Assamite Clan Newsletter, January 2006

Assamite Clan Newsletter January, 2006 By Tom Duncan I hope the New Year finds you all healthy, wealthy, and wise. I'll start off this month's offering with a look at some of the fringe (that is, not specifically Assamite or Quietus, but perhaps relevant) cards for Assamites from Legacies of Blood. Following that you will find Part 2 of my essay, "Managing Assamite Combat," and a decklist that hopefully demonstrates some of the points I've discussed. Legacies of Blood Honorable Mentions: Kamiri wa Itherero Clan: Akunanse (group 4) Capacity: 10 Disciplines: ABO ANI FOR OBF pot qui Laibon: Younger vampires must burn 1 blood to attempt to block Kamiri. If an ally blocks Kamiri and combat occurs, burn the ally at the end of the action. Here's another option for that OBF/QUI/ANI crypt, though a pricey one. Kamiri's FOR also makes him(?) an option for inclusion in a crypt with Antara, Joe Hill, or Janni. His special combines nicely with Dawn and Day Operation, which will make blocking very unpleasant for vampires and a 'last hurrah' for Allies. Ubende Clan: Ishtarri (group 4) Capacity: 7 Disciplines: CEL PRE for obf qui Laibon magaji. Ubende joins Jack Dawson and Joaquin Murietta in the non-Assamite obf/cel/qui club. His PRE and [for] make him an excellent co-conspirator for Joe Hill, Antara, Janni, and Vardar. He can also assist Olugbenga in Laibon politics with his title. A quality vampire at a fair price, I'd pick him over any given 7-cap group 1 Prince. Aversion Type: Reaction Requires: Valeren/Celerity Cost: 1 blood [cel] Reduce a bleed against you by 1. [val] Burn X pool to reduce a bleed against you by 2X+1. [VAL] Only usable when a minion is bleeding you for 1 or more. Put this card on the acting minion. You still control this card. This minion gets -1 bleed when bleeding you. Any minion may burn this card as a +1 stealth (D) action. This is a very nice card for the !Salubri, and the outferior provides a large percentage of Assamites with access to bleed reduction. While not nearly as efficient as having AUS, it might be more useful than grafting AUS on with skill cards when using group 3 and 4 Assamites (only Antara has it, and at inferior). Confusion of the Eye [obf] is free, and, despite its capacity limitation, is probably the better card for most Assamites in Group 3-4. Still, having a universally applicable bleed reducer available to the majority of the clan is an improvement over Banner of Neutrality, balanced nicely with a cost of 1 blood, thus assuring that neither of them see much play in our decks. Thankfully, there are no Assamites with [val], so I won't have to re-visit high school algebra to try to figure out the inferior application of this card. Death of the Drum Combat 1 blood Only usable at long range. [cel] strike: 1R damage [mel] Strike: 2R damage, only preventable by cards that require Fortitude or Visceratika. [MEL] As [mel] above, and the damage is aggravated. While this card gives Daughters of Cacophony a much-needed combat boost, I don't think it does anything for the Assamites that Projectile doesn't do better. With access to Quietus and Taste of Death, this card just isn't for us. Note that the [MEL] application of this card is actually better than Taste of Death. I may have to declare shenanigans...* Healing Touch Type: Action Requires: Obeah/Celerity Cost: 1 blood +1 stealth action. [cel] Untap a younger vampire you control. [obe] Add up to 2 life to an ally, not to exceed his or her starting amount. [OBE] Rescue a vampire from torpor, and that vampire gains 1 blood from the blood bank. Reminiscent of Precognizant Mobility, and probably just as useful. I would like to find a way to use this card to improve the usefulness of Fida'i, but I can't. Leapfrog Type: Combat Requires: Spiritus/Obfuscate [obf] Maneuver, only usable to go to long range. [spi] Maneuver. [SPI] Strike: combat ends. Assamites commonly fight their battles at long range, and if that is your plan, here is the card for you! Since Selective Silence and Behind You! are both only good for the first round of combat, Leapfrog can be useful with the "new look" Assamites ("Look, mom, no Celerity!") if you intend to try press combat. Combine with a Trap to help ensure you get to round two and beyond. Squirrel Balance Type: Action Modifier Requires: Spiritus/Celerity Cost: 1 blood [cel] Only usable when the action is announced. If blocked, range in the first round of the resulting combat is automatically set to long. [spi] Minions without flight or Spiritus get -1 intercept when attempting to block this action. [SPI] As [spi] above, but those minions get -2 intercept. Squirrel Balance will be very useful in long-range combat builds, or builds that just want to avoid being Grappled and punched for 18. It costs blood up front, but the utility of your potential blocker knowing range will be long could be advantageous if it causes more "no block" responses than your actions would otherwise warrant. An excellent card choice for a deck designed with Pool-damaging D actions and streamlined combat. Keep an eye out for Janni, with a mouthful of acorns and a Sniper Rifle, running along your telephone wire... Vulture's Buffet Action Requires: Spiritus/Obfuscate +1 stealth hunt action. If this hunt is successful, the acting vampire untaps. [obf] Remove a minion or retainer in any Methuselah's ash heap from the game to move 1 blood to this vampire from the blood bank. [spi] As [obf] above, but move 2 blood. [SPI] As [spi] above, and you gain 1 pool. The untap clause here is nice, but the qualifier could be troublesome. Provided you intend to burn at least one minion or retainer early in a game, including a Vulture's Buffet in your library could be beneficial. If you are running multiple copies of a unique ally or retainer, you can definitely plan to use the Buffet for some multi-action support, confident that those extra copies of your unique Ally will end up in the ash heap. An excellent card choice for self-destructive allies and retainers like Ghoul Escort, Zombie, and Escaped Mental Patient. It's a hunt action, so you can use Succulent Vitae, too! A nice rare. Don't read the spi/SPI part - it'll only depress you. And now, the long-awaited sequel: Managing Assamite Combat, Part 2 Defense: It wins championships. It is a commonly heard sports cliché that the best defense is a good offense. This is not necessarily true in the early stages of a V:TES game, where your predator and prey are not the same opponent. Putting extra pressure (in terms of minion removal) on your first prey will not affect your predator's ability to pressure you. It is important to be patient, as I discussed last month. Since it might be a few turns before you push left, you'll have to survive in the meantime. Consider the following: 1.Your predator is not your target. It is important to defend yourself against your predator's devious schemes, but always remember that you need him there. If you destroy his ability to defend against HIS predator, you will soon face his newly-fortified ouster. It is highly likely that you will have to run at least one of his minions through the cheese grater at some point, probably early on (depending on how many minions he has in play and what they are trying to do to you). Many players will rush their predator first almost as a rule. I prefer to see what his intentions are first, unless his vampires have Dominate, in which case they simply must go. Your deck should be built to bloat at least a little, and unless you are fighting to stay in the game, you should concentrate more on posing a threat to your predator than actually crushing his will. After you block and atomize one of his vampires, or rush and liquefy one of his pesky bleed-bouncers, be sure to point out to him the various threats he faces from HIS predator. You want to keep him at a minion disadvantage with regard to his predator, but with enough ready minions to be able to survive. This is where the contract mechanic can shine. Many decks focus on the abilities of one vampire, and if you can lock that vampire down with a contract, you put your predator on the ropes and get him playing defensively. If he steps out of line, that permanent rush is available for the judicious distribution of what for.* Don't feel like you have to block everything your predator does, or avoid taking pool damage at all costs. Unless he's trying to oust you, your predator is merely your last prey, and one more victory point for you. Remember - your actions have the most profound effect on the game in that they remove minions from the ready region. Managing your predator properly can be the difference between winning the game and handing it to another player. You want to SURVIVE your predator, not OUST your predator. 2. If you can be bought, be sure to advertise your price. You might be the only combat deck at the table. This likelihood increases significantly if you are playing in a tournament. Surrounded by streamlined ousting machines, there may be a player at the table whose deck is trumped, and whose presence at the table only serves to build steam for his predator. It might be in your best interest to prevent this from happening. It will depend upon your assessment of your ability to deal with the strong deck, to sacrifice an action or two to do something about it, and your strength relative to your predator and prey. If you think you can trash a vampire controlled by the dominant methuselah, be sure you get your money's worth. The player you are helping might be able to give you a beneficial referendum, allow you access to his KRCG, offer to rescue your prey's Famed vampire for you - who knows. You might also get a juicy counter-offer, too. Some players simply don't make deals. In this case, you do what you have to do to get your best advantage. You want maximum VPs, but if in giving one up you don't compromise your ability to oust your prey, that's okay, too. You don't HAVE to set the table up for a cascade oust and a table sweep. Often with combat decks, you will be better served by letting the big bleeders or anti-combat builds leave the table. If you think you can cause a stalemate with surgical cross-table minion removal, AND it works to your advantage, consider it. 4. You need to be able to block. Especially true in tournaments, the ability to stop your predator's key actions is, well... key. In a casual game, you may have the fortune of sitting next to a player who is experimenting with a trick bloat build, and is content to just survive until heads-up play while accumulating minions. You will do better to not count on this, and instead plan to block some actions, likely with some stealth on them. Since your combat build has little room for transient intercept, you will need some permanent sources. Market Square is our clan specialty, and any of the media locations and the staple Sport Bike will aid in this endeavor. Whether it come from master cards or equipment, permanent intercept will afford you the opportunity to block actions at crucial junctures, notably political actions and vital non-directed actions taken by your predator or prey, such as rescues and mandatory hunts. If your opponent is packing stealth modifiers, you are likely NOT going to catch him anyway, and might be doing him a favor with a block attempt by allowing him to cycle stealth. If you played patiently early on, you will know this already, and can concentrate on removing the offending vampire from the ready region instead. 4. Don't be the bad guy. While sportsmanship is important to any friendly game, it's not what I am talking about here. You want to avoid being perceived as a threat to the whole table. If you jump on your prey as soon as he has three minions but fail to oust him, or beat your predator silly on consecutive turns, every player will be looking at you as a threat to their game. When you block your predator, you don't have to cycle every available combat card you have. Consider the game balance, and your position in it - that is, your ability to survive your predator's strategy while defeating your prey's. While obliterating minions Tasmanian Devil-style is fun and has its own level of rewards, you might find yourself with a hand full of the wrong cards afterward. Often, leaving your predator's vampires low on blood or forced to hunt is sufficient. Save the good stuff for your prey. 5. You have to be able to untap. Taking minion actions is even more important with a combat build, as the majority of your cards will only move on your turn. You probably won't be rushing with every action until you are ready to oust, but you will likely have hunting or gearing up to do until you reach that point. Reaction cards will hopefully flow into your hand while you finish equipping or fighting, but the high number of combat cards in the deck means reactions are few and farther between. When your hand dictates it, you might have to leave a vampire untapped simply because you can't risk combat, and hope that the threat of being able to block is enough to prevent you from having to. Most of the time, if things are going well, you will want to take as many minion actions as you can every turn. It is important to be able to untap, either during your minion phase or with reaction cards. Black Sunrise offers Assamites (any vampire with Quietus, actually) an excellent means by which to untap when an action is announced. Even if you know you can't block it due to inherent stealth, your vampire will be left untapped after the block attempt fails, ready to block those free directed actions your predator thought he was going to be able to take, or to play reaction cards on subsequent actions. Untapping a vampire outside of the untap phase is key to maximizing their effectiveness. Not paying proper attention to this aspect of your build could have you watching the end of the game from the sidelines. Bring it on You have three or four Assamites in play. You've managed to get some permanents on the table, and have a pretty good idea what your opponents are playing. You've convinced your predator of the folly of incurring your wrath, and your prey has had to push pool back to his minions with his Blood Dolls instead of using them to bloat, thanks to you. Time to make your move? Consider the following: 1. Do the math. What is it going to take to knock your prey out of the game? Can you do it this turn? If you have Tension in the Ranks and a Fame in play (for example), how much pool damage can you do? One trip to torpor for the famous vampire would cost your prey five pool by the time his untap phase comes around. If you can rescue and dunk the same vampire for a second trip to torpor, you increase the damage to nine pool. Add Dragonbound, and you can do ten pool damage with three minion actions. Are there any weenies you can torporize for pool damage? Is he likely to be able to block? While lunging in this manner is preferred, it will probably take you two or more turns of concentrated effort to get your oust, even if your prey has fewer than ten pool. Remember - he knows it's coming. During this time, your grandprey will likely enjoy a reprieve from any pressure that your prey was putting on him. As he is your next prey, it is important to keep the pressure up until you get the oust. Khabar: Glory can be very useful here, because if your prey is ousted on his turn due to Tension in the Ranks or Dragonbound, you will get your bonus Pool. 2. You will have to survive your predator's response. When you go all-out on your prey, your predator will respond, especially if you don't get the oust. Be prepared to suffer some pool damage, regardless. If you get lucky enough to cycle into some reaction cards, all the better. When you make your move, though, your hand should be set up for combat. If you are within striking distance of being ousted yourself, you must decide if it's better to take the plunge, or try to improve your position. However, giving your prey time to draw into a Giant's Blood or Minion Tap (or both) could just as easily end your game. 3. Stay focused. If you absolutely ruin your prey by putting all of his minions in torpor but don't oust him, you give the rest of the table a chance to decide your fate. They can agree to burn the famous vampire and hinder your ability to do pool damage to your prey. They can agree to steal your locations, sink you with referendums, or choose you as the target of all bounced bleeds. If your prey has enough pool to survive a round of your bleed actions, or can pull pool off of uncontrolled vampires, etc, you might end up sitting at a side table telling the event host how close you came to getting a VP. You don't get extra VPs for burning or knocking all of his vampires into torpor, either. If possible, use one of his vampires as a punching bag and try to maintain the appearance that the poor sod still has a fighting chance in the grand scheme of things right up until you can oust him. This is where a little stealth can go a long way. When you are moving in for that re-dunk on world-renowned spelunker* Isabel DeLeon, getting past the desperation blocker could make all the difference. Swallowed by the Night is one of the most versatile Obfuscate cards for clan Assamite for this very reason. I also find Cloak the Gathering to be useful in crypts where not every vampire has Obfuscate. Ok, now what? After you get your first prey ousted, you can go to work on your next prey in much the same manner. Hopefully, you still have about half of your library and you survived the table response to your push with your minions mostly intact and your pool somewhere around ten. The difference now is that you can be less patient. That's not to say you should throw caution to the wind, but at this point in the game vampires are generally low on blood, and players will be working to get their own VP before they are ousted themselves. You should be wary of your grandpredator getting an oust, as this will give him some momentum. While you would ideally like to systematically eliminate each methuselah's star vampire and then proceed to mop them up in sequence for the sweep, most of the time you will have to look at trying to get one more oust if you can, and then surviving the heads-up duel. Your advantage will be that as resources dwindle and keeping vampires in play becomes more and more important, your ability to survive, and even thrive, in combat will ultimately give you more freedom to act and block. Of course, stories of your deck's combat prowess and how it ruins any chance anyone else has of getting anything accomplished will have traveled throughout the room, and your situation in round two will be that much more difficult. A majority of players, in my experience, would much rather be ousted with minions in play. Getting burned on an action or referendum is less humiliating than just sitting there, unable to play any cards, while some jerk is repeatedly taking advantage of your lack of combat cards. The player who transfers out of a game is indeed more frustrated than the player who bemoans his lack of a Wake With Evening's Freshness as the reason for being ousted. Players would rather play than sit and watch their game end. If you make it to the finals, be prepared to experience a significant level of that wonderfully intangible "table hate." As you can see, playing a dedicated combat deck is far trickier than it might seem. I have found that it truly tests a player's overall V:TES skills, and can be the most rewarding style to play when you are able to do it well. It will not always go well for you, that I promise. Arika WILL Kiss of Ra you, Brujah WILL punch you for 8, aggravated damage WILL send your star Assamite to torpor, and stealth bleed WILL oust you by turn seven. It is important to remember that you have chosen what is still the most difficult path to victory, and to maintain the right attitude toward it. Once you develop the proper patience to allow you to assess a table, find the right balance between offense and defense, and learn to recognize when to make your push for the VPs, all you really need at that point, come to think of it, is Kali's Fang and a bunch of Blurs. Deck Name: No-nonsense Assamite Combat Author : Tom Duncan Description : +1 str and weapon Assamite combat with a little defensive help from Auspex. Crypt [12 vampires] Capacity min: 2 max: 9 average: 6.17 ------------------------------------------------------------ 2x Tegyrius, Vizier 9 AUS CEL FOR QUI pre Assamite:2 2x Tegyrius, Vizier Adv 9 AUS CEL FOR PRE QUI Assamite:2 2x Parnassus 7 CEL QUI aus tha Assamite:2 2x Yusuf, Scribe of A 5 CEL aus obf qui Assamite:2 1x Abd al-Rashid 5 CEL QUI obf Assamite:2 1x Parmenides 4 CEL qui Assamite:2 1x Harika Guljan 3 QUI Assamite:2 1x Kanya Akhtar 2 cel Assamite:2 Library [90 cards] ------------------------------------------------------------ Action [11] 2x Ambush 4x Clandestine Contract 1x Harass 2x Nose of the Hound 2x Truth of Blood Action Modifier/Reaction [3] 3x Provision of the Silsila Combat [43] 8x Blur 5x Concealed Weapon 5x Psyche! 5x Side Strike 5x Sideslip 8x Taste of Vitae 4x Thin Blood 3x Weighted Walking Stick Equipment [7] 1x Meat Cleaver 2x Meat Hook 2x Poker 1x Kali's Fang 1x Sport Bike Master [12] 1x Auspex 2x Contract 2x Fame 1x Market Square 4x Minion Tap 1x Tension in the Ranks 1x Yoruba Shrine Reaction [14] 4x Black Sunrise 2x Forced Awakening 2x Precognition 5x Quicken Sight 1x Telepathic Misdirection Find everything you need to know about playing Assamites at www.thepathofblood.com! Comments, Suggestions, and Submissions should be sent to: veknp...@yahoo.com Special thanks to John Eno, Official Assamite Newsletter Editor. *Appendix: Shenanigan Pronunciation: sh&-'na-ni-g&n Function: noun 1 : a devious trick used especially for an underhand purpose 2 a : tricky or questionable practices or conduct -- usually used in plural b : high-spirited or mischievous activity -- usually used in plural what for - Informal A scolding or strong reprimand: The teacher gave the tardy student what for. Spelunker: Pronunciation: spi-'l&[ng]-k&r, Function: noun : one who makes a hobby of exploring and studying caves

