Questions for LSJ

1) Two vampires are in combat. The acting vampire plays strike: combat ends. The blocking vampire wants to play Majesty, then pay a blood to untap. Is this legal, or does combat end when the acting vampire chooses his strike, before the blocking vampire can choose his? 2) A Methuselah with one pool plays Hostile Takeover on an opponent's vampire, removing himself from the game. Does the Hostile Takeover auction still take place? -- Tim Olivas ("I'm so vital!"). . "I ain't no hell of a man...but listen, tol...@megsinet.net. . . . . . I'm going on a hell of a trip." http://www.megsinet.com/tolivas/ . . . . . . . . . . --Ernest Hemingway

(I ain't LSJ, and I'm wrong more than I should be. So there.) Disclaimer aside,... On Thu, 18 Jan 2001 23:36:33 -0600, Tim Olivas <tol...@megsinet.net> wrote: >1) Two vampires are in combat. The acting vampire plays strike: combat >ends. The blocking vampire wants to play Majesty, then pay a blood to >untap. Is this legal, or does combat end when the acting vampire chooses >his strike, before the blocking vampire can choose his? it's legal. Each player has an opportunity to announce strikes, and the "untap" effect happens when the card is played, as opposed to when strikes resolve. So both players choose strikes, pay a blood to untap, and THEN strikes resolve and the "combat ends" takes effect. >2) A Methuselah with one pool plays Hostile Takeover on an opponent's >vampire, removing himself from the game. Does the Hostile Takeover >auction still take place? I'd say "no", mostly because anyone who deliberately ousts himself in this fashion to attempt to screw someone else needs to be beaten with a stick. I don't have any specific card text or rules support for this guess. But damn, I'd sure try to find some, flimsy and airy or not. -- Derek "I reduce that bleed by one." -- M. Bell, 4x in a @#$*ing row

Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote: > Tim Olivas <tol...@megsinet.net> wrote: > >1) Two vampires are in combat. The acting vampire plays strike: > >combat ends. The blocking vampire wants to play Majesty, then pay a > >blood to untap. Is this legal, or does combat end when the acting > >vampire chooses his strike, before the blocking vampire can choose > >his? > > it's legal. Each player has an opportunity to announce strikes, and > the "untap" effect happens when the card is played, as opposed to when > strikes resolve. > > So both players choose strikes, pay a blood to untap, and THEN strikes > resolve and the "combat ends" takes effect. Correct. > >2) A Methuselah with one pool plays Hostile Takeover on an opponent's > >vampire, removing himself from the game. Does the Hostile Takeover > >auction still take place? > > I'd say "no", mostly because anyone who deliberately ousts himself in > this fashion to attempt to screw someone else needs to be beaten with > a stick. Yes. The effects of the card take place when the card is played. For instance, the same Methuselah could oust himself with a Misdirection to tap one of his prey's vampires - the vampire would be tapped. It would be hard to find a case where this was in the Methuselah's interest, however, so a case for unsportsmanlike conduct could probably be made. -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) VTES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and tournament rules: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/ Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/

>Yes. The effects of the card take place when the card is played. >For instance, the same Methuselah could oust himself with a Misdirection >to tap one of his prey's vampires - the vampire would be tapped. > >It would be hard to find a case where this was in the Methuselah's >interest, however, so a case for unsportsmanlike conduct could >probably be made. Well, if you're competing with your grandpredator to get into the finals and you have no chance this round, it may be in your best interest to help your predator (by giving him 6 pool) and give your predator the VP (so your grandpredator can't steamroller over your predator and go through you as well to get 2 VP's). I think a more interesting case would be with Temptation of Greater Power. If you have 3 pool and play the card (bringing you down to 0 pool), the card says you can be credited up to 5 pool. So I guess you can up the bid to 5 even though you're going to be ousted anyway (handy for weakening someone cross-table if once again you're competing for a spot in the finals or something). Not that these are exactly the nicest things to do, but certainly no worse than going upstream, and a variety of other deals that are commonly made. Halcyan 2

halc...@aol.com (Halcyan 2) wrote: > >It would be hard to find a case where this was in the Methuselah's > >interest, however, so a case for unsportsmanlike conduct could > >probably be made. > > Well, if you're competing with your grandpredator to get into the > finals and you have no chance this round, it may be in your best > interest to help your predator (by giving him 6 pool) and give your > predator the VP (so your grandpredator can't steamroller over your > predator and go through you as well to get 2 VP's). I didn't say it was impossible to find, just that it was hard to find. The situation you describe would be one that I would call "hard to find". > I think a more interesting case would be with Temptation of Greater > Power. If you have 3 pool and play the card (bringing you down to 0 > pool), the card says you can be credited up to 5 pool. So I guess you > can up the bid to 5 even though you're going to be ousted anyway > (handy for weakening someone cross-table if once again you're > competing for a spot in the finals or something). Nah. You'd be ousted at the start of the bidding. And ousted Methuselahs cannot bid. > Not that these are exactly the nicest things to do, but certainly no > worse than going upstream, and a variety of other deals that are > commonly made. ? I'd see this as typically worse. Going upstream brings the clear advantage of weakening your predator. Making deals brings the clear advantage of whatever you get as part of the deal. Ousting yourself via one of these master cards has no such clear advantage. In order to construct any advantage at all, one has to resort to a series of games, and even then the argument is usually pretty weak. -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) VTES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. ERC [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <9iqf6t8b8m7j5vev9...@4ax.com>, Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote: > (I ain't LSJ, and I'm wrong more than I should be. So there.) > > Disclaimer aside,... > > On Thu, 18 Jan 2001 23:36:33 -0600, Tim Olivas <tol...@megsinet.net> > wrote: > > >1) Two vampires are in combat. The acting vampire plays strike: combat > >ends. The blocking vampire wants to play Majesty, then pay a blood to > >untap. Is this legal, or does combat end when the acting vampire chooses > >his strike, before the blocking vampire can choose his? > > it's legal. Each player has an opportunity to announce strikes, and > the "untap" effect happens when the card is played, as opposed to when > strikes resolve. > > So both players choose strikes, pay a blood to untap, and THEN strikes > resolve and the "combat ends" takes effect. Hey, I never thought of this before, but does the "may burn 1 blood to untap" part of superior Majesty option get invoked when you play the card (at strike declaration), or when the card's effects resolve (at the beginning of strike resolution)? I'd always thought that you had to decide whether to pay the 1 to untap when you *played* the card - ie before drawing to replace the Majesty - but now it occurs to me that it's probably part of the resolution of the strike, at which point you would have long ago replaced the card. Scott? Josh learns something new every day [ quoted text not captured ]

Joshua Duffin <jt...@cornell.edu> wrote: > Hey, I never thought of this before, but does the "may burn 1 > blood to untap" part of superior Majesty option get invoked when > you play the card (at strike declaration), or when the card's > effects resolve (at the beginning of strike resolution)? The latter. -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) VTES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. ERC Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and tournament rules: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/ [ quoted text not captured ]

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:9499rf$6ev$1...@nnrp1.deja.com... > Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > Tim Olivas <tol...@megsinet.net> wrote: > > >1) Two vampires are in combat. The acting vampire plays strike: > > >combat ends. The blocking vampire wants to play Majesty, then pay a > > >blood to untap. Is this legal, or does combat end when the acting > > >vampire chooses his strike, before the blocking vampire can choose > > >his? > > > > it's legal. Each player has an opportunity to announce strikes, and > > the "untap" effect happens when the card is played, as opposed to when > > strikes resolve. > > > > So both players choose strikes, pay a blood to untap, and THEN strikes > > resolve and the "combat ends" takes effect. > > Correct. So is this a change to the rulebook which states that a combat ends strike ends combat immediately and that no other strikes resolve? [ quoted text not captured ]

"Ken shaw" <k...@compinnovations.com> writes: > > > So both players choose strikes, pay a blood to untap, and THEN strikes > > > resolve and the "combat ends" takes effect. > > > > Correct. > > So is this a change to the rulebook which states that a combat ends strike > ends combat immediately and that no other strikes resolve? "Combat Ends: This effect ends combat immediately. This type of strike is always the first to resolve, even before a strike done with first strike, and ends combat before other strikes can be resolved or any damage dealt. Combat ends is effective at any range. Combat ends is not affected by a dodge, since dodge only cancels effects that are directed at the dodging minion." What that means is that, when you enter Strike Resolution, combat ends immediately. It doesn't end combat as soon as it is played, since strikes *all* have a slight delay built in - from Choose Strike to Strike Resolution. -- James Coupe | PGP Key 0x5D623D5D

