High Ground+Swoop

High Ground says that if the minion has Flight, you can set the range to long. But it doesn't say that you then skip the Establish Range phase. So can I play High Ground and then Swoop to close?

On Sat, 24 Aug 2002 20:39:25 GMT, Jozxyqk <jfeu...@eecs.tufts.edu> wrote: >High Ground says that if the minion has Flight, you can set the range >to long. But it doesn't say that you then skip the Establish Range >phase. So can I play High Ground and then Swoop to close? I dought it. Swoop was a potentially cool card that sits in the wallpaper box. With it's extremely conditional maneuver, who wouldn't rather put in a Torn Signpost instead? It was a card worth playing, untill the errata dictated that the card cannot be played for +1 strength unless you qualifiy to play the maneuver. Since then, the card is junk and slightly better than Twisting the Knife. Says I to my opponent "C'mon, be a pal and maneuver to long. Please!" So terribly bad.. BernieTime Lansing, Michigan

berni...@attbi.comHOLDLeSPAM wrote: > On Sat, 24 Aug 2002 20:39:25 GMT, Jozxyqk <jfeu...@eecs.tufts.edu> > It was a card worth playing, untill the errata dictated that the > card cannot be played for +1 strength unless you qualifiy to play > the maneuver. Since then, the card is junk and slightly better than > Twisting the Knife. > > Says I to my opponent "C'mon, be a pal and maneuver to long. > Please!" > > So terribly bad.. i doubt so. We'll see more and more concealed guns and being able to maneuver back to close and strike in the same time can be quite useful =)

On Sat, 24 Aug 2002 21:59:41 GMT, berni...@attbi.comHOLDLeSPAM wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] Mary the Black with Concordance. Rush or bleed with Fear of the Void Below. Swoop. Actually, I can't see any reason why the High Ground/Swoop combo would not be legal - indeed, my first thought on seeing the card was that Gargoyles would love it. Since High Ground is not a maneuver, just changes the default range, it will not result in Swoop being disallowed as your maneuver. Obviously, it works better if you are the acting (say, rushing?) minion, since you get first option to maneuver during the maneuver step. As to why it is better than Torn Signpost... it's not. It's in addition to Torn SIgnpost if needed. On the other hand, it can be used by ANY Gargoyle, not just Potent ones. I'd rather pack more ousty stuff than fighty stuff in my (notional) Virstania deck, anyhow. Mark Woodhouse Prince of Minneapolis (feeling flighty)

[ quoted text not captured ] No. There is no maneuvering after range has been set. -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. Links to V:TES news, rules, cards, utilities, and tournament calendar: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/

"W. Mark Woodhouse" wrote: > Gargoyles would love it. Since High Ground is not a maneuver, just > changes the default range, High Ground doesn't change the default range. It sets range. Card text. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Sun, 25 Aug 2002 20:29:21 GMT, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: >"W. Mark Woodhouse" wrote: >> Gargoyles would love it. Since High Ground is not a maneuver, just >> changes the default range, > >High Ground doesn't change the default range. It sets range. >Card text. Oops. Misremembered the effect. In that case, I concur with Bernie. Swoop is almost useless. So is Fear Of The Void Below the only card that currently changes default range rather than setting it to long?

In message <3d697e44....@news.tcinternet.net>, shan...@tcinternet.net (W. Mark Woodhouse) mumbled something about: [ quoted text not captured ] Yes. I hardly see Swoop as useless, though. I have a couple decks that are basically Flight/FOR, using POT only for the IG ability. Swoop + Pounce provides you with a maneuver back to close and a hand strike for 4, barring Depravity/etc. In a close-range combat deck, you want to have maneuvers in case people decide to run away from you. Swoop provides this, and gives you a bit of "oomph" to your strength as well. Unflinching Persistence also provides this, but gives you some damage prevention instead. Fake Out sucks in comparison to each of these. If people aren't running away from you, Fake Out and Swoop both have to be discarded, while Unflinching Persistence can be burned as prevention -- though if people are only punching you for 1, your other damage prevention will start clogging your hand. It all depends on which way you're wanting to go. Do you occasionally need the extra strength? Or do you want the semi-free prevent? -- "There's no gray. There's just white that's got grubby." -- T.P.

Derek Ray wrote: > > In message <3d697e44....@news.tcinternet.net>, > shan...@tcinternet.net (W. Mark Woodhouse) mumbled something about: > > ...I concur with Bernie. Swoop is almost useless. So is Fear Of The > > Void Below the only card that currently changes default range rather > > than setting it to long? > > Yes. > > I hardly see Swoop as useless, though. I have a couple decks that are > basically Flight/FOR, using POT only for the IG ability. Swoop + Pounce > provides you with a maneuver back to close and a hand strike for 4, > barring Depravity/etc. > > In a close-range combat deck, you want to have maneuvers in case people > decide to run away from you. Swoop provides this, and gives you a bit > of "oomph" to your strength as well. Unflinching Persistence also > provides this, but gives you some damage prevention instead. Fake Out > sucks in comparison to each of these. As with everything, you can always make an argument when you picture the game you want to play in your mind. In reality, Swoop's narrowness is hard to love even in this kind of a deck. It's only a one-way maneuver - so you're fucked if you suddenly decide you want to get away from the guy who just Disguised out a Sengir Dagger. And you can't use more than one of them in a round. And what to you get if you manage to use _exactly_ _one_ of the them - no more, no less - to get you to close range? ONE STRENGTH. Whoop-de-whoop. Oh, boy, what a killer! The stupid things might have been slightly interesting if they'd gotten rid of the one-per-round limitation and the only-maneuver-to-close limitation and substituted something that said you only get +1 strength once per round and only get it if you maneuver to close. Then, you could go to town with them and not worry about ever regretting using them in preference to Fake Outs. As it is, Fakes Out are certainly much better. Fred