Excellent Newsletter. I had been eagerly awaiting the second half of your essay on combat. > Managing your > predator properly can be the difference between winning the game and > handing it to another player. You want to SURVIVE your predator, not > OUST your predator. This seems to be the place where combat players earn their bad reputation most often. A stealth bleed predator slips by with a bleed for 4, and the rush player freaks out and starts to move upstream like spawning salmon. It is definitely important to have a bloat element in most combat decks, especially if you lack bounce, because as Tom points out eventually you have to take it in the teeth. The other element besides bloat that I like in combat decks to 'manage' my predator is S:CE. Often, you have been representing your combat prowess, and your predator has to build up to a decent combat hand. When they finally have the stones to come at you, it is especially gratifying to disable a prerange card (carrion crows) and an evil strike with a combat ends. This saves your real combat for your prey. Preternatural Evasion isn't as strong as Earth Meld, but it is still a great card. > Save the good stuff for your prey. > 2. You will have to survive your predator's response. When you go > all-out on your prey, your predator will respond, especially if you > don't get the oust. Be prepared to suffer some pool damage, > regardless. This is important. You are going to take losses, and that is why you need some bloat abilities. One of the nice things about a combat deck is that you often have the ability to recover and rebuild, even when things go wrong. > Ok, now what? > After you get your first prey ousted, ... > most of the time you will have to look at trying to get > one more oust if you can, and then surviving the heads-up duel. Your > advantage will be that as resources dwindle and keeping vampires in > play becomes more and more important, your ability to survive, and even > thrive, in combat will ultimately give you more freedom to act and > block. This is the true advantage of a combat deck, the ability to move about more freely during the ugly endgame. > A majority of players, in my experience, > would much rather be ousted with minions in play. Getting burned on an > action or referendum is less humiliating than just sitting there, > unable to play any cards, while some jerk is repeatedly taking > advantage of your lack of combat cards. The player who transfers out of > a game is indeed more frustrated than the player who bemoans his lack > of a Wake With Evening's Freshness as the reason for being ousted. > Players would rather play than sit and watch their game end. If you > make it to the finals, be prepared to experience a significant level of > that wonderfully intangible "table hate." > Risking potential argument and flame wars, why do you all think this is? How is getting minions smoked so much different than getting bled for 8? Crying about a lack of Wwef is blaming a loss on the rain, instead of on yourself. Likewise, not being ready for combat is a flaw in deck design. Admittedly, it would be frustrating to see a player total all your minions, and then set up your grandpredator to oust him, you, and the rest of the table, but combat doesn't need to be played that way. Even if it is, I fail to see the difference between that situation and a stealth bleed predator who stalls after 1 oust. Lately I've been thinking that maybe all of this stems from an overemphasis on collecting victory points and an underemphasis on winning the game (I don't mean sweeping per se). This article, and the one that preceded it, can definitely help people play combat responsibly. It is slightly more challenging than just adding 3 change of targets to a bleed deck, but more gratifying as well. Thanks a ton for the newsletter. I'll keep an eye out for the next one. -Dave Clooney

In message <1136490518.5...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, quickbeam <dcqui...@yahoo.com> writes: >Risking potential argument and flame wars, why do you all think this >is? How is getting minions smoked so much different than getting bled >for 8? Crying about a lack of Wwef is blaming a loss on the rain, >instead of on yourself. Likewise, not being ready for combat is a flaw >in deck design. At a very simple level: players like to play. Let's assume that we've both spent 15 pool on minions and have 15 left. Scenario A: you have a weenie Night Moves Obfuscate deck. You're pecking away at me solidly. However, your actions don't stop me acting. You come and bleed me and I'm down to 12 pool, but my my Count Ormonde can still play a Temptation (for example). Scenario B: lock-down. You're playing a deck specifically designed to thwart my ability to take actions but NOT a significant combat deck. For example, Banishment, Reality, Sensory Deprivation, Pentex Subversion etc. From your point of view, this could be a very solid deck and a strong candidate for a win (which is why you've played it, I guess). But if you get a lock-down action or master through, it stops me playing my game. Now Count Ormonde can't play Temptation, and even though you're less tangibly close to an oust, I'm more frustrated because I can't do my thing. There are a few similar strategies of denial - card denial, blood denial, library exhaustion and relatively hefty combat - which can annoy players for similar reasons. It's not that they're necessarily more powerful than a solid bleed deck, it's just that they stop me playing my game if I don't have enough of a deck to defend against whatever it is you're doing to me. -- James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D YOU ARE IN ERROR. EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 NO-ONE IS SCREAMING. 13D7E668C3695D623D5D THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.

[ quoted text not captured ] For once, I very much agree. One addition: there is a different level of aggravation associated with a lockdown/combat/denial deck locking you down as a path to victory and actually winning, and it locking you down because it's kewl and not winning. The latter is significantly more aggravating. -- Bye, Daneel

Daneel wrote: > One addition: there is a different level of aggravation associated with > a lockdown/combat/denial deck locking you down as a path to victory and > actually winning, and it locking you down because it's kewl and not > winning. The latter is significantly more aggravating. So true. Nothing worse than having your game ruined by someone who flames out right after you do.

"quickbeam" <dcqui...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1136490518.5...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > How is getting minions smoked so much different than getting bled > for 8? Crying about a lack of Wwef is blaming a loss on the rain, > instead of on yourself. Likewise, not being ready for combat is a flaw > in deck design. Let's not oversimplify all this shit. No deck can be "ready" for everything. Trying to be ready for everything will only leave a player ready for nothing. You pick your poison: which forms of combat will you try to be ready for? And "none of them" is frequently a reasonably successful option, IMO, depending upon the local metagame. Anyway, to get to the answer to your question, it's just this: if you attack me with a combat deck I'm not ready to handle, I'm screwed. I'm screwed whether you succeed or fail in ousting me. If you take all my minions off the table but get ousted before me, I still have no chance. If you merely torporize most of my minions before you get ousted, I have no chance. If you merely torporize SOME of my minons before you get ousted, I probably have no chance. Just by the fact that my predator or prey is a combat deck that I'm not totally ready to defend against, I'm at least somewhat screwed and quite possibly totally crippled whether you succeed or fail. That makes you bad news to have as neighbor. On the other hand, decks that attack pool directly frequently (not always, I'll concede, but frequently) will leave its victim in viable operating condition up to the moment he's history. Typically, unless I got heavily bled right from the start (counting political KRCs/ConAg/etc as "bleeding"), I would have a working complement of minions when I was ousted. Of course, if I get ousted without ousting anyone else, it doesn't make a shred of difference. But against this kind of predator, I may well get some VPs before I die. And if my predator comes close but fails (for instance, gets close to being ousted himself and must leave all his minions untapped on defense), I may well go on to sweep the table. Neither of these scenarios is likely to happen against the same predator doing combat. To me, the difference is manifest and abundant. I don't know why people don't seem to understand this better, but I often find myself reminding people that in a multiplayer game, interactions between player pairs are not necessarily zero-sum. In fact, often they aren't. What's bad for me in our last combat ain't necessarily good for you. Or, more precisely, it's often not AS good for you as it was bad for me. And it may well be a disaster for us both. Fred

quickbeam wrote: > Excellent Newsletter. I had been eagerly awaiting the second half of > your essay on combat. Thank you. > Risking potential argument and flame wars, why do you all think this > is? How is getting minions smoked so much different than getting bled > for 8? Crying about a lack of Wwef is blaming a loss on the rain, > instead of on yourself. Likewise, not being ready for combat is a flaw > in deck design. I agree with you, and I only report what I have witnessed and experienced personally. When I get trashed by a combat deck, I am sure to be gentile about it, and commend the player for handing out a good beat-down. Living and dying by the sword and all that. I actually think getting hyper-bled is more aggravating than getting grapple-disemboweled. > Admittedly, it would be frustrating to see a player total all your > minions, and then set up your grandpredator to oust him, you, and the > rest of the table, but combat doesn't need to be played that way. Even > if it is, I fail to see the difference between that situation and a > stealth bleed predator who stalls after 1 oust. Lately I've been > thinking that maybe all of this stems from an overemphasis on > collecting victory points and an underemphasis on winning the game (I > don't mean sweeping per se). And hopefully I've helped players understand that about combat decks, and how playing patiently (discussed in December), focussing your combat efforts on 1 vampire, and properly managing your predator can enhance your experiences when playing combat, both in win %s and game enjoyment.

On Thu, 5 Jan 2006, Fred Scott wrote: > To me, the difference is manifest and abundant. I don't know > why people don't seem to understand this better, but I often > find myself reminding people that in a multiplayer game, > interactions between player pairs are not necessarily zero-sum. > In fact, often they aren't. What's bad for me in our last combat > ain't necessarily good for you. Or, more precisely, it's often > not AS good for you as it was bad for me. And it may well be a > disaster for us both. > V:tES is a negative-sum game. In general, things get worse and worse until you get ousted or win the game. -- - Gregory Stuart Pettigrew

[ quoted text not captured ] Sure there is. Some goober of a grandpredator with a bleedzooka, feeding your super-bouncey predator because "it's what my deck does." That's a shit-ton more irritating. -- David Cherryholmes

Fred Scott wrote: > Let's not oversimplify all this shit. No deck can be "ready" for > everything. Trying to be ready for everything will only leave a player > ready for nothing. You pick your poison: which forms of combat will you > try to be ready for? And "none of them" is frequently a reasonably > successful option, IMO, depending upon the local metagame. I totally agree. Which is why I want to hear ZERO WHINING when, against the odds, you plop your soft squishy deck down next to my rush-monster, and I take my time (because I don't have any other choice) ousting you after I've rendered you minionless. Most games you get to win by utterly ignoring an entire "leg of the triangle" (queue debate about whether it should be considered such, but the fact is that it is). Some games you lose, so stop whining that it takes me a few more turns than it does for a bleedzooka. Using totally generic values for "you", of course......

"Gregory Stuart Pettigrew" <ethe...@sidehack.gweep.net> wrote in message news:2006010605...@sidehack.gweep.net... [ quoted text not captured ] True. Bleeding is certainly negative-sum. But I only brought up the non-zero-sum issue to answer the eternal attempts to compare destroying a prey's minion to bleeding him. Some things are more negative-sum than others, I guess. Fred

"bluedevil" <david.che...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1136553519....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com... [ quoted text not captured ] Sure. But then, I don't whine because I lost the metagame. Whining is an end in and of itself. I whine for the shear joy of whining, so that I can share my miseries those around me. Fred er, using totally generic values for "I", of course.....

On 6 Jan 2006 05:15:18 -0800, bluedevil <david.che...@gmail.com> wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] Not surprisingly, I have to disagree. If I'm ousted, I can start playing at a new table. If I'm locked down by some dimwit who has a microorgasm each time he torporizes a vampire, I have three options - struggle and 1 out of 100 come back and actually win; play carelessly and try to get ousted as soon as possible (sometimes harder than it seems); or pack my stuff and find another table nevertheless, leaving my pool there to be bled. Neither are really "fun". If you're out in 20 minutes, then what, you find another table (or, chances are, the game won't be lasting that long if it turned 4-player in 20 minutes). -- Bye, Daneel

Fred Scott wrote: > To me, the difference is manifest and abundant. I don't know > why people don't seem to understand this better, 'Cause I still don't think it is as different as you think it is. If you compare midgames, then yeah, losing 18 pool worth of vampires to torpor is different than losing 18 pool (and usually, in the mid game, losing 18 pool of minions leaves you crippled but still in the game and still with some sort of options--not necessarily good ones, but they exist; losing 18 pool generally ousts you, leaving you with no options at all). Early in the game, however, the difference is very minimal. You get out a 4 pool minion and I dunk him, you are out 4 pool (and 4 transfers--not insignificant, but a trade off for having a minion in torpor which is a greater asset than no minion in torpor). On the other hand, I bleed you for 4, you don't get out that 4 pool minion. If I'm an angry rush deck and I torp your first 12 pool of minions, you are at 18 pool with a bunch of minions in torpor. If I'm a turbo bleed deck and I bleed you for 12 instead, you are at 18 pool with no minions in torpor (I'd rather have the invested minions, mind you--someone might save them...) or you are at 6 pool with 12 pool of minions. That might be a defensible position, sure, but in either case, you have lost 12 pool. Sure, people like having minions, and with minions, you might be able to defend yourself from the mad bleed predator that has bled you for 20 in the first 4 turns, where having 20 pool of minions torped is likely to result in you dying quickly, or being totally hosed even if you don't die. But in either case, you are probably dead anyway--a weenie DOM bleed deck is going to ruin your game just as much as a vicious Rush deck. The main difference is that the weenie DOM deck kills you fast, and then you get to go eat a sandwich or play a pick up game; the vicious Rush deck makes you sit at the table useless longer. -Peter

<pd...@lightlink.com> wrote in message news:1136569902....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com... > > Fred Scott wrote: >> To me, the difference is manifest and abundant. I don't know >> why people don't seem to understand this better, > > 'Cause I still don't think it is as different as you think it is. > > If you compare midgames, then yeah, losing 18 pool worth of vampires to > torpor is different than losing 18 pool (and usually, in the mid game, > losing 18 pool of minions leaves you crippled but still in the game and > still with some sort of options--not necessarily good ones, but they > exist; losing 18 pool generally ousts you, leaving you with no options > at all). But they're not the same things because they're just not the same. Sorry. Even if I put out 18 worth of vampires, you've still deprived me of 4 1/2 turns woth of transfers. Actually more, if you take into account that to put more vampires in your crypt to transfer out costs a pool and four more transfers yet again! In a game where people actually use Information Highway as their choice of master card slots, pretending four and a half turns of transferring stuff out is meaningless is just silly. Then, on top of that, few people play with only undeveloped vampires that are as meaningful the moment they get transferred out as they'll ever be up to the end of the game. Most all decks involve some position development on the vampires: blood dolls, retainers, equipment, titles, all manner of special cards, etc., etc. When you kill their vampires, you kill all that work as well. On top of THAT, is the fact that the first vampires tranferred out are the preferred ones, so if I have two vampires out of the four in my uncontrolled area that I transferred out, those are probably the better choices for this game. The next two often won't be as good. You can make all the logical arguments in the world that ignores this stuff you want (and I notice you did in the text I'm not bothering to respond to) and you'll always be wrong. People intuitively know that having a combat deck as a neighbor screws them worse than decks that attack their pool directly. In this case, their intuition is spot on. They just haven't stopped and anaylzed why that is. It's more than just, "People want to play the game." Fred

> On top of THAT, is the fact that the first vampires tranferred >out are the preferred ones, so if I have two vampires out of the >four in my uncontrolled area that I transferred out, those are probably >the better choices for this game. The next two often won't be as >good. Is this really always true? If so, then why? If you always speed out your key vampire first, and this turns out to be to your disadvantage, it's your fault for playing poorly, not mine for rushing and/or diablerizing him when you have no defenders. Generally speaking, the "key" vampires tend to be rather on the large side, too. I almost always get out a one or two turn vampire (or even 2 such minions if pressed) before influencing the 3 turn vampire so that I have some minions who can defend my pool, bleed early, fight other weenie minions on possibly preferential ground, and exhaust my opponent's combat cards to clear the way for the more valuable minions. I don't think I'm alone in doing this either. If you (in the generic sense, of course) don't do this, maybe you need to adjust your thinking about the opening. In Chess, beginners have a tendency to develop their Queen very early in the game. This seems logical at first, because it your most powerful piece and you want to use it as much as possible. However, any competent player will tell you that this is folly (except in some bizarre openings typically played only by extraordinarily cocky experts), and that the best approach to the opening is to stake a position in (or attacking) the center with your pawns, then develop your minor pieces, and then bring out the Queen (often times castling before doing so). Of course, Chess and Jyhad are very different games, but some of the same principles may apply. Swap "pawn" for "weenie" and "minor piece" for "midcap" and it's pretty clear what I'm saying...