On 19 Jan 2001 15:43:37 GMT, "Ken shaw" <k...@compinnovations.com> wrote: >"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message >news:9499rf$6ev$1...@nnrp1.deja.com... >> Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote: >> > Tim Olivas <tol...@megsinet.net> wrote: >> > >1) Two vampires are in combat. The acting vampire plays strike: >> > >combat ends. The blocking vampire wants to play Majesty, then pay a >> > >blood to untap. Is this legal, or does combat end when the acting >> > >vampire chooses his strike, before the blocking vampire can choose >> > >his? >> > >> > it's legal. Each player has an opportunity to announce strikes, and >> > the "untap" effect happens when the card is played, as opposed to when >> > strikes resolve. >> > >> > So both players choose strikes, pay a blood to untap, and THEN strikes >> > resolve and the "combat ends" takes effect. >> >> Correct. > >So is this a change to the rulebook which states that a combat ends strike >ends combat immediately and that no other strikes resolve? You misunderstand. Effects of a card happen when the card is played. Majesty's text: Strike: Combat Ends. (S) As above, and this vampire may burn one blood to untap. The "combat ends" strike resolves during the strike resolution phase. The "burn one blood to untap" is not a side effect of ending combat; it's an effect of playing the card. So when you play the card, during the Choose Strike phase, you burn a blood and untap. Then, during the Strike Resolution phase, combat ends. This does mean that if you are the acting minion, you can play Majesty, untap, and the reacting minion can play Wolf Claws and Rotschreck, and you will be sent to torpor untapped, with your strike never resolving. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Fri, 19 Jan 2001 12:16:07 -0500, Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote: >The "combat ends" strike resolves during the strike resolution phase. >The "burn one blood to untap" is not a side effect of ending combat; >it's an effect of playing the card. So when you play the card, during >the Choose Strike phase, you burn a blood and untap. Then, during the >Strike Resolution phase, combat ends. Or, maybe not (just saw LSJ's post further down the thread). Nevermind. :P [ quoted text not captured ]

"Derek Ray" <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:entg6tsjivkr8kkhr...@4ax.com... > On Fri, 19 Jan 2001 12:16:07 -0500, Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> > wrote: > > >The "combat ends" strike resolves during the strike resolution phase. > >The "burn one blood to untap" is not a side effect of ending combat; > >it's an effect of playing the card. So when you play the card, during > >the Choose Strike phase, you burn a blood and untap. Then, during the > >Strike Resolution phase, combat ends. > > Or, maybe not (just saw LSJ's post further down the thread). > Nevermind. :P I guess this is still not straight for me. When do you burn a blood for majesty and when do you untap? [ quoted text not captured ]

"Ken shaw" <k...@compinnovations.com> wrote: > I guess this is still not straight for me. When do you burn a blood > for majesty and when do you untap? When the Majesty strike resolves. [ quoted text not captured ]

I'm a bit confused by the animosity some players feel towards 'upstreamers'. I imagine this topic has been covered in more detail before I arrived on the scene, but nevertheless I don't see where this is coming from. I regularly play a !Brujah deck. Mostly bruise and bleed but I also have enough rush cards to threaten my predator should he need it. I have been criticized by some players for doing exactly that. This makes no sense to me. There are two immediate strategies involved with playing and winning a game of Jyhad. The first is ousting your prey. The second and most important is NOT being ousted by your predator. If you are taking actions which accomplish the latter, how is such criticism justified? Not that I am playing JUST to win, but I would think that whatever I need to do to make my deck survive a game should be acceptable within reason. Now I understand that there is often a tactical disadvantage to weakening your predator to the point that he is not a threat to his own predator, but this only means that a balance must be struck. Similarly, if your predator has more to worry about from his own predator than he has to gain from attacking me, then that is an acceptable risk for me. As my focus stays on surviving and ultimately winning the game, why is occasionally going upstream considered bad playing? The only instance I can think of that would qualify as playing badly is when a deck is designed such that it has absolutely NO forward motion. In this case, surviving a game may be possible but winning a game something else entirely. Cheers, WES

On Fri, 19 Jan 2001 17:48:42 -0800, wes wrote: >I'm a bit confused by the animosity some players feel towards 'upstreamers'. >The only instance I can think of that would qualify as playing badly is when >a deck is designed such that it has absolutely NO forward motion. In this >case, surviving a game may be possible but winning a game something else >entirely. Tom has a theory that a rush deck should go upstream all game to score 2 VP. This seems rather dodgy to me - it assumes that your predators are uniformly soft and won't bite back. I'd have thought a rush deck should take advantage of its cross-table abilities to attack targets of opportunity in return for other favours. These might include pool or scoring opportunities - Succubus Club and Dramatic Upheaval would be useful components in such a strategy. Andrew

wes wrote: > > I'm a bit confused by the animosity some players feel towards 'upstreamers'. > > I imagine this topic has been covered in more detail before I arrived on the > scene, but nevertheless I don't see where this is coming from. > > I regularly play a !Brujah deck. Mostly bruise and bleed but I also have > enough rush cards to threaten my predator should he need it. I have been > criticized by some players for doing exactly that. This makes no sense to > me. > > There are two immediate strategies involved with playing and winning a game > of Jyhad. The first is ousting your prey. The second and most important is > NOT being ousted by your predator. If you are taking actions which > accomplish the latter, how is such criticism justified? Not that I am > playing JUST to win, but I would think that whatever I need to do to make my > deck survive a game should be acceptable within reason. That seems like a flawed way of looking at the game. I agree, not getting ousted is important but I'm confused why you would make it, "the most important". I actually don't think there's a way to reduce successful play down to prioritizing _either_ not getting ousted over trying to oust your prey _or_ the reverse. The truth is that you need to avoid being ousted long enough to give yourself a reasonable chance of scoring victory points. But if avoiding being ousted is all you try to do with little or no resources expended on offense, you'll inevitably fail in your defense as well. Your prey can take a great deal of advantage of not being attacked and use that to go around the circle and ultimately oust your predator and then, despite your attention to defense, should be able to oust you given the additional 12 or 18 blood he gained along with the victory points. So ultimately, the best thing you can do to make your deck survive - if you count surviving as being the last one out - is to pay a fair amount of attention to the forward direction. Also, notice you can survive and still lose or tie even if your prey goes 'round the whole circle but still loses to you. I think the reason people get annoyed at a perceived lack of offense is that it inevitably works to the advantage of the player's prey and often doesn't really work to the advantage of that player much at all. If that's what's happening, you should consider taking a look at what your overall strategy is actually gaining you. Do you win with it regularly? If so, well, don't let us tell you anything. But if not, then why cling to it so stubbornly? > As my focus stays on > surviving and ultimately winning the game, why is occasionally going > upstream considered bad playing? It isn't, if it's truly just "occasional". Especially with a combat deck, this might be necessary. And if you play combat and your predator is a stealth bleed or a vote deck that's successfully passing votes and you're helpless to intercept, then you may be forced to oust your predator just because it's all you can do with the board situation. It just depends on what you mean by "occasionally going upstream". Fred

On Fri, 19 Jan 2001 17:48:42 -0800, "wes" <gh...@mnsi.net> wrote: >I'm a bit confused by the animosity some players feel towards 'upstreamers'. > >I imagine this topic has been covered in more detail before I arrived on the >scene, but nevertheless I don't see where this is coming from. ...Mostly because it's been covered in more detail before you arrived on the scene, and the word has connotations that aren't immediately obvious. =) >I regularly play a !Brujah deck. Mostly bruise and bleed but I also have >enough rush cards to threaten my predator should he need it. I have been >criticized by some players for doing exactly that. This makes no sense to >me. The players criticizing you are most likely your predator, who would like you to just tap out so he can roll over you, or leave yourself untapped so that he could cycle some stealth WHILE rolling over you. A bruise-and-bleed deck needs to focus exactly that way; bleed forward, damaging your prey, and as defense, offs anything that takes an action it doesn't like. >Now I understand that there is often a tactical disadvantage to weakening >your predator to the point that he is not a threat to his own predator, but >this only means that a balance must be struck. Similarly, if your predator >has more to worry about from his own predator than he has to gain from >attacking me, then that is an acceptable risk for me. As my focus stays on >surviving and ultimately winning the game, why is occasionally going >upstream considered bad playing? It's not. However, CONSTANTLY going upstream, such as Andrew referred to in his message, is generally looked down on. Intercept decks that never move forward and spend their time doing nothing but blocking their predator are also filed in this category. It's perfectly possible to ignore your prey and kill backwards, taking advantage of the two-sided pressure available on your predator to get each ousted rapidly, and then killing all of the final player's vampires and ousting him to gain the final 2 VP, while theoretically 3 others players end up with 1 each and your original predator ends up screwed. It's not very likely to work, though; your initial prey will usually gain a VP quickly due to the lack of forward pressure on him, and then by the time you meet in the middle, it's possible that the additional resources he's gained by ousting multiple prey will be enough to overwhelm you in the endgame. More often than not, an "upstreamer" will end up with 0 VP and be ousted BEFORE his original prey gets to him. Worst-case scenario (fairly common, too); the original prey sweeps through the other 3 players, leaving a score of 3 to 2 ... a loss for the upstreamer, even though his plan worked almost perfectly. [ quoted text not captured ]

