Tournament report - Winning deck

Tournament name : Coupe de Paris 2007 Location and date : Paris, FR - 03/04/07 32 players The winner is Kamel SENNI (Enters 3rd in final with 2GWs, 7VPs - Wins the final with 3VPs) playing : Crypt: (12 cards, Min: 19, Max: 35, Avg: 7) ------------------------------------------- 1 Suhailah pot ser FOR OBF 9 Ventrue 3 Selma the Repugnant ani for OBF POT 8 Nosferatu 2 Nikolaus Vermeulen ani for obf POT 7 Nosferatu 2 Sheldon for ANI AUS OBF POT9 Nosferatu 1 Dimple obf 2 Nosferatu 2 Calebros obf pot ANI 5 Nosferatu 1 Murat ser OBF POT 7 Nosferatu Library: (73 cards) ------------------- Master (24 cards) 3 Specialization 1 Last Stand 1 Giant`s Blood 1 Temptation of Greater Power 1 Labyrinth, The 9 Zillah`s Valley 7 Legendary Vampire 1 Pentex Subversion Action (3 cards) 3 Scrounging Action Modifier (22 cards) 2 Faceless Night 5 Lost in Crowds 4 Elder Impersonation 3 Forgotten Labyrinth 8 Freak Drive Political Action (20 cards) 1 Conservative Agitation 6 Kine Resources Contested 3 Banishment 10 Parity Shift Retainer (3 cards) 1 Tasha Morgan 1 J. S. Simmons, Esq. 1 Robert Carter Combo (1 cards) 1 Swallowed by the Night

Not much combat around eh? Or heavy intercept?

On 12 Mar, 11:49, a...@hotmail.com wrote: > Not much combat around eh? Or heavy intercept? Speed kills. Parisian Nos decks with Zillah's, Shifts and Legendary Vampires are very fast indeed. Their first prey usually stands little chance of doing anything constructive, regardless of what they are playing. Matt.

On Mar 12, 4:49 am, a...@hotmail.com wrote: > Not much combat around eh? Or heavy intercept? 2 Faceless Night 5 Lost in Crowds 4 Elder Impersonation 3 Forgotten Labyrinth 1 Swallowed by the Night Seems to me to be a decent amount of stealth, especially when the main action you are taking is already at +1. There is very good synergy between Faceless, Elder Impersonation and Forgotten Labyrinth. On the combat side of things - yeah, looks to be a bit of a trend that I've been noticing with TWD's. --> J grail_pbem "at" hotmail.com

[ quoted text not captured ] I just want to reiterate that vote decks without PRE suck. r i g h t ... best - chris -- Super Fun Cards http://myworld.ebay.com/superfuncards/ auct...@superfuncards.com

[ quoted text not captured ] It's pretty clever. I would not have built this deck, but looking at it, I like how Scrounging and Specialization work with the heaps of Zillahs, Legendary, and Parity Shift combo. You dont need much combat defense when you can so easily buy a new vamp, and the one Swallowed by the Night makes a nasty surprise for the Potence deck not packing a manuever.

[ quoted text not captured ] > aucti...@superfuncards.com- Piilota siteerattu teksti - > > - Näytä siteerattu teksti - I don't really see whats the point in that many legendary vampires? Also it definetily looks like the enviroment doesn't have any combat if that deck won. :) As any rush deck as predator would tear it apart. Gratz for the win anyway.