"CthuluKitty" <vtana...@riseup.net> wrote in message news:1136574168.5...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... >> On top of THAT, is the fact that the first vampires tranferred >>out are the preferred ones, so if I have two vampires out of the >>four in my uncontrolled area that I transferred out, those are probably >>the better choices for this game. The next two often won't be as >>good. > > Is this really always true? No, it's not always true. It's sometimes true and whenever it is, it's another disadvantage. I'll grant, it's one of my weaker arguments but it is still a point. > If so, then why? If you always speed out > your key vampire first, and this turns out to be to your disadvantage, > it's your fault for playing poorly, not mine for rushing and/or > diablerizing him when you have no defenders. Well, OK. But obviously, your point flounders on the notion that I "always speed out my key vampire first and this turns out to be a to my disadvantage". _Usually_, speeding out your key vampire first is an advantage, not a disadvantage. Telling people it's their own fault that they didn't plan on having a combat deck neighbor by engaging in counterintuitive behavior isn't really a very impressive counterpoint. But for what it's worth, yea, if I'm _constantly_ running across combat decks, it might be better to put out a weaker choice first and not be very aggressive in developing him (as with Blood Dolls, equipment, and the like). Of course, if I'm running up against combat decks all THAT often in my metagame, I expect it would be a lot more prudent to just feature a lot of fortitude damage prevention in my decks. > In Chess, beginners have a tendency to develop their Queen very early > in the game. This seems logical at first, because it your most > powerful piece and you want to use it as much as possible. However, > any competent player will tell you that this is folly (except in some > bizarre openings typically played only by extraordinarily cocky > experts), and that the best approach to the opening is to stake a > position in (or attacking) the center with your pawns, then develop > your minor pieces, and then bring out the Queen (often times castling > before doing so). Of course, Chess and Jyhad are very different games, > but some of the same principles may apply. Swap "pawn" for "weenie" > and "minor piece" for "midcap" and it's pretty clear what I'm saying... Sure. I'm not sure the two games are exactly comparable but I see what you're getting at. The point I was trying to make to Peter, however, involved choosing two vampires that I was intending to play with for the whole game, leaving two others as backup or if I succeed at bloating through ousts or other means later on in the game. If a combat deck just takes out the first two totally, then I have to use some of my backup pool that was intended as my buffer against ousting in order to get a minion out and have some chance to still do something. That third choice will not be as good as either of the first two. So here is yet another way losing straight pool to bleeding is not as bad as losing vampires. And it doesn't matter which of my first two vampires I brought out first. Since I expect to be able to use my key vampire, it doesn't matter whether it gets demolished first or second. Fred

> On the other hand, decks that attack pool directly frequently (not > always, I'll concede, but frequently) will leave its victim in viable > operating condition up to the moment he's history. Typically, unless I > got heavily bled right from the start (counting political KRCs/ConAg/etc > as "bleeding"), I would have a working complement of minions when I was > ousted. /begin interruption of Fred Not that it's particularly relevant to this conversation, but I'd just like to point out that the above reason is why people shouldn't froth at the mouth and go all gangly-eyed when their predator tries to mill their deck. . . They're able to play their game right up until the moment they're history. Anyway, I find it generally amusing that the same people who often argue and whine about combat decks then turn around and whine about milling decks, though they provide a categorically different play experience in either case. /end interruption of Fred Ankur Gupta Prince of Lafayette

>> Sure there is. Some goober of a grandpredator with a bleedzooka, >> feeding your super-bouncey predator because "it's what my deck does." >> >> That's a shit-ton more irritating. > > Not surprisingly, I have to disagree. If I'm ousted, I can start playing > at a new table. If I'm locked down by some dimwit who has a microorgasm I hear this argument a lot. I think it's ridiculous. When playing game X, other tables don't exist. If you allow other tables to exist, then you're allowing something outside of the game state to affect your play. Strictly speaking, you shouldn't do this. Ability to play another game should *not* affect your opinion of the validity of playing combat or any other strategy which progressively stops your game. That it does is your failing, not that of the "slow deck" player. Many people who play combat decks do so because it is fun and challenging to do so. These decks and players are still playing to win. And, unlike your lame bleedzooka/votezooka(tm) deck, they're trying to actually try an under-represented and low-power mechanic. Have a bit of respect for these folks. . . Without them, this game would more closely resemble others that we'd rather it not. Moreover, combat provides a much-needed check and balance on more direct strategies. It's a necessary leg of the triangle, even if it is underpowered. > each time he torporizes a vampire, I have three options - struggle and 1 > out of 100 come back and actually win; play carelessly and try to get > ousted as soon as possible (sometimes harder than it seems); or pack my > stuff and find another table nevertheless, leaving my pool there to be > bled. The latter two aren't actually aligned with any notion of playing to win. If you're closed-minded enough to suggest that you can't come back from such a table state, perhaps you ought to hone your ability to consider table balance. Often, a path to victory is not merely 1/100 when crushed by a combat deck. Challenge yourself to win under duress and two things will happen: 1) you will learn to play better; and 2) you will win more. > Neither are really "fun". If you're out in 20 minutes, then what, you > find another table (or, chances are, the game won't be lasting that long > if it turned 4-player in 20 minutes). I suppose your notion of fun doesn't involve thinking. On second thought, it's probably best to ignore all that I've said. . . since you'd have to think about it. Ankur Gupta Prince of West Lafayette

"Ankur Gupta" <agu...@cs.duke.edu> wrote in message news:Pine.GSO.4.62.06...@cipher1.cs.duke.edu... >> On the other hand, decks that attack pool directly frequently (not always, I'll concede, but frequently) will leave its victim in >> viable operating condition up to the moment he's history. Typically, unless I got heavily bled right from the start (counting >> political KRCs/ConAg/etc as "bleeding"), I would have a working complement of minions when I was ousted. > > /begin interruption of Fred > > Not that it's particularly relevant to this conversation, but I'd just like to point out that the above reason is why people > shouldn't froth at the mouth and go all gangly-eyed when their predator tries to mill their deck. . . They're able to play their > game right up until the moment they're history. Huh?!? This _exactly_ the reason to go all (WTF does "gangly-eyed" mean?!?) whatever and froth at the mouth. This is precisely the same thing as getting ones minions torped and being left without a key resource that will fuck them over whether their predator succeeds or fails. The fact that their library will wind up being too small to last long enough to sweep the table is the same thing as losing one's minions. OK, it may be _slightly_ different in that you might, for instance, maintain enough library to still make your first oust. If your library-eating predator goes away fast enough, it might not even hurt you at all. And because it hurts you more the longer he stays in the game, this is exactly the reason to go straight backwards when you get such a predator and not stop 'til he's history (or you are). > Anyway, I find it generally amusing that the same people who often argue and whine about combat decks then turn around and whine > about milling decks, though they provide a categorically different play experience in either case. You find it amusing when both types of decks cause more or less the same problem? It makes perfect sense to me. It's the same non-zero- sum issue. If you (as the combat deck or milling deck, whichever) succeed and oust me, fine. But some of the time, however good your deck and however well you play it, you will fail. And when you fail, your neighbors are still much more likely to be screwed in some way than if you were just a bleed deck that failed. Thus, people hate to be the neighbors of these types of decks with very good reason. Fred

(Gad, I hate Ankur's newsposting software. That sort always catches me by surprise. Reformatting my previous reply so its readable this time...) "Ankur Gupta" <agu...@cs.duke.edu> wrote in message news:Pine.GSO.4.62.06...@cipher1.cs.duke.edu... >> On the other hand, decks that attack pool directly frequently (not >> always, I'll concede, but frequently) will leave its victim in viable >> operating condition up to the moment he's history. Typically, unless I >> got heavily bled right from the start (counting political KRCs/ConAg/etc >> as "bleeding"), I would have a working complement of minions when I was >> ousted. > > Not that it's particularly relevant to this conversation, but I'd just > like to point out that the above reason is why people shouldn't froth at > the mouth and go all gangly-eyed when their predator tries to mill their > deck. . . They're able to play their game right up until the moment > they're history. Huh?!? This _exactly_ the reason to go all (WTF does "gangly-eyed" mean?!?) whatever and froth at the mouth. This is precisely the same thing as getting ones minions torped and being left without a key resource that will fuck them over whether their predator succeeds or fails. The fact that their library will wind up being too small to last long enough to sweep the table is the same thing as losing one's minions. > Anyway, I find it generally amusing that the same people > who often argue and whine about combat decks then turn around and whine > about milling decks, though they provide a categorically different play > experience in either case. You find it amusing when both types of decks cause more or less the [ quoted text not captured ]

(Oh, $#*#@ one more time. Left out a critical paragraph!) (Gad, I hate Ankur's newsposting software. That sort always catches me by surprise. Reformatting my previous reply so its readable this time...) "Ankur Gupta" <agu...@cs.duke.edu> wrote in message news:Pine.GSO.4.62.06...@cipher1.cs.duke.edu... >> On the other hand, decks that attack pool directly frequently (not >> always, I'll concede, but frequently) will leave its victim in viable >> operating condition up to the moment he's history. Typically, unless I >> got heavily bled right from the start (counting political KRCs/ConAg/etc >> as "bleeding"), I would have a working complement of minions when I was >> ousted. > > Not that it's particularly relevant to this conversation, but I'd just > like to point out that the above reason is why people shouldn't froth at > the mouth and go all gangly-eyed when their predator tries to mill their > deck. . . They're able to play their game right up until the moment > they're history. Huh?!? This _exactly_ the reason to go all (WTF does "gangly-eyed" mean?!?) whatever and froth at the mouth. This is precisely the same thing as getting ones minions torped and being left without a key resource that will fuck them over whether their predator succeeds or fails. The fact that their library will wind up being too small to last long enough to sweep the table is the same thing as losing one's minions. OK, it may be _slightly_ different in that you might, for instance, maintain enough library to still make your first oust. If your library-eating predator goes away fast enough, it might not even hurt you at all. And because it hurts you more the longer he stays in the game, this is exactly the reason to go straight backwards when you get such a predator and not stop 'til he's history (or you are). > Anyway, I find it generally amusing that the same people > who often argue and whine about combat decks then turn around and whine > about milling decks, though they provide a categorically different play > experience in either case. You find it amusing when both types of decks cause more or less the [ quoted text not captured ]

On Fri, 6 Jan 2006 17:43:02 -0500, Ankur Gupta <agu...@cs.duke.edu> wrote: Ankur, You completely missed the point. And you must've had a bad day too. You also assume too much (regarding my deck preferences and play skill, among other things). Plus, you know, you completely missed the point. Anyway, > I hear this argument a lot. I think it's ridiculous. When playing game > X, other tables don't exist. If you allow other tables to exist, then > you're allowing something outside of the game state to affect your play. In-game objective of playing to win vs. player preference how a game turns out. I think you are mixing up two very different things here. > Strictly speaking, you shouldn't do this. Ability to play another game > should *not* affect your opinion of the validity of playing combat or > any other strategy which progressively stops your game. That it does is > your failing, not that of the "slow deck" player. Tangential note: I'm not sure any rules (or even objectives) exist for deck construction (aside of the stuff like legal grouping, 12+ crypt, 60-90 library on tourneys, or 40-80/90 in casual). I think that it is basically unrestricted; you can assemble a deck that has very little chance of winning and play it as long as you play to win in-game. Of course, most people will try to assemble effective decks and try to win anyway. > Many people who play combat decks do so because it is fun and > challenging to do so. These decks and players are still playing to win. > And, unlike your lame bleedzooka/votezooka(tm) deck, they're trying to > actually try an under-represented and low-power mechanic. Have a bit of > respect for these folks. . . Without them, this game would more closely > resemble others that we'd rather it not. Moreover, combat provides a > much-needed check and balance on more direct strategies. It's a > necessary leg of the triangle, even if it is underpowered. All good and true, but it is on one hand not really related to the original point I made, and on the other it does not consider that ultimately the game should be fun for everyone, including the player who is ousted. If the game is only fun the less-than-20% of the time when you win, then you won't be playing it for long. Denial for denial's sake is not a motive I'd happily build a deck on. If someone sits down to play without having an adamant winning strategy, I'd prefer he do so with a forward-going deck that only dimishes pool. >> each time he torporizes a vampire, I have three options - struggle and >> 1 out of 100 come back and actually win; play carelessly and try to get >> ousted as soon as possible (sometimes harder than it seems); or pack my >> stuff and find another table nevertheless, leaving my pool there to be >> bled. > > The latter two aren't actually aligned with any notion of playing to win. Well, that even wouldn't be the main issue, because you could technically argue that whenever you are at the point where future VPs are extremely unlikely, you can freely choose the method in which you obtain them. The real problem with these options is that they aren't really nice things to do. It's remarkably unfun to stare at a pile of pool counters and slowly eat them up, knowing that there was a player sitting there once. Of course, in tournament play the choice is always #1, because if all else fails, you can hope for the 1/2 VP. Unless it was absolutely clear, my comments refer to casual play. > If you're closed-minded enough to suggest that you can't come back from > such a table state, perhaps you ought to hone your ability to consider > table balance. Often, a path to victory is not merely 1/100 when crushed > by a combat deck. Challenge yourself to win under duress and two things > will happen: 1) you will learn to play better; and 2) you will win more. I don't really feel that the content or tone of this paragraph was utterly appropriate. >> Neither are really "fun". If you're out in 20 minutes, then what, you >> find another table (or, chances are, the game won't be lasting that >> long if it turned 4-player in 20 minutes). > > I suppose your notion of fun doesn't involve thinking. On second > thought, it's probably best to ignore all that I've said. . . Well, neither was this, for that matter. > since you'd have to think about it. ...no, fuck YOU. ;) -- Bye, Daneel

> (Oh, $#*#@ one more time. Left out a critical paragraph!) > > (Gad, I hate Ankur's newsposting software. That sort always catches me > by surprise. Reformatting my previous reply so its readable this > time...) > > "Ankur Gupta" <agu...@cs.duke.edu> wrote in message > news:Pine.GSO.4.62.06...@cipher1.cs.duke.edu... >>> On the other hand, decks that attack pool directly frequently (not >>> always, I'll concede, but frequently) will leave its victim in viable >>> operating condition up to the moment he's history. Typically, unless I >>> got heavily bled right from the start (counting political KRCs/ConAg/etc >>> as "bleeding"), I would have a working complement of minions when I was >>> ousted. >> >> Not that it's particularly relevant to this conversation, but I'd just >> like to point out that the above reason is why people shouldn't froth at >> the mouth and go all gangly-eyed when their predator tries to mill their >> deck. . . They're able to play their game right up until the moment >> they're history. > > Huh?!? This _exactly_ the reason to go all (WTF does "gangly-eyed" > mean?!?) whatever and froth at the mouth. This is precisely the same > thing as getting ones minions torped and being left without a key > resource that will fuck them over whether their predator succeeds or > fails. The fact that their library will wind up being too small to last > long enough to sweep the table is the same thing as losing one's > minions. No, you're perfectly able to play your game until the exact moment when you're decked. It's much like stealth-bleed in this case. A bleeding deck has done nothing to you until you've lost your last pool, in a certain sense. In a much more *real* sense, you have suffered from absolutely *nothing* until you're decked. And that's when you die. Until then, you can play your game. You have minions, pool, and cards in hand and deck. > OK, it may be _slightly_ different in that you might, for instance, > maintain enough library to still make your first oust. If your > library-eating predator goes away fast enough, it might not even hurt > you at all. And because it hurts you more the longer he stays in the > game, this is exactly the reason to go straight backwards when you get > such a predator and not stop 'til he's history (or you are). Milling decks generally give their prey about 12 turns of deck. If you can't generate an oust in this time, well, you were probably screwed anyway. If he's ousted within that time, yes, you are hurt. But, you're no more hurt than a strong bleeding predator who's left you at 3 or 5 pool before being ousted herself. I fail to see the difference. >> Anyway, I find it generally amusing that the same people who often >> argue and whine about combat decks then turn around and whine about >> milling decks, though they provide a categorically different play >> experience in either case. > > You find it amusing when both types of decks cause more or less the same > problem? It makes perfect sense to me. It's the same non-zero- sum > issue. If you (as the combat deck or milling deck, whichever) succeed > and oust me, fine. But some of the time, however good your deck and > however well you play it, you will fail. And when you fail, your > neighbors are still much more likely to be screwed in some way than if > you were just a bleed deck that failed. Thus, people hate to be the > neighbors of these types of decks with very good reason. I find it amusing that two decks (one which lets you play your game, i.e. milling, and one which "prevents you from doing so", i.e. combat decks) are lambasted equally as being something that is irritating to one's playstyle. For most such people, they should realize that they want to play only when their predator is unable to harm them. . . In other words, they want a free win. I don't see how failure to oust with *any* strategy leaves their prey in a better position than any other. A bleed deck that fails leaves its prey low on pool. Similarly with a vote deck. Combat decks leave their prey poor of minions. Milling decks leave you poor of library cards. Again, how is any of these other notions of being screwed any worse than another? Most people I know froth at the mouth at a bleedzooka predator. Know why? Cause they don't get to play their game then either. [ quoted text not captured ]