"Frederick Scott" <fre...@netcom.com> wrote in message news:3A68D9BB...@netcom.com... > > There are two immediate strategies involved with playing and winning a game > > of Jyhad. The first is ousting your prey. The second and most important is > > NOT being ousted by your predator. If you are taking actions which > > accomplish the latter, how is such criticism justified? Not that I am > > playing JUST to win, but I would think that whatever I need to do to make my > > deck survive a game should be acceptable within reason. > > That seems like a flawed way of looking at the game. I agree, not getting ousted > is important but I'm confused why you would make it, "the most important". Simply because if you are ousted... you are done. This does not take into consideration VPs, but being eliminated from the game does seriously hamper your ability to get VPs, barring any you have already accrued. Also, no matter how many VPs I get, if I am not the last person at the table, I get bored waiting for the game to be done. I'd rather play than watch. But that is just me and I realize you can win without being 'ast man standing'. >I actually don't think there's a way to reduce successful play down to prioritizing > _either_ not getting ousted over trying to oust your prey _or_ the reverse. The > truth is that you need to avoid being ousted long enough to give yourself a > reasonable chance of scoring victory points. But if avoiding being ousted is all > you try to do with little or no resources expended on offense, you'll inevitably > fail in your defense as well. Your prey can take a great deal of advantage of > not being attacked and use that to go around the circle and ultimately oust your > predator and then, despite your attention to defense, should be able to oust you > given the additional 12 or 18 blood he gained along with the victory points. Definitely. In my particular case (which I did not intend to be the focus) this is not much of an issue. I bleed forward, as often and as painfully as possible. The prey is generally more of a victim than the predator, but I reserve a few tricks to teach the predator to stay away. > So ultimately, the best thing you can do to make your deck survive - if you count > surviving as being the last one out - is to pay a fair amount of attention to the > forward direction. Also, notice you can survive and still lose or tie even if > your prey goes 'round the whole circle but still loses to you. > > I think the reason people get annoyed at a perceived lack of offense is that it > inevitably works to the advantage of the player's prey and often doesn't really work > to the advantage of that player much at all. If that's what's happening, you should > consider taking a look at what your overall strategy is actually gaining you. Do > you win with it regularly? If so, well, don't let us tell you anything. But if not, > then why cling to it so stubbornly? I do ok I suppose. I win a lot more than I lose, but the local group is mostly novices, and I have far more experience and well, honestly, far more cards. The fact that the same players have half-jokingly mentioned banning that particular deck is an indication of its success. > It isn't, if it's truly just "occasional". Especially with a combat deck, > this might be necessary. And if you play combat and your predator is a > stealth bleed or a vote deck that's successfully passing votes and you're > helpless to intercept, then you may be forced to oust your predator just > because it's all you can do with the board situation. It just depends on > what you mean by "occasionally going upstream". Regardless of what type of deck it is, I can be confident that its ultimate intention is to oust me. Therefore, anything I can do to prevent this from happening is usually appropriate. Thanks for the input. I'm interested in your responses. Cheers, WES

> ...Mostly because it's been covered in more detail before you arrived > on the scene, and the word has connotations that aren't immediately > obvious. =) Heh. No, I caught the joke. In fact, I like using the term when teaching the new players because it makes me giggle. > The players criticizing you are most likely your predator, who would > like you to just tap out so he can roll over you, or leave yourself > untapped so that he could cycle some stealth WHILE rolling over you. Agreed. This is the case in a current JOL game which should probably not be analyzed too much. I would hate to have people think I am scouring the newsgroups for any advantage. In any case, my predator is a Malk S+B and my prey is a very unfocused Cel/Pot deck. I do have some permanent intercept on the table, but only so much can stop a Malk. My prey seems to have been relying on Princely untaps and deflections with Euro-Brujah. After I burned his one and only prince, I figure he will be much easier to bleed. It is really a case of striking a balance and also what Andrew mentioned about making deals and alliances. It has been a very interesting match so far. In any case, when my prey is as combat-capable as I am and my predator is a stealth-bleed/vote deck, I think going upstream not only makes sense, but is imperative for survival in the game. Cheers, WES

"Andrew S. Davidson" wrote: > > I'd have thought a rush deck > should take advantage of its cross-table abilities to attack targets > of opportunity in return for other favours. These might include pool > or scoring opportunities - Succubus Club and Dramatic Upheaval would > be useful components in such a strategy. The problem is twofold; (1) each Rush deck has a limited number of "kills"; usually enough to oust about 2 people, give or take. Unless it's absolutely necessary, I don't like rushing across the table, since it's using up precious resources. Optimally, the other players will believe that I will punish treachery by killing one of their vampires, but that fear will keep me from having to do it. (2) Making deals as you suggest is always risky since you expend huge resources (3-7 cards) for a questionable return. It ends up being much better to attack your neighbors, and talk good smack. As Peter Bakija says, it's all about the table management. James -- James Hamblin ham...@math.wisc.edu "You seem to think you know it all Let me tell you something, you can't win." -- Pat McGee Band

On Fri, 19 Jan 2001 20:00:46 -0500, Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote: >It's not. However, CONSTANTLY going upstream, such as Andrew referred >to in his message, is generally looked down on. Intercept decks that >never move forward and spend their time doing nothing but blocking >their predator are also filed in this category. > CONSTANTLY doing anything deserves contempt as it reflects a lack of flexibility, observation and intelligent play. Just as intercept decks can block both predator and prey, upstream Rush decks can rush whichever player needs rushing at the moment. >It's perfectly possible to ignore your prey and kill backwards, taking >advantage of the two-sided pressure available on your predator to get >each ousted rapidly, and then killing all of the final player's >vampires and ousting him to gain the final 2 VP, while theoretically 3 >others players end up with 1 each and your original predator ends up >screwed. > >It's not very likely to work, though; Probably not but it seems interesting to try for a while. The big danger seems to be that your combat style must beat everyone else's. Just one other deck at the table which trumps you (even if only moderately well) and you're in trouble. During Thursday's descent into Madness, my Bru/iBru sat between a pair of Gangrel and weren't going anywhere in any direction. >your initial prey will usually >gain a VP quickly due to the lack of forward pressure on him This you must stop - he's only allowed the VP from your (latest) predator. This is a rush deck. It kills minions it doesn't like. If it can't kill its prey's minions at will, it's not going forward in any case. >, and then >by the time you meet in the middle, it's possible that the additional >resources he's gained by ousting multiple prey will be enough to >overwhelm you in the endgame. Political Flux would address the new predator gets bigger problem, if one could figure out how to get the vote passed. >More often than not, an "upstreamer" >will end up with 0 VP and be ousted BEFORE his original prey gets to >him. Worst-case scenario (fairly common, too); the original prey >sweeps through the other 3 players, leaving a score of 3 to 2 ... a >loss for the upstreamer, even though his plan worked almost perfectly. A loss but better than three other players. Tom