[ quoted text not captured ] Piilota siteerattu teksti - >> >> - Näytä siteerattu teksti - > > I don't really see whats the point in that many legendary vampires? > Also it definetily looks like the enviroment doesn't have any combat > if that deck won. :) As any rush deck as predator would tear it apart. > Gratz for the win anyway. > You want that Legendary right away, almost as soon as your Zillah's. The rest you can burn to the Specialization. This deck is tight, I like it alot. If you think you are going to be in a combat heavy environment, you can add several more Swallowed by the night, and then maybe a few Behind you and/or Quick Exit. Bring you up to 80 cards, but don't dilute too much. best - chris -- Super Fun Cards http://myworld.ebay.com/superfuncards/ auct...@superfuncards.com

On Mar 12, 2:26 pm, librarian <aucti...@superfuncards.com> wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] > aucti...@superfuncards.com The Legendary Vampire is very important because it can give you vote lock very early on before others get their titled vampires into play. But the long-term key to this deck is all the bleed retainers. After you burn through your politics, you can still oust steadily with strong bleeds (also via LV). I was surprised not to see Heidelberg Castle though to move Retainers and blood to limit hunting. I am also very curious whether Last Stand actually was played and to what effect during the tournament. Jeff

[ quoted text not captured ] Very nasty deck... won't make many friends with that one! :) Shame to waste all that Potence... uh... 1 Rampage?

On 12 Mar, 20:02, "d" <david.corsonknow...@gmail.com> wrote: > and the one Swallowed > by the Night makes a nasty surprise for the Potence deck not packing a > manuever. Really? Never made any difference around here. Potence decks not packing a manuever (or ranged strikes) seems lame.

[ quoted text not captured ] > Gratz for the win anyway.- Masquer le texte des messages précédents - > > - Afficher le texte des messages précédents - Oh, I am playing this deck, you are my predator and you move out a rusher... well since I play so many zillah's, I certainly have pulled out my first vampire before you. Otherwise, I pull 2 out... I have less pool than you, because of the valleys and the Legendary V... so If you play combat, I parity shift you as long as you still want to rush you, eventually let you be killed. If you stop rushing me, then okay I will stop shifting you... well of course if there are 2 rushers that is starting to be much more complicated, but Kamel is so good a player he can find solutions even when the table is definitely not fit to him best Orian Gissler

[ quoted text not captured ] read: if you can convince your predator to stop play his game, you can continue to play yours. LOL. > that is starting to be much more complicated, but Kamel is so good a > player he can find solutions even when the table is definitely not fit > to him read: he can table talk all the way through to victory. > > best > > Orian Gissler- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -

> I am also very curious whether Last Stand actually was played and to > what effect during the tournament. I don´t know but I would guess, yes. Kamel is the pioneer of Last Stand. I have personally witnessed him ousting 3 people in the same sequence of turns via Anthelios/Parthenon/Last Stand combo. And in this deck it allows you to oust by Parity Shift, even if it is high risk for yourself. Johannes

> I don´t know but I would guess, yes. > Kamel is the pioneer of Last Stand. I have personally witnessed him > ousting 3 people in the same sequence of turns via > Anthelios/Parthenon/Last Stand combo. > > And in this deck it allows you to oust by Parity Shift, even if it is > high risk for yourself. I'd never realised the synergy between Last Stand and Parity Shift... brilliant and utterly evil. maybe more evidence of Shift's brokenness.

[ quoted text not captured ] This is a very intriguing deck! I am wicked happy that a Nos deck won the day; it gives me hope for my own Nos experiments. I am curious to see this deck in action. . . . But I am still having a hard time seeing how a disciplined rush deck does not make this deck unhappy. I understand the threat of Parity Shifting, but it seems that a pair of rushers should be able to negate this deck unless they draw poorly given its lack of defenses. Yes, that amounts to heinous, perhaps spiteful backousting, but if I can neutralize vamps as they come out, that should create sufficent control to keep this deck from destroying me, and allow me to start bleeding and Frontal Assaulting my prey. Is this deck so fast that I would not get that chance? I'd be curious to hear why the player didn't put in the Anthelios/ Parthenon combo to really make the Last Stand annoying. I'd think that someone playing Sudden Reversal or Wash would cripple that tech given the deck build used in the tournament. Cheers, John

