way to attack your prey's main resource, their pool. It is important that players understand that they have two main goals, ousting your prey (all of them, in succession) and more importantly, NOT being ousted yourself. Thus, you must be able to both defend your pool while simultaneously attacking your prey without mercy. A new player will generally not have enough cards to put together a deck that focuses entirely on one of the core three strategies. Nevertheless, a coherent and effective deck can be built using readily available common cards. There are several components to a deck... the crypt and the library, which can be further broken down into master cards and minion cards. CRYPT AND CAPACITY A crypt should almost always contain exactly twelve vampires. More are allowed, but unless you expect to get more than twelve vampires out in any given game (ie. a weenie deck) there is no reason why you should ever exceed twelve. If there is a vampire that you feel is integral to your deck, do not be afraid to include more than one copy of it. If you absolutely *rely* on that vampire, include at least four... ensuring that you will almost always get him/her in your starting inactive region. A good rule of thumb for the crypt is to keep the average capacity of your vampires between 4 and 5. I usually try to keep the average as close to an even 4 as possible. If you consider that your starting inactive region will contain exactly four vampires, you should be able to get all four out. At an average between 4 and 5, this means you will be spending between 16 and 20 pool to bring out your vampires most of the time. This leaves you a nice cushion of 10 - 14 pool to keep yourself alive or pay for useful cards. Smaller vampires have a significant advantage over larger vampires. Conisder this scenario: Player A has two vampires of 4 capacity each. Player B has one vampire of capacity 8. Granted Player B's vampire no doubt has more and better disciplines than both of Player A's vampires. However, two vampires can take twice as many actions as one. Since all vampires have inherent abilities, such as bleeding, hunting and calling most votes, this becomes significant. A horde of ten 'weenies' can all bleed for one. A vampire of ten capacity may be able to stop one or two of those weenies but will be hard pressed to stop *all* of them. Player A can use one vampire to take actions and leave another for blocking. Player B is limited to a choice of either acting or blocking (most of the time--there are exceptions). It is certainly possible to make an effective deck based around a large capacity vampire, but be careful. Another problem with larger vampires is that they often have disciplines that end up being redundant. A vampire with superior AUS, CEL and PRS in a deck that focuses on all three disciplines is a fine investment as you know they will be able to use all three to their full potential. A vampire in the same deck that has inferior AUS, CEL, PRS, FOR, POT, OBT, OBF may seem better but are you really going to be able to use *all* of those disciplines effectively? However, many of those vampires will also have access to votes or a special ability that makes up for their cost. If this is the case, you should probably focus on that vampire as the main focus and fill the rest of your crypt with vampires that complement him/her while keeping the average capacity at a reasonable level. Contrarily, the smallest capacity vampires, usually Caitiffs or Panders, have disadvantages that may make their cost seem less useful. Uriah Winter who goes to your prey if he/she has more pool seems a bad investment to a deck that needs to keep its minions. However, ultimately you are only investing 1 pool in a minion who can bleed, diablerize, call votes etc. Some of the caitiffs will usually have a discipline that complements the deck you are making. Some disciplines are more useful than others in this regard. Potence and Presence have useful cards that will not empty your vampire of blood when you play them. Others are harder to use unless you have the blood to support them such as Protean or Viscissitude. The trick is to remember that weenies are cheap and expendable. A focused weenie horde deck will not care if it loses one or two vampires. If three one capacity vampires are burned, the Methuselah spent three pool; less than being bled with Conditioning at superior. If you choose to use large vampires, there are some cards which will help you play them effectively. Minion Tap will let you effectively pay much less pool for a large vampire. If you play Lazvernius (ten cap) and play Minion Tap for seven blood, that means you basically only paid three pool to play him. Since most vampires can still function with much less blood on them or hunt for more if needed, this is usually the best way to go. Similarly, Blood Doll can accomplish the same thing albeit much more slowly. At the end of this document I will list other cards that are often used in conjunction with different types of decks. DECK SIZE Ideally, you should try to keep your deck as close to the minimum amount of cards required. Unless you are playing a deck that cycles through cards so fast that running out of cards is an issue, playing with 60 cards is usually better than 90. This will of course depend on the nature of the deck, as well as the nature of the playing environment. It is possible that a 90 card deck may be less efficient than a smaller deck but it might also be more fun because it covers more corner-case scenarios and contains 'fun' cards that you want to try but would never take to a tournament. DECK DISCIPLINES An important consideration when designing a deck is what disciplines will be used with it. Most decks tend to focus on the three core disciplines of the clan that makes up the majority of the crypt. For example, a Ventrue deck will likely focus on Dominate, Fortitude and Presence (DOM, FOR, PRS). It is possible to combine clans with similar disciplines. The Malkavians and Tremere both share Dominate and Auspex so in theory a deck could use both and use any combination of Auspex, Dominate, Obfuscate and Thaumaturgy. In general, it is best to keep the amount of disciplines used at three or less. Adding more makes a deck too unfocused and too likely to experience 'hand-jam' when the wrong cards fill your hand at the wrong time. An occasional card could be added if you really think you'll find some usage. For example, I will include a 'Disguised Weapon' (OBF) in a deck where three or four vampires possess that discipline. I may never use it but if I really want to get out a gun it may come in handy. The worst that could happen is that the card would need to be discarded. Be careful with this line of thinking however--Even the best cards of each discipline are not worth including if only one vampire can use it and the chances of its usage is slim. Such 'corner-case' cards should be kept to a minimum if possible. Do not be afraid to go down to two or even one discipline in a deck. By focusing on two of a clan's disciplines, you are able to ensure that you are much more likely to get cards that will be useful. For example, you could focus on the Brujah's combat-oriented disciplines of Potence and Celerity and leave Presence out altogether (or include only a few). By doing this, you will have less ability to bleed but more ability to kill... this kind of focus generally pays off. If you attempt to do this, be sure that the vampires in your crypt reflect this. It's no use having a five capacity Brujah with 'PRS cel pot' when you can can have 'cel pot' for three pool. Your crypt should always reflect your library (and vice-versa). MASTER CARDS In general, you should strive for one out of every five library cards being Master cards. In a 60 card deck, 12 should be Masters. In a 90 card deck, 18 should be Masters. In general this rule of thumb will serve you well. You won't be as likely to jam up on Master cards nor will you be likely to play too many turns where you can't play at least one. Master cards are more powerful than most minion cards and give your deck a much needed boost. Although there have been decks that are made up entirely of Master cards (do NOT try this at home... yet) you would be hard-pressed to find a deck that contains NO Master Cards. The Masters you select should reflect the focus of your deck. If you are concentrating on a specific discipline, consider adding a few of its skill cards. If you are focusing on a specific clan, include Masters that are unique to that clan. Another use of Masters is to make things harder for your opponents. Cards like Sudden Reversal or Direct Intervention can prevent cards from being played that would cause you aggravation (or cause your opponents success) later on. A well-timed Golconda: Inner Peace will cause your opponent to choose between losing a vampire or paying two pool. If used on your prey, this ends up being a bleed for two most of the time. POOL MANAGEMENT In order to win, you must first survive your predator's attacks. Your predator's goal is to oust you; by keeping