In message <3D698F29...@removethis.com>, Frederick Scott <freds64_at_...@removethis.com> mumbled something about: >Derek Ray wrote: >> >> In a close-range combat deck, you want to have maneuvers in case people >> decide to run away from you. Swoop provides this, and gives you a bit >> of "oomph" to your strength as well. Unflinching Persistence also >> provides this, but gives you some damage prevention instead. Fake Out >> sucks in comparison to each of these. > >As with everything, you can always make an argument when you picture the >game you want to play in your mind. In reality, Swoop's narrowness is hard Yeah, isn't that true, Fred? >to love even in this kind of a deck. It's only a one-way maneuver - so >you're fucked if you suddenly decide you want to get away from the guy >who just Disguised out a Sengir Dagger. And you can't use more than one of Why do you care about some yoyo with a Sengir Dagger? You DO have Fortitude, after all. >them in a round. And what to you get if you manage to use _exactly_ _one_ You're not likely to have two Fake Outs in hand either. If you are, you built the deck wrong. Two Unflinching Persistence is a lot more workable, but hopefully everything you face is going to be trying to hit you a lot. >of the them - no more, no less - to get you to close range? ONE STRENGTH. >Whoop-de-whoop. Oh, boy, what a killer! It's a maneuver *and* a +strength card, giving you room for, say, other things in your deck. What other things those are depends on your deck. Relying on Flight for damage allows you to not have to stick a shitload of Potence skill cards in your deck, since many Gargoyles only have pot. Realizing that 4 points of damage is well within the range of effective strikes allows you to quit trying to punch things for 8, and get around to actually doing something with your deck. For example, putting in Dominate skill cards to replace the Potence ones you took out, so your Gargoyles can do some bleeding as well. Failure to put ANY maneuvers in is called "building the deck wrong". >The stupid things might have been slightly interesting if they'd gotten >rid of the one-per-round limitation and the only-maneuver-to-close >limitation and substituted something that said you only get +1 strength >once per round and only get it if you maneuver to close. Then, you could >go to town with them and not worry about ever regretting using them in >preference to Fake Outs. As it is, Fakes Out are certainly much better. I can't imagine how you can believe Fake Out to be a better card for this clan, though I realize that your approach to deckbuilding involves putting 20 of the same card in. The odds of a SANE deck ever playing two Fake Outs in one round, though, are slim, in which case you would've been better off with a Swoop. If you were to argue that Unflinching Persistence would be a better choice, that'd be one thing -- many Gargoyles already have FOR, and the damage prevention is never bad. But Fake Out? Come on. It just sucks. It's the card for when you HAVE to have a maneuver and haven't got any other alternative. [ quoted text not captured ]

Derek Ray wrote: (re: Swoop) > > It's a maneuver *and* a +strength card, giving you room for, say, other > things in your deck. What other things those are depends on your deck. ... > Failure to put ANY maneuvers in is called "building the deck wrong". > > >The stupid things might have been slightly interesting if they'd gotten > >rid of the one-per-round limitation and the only-maneuver-to-close > >limitation and substituted something that said you only get +1 strength > >once per round and only get it if you maneuver to close. Then, you could > >go to town with them and not worry about ever regretting using them in > >preference to Fake Outs. As it is, Fakes Out are certainly much better. > > I can't imagine how you can believe Fake Out to be a better card for > this clan, though I realize that your approach to deckbuilding involves > putting 20 of the same card in. The odds of a SANE deck ever playing > two Fake Outs in one round, though, are slim, in which case you would've > been better off with a Swoop. All right. I hear what you're saying. You're putting in a few maneuvers to be able to get a punch in against a long-range deck once in a while and get a +1 strength as a minor bonus. Call it "wrong" if you want, but I don't usually build decks that way. I either solve a problem, such as range decks, or I don't bother at all. Or else I might try to at least "semi-solve" multiple different problems by using a particular card, which can't be done with Swoop. And now that you mention it, I usually wouldn't bother at all if all you're looking to do is close against ranged combat decks. I usually find they're packing the extra maneuver that makes it pointless. Certainly any kind of celerity combat using maneuver combat cards will - there's too many multi- purpose maneuver-and-something-else celerity combat cards. That's also somewhat true for protean as well. You get into the Thrown Gate types of things you might catch someone at a critical moment but just as likely they've been saving an extra pure maneuver card for that situation. > If you were to argue that Unflinching Persistence would be a better > choice, that'd be one thing -- many Gargoyles already have FOR, and the > damage prevention is never bad. Yea, but half the Gangrels have only minor fortitude or no fortitude, as do all the Baali (Concordance), Herald of Topheth, and probably damn near every Nosferatu (new Patagia). If you're building a crypt with mostly superior fortitude Gargoyles, it's reasonable enough. Otherwise, it doesn't solve this problem. Fred