> You completely missed the point. And you must've had a bad day too. You > also assume too much (regarding my deck preferences and play skill, > among other things). Plus, you know, you completely missed the point. > Anyway, Regardless of my bad day, I doubt that I really missed your point. You associate frustration with a combat deck that "forces" you to sit in a game an inordinate time where there's a happy land elsewhere that you could play another game in. My point is simply this: you're not allowed to consider happy land when carrying judgement on what decks are annoying. Largely because if you do, combat decks thin out and stop being played. Cause you know, everyone is annoyed and overreacts and takes an already hard to play concept and socially engineers it out. >> I hear this argument a lot. I think it's ridiculous. When playing game >> X, other tables don't exist. If you allow other tables to exist, then >> you're allowing something outside of the game state to affect your >> play. > > In-game objective of playing to win vs. player preference how a game > turns out. I think you are mixing up two very different things here. Your preference of how a game turns out is not related to "losing as you choose" dependant solely on game state. That you look outside for reasons to justify one form of collapse over another is not something you should do. Period. I understand that once you have decided you can gain no vps, you can lose as you choose; however, such a choice must be made contingent upon in-game concerns only. Not that anyone can particularly judge such a thing, but nevertheless, there's an ideal philosophy for you. > Tangential note: I'm not sure any rules (or even objectives) exist for > deck construction (aside of the stuff like legal grouping, 12+ crypt, > 60-90 library on tourneys, or 40-80/90 in casual). > > I think that it is basically unrestricted; you can assemble a deck that > has very little chance of winning and play it as long as you play to win > in-game. Of course, most people will try to assemble effective decks and > try to win anyway. Sure. Is there a point to the tangential note? >> Many people who play combat decks do so because it is fun and >> challenging to do so. These decks and players are still playing to win. >> And, unlike your lame bleedzooka/votezooka(tm) deck, they're trying to >> actually try an under-represented and low-power mechanic. Have a bit of >> respect for these folks. . . Without them, this game would more closely >> resemble others that we'd rather it not. Moreover, combat provides a >> much-needed check and balance on more direct strategies. It's a >> necessary leg of the triangle, even if it is underpowered. > > All good and true, but it is on one hand not really related to the > original point I made, and on the other it does not consider that > ultimately the game should be fun for everyone, including the player who > is ousted. If the game is only fun the less-than-20% of the time when > you win, then you won't be playing it for long. The original point you made implies a form of social engineering which in turn takes the fun out of the game for *someone else*. So long as they're playing to win in a given game, socially engineering out decktypes is a poor strategy. I don't know why you can't have fun in a situation when you're well and truly hosed. For me, this is when I really get down to it and start churning out possibilities. The greatest elation for me comes in winning from a losing position. Do you prefer to give up when the odds seem stacked against you? > Denial for denial's sake is not a motive I'd happily build a deck on. If > someone sits down to play without having an adamant winning strategy, > I'd prefer he do so with a forward-going deck that only dimishes pool. To eliminate potential strawmen, I'm considering combat decks that have a reasonable chance of winning among combat decks. In other words, they pack methods of doing pool damage via combat or intend to bleed just enough to gain an oust combined with whatever other pool damaging strategies they have. >>> each time he torporizes a vampire, I have three options - struggle and >>> 1 out of 100 come back and actually win; play carelessly and try to >>> get ousted as soon as possible (sometimes harder than it seems); or >>> pack my stuff and find another table nevertheless, leaving my pool >>> there to be bled. >> >> The latter two aren't actually aligned with any notion of playing to >> win. > > Well, that even wouldn't be the main issue, because you could > technically argue that whenever you are at the point where future VPs > are extremely unlikely, you can freely choose the method in which you > obtain them. Sure. I've addressed this above. > The real problem with these options is that they aren't really nice > things to do. It's remarkably unfun to stare at a pile of pool counters > and slowly eat them up, knowing that there was a player sitting there > once. Yeah. So don't do that. > Of course, in tournament play the choice is always #1, because if all > else fails, you can hope for the 1/2 VP. Unless it was absolutely clear, > my comments refer to casual play. Yes, I'm aware of that. It doesn't prevent you from separating in-game considerations from out-of-game considerations. >> If you're closed-minded enough to suggest that you can't come back from >> such a table state, perhaps you ought to hone your ability to consider >> table balance. Often, a path to victory is not merely 1/100 when >> crushed by a combat deck. Challenge yourself to win under duress and >> two things will happen: 1) you will learn to play better; and 2) you >> will win more. > > I don't really feel that the content or tone of this paragraph was > utterly appropriate. Tone, sure. My apologies. However, to suggest that there's nothing left to do when you're confronted by particular deck types (i.e. combat) and end up largely in torpor seems to be reaching. If you consider yourself in isolation, you are truly hosed. But you're often playing the game with others who would like to keep you alive. They can often help or put pressure where it needs to be. And not because they're being nice to you. Rather, because they're using you. Using people is the whole point of the game. :) >> I suppose your notion of fun doesn't involve thinking. On second >> thought, it's probably best to ignore all that I've said. . . > > Well, neither was this, for that matter. > >> since you'd have to think about it. > > ...no, fuck YOU. ;) Can't. Too far away. :) Ankur

"Ankur Gupta" <agu...@cs.duke.edu> wrote in message news:Pine.GSO.4.62.06...@cipher1.cs.duke.edu... >> "Ankur Gupta" <agu...@cs.duke.edu> wrote in message >> news:Pine.GSO.4.62.06...@cipher1.cs.duke.edu... >>>> On the other hand, decks that attack pool directly frequently (not >>>> always, I'll concede, but frequently) will leave its victim in viable >>>> operating condition up to the moment he's history. Typically, unless I >>>> got heavily bled right from the start (counting political KRCs/ConAg/etc >>>> as "bleeding"), I would have a working complement of minions when I was >>>> ousted. >>> >>> Not that it's particularly relevant to this conversation, but I'd just >>> like to point out that the above reason is why people shouldn't froth at >>> the mouth and go all gangly-eyed when their predator tries to mill their >>> deck. . . They're able to play their game right up until the moment >>> they're history. >> >> Huh?!? This _exactly_ the reason to go all (WTF does "gangly-eyed" >> mean?!?) whatever and froth at the mouth. This is precisely the same >> thing as getting ones minions torped and being left without a key >> resource that will fuck them over whether their predator succeeds or >> fails. The fact that their library will wind up being too small to last >> long enough to sweep the table is the same thing as losing one's >> minions. > > No, you're perfectly able to play your game until the exact moment when > you're decked. I don't want to just "play my game until the exact moment I've been decked." Who told you that was what anybody cared about? Somebody else, I guess, not me. The point was, with a bleed deck, I still have chance to win until the moment I'm ousted. I could be down to a single pool and still oust other people and get back into the game. Or bloat because most decks - as long as they have library and minions - can bloat and get back into the game. Point is, there's still hope. > It's much like stealth-bleed in this case. A bleeding deck > has done nothing to you until you've lost your last pool, in a certain > sense. In a much more *real* sense, you have suffered from absolutely > *nothing* until you're decked. And that's when you die. What? You're telling me I'm in the same condition if I'm down to a single pool as if I'm down my last 10 library cards? If you can't see the difference between the two situations, it's no wonder you can't figure out anyone else's point of view about this. You can come back from being down to your last pool. If you're down to your last 10 cards during a relatively early part of the game, you're almost certainly a dead Methuselah walking. > Milling decks generally give their prey about 12 turns of deck. If you > can't generate an oust in this time, well, you were probably screwed > anyway. First of all, that's just wrong. I've played any number of games where I've existed longer than that without ousting anyone and eventually won. Secondly, even if I wangle a single oust, it's unlikely I'll get another one if my library's exhausted. Seriously, I don't see what problem you're having seeing this. Are the implications of the library exhaustion a mill deck causes really so hard to grasp? I'm confused why I'm even getting an argument about this. If a mill deck works at all well, then it screws its prey whether it wins or loses. Why is that so hard to understand? > I find it amusing that two decks (one which lets you play your game, i.e. > milling, and one which "prevents you from doing so", i.e. combat decks) > are lambasted equally as being something that is irritating to one's > playstyle. For most such people, they should realize that they want to > play only when their predator is unable to harm them. . . In other words, > they want a free win. I'm not sure what "such people" you mean. But I think you're getting confused about the fact that the combat deck which is at least successful in its tactics, takes its victims' ability to function away immediately. The mill deck takes it way later on, very suddenly. But it takes it away just as inevitably. It doesn't matter that my deck still functions at this very moment. I know that I need library to function in long run. If I don't have it, I'm just as screwed as I am with combat deck. The bleed deck may put you on the brink but you can come back from it. There are almost no ways to recover library and none that can solve what the mill deck does to you. > I don't see how failure to oust with *any* strategy leaves their prey in a > better position than any other. Well, sorry. Clearly, there is a difference. As I said earlier in the thread, many people understand the difference intuitively even if they don't understand how it works exactly. I think you're intellectualizing it away and just plain ignoring the obvious point. > Most people I know froth at the mouth at a bleedzooka predator. Know why? > Cause they don't get to play their game then either. I suppose the argument could be made that a super-bleed deck doesn't give its prey enough time to set up a defense and play their game. If the that bleed deck has no defense and winds up getting ousted before it ousts, then I'll give you that the same kind of irritation is in order for more or less the same reason. That's just screwing your prey to the benefit of your predator. (I know because I'm guilty of this with some of my lousier decks, frankly.) Most good bleed decks that people play aren't like this. And if you get bled out lightning quick because your predator has a good deck and wins quickly, that's not the same thing. Fred

[ quoted text not captured ] Take a look at your original assertion. You wanted to be sure that you could still "play your game", which is something that a combat deck seems to deny you. A milling deck does not prevent you from playing your deck. As a separate point, you can still oust other people and get back into the game with 10 library cards. Largely because many many many games end up in a player getting an oust before 12 turns are up. Pulling a second vp with a restricted library is no different than any number of other instances of attrition. In this case, a reduced library size is offset by the fact that you tend to have little to no pool/minion pressure. You can make full use of 30 pool whereas others must be careful of it. There is still hope to win even if you have been milled to about 10 cards. Presumably you knew that this would happen and you changed your strategy accordingly over the course of 12 turns. You may have emphasized permanents, taken opportunities to remove key minions while you were fairly certain to still have cards, made deals in anticipation of being decked, blocked or removed or slowed your deck's milling. . . . (There are quite a number of available and versatile responses to milling decks. I mention a few later on.) >> It's much like stealth-bleed in this case. A bleeding deck has done >> nothing to you until you've lost your last pool, in a certain sense. In >> a much more *real* sense, you have suffered from absolutely *nothing* >> until you're decked. And that's when you die. > > What? You're telling me I'm in the same condition if I'm down to a > single pool as if I'm down my last 10 library cards? If you can't see > the difference between the two situations, it's no wonder you can't > figure out anyone else's point of view about this. You can come back > from being down to your last pool. If you're down to your last 10 cards > during a relatively early part of the game, you're almost certainly a > dead Methuselah walking. Don't try to slip in "relatively early". It just doesn't happen with milling decks. You're going to lose your deck (generously speaking) by about turn 12. That's not early. That's mid for a few games. That's mid/late for most games. That's late for some. That's not early for most games that fit in a 2 hour time limit, if any. Of course you're not in the *same* situation. But, at the same time, you're not in a hopeless one. You're in a situation that's uniquely different from being at 1 pool but presents similarly interesting options. Your resources are constrained (one way or another) and it's your job to pull something through with that. Are you telling me that never ever ever ever in your life would you ever feel as if having more pool at the cost of some extra cards in your ash heap isn't a good tradeoff? Finally, for the record, you're almost certainly a dead Methuselah walking with 1 pool too. (Some cards are even designed to exploit your newfound weakness; see also From a Sinking Ship.) >> Milling decks generally give their prey about 12 turns of deck. If you >> can't generate an oust in this time, well, you were probably screwed >> anyway. > > First of all, that's just wrong. I've played any number of games where > I've existed longer than that without ousting anyone and eventually won. > Secondly, even if I wangle a single oust, it's unlikely I'll get another > one if my library's exhausted. Sure. Lots of people have. How likely is it that you'll earn a vp on just 1 pool? How likely are you to win a table with 1 pool? Is that more or less than playing with fewer cards? Have you factored in the fact that you can go whole-hog forward because your predator chose not to do pool damage? For the games in your career that you have won, can you give an average of how many cards were in your deck at the time of winning? Those cards, whatever they were, were completely useless. Wouldn't you have loved to have extra pool instead of those dead cards? Your milling predator gives you that advantage off the top. He has to mill more than that number before he ever affects you. You get free pool for his silliness. > Seriously, I don't see what problem you're having seeing this. Are the > implications of the library exhaustion a mill deck causes really so hard > to grasp? I'm confused why I'm even getting an argument about this. > If a mill deck works at all well, then it screws its prey whether it > wins or loses. Why is that so hard to understand? If a bleed deck works well at all, it screws its prey whether it wins or loses. If a vote deck works well at all, it screws its prey whether it wins or loses. Why is that so hard to understand? My point is: library exhaustion is *no more* of a resource winnowing strategy than any of the other three (bleed, vote, combat). You are afforded certain luxuries with a miller behind you, namely little other tangible pressure. Even if you ignore the pressure angle to an extent, you're still watching a predator invest card slots and time to fielding an orthogonal strategy which doesn't impact the normal operation of your deck until it's basically too late. > I'm not sure what "such people" you mean. But I think you're getting > confused about the fact that the combat deck which is at least > successful in its tactics, takes its victims' ability to function away > immediately. The mill deck takes it way later on, very suddenly. But it > takes it away just as inevitably. It doesn't matter that my deck still > functions at this very moment. I know that I need library to function > in long run. If I don't have it, I'm just as screwed as I am with combat > deck. I'm not confused about anything: a combat deck constrains you throughout the game by reigning in minion actions. A bleed/vote deck constrains you throughout the game by reigning in options, which are concretely represented by pool counters. A milling deck constrains you *once you're decked*, and not a moment before. If ANY strategy were to get close to its goal and fail, it would be devastating to you. It should be, because they were close to their goal. The fact that your deck functions *NOW* is huge! You get to play. You get to earn vps. You get to move for a win. And, if you can get out from underneath the power structure in 10 or so turns, the mill deck may not be able to stop you from moving around the table. Remember, it has a predator too. . . . > The bleed deck may put you on the brink but you can come back from it. > There are almost no ways to recover library and none that can solve what > the mill deck does to you. There isn't a need to recover library! Get an oust or three while the thing sets up! Most milling strategies also have standard responses that one can use to deal with them. Location destruction, blocking, vote denial, suddens, etc. Many of these are standard defensive mechanisms that might find their way into a normal deck anyway. You're not up a creek without a paddle. You can slow or arrest the depletion of your library in a proactive manner rather than conjuring a scenario where you're dealing with a fully-teched up predator. And, since milling provides no benefit to your predator until you're well and thoroughly decked, the resultant situation can shift the balance of the table in all kinds of ways. >> I don't see how failure to oust with *any* strategy leaves their prey >> in a better position than any other. > > Well, sorry. Clearly, there is a difference. As I said earlier in the > thread, many people understand the difference intuitively even if they > don't understand how it works exactly. I think you're intellectualizing > it away and just plain ignoring the obvious point. Sorry, I'm not letting you get away with "clearly there is a difference". Yes, by the nature of the fact Y isn't X, it's different. But its consequences in the context of this conversation are *not* different. Everyone understands that Y is not X; that's what you're talking about. Those who think about it realize that Y->Z just as much as X->Z; that's what I'm talking about. I'm not intellectualizing away an obvious point; I'm telling you that game play allows a great deal of freedom to the prey of a milling deck. And, that it ain't so bad. Heck, I would rather be the prey of a milling deck than any other kind of deck. Bring it on. I would love it. I put Liquidation in some of my decks, and now I don't have to! >> Most people I know froth at the mouth at a bleedzooka predator. Know >> why? Cause they don't get to play their game then either. > > I suppose the argument could be made that a super-bleed deck doesn't > give its prey enough time to set up a defense and play their game. If > the that bleed deck has no defense and winds up getting ousted before it > ousts, then I'll give you that the same kind of irritation is in order > for more or less the same reason. That's just screwing your prey to the > benefit of your predator. (I know because I'm guilty of this with some > of my lousier decks, frankly.) Most good bleed decks that people play > aren't like this. And if you get bled out lightning quick because your > predator has a good deck and wins quickly, that's not the same thing. I think you just proved my point. A deck that wins is not part of your irritation. By definition, if the milling deck wins, you can't fault it for what it did to you. It had to to win and you were steamrolled in the process. We're talking about decks that put a good effort into ousting you and then fail, either due to poor design, play, or just table state. For these scenarios, again where decks are unable to oust but make crippling moves towards doing so, a milling deck hoses its prey in no worse a fashion than a bleed deck or a vote deck. I'd argue similarly for a combat case, but I'm willing to concede that for the sake of focusing on milling. A bleed/vote deck that leaves you at one pool hasn't left you whole and happy; most likely, you'll be ousted. When you've got 10 cards left in your deck but a pile of pool and minions to act with, you're likely ousted. But, you have no less of a chance to win than in the 1 pool case. [ quoted text not captured ]

I'd have to chime in that hyper bleed is way more annoying ESPECIALLY Weenie bleed. When it comes to combat decks, even if I'm NOT prepared, I can just transfer till I can almost bring out two minions and then just sit there while my predator does nothing to me except bleeds for one or two and gets pressured enough to go upstream so I can bring out the guys. When it comes to weenie or stealth bleeds, if I don't have the tools, I lose. Period. No table talk fixes that. No change to my gameplay fixes that. And that's aggravating since one of the main things I love about VTES is that it seems no matter how crappy the situation you're handed looks, you can usually eek out a VP with some skills and politics. ~Drace~ [ quoted text not captured ]

I thought in chess, whoever castles first loses usually ...?

Weenie *anything* is worse than mid-cap or Star & Support *anything*. That's a completely different topic. While I appreciate the lengthy back and forth following something I authored, I'm curious as to peoples' opinions toward the opinions I present in the NL, as they apply to this topic. It was my intention to preach on "responsible combat" (much like 'responsible bleed'), which focusses on actually ousting your prey while preserving table balance and even encouraging stalemates between your rivals. Whirling Dervish or Tazmanian Devil style play can lead to ugly games. It is my belief that most players of combat deck over-estimate their predator, and turn far too right far too early. I also think this is primarily propogated by poor deckbuilding, which leads to an all-rush game. When you have to do all of your defense during your minion phase, you are going to make a bunch of enemies, and when it ultimately doesn't work, you lose, and leave your neighbor broke, sticky, and confused. I tried to preach on that a little, too.[Diversifying your combat build, that is] Remeber the first half of the essay is in the December newsletter - I could post just the essay in it's entirety if anybody requests it (or feel free to copy and paste it together and post it yourself). I think reading the two parts together presents my philosophy on playing combat fairly clearly, and addresses a lot of issues that have been points of contention here. Note that I throw in some thoughts that, in retrospect, I probably shouldn't have, given that no one can see my tongue-in-cheek. For example, I say that won't rush my predators' vampires right away, unless they have Dominate, in which case they simply must go. Granted, Dom presents it's own set of complications, but I honestly like to keep even a Dom bleed predator in the game. Any vampire with Superior has to be nuetered, of course, unless your grandpredator isn't bleeding much, which makes the Deflections a non-issue (or near-non). I've seen the "no-minions" response from the prey of a combat deck before, and it was quite effective. This was a pre-con sabbat War/Cam Ed tourney, so take that into consideration. But it's why I suggest paying attention to the Bleed action, too.