> This is a very intriguing deck! I am wicked happy that a Nos deck won > the day; it gives me hope for my own Nos experiments. I am curious to > see this deck in action. . . . But I am still having a hard time > seeing how a disciplined rush deck does not make this deck unhappy. I > understand the threat of Parity Shifting, but it seems that a pair of > rushers should be able to negate this deck unless they draw poorly > given its lack of defenses. Yes, that amounts to heinous, perhaps > spiteful backousting, but if I can neutralize vamps as they come out, > that should create sufficent control to keep this deck from destroying > me, and allow me to start bleeding and Frontal Assaulting my prey. Is > this deck so fast that I would not get that chance? There are plenty of simple possiblities why this deck wasn't destroyed by a rush deck. - there wasn't one on the table (quite likely) - the rush deck was busy dealing with other threats on the table (also quite likely, most rush decks have to do at least one or two rushed against their predator, by which time this deck might have already got its first VP) - the rush deck wasn't able to consistently draw enough rush cards to bin minions (not likely but possible) - the rush deck wasn't able to consistently draw enough / the right combat cards to bin minions (not likely but possible) - the rush deck couldn't get past chump blockers: there were a few small vamps in the crypt for what I imagine was that purpose (quite possible, few rush decks use much stealth) - the rush deck wasn't able to put the nos down faster than they could pop out. e.g. If I Zillah out a Nos, make it legendary, and the next turn I parity shift / freak drive / bleed for 3, that's a huge blow to my prey. Even if that one then gets binned, I can bring out another and do it again. I could also be sneaky with my transfers so that two pop up out at the same time, and even if one gets rushed and binned I can parity shift with the other one. Depending on what my prey is doing, two or three shifts might be enough. If I Last Stand at the right time, I can take out two or three players at once, which means more Nos hitting the table.

> I just want to reiterate that vote decks without PRE suck. > > r i g h t ... Voter Cap is really powerful. This does not change just because Parity Shift is really, really powerful. If I were in charge, I don't know whether I'd change Voter Captivation. It would be really tough to leave a card that strong alone--or to alter a card which has been there so long without ruining the game. Well, probably some games... Anyway, I would definitely change Parity Shift. It's just incredible. Yes, I'd say it's probably broken and definitely stronger than Voter Cap. In summary, Voter cap is still strong. Decks winning with the broken- est cards currently available does not change that Voter Cap is strong. -- Brian

"Dasein" <dasei...@hotmail.com> a écrit dans le message de news:1173843492.1...@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com... > There are plenty of simple possiblities why this deck wasn't destroyed > by a rush deck. > - there wasn't one on the table (quite likely) There wasn't any dedicated rush deck during the final. The only deck featuring proactive combat was his prey's with Ignazio. Kamel did spend some time with two vampire in torpor, though. As for the preliminary rounds, there were, say, 40% or so decks with combat, but the decks that made it to the final were Nosfe royalty -> Ignazio/Lorrie -> !Toreador toolbox -> Nosfe vote+combat defense -> Marcus vittel+!Tore. The Vittel deck died first, Kamel ousted both Ignazio and the other Nosfe at the same time, then won the duel like 30s before the time limit (his prey had more than 20 pool when the duel began, IIRC). Stone

> Parity Shift is really, really powerful. Strong forward motion and bloat in one card... Jeah, there's nothing even close to this. Unfortunately these vote'n'bloat options are very limited; parity shift and/or voter cap. That's it. For example Ysador and Greensleeves are cute together (with fortitude and all) but the bloat options are not there so we can't do anything even remotely as sleazy as this. If you're going for speed with zillah's you need to have those minion taps in hand. After that you're very vulnerable with half empty vampires with no real way to quickly gain blood except with restorations/entrenchings and giant's blood. Or you have to dillute the deck with reactions (no bounce) and combat. All this with no pressure to your prey. Yay! Antti