In message <3D69B3B3...@removethis.com>, Frederick Scott <freds64_at_...@removethis.com> mumbled something about: >Derek Ray wrote: >> >> I can't imagine how you can believe Fake Out to be a better card for >> this clan, though I realize that your approach to deckbuilding involves >> putting 20 of the same card in. The odds of a SANE deck ever playing >> two Fake Outs in one round, though, are slim, in which case you would've >> been better off with a Swoop. > >All right. I hear what you're saying. You're putting in a few maneuvers >to be able to get a punch in against a long-range deck once in a while and >get a +1 strength as a minor bonus. Call it "wrong" if you want, but I I'm putting in 4-6 Swoops so that I can catch decks who aren't hard-core long range combat monsters and give them a bop on the nose for their troubles. Or decks who opt for the Spirit's Touch maneuver... or decks who are piddling around with Aid from Bats/Carrion Crows,... There are an awful lot of decks out there who rarely muster up more than one maneuver per combat, and who would prefer to be at long range. And there are also a lot of ways to get just one maneuver as a sideline -- Spirit's Touch and Eyes of the Night come to mind, not to mention the ever-popular Zip Gun. >And now that you mention it, I usually wouldn't bother at all if all you're >looking to do is close against ranged combat decks. I usually find they're >packing the extra maneuver that makes it pointless. Certainly any kind of >celerity combat using maneuver combat cards will - there's too many multi- >purpose maneuver-and-something-else celerity combat cards. That's also >somewhat true for protean as well. You get into the Thrown Gate types of >things you might catch someone at a critical moment but just as likely >they've been saving an extra pure maneuver card for that situation. Exactly. Ranged combat decks will get to long range, because they have to have at least one maneuver to start with... so they always have WAY more maneuvers in the deck than you're capable of providing. In this situation, only using UP as practically your ONLY Fortitude prevent is going to give you enough maneuvers to catch up to them without getting you hand-jammed against non-combat decks. Since ranged decks are no longer in consideration, we're left with the choice of either totally being vulnerable to incidental maneuvers, or putting in our own incidental maneuvers and figuring that at least we can cycle them out of our hands against ranged combat. I prefer to not get hosed by Zip Guns and IR Goggles, myself. >> If you were to argue that Unflinching Persistence would be a better >> choice, that'd be one thing -- many Gargoyles already have FOR, and the >> damage prevention is never bad. > >Yea, but half the Gangrels have only minor fortitude or no fortitude, as do What Gangrel will use Flight to maneuver and not Quick Meld? >all the Baali (Concordance), Herald of Topheth, and probably damn near every What Baali wouldn't use Fear the Void Below instead? Or Behind You? >Nosferatu (new Patagia). If you're building a crypt with mostly superior Patagia gives an optional maneuver already -- the Patagia maneuver + Swoop is almost enough to chase down ranged combat decks consistently. However, for the Nossies, Potence and Behind You! are much better options since they generally have lots of superiors in both. >fortitude Gargoyles, it's reasonable enough. Otherwise, it doesn't solve >this problem. What problem? [ quoted text not captured ]

Derek Ray wrote: > > In message <3D69B3B3...@removethis.com>, > Frederick Scott <freds64_at_...@removethis.com> mumbled > something about: > > Derek Ray wrote: > >> If you were to argue that Unflinching Persistence would be a better > >> choice, that'd be one thing -- many Gargoyles already have FOR, and the > >> damage prevention is never bad. > > > >Yea, but half the Gangrels have only minor fortitude or no fortitude, as do > > What Gangrel will use Flight to maneuver and not Quick Meld? Gargoyles. Gargoyles! Not Gangrel. Sometimes my brain thinks word 'X' and my demented fingers type word 'Y'. > >all the Baali (Concordance), Herald of Topheth, and probably damn near every > > What Baali wouldn't use Fear the Void Below instead? Or Behind You? > > >Nosferatu (new Patagia). If you're building a crypt with mostly superior > > Patagia gives an optional maneuver already -- the Patagia maneuver + > Swoop is almost enough to chase down ranged combat decks consistently. > > However, for the Nossies, Potence and Behind You! are much better > options since they generally have lots of superiors in both. > > >fortitude Gargoyles, it's reasonable enough. Otherwise, it doesn't solve > >this problem. > > What problem? I was attempting to give examples of other minions besides Gargoyles (which list out to be Baali with Concordance, Herald of Topheth, and Nossies with new Patagia) that have flight and might consider using Swoop but don't have access to the maneuver on Unflinching Persistence for lack of superior fortitude. The "problem" I was referring to was the same one you're using Swoop to solve: closing on long range combat decks. You're right, the Nossies would already have a maneuver and don't really have to even think about "Swoop" (and paying for the privilege of using it, no less). Fred

While I understand why you might include Swoop for use against decks that are light on maneuvers, in my play environment any deck that wants long range is going to have long range. I fail to see any reason why Swoop should be neutered such that you cannot at least play the card for the +1 strength even if the Maneuver isn't needed. As it is, I yanked all the Swoop cards from my deck and replaced them with Unflinching Persistence and Torn Signposts. If you're trying to build an answer for decks that work at long range, there are other ways to cope. Sacrament of Carnage w/ increased strength is even better than Swoop for this purpose. Swoop = Wallpaper There are too many other cards that generate a better effect on a card per card basis. BernieTime Lansing, Michigan

"Frederick Scott" <freds64_at_...@removethis.com> wrote in message news:3D6A6A0A...@removethis.com... > > The > "problem" I was referring to was the same one you're using Swoop to solve: > closing on long range combat decks. > Umm... what? Maneuvers are *not* an effective way of dealing with long range combat decks. They just have too many maneuvers. More effective ways are to set range, not allow them to maneuver to long (i.e. with Drawing Out the Beast), to pack your own long range combat, or else have some combat defense. Maneuvers are essential to a close range combat deck (especially one with Immortal Grapple), to deal with combat *defense*. They maneuver to long, you can't grapple them, and they have the option of whether to let you wave or cycle a S:CE. Such decks rarely have tons of maneuvers, or else they would choke on them. Nossies can use Behind You or Drawing Out the Beast to solve this problem, but the Gargoyles really have only 2 options: Swoop and Unflinching Persistance. Unflinching Persistance is often better, but requires superior fortitude.