On Fri, 6 Jan 2006 19:52:07 -0500, Ankur Gupta <agu...@cs.duke.edu> wrote: > Regardless of my bad day, I doubt that I really missed your point. You > associate frustration with a combat deck that "forces" you to sit in a > game an inordinate time where there's a happy land elsewhere that you > could play another game in. My point is simply this: you're not allowed > to consider happy land when carrying judgement on what decks are > annoying. Largely because if you do, combat decks thin out and stop > being played. Cause you know, everyone is annoyed and overreacts and > takes an already hard to play concept and socially engineers it out. There are two ways to look at this. One: rules-wise. I'm at a losing position, I may choose to lose the way I wish to. Two, assuming the player wishes to have fun: there is considerably less fun associated with "playing" a lost game with the likelihood that you're dead anyway than playing it with actually having some options left. I'm sure everyone feels the gaping difference between actively participating in the tug-of-war that is VtES and having no power left, being empowered or cast aside at the sole discretion of the other players. The level of control (and active strategising) is significantly different. > The original point you made implies a form of social engineering which > in turn takes the fun out of the game for *someone else*. Well, I'm getting curious what the implication I made was. ;) > So long as they're playing to win in a given game, socially engineering > out decktypes is a poor strategy. I don't know why you can't have fun in > a situation when you're well and truly hosed. For me, this is when I > really get down to it and start churning out possibilities. The greatest > elation for me comes in winning from a losing position. Do you prefer to > give up when the odds seem stacked against you? Depends. Mostly I just want to play my deck because I feel like doing so. I assemble it because I want to try a given combination of cards and strategies. Most of the time I prefer tables where I can play my game regardless of whether I win or lose. I guess winning a card game is not the absolute goal for some of us? >> Denial for denial's sake is not a motive I'd happily build a deck on. >> If someone sits down to play without having an adamant winning >> strategy, I'd prefer he do so with a forward-going deck that only >> dimishes pool. > > To eliminate potential strawmen, I'm considering combat decks that have > a reasonable chance of winning among combat decks. In other words, they > pack methods of doing pool damage via combat or intend to bleed just > enough to gain an oust combined with whatever other pool damaging > strategies they have. Which is interesting, you know, given how the discussion started somewhere with the comparison of a poorly played combat deck that kills your game and dies, and an irresponsible bleedzooka that gets deflected into you and ousts you. But yeah, whatever makes you happy; you could've communicated this earlier though, you know, because all this time, for some stupid reason, I actually thought you were in fact talking about the topic of this thread. Silly me... -- Bye, Daneel

Fred Scott wrote: > The point I was trying to make to Peter, however, > involved choosing two vampires that I was intending to play with for > the whole game, leaving two others as backup or if I succeed at bloating > through ousts or other means later on in the game. If a combat deck > just takes out the first two totally, then I have to use some of my backup > pool that was intended as my buffer against ousting in order to get > a minion out and have some chance to still do something. You are not factoring in that this "buffer pool" is not actually needed (strictly speaking, needed to a lesser degree) because your pool is getting attacked indirectly. It's fairer than you are making it out to be. -- David Cherryholmes

"bluedevil" <david.che...@gmail.com> wrote > > Sure there is. Some goober of a grandpredator with a bleedzooka, > feeding your super-bouncey predator because "it's what my deck does." > > That's a shit-ton more irritating. I agree that it's irritating, but there's often very little that can be done when one is in that situation. What would you do, assuming you were that grandpredator? Hunt? Wall up? Wait for your prey to tap out? The options are often limited, unless you thought to add some during the deck-building phase. (I ask as someone who still, after all these years, despises Malk/!Malk S&B decks, and never plays them... so please don't think I am unsympathetic.) Cheers, WES P.S. Are you done with the JOL league? You haven't signed up for any new games lately. No worries, either way.

On Sun, 8 Jan 2006, Wes wrote: > > "bluedevil" <david.che...@gmail.com> wrote >> >> Sure there is. Some goober of a grandpredator with a bleedzooka, >> feeding your super-bouncey predator because "it's what my deck does." >> >> That's a shit-ton more irritating. > > I agree that it's irritating, but there's often very little that can be done > when one is in that situation. What would you do, assuming you were that > grandpredator? Hunt? Wall up? Wait for your prey to tap out? The options are > often limited, unless you thought to add some during the deck-building > phase. There are plenty of options. Here are a few: Bleed for 1 a lot. Refuse to play any stealth and inform your grandprey that she should leave a minion or two untapped to block your bounced bleeds. I do this a lot. My grandprey starts untapping and I announce I'm planning to do some big bleeding on my turn, but won't add stealth. Almost any deck can arrange for the most basic defenses given the notice "expect a 0 stealth bleed of 4 heading your way on my next turn." Yeah, hunt a lot and bloat with Blood Dolls, bring out more minions and bleed for 1 a lot. Get blocked, tap out prey (Faceless Night on a bleed for 1), then go for the big bleed. Any good player will assess the situation and adjust her strategy accordingly. Sure, sometimes heaps of bleed bounce will result in one's grandprey getting ousted, but there are certainly measures one can take to mitigate things. A good deck will include other tools (Spying Mission, Anarch Troublemaker, etc.) to avoid ousting its grandprey, but even without those there are options other than putting on blinders and bleeding for 6 at stealth every turn. Matt Morgan

On 7 Jan 2006 06:32:10 -0800, Tom Duncan <veknp...@yahoo.com> wrote: > Weenie *anything* is worse than mid-cap or Star & Support *anything*. > That's a completely different topic. Yup. > While I appreciate the lengthy back and forth following something I > authored, I'm curious as to peoples' opinions toward the opinions I > present in the NL, as they apply to this topic. It was my intention to > preach on "responsible combat" (much like 'responsible bleed'), which > focusses on actually ousting your prey while preserving table balance > and even encouraging stalemates between your rivals. You've made some very good points. A lot of the issues associated with playing combat decks can be avoided by following your advice. I've only been reading Jarkko's and your newsletters, so I don't know anything about the earlier authors and works, but I've found these last newsletters to be great reads, full of useful content. Keep up the good work! -- Bye, Daneel

> There are two ways to look at this. One: rules-wise. I'm at a losing > position, I may choose to lose the way I wish to. Two, assuming the > player wishes to have fun: there is considerably less fun associated > with "playing" a lost game with the likelihood that you're dead anyway > than playing it with actually having some options left. That's assuming of course that you've determined that the game is lost. >> The original point you made implies a form of social engineering which >> in turn takes the fun out of the game for *someone else*. > > Well, I'm getting curious what the implication I made was. ;) Combat deck players, for instance, might be irritated that you're essentially uninterested in a test environment for them, where combinations of combat cards are put together in an effort to win with it. If it doesn't, you'd be more frustrated than with a bad deck otherwise. > Depends. Mostly I just want to play my deck because I feel like doing > so. I assemble it because I want to try a given combination of cards and > strategies. Most of the time I prefer tables where I can play my game > regardless of whether I win or lose. You can play your game when an irresponsible bleedzooka is bounced into you repeatedly? > I guess winning a card game is not the absolute goal for some of us? Fair enough, I suppose. I'm not assuming here that you've built a deck that's tier-1 or whatever. Only that in a given game, with whatever cards you have, you attempt to win. In that framework (which matches the thread's context), it still doesn't invalidate a point about frustration of combat decks vis-a-vis other decks. >>> Denial for denial's sake is not a motive I'd happily build a deck on. >>> If someone sits down to play without having an adamant winning >>> strategy, I'd prefer he do so with a forward-going deck that only >>> dimishes pool. >> >> To eliminate potential strawmen, I'm considering combat decks that have >> a reasonable chance of winning among combat decks. In other words, they >> pack methods of doing pool damage via combat or intend to bleed just >> enough to gain an oust combined with whatever other pool damaging >> strategies they have. > > Which is interesting, you know, given how the discussion started > somewhere with the comparison of a poorly played combat deck that kills > your game and dies, and an irresponsible bleedzooka that gets deflected > into you and ousts you. Note that a poorly played combat deck is not excluded from my strawmen comment. But, just to be clear about the whole thing. . . it doesn't particularly matter. If your goal is to be able to "play your game" or "try out various combinations of cards", you no more get that chance with a combat deck (bad or good) as your predator as you do any other predator type. > But yeah, whatever makes you happy; you could've communicated this > earlier though, you know, because all this time, for some stupid reason, > I actually thought you were in fact talking about the topic of this > thread. Silly me... I did. You've moved the goalposts on me a couple of times. My point still stands: you get to play your game just as much with a bad combat deck as with any other deck. If whoever it is gets close to ousting you but doesn't, you're hosed no matter what. See my previous post for a detailed description of this. You snipped it in this response, unfortunately. Ankur

"Matthew T. Morgan" <far...@io.com> wrote > > There are plenty of options. Here are a few: > > Bleed for 1 a lot. I rarely see that from S&B decks. The temptation to lay down the bleed mods is too strong for most people, I guess. > Refuse to play any stealth and inform your grandprey that she should leave > a minion or two untapped to block your bounced bleeds. I do this a lot. > My grandprey starts untapping and I announce I'm planning to do some big > bleeding on my turn, but won't add stealth. Almost any deck can arrange > for the most basic defenses given the notice "expect a 0 stealth bleed of > 4 heading your way on my next turn." Reasonable. I don't usually see that kind of consideration from most S&B grandpredators. Usually they're content to bleed irresponsibly without a care in the world, in my experience. > Yeah, hunt a lot and bloat with Blood Dolls, bring out more minions and > bleed for 1 a lot. That would assume including Blood Dolls in the first place and having them installed on the vampires in play. The situation I am talking about is long after the deck construction phase and when we have little control over what cards are in our hand. Assuming a Malk S&B, let's say we have no Blood Dolls in-play or in-hand, a hand full of DOM and OBF and nothing else. I suppose you could hunt anyway, or make someone an anarch cardlessly perhaps, but that's not really going to do much (usually) to help them achieve their greater goal of winning that game. > Get blocked, tap out prey (Faceless Night on a bleed for 1), then go for > the big bleed. That assumes the S&B deck has a Faceless Night or has a prey who actually bothers blocking unstealthed bleeds for 1. Conventional wisdom is not to bother blocking (unless playing an equivalently intercepty deck). And if they're not blocking unstealthed bleeds for 1, the S&B deck is back to square one. Their deck is still effectively stalled. > Any good player will assess the situation and adjust her strategy > accordingly. Sure, sometimes heaps of bleed bounce will result in one's > grandprey getting ousted, but there are certainly measures one can take to > mitigate things. A good deck will include other tools (Spying Mission, > Anarch Troublemaker, etc.) to avoid ousting its grandprey, but even > without those there are options other than putting on blinders and > bleeding for 6 at stealth every turn. I agree, of course. The problem is that it is very easy to look at a given table state and say "That deck could use Spying Missions" but at that point in time it is a moot statement. The player either hasn't included them (and shame on them) or does not have them readily available (which can't really be helped). I don't know if that is enough of an excuse for bleeding irresponsibly, mind you, but there may not be as many options available as you imply above. S&B decks bleed heavily at stealth exactly because that *is* what they are designed to do, so the player in David's example does have a point. (Though I am all for such people designing more interesting decks.) Cheers, WES

> While I appreciate the lengthy back and forth following something I > authored, I'm curious as to peoples' opinions toward the opinions I > present in the NL, as they apply to this topic. It was my intention to > preach on "responsible combat" (much like 'responsible bleed'), which > focusses on actually ousting your prey while preserving table balance > and even encouraging stalemates between your rivals. Since few people have directly responded to the main point of the newsletter, I'll go ahead and say that I really liked it. The points about patience and responsibility dovetail really well. It strikes me that one of the biggest misconceptions about playing Jyhad is that the best way to play your deck is to cycle through cards as fast as possible. This might often be true for bleed and vote decks, but it is wildly far from the mark for combat based strategies (including but not limited to rush). If you can get away with it, bleeding your prey for 6 at 3 stealth is almost always a good idea. Likewise KRCing and Voter Capping for 8. Clobbering another player's vampire might not always be such a good idea, and you really have to be a much more shrewd and observant player to win with a strategy that does that. Regarding the latter, it seems that a lot of players simply stop paying attention from when their prey's turn ends and their predator's turn begins, and then reevaluate what's going on at the start of their own turn. This is problematic in that it wastes time, which as a "slow deck" player really irks me since it reduces my chances of winning in a tournament game. It also leads to (or is suggested by) a style of play that ignores table dynamics for a focus on ousting uber alles. The very fact that there's been so much complaining about irresponsible combat in this thread is evidence that your point needs to be considered. It may very well be that the players making these complaints have primarily witnessed bad, or irresponsible combat players. When it gets right down to it, the problem isn't combat; it's bad play. A bleed or vote deck in the hands of a bad or irresponsible player is equally dangerous (or moreso), as many people are willing to attest. It may very well be that combat lends itself to bad play more than other deck types because it so hard to manage correctly. I'm also willing to venture the guess that the people complaining about combat decks are probably accustomed to low combat metagames, where combat decks tend to be seen as a nuissance--and often are. These players might do well to play or observe a few games in the high combat environment (the online version is a good way to do this for those who can't travel). The types of things you see happening in combat in such metagames are very different. My general impression is that combat decks in low combat metagames tend to be focused very heavily on offense with little defensive at all, relying on the assumption that their enemies will be easy targets--mono potence rush decks are a great example of this. Decks like this get totally obliterated in high combat metagames, because people are prepared to defend against their attacks and fight back with a vengeance. The decks that do well in high combat games tend to rely on highly flexible combat packages, with a lot of defense. Cards that work as offense and/or defense are great for doing this--examples include Drawing Out the Beast, Theft of Vitae, Stutter Step, Side Strike, Indomitability, Blood of Acid, Typhonic Beast, etc. When you play combat in this environment, you're much less likely to go head long rushing at people. Combat is more of a tactical assett and less of a strategy. When it gets right down to it, it really strikes me that high combat vs. low combat metagames are almost like totally different games that happen to share the same rules.

> While I appreciate the lengthy back and forth following something I > authored, I'm curious as to peoples' opinions toward the opinions I > present in the NL, as they apply to this topic. It was my intention to > preach on "responsible combat" (much like 'responsible bleed'), which > focusses on actually ousting your prey while preserving table balance > and even encouraging stalemates between your rivals. Since few people have directly responded to the main point of the [ quoted text not captured ]

Fred Scott wrote: > People intuitively know that having a combat deck as a neighbor screws them worse than > decks that attack their pool directly. But they are intuitively wrong. If they have no combat defense, then having a combat deck as a neighbor screws them worse than a deck that directly attacks their pool. If they do, then such decks don't screw them more. Losing 20 pool by turn 6 is going to kill you far quicker than losing 20 pool of minions by turn 6. Yeah, losing 20 pool and having a few minions in play as the prey of a bleed deck might leave you in a defensible position, but if you have no bleed defense, you aren't in a defensible position (which is likely why you lost the 20 pool in the first place). You are just losing. As you will be ousted very soon. Conversely, if your predator has a brutal Rush deck, and you can defend yourself, then you don't lose 20 pool of minions, and are in a defensible position. The issue comes from what you can turn into a defensible position. If you can stop a heavy bleed deck, then you can make a defensible position out of 5 pool and some minions, but if you can't defend, you get wiped out. If you can defend yourself from a Rush deck, you aren't going to lose so many minions, and you'll have a defensible position to work from. If you have no dfense against the offense in question, it doesn't matter what causes you to lose the 30 pool--you still die either way. -Peter

I hope I'm not double posting this. I posted it several hours ago, and it hasn't shown up. Luckily I still had it in the clip board when I noticed it wasn't there. > While I appreciate the lengthy back and forth following something I > authored, I'm curious as to peoples' opinions toward the opinions I > present in the NL, as they apply to this topic. It was my intention to > preach on "responsible combat" (much like 'responsible bleed'), which > focusses on actually ousting your prey while preserving table balance > and even encouraging stalemates between your rivals. Since few people have directly responded to the main point of the [ quoted text not captured ]

Tom Duncan wrote: > > I've seen the "no-minions" response from the prey of a combat deck > before, and it was quite effective. This was a pre-con sabbat War/Cam > Ed tourney, so take that into consideration. But it's why I suggest > paying attention to the Bleed action, too. > Tom Duncan wrote: > > I've seen the "no-minions" response from the prey of a combat deck > before, and it was quite effective. This was a pre-con sabbat War/Cam > Ed tourney, so take that into consideration. But it's why I suggest > paying attention to the Bleed action, too. > I love the "no-minions" response. I mean, not that I use it, or that I love if it's used against me, I just love the idea of it - it's hilarious. ;) And it can really shut down a poorly-built rush deck, especially one that relies on a big vamp or two, rather than midcaps or weenie-rush. At this point in the game, though, I think every combat clan has at least some decent access to ousting mechanisms, such that a well-built deck shouldn't need to be *all* combat. (I'm not disagreeing with your point, just adding my two cents.) Blood Brothers are one of the biggest "combat-monster" clans, and they have Walk of Caine. Brujah have presence bleeds or votes, Euro-Brujah have dominate instead. Anyone with Animalism can at least go with Army of Rats and Tier of Souls. Assamites may have had a hard time up until KMW, but now they have a number of different paths to ousting - Alamut turns your bleeds for 1 into voting power - so maybe you add a few KRC's to your deck; Khabar: Glory gives you an extra +1 bleed, and a nice reward if you oust, Flurry of Action lets you bleed and do something else, Songs of Distant Vitae gives you inherent stealth and might give a +1 bleed. Some other stuff in KMW doesn't directly help you to oust, but can facilitate other paths - Black Sunrise lets you tap out and still be able to block (better than Wake, in *most* situations), and Deviki Prasanta helps you get your vamps all tooled up - especially if you choose to tack on an "ousting" discipline, like dominate or presence. Sabbat clans (and Sabbat Assamites, if you choose to focus on them) have Pentex Loves You!, and every clan has access to stuff like the bleed retainers, Laptops, Computer Hacking, etc. Robert Carter deserves special mention for combat clans that use Steal Blood strikes or Taste of Vitae, as you can put that blood to good use. I think that the way of the New Combat Deck is to toolbox a little. Those bleed modifiers will help you oust your prey, and can double as a pseudo-rush if you want to get blocked. Bloat and defense can allow you to focus more on your prey, since, as you mention in your essay, you don't have to accomplish all of your "defense" by rushing your predator on your turn. Weenie combat decks can still afford to focus entirely on combat, because their sheer number of minions is their best offense. But Star Vamp decks and even mid-cap combat decks almost require some toolboxing, or else they *do* tend toward what you mentioned - beating up a lot of guys and then dying with no VP's.