your pool at a reasonable level, you can stay in the game long enough to oust your own prey and ultimately win the game. There are a variety of ways to gain pool, each with its own cost and benefit. Gaining one pool by having the Edge is unreliable at best. You should never rely on having the Edge for one complete rotation of the table. This is not to say that you should not bleed in order to get the Edge; you should... but you should keep in mind that nobody else at the table wants to see you gain pool when they could gain it for themselves. Most of the time, the Edge will belong to someone else and therefore other means of gaining pool are more reliable. The most effective ways to gain pool are Minion Taps and Blood Dolls, two common Master cards that show up in most decks. Depending on what the average capacity of your vampires are you should probably include at least a few of either. Generally speaking, cards such as Short Term Investment, Protracted Investment and several cards with similar text are not worth the slot in your deck. The pool gain relies on having good timing when playing the card (ie playing earlier than later) as well as having master phase actions free to remove the counters to your pool. Ideally, you want to use each master phase action to play a more useful Master card. In the end, there are better cards to play than 'investments'. Similarly, Ascendance is a measly one pool gain for one card played and one master phase action wasted. There are better cards to play. The Powerbases are generally good for pool gain however they require you to protect the invested counters. There isn't much use playing a card that will benefit everyone but you. A great type of card for pool gain is Govern the Unaligned, Scouting Mission, etc. Any card that moves blood onto your uncontrolled vampires can be influenced back to your pool at a cost of two transfers per counter. This is a significant gain as well as the added bonus of letting you bring out your vampires at cheaper cost to yourself if you choose to use it that way. BLOOD MANAGEMENT Vampires need blood to be able to help your cause. While they can often function with one or two blood, many cards require them to spend that blood to activate effects that you want to play. In order to keep enough blood on your vampires, you should consider several cards. Blood Doll works both ways and therefore can be used to fill up an empty vampire, preventing them from being forced to hunt. Hunting Grounds are available for every clan, and can make a significant difference if played at the right time, though their cost of two pool and vulnerability to anti-location cards needs to be considered. The Hungry Coyote and Inbase Discotek are useful in that they allow your vampires to hunt more effectively. The Rack and Palatial Estate help only one vampire and need to be protected, however they provide free blood each turn without the vampire having to take a hunting action. DEFENSE Protecting yourself from your predator (and often the other players) is as important as winning. Several cards allow you the luxury of halting your predator's advance without too much cost to yourself. Against a vote deck, there are several tactics that are effective. Having intercept ability can help you to stop votes before they get to the vote stage; in this case permanent intercept (ie KRCG News Radio) may be better than transient cards from your hand. Having votes of your own to discourage hostile votes against you can often prevent needless suffering. The card Delaying Tactics stops a minion from calling the vote at all, forcing them to wait another turn before they can call another one. Often this can mean you have one more turn to figure out how to deal with the card they were about to play. Against a bleed deck, pool gain and deflection are key concepts. If you are able to gain pool faster than your predator bleeds you for it, you will have enough time to deal with your own prey. Deflecting your predator's bleeds (generally to your prey) is a great way to turn your enemies against each other. Not only does your prey have to deal with an attack they weren't expecting, you will also most likely have one less minion to block you when you attack them on your turn. In this way, a defensive tactic becomes an offensive one. There are also cards such as Protected Resources or Archon Investigation, which have high costs but powerful effects against bleed decks. Being able to intercept bleeds will sometimes be necessary, in which case the abililty to untap or add intercept will come in handy. Against combat decks, options are a bit more complicated. Depending on the type of combat deck you are faced with, some cards become godsends whereas others become hand-jam. Majesty or Earth Meld which end combat and allow you to untap are ideal *unless* you are faced with an Immortal Grapple deck which will totally nullify any Strike: Combat Ends effects. Damage prevention is an option if your minions possess Fortitude. If they possess Dominate, consider playing Obedience though this card can be hard to play as it requires your vampire to be older, untapped and of course have DOM. Master cards such as Elysium: the Arboretum or Purchase Pact can help but only if both the 'rushing' vampire and your own belong to the same sect. In general, the abililty to wake up and react to opposing vampire's actions is very useful. A vampire can take an action and then wake to block, effectively giving you the benefit of doubling your vampire's usefulness in one turn. Wake with Evening's Freshness and Forced Awakening are stand-bys for many types of deck. Both have a cost that needs to be considered however. If you really need to cycle cards go with Forced Awakening. If cycling is not an issue, but blood management is, Wake with Evening's Freshness is more useful. Animalism users have access to cards that are generally better (eg Rat's Warning) though limited to anti-bleeds. Since much of the time large bleeds will be the most significant threat you will want to block, these cards become a good deterrent that keeps your predator on his/her toes. DECK COMPOSITION Every player has preferences for hwo a deck should be divided. A formula called 'Happy Families' provides a balanced approach to deck design. It is well worth checking out. It is linked here: http://legbiter.tripod.com/hf-left.htm Thought should be given to how many of each card (or type of card) you would need in any given hand. If I know my deck will concentrate on heavy bleeds with moderate stealth, it would not make much sense to include fifty combat cards. Some players therefore decide what ratio they need beforehand and select cards to fill in the blanks later. This has the advantage of giving you the ability of defining the deck size from the start rather than whittling it down to an acceptable (or legal) size later. Mostly, deck composition is something that comes with experience, both experience playing the game *and* experience playing that particular deck. A deck should always be considered a 'work-in-progress' and be updated based on its performance. If you find that you end up discarding certain cards more than others, remove one or two from your deck. Similarly, if you find that you wish you had more of certain cards, try to obtain more. Mnay players on the newsgroup will be willing to trade with you or at least point you in the right direction. I hope this document has been of some use to you. I would appreciate any feedback you could offer that would help make it more complete. Please feel free to email me at: gh...@mnsi.net Cheers, WES THE LIST Here I have compiled a list of cards that are useful for specific types of deck. Based on the type of deck you are building, the following cards might be considered worthy additions. AVERAGE VAMPIRE CAPACITY L:ESS THAN 5 Blood Doll Effective Management Tribute to the Master Discipline Skill Cards Atonement Antedilluvean Awakening Anarch Revolt Information Highway Autarkis Persecution Seduction AVERAGE VAMPIRE CAPACITY GREATER THAN 5 Minion Tap (usually played in conjunction with 5th Tradition: Hospitality) Untap cards (WWEF, Forced Awakening) Secure Haven Giant's Blood The Rack Information Highway Tomb of Ramses III Blood Doll Legendary Vampire Elysium: the Arboretum/Purchase Pact Ancient Influence Political Stranglehold MORE THAN HALF OF VAMPIRES FROM ONE CLAN Hunting Ground for that clan Cards that focus on core three disciplines of that clan LESS THAN FOUR VAMPIRES OF ANY ONE CLAN Avoid cards that focus on that clan. They may end up jamming your hand. ANTI-COMBAT Obedience (Dominate) Strike: Combat Ends (mostly Presence) Dodges Manuevers Damage prevention (mostly Fortitude) Secure Haven ANTI-VOTE Delaying Tactics Intercept cards (either transient cards such as Auspex or permanents such as Rumor Mill) More votes than voter Reactionary votes (ie Dread Gaze) ANTI-BLEED Deflection/Redirection (Dominate) Telepathic Misdirection/My Enemy's Enemy (Auspex) Rat's Warning/Guard Dogs (Animalism) Protected Resources Archon Investigation Elder Intervention/Pack Tactics