Tom Kassel wrote: > > CONSTANTLY doing anything deserves contempt as it reflects a lack of > flexibility, observation and intelligent play. Well, "CONSTANTLY" bleeding your prey for 5 at +2 stealth is probably a pretty good idea, and I can't see looking down on that... > Just as intercept > decks can block both predator and prey, upstream Rush decks can rush > whichever player needs rushing at the moment. But unless your deck is 300 cards and your predator and prey are weaklings, you're better off concentrating your efforts closer to home. Derek wrote: > >It's perfectly possible to ignore your prey and kill backwards, [snip] > > > >It's not very likely to work, though; > > Probably not but it seems interesting to try for a while. The big > danger seems to be that your combat style must beat everyone else's. That's certainly one issue. If _anyone_ at the table has significant combat defense, your plan is screwed. Also, as Peter Bakija has said in another post, by the time you get around to your prey you'll be out of cards, and they'll be big and fat from having a whole game with zero pressure on them. > Just one other deck at the table which trumps you (even if only > moderately well) and you're in trouble. During Thursday's descent > into Madness, my Bru/iBru sat between a pair of Gangrel and weren't > going anywhere in any direction. ...and that happens kind of frequently at tournaments. There will be a Ventrue deck, or a Ravnos deck, etc. which will just ruin your day. The best you can hope is that they're not your initial prey so that you can get at least one VP. > >your initial prey will usually > >gain a VP quickly due to the lack of forward pressure on him > > This you must stop - he's only allowed the VP from your (latest) > predator. This is a rush deck. It kills minions it doesn't like. If > it can't kill its prey's minions at will, it's not going forward in > any case. That doesn't sound like it goes along with your stated strategy: "ignore your prey and work upstream." If you're putting enough pressure on your prey to keep them from getting an easy oust, then why aren't you putting enough pressure on him to oust him? > >, and then > >by the time you meet in the middle, it's possible that the additional > >resources he's gained by ousting multiple prey will be enough to > >overwhelm you in the endgame. > > Political Flux would address the new predator gets bigger problem, if > one could figure out how to get the vote passed. Your plan gets sketchier and sketchier. What if they have crazy pool gain tricks which you can't stop with Political Flux? > >More often than not, an "upstreamer" > >will end up with 0 VP and be ousted BEFORE his original prey gets to > >him. Worst-case scenario (fairly common, too); the original prey > >sweeps through the other 3 players, leaving a score of 3 to 2 ... a > >loss for the upstreamer, even though his plan worked almost perfectly. > > A loss but better than three other players. I would say "worst case scenario" is expending all your effort working upstream and then being unable to oust your final predator. It seems to me that this would be extremely common, from what I know about tournament environments. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Sat, 20 Jan 2001 10:26:43 -0600, James Hamblin <ham...@math.wisc.edu> wrote: > >Tom Kassel wrote: >> >> CONSTANTLY doing anything deserves contempt as it reflects a lack of >> flexibility, observation and intelligent play. > >Well, "CONSTANTLY" bleeding your prey for 5 at +2 stealth is probably a >pretty good idea, and I can't see looking down on that... > Ah, so Malkavian Sneaky Bleed is the most honored and respected approach in the game. I've clearly misunderstood the early history of the game. Clearly successfully bleeding for 5 repeatedly is a fine thing. Decks built to do only that (and only at the +2 stealth you quote) are rather easily defeated by a variety of means though, so won't see much repeated success. >> Just as intercept >> decks can block both predator and prey, upstream Rush decks can rush >> whichever player needs rushing at the moment. > >But unless your deck is 300 cards and your predator and prey are >weaklings, you're better off concentrating your efforts closer to home. Not sure what you snipped here, but I thought my remark addressed the need to kill some of prey's minions to keep him from ousting anyone prematurely - in other words, I see the need and desirability of sometimes doing the conventional thing of attacking my prey. Pretty close to home. The only cross table move (apart from specifically troublesome minions/locations) would be against a too rapid grand-prey who was threatening to oust my grand-predator too soon. The much scorned freedom for my prey in this approach should prevent that happening too often. > >Derek wrote: >> >It's perfectly possible to ignore your prey and kill backwards, >[snip] >> > >> >It's not very likely to work, though; >> >> Probably not but it seems interesting to try for a while. The big >> danger seems to be that your combat style must beat everyone else's. > >That's certainly one issue. If _anyone_ at the table has significant >combat defense, your plan is screwed. No, if my prey has significant combat defence I'm screwed. This is true whichever way I act. I'm not ousting the others - they have their own predators for that function. I'm just helping soften them up while trying to ensure that they do me no harm. >Also, as Peter Bakija has said in >another post, by the time you get around to your prey you'll be out of >cards, and they'll be big and fat from having a whole game with zero >pressure on them. I don't expect to have to kill every minion on the table. That really would take a deck of 300 cards. The idea is kill enough predator minions that a succession of grand-predators achieve quick ousts. Zero pressure on the prey is no part of the theory by the way - that's just Andrew's mis-statement of the concept. Making do with 0 VP from the prey (until the last) is a more accurate statement. The idea is just to make a virtue out of the necessity of neutralizing the predator. Ideally you oust your prey at an early stage, but when faced with a predator capable of doing you serious harm, his minions have to be a prime target. As most predators ought to be capable of serious harm, there is an obvious recursion here. In some cirsumstances, you might manage to deal with it and win. > >> Just one other deck at the table which trumps you (even if only >> moderately well) and you're in trouble. During Thursday's descent >> into Madness, my Bru/iBru sat between a pair of Gangrel and weren't >> going anywhere in any direction. > >...and that happens kind of frequently at tournaments. There will be a >Ventrue deck, or a Ravnos deck, etc. which will just ruin your day. The >best you can hope is that they're not your initial prey so that you can >get at least one VP. > Preliminary tournament rounds offer many table splitting opportunities. My upstream concept is intended for one-off games - only the final in a tournament environment. >> >your initial prey will usually >> >gain a VP quickly due to the lack of forward pressure on him >> >> This you must stop - he's only allowed the VP from your (latest) >> predator. This is a rush deck. It kills minions it doesn't like. If >> it can't kill its prey's minions at will, it's not going forward in >> any case. > >That doesn't sound like it goes along with your stated strategy: "ignore >your prey and work upstream." That's because it wasn't my stated strategy, only Andrew's misunderstanding. >If you're putting enough pressure on your >prey to keep them from getting an easy oust, then why aren't you putting >enough pressure on him to oust him? > I don't object to ousting him of course, that would be rather silly. I'd just prefer to make the predator safe first. >> >, and then >> >by the time you meet in the middle, it's possible that the additional >> >resources he's gained by ousting multiple prey will be enough to >> >overwhelm you in the endgame. >> >> Political Flux would address the new predator gets bigger problem, if >> one could figure out how to get the vote passed. > >Your plan gets sketchier and sketchier. What if they have crazy pool >gain tricks which you can't stop with Political Flux? > I don't see the relevance of crazy pool gain tricks to upstreaming. Decks bloat in lots of different ways and everyone has to deal with that, regardless of their orientation. >> >More often than not, an "upstreamer" >> >will end up with 0 VP and be ousted BEFORE his original prey gets to >> >him. Worst-case scenario (fairly common, too); the original prey >> >sweeps through the other 3 players, leaving a score of 3 to 2 ... a >> >loss for the upstreamer, even though his plan worked almost perfectly. >> >> A loss but better than three other players. > >I would say "worst case scenario" is expending all your effort working >upstream and then being unable to oust your final predator. It seems to >me that this would be extremely common, from what I know about >tournament environments. I expect Derek actually meant best case scenario, as losing 2 to 3 is clearly better than the 0 VP he mentioned in the previous sentence. Tom