"MultiSeb" <mult...@yahoo.com> schreef in bericht news:1173691839.4...@q40g2000cwq.googlegroups.com... > > Tournament name : Coupe de Paris 2007 > Location and date : Paris, FR - 03/04/07 > 32 players > > The winner is Kamel SENNI (Enters 3rd in final with 2GWs, 7VPs - Wins > the final with 3VPs) playing : > <snip deck> DAMIT! Just when I think I've made a deck that works, Kamel goes and wins a tourney with a better version of it. For reference, my version below. Needs some tweaking to go to about 70 cards. Crypt: (12 cards, Min: 21, Max: 40, Avg: 8,25) ---------------------------------------------- 2 Marcus Vitel DOM FOR OBF OBT PRE10 Ventrue 1 Nikolaus Vermeulen ani for obf POT 7 Nosferatu 1 Cock Robin aus for ANI OBF POT10 Nosferatu 1 Queen Anne aus obf DOM FOR PRE10 Ventrue 1 Jaroslav Pascek for obf CEL POT PRE10 Brujah 1 Krid obf 2 Nosferatu 1 Calebros obf pot ANI 5 Nosferatu 1 Lucinde Alastor obf pot tha DOM FOR PRE 10 Ventrue 2 Suhailah pot ser FOR OBF 9 Ventrue 1 Murat ser OBF POT 7 Nosferatu Library: (78 cards) ------------------- Master (22 cards) 7 Legendary Vampire 2 Specialization 9 Zillah`s Valley 1 Giant`s Blood 1 Temptation of Greater Power 1 Creepshow Casino 1 Obfuscate Action (5 cards) 3 Scrounging 2 Heart of the City Action Modifier (24 cards) 6 Lost in Crowds 3 Elder Impersonation 2 Faceless Night 5 Forgotten Labyrinth 8 Freak Drive Political Action (21 cards) 2 Banishment 1 Protect Thine Own 10 Parity Shift 6 Kine Resources Contested 2 Conservative Agitation Retainer (2 cards) 1 Tasha Morgan 1 J. S. Simmons, Esq. Combo (4 cards) 4 Swallowed by the Night

On Mar 13, 5:42 am, "adam.hu...@gmail.com" <adam.hu...@gmail.com> wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] Yes, of all the finalists, i must say that Kamel has the most optimised deck, with no funky cards, only stuff to go for the kill. He had a hard time being bled by a palla + cloacking vittel (which happened to be my prey) but he played on my side until i got the vp over the palla. Then i was quite locked by his threat and a mind rape Vittel put on my Nakova seconds before dying on a vote. I guess i should be happy to snatch the second place considering the crappy deck i brought with me ^^ cheers, reyda.

On Mar 13, 10:36 pm, "demonturtle" <crankytur...@gmail.com> wrote: > This is a very intriguing deck! I am wicked happy that a Nos deck won > the day; it gives me hope for my own Nos experiments. I am curious to > see this deck in action. . . . But I am still having a hard time > seeing how a disciplined rush deck does not make this deck unhappy. Heh. This is a perfect example of the "hope they don't have blasters" defense--completely ignore combat defense in the name of more effective offense, and figure that you'll lose one game of three due to bad seating, and you are likely to do fine in the other two. Combat decks, in reality, don't show up *that* much in big tournaments. As they are hard to win with. There is always some tool (i.e. me) who will play one out of a sense of obligation, just to punish folks who play decks like this ('cause whenever I see them win tournaments, I'm all like "Man. If that sat next to a Rush deck, it'd be paste!"). But as they are really hard to actually win with in an environment filled with decks like the one posted here (i.e. very focused ousting decks), people often just stay away. Like, in the Qualifier I was at last month, there were, like, out of 35 or so decks, 3 or 4 Rush decks (due to a secret Rush conspiracy...) and a couple intercepty/combat decks. Nothing like, say, sitting down to play a game in my dining room... -Peter

ati...@gmail.com schrieb: > For example Ysador > and Greensleeves are cute together (with fortitude and all) but the > bloat options are not there so we can't do anything even remotely as > sleazy as this. On the other hand an Ysador/Greensleeves deck went to the finals of the EC, but I could not see any broken-VC, broken-PS deck there. Perhaps we should refrain from dragging every single thread featuring a deck with VC/PS into a whining that either of those two is too strong. -- Johannes Walch

"Reyda !" <Rey...@gmail.com> schreef in bericht news:1173877790....@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com... >Then i was quite locked by his threat and a mind rape >Vittel put on my Nakova seconds before dying on a vote. I heard about this before, but I still find it strange. Mind Rape doesn't have the 'you still control this card' text, right? So it isn't removed when the player who played it is ousted. That's how it was ruled the last time I saw it in Paris. But, how can you burn a card that you don't control?