Chris Berger wrote: > > "Frederick Scott" <freds64_at_...@removethis.com> wrote in message > news:3D6A6A0A...@removethis.com... > > > > The > > "problem" I was referring to was the same one you're using Swoop to solve: > > closing on long range combat decks. > > > Umm... what? > > Maneuvers are *not* an effective way of dealing with long range combat decks. > They just have too many maneuvers. More effective ways are to set range, not > allow them to maneuver to long (i.e. with Drawing Out the Beast), to pack your > own long range combat, or else have some combat defense. > > Maneuvers are essential to a close range combat deck (especially one with > Immortal Grapple), to deal with combat *defense*. They maneuver to long, you > can't grapple them, and they have the option of whether to let you wave or > cycle a S:CE. Such decks rarely have tons of maneuvers, or else they would > choke on them. Like the a previous argument I got into with Derek, I disagree with a lot of these statements from what I believe is either differing experience or an essentially differing philosophical outlook. There's no point in differentiating "combat defense" from "combat" for this purpose. There's no hard and fast dividing line when someone might pack Thrown Gates primarily to run away from you and if they tink you for one, that's gravy. On the other hand, they might also start loading up on the Increased Strengths to actually cause damage. It's silly to look into someone's head and try and decide if his maneuvers are "offense" or "defense" and by these means attempt to divine how many maneuvers he's packing. As for "choking" on maneuvers, don't they have a discard phase where some of you guys come from? Fred

In message <3D6C635E...@removethis.com>, Frederick Scott <freds64_at_...@removethis.com> mumbled something about: >Chris Berger wrote: >> >> Maneuvers are essential to a close range combat deck (especially one with >> Immortal Grapple), to deal with combat *defense*. They maneuver to long, you >> can't grapple them, and they have the option of whether to let you wave or >> cycle a S:CE. Such decks rarely have tons of maneuvers, or else they would >> choke on them. > >Like the a previous argument I got into with Derek, I disagree with a lot of >these statements from what I believe is either differing experience or an >essentially differing philosophical outlook. > >There's no point in differentiating "combat defense" from "combat" for this >purpose. There's no hard and fast dividing line when someone might pack Thrown >Gates primarily to run away from you and if they tink you for one, that's gravy. If you're a Nossie vote deck trying to get away from me with a Thrown Gate, then the Swoop in my hand catches you and you get pounded -- and I don't even GET hit for 1 in the process (meaning I probably don't Grapple you, so I can play some prevent). If I don't have ANY maneuvers in my deck, I sit there with my thumb up my butt and look silly -- decreasing my deck's effectiveness for no good reason. If you're a Brujah pitch deck leading off with a Thrown Gate, then you already have a Flash and Pursuit in hand, and I'm not going to catch you no matter what I do -- but at least I can play my Swoop, even though it's pointless. That's the difference. >On the other hand, they might also start loading up on the Increased Strengths >to actually cause damage. It's silly to look into someone's head and try and Increased Strength, being played before-range, will let me know whether that's an "offensive" or "defensive" Thrown Gate. >decide if his maneuvers are "offense" or "defense" and by these means attempt >to divine how many maneuvers he's packing. A Thrown Gate is almost always a "defensive" maneuver. In the rare instances where it's offensive, it's backed up by Carrion Crows/Increased Strength (pre-range, therefore tipping you off), or by Blurs and Lids (you're fighting the Brujah, and it is safe to assume that clan is playing "offensive" combat). I realize this is only one particular example, but it's pretty easy to tell whether someone is trying to run away from you, or stepping back to take aim. And in any case, it doesn't really matter -- you've built your deck to chase down casual maneuvers, and if they have tons-o-maneuvers, you might as well cycle yours out of your hand, since you won't ever catch them anyway. >As for "choking" on maneuvers, don't they have a discard phase where some of >you guys come from? You only get 12 of those per game. If 8 of them are occupied by maneuver cards, you don't get to use it very much to actually improve your hand, or deal with OTHER (Master) types of hand-jam. [ quoted text not captured ]