Wes wrote: >>Ideally, you should try to keep your deck as close to the minimum amount of cards required. Unless you are playing a deck that cycles through cards so fast that running out of cards is an issue, playing with 60 cards is usually better than 90. This will of course depend on the nature of the deck, as well as the nature of the playing environment. It is possible that a 90 card deck may be less efficient than a smaller deck but it might also be more fun because it covers more corner-case scenarios and contains 'fun' cards that you want to try but would never take to a tournament.>> Keeping in mind that VTES has no card limit, I would say that the maximum deck size is almost always better than a smaller one. Sure, there is some small mathematicaly significant way in which a 45 card deck is more consistient than two of the exact same 45 card decks shuffled together (I remember the discussions--no need to repeat them...), but in general, as you can have as many of a single card as you want, there is no good reason to have X of a card in a 60 card deck when you can have X(1.5) of the same card in a 90 card deck. Of course, if you have a limited number of cards, a smaller deck will work better, but as this is information meant for new players, and many new players have difficulty grappling with the VTES no card limit, and the "Play as small a deck as legally possible" mindset is enforced by (and enforcing of) games with card limits, I'd probably change the above paragraph to emphasize the "Play with as big a deck as you can get away with, yet is still effective" aspect of VTES. Peter D Bakija PD...@aol.com http://www.geocities.com/bakija6 "Why so many swords?" "I must kill many." -Kikuchiyo