[ quoted text not captured ] It is controlled by the controller of the vampire it's on. It doesn't burn (or get removed from the game) when the controller of the vampire who played it is ousted.

> On the other hand an Ysador/Greensleeves deck went to the finals of the > EC, but I could not see any broken-VC, broken-PS deck there. Sounds groovy, I'd really like to see that deck. There also seems to be one Ysador deck in the TWDA right now. > Perhaps we should refrain from dragging every single thread featuring a > deck with VC/PS into a whining that either of those two is too strong. Ooh, I don't think PS and VC are too strong. 'Cause they are not. It's just shame that those two are the only effective vote'n'bloat options. I mean, while you can attack your prey with the very same action. Antti

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> schreef in bericht news:AdTJh.4033$tv6...@newssvr19.news.prodigy.net... [ quoted text not captured ] Yes. I know that. That's what's in my first paragraph. My question was: 'how can you burn a card you don't control?' In other words: Don't you need to control a card to use its 'burn this card to do X' clause?

Jeroen Rombouts wrote: > My question was: 'how can you burn a card you don't control?' Same as any -- by any effects that allow you to burn it. Mind Rape has no intrinsic text granting such ability, so you'll need to find an external effect to burn it. > In other words: Don't you need to control a card to use its 'burn this card > to do X' clause? Yes, but Mind Rape doesn't have that clause. Instead it has "During the acting vampire's controller's next minion phase, he or she must burn this card to untap the vampire and take control of the vampire until the end of his or her turn."

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> schreef in bericht news:kFTJh.4043$tv6....@newssvr19.news.prodigy.net... > Jeroen Rombouts wrote: >> In other words: Don't you need to control a card to use its 'burn this >> card to do X' clause? > > Yes, but Mind Rape doesn't have that clause. Instead it has "During the > acting vampire's controller's next minion phase, he or she must burn this > card to untap the vampire and take control of the vampire until the end of > his or her turn." Thanks. I must have misread that part.

On Mar 14, 9:22 am, "Peter D Bakija" <p...@lightlinom> wrote: > Heh. This is a perfect example of the "hope they don't have blasters" > defense-- > Combat decks, in reality, don't show up *that* much in big > tournaments. As they are hard to win with. There is always some tool > (i.e. me) who will play one out of a sense of obligation, just to > punish folks who play decks like this ('cause whenever I see them win > tournaments, I'm all like "Man. If that sat next to a Rush deck, it'd > be paste!"). But as they are really hard to actually win with in an > environment filled with decks like the one posted here (i.e. very > focused ousting decks), people often just stay away. Like, in the > Qualifier I was at last month, there were, like, out of 35 or so > decks, 3 or 4 Rush decks (due to a secret Rush conspiracy...) and a > couple intercepty/combat decks. A conspiracy that could use some expansion. It seems like it is always hard to win this game, due to the whole 5 players / 1 winner thing. I think that the deck posted above, and others like it, should be an invitation for folks to play rush. -Dave Clooney Looking to hand out blasters. Play rush = drink for free

In article <1173887998.6...@b75g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, "quickbeam" <dcqui...@yahoo.com> wrote: > A conspiracy that could use some expansion. It seems like it is > always hard to win this game, due to the whole 5 players / 1 winner > thing. I think that the deck posted above, and others like it, should > be an invitation for folks to play rush. Ya'd think so, wouldn't you. Apparently, however, it is only an invitation to play more decks like that... > > -Dave Clooney > > Looking to hand out blasters. Play rush = drink for free I love that rule! Peter D Bakija pd...@lightlink.com http://www.lightlink.com/pdb6/vtes.html