On Sat, 20 Jan 2001 19:04:39 GMT, thomas...@ntlworld.com (Tom Kassel) wrote: >On Sat, 20 Jan 2001 10:26:43 -0600, James Hamblin ><ham...@math.wisc.edu> wrote: >> >>Tom Kassel wrote: >>> >>> CONSTANTLY doing anything deserves contempt as it reflects a lack of >>> flexibility, observation and intelligent play. >> >>Well, "CONSTANTLY" bleeding your prey for 5 at +2 stealth is probably a >>pretty good idea, and I can't see looking down on that... >> >Ah, so Malkavian Sneaky Bleed is the most honored and respected >approach in the game. I've clearly misunderstood the early history of >the game. Oh, I wouldn't say that it's honored or respected. But at a certain level, it's also not looked down on with contempt either; sometimes, it happens to be exactly the deck you need in your current position. Or to deal with a bad case of intercept-wall decks in your group, since stealth generally beats intercept. And of course, if you can arrange for a deck to do that, it's certainly a good idea. =) >Clearly successfully bleeding for 5 repeatedly is a fine thing. Decks >built to do only that (and only at the +2 stealth you quote) are >rather easily defeated by a variety of means though, so won't see much >repeated success. Well, yes. =) There is THAT problem. Hence why it doesn't get looked down on with contempt; it, like all one-trick-ponies, are very fragile. >>But unless your deck is 300 cards and your predator and prey are >>weaklings, you're better off concentrating your efforts closer to home. > >Not sure what you snipped here, but I thought my remark addressed the >need to kill some of prey's minions to keep him from ousting anyone >prematurely - in other words, I see the need and desirability of >sometimes doing the conventional thing of attacking my prey. Pretty >close to home. The only cross table move (apart from specifically >troublesome minions/locations) would be against a too rapid grand-prey >who was threatening to oust my grand-predator too soon. The much >scorned freedom for my prey in this approach should prevent that >happening too often. The immediate problem comes in when you start counting up minions on the table. Assume everyone gets 3 or 4, at least, and then further assume that nobody has a weenie horde (which would really bung up your day). That's 12-16 minions, straight off; you CAN'T kill them all (again, without 300 cards). Since you can't kill them all, you will likely end up in a situation where you can't apply the pressure you need cross-table, and will watch as the table begins to collapse away from you. It's just generally a better idea to focus closer to yourself and gain VPs the "quicker" way; if nothing else, your cross-table buddies STAY your buddies since you're helping one gain a VP, and helping the other not get pressure from his predator. >>> Probably not but it seems interesting to try for a while. The big >>> danger seems to be that your combat style must beat everyone else's. >> >>That's certainly one issue. If _anyone_ at the table has significant >>combat defense, your plan is screwed. > >No, if my prey has significant combat defence I'm screwed. This is >true whichever way I act. I'm not ousting the others - they have >their own predators for that function. I'm just helping soften them >up while trying to ensure that they do me no harm. Well... if you rely on manipulating the table and killing one appropriate vamp to prevent anyone from ousting not in the "order" you've planned for them, someone who is packing Obedience or Fortitude will be a rude surprise for you. Especially if they saw you coming and saved up their defense JUST for that circumstance. >>Also, as Peter Bakija has said in >>another post, by the time you get around to your prey you'll be out of >>cards, and they'll be big and fat from having a whole game with zero >>pressure on them. > >I don't expect to have to kill every minion on the table. That really >would take a deck of 300 cards. The idea is kill enough predator >minions that a succession of grand-predators achieve quick ousts. That usually requires killing all but one of their minions (and sometimes requires killing ALL, if they have a solid defense). Assuming 12-16 minions total for everyone else on the table, that's going to be 7-10 kills just to GET to a 2-player game; and that's not counting what you might have to do to your prey to keep him from just taking no forward pressure and putting all his efforts towards pool gain and a powerful endgame setup. (After all, if everyone else gets 1 VP, *he* can win by letting you kill everyone else and then just being strong enough to oust you.) >Zero pressure on the prey is no part of the theory by the way - that's >just Andrew's mis-statement of the concept. Making do with 0 VP from >the prey (until the last) is a more accurate statement. The idea is >just to make a virtue out of the necessity of neutralizing the >predator. Ideally you oust your prey at an early stage, but when Exactly. I find that obliterating my predator's first real minion serves the purpose admirably; it slows down whatever strategy he's producing and forces him to turn backwards for defense rapidly. I specify "real" minion to emphasize that you want to pick the first minion that comes out that can ever be a threat to you. Dimple can Night Moves you like a maniac, sure, but you undoubtedly have better directions to turn your attention. Zoe can Pulse herself, but generally she's in decks as a bouncer or interceptor; and since you take tidy little 0-stealth actions and RELISH combat, you can safely assume you won't have to worry about her in any capacity except as bleed bounce. Jost Werner or Ozmo, though, need to die before they can take any actions at all. >>> Just one other deck at the table which trumps you (even if only >>> moderately well) and you're in trouble. During Thursday's descent >>> into Madness, my Bru/iBru sat between a pair of Gangrel and weren't >>> going anywhere in any direction. >> >>...and that happens kind of frequently at tournaments. There will be a >>Ventrue deck, or a Ravnos deck, etc. which will just ruin your day. The >>best you can hope is that they're not your initial prey so that you can >>get at least one VP. >> >Preliminary tournament rounds offer many table splitting >opportunities. My upstream concept is intended for one-off games - >only the final in a tournament environment. You'll take a LOT of collateral damage in the finals if you try that. KRCs will land on you, Hostile Takeovers and Temptations will be pointed at YOUR vampires, and the table will likely just band together, remove you, and then continue play. In general, decks which reach the finals have the ability to influence the table in some fashion; it's much easier to get mobbed by a hostile table there than in the prelim rounds. >>> >More often than not, an "upstreamer" >>> >will end up with 0 VP and be ousted BEFORE his original prey gets to >>> >him. Worst-case scenario (fairly common, too); the original prey >>> >sweeps through the other 3 players, leaving a score of 3 to 2 ... a >>> >loss for the upstreamer, even though his plan worked almost perfectly. >>> >>> A loss but better than three other players. >> >>I would say "worst case scenario" is expending all your effort working >>upstream and then being unable to oust your final predator. It seems to >>me that this would be extremely common, from what I know about >>tournament environments. > >I expect Derek actually meant best case scenario, as losing 2 to 3 is >clearly better than the 0 VP he mentioned in the previous sentence. That's about right; I have no idea why my fingers typed those words. It should read 'best REASONABLE case', too, since obviously the "best" scenario involves you with 2 VP and everyone else with 1. Worst case, actually, is running into a predator with piles of combat defense and exploding gloriously in a "puff" of Potence. Although I tend to prefer intercept-thuggy decks, the strategy ends up being largely the same; except I generally attempt to slaughter BOTH my prey and predator until I oust my first prey, and then immediately turn my attention upstream. This gives me an extra VP and 6 pool going into the final "head to head" confrontation; and allows me to have a chance of winning the game 3 to 2. One might ask why I don't just keep moving downstream. With an intercept deck, you have a finite amount of Eagle's Sight. Those generally get spent intercepting your prey's (D) actions, and you can also intercept all his UNDIRECTED actions, so you can prevent him from ever getting set up. You can't even stop your grandprey's UNDIRECTED actions without Eagle's Sight, so you have no way to stop him from making his deck at least START; although you can deliberately let your prey bleed him a few times, lie, and say "Gosh, sorry, no Eagle's Sight in hand. I'd love to help..." to make it a little easier. So basically, after you maim your prey, you're going to be dealing with a new deck in much better position. Since intercept decks' weakness is usually in their bleed offense, it might be pointless to attempt to bleed through him at the expense of your own defense; it's safer to wait around and kill him when every dead minion on his part is worth twice as much to you, and that initial VP ensures that you can -force- a win as long as you can kill your grandprey at the last. Of course, the BEST case scenario is that you oust your prey approximately the same time your grandpredator ousts your predator; and now you can intercept almost every action on the table, giving you pretty solid control and good chances for a 4-1 run. =) [ quoted text not captured ]

On Sat, 20 Jan 2001 20:10:45 -0500, Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote: >On Sat, 20 Jan 2001 19:04:39 GMT, thomas...@ntlworld.com (Tom >Kassel) wrote: >>> >>Preliminary tournament rounds offer many table splitting >>opportunities. My upstream concept is intended for one-off games - >>only the final in a tournament environment. > >You'll take a LOT of collateral damage in the finals if you try that. >KRCs will land on you, Hostile Takeovers and Temptations will be >pointed at YOUR vampires, and the table will likely just band >together, remove you, and then continue play. > Why should anyone behave this way? If the concept is as lame as you and other posters maintain, why should it receive anything but contempt while serious weapons are deployed against serious threats? Does the heresy of upstreaming really merit such random and unsportsmanlike play? In any case, how is the upstreamality supposed to come out of the closet? This is a rush deck which attacks some predator minions who look dangerous. The prey isn't highest priority though he gets some attention. This leads to a little extra pressure on grand-prey, while grand-predator gets a little extra help. If my predator gets ousted I don't shed any tears - is this what gives the game away? The only cross-table action I would expect to do is rushing grand-predator if he threatened an early oust? Why would anyone but him object to that? Surely many decks attempt to manipulate the table by delaying inconvenient ousts. Tom