This comes across too often as a newsgroup argument rather than a guide. Some of the more important concepts seem to come after trivial things. In some cases, I think it's too specific. Vampire size. The decks that commonly use high caps are vote decks to get titled vampires and bloat decks because the drawbacks are muted by cards like Voter Cap and Fifth Tradition. Then, there are decks built around specific abilities [which you pointed out]. Could say something like that rather than rag on using high caps. Deck size. This doesn't strike me as a basic issue. I'd point out the tournament restrictions (everyone should play standard constructed rules). I might point out that you could cut cards if you aren't drawing through your deck (ever). I might even suggest aiming for a deck size to begin with and moving off of that with some experience. But, I wouldn't try to argue optimal deck size in a beginner's guide. Pool gain. Rather than say that certain blood management cards suck, could just point out that exist as well and let the reader figure out they suck by not getting more lines of text. And, so forth. It's fine to believe in these ideas, but you're trying to be helpful (which is good), not "win" some argument about how to play the game well.

"Peter D Bakija" <pd...@aol.comANTISPAM> > Keeping in mind that VTES has no card limit, I would say that the maximum deck > size is almost always better than a smaller one. Sure, there is some small > mathematicaly significant way in which a 45 card deck is more consistient than > two of the exact same 45 card decks shuffled together (I remember the > discussions--no need to repeat them...), but in general, as you can have as > many of a single card as you want, there is no good reason to have X of a card > in a 60 card deck when you can have X(1.5) of the same card in a 90 card deck. > Of course, if you have a limited number of cards, a smaller deck will work > better, but as this is information meant for new players, and many new players > have difficulty grappling with the VTES no card limit, and the "Play as small a > deck as legally possible" mindset is enforced by (and enforcing of) games with > card limits, I'd probably change the above paragraph to emphasize the "Play > with as big a deck as you can get away with, yet is still effective" aspect of > VTES. Well, first of all... I completely neglected to mention the fact that there is *no* individual card limit, which is definitely significant considering many new players will be coming from games that do, so thanks for reminding me! I'll add something about this to the final version. As far as number of cards in a deck, is this something that most of you hold consensus on? I've always thought it was more effective/efficient to be closer to the minimum number, as long as you don't actually run out of cards. But realistically, how often does that happen? Perhaps I'll mention that the player should determine how many cards they cycle through in a given game and later judge what to leave in/take out. Does anyone else have any thoughts on this? Thanks for the input Mr. Kzinti, WES P.S. Always meant to get into SFB. I had the old box set but nobody to play it with. Also, have you tried the PC game version of it? It's real-time whic h seems a bit... wrong to me, but is supposed to be pretty faithful to the board game.

Wes wrote: >>As far as number of cards in a deck, is this something that most of you hold consensus on? I've always thought it was more effective/efficient to be closer to the minimum number, as long as you don't actually run out of cards. But realistically, how often does that happen? Perhaps I'll mention that the player should determine how many cards they cycle through in a given game and later judge what to leave in/take out. Does anyone else have any thoughts on this?>> I don't know about a consensus, but I certainly always play maximum deck size (90 cards, as we always play tournament rules). As I mentioned before, the mathematical difference between 6 of card X in a 60 card deck and 9 of card X in a 90 card deck is insignificant enough such that I'll always go with 9 of card X in a 90 card deck. Assuming, of course, that one has enough of the cards that they need, I can't for the life of me see what the advantage of playing with a smaller deck is. Sure, if you only have, say, one of a given card in your deck, if your deck is only 60 cards, you have a better chance of drawing that particular card, but I'd generally just put in a second of the card in question in a 90 card deck (and if I only owned one, I probably wouldn't make it vitaly necessary for the deck in question...:-) I don't run out of cards that often (well, ok, my Rush decks do on a regular basis, but other decks, not so often), but that you *can* run out of cards (more likely in VTES than in most other games, due to the draw-when-you-play rules) is incentive enough to play maximum deck size, and the no card limit does away with any particular dis-incentive to not play with a maximum deck size. For a perfectly tangible example, with my 90 card Rush deck, if I could take the exact same deck and double it, so I had a 180 card deck with the exact same proportion of all the cards, I would in a second (this, of course, ignores the physical problems of shuffling a 180 card deck). >>P.S. Always meant to get into SFB. I had the old box set but nobody to play it with. Also, have you tried the PC game version of it? It's real-time whic h seems a bit... wrong to me, but is supposed to be pretty faithful to the board game.>> Yeah, the computer game is kinda cool--the real time aspect makes it difficult, and very different from SFB, but as spacey computer games goes, it is pretty solid. The SFB folks are releasing a "Naval War" style non collectible card game this summer that looks pretty promising (it is in no way connected to the really simple, kind of lame, "war" style card game they put out in the early 90's that you might have run across somewhere)--you play ship cards, and the ship cards allow you to play weapon cards to blow up your enemy's fleet. Seems likely that it'll do pretty well, and will be fun. It'll have all the important SFB aspects (Klingons, Feds, Kzintis [I hope...]; different weapon types; defenisve and offensive fire), but it'll be relatively quick, and will involve big fleets of ships. Should be good. [ quoted text not captured ]