Derek Ray wrote: > > In message <3D6C635E...@removethis.com>, > Frederick Scott <freds64_at_...@removethis.com> mumbled > something about: > > >Chris Berger wrote: > >> > >> Maneuvers are essential to a close range combat deck (especially one with > >> Immortal Grapple), to deal with combat *defense*. > > >There's no point in differentiating "combat defense" from "combat" for this > >purpose. There's no hard and fast dividing line when someone might pack Thrown > >Gates primarily to run away from you and if they tink you for one, that's gravy. > > If you're a Nossie vote deck trying to get away from me with a Thrown > Gate, then the Swoop in my hand catches you and you get pounded -- and I > don't even GET hit for 1 in the process (meaning I probably don't > Grapple you, so I can play some prevent). > > If I don't have ANY maneuvers in my deck, I sit there with my thumb up > my butt and look silly -- decreasing my deck's effectiveness for no good > reason. The "good reason" would be that maneuver-away decks aren't that common and you have better things to do with the deck space. That's a matter of judgment, of course, but I can always think of lots of cool things to do with deck space, myself. > If you're a Brujah pitch deck leading off with a Thrown Gate, then you > already have a Flash and Pursuit in hand, and I'm not going to catch you > no matter what I do -- but at least I can play my Swoop, even though > it's pointless. I'm not sure why it's that clear I'd have Flashes and Pursuits up the wazoo but either way, there's other types of decks that use Thrown Gates for offense. I ran into one in LA last winter that was Nossie princes with a million 2nd Traditions and Increased Strengths and Thrown Gates to punish the intercepted minions. I suppose he could have extra Behind Yous! but since the other function of Behind You! is a Dodge, it wouldn't be particularly good choice for anything but maneuvering away (again) from close combat. In any case, I did not notice him discarding maneuvers so there's a counterexample. > >On the other hand, they might also start loading up on the Increased Strengths > >to actually cause damage. It's silly to look into someone's head and try and > > Increased Strength, being played before-range, will let me know whether > that's an "offensive" or "defensive" Thrown Gate. It could be the only one in his deck, for all you know. Included on the off chance he could torporize someone with the extra damage and he's just dumping it in this particular situation. You can't know just from seeing the one Increased Strength. > I realize this is only one particular example, but it's pretty easy to > tell whether someone is trying to run away from you, or stepping back to > take aim. Eventually, it is. But I don't see how extra maneuvers (or not) necessarily follows from that. Combat offense sometimes wants the deck space for something else. Combat defense can use the extra maneuvers for insurance against the odd maneuver if their opponent has them or as separate combat defense (run away WITHOUT the gate) if not. > >As for "choking" on maneuvers, don't they have a discard phase where some of > >you guys come from? Chris's actual comment was about having, "a ton of maneuvers", which was actually probably reasonable enough. In other words, I'm changing my objection to what he said by writing this. But you wouldn't have a huge number of them. I don't think you need a bunch of them - only enough to cancel out the handful of Swoops a Gargoyle deck would use. > You only get 12 of those per game. If 8 of them are occupied by > maneuver cards, you don't get to use it very much to actually improve > your hand, or deal with OTHER (Master) types of hand-jam. Nor sure where you got 12 but I'll assume you're averaging turns/game or something. The point is, you only get one per turn (assuming no Barrens, Dreams, or whatever); I realize that. I agree, you don't want to spend them on something like this if you don't have to. On the other hand, the extra combat defense helps you survive, well, just this sort of thing: a relatively small quantity of maneuvers thrown into a combat deck. The penalty that you sometimes have to burn some discard phases when you don't need doesn't seem to be all that bad to me. For one thing, you can often control your own capacity to get into combat (e.g. against an SCE deck or other basically defensive deck) and dump them. You can also maneuver with the Fake Out and then throw the gate anyway to dump extra maneuvers. It's not like if you run up against the wrong deck, you're always just stuck with them and have to discard them. Fred