On Sun, 21 Jan 2001 14:14:54 GMT, thomas...@ntlworld.com (Tom Kassel) wrote: >On Sat, 20 Jan 2001 20:10:45 -0500, Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> >wrote: > >>On Sat, 20 Jan 2001 19:04:39 GMT, thomas...@ntlworld.com (Tom >>Kassel) wrote: >>>> >>>Preliminary tournament rounds offer many table splitting >>>opportunities. My upstream concept is intended for one-off games - >>>only the final in a tournament environment. >> >>You'll take a LOT of collateral damage in the finals if you try that. >>KRCs will land on you, Hostile Takeovers and Temptations will be >>pointed at YOUR vampires, and the table will likely just band >>together, remove you, and then continue play. >> >Why should anyone behave this way? If the concept is as lame as you >and other posters maintain, why should it receive anything but >contempt while serious weapons are deployed against serious threats? >Does the heresy of upstreaming really merit such random and >unsportsmanlike play? Your upstream concept, if I recall correctly, includes Rushing cross-table as necessary to "weaken" other players and ensure that the VPs fall in the correct order. And yet you ask why people are likely to start dropping your vampires and pool out of the picture in self-defense? (and please, keep the "unsportsmanlike" in the other thread; you know PERFECTLY well that it's not relevant here and you're just attempting to obfuscate the issue.) I know that if I want my deck to win, I can't really afford someone to come cross-table and kill my most valuable minion just because he thinks I'm getting too strong. If someone is capable of doing that and inclined to do so, it behooves me to make sure that person is GONE, so that I can sweep up the rest of the VPs on the table without interference. After you Rush cross-table once, it won't be difficult to convince the rest of the table that you're likely to do so again; so you'll have 4 players against you, whereas if you confine yourself to your prey/predator, you'll only have 2. >In any case, how is the upstreamality supposed to come out of the >closet? This is a rush deck which attacks some predator minions who >look dangerous. The prey isn't highest priority though he gets some >attention. This leads to a little extra pressure on grand-prey, while >grand-predator gets a little extra help. If my predator gets ousted I >don't shed any tears - is this what gives the game away? You're missing the point. As soon as it becomes obvious that your prey is not your highest priority, your deck will be marked as an upstreamer. You will not likely get hassled SPECIFICALLY for that, since most people will let well enough alone as long as they have some benefit, but you might be surprised. Your grand-prey may well decide "OK, if you aren't going to pressure my predator, then I'll just see if I can oust you so as to get someone back there who WILL." And this is, in fact, to his benefit. About the only two people who will leave you alone will be your prey and your grand-predator... and if you're actually Rushing your prey some, then he'll be against you too. And you've said yourself that you might Rush your grand-predator to slow HIM down... so much for HIS support. >The only cross-table action I would expect to do is rushing >grand-predator if he threatened an early oust? Why would anyone but >him object to that? Surely many decks attempt to manipulate the table >by delaying inconvenient ousts. Many decks DO attempt to delay inconvenient ousts. Very few of them do it by coming across and killing minions; the reason being that if you have to kill someone cross-table, you must do it on YOUR turn, which means that you may have to look at someone with 8 pool and say "Uh oh, you're going to be ousted by the Toreador bleed machine next turn"... and go kill a Toreador. It's not difficult for the victim to sway the table into thinking of you as a loose cannon at that point, since only you and the Toreador bleed deck knew that the oust was coming soon; and even YOU are only guessing since you don't know his hand. Relying on waiting around until someone is obviously in dire straits is not a good idea when you don't have a reactive deck. Eagle's Sight, for example, can be saved until the actual bleed that would oust someone hits the table, and THEN used. But a Rush deck has no such luxury, and this puts a big target on its forehead when it tries to manipulate tables, because it's using a sledgehammer instead of just a wedge. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <t26m6t0caep0j461k...@4ax.com>, Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote: > On Sun, 21 Jan 2001 14:14:54 GMT, thomas...@ntlworld.com (Tom > Kassel) wrote: > > >On Sat, 20 Jan 2001 20:10:45 -0500, Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> > >wrote: > > > >>On Sat, 20 Jan 2001 19:04:39 GMT, thomas...@ntlworld.com (Tom > >>Kassel) wrote: > >>>> > >>>Preliminary tournament rounds offer many table splitting > >>>opportunities. My upstream concept is intended for one-off games - > >>>only the final in a tournament environment. > >> > >>You'll take a LOT of collateral damage in the finals if you try that. > >>KRCs will land on you, Hostile Takeovers and Temptations will be > >>pointed at YOUR vampires, and the table will likely just band > >>together, remove you, and then continue play. > >> > >Why should anyone behave this way? If the concept is as lame as you > >and other posters maintain, why should it receive anything but > >contempt while serious weapons are deployed against serious threats? > >Does the heresy of upstreaming really merit such random and > >unsportsmanlike play? > > Your upstream concept, if I recall correctly, includes Rushing > cross-table as necessary to "weaken" other players and ensure that the > VPs fall in the correct order. If I should rush a grand-prey's minion, I expect him to be pissed off. This is rather different from the whole table deciding to band together to remove me and continue, as in the scenario you outlined. I expect players to act in their self-interest. Cooperating to remove a particular player could only be in everyone's interest of that player was the most serious threat on the table. As you and others have dismissed the approach I suggest as a feeble threat, this cooperation seems misconceived. The pissed-off grand-prey may have his own greivance but why should anyone support him? Why in fact should he pursue vengeance rather than a more direct attempt to gain VP? > And yet you ask why people are likely > to start dropping your vampires and pool out of the picture in > self-defense? (and please, keep the "unsportsmanlike" in the other > thread; you know PERFECTLY well that it's not relevant here and you're > just attempting to obfuscate the issue.) > Not at all, just trying to develop a potent argument. > I know that if I want my deck to win, I can't really afford someone to > come cross-table and kill my most valuable minion just because he > thinks I'm getting too strong. If someone is capable of doing that > and inclined to do so, it behooves me to make sure that person is > GONE, so that I can sweep up the rest of the VPs on the table without > interference. And you expect the rest of the table to cooperate so that they can be swept up by you? > After you Rush cross-table once, it won't be difficult > to convince the rest of the table that you're likely to do so again; > so you'll have 4 players against you, whereas if you confine yourself > to your prey/predator, you'll only have 2. > This seems to come down to the player's relative agitation skills as well as the relative ability of their decks to act in the appropriate ways. > >In any case, how is the upstreamality supposed to come out of the > >closet? This is a rush deck which attacks some predator minions who > >look dangerous. The prey isn't highest priority though he gets some > >attention. This leads to a little extra pressure on grand-prey, while > >grand-predator gets a little extra help. If my predator gets ousted I > >don't shed any tears - is this what gives the game away? > > You're missing the point. As soon as it becomes obvious that your > prey is not your highest priority, your deck will be marked as an > upstreamer. Loads of decks put little immediate pressure on their prey - intercept walls, huge bloat machines, etc. > You will not likely get hassled SPECIFICALLY for that, > since most people will let well enough alone as long as they have some > benefit, but you might be surprised. Your grand-prey may well decide > "OK, if you aren't going to pressure my predator, then I'll just see > if I can oust you so as to get someone back there who WILL." And this > is, in fact, to his benefit. Sure he benefits but can he afford the time to do anything serious? If he can hurt me, why should be do so in preference to his prey or the predator that I'm giving such an easy ride to? In any case, if things are going ok for me, my predator is badly beat up and might be difficult to revive. His best bet might be hitting his grand-prey( my predator) to replace him quickly with a stronger position as my new predator. Which is fine with me of course. > About the only two people who will leave > you alone will be your prey and your grand-predator... and if you're > actually Rushing your prey some, then he'll be against you too. And > you've said yourself that you might Rush your grand-predator to slow > HIM down... so much for HIS support. > That was a rather obvious mis-type, clearly I leave my grand-predator alone. > >The only cross-table action I would expect to do is rushing > >grand-predator if he threatened an early oust? Why would anyone but > >him object to that? Surely many decks attempt to manipulate the table > >by delaying inconvenient ousts. > > Many decks DO attempt to delay inconvenient ousts. Very few of them > do it by coming across and killing minions; The deck can only do what it can do. The strategy is based on a pure rush deck which has no other means to act. The degree of focus clearly leaves many gaps (blocking being the huge one, bleeding heavily being another) but it's meant to create a combat superiority to compensate. > the reason being that if > you have to kill someone cross-table, you must do it on YOUR turn, > which means that you may have to look at someone with 8 pool and say > "Uh oh, you're going to be ousted by the Toreador bleed machine next > turn"... and go kill a Toreador. It's not difficult for the victim to > sway the table into thinking of you as a loose cannon at that point, That'll come down to agitation skills again. I don't see why my prey or grand-predator should shed many tears over the fate of a grand-prey minion. > since only you and the Toreador bleed deck knew that the oust was > coming soon; and even YOU are only guessing since you don't know his > hand. > > Relying on waiting around until someone is obviously in dire straits > is not a good idea when you don't have a reactive deck. But I'm not waiting around. I'm hitting my predator hard, making life easier for my grand-predator. I'm not hitting my prey too hard immediately (not ignoring though), making life a little harder for my grand-prey. This may well eliminate the need to act directly against my grand-prey at all. Tom [ quoted text not captured ]