For some reason my posts have not been showing up the past couple of days. Perhaps I'll better luck with a different accout...sorry if this ends up getting posted several times. > While I appreciate the lengthy back and forth following something I > authored, I'm curious as to peoples' opinions toward the opinions I > present in the NL, as they apply to this topic. It was my intention to > preach on "responsible combat" (much like 'responsible bleed'), which > focusses on actually ousting your prey while preserving table balance > and even encouraging stalemates between your rivals. Since few people have directly responded to the main point of the [ quoted text not captured ]

Wes wrote: > I agree that it's irritating, but there's often very little that can be done > when one is in that situation. What would you do, assuming you were that > grandpredator? Hunt? Wall up? Wait for your prey to tap out? The options are > often limited, unless you thought to add some during the deck-building > phase. I suppose I would do what the hysterics do when they see they have a rush predator: sit on my ass and hope something changes. And probably lose. When you're trumped, you're trumped. But any of those options you gave.... hunt, wall up, wait for him to overextend and build my hand o' death in the meantime..... they're all better than "WHEEEEEEEE!!!!!" > P.S. Are you done with the JOL league? You haven't signed up for any new > games lately. No worries, either way. Nah, I'm not done, but I've been pretty busy. Plus my last game involved a total tool. That happens in Jyhad, but you usually don't have to suffer the same tool for *months*. -- David Cherryholmes

> While I appreciate the lengthy back and forth following something I > authored, I'm curious as to peoples' opinions toward the opinions I > present in the NL, as they apply to this topic. It was my intention to > preach on "responsible combat" (much like 'responsible bleed'), which > focusses on actually ousting your prey while preserving table balance > and even encouraging stalemates between your rivals. Since few people have directly responded to the main point of the [ quoted text not captured ]

> While I appreciate the lengthy back and forth following something I > authored, I'm curious as to peoples' opinions toward the opinions I > present in the NL, as they apply to this topic. It was my intention to > preach on "responsible combat" (much like 'responsible bleed'), which > focusses on actually ousting your prey while preserving table balance > and even encouraging stalemates between your rivals. Since few people have directly responded to the main point of the [ quoted text not captured ]

> While I appreciate the lengthy back and forth following something I > authored, I'm curious as to peoples' opinions toward the opinions I > present in the NL, as they apply to this topic. It was my intention to > preach on "responsible combat" (much like 'responsible bleed'), which > focusses on actually ousting your prey while preserving table balance > and even encouraging stalemates between your rivals. Since few people have directly responded to the main point of the [ quoted text not captured ]

Wes wrote: > I agree that it's irritating, but there's often very little that can be done > when one is in that situation. What would you do, assuming you were that > grandpredator? Hunt? Wall up? Wait for your prey to tap out? The options are > often limited, unless you thought to add some during the deck-building > phase. I suppose I would do what the hysterics do when they see they have a rush predator: sit on my ass and hope something changes. And probably lose. When you're trumped, you're trumped. But any of those options you gave.... hunt, wall up, wait for him to overextend and build my hand o' death in the meantime..... they're all better than "WHEEEEEEEE!!!!!" > P.S. Are you done with the JOL league? You haven't signed up for any new > games lately. No worries, either way. Nah, I'm not done, but I've been pretty busy. Plus my last game [ quoted text not captured ]

Ummm....Apparently my post got octuple-posted. Sorry about that, everyone. Google Newsreader was acting extremely weird this weekend. It appears that David Cherryholmes had a similar problem (?). I'll look into downloading a serious newsreader in the near future.

[ quoted text not captured ] I had a problem as well. My post above was posted at least 2 days ago, and today is the first I've seen it. I figured it was gone, and I didn't save a copy of it, so no way to repost. ;)

Chris Berger wrote: > I had a problem as well. My post above was posted at least 2 days ago, > and today is the first I've seen it. I figured it was gone, and I > didn't save a copy of it, so no way to repost. ;) Yeah, Google was weird over the weekend. I wrote a pointless response to Fred up above, sent it, it vanished for 2 days, and I was like "Huh. That is probably for the best..." Sadly, It just showed up. Man. -Peter

CthuluKitty wrote: > The very fact that there's been so much complaining about irresponsible > combat in this thread is evidence that your point needs to be > considered. It may very well be that the players making these > complaints have primarily witnessed bad, or irresponsible combat > players. When it gets right down to it, the problem isn't combat; it's > bad play. A bleed or vote deck in the hands of a bad or irresponsible > player is equally dangerous (or moreso), as many people are willing to > attest. It may very well be that combat lends itself to bad play more > than other deck types because it so hard to manage correctly. This is all a very cromulent point that people need to be more attuned to--yeah, irresponsible combat is bad for everyone. But any irresponsible play is bad for everyone. Mad bleeding for 5 at +3 stealth that gets bounced is bad. Back ousting your predator or some guy across the table with KRC is likely bad for everyone. But then, just playing a bad deck that doesn't do anything and gives it prey a free ride to a table sweep is also bad for everyone. Dubious rushing of folks is bad for everyone. Probably it is more noticable, due to people A) Not liking to have to play combat defense like they have to play bleed defense and B) People not liking having their minions get beat up, but bad play is bad play, regardless of what type of bad play, and Rush combat is no more responsible for bad play than any other deck strategy. -Peter

pd...@lightlink.com wrote: > > Dubious rushing of folks is bad for everyone. Probably it is more > noticable, due to people A) Not liking to have to play combat defense > like they have to play bleed defense and B) People not liking having > their minions get beat up, but bad play is bad play, regardless of what > type of bad play, and Rush combat is no more responsible for bad play > than any other deck strategy. > Not really. The problem pure rush decks have is that their defense consists of either: 1) Promising to erase your predator if he becomes a threat to you. or 2) Actually erasing your predator. If I'm playing pure rush I'll bring out a minion, look at my predator, and ask myself 3 questions - Does he have any stealth at all? Can he do a lot of damage to my pool? Is he a soft target for my combat? If I get two or more yesses I'll go straight to smashing him. Only once he's firmly under control do I need to even look at my prey. In the early game I want my prey going after HIS prey with his fight or bleed or whatever - until I don't have to watch my back and I'm good and ready to mop up the table. Is that irresponsible? Or is it trying to win? The problem Rush decks have is eliminating their predator is the only defense they've got. Other defensive options may allow you to protect your pool while leaving your predator intact. -Ben Swainbank

"bluedevil" <david.che...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1136728730.3...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > I suppose I would do what the hysterics do when they see they have a > rush predator: sit on my ass and hope something changes. And probably > lose. When you're trumped, you're trumped. But any of those options > you gave.... hunt, wall up, wait for him to overextend and build my > hand o' death in the meantime..... they're all better than > "WHEEEEEEEE!!!!!" Come again? Better than what? Fred

We had a pretty good discussion about "pure" and tool-boxed rush decks on The Path of Blood. http://www.thepathofblood.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=2930 Plenty of players with plenty of combat deck playing experience chimed in, for those interested.

On Sun, 8 Jan 2006 21:13:28 -0500, Ankur Gupta <agu...@cs.duke.edu> wrote: >>> The original point you made implies a form of social engineering which >>> in turn takes the fun out of the game for *someone else*. >> >> Well, I'm getting curious what the implication I made was. ;) > > Combat deck players, for instance, might be irritated that you're > essentially uninterested in a test environment for them, where > combinations of combat cards are put together in an effort to win with > it. If it doesn't, you'd be more frustrated than with a bad deck > otherwise. This was my implication? Strange... >> Depends. Mostly I just want to play my deck because I feel like doing >> so. I assemble it because I want to try a given combination of cards >> and strategies. Most of the time I prefer tables where I can play my >> game regardless of whether I win or lose. > > You can play your game when an irresponsible bleedzooka is bounced into > you repeatedly? Sure. Until my last pool is lost, I still have my minions, and can play all of my cards. When I'm ousted, I go to the next table, and continue playing my game, although from a different phase. >> I guess winning a card game is not the absolute goal for some of us? > > Fair enough, I suppose. I'm not assuming here that you've built a deck > that's tier-1 or whatever. Only that in a given game, with whatever > cards you have, you attempt to win. In that framework (which matches the > thread's context), it still doesn't invalidate a point about frustration > of combat decks vis-a-vis other decks. "Attempting to win" as a necessary directive that is essential for a fair game environment is quite different from any sort of extreme "I. Must. Win." mindset. I play to win because playing to win is required to play a fair game. >>>> Denial for denial's sake is not a motive I'd happily build a deck on. >>>> If someone sits down to play without having an adamant winning >>>> strategy, I'd prefer he do so with a forward-going deck that only >>>> dimishes pool. >>> >>> To eliminate potential strawmen, I'm considering combat decks that >>> have a reasonable chance of winning among combat decks. In other >>> words, they pack methods of doing pool damage via combat or intend to >>> bleed just enough to gain an oust combined with whatever other pool >>> damaging strategies they have. >> >> Which is interesting, you know, given how the discussion started >> somewhere with the comparison of a poorly played combat deck that kills >> your game and dies, and an irresponsible bleedzooka that gets deflected >> into you and ousts you. > > Note that a poorly played combat deck is not excluded from my strawmen > comment. But, just to be clear about the whole thing. . . it doesn't > particularly matter. If your goal is to be able to "play your game" or > "try out various combinations of cards", you no more get that chance > with a combat deck (bad or good) as your predator as you do any other > predator type. My average deck has around 15 Master cards and 75 Minion cards. If I'm ousted, I cannot play 90 out of those 90 cards; if my minions are destroyed, I cannot play 75 of those 90 cards. -- Bye, Daneel

<pd...@lightlink.com> wrote in message news:1136817206.2...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com... > CthuluKitty wrote: >> The very fact that there's been so much complaining about irresponsible >> combat in this thread is evidence that your point needs to be >> considered. It may very well be that the players making these >> complaints have primarily witnessed bad, or irresponsible combat >> players. When it gets right down to it, the problem isn't combat; it's >> bad play. A bleed or vote deck in the hands of a bad or irresponsible >> player is equally dangerous (or moreso), as many people are willing to >> attest. It may very well be that combat lends itself to bad play more >> than other deck types because it so hard to manage correctly. > > This is all a very cromulent point that people need to be more attuned > to--yeah, irresponsible combat is bad for everyone. But any > irresponsible play is bad for everyone. Mad bleeding for 5 at +3 > stealth that gets bounced is bad. Back ousting your predator or some > guy across the table with KRC is likely bad for everyone. But then, > just playing a bad deck that doesn't do anything and gives it prey a > free ride to a table sweep is also bad for everyone. I think maybe the bone of contention over combat isn't so much that irresponsible play is bad. The issue is more whether things that are as bad as irresponsible play can happen a lot because a well- constructed combat deck that is also well-played simply gets unlucky. Fred

>>> Depends. Mostly I just want to play my deck because I feel like doing >>> so. I assemble it because I want to try a given combination of cards >>> and strategies. Most of the time I prefer tables where I can play my >>> game regardless of whether I win or lose. >> >> You can play your game when an irresponsible bleedzooka is bounced into >> you repeatedly? > > Sure. Until my last pool is lost, I still have my minions, and can play > all of my cards. When I'm ousted, I go to the next table, and continue > playing my game, although from a different phase. See, the point you're not getting is this: the rest of your sentence after "when I'm ousted. . ." really shouldn't be part of your judgement for the current game. Because, if you allow that, you're essentially saying that combat decks are less welcome on tables with you on them than otherwise. Social engineering hard at work. Besides, I want to argue this issue of "last pool being lost". Do you claim that you get to play your game when you're bled for 20? How about 15? At which point do you realize that the minions you were able to bring out must play defense mode in order to survive? Is it considered playing your game? >>> I guess winning a card game is not the absolute goal for some of us? >> >> Fair enough, I suppose. I'm not assuming here that you've built a deck >> that's tier-1 or whatever. Only that in a given game, with whatever >> cards you have, you attempt to win. In that framework (which matches >> the thread's context), it still doesn't invalidate a point about >> frustration of combat decks vis-a-vis other decks. > > "Attempting to win" as a necessary directive that is essential for a > fair game environment is quite different from any sort of extreme "I. > Must. Win." mindset. I play to win because playing to win is required to > play a fair game. I never made an "I. Must. Win." requirement. I only postulated that it seems that in many cases where you might otherwise feel that you're completely dead, you may in fact not be. Playing to win may net you a vp even if, during a particular moment in a game all your minions are in torpor. I just wanted to stress the point that even when all seems lost, all is not lost unless you decide that that is indeed the case. It could be correct, or it could be an error in judgement. Often, I find that newer players are much more willing to accept a lost position. Anyway, YMMV. >>> Which is interesting, you know, given how the discussion started >>> somewhere with the comparison of a poorly played combat deck that >>> kills your game and dies, and an irresponsible bleedzooka that gets >>> deflected into you and ousts you. >> >> Note that a poorly played combat deck is not excluded from my strawmen >> comment. But, just to be clear about the whole thing. . . it doesn't >> particularly matter. If your goal is to be able to "play your game" or >> "try out various combinations of cards", you no more get that chance >> with a combat deck (bad or good) as your predator as you do any other >> predator type. > > My average deck has around 15 Master cards and 75 Minion cards. If I'm > ousted, I cannot play 90 out of those 90 cards; if my minions are > destroyed, I cannot play 75 of those 90 cards. So, you proved my point? Bleeding/voting you out removes the ability to play cards more than with combat? Remember, starting a new game isn't a consideration which is allowed if one wants to be fair to all players of all decks in *this* game. Ankur Gupta Prince of West Lafayette

"bluedevil" <david.che...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1136640353.6...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > > Fred Scott wrote: >> The point I was trying to make to Peter, however, >> involved choosing two vampires that I was intending to play with for >> the whole game, leaving two others as backup or if I succeed at bloating >> through ousts or other means later on in the game. If a combat deck >> just takes out the first two totally, then I have to use some of my backup >> pool that was intended as my buffer against ousting in order to get >> a minion out and have some chance to still do something. > > You are not factoring in that this "buffer pool" is not actually needed > (strictly speaking, needed to a lesser degree) because your pool is > getting attacked indirectly. It's fairer than you are making it out to > be. Not really. To sum it up: Sure, it's attacking my buffer pool indirectly. But my transfers and every bit of the development of my game position are the collateral damage that happens when the strategy gets used. That's why having your buffer pool attacked that way sucks far more than having it attacked directly. Fred

<pd...@lightlink.com> wrote in message news:1136646894.9...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com... > Losing 20 pool by turn 6 is going to kill you far quicker than losing > 20 pool of minions by turn 6. No. It's not. It's far worse to lose the minions. Lacking any reasoning to advance the reverse PoV, I guss there's nothing to discuss. > The issue comes from what you can turn into a defensible position. If > you can stop a heavy bleed deck, then you can make a defensible > position out of 5 pool and some minions, but if you can't defend, you > get wiped out. If you can defend yourself from a Rush deck, you aren't > going to lose so many minions, and you'll have a defensible position to > work from. If you have no dfense against the offense in question, it > doesn't matter what causes you to lose the 30 pool--you still die > either way. The difference is, if you can make a defensible position out of five pool plus your minions, you're in a much better position than if had no minions but five pool PLUS the equivalent amount of pool you could use to pay for an equivalent number of minions. (We're comparing apples to apples, right? Since you argue a minion is worth the pool you've invested in it, that's how you'd compare the two situations.) But now you have to spend time transferring substitute minions out and doing any development on them you want. You're obviously better off - usually - with minions on the board than not. If you don't agree, let's organize tournaments where people are allowed to start with their minions on the board and transferred out vs. not on the board and still in their uncontrolled areas and with less than four minions in their uncontrolled areas. We'll see which option is more popular, as this would be the apples- to-apples comparison. Fred