"Peter D Bakija" <pd...@aol.comANTISPAM> > I don't know about a consensus, but I certainly always play maximum deck size > (90 cards, as we always play tournament rules). As I mentioned before, the > mathematical difference between 6 of card X in a 60 card deck and 9 of card X > in a 90 card deck is insignificant enough such that I'll always go with 9 of > card X in a 90 card deck. Assuming, of course, that one has enough of the cards > that they need, I can't for the life of me see what the advantage of playing > with a smaller deck is. Sure, if you only have, say, one of a given card in > your deck, if your deck is only 60 cards, you have a better chance of drawing > that particular card, but I'd generally just put in a second of the card in > question in a 90 card deck (and if I only owned one, I probably wouldn't make > it vitaly necessary for the deck in question...:-) Well... I guess we can safely assume that a new player does *not* have multiple copies of the cool cards (hell... I don't!). Therefore, building 6X or 9X isn't going to be feasible most of the time. I have noticed that when new people on the newsgroup ask for deck advice, they are told to add lots of rare cards which are not easy to find. The advice is well-meant of course, but also pretty much useless to anyone who has limited cards/funds/trading partners. So sometimes they will have to just stuff their deck with cards that are not that great. I don't see any way to avoid this. By including a Screw the Masquerade instead of a Kine Resources Contested they are going to suffer but they will also start to see the power of KRC... I guess. What I'm trying to say is that because this guide is aimed at new players, I kind of have to assume that their card pile is limited to an extent that a 60 card deck may be easier to construct than a 90 card deck. Better to encourage them to include just 60 sort-of-solid cards than 60 sort-of-solid cards and 30 shitty ones. They will still have to ultimately determine which of those cards are shitty for that deck. Eventually, they'll see that cards like Immortal Grapple should replace Twisting the Knife and their decks will start becoming more coherent. > I don't run out of cards that often (well, ok, my Rush decks do on a regular > basis, but other decks, not so often), but that you *can* run out of cards > (more likely in VTES than in most other games, due to the draw-when-you-play > rules) is incentive enough to play maximum deck size, and the no card limit > does away with any particular dis-incentive to not play with a maximum deck > size. I think new players' decks would find it harder to run out of cards due to lack of focus. Your rush deck knows what it wants to do and does it efficiently. A new player will not have that luxury most of the time. Whereas you spend maybe four combat cards in a given combat, they might only be able to play two because of incompatible cards in their hand, bad ratios, not knowing what to play, etc. I've lent my rush decks to newbies and they cycled through cards a *lot* slower than I would have only because the application of those cards was still foreign to them. > For a perfectly tangible example, with my 90 card Rush deck, if I could take > the exact same deck and double it, so I had a 180 card deck with the exact same > proportion of all the cards, I would in a second (this, of course, ignores the > physical problems of shuffling a 180 card deck). Agreed! Let's push for no limits to deck size! LSJ... talk to us baby! > Yeah, the computer game is kinda cool--the real time aspect makes it difficult, > and very different from SFB, but as spacey computer games goes, it is pretty > solid. I keep meaning to buy it at a discount. Instead I just picked up Heroes of Might and Magic III (main game plus two main expansions), Fallout I and II and Jagged Alliance II for about $60 CDN (about $1.53 US). Good stuff. > The SFB folks are releasing a "Naval War" style non collectible card game this > summer that looks pretty promising (it is in no way connected to the really > simple, kind of lame, "war" style card game they put out in the early 90's that > you might have run across somewhere)--you play ship cards, and the ship cards > allow you to play weapon cards to blow up your enemy's fleet. Seems likely that > it'll do pretty well, and will be fun. It'll have all the important SFB aspects > (Klingons, Feds, Kzintis [I hope...]; different weapon types; defenisve and > offensive fire), but it'll be relatively quick, and will involve big fleets of > ships. Should be good. Cool! I'll look out for that! I'm not the biggest trekkie in the world but I did really enjoy the one demo I had of SFB. I love the concept of assigning a limited pool of energy to the different functions of the ship. It made for some interesting tactics. Do you have any more information on this new game? A URL or something? By the way, weren't the Kzinti ruled the 'intellectual property' of a Sci-Fi writer or something like that? I seem to recall that they had to change their name to something else because Paramount was going to be sued... or something like that. Cheers, WES

Wes, thanks for writing this, I have been trying for ages but couldn't get it worded right. I have recently moved to a new area where me and ian are the only vamp players but we have slowly converted B5 players to the cause and now have 12 players. They know card games but not the proper vamp rules. so this is a big help. I've added in the bit about card limits. again, thanks anam Prince of Newcastle

Wes wrote: >>Well... I guess we can safely assume that a new player does *not* have multiple copies of the cool cards (hell... I don't!). Therefore, building 6X or 9X isn't going to be feasible most of the time.>> While this is a perfectly reasonable expectation, it isn't that difficult to get a whole bunch of commons, and it is good to have the incentive to use them. Even if you don't have 9 of a given card, the easier strategies are built on cards with lots of redundancy--you may not have 10 Lost in Crowds, but you'll probably have 3 Lost in Crowds, 4 Cloak, 3 Swallowed by the Night, 2 Elder Impersonation, and a couple Faceless Nights which will add up to more than you need anyway. >>What I'm trying to say is that because this guide is aimed at new players, I kind of have to assume that their card pile is limited to an extent that a 60 card deck may be easier to construct than a 90 card deck.>> Possibly, but this is usually a fairly small window of time if folks actually enjoy the game, and if everyone is playing with 90 card decks (that are full of random junk :-), then everyone will be in the same boat. >>I think new players' decks would find it harder to run out of cards due to lack of focus. Your rush deck knows what it wants to do and does it efficiently. A new player will not have that luxury most of the time. Whereas you spend maybe four combat cards in a given combat, they might only be able to play two because of incompatible cards in their hand, bad ratios, not knowing what to play, etc. I've lent my rush decks to newbies and they cycled through cards a *lot* slower than I would have only because the application of those cards was still foreign to them.>> Your points are all completely solid--don't get me wrong here. My view, however, is that certainly as this is aimed at newer players, emphasizing that there is no card limit and that 90 card decks are the goal to shoot for will certainly improve the transition to a game with no card limits and where a big deck is better than not, and this seems to be a stumbling block for many new players--more so than basic strategy and deckbuilding, I'd suspect. >>Cool! I'll look out for that! I'm not the biggest trekkie in the world but I did really enjoy the one demo I had of SFB. I love the concept of assigning a limited pool of energy to the different functions of the ship. It made for some interesting tactics. Do you have any more information on this new game? A URL or something?>> Not really--there is a bit of discussion and some images under "new product development" over on www.starfleetgames.com/discuss >>By the way, weren't the Kzinti ruled the 'intellectual property' of a Sci-Fi writer or something like that? I seem to recall that they had to change their name to something else because Paramount was going to be sued... or something like that.>> They were changed to the Mirak in Star Fleet Command II for some reason or another, but have been the Kzinti since day one in the board game--the name (and basic alien specs) came by way of a Larry Niven story that was adapted into an episode of the short lived ST cartoon from the mid 70's, and the SFB folks have never had any problem with that. It might have been an issue for the computer game, which would explain the name change. [ quoted text not captured ]