On Mon, 22 Jan 2001 11:36:18 GMT, Tom Kassel <tka...@my-deja.com> wrote: >In article <t26m6t0caep0j461k...@4ax.com>, > Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote: >> >>You'll take a LOT of collateral damage in the finals if you try >that. >> >>KRCs will land on you, Hostile Takeovers and Temptations will be >> >>pointed at YOUR vampires, and the table will likely just band >> >>together, remove you, and then continue play. >> >> >> >Why should anyone behave this way? If the concept is as lame as you >> >and other posters maintain, why should it receive anything but >> >contempt while serious weapons are deployed against serious threats? >> >Does the heresy of upstreaming really merit such random and >> >unsportsmanlike play? >> >> Your upstream concept, if I recall correctly, includes Rushing >> cross-table as necessary to "weaken" other players and ensure that the >> VPs fall in the correct order. > >If I should rush a grand-prey's minion, I expect him to be pissed off. >This is rather different from the whole table deciding to band together >to remove me and continue, as in the scenario you outlined. I expect If you consistently keep Rushing cross-table, eventually everyone will be pissed off and the table may decide that it will be better off without a Rush deck. If there are enough voters on the table, you may discover yourself as the "dumping ground" for the extra point or two from KRCs. If there are enough bleeders on the table, people might Deflect over to YOU, instead of to their prey. Banding together to remove you isn't necessarily a case of "active" actions. >players to act in their self-interest. Cooperating to remove a >particular player could only be in everyone's interest of that player >was the most serious threat on the table. As you and others have >dismissed the approach I suggest as a feeble threat, this cooperation >seems misconceived. The pissed-off grand-prey may have his own >greivance but why should anyone support him? Why in fact should he >pursue vengeance rather than a more direct attempt to gain VP? You're looking at it from two different viewpoints simultaneously and attempting to make sense out of it. Can't be done, and you can't functionally apply the arguments from one viewpoint to the other. In-game (the first), you are killing your predator, wounding your prey, and occasionally wounding one of the other two Methuselahs in order that they don't get TOO strong in your eyes. This makes you a threat to everyone on the table, as very few decks are willing or capable of shrugging off the loss of a "good" minion. Why go after you? Because you obviously intend to either totally prevent them from gaining a VP, or only permit it at your whim; neither of which is an acceptable outcome. With your deck gone, nobody will be coming over and removing their minions as soon as they get close to ousting someone. A Rush deck which obliterates one prey after another is likely to be ignored by people across the table, because it is not a threat to them until it is their predator or prey. This is why going forward is safer and more effective. (Not to mention that you only have to worry about 2 people having things like Obedience, instead of all 4.) Now, over multiple games and standing "outside" (the second), we consider your strategy to be largely ineffective (although not quite "feeble") BECAUSE of things like this. It doesn't intend to gain 3 VP, meaning that it's vulnerable to someone ELSE gaining 3 VP first. It can get overwhelmed in the endgame. It has a high likelihood of turning the table against it. And it's a Rush deck, meaning that someone having very-effective combat defense such as lots of Obedience will put it out of the picture entirely. This means that it's safe to assume, both by induction and by practice, that for the most part, you're just not going to get anywhere most of the time when trying to do this. Too many factors are lined up against you. >> I know that if I want my deck to win, I can't really afford someone to >> come cross-table and kill my most valuable minion just because he >> thinks I'm getting too strong. If someone is capable of doing that >> and inclined to do so, it behooves me to make sure that person is >> GONE, so that I can sweep up the rest of the VPs on the table without >> interference. > >And you expect the rest of the table to cooperate so that they can be >swept up by you? No, I expect the rest of the table to cooperate so that they can sweep up the rest -themselves-. And then I expect to surprise them. =) >> After you Rush cross-table once, it won't be difficult >> to convince the rest of the table that you're likely to do so again; >> so you'll have 4 players against you, whereas if you confine yourself >> to your prey/predator, you'll only have 2. >> >This seems to come down to the player's relative agitation skills as >well as the relative ability of their decks to act in the appropriate >ways. Decks which make the finals almost ALWAYS have a means of affecting the table. If not, they tend to be ridiculously fast bleeders, and then you are likely to have your own set of problems with controlling the table; especially since they probably won't sit near you (and WILL have more VPs than you coming in.) >> You're missing the point. As soon as it becomes obvious that your >> prey is not your highest priority, your deck will be marked as an >> upstreamer. > >Loads of decks put little immediate pressure on their prey - intercept >walls, huge bloat machines, etc. intercept decks often get tagged as "upstreamer" as well. Bloat machines usually have to field the question "Hey, are you going to DO anything over there?" after 3-4 turns. >> You will not likely get hassled SPECIFICALLY for that, >> since most people will let well enough alone as long as they have some >> benefit, but you might be surprised. Your grand-prey may well decide >> "OK, if you aren't going to pressure my predator, then I'll just see >> if I can oust you so as to get someone back there who WILL." And this >> is, in fact, to his benefit. > >Sure he benefits but can he afford the time to do anything serious? If Had it happen to me from a vote deck; it started calling its KRCs 3 to me, and 1 to its prey, because I wasn't able to immediately put pressure on its predator (i was full-intercept, he had light intercept, and I needed some retainers out to be effective in combat). The question might be, can he afford NOT to? >he can hurt me, why should be do so in preference to his prey or the >predator that I'm giving such an easy ride to? In any case, if things Because he can easily get table support for it? Your predator and prey will both jump in on his side, and your grandpredator may well decide that he's gotten enough benefit from you and not want you to be very strong at all when he becomes your predator. >are going ok for me, my predator is badly beat up and might be >difficult to revive. His best bet might be hitting his grand-prey( my >predator) to replace him quickly with a stronger position as my new >predator. Which is fine with me of course. And the fact that it's fine with you is exactly why he won't do it. Remember, he wants YOU to pressure your prey. If you have no predator, you at least have the capability of doing so. >> About the only two people who will leave >> you alone will be your prey and your grand-predator... and if you're >> actually Rushing your prey some, then he'll be against you too. And >> you've said yourself that you might Rush your grand-predator to slow >> HIM down... so much for HIS support. >> >That was a rather obvious mis-type, clearly I leave my grand-predator >alone. Is it all that clear? You want your grand-predator to oust, but do you want him to blow through at full steam and then put a huge dent in you before you can get rid of some of his vampires? If I were your grand-predator, I would certainly go very slowly until I was able to oust my prey with my first action, and then hit you HARD with my next three in hopes of putting you on the ropes right away. You would, of course, retaliate with multiple Rushes, but I would have hopefully already crippled you enough so that my remaining minions could oust. >> Many decks DO attempt to delay inconvenient ousts. Very few of them >> do it by coming across and killing minions; > >The deck can only do what it can do. The strategy is based on a pure >rush deck which has no other means to act. The degree of focus clearly >leaves many gaps (blocking being the huge one, bleeding heavily being >another) but it's meant to create a combat superiority to compensate. Correct, but it doesn't change the fact that your means of delaying inconvenient ousts is of the "big hammer" variety. When you "fix" something with a Rush deck, you produce a very drastic effect. This can have drastic countereffects. >> the reason being that if >> you have to kill someone cross-table, you must do it on YOUR turn, >> which means that you may have to look at someone with 8 pool and say >> "Uh oh, you're going to be ousted by the Toreador bleed machine next >> turn"... and go kill a Toreador. It's not difficult for the victim to >> sway the table into thinking of you as a loose cannon at that point, > >That'll come down to agitation skills again. I don't see why my prey >or grand-predator should shed many tears over the fate of a grand-prey >minion. ...not sure why you should even be rushing your grandprey here, since all this does is permit an easier VP for your prey, who you're not putting much pressure on as it stands. >> Relying on waiting around until someone is obviously in dire straits >> is not a good idea when you don't have a reactive deck. > >But I'm not waiting around. I'm hitting my predator hard, making life >easier for my grand-predator. I'm not hitting my prey too hard >immediately (not ignoring though), making life a little harder for my >grand-prey. This may well eliminate the need to act directly against >my grand-prey at all. This makes a little more sense. But if you notice, you're not attacking your grandprey OR grandpredator now either, which was my point all along; you don't WANT to be hitting at the whole table, you just want to be beating the hell out of your predator and prey. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <fkno6tgtfkslq3pi7...@4ax.com>, [ quoted text not captured ] I don't want to rush cross-table consistently or even at all. As I outlined the natural dynamics below it may not be necessary at all. Rather it's something it seems that I should be prepared to do. It seems to follow from the safety first approach of neutralizing predator before acting against prey. When carried to it's logical conclusion (and attended by grand-predators moving quickly rather than hanging back), a procession of new predators is threatened. If killing them keeps me so busy that I can't kill my prey quickly, it seems important to prevent any of them gaining an extra VP along the way. This seems something that I can do more efficiently than killing my prey - a single cross table action might suffice where multiple one point bleed actions would be required. I'm prepared to entertain the possibility that this action would so enrage the table as to be counter-productive. One of the points of continuing this discussion is to gain some insight into the ways that various actions might be construed. I'm rather bemused that the odd cross table rush should be singled out for massive retaliation where whole hosts of other methods of table manipulation might not be. OK, we haven't been discussing these other methods but your assurance of the wrath I would receive suggests that they are a lower priority. [ quoted text not captured ] My experience is that a rush deck finds it difficult to obliterate its prey quickly enough to gain enough VP before being stuffed by its predator - unless sufficient attention is paid to neutralizing the predator. Clearly a bruise and bleed approach increases speed, but I'm trying to see what mileage I can get from a pure rush deck at the moment (for the purposes of this discussion anyway). > Now, over multiple games and standing "outside" (the second), we > consider your strategy to be largely ineffective (although not quite > "feeble") BECAUSE of things like this. It doesn't intend to gain 3 > VP, meaning that it's vulnerable to someone ELSE gaining 3 VP first. Maybe the whole thing is misconceived. I have now spend far more time discussing the approach than trying to put it into practice (Last week's Madness game was actually heading in the correct direction when called for time. My predator had just gone and I'm pretty sure I could have neutralized the Crazy Malk - we each had four minions in play and I had plenty of pool, thanks to his earlier pranks and games. Andrew's Gangrel had shown some nastiness but it wasn't clear how concentrated it was. That could well be the last Finchley opportunity as I'm now a firmly VEKN rules only player.) Perhaps it's better to forget the cross table stuff altogether and just be sure to oust my prey at some point before the last two remain. Assuming I can win when it comes down to two players, that gives me a shot at winning 3-2. Any happier with that approach? [ quoted text not captured ] That seems ok. I only want my predator neutralized - dead is just an unfortunate consequence. I can use the extra time productively and non- controversially in beating up my prey. I can count my predator's pool just as well as my grand-pred can and, although I can't see into his hand, I should have an approximate idea of when he could go out in a turn. When he's obviously coming at me in a moment, it seems a pre- emptive strike might blunt him a bit. So ok, maybe I do go cross-table at him a bit, but not manipulating his VP so much as protecting myself. [ quoted text not captured ] That was to prevent him getting more than his ration of one VP. Perhaps a crap idea, perhaps not. > >> Relying on waiting around until someone is obviously in dire straits > >> is not a good idea when you don't have a reactive deck. > > > >But I'm not waiting around. I'm hitting my predator hard, making life > >easier for my grand-predator. I'm not hitting my prey too hard > >immediately (not ignoring though), making life a little harder for my > >grand-prey. This may well eliminate the need to act directly against > >my grand-prey at all. > > This makes a little more sense. But if you notice, you're not > attacking your grandprey OR grandpredator now either, which was my > point all along; you don't WANT to be hitting at the whole table, you > just want to be beating the hell out of your predator and prey. > I agree and always have done. I don't WANT to rush cross table but can forsee a few eventualities where it might be advisable. Just as the man who calls a KRC might not want to target anyone but his prey and grand-prey but will sometimes find it advisable - just as the player of ToGP, etc, etc. [ quoted text not captured ]