"Ankur Gupta" <agu...@cs.duke.edu> wrote in message news:Pine.GSO.4.62.06...@cipher1.cs.duke.edu... >> "Ankur Gupta" <agu...@cs.duke.edu> wrote in message >> news:Pine.GSO.4.62.06...@cipher1.cs.duke.edu... >>>> "Ankur Gupta" <agu...@cs.duke.edu> wrote in message >>>> news:Pine.GSO.4.62.06...@cipher1.cs.duke.edu... >>> No, you're perfectly able to play your game until the exact moment when you're decked. >> >> I don't want to just "play my game until the exact moment I've been >> decked." Who told you that was what anybody cared about? Somebody else, >> I guess, not me. The point was, with a bleed deck, I still have chance >> to win until the moment I'm ousted. I could be down to a single pool >> and still oust other people and get back into the game. Or bloat >> because most decks - as long as they have library and minions - can >> bloat and get back into the game. Point is, there's still hope. > > Take a look at your original assertion. You wanted to be sure that you > could still "play your game", which is something that a combat deck seems > to deny you. A milling deck does not prevent you from playing your deck. I'm sorry, that was not my original assertion, no. I said nothing about "playing my game". I think someone else (James Coupe?) may have used those words. > As a separate point, you can still oust other people and get back into the > game with 10 library cards. No, you can't. You'll run out of library cards and not oust anyone. Here's our disagreement in a nutshell. You think people can oust other people with a scant few library cards left. I don't. (At least, not usually.) I don't know why you think this is a reasonable suggestion. > Largely because many many many games end up in > a player getting an oust before 12 turns are up. Pulling a second vp with > a restricted library is no different than any number of other instances of > attrition. In this case, a reduced library size is offset by the fact that > you tend to have little to no pool/minion pressure. You can make full use > of 30 pool whereas others must be careful of it. None of this supports your assertion. > There is still hope to win even if you have been milled to about 10 cards. Not usually, no. > Presumably you knew that this would happen and you changed your strategy > accordingly over the course of 12 turns. What you're doing here is basically dazzling with bullshit. You're comparing a developed game where ousts happen with less than 10 cards, ignoring the library cards that have ALREAY been spent developing the player's game to that point, and suggesting this is somehow related to starting out with 10 cards remaining and suggesting ousts are equally possible. Absurd. > Finally, for the record, you're almost certainly a dead Methuselah walking > with 1 pool too. Sorry, nope. Not the same thing. As I pointed out, people can and do come back from 1 pool left all the time. Paul Johnson built a deck that REQUIRES he play with with one or two pool at all times. Bah. No point going on and on with this. Refusal to concede obvious implications of library deprivation is the source of your confusion about why people regard such decks as they do. Fred

Fred Scott wrote: > >> If a combat deck > >> just takes out the first two totally, then I have to use some of my backup > >> pool that was intended as my buffer against ousting in order to get > >> a minion out and have some chance to still do something. > > > > You are not factoring in that this "buffer pool" is not actually needed > > (strictly speaking, needed to a lesser degree) because your pool is > > getting attacked indirectly. It's fairer than you are making it out to > > be. > > Not really. To sum it up: Sure, it's attacking my buffer pool > indirectly. But my transfers and every bit of the development of my > game position are the collateral damage that happens when the strategy > gets used. That's why having your buffer pool attacked that way sucks > far more than having it attacked directly. My point was that this pool was your "buffer against ousting". But the combat deck basically bleeds for one. So either way you are just using the same buffer. When it's a bleed deck, that buffer is directly there as an ablative shield. When it's a combat deck, that buffer pool gets transformed into new minions. Transfers really have no substantial bearing on the argument (which really boils down to "You spoil my fun if you attack my minions. Oh, and I prefer turkey over chicken.") And the "WHEEEE!!!!!" was supposed to symbolize bleeding for 5 at 3 stealth, and to hell with what happens after. -- David Cherryholmes

Fred Scott wrote: > Bah. No point going on and on with this. Refusal to concede obvious > implications of library deprivation is the source of your confusion about > why people regard such decks as they do. It certainly can't be any worse than your obstinate refusal to admit that having 12 turns of no harrassment to your minions or your pool brings with it any benefit (and, by extension, potentially a net advantage). -- David Cherryholmes

"bluedevil" <david.che...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1136836849....@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > Fred Scott wrote: >> >> If a combat deck >> >> just takes out the first two totally, then I have to use some of my backup >> >> pool that was intended as my buffer against ousting in order to get >> >> a minion out and have some chance to still do something. >> > >> > You are not factoring in that this "buffer pool" is not actually needed >> > (strictly speaking, needed to a lesser degree) because your pool is >> > getting attacked indirectly. It's fairer than you are making it out to >> > be. >> >> Not really. To sum it up: Sure, it's attacking my buffer pool >> indirectly. But my transfers and every bit of the development of my >> game position are the collateral damage that happens when the strategy >> gets used. That's why having your buffer pool attacked that way sucks >> far more than having it attacked directly. > > My point was that this pool was your "buffer against ousting". But the > combat deck basically bleeds for one. So either way you are just > using the same buffer. When it's a bleed deck, that buffer is directly > there as an ablative shield. When it's a combat deck, that buffer pool > gets transformed into new minions. Transfers really have no > substantial bearing on the argument (which really boils down to "You > spoil my fun if you attack my minions. No. Apparently, you think that, which explains why you don't understand why people whine about having to sit next to combat decks. But it's not true. Same answer as to Peter: If you think that's so, then have a tournament and give people the option to start with minions transferred out at the start of the game or not. If you're right, lots of people will pass up that option. (R-i-i-i-i-iiiiiiiiiiight...) Fred

"bluedevil" <david.che...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1136837024....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com... [ quoted text not captured ] I didn't refuse to admit that. That isn't Ankur's argument. He's trying to suggest that losing most of your library basically isn't any kind of disadvantage. I didn't see where he was trying to claim having 12 turns of non-harassment was a compensating advantage. It isn't. But the reasons for that are a whole different line of discussion. (Starting out with, it wasn't even my point to suggest that playing against a library-deprivation deck was somehow unbalanced.) Fred

>> As a separate point, you can still oust other people and get back into >> the game with 10 library cards. > > No, you can't. You'll run out of library cards and not oust anyone. I dunno, Fred, with 17 total cards (the hand as well), and the fact that I have been able to freely play the cards in my deck for about 12ish turns seems like I get to play with about 40-50 cards. That seems *more* than reasonable as a means to oust. > Here's our disagreement in a nutshell. You think people can oust other > people with a scant few library cards left. I don't. (At least, not > usually.) I don't know why you think this is a reasonable suggestion. Because, unlike you, I'm not considering the game in isolation. You get *TWELVE TURNS* to try to negotiate something until the point when you're down to just a few cards. >> Largely because many many many games end up in a player getting an oust >> before 12 turns are up. Pulling a second vp with a restricted library >> is no different than any number of other instances of attrition. In >> this case, a reduced library size is offset by the fact that you tend >> to have little to no pool/minion pressure. You can make full use of 30 >> pool whereas others must be careful of it. > > None of this supports your assertion. Sure it does. I'm arguing that your ability to get an oust is *enhanced* by having a predator who doesn't affect your minions or pool for many turns. That enhancement is roped in at about the 12 turn mark, but you still have a chance to gain vps and win. You are not totally screwed. >> There is still hope to win even if you have been milled to about 10 >> cards. > > Not usually, no. I've won many games with 10 or fewer cards. I've won many games with millers as my predator. I don't think you have any basis to argue "usually". >> Presumably you knew that this would happen and you changed your >> strategy accordingly over the course of 12 turns. > > What you're doing here is basically dazzling with bullshit. You're > comparing a developed game where ousts happen with less than 10 cards, > ignoring the library cards that have ALREAY been spent developing the > player's game to that point, and suggesting this is somehow related to > starting out with 10 cards remaining and suggesting ousts are equally > possible. Absurd. First of all, your tone leaves a bit to be desired. Second, library cards are spent developing the game state in either situation. True, you have fewer total cards to press upon a table state when a miller is your predator, but you instead get *tangible* benefits that allow you to exploit cards you wouldn't otherwise make use of. . . Largely due to the fact that permanents, table deals, and tech (see methods to thwart a milling predator in a previous post) are something that you *know* to use. You've got 12 turns to decide how best to deal with a predator. As opposed to you know, 4-5 turns. (Oh, you influenced out Ozmo. You bled me for 7. Twice. Damn, I lose.) >> Finally, for the record, you're almost certainly a dead Methuselah >> walking with 1 pool too. > > Sorry, nope. Not the same thing. As I pointed out, people can and do > come back from 1 pool left all the time. Paul Johnson built a deck that > REQUIRES he play with with one or two pool at all times. I can't assist you with understanding that given milling is a new strategy, some players can't understand how to win with that consideration. People can and do come back from being milled out. Another question: Does Paul sit at tables where From a Sinking Ship is used? Collatoral pool damage? Unblockable bleeds for X? Tension in the Ranks? Any number of random pool point things? (Intellectual curiosity: what kind of deck is this?) What I want to know from you is: how many times do you see a Methuselah come back from 1 pool compared to the number of times that that player is ousted? I'd guess no more than about 10% of the time. > Bah. No point going on and on with this. Refusal to concede obvious > implications of library deprivation is the source of your confusion > about why people regard such decks as they do. Insistence upon postulating that "my word is obviously correct and you're a blithering idiot" is unlikely to promote discussion. I accept implications of library deprivation. I do not accept frothing at the mouth, ignorance of positive consequences of a miller, or biased interpretations of probability of ousting with limited library. I'm not confused. To be more clear, I accept *all* implications of library deprivation. I know the negative points and the limitations. I accepted those as a pre-condition to entering the thread. I understand that it hoses its prey's deck. Let's now look at the following implications which you don't wish to look at, namely the *positives* of being milled: 1) Little to no minion control 2) Little to no pool denial 3) Little to no way to stop your forward movement (little desire also) 4) Few ways to deny you of *specific* cards 5) May possibly *give* you tons of pool To me, that seems like an *ideal* scenario to earn not one vp, but possibily two, three, or the table. You're of course ultimately reigned in by the size of your ever-depleting library, but it's usually not fast enough to prevent you from taking your due. A miller is in a classical game sense not a predator at all. Not for about 12 turns. Refute that. You haven't done so yet. Call it dazzling if you wish, but it won't help you to have a correct understanding of table state when a miller is your predator. A miller always prefers a prey who feels as if he can do nothing, and so, in fact, does nothing. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Mon, 9 Jan 2006 15:22:58 -0500, Ankur Gupta <agu...@cs.duke.edu> scrawled: >>> There is still hope to win even if you have been milled to about 10 >>> cards. >> >> Not usually, no. > >I've won many games with 10 or fewer cards. I've won many games with >millers as my predator. I don't think you have any basis to argue >"usually". Just as another bit of supporting anecdotal evidence, i got three vps in a six player game with a mill deck predator. All my vps came when i had no library and less than a full hand size. I did have 2 Heralds of Topheth and three blood dolls on some followers of set, though (one with a perfectionist). The point is, in the turns before I was decked I did manage to get myself reasonably set up. salem http://www.users.tpg.com.au/adsltqna/VtES/index.htm (replace "hotmail" with "yahoo" to email)

> I think the bone of contention over combat isn't that > irresponsible play is bad. The issue is whether things that > are as bad as irresponsible play can happen because a well- > constructed combat deck that is also well-played gets unlucky. > > Fred There isn't anything as bad as irresponsible play. -Dave Clooney

> I didn't refuse to admit that. That isn't Ankur's argument. He's > trying to suggest that losing most of your library basically isn't any > kind of disadvantage. I didn't see where he was trying to claim having > 12 turns of non-harassment was a compensating advantage. Fred, I've mentioned many many times that you gain an advantage by not having minion or pool pressure for 12 turns. I'm not sure how you got away without seeing that. It's clearly written in my recent post, but here are at least FIVE quotes from a post that you responded to which speaks of having a compensating advantage. Let's get started: "As a separate point, you can still oust other people and get back into the game with 10 library cards. Largely because many many many games end up in a player getting an oust before 12 turns are up. Pulling a second vp with a restricted library is no different than any number of other instances of attrition. In this case, a reduced library size is offset by the fact that you tend to have little to no pool/minion pressure. You can make full use of 30 pool whereas others must be careful of it." (consequence which you claim I didn't mention is black and white) Here's another: "You're in a situation that's uniquely different from being at 1 pool but presents similarly interesting options. Your resources are constrained (one way or another) and it's your job to pull something through with that. Are you telling me that never ever ever ever in your life would you ever feel as if having more pool at the cost of some extra cards in your ash heap isn't a good tradeoff?" (tradeoff of pool for cards implies consequence which you've stated I didn't include) Here's another: "Have you factored in the fact that you can go whole-hog forward because your predator chose not to do pool damage?" (rhetorical question designed to hint at the point that I must have forgotten to include) Oh, here's one that specifically uses the word "advantage": "For the games in your career that you have won, can you give an average of how many cards were in your deck at the time of winning? Those cards, whatever they were, were completely useless. Wouldn't you have loved to have extra pool instead of those dead cards? Your milling predator gives you that advantage off the top. He has to mill more than that number before he ever affects you. You get free pool for his silliness." (Includes the word "advantage" as a clear consequence of the milling strategy. In fact, the words are in the same sentence. . . .) Here's a quote that suggests a non-concrete advantage of having been milled: "The fact that your deck functions *NOW* is huge! You get to play. You get to earn vps. You get to move for a win. And, if you can get out from underneath the power structure in 10 or so turns, the mill deck may not be able to stop you from moving around the table. Remember, it has a predator too. . . ." (Milling deck may not be able to stop you by its very structure.) Here's another quote: "And, since milling provides no benefit to your predator until you're well and thoroughly decked, the resultant situation can shift the balance of the table in all kinds of ways." (This quote is interesting as the *dual* of the argument that you gain an advantage, namely that your predator FAILS to get one until his schtick gets going.) [ quoted text not captured ]

> I didn't refuse to admit that. That isn't Ankur's argument. He's > trying to suggest that losing most of your library basically isn't any > kind of disadvantage. I didn't see where he was trying to claim having > 12 turns of non-harassment was a compensating advantage. > > It isn't. But the reasons for that are a whole different line of > discussion. (Starting out with, it wasn't even my point to suggest that > playing against a library-deprivation deck was somehow unbalanced.) Now that we've accepted that I was actually making an argument that you claim I wasn't, let's get down to business. 12 turns of non-harassment is a more-than-adequate compensating advantage. In fact, it gives you a net advantage. I'm going to leave the burden on you to disprove it, because you'll first have to sift through all the positive consequences of having a milling predator before you're prepared to argue any point at all. Good luck. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Mon, 9 Jan 2006 13:55:20 -0500, Ankur Gupta <agu...@cs.duke.edu> wrote: >> Sure. Until my last pool is lost, I still have my minions, and can play >> all of my cards. When I'm ousted, I go to the next table, and continue >> playing my game, although from a different phase. > > See, the point you're not getting is this: the rest of your sentence > after "when I'm ousted. . ." really shouldn't be part of your judgement > for the current game. Okay, allow me to rephrase in a more complicated form. I am spending t time on a game. (Let's stick to examining a single game for simplicity.) Also assume that I have x cards total in my deck, y of those are master or event cards, obviously (x-y) are minion cards. Let's further assume that my total utility (fun) is directly proportional to the portion of my deck I can use, the "fun-to-play" parameter of my deck (let's call it constant "a"), and obviously the time spent playing. In a "normal" game my total utility is x*a*t. In a game where my minions are demolished my total utility is y*a*t. Since y<x, my fun is bound to be less. In fact, since y is usually a fraction of x (say, the ratio is usually around 1:5), let's say that my total utility is one-fifth. Even if you do not assume that the choice is between continuing a low-utility game (perhaps even hoping it will turn high-utility) and switching to a high-utility game (the way each game starts) there is still the issue of the threshold utility - meaning, that under a certain utility level the activity ceases to be appealing. So even if there are no prospects for making a choice to terminate the current low-utility game and immediately engage in a high-utility game, but rather the choice is to terminate the low-utility activity (and assume a generic, average utility level activity to replace it), the termination of said low-utility activity can still be desirable. Even more simply put, I'm sitting down to play cards and have fun. If all you can do is ruin other people's fun, please don't mind me not wanting to stick around for that. Mind you, this says nothing about a well-played combat deck that can actually win games in even a remotely entertaining fashion. The general point (which you apparently deliberately failed to get) is quite simply what I stated some 4 posts ago: If you are playing denial tech, you are potentially ruining other players' fun. Use it scarcely and wisely, perhaps even keeping in mind that you make an effort at them enjoying the game even though you deny them part of their resources. > Because, if you allow that, you're essentially saying that combat decks > are less welcome on tables with you on them than otherwise. Social > engineering hard at work. Re-reading your earlier posts you lobby heavily beside the "good cause" - more acceptance for combat decks. I'm not sure that in that light you have any ground left to accuse anyone of social engineering. Mind you, I'm not saying that combat decks should not be accepted; try to comprehend the depth of my stance. > Besides, I want to argue this issue of "last pool being lost". Do you > claim that you get to play your game when you're bled for 20? How about > 15? At which point do you realize that the minions you were able to > bring out must play defense mode in order to survive? There is a partial point here, because not having enough pool to set up does hinder my game. > Is it considered playing your game? Yeah, the lines are indeed blurry. I guess the parallel would be between the relationship of your bloat and the heavy bleed you face, and the relationship between your combat and the heavy pounding you face. But all in all, introducing graduality does not really alter the nature of the problem. > I never made an "I. Must. Win." requirement. I only postulated that it > seems that in many cases where you might otherwise feel that you're > completely dead, you may in fact not be. Playing to win may net you a vp > even if, during a particular moment in a game all your minions are in > torpor. That's a point I'll never dispute. There is always a chance. It may be slim, it may be so slim that you can honestly call it "no chance" rules-wise, but the shit can hit the fence, and I've seen many heroic comebacks in the 9-some years I've been playing this game. However, I've seen incalculably more lost positions from which no eventual comeback was made. In fact, the ratio would probably indeed be around one to a hundred. >> My average deck has around 15 Master cards and 75 Minion cards. If I'm >> ousted, I cannot play 90 out of those 90 cards; if my minions are >> destroyed, I cannot play 75 of those 90 cards. > > So, you proved my point? No; I refuted it. > Bleeding/voting you out removes the ability to play cards more than with > combat? Remember, starting a new game isn't a consideration which is > allowed if one wants to be fair to all players of all decks in *this* > game. ...but the average utility general activity does present an opportunity cost. In a VtES club, the average utility general activity is "playing an average table of VtES". I guess that puts the dot on the I... ;) -- Bye, Daneel