Wes wrote: > JYHAD DECKBUILDING BASICS > [...] > be afraid to include more than one copy of it. If you absolutely *rely* on > that vampire, include at least four... ensuring that you will almost always > get him/her in your starting inactive region. Note to new players: "inactive region" is a term formerly used to refer to the uncontrolled region. It was also sometimes used to refer to the torpor region (and sometimes to the torpor region together with the uncontrolled region). -- 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/

[ quoted text not captured ] Most all our recent discussion and math centered around averages, unfortunately. And there was just about no difference, there, but what *really* needed to be computed was the first and second moments. Averages tell you things like "What are my odds of drawing X card as my next card." Good to know, but the moments answer "How likely is my deck to clump, giving me all combat cards and no Rushes?" While not mathematically rigorous, a bit of common sense (along with a bit of experience) tells you that bigger decks clump more. If you've got 7 of something in a 70 card deck, and have all 7 in hand, your chance of drawing up another one is *0*, but if you have 9 in a 90 card deck, you could end up with another. That's an extreme case, but there are simply more ways for a 90 card deck to be arranged that result in bad clumping than ways for a 60 card deck to do so. And, math aside, experience has brought me to thinking that 90 cards is a poor choice, except for those that run OUT of 90 cards, like rush combat. I've just had too many games where I'm discarding this, that, and the other to cycle to what I need, and so many games where, even sweeping the table, I've got 30+ cards left, AND decks that I've "thinned out" to 80 or 75 cards have invariably run more smoothly. Also, running out of cards is a pure disaster for some decks more than others. Decks with lots of permanents and many minions don't really care so much. Even without permanents, smaller can be much better. I got to the finals (and got 2nd place) in the Atlanta regional Qualifier with a 60 card "Well Oiled Crypt Machine." It REQUIRES a Dominate skill card in hand by turn 2, to place it on your first minion, meaning you need on in your first 8 cards. If I don't have it in my first 7 (which, admittedly, doesn't happen to often, since there are ~8 skill cards in the 60), I'm SO glad it's 60 cards, meaning 1 discard is plowing through 50% more of my deck than a 90 card version, which digs all the faster to the Dominate skill card I'm needing. -- Pat Ricochet Soul Jar'rn Fool of Atlanta

Not to critique only, but another point of disagreement: > MASTER CARDS > > In general, you should strive for one out of every five library cards being > Master cards. In a 60 card deck, 12 should be Masters. In a 90 card deck, 18 > should be Masters. In general this rule of thumb will serve you well. You > won't be as likely to jam up on Master cards nor will you be likely to play > too many turns where you can't play at least one. That counts as "too many" in my book, for reasons I've ranted on before, but that appears to be a matter of preference. Some people lean that any time they don't play a Master it's a tragedy, even at the cost of having several Masters in hand (and therefore an effectively reduced hand size). For me "The grayer my hand, the grayer my mood." Also, if you have a 90 card deck that is combat, and cycles like a madman, you're gonna go through all 90 cards in a 12 turn game (or less). You've recommended that people stick to smaller decks unless they cycle a lot of cards, but the "1 in 5" rule of thumb wouldn't apply in this case. Personally, I like to have "about 12 Masters" in a deck. Usually I can't resist putting in a 13th, because Master cards are so good, but no matter the size of the deck, I'm not gonna need more than 12, since the game is just about always over by then. (Even for 13 turn games: Many master cards can't be played in turn 1, by either target or requirement restrictions). [ quoted text not captured ]

On Sun, 15 Apr 2001 19:54:44 -0400, "Wes" <gh...@NOSPAMmnsi.net> wrote: >Thanks for the input Mr. Kzinti, Uh oh, you're stuck with that one now Peter. =] >WES > >P.S. Always meant to get into SFB. I had the old box set but nobody to play >it with. Also, have you tried the PC game version of it? It's real-time whic >h seems a bit... wrong to me, but is supposed to be pretty faithful to the >board game. > SFB is experiencing a resurgence of sorts these days, and is doing pretty well. There is also an online service for playing head to head across the net, at www.sfbonline.com SFC is a pretty good game, although I was disapointed with how buggy it was. But thats not a surprise given how quickly they rushed the testing process. SFB is supposed to be realtime in a sense, so the jump to a realtime pc game wasnt that far off. It does change how the game plays though (from a chess like feel to arcard feel). Aside from all this, that was a pretty good article wes. Might use it to circulate to new players here. T

On Mon, 16 Apr 2001 14:08:04 -0400, Pat Ricochet <sp...@socrates.gatech.edu> wrote: > Personally, I like to have "about 12 Masters" in a deck. Usually I >can't resist putting in a 13th, because Master cards are so good, but no >matter the size of the deck, I'm not gonna need more than 12, since the game >is just about always over by then. (Even for 13 turn games: Many master >cards can't be played in turn 1, by either target or requirement >restrictions). I was wondering about that too. That's about 1 in 7 which is a # that I would've picked. Although Im not very stringent on that myself either. T

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote > Note to new players: "inactive region" is a term formerly used to refer > to the uncontrolled region. It was also sometimes used to refer to the > torpor region (and sometimes to the torpor region together with the > uncontrolled region). Hey! When did that change? I didn't even notice...