In message <3D6F1074...@removethis.com>, Frederick Scott <freds64_at_...@removethis.com> mumbled something about: >Derek Ray wrote: >> If you're a Nossie vote deck trying to get away from me with a Thrown >> Gate, then the Swoop in my hand catches you and you get pounded -- and I >> don't even GET hit for 1 in the process (meaning I probably don't >> Grapple you, so I can play some prevent). >> >> If I don't have ANY maneuvers in my deck, I sit there with my thumb up >> my butt and look silly -- decreasing my deck's effectiveness for no good >> reason. > >The "good reason" would be that maneuver-away decks aren't that common and you >have better things to do with the deck space. That's a matter of judgment, >of course, but I can always think of lots of cool things to do with deck space, >myself. *ponder* I'm not sure what you mean by "not that common". In a tourney environment, failure to include ANY defense against combat generally always ends up with you being made into a large "splat", and failure to include defense is ITSELF not that common. Token defense often defaults to a bunch of Fake Outs and some Dodges, or some Zip Guns, or some Thrown Gates if you have Potence... or... take your pick. A maneuver is often better than S:CE, especially with the prevalence of Grapple decks. As such, if you're a close-range deck, it is in your best interest to put in your own token maneuvers, to chase down those people who are trying to sneak off. >> If you're a Brujah pitch deck leading off with a Thrown Gate, then you >> already have a Flash and Pursuit in hand, and I'm not going to catch you >> no matter what I do -- but at least I can play my Swoop, even though >> it's pointless. > >I'm not sure why it's that clear I'd have Flashes and Pursuits up the wazoo If you're a Brujah deck chucking Gates around, then I'm perfectly willing to assume that you intend to make use of the Celerity found on many Brujah, and that one of those uses is going to involve the small thing known as "Additional Strikes". Flash and Pursuit are the primary two CEL utility cards. One is a maneuver *and* press, the other is either a maneuver OR extra strike, depending on what you need right then. Both are eminently cyclable, and it's a rare CEL deck indeed that is even missing ONE of them. >but either way, there's other types of decks that use Thrown Gates for offense. >I ran into one in LA last winter that was Nossie princes with a million 2nd >Traditions and Increased Strengths and Thrown Gates to punish the intercepted >minions. I suppose he could have extra Behind Yous! but since the other >function of Behind You! is a Dodge, it wouldn't be particularly good choice >for anything but maneuvering away (again) from close combat. In any case, I >did not notice him discarding maneuvers so there's a counterexample. When you have ranged combat, who cares about your opponent's maneuvers? Also, most likely he had Swallowed by the Night in his deck -- cyclable as stealth if you don't need the maneuver, slightly more compatible with Thrown Gate, and not difficult to play as a Nossie as they tend to have OBF. >> >On the other hand, they might also start loading up on the Increased Strengths >> >to actually cause damage. It's silly to look into someone's head and try and >> >> Increased Strength, being played before-range, will let me know whether >> that's an "offensive" or "defensive" Thrown Gate. > >It could be the only one in his deck, for all you know. Included on the off Yeah, I *really* see someone sticking one and only one Increased Strength in their deck. Me, I prefer to give credit to deckbuilders, assume they don't suck, and figure that where one of THOSE shows up, more will arrive eventually. >chance he could torporize someone with the extra damage and he's just dumping >it in this particular situation. You can't know just from seeing the one >Increased Strength. Sure I can. I'll bet on it every time, too. I figure I have an 80% chance of being right -- and those are odds I'll take in a heartbeat. Trying to be 100% certain about things before you try them leads to, well, losing in a frenetic scuffle of worry. >> I realize this is only one particular example, but it's pretty easy to >> tell whether someone is trying to run away from you, or stepping back to >> take aim. > >Eventually, it is. But I don't see how extra maneuvers (or not) necessarily >follows from that. Combat offense sometimes wants the deck space for something >else. Combat defense can use the extra maneuvers for insurance against the odd >maneuver if their opponent has them or as separate combat defense (run away >WITHOUT the gate) if not. If your primary offense is a ranged strike, you had damn well better be sure you get to range, or you're going to get Grappled and killed. That, in itself, is the only reason I need to assume extra maneuvers from a ranged-combat-offense deck. >> >As for "choking" on maneuvers, don't they have a discard phase where some of >> >you guys come from? > >Chris's actual comment was about having, "a ton of maneuvers", which was >actually probably reasonable enough. In other words, I'm changing my objection >to what he said by writing this. But you wouldn't have a huge number of them. >I don't think you need a bunch of them - only enough to cancel out the handful of >Swoops a Gargoyle deck would use. You require 2 maneuvers to cancel a single Swoop. That'll be 12 against 6. That's an awful damn lot if you don't manage to get into combat, adding yet another problem to your deck design (the need to occasionally get into combat) and yet another weakness (ranged damage, something you're more likely to see since you're in combat more). >> You only get 12 of those per game. If 8 of them are occupied by >> maneuver cards, you don't get to use it very much to actually improve >> your hand, or deal with OTHER (Master) types of hand-jam. > >Nor sure where you got 12 but I'll assume you're averaging turns/game or >something. The point is, you only get one per turn (assuming no Barrens, From data in an experiment conducted a couple years ago, yes. 12 discards per game, and the first couple really only count as "half" since it's not good to discard during them unless you're TOTALLY hosed. >Dreams, or whatever); I realize that. I agree, you don't want to spend them >on something like this if you don't have to. On the other hand, the extra >combat defense helps you survive, well, just this sort of thing: a relatively >small quantity of maneuvers thrown into a combat deck. The penalty that you (headshake) Again, you need 2 maneuvers (3 if you didn't block the Bum's Rush, but that's iffy since incidental combat decks often get into combat via means other than Bum's Rush/Ambush). See above. [ quoted text not captured ]