In article <1173843492.1...@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, "Dasein" <dasei...@hotmail.com> wrote: > There are plenty of simple possiblities why this deck wasn't destroyed > by a rush deck. Sure. But really, the only viable possibility as to why this deck wasn't destroyed by a rush deck was your first suggestion--there wasn't one at the table. Like, this isn't me being all "I'd kill that deck if it was in *my* tournament!" or whatever, but with the last Rush deck I played in competition, the if the deck in question was my prey, it'd likely never take a single action, as every vampire that hit the table would immediately be trashed. But then, I only got 2VPs for the day, where this deck won, so, ya know, results speak for themselves :-) [ quoted text not captured ]

> Like, this isn't me being all "I'd kill that deck if it was in *my* > tournament!" or whatever, but with the last Rush deck I played in > competition, the if the deck in question was my prey, it'd likely never > take a single action, as every vampire that hit the table would > immediately be trashed. But then, I only got 2VPs for the day, where > this deck won, so, ya know, results speak for themselves :-) Really? What if the deck in question was your prey BUT your predator was playing, say, Gio or Lasombra bleed? and was bleeding you for 5 or 6 with every action? You would still be rushing forward and binning your prey's vampires while being bled for huge amounts per turn? Surely not. Like I said, sometimes combat decks are at the table, and have all the right cards, but due to various table mechanics or whatever, (e.g. powerbleed predator, or maybe a cross-table Anson/ Anneke/Anthelios deck causing everyone grief or whatever) things get mucked up, and in that time the Nos go BOOM and parity shift / bleed someone right off the table. and yeah, I know you're not being all "hah I would have totally smashed that junk!", similarly, I'm not saying "you wouldn'ta done nothing to that deck!", just saying, you never know what would have happened, if you weren't on a finals table, because you might have the right deck/cards, but for whatever reason (busy shutting down your predator, or who knows, maybe some bastard crosstable DIs your key rush action card or something), it doesn't quite go to plan.

On Mar 15, 12:34 am, leon.tran...@gmail.com wrote: > Really? What if the deck in question was your prey BUT your predator > was playing, say, Gio or Lasombra bleed? and was bleeding you for 5 or > 6 with every action? I'd be impressed with the consistiency of their bleed power, the speed of their deck, and probably die. Sometimes that happens. Just like sometimes a deck with zero combat defense sits next to a Rush deck and just gets killed. > You would still be rushing forward and binning > your prey's vampires while being bled for huge amounts per turn? You get 3 or 4 minions. You go backwards with 1 if necessary. You go forwards with 2. You use the third as needed. A deck that has big vampires with exactly zero combat defense just gets plowed under by weenie potence rush. Sure, I might get killed in the mean time by a predator that bleeds me for 18 in 3 actions, but what are you gonna do? > you never know what would have > happened, if you weren't on a finals table, because you might have the > right deck/cards, but for whatever reason (busy shutting down your > predator, or who knows, maybe some bastard crosstable DIs your key > rush action card or something), it doesn't quite go to plan. Again, I'm not talking about a lack of belief as to how this deck won a tournament. It is obvious how it won a tournament--it is a fast, effective deck that has a great deal of ousting power and built in bloat. It is a good deck in the right circumstances. Sitting next to a weenie potence rush deck, however, isn't going to be the right circumstance. -Peter

On 12 mar, 12:49, a...@hotmail.com wrote: > Not much combat around eh? Or heavy intercept? No heavy intercept deck during the tournament. 9 more or less combat decks including one in the final (his prey playing Ignazio Giovanni) and 3 at his table during the third round (4 players table) where he got GW / 3.

On 13 mar, 00:36, "Jeff Kuta" <kut...@gmail.com> wrote: > I am also very curious whether Last Stand actually was played and to > what effect during the tournament. During the rounds, I don't know. During the final, he discarded it (the turn after his 1st VP, I think).