>>> 2) A Methuselah with one pool plays Hostile Takeover on an opponent's >>> vampire, removing himself from the game. Does the Hostile Takeover >>> auction still take place? >> >> I'd say "no", mostly because anyone who deliberately ousts himself in >> this fashion to attempt to screw someone else needs to be beaten with >> a stick. > > Yes. The effects of the card take place when the card is played. > For instance, the same Methuselah could oust himself with a Misdirection > to tap one of his prey's vampires - the vampire would be tapped. > > It would be hard to find a case where this was in the Methuselah's > interest, however, so a case for unsportsmanlike conduct could > probably be made. Couldn't it be in the interests of keeping one Methuselah from sweeping a table, especially if you and she are close in VP's, and you want to make sure you get into the finals? Isn't that part of the tournament "metagame?" Or is does that fall under "kingmaking?" I mean, collaborating with another player is pushing it, but playing your own cards to see how the VP's fall seem fair. What if you're in the finals, and already have 2 VPs? And you want to go out trying to make sure the guy on top can't get the other 3? -- Pat Ricochet Soul Jar'rn Fool of Atlanta

Pat Ricochet <sp...@socrates.gatech.edu> wrote: > > It would be hard to find a case where this was in the Methuselah's > > interest, however, so a case for unsportsmanlike conduct could > > probably be made. > > Couldn't it be in the interests of keeping one Methuselah from > sweeping a table, especially if you and she are close in VP's, and you > want to make sure you get into the finals? Isn't that part of the > tournament "metagame?" > Or is does that fall under "kingmaking?" I mean, collaborating with > another player is pushing it, but playing your own cards to see how > the VP's fall seem fair. > What if you're in the finals, and already have 2 VPs? And you > want to go out trying to make sure the guy on top can't get the other > 3? This has been covered already. I didn't say that such cases were impossible to find, only that they are hard to find. -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) VTES 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 ]

On Mon, 22 Jan 2001 19:49:17 GMT, Tom Kassel <tka...@my-deja.com> wrote: (mostly snipped because of below, but this portion intrigues me) >I'm prepared to entertain the possibility that this action would so >enrage the table as to be counter-productive. One of the points of >continuing this discussion is to gain some insight into the ways that >various actions might be construed. I'm rather bemused that the odd >cross table rush should be singled out for massive retaliation where >whole hosts of other methods of table manipulation might not be. OK, >we haven't been discussing these other methods but your assurance of >the wrath I would receive suggests that they are a lower priority. Well... let's go through the other methods then, just for giggles, see if we can take them apart into pieces and classify them. Are you thinking of table manipulation, or just cross-table jabs and such? Manipulation is difficult to categorise easily. But the actions you can TAKE cross-table are a lot easier to go through. >> This makes a little more sense. But if you notice, you're not >> attacking your grandprey OR grandpredator now either, which was my >> point all along; you don't WANT to be hitting at the whole table, you >> just want to be beating the hell out of your predator and prey. >> >I agree and always have done. I don't WANT to rush cross table but can >forsee a few eventualities where it might be advisable. Just as the >man who calls a KRC might not want to target anyone but his prey and >grand-prey but will sometimes find it advisable - just as the player of >ToGP, etc, etc. Just for a side note, I began this whole thread under the impression that you were advocating a strategy that went "kill predator, kill next predator, kill next predator, kill last opponent and gain 2 VP at end." And I've been working off of that impression. =) Normally, if I play a pure Rush deck, I kill anything threatening-looking of my predator's, and then nuke forward as fast as I can, bleeding for 1 repeatedly even with Rush actions in hand if necessary, and trusting to my weak predator and Blood Dolls to recoup the majority of any small pool loss I might incur by leaving my predator with vampires. Once I gain 6 pool, if I have the same predator and all 4-5 of my vamps, I don't influence out anyone else; I use the pool as a cushion to permit me to continue focussing forward, where hopefully I can get my NEXT prey somewhat more easily. After the next 6 pool, if I have cards left, I've usually lost one predator somewhere along the way and it's down to a 1 on 1, where I have 2VP, he has 1VP, and I have the advantage because every dead minion counts double now, and if I get all his minions dead at the same time, I win. The idea of getting 5-0 with a Rush deck is neat, but really relies on sitting in front of an upstreamer/slow-moving/bloat predator so you don't ever have to waste cards or time backwards. I figure 4-1 is the reasonable best-case for a forward runner. For an upstream version, I could see killing your first predator and prey completely, gaining 1 VP forward, and then working backwards exclusively until you got down to the 1 on 1, where you should have better chances of winning due both to your extra VP and pool, and to the lack of anyone else having them. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <riap6t4cq3jd7a48d...@4ax.com>, [ quoted text not captured ] I didn't deliberately set out to mislead. That scenario was certainly in my mind and I was(am) interested in exploring the consequences. It's just that it was never a game plan cast in concrete before seeing anything of the opposing decks/players on the table. It was just a fall-back option for the case when the predator is all dom/DOM or AUS (or some other horrible set of capabilities) and I can't feel safe if any of them live. Your views on the possible table reaction have been something interesting to take into account. Perhaps a little more subtlety might slip in the odd cross table rush in the guise of over-prickly reaction to the odd point of KRC or some such. > Normally, if I play a pure Rush deck, I kill anything > threatening-looking of my predator's, and then nuke forward as fast as > I can, bleeding for 1 repeatedly even with Rush actions in hand if > necessary, and trusting to my weak predator and Blood Dolls to recoup > the majority of any small pool loss I might incur by leaving my > predator with vampires. Once I gain 6 pool, if I have the same > predator and all 4-5 of my vamps, I don't influence out anyone else; I > use the pool as a cushion to permit me to continue focussing forward, > where hopefully I can get my NEXT prey somewhat more easily. After > the next 6 pool, if I have cards left, I've usually lost one predator > somewhere along the way and it's down to a 1 on 1, where I have 2VP, > he has 1VP, and I have the advantage because every dead minion counts > double now, and if I get all his minions dead at the same time, I win. > > The idea of getting 5-0 with a Rush deck is neat, but really relies on > sitting in front of an upstreamer/slow-moving/bloat predator so you > don't ever have to waste cards or time backwards. I figure 4-1 is the > reasonable best-case for a forward runner. > > For an upstream version, I could see killing your first predator and > prey completely, gaining 1 VP forward, and then working backwards > exclusively until you got down to the 1 on 1, where you should have > better chances of winning due both to your extra VP and pool, and to > the lack of anyone else having them. I don't see any reason to build a deck any differently for these two approaches. Certainly it wouldn't be desirable to close off the option of either path. Are there any cards that don't work in either direction? Obviously Fame, but given that both methods aim to take down at least one prey, that seems fine. [ quoted text not captured ]

> Pat Ricochet <sp...@socrates.gatech.edu> wrote: >>> It would be hard to find a case where this was in the Methuselah's >>> interest, however, so a case for unsportsmanlike conduct could >>> probably be made. >> >> Couldn't it be in the interests of keeping one Methuselah from >> sweeping a table, especially if you and she are close in VP's, and you >> want to make sure you get into the finals? Isn't that part of the >> tournament "metagame?" >> Or is does that fall under "kingmaking?" I mean, collaborating with >> another player is pushing it, but playing your own cards to see how >> the VP's fall seem fair. >> What if you're in the finals, and already have 2 VPs? And you >> want to go out trying to make sure the guy on top can't get the other >> 3? > > This has been covered already. > I didn't say that such cases were impossible to find, only that > they are hard to find. My fault for a weekend of newsgroup piling up and posting on the 25th or so message...didn't realize how SO many more I had left to go, and I was, in fact, talking about a beaten, dead, buried, Compelled, beaten again and then burned horse. My Netiquitte blunder; sorry. [ quoted text not captured ]