Derek Ray wrote: > > In message <3D6F1074...@removethis.com>, > Frederick Scott <freds64_at_...@removethis.com> mumbled > something about: > > >Derek Ray wrote: > >> If you're a Nossie vote deck trying to get away from me with a Thrown > >> Gate, then the Swoop in my hand catches you and you get pounded -- and I > >> don't even GET hit for 1 in the process (meaning I probably don't > >> Grapple you, so I can play some prevent). > >> > >> If I don't have ANY maneuvers in my deck, I sit there with my thumb up > >> my butt and look silly -- decreasing my deck's effectiveness for no good > >> reason. > > > >The "good reason" would be that maneuver-away decks aren't that common and you > >have better things to do with the deck space. That's a matter of judgment, > >of course, but I can always think of lots of cool things to do with deck space, > >myself. > > *ponder* I'm not sure what you mean by "not that common". In a tourney > environment, failure to include ANY defense against combat generally > always ends up with you being made into a large "splat", and failure to > include defense is ITSELF not that common. Nobody was comparing maneuver-away as a means of addressing combat as being opposed to having no defense at all. I meant that out of all the decks you run into, some attempt to use combat to accomplish something (usually burning or torping minions, or burning pool through Fame, etc.), some have combat defense, or you could have both. I'm saying that out of all these decks, I find that the number of them that use maneuver to get away from close combat for whatever reason aren't that common. It might be reasonable to just accept the risk that you'll wind with your thumb up your butt and looking silly because the risk isn't all that great. THEN, you could use the deck space allocated to the Swoops for something else that's more likely to be useful. Or likely to be more useful when you need that other card. Or both. > As such, if you're a close-range deck, it is in your best interest to > put in your own token maneuvers, to chase down those people who are > trying to sneak off. What's in your best interests depends on comparing the risk you'll need them AND how much affect they have when they come up at the right time vs. the opportunity cost of the deckspace. My perception and experience is that against anything with a fair amount of their own maneuvers (whether because they're "combat" vs. "combat defense" decks I don't care), they generally fail and against the other decks they don't come up often enough for the one or two punches I can get in to matter that much. When they're even needed, which isn't often. I can find other cards I'd rather use the deckspace on. > >> If you're a Brujah pitch deck leading off with a Thrown Gate, then you > >> already have a Flash and Pursuit in hand, and I'm not going to catch you > >> no matter what I do -- but at least I can play my Swoop, even though > >> it's pointless. > > > >I'm not sure why it's that clear I'd have Flashes and Pursuits up the wazoo > > If you're a Brujah deck chucking Gates around, then I'm perfectly > willing to assume that you intend to make use of the Celerity found on > many Brujah, and that one of those uses is going to involve the small > thing known as "Additional Strikes". > > Flash and Pursuit are the primary two CEL utility cards. All right, point taken. > >but either way, there's other types of decks that use Thrown Gates for offense. > >I ran into one in LA last winter that was Nossie princes with a million 2nd > >Traditions and Increased Strengths and Thrown Gates to punish the intercepted > >minions. I suppose he could have extra Behind Yous! but since the other > >function of Behind You! is a Dodge, it wouldn't be particularly good choice > >for anything but maneuvering away (again) from close combat. In any case, I > >did not notice him discarding maneuvers so there's a counterexample. > > When you have ranged combat, who cares about your opponent's maneuvers? ??? I don't understand your point, then. I though YOU were saying that a "combat deck" (as opposed to what you call a "combat defense deck") that used ranged combat could be counted on to have extra maneuvers. I was showing you where I ran into a Gate deck that was clearly attempting to torp using combat yet it didn't appear to have maneuver cards. > Also, most likely he had Swallowed by the Night in his deck -- cyclable > as stealth if you don't need the maneuver, slightly more compatible with > Thrown Gate, and not difficult to play as a Nossie as they tend to have > OBF. Possibly. I'll confess I didn't look for SbtN at the time. But SbtN is equally useful or even more useful for combat defense, as you don't really care that much about hitting him with the Gate, thus can effect your defense by ONLY maneuvering and waving and can use the SbtN for stealth if you don't need it for combat. > >> >On the other hand, they might also start loading up on the Increased Strengths > >> >to actually cause damage. It's silly to look into someone's head and try and > >> > >> Increased Strength, being played before-range, will let me know whether > >> that's an "offensive" or "defensive" Thrown Gate. > > > >It could be the only one in his deck, for all you know. Included on the off > > Yeah, I *really* see someone sticking one and only one Increased > Strength in their deck. Me, I prefer to give credit to deckbuilders, > assume they don't suck, and figure that where one of THOSE shows up, > more will arrive eventually. It's not bad. It's ONLY one card and might catch someone by surprise who was going into combat calculating how much damage they expected to take from a single gate. The only reason you don't see it much is that people don't often think about surprises like that. I've thrown Lucky Blows into decks containing Renegade Garou and Muddles for exactly the same reason (especially Muddles). It's not a great tactic but it's not a bad one, either. > >Eventually, it is. But I don't see how extra maneuvers (or not) necessarily > >follows from that. Combat offense sometimes wants the deck space for something > >else. Combat defense can use the extra maneuvers for insurance against the odd > >maneuver if their opponent has them or as separate combat defense (run away > >WITHOUT the gate) if not. > > If your primary offense is a ranged strike, you had damn well better be > sure you get to range, or you're going to get Grappled and killed. > > That, in itself, is the only reason I need to assume extra maneuvers > from a ranged-combat-offense deck. Absolutely. But I sure don't see why ranged-combat-DEFENSE doesn't want to avoid being grappled and killed as well. Especially given that extra maneuvers can also be used as extra combat defense if what they're facing doesn't have its own maneuvers. That is, you have both maneuvers and Gates in your deck and you see your opponent has no maneuvers (so far, after he's gone through 40% of his deck), so now you can let up on avoiding combat somewhat. You can take more actions you know are blockable and start putting more pressure on his ability to play intercept or wakes or both even knowing you'll be intercepted and be in combat more often. If he has the maneuvers, you're more careful because you can still survive combat using both Gates and maneuvers but not as often, as you'll burn through more combat cards per combat. > >> >As for "choking" on maneuvers, don't they have a discard phase where some of > >> >you guys come from? > > > >Chris's actual comment was about having, "a ton of maneuvers", which was > >actually probably reasonable enough. In other words, I'm changing my objection > >to what he said by writing this. But you wouldn't have a huge number of them. > >I don't think you need a bunch of them - only enough to cancel out the handful of > >Swoops a Gargoyle deck would use. > > You require 2 maneuvers to cancel a single Swoop. That'll be 12 against > 6. You need a Gate - which you have anyway for defense - and a separate maneuver. A single separate maneuver cancels the "single Swoop". That's 6 against 6. And if you don't run into maneuvers, you have 6 more combat defense cards and can allow yourself to get into a few more combats, as above. Fred

"Frederick Scott" <freds64_at_...@removethis.com> wrote in message news:3D779797...@removethis.com... > > Nobody was comparing maneuver-away as a means of addressing combat as being > opposed to having no defense at all. I meant that out of all the decks you > run into, some attempt to use combat to accomplish something (usually burning > or torping minions, or burning pool through Fame, etc.), some have combat > defense, or you could have both. I'm saying that out of all these decks, I find > that the number of them that use maneuver to get away from close combat for > whatever reason aren't that common. > That's where you'd be wrong. Since you're grappling, their *only* defense is to maneuver away, or else to prevent. Many clans cannot prevent, leaving maneuver away as their only option. Even if you're, for some odd reason, playing in an environment where no one grapples, so no one maneuvers away, after playing your Gargoyle deck a few times, people will at least see the possibility. If the deck is any good, the metagame will adjust to adding maneuver away as an option. Heck, maneuver away is the primary combat defense in *most* of my decks - S:CE is just not reliable by itself.