"Pat Ricochet" <sp...@socrates.gatech.edu> wrote > Not to critique only, but another point of disagreement: Not a problem Pat... this is positive feedback. > > MASTER CARDS > > > > In general, you should strive for one out of every five library cards being > > Master cards. In a 60 card deck, 12 should be Masters. In a 90 card deck, 18 > > should be Masters. In general this rule of thumb will serve you well. You > > won't be as likely to jam up on Master cards nor will you be likely to play > > too many turns where you can't play at least one. > > That counts as "too many" in my book, for reasons I've ranted on before, > but that appears to be a matter of preference. Some people lean that any > time they don't play a Master it's a tragedy, even at the cost of having > several Masters in hand (and therefore an effectively reduced hand size). > For me "The grayer my hand, the grayer my mood." Being jammed with Masters seems to me as equally annoying as not having one to play when you need it. Well... I guess you usually don't *need* to play a Master card and can live without playing one for a turn, but really it comes down to how relevant specific Masters are to your strategy. If I need a Minion Tap, I have to make sure there is a good probability it will come out. But if I have 'filler' Master cards that are just there to make sure the ratio is 1:4 then yeah, I'm a bit more flexible. 1 in 5 is really just a rough estimate and established long before me, notably in the 'Happy Families' formula. I tend to vary based on the deck, though not by too much. > Also, if you have a 90 card deck that is combat, and cycles like a > madman, you're gonna go through all 90 cards in a 12 turn game (or less). > You've recommended that people stick to smaller decks unless they cycle a > lot of cards, but the "1 in 5" rule of thumb wouldn't apply in this case. I agree completely. In fact, I had thought about mentioning that in the guide but that would have meant devoting more time to specific types of decks rather than building decks in general which might confuse things more than necessary. However I also considered using a combat deck as an example; building it from the ground up as an illustration of deckbuilding. This would allow me to touch on what you are saying without focusing on combat specifically, while also providing a concrete example for people to use. Let me play around with that for the final draft... it might take up too much space but it also might make the document a lot more useful... > Personally, I like to have "about 12 Masters" in a deck. Usually I > can't resist putting in a 13th, because Master cards are so good, but no > matter the size of the deck, I'm not gonna need more than 12, since the game > is just about always over by then. (Even for 13 turn games: Many master > cards can't be played in turn 1, by either target or requirement > restrictions). But if you only cycle through 2/3 of your deck then you only played 8 Master cards on average. It's fine to say the average number of turns is 12 but planning all 12 of those Master phases seems a bit too optimistic. If I know my deck will have cards enough for exactly 12 turns without running out then 12 master cards seems senssible... but can you really plan that? I've never been able to. Unless I am playing a deck that relies on minion cards such as combat then I do try to stick to 20% if only because it has always seemed a pretty reasonable ratio from playing experience. For combat/cycle-crazy decks it's usually 12-14 masters out of 90 cards. Also, I do let the deck 'evolve' and mentally keep track of what the discards frequently are... so if it seems like I discard a lot of 'grey', I try to replace a few 'greys' with 'colours'. Since a lot of this will be based on each player's personal experience *and* since this document is intended for people with little or no experience, I think it's reasonable to establish a round number but also leave it open-ended enough that they feel comfortable altering the formula when they feel like it. Cheers, WES P.S. I better not get slammed for not writing a !Brujah newsletter this month :)

Wes <gh...@NOSPAMmnsi.net> wrote in message news:9bfqs...@enews3.newsguy.com... > P.S. I better not get slammed for not writing a !Brujah newsletter this > month :) Slam.

<Talo...@hotmail.com> > SFB is experiencing a resurgence of sorts these days, and is doing > pretty well. There is also an online service for playing head to head > across the net, at www.sfbonline.com Cool. I will check that out... > SFB is supposed to be realtime in a sense, so the jump to a realtime > pc game wasnt that far off. It does change how the game plays though > (from a chess like feel to arcard feel). I've always preferred the turn-based strategy games myself. You can attribute that either to my experience with chess or because I am really slow. > Aside from all this, that was a pretty good article wes. Might use it > to circulate to new players here. Thank you. Consider it public domain of course, but you might want to wait for the final version. I will post that on my website when it is complete at: http://www.mnsi.net/~ghost/jyhad/ Cheers, WES

> > P.S. I better not get slammed for not writing a !Brujah newsletter this > > month :) > Slam. Jeff, you are a cold, heartless bastard. :P heheheh Sorrow --- "This is my costume. I'm a homicidal maniac. They look just like everyone else." -- Wednesday Addams

"Sorrow" <jcb...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:_F%C6.3344$Uu6.3...@monger.newsread.com... > > > P.S. I better not get slammed for not writing a !Brujah newsletter this > > > month :) > > Slam. > > Jeff, you are a cold, heartless bastard. :P > heheheh > > Sorrow He won't be laughing when I just add a review of Jacko to this and submit it all as my newsletter heh.