Frederick Scott wrote: > There's no point in differentiating "combat defense" from "combat" for this > purpose. There's no hard and fast dividing line when someone might pack > Thrown Gates primarily to run away from you and if they tink you for one, > that's gravy. On the other hand, they might also start loading up on the > Increased Strengths to actually cause damage. It's silly to look into > someone's head and try and decide if his maneuvers are "offense" or "defense" > and by these means attempt to divine how many maneuvers he's packing. > Fred I don't mean to disagree with your other points, and I do think that it is dangerous to assume contents of your opponent's deck based on categorization - though it is good VTES to try to piece together what they are doing - but it does seem that a deck's devotion or nod given to combat is qualifiable. If you think doing one damage is an accomplishment, your combat might be defensive. If you have a card that says "dodge" in your hand but none that say "additional strike" or "press", your combat might be defensive. If you end combat and don't continue your rush at +1 stealth (stealth optional), your combat might be defensive. If you maneuver and don't have a ranged strike, your combat might be defensive. If you have doubts about blocking or taking an action because the block might succeed, your combat might be defensive. - Dan Harting

Dan Harting wrote: > > I don't mean to disagree with your other points, and I do think > that it is dangerous to assume contents of your opponent's deck > based on categorization - though it is good VTES to try to > piece together what they are doing - but it does seem that a deck's > devotion or nod given to combat is qualifiable. > > If you think doing one damage is an accomplishment, > your combat might be defensive. > > If you have a card that says "dodge" in your hand but > none that say "additional strike" or "press", > your combat might be defensive. > > If you end combat and don't continue your rush at +1 > stealth (stealth optional), > your combat might be defensive. > > If you maneuver and don't have a ranged strike, > your combat might be defensive. > > If you have doubts about blocking or taking an > action because the block might succeed, > your combat might be defensive. OK, that's good stuff. :) I agree that the vast majority of decks tend to fall into a pretty distinct category that can roughly be summarized as either "Hurt the Other Guy" or "Try to Get Away With My Skin". I was disputing more whether someone possessing a maneuver "always" falls into the former category and that a guy using Thrown Gate to mostly avoid getting hurt never will bother to throw in a maneuver as well. Fred - who actually has had doubts about blocking and taking actions when he thought he'd built an "offensive" combat deck - that sucks...

Chris Berger wrote: > > "Frederick Scott" <freds64_at_...@removethis.com> wrote in message > news:3D779797...@removethis.com... > > > > Nobody was comparing maneuver-away as a means of addressing combat as being > > opposed to having no defense at all. I meant that out of all the decks you > > run into, some attempt to use combat to accomplish something (usually burning > > or torping minions, or burning pool through Fame, etc.), some have combat > > defense, or you could have both. I'm saying that out of all these decks, I > > find that the number of them that use maneuver to get away from close combat for > > whatever reason aren't that common. > > > That's where you'd be wrong. What, I'd be wrong about what I've noticed? Excuse me, I can only report about the experiences I've had and you can only report about the experiences you've had. So I don't think you can say much about my experiences because I'm pretty sure you weren't there. > Since you're grappling, their *only* defense What's "since I'm grappling" got to do with anything. People build their decks before they know what they're going to play against. It's completely reasonable to build a deck that ignores grapple and just loses when you run into one. And lots of people _I_ play apparently do. > is to maneuver away, or else to prevent. Many clans cannot prevent, leaving > maneuver away as their only option. Even if you're, for some odd reason, > playing in an environment where no one grapples, so no one maneuvers away, > after playing your Gargoyle deck a few times, people will at least see the > possibility. Yea, but big deal. It's only one deck. It's not like people will see this one deck that grapples all the time and instantly go out and reformat all their decks out of terror of it. Certainly not by throwing a handful of maneuvers into their decks, and throwing just a few in only means you'll get away from the thug once in a while. The rest of time, you suffer. Better to just ignore the possibility until you start to see lots of Grapple deck in your environment. > Heck, maneuver away is the primary combat defense > in *most* of my decks - S:CE is just not reliable by itself. That's odd. I've always considered S:CE to be much more reliable of the two. Too many Gun decks and too many people throwing the odd Ivory Bow or Flamethrower into otherwise peaceful decks. (I really got "up close and personal" experience with the horror of Watenda holding an Ivory Bow at Gencon. Several different games. At least it works to S:CE if you hold _two_ of them going in...) Or, hell, how about Thrown Gates with Increased Strengths, since we're on the subject. Trap decks. Tremere combat decks. Assamite long range combat decks. There's probably others but I've made my point. Again, it just depends on how the other guys you play with like to play their games. Fred