On Sun, 15 Apr 2001 17:37:40 -0400, "Wes" <gh...@NOSPAMmnsi.net> wrote: It looks good, but currently, gets lost in details. I'd cut it down to general statements and advice. There are 2 other core strategies, though: 4)Intercept. 5)Silliness/Themes. Towards an overall deckbuilding approach, I usually define a goal along with (if not before) the strategy, in terms of (a) Number of VPs to be gained in a round, and (b) any other goals (burn the most vamps, use a particular clan(s)/card(s)/discipline(s), etc.). Once they're in place, I concoct a strategy if I haven't done so, and assemble vamps and library cards that I could use in the deck (this excludes any 'generic' cards that should be in every deck). The one overriding notion is to avoid having library cards that could never be played. Then, I need to take the following steps: --Identify the set of vamps and library cards that will go in the deck. I usually start with 'must-have' cards, that are central to the goal. --Estimate the card type and requirements mix, to fit the vamps. --Make adjustments for the intended metagame.

On Wed, 18 Apr 2001 00:09:29 GMT, evilp...@yahoo.com wrote: >On Sun, 15 Apr 2001 17:37:40 -0400, "Wes" <gh...@NOSPAMmnsi.net> wrote: > >It looks good, but currently, gets lost in details. I'd cut it down to general >statements and advice. There are 2 other core strategies, though: >4)Intercept. >5)Silliness/Themes. > >Towards an overall deckbuilding approach, I usually define a goal along with (if not >before) the strategy, in terms of (a) Number of VPs to be gained in a round, and (b) any >other goals (burn the most vamps, use a particular clan(s)/card(s)/discipline(s), etc.). >Once they're in place, I concoct a strategy if I haven't done so, and assemble vamps and >library cards that I could use in the deck (this excludes any 'generic' cards that should >be in every deck). The one overriding notion is to avoid having library cards that could >never be played. This is a biggie that people whiff more often than not. If you have a card (Waist Management Operation, aka the Jenny Craig Store) that requires a certain crypt draw to play... and you only have 2 of those vamps in your crypt.. then you are pretty much saying "I will be discarding this card most of the time". This robs you of a valuable hand-cycling tool in your discard phase. Do this often enough in deckbuilding and your deck will explode gloriously. >Then, I need to take the following steps: >--Identify the set of vamps and library cards that will go in the deck. I usually start >with 'must-have' cards, that are central to the goal. >--Estimate the card type and requirements mix, to fit the vamps. >--Make adjustments for the intended metagame. -- Include 20 combat cards. =) -- Derek [generic .signature file]

[ quoted text not captured ] For no good reason at all, I started with the 1 in 7 theory. I mean, in my opening 7 cards, I want one and only one Master card in my hand. Now, this only keeps working if I cycle about 6 cards between every pair of Master Phases, which is hardly true for all my decks. But, oddly enough, 1 in 7 worked for me, giving me about 12 or 13 Masters in 90 card decks. But now I'm thinking it worked because I had as many Masters as turns in the game. >> Personally, I like to have "about 12 Masters" in a deck. Usually I >> can't resist putting in a 13th, because Master cards are so good, but no >> matter the size of the deck, I'm not gonna need more than 12, since the > game >> is just about always over by then. (Even for 13 turn games: Many master >> cards can't be played in turn 1, by either target or requirement >> restrictions). > > But if you only cycle through 2/3 of your deck then you only played 8 Master > cards on average. It's fine to say the average number of turns is 12 but > planning all 12 of those Master phases seems a bit too optimistic. If I know > my deck will have cards enough for exactly 12 turns without running out then > 12 master cards seems senssible... but can you really plan that? I've never > been able to. Well, I have to say that's what I strive for, yes. I *do* want to run out of cards just as I win. I find building a "tight" deck like that means you don't discard every turn "just because you should always cycle," though. If I know I've got 9 Deflections in the deck, and have 2 in hand, I can discard pretty easily. But if I know I have 5, and have 2 in hand, I may well want to keep them to play them later, unless my predator votes, or ONLY bleeds for one (and even then I may keep them.) Some people consider running out of cards to be the worst thing ever. I think that getting 2 or 3 VPs at a 5 player table and then running out of cards isn't so bad. "But if you had more cards, you could have swept!" *isn't* necessarily true. If I had a top-heavy version of the same deck, it probably wouldn't have flowed so well to get those VPs in the *first* place. Experience has taught me that. I have a deck, it clumps and flounders, I remove cards, it flows well, sweeps tables, and occasionally runs out of cards. The first version never ran out of cards. The second got more VPs. What's the goal of deckmaking? Having cards or getting VPs? > Unless I am playing a deck that relies on minion cards such as combat then I > do try to stick to 20% if only because it has always seemed a pretty > reasonable ratio from playing experience. For combat/cycle-crazy decks it's > usually 12-14 masters out of 90 cards. Also, I do let the deck 'evolve' and > mentally keep track of what the discards frequently are... so if it seems > like I discard a lot of 'grey', I try to replace a few 'greys' with > 'colours'. I do the same; most especially if I'm trying out someone else's deck, built around the 1:5 rule. I'll try it out, to see what Masters seem to work and which I discard, to know which ones to dump. > Since a lot of this will be based on each player's personal experience *and* > since this document is intended for people with little or no experience, I > think it's reasonable to establish a round number but also leave it > open-ended enough that they feel comfortable altering the formula when they > feel like it. Me, too. I just would pick 1:6, instead, since 1:7 is arguably thin, and 1:5 is arguably "thick." > P.S. I better not get slammed for not writing a !Brujah newsletter this > month :) Hey! Can I use this as an excuse for how late my Giovanni newsletter is? No? Hm. Better finish that up, then... -- Pat Ricochet Soul Jar'rn Fool of Atlanta "You can't make a fact out of an opinion by raising your voice."