On Mon, 9 Jan 2006, pd...@lightlink.com wrote: > This is all a very cromulent point that people need to be more attuned > to--yeah, irresponsible combat is bad for everyone. But any > irresponsible play is bad for everyone. Mad bleeding for 5 at +3 > stealth that gets bounced is bad. Back ousting your predator or some > guy across the table with KRC is likely bad for everyone. But then, > just playing a bad deck that doesn't do anything and gives it prey a > free ride to a table sweep is also bad for everyone. > This reminds me of a game where I ousted two players before I was even able to hit my prey. My Predator was playing a wall deck that kept trumping my Stealth or cancelling my votes, so I cleverly "accidentally" let her Predator get ousted so she had to deal with my Crosstable buddy instead. She was so pissed when she got ousted, I almost had to ask the Judge to drag her away from the table. -- - Gregory Stuart Pettigrew

On Mon, 9 Jan 2006 01:16:19 -0500, Wes <gh...@NYETSPAMmnsi.net> wrote: > That assumes the S&B deck has a Faceless Night or has a prey who actually > bothers blocking unstealthed bleeds for 1. Conventional wisdom is not to > bother blocking (unless playing an equivalently intercepty deck). And if > they're not blocking unstealthed bleeds for 1, the S&B deck is back to > square one. Their deck is still effectively stalled. Depends. If the S&B deck is sending unstealthed bleeds for 1 because the prey has bounce, the prey can well be stalled on bounce. Bouncing a few bleeds for 1 might seem to be a good idea to clear the jam, but the bleeds for 5 that come afterwards might prove to provide some deterrent to this. Meaning, the S&B deck is bleeding for 1s, and the prey has all bounce in-hand, unable to play their decks. This is kind of a stalemate situation that may go either way, but is not, by definition, necessarily worse for the S&B deck. > S&B decks bleed heavily at stealth exactly because that *is* what they > are > designed to do, so the player in David's example does have a point. > > (Though I am all for such people designing more interesting decks.) S&B can be very interesting. My philosophy when building S&B decks is along the lines of: all Stealth Bleed decks can bleed at stealth. What distinguishes one S&B deck from another is the splash options you include. Usually those cards can win you games. I've done a lot of stuff with my S&B decks (including resisting or even beating up combat decks, controlling the table, walling up, etc.). -- Bye, Daneel

> Okay, allow me to rephrase in a more complicated form. > > I am spending t time on a game. (Let's stick to examining a single game > for simplicity.) Also assume that I have x cards total in my deck, y of > those are master or event cards, obviously (x-y) are minion cards. Let's > further assume that my total utility (fun) is directly proportional to > the portion of my deck I can use, the "fun-to-play" parameter of my deck > (let's call it constant "a"), and obviously the time spent playing. > > In a "normal" game my total utility is x*a*t. In a game where my minions > are demolished my total utility is y*a*t. Since y<x, my fun is bound to > be less. In fact, since y is usually a fraction of x (say, the ratio is > usually around 1:5), let's say that my total utility is one-fifth. Your complicated form is an incorrect way to model this. Instead, let x*a*t1 be the formula that should be used for being bled/voted out. y*a*t2 be the formula that should be used for being combatted out. where t1 is much less than t2. This is the appropriate model. > Even more simply put, I'm sitting down to play cards and have fun. If > all you can do is ruin other people's fun, please don't mind me not > wanting to stick around for that. Ruining fun is determined by sitting down to a game where someone prevents you from playing by using an accepted 1/3 of the game? That's a bit narrow, eh? How fun is it for your predator if you whine and complain while he/she plays his/her deck? > Mind you, this says nothing about a well-played combat deck that can > actually win games in even a remotely entertaining fashion. The general Where entertaining must be defined by you, it seems, and not the combat-deck player. > point (which you apparently deliberately failed to get) is quite simply > what I stated some 4 posts ago: If you are playing denial tech, you are > potentially ruining other players' fun. Use it scarcely and wisely, > perhaps even keeping in mind that you make an effort at them enjoying > the game even though you deny them part of their resources. Ah, so what you're really saying is that if there's a good combat deck player, you won't be frustrated. Just like you won't be frustrated if there's a good bleed/vote deck. Great! My point: you should be equally frustrated by a badly played combat deck as with a badly-played bleed/vote deck. >> Because, if you allow that, you're essentially saying that combat decks >> are less welcome on tables with you on them than otherwise. Social >> engineering hard at work. > > Re-reading your earlier posts you lobby heavily beside the "good cause" > - more acceptance for combat decks. I'm not sure that in that light you > have any ground left to accuse anyone of social engineering. Mind you, > I'm not saying that combat decks should not be accepted; try to > comprehend the depth of my stance. Depth? What depth? You're complaining about a particular way in which your deck gets shut down. You'd rather not have to worry about it, and worrying about it ruins your fun, for some as-of-yet-understood-by-me reason. Furthermore, I'm not arguing social engineering. I'm arguing fairness. When 1/3 of the game is there, it should be as accepted as much as the other 2/3. Do you think that achieving equality is socially engineering? (Or in the context of this discussion, social warping?) >> Besides, I want to argue this issue of "last pool being lost". Do you >> claim that you get to play your game when you're bled for 20? How about >> 15? At which point do you realize that the minions you were able to >> bring out must play defense mode in order to survive? > > There is a partial point here, because not having enough pool to set up > does hinder my game. . . . as much or more than a combat deck. Check out how many minion actions you have sometime when being bled out. It compares remarkably similarly to a combat deck's predatory actions. Except that a combat deck can't perpetually destroy your minions without devoting attention upstream as well. So you'll get some minions to play with. >> Is it considered playing your game? > > Yeah, the lines are indeed blurry. I guess the parallel would be between > the relationship of your bloat and the heavy bleed you face, and the > relationship between your combat and the heavy pounding you face. But > all in all, introducing graduality does not really alter the nature of > the problem. What? You're not playing your game if you're playing your predator's game, by definition. I'm not sure what you're talking about with this graduality thing. Clarify? >> I never made an "I. Must. Win." requirement. I only postulated that it >> seems that in many cases where you might otherwise feel that you're >> completely dead, you may in fact not be. Playing to win may net you a >> vp even if, during a particular moment in a game all your minions are >> in torpor. > > That's a point I'll never dispute. There is always a chance. It may be > slim, it may be so slim that you can honestly call it "no chance" > rules-wise, but the shit can hit the fence, and I've seen many heroic > comebacks in the 9-some years I've been playing this game. However, I've > seen incalculably more lost positions from which no eventual comeback > was made. In fact, the ratio would probably indeed be around one to a > hundred. I've personally got a winning percentage in losing situations of significantly more than 1/100. I don't really think it's all that low for anyone who actually does win. Between the two of us, we probably haven't even *played* 100 games in which all our vampires were in torpor. And I've won at least three times in those situations. >>> My average deck has around 15 Master cards and 75 Minion cards. If I'm >>> ousted, I cannot play 90 out of those 90 cards; if my minions are >>> destroyed, I cannot play 75 of those 90 cards. >> >> So, you proved my point? > > No; I refuted it. Hardly. Without any utility analysis, it's patently proved. >> Bleeding/voting you out removes the ability to play cards more than >> with combat? Remember, starting a new game isn't a consideration which >> is allowed if one wants to be fair to all players of all decks in >> *this* game. > > ...but the average utility general activity does present an opportunity > cost. In a VtES club, the average utility general activity is "playing > an average table of VtES". I guess that puts the dot on the I... ;) Average defined by what? Socially engineering out combat decks from your table? Besides, your utility function isn't strictly speaking, a correct model for our situation anyway. [ quoted text not captured ]

"Ankur Gupta" <agu...@cs.duke.edu> wrote in message news:Pine.GSO.4.62.06...@cipher1.cs.duke.edu... >>> As a separate point, you can still oust other people and get back into >>> the game with 10 library cards. >> >> No, you can't. You'll run out of library cards and not oust anyone. > > I dunno, Fred, with 17 total cards (the hand as well), and the fact that I > have been able to freely play the cards in my deck for about 12ish turns > seems like I get to play with about 40-50 cards. That seems *more* than > reasonable as a means to oust. (...addressed later...) ... > I'm arguing that your ability to get an oust is *enhanced* > by having a predator who doesn't affect your minions or pool for many > turns. That enhancement is roped in at about the 12 turn mark, but you > still have a chance to gain vps and win. You are not totally screwed. Ah, sorry. I quoted you and then totally missed your point. (I didn't notice it until David restated it. Sorry.) The compensating "advantage" isn't worth the disadvantage. For one thing, there isn't much enhancement. In fact, in some ways, it's even worse. The only library deprivation deck that even comes close to working is one that concentrates on Slaughterhouses, Harbingers, and uses their auspex. Since they don't have to go forward for a long while using this strategy, they're just giving up some master phase actions to put out Slaughterhouses, and sitting back on both defense (which will readily include bleed bounces, a form of offense as well that I'll have to fend off) and stopping everything I do with intercept. Just doing that alone - without the library deprivation - is actually another really form of objectionable neighbor strategy: the intercept wall. Add library deprivation, and yes, I'm totally screwed. What you're trying to argue is some form of compensating advantage is at best totally lame and at worst, more injury heaped on top of injury. >>> There is still hope to win even if you have been milled to about 10 >>> cards. >> >> Not usually, no. > > I've won many games with 10 or fewer cards. I've won many games > with millers as my predator. I never claimed you couldn't win a game with a miller as your predator. I claimed that millers frequently screwed their prey even they failed to win, which is the reason people hate them as predators. As for winning with 10 or fewer cards, we've all done that - when we had a whole library of cards to PUT us in that position. If you mean, you've won lots of games after a miller hammered your library severly and got it down to 10 cards WAY prematurely, I can't speak to that because I didn't see the games you're talking about. There could be lots of reasons - like your predator's deck sucked and/or he played it badly and/or he got so unlucky, the milling didn't affect you that much. Doesn't change anything. For the record, I'm fine with having a predator who's game is so bad it doesn't affect me hardly at all. (Though my prey will no doubt hate that.) But if my predator substantial does what he's trying to do but just fails to oust me in the end, THAT will undoubtably cripple me far more than a bleed or vote deck doing the same thing - which is my point. >>> Finally, for the record, you're almost certainly a dead Methuselah >>> walking with 1 pool too. >> >> Sorry, nope. Not the same thing. As I pointed out, people can and do >> come back from 1 pool left all the time. Paul Johnson built a deck that >> REQUIRES he play with with one or two pool at all times. > > I can't assist you with understanding that given milling is a new > strategy, some players can't understand how to win with that > consideration. Well, you'll have to explain that very thing before the rest of your position makes any sense. I've never seen the kind of thing you're talking about is any discernable advantage to the miller's prey. > People can and do come back from being milled out. And how would they do that, with no library? I've been inviting you to point that out to me pretty much since this part of this thread started? I can bloat back from being down to one pool. Or just get ousts despite the fact I'm down to one pool. Sometimes, if you're right on the verge of ousting someone, you might do it with just the permanents you have on the table. But it's usually unlikely, much more so than making ousts after having been bled down to one pool. > Another question: Does Paul sit at tables where From a Sinking Ship is > used? Collatoral pool damage? Unblockable bleeds for X? Tension in the > Ranks? Any number of random pool point things? (Intellectual curiosity: > what kind of deck is this?) What, you're about to construct some argument around, "What does Paul do if someone has the exact correct hoser card to stop him?" I don't know, I've never seen it. I suppose he'd probably lose but who knows? Maybe he packs lots of Sudden Reverses. Either way, I don't care. The point pretty much speaks for itself whether a silver bullet card exists to stop it or not. > What I want to know from you is: how many times do you see a Methuselah > come back from 1 pool compared to the number of times that that player is > ousted? I'd guess no more than about 10% of the time. Well, a lot more of the time than I see a Methuselah go on to do much after he's had his whole library waxed in the early game. By far. >> Bah. No point going on and on with this. Refusal to concede obvious >> implications of library deprivation is the source of your confusion >> about why people regard such decks as they do. > > Insistence upon postulating that "my word is obviously correct and you're > a blithering idiot" is unlikely to promote discussion. > > I accept implications of library deprivation. I do not accept frothing at > the mouth, ignorance of positive consequences of a miller, or biased > interpretations of probability of ousting with limited library. I'm sorry, but it just doesn't seem like you do. The point I was trying to make never involved trying to prove milling was unbalanced. If anything, it's an underpowered strategy, not an overpowered one. But its not the prey who benefits. It's the rest of the table excepting, possibly, the grand prey. But usually even the grand prey is better off with a milling grand predator because your claim that the miller's prey is so "freed" from the miller's strategy is wrong. Especially because miller's prey usually does the logical thing and goes straight backwards because he knows he's not going to be allowed to oust his prey in peace, even if he's allowed to come close. The miller will use Eagle's Sights, Life Boons, and other tricks to prevent it. Any indirect actions he takes geared towards ousting his prey faster (e.g. equipping with laptops), will be intercepted. This is not "bias" this is reality. > To me, that seems like an *ideal* scenario to earn not one vp, but > possibily two, three, or the table. You're of course ultimately reigned in > by the size of your ever-depleting library, but it's usually not fast > enough to prevent you from taking your due. A miller is in a classical > game sense not a predator at all. Not for about 12 turns. > > Refute that. You haven't done so yet. Refute what? Your conjecture that things are just hunky-dory for the miller's prey. OK, I'll refute it with my own conjecture: things aren't hunky dory. I don't know where you got "12 turns" as the amount of time he has nor how you figured out he was totally unfettered in all these wonderful ways. He's not. He just has different challenges, assuming his predator's deck is very effective. > Call it dazzling if you wish, but it won't help you to have a correct > understanding of table state when a miller is your predator. A miller > always prefers a prey who feels as if he can do nothing, and so, in fact, > does nothing. I don't care what he "feels like". That sounds like a stab at another unsubstantiated argument, presumably that "the whiners are screwing themselves by not acting when they could" or something. I'm not saying it hasn't happened. Perhaps it has. Or perhaps it's just a form of whining in its own right - that prey tend to go backwards for completely understandable reasons instead of selflessly going forward to gather what VPs they can before contently sacrificing themselves when they prematurely run out of library, like lambs to slaughter. Whatever. Fred

"quickbeam" <dcqui...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1136840498.5...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com... > >> I think the bone of contention over combat isn't that >> irresponsible play is bad. The issue is whether things that >> are as bad as irresponsible play can happen because a well- >> constructed combat deck that is also well-played gets unlucky. > > There isn't anything as bad as irresponsible play. All right, I suppose that's true in it most egregious forms. Just, does having a neighbor who's a whacker suck worse - even assuming average metagame responses to it - than having a neighber who's a bleeder? Fred

Fred Scott wrote: > I think maybe the bone of contention over combat isn't so much that > irresponsible play is bad. The issue is more whether things that > are as bad as irresponsible play can happen a lot because a well- > constructed combat deck that is also well-played simply gets unlucky. > > Fred Unlucky how? I'm not so sure I'm picking up what you're throwing down. Are you saying a good player with a good combat deck who is intent on surviving his predator and ousting his prey is more likely to get 'unlucky' and ruin his prey's game, trounce his predator, but be second-ousted by his grand-predator who eventually sweeps? 'Unlucky' for a combat deck is probably having a Dom predator who's bleeding for 5 and bouncing bleeds on top of that. Combat decks have have minimal 'everything else', and are obviously going to have trouble with a power or speed anything, but bleed in particular. It's the same way a hyper-bleed or Vote & Bloat has limited space for combat - whichever one is sitting on the right has the advantage. Just remember - the player with the combat deck starts the game at a disadvantage, due to the method by which he/she is attempting to oust. Give that player some props, and extra points for difficulty and creativity. If you consistently find yourself frustrated and upset by the manner in which you did not win a game, perhaps you need to re-evaluate why you play it. "you" reffering to a generic player, of course - sorry if you were taking that personally Fred.

Fred Scott wrote: > Just, does having a neighbor who's a whacker suck worse - even > assuming average metagame responses to it - than having a > neighber who's a bleeder? No. 'Cause I have combat defense. A Rush deck might kill some of my minions, might slow down my game, but even if I get totally tooled, I still have options--get someone cross table to rescue my guys, whatever. If my predator is a serioud bleeder and I get a bad start? I'm likely ousted before I take a significant action. -Peter

"Tom Duncan" <veknp...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1136852594....@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > > Fred Scott wrote: >> I think maybe the bone of contention over combat isn't so much that >> irresponsible play is bad. The issue is more whether things that >> are as bad as irresponsible play can happen a lot because a well- >> constructed combat deck that is also well-played simply gets unlucky. >> >> Fred > > Unlucky how? I'm not so sure I'm picking up what you're throwing down. Unlucky by having bad luck. How does anyone get "unlucky"? The issue is not how one gets bad luck, but what happens when one has bad luck? And not just to him. People who have bad luck do worse than if they had good luck. We know that. But what happens to the other players? > Are you saying a good player with a good combat deck who is intent on > surviving his predator and ousting his prey is more likely to get > 'unlucky' and ruin his prey's game, trounce his predator, but be > second-ousted by his grand-predator who eventually sweeps? No. Luck, by definition, happens as much to one player as the next. (Except when one is finagling with definitions, of course. As frequently happens when people are trying to make points about what amounts to good play.) I'm saying that an unlucky bleed deck which accomplishes most of what it's trying to do but loses anyway hurts its neighbors less than an unlucky combat deck which accomplishes most of what it's trying to do but loses anyway. In other words, the key to understanding why people whine about sitting next to certain non-overpowered decks is understanding what happens when those deck accomplish what they're trying to do but don't win. > Just remember - the player with the combat deck starts the game at a > disadvantage, due to the method by which he/she is attempting to oust. Perhaps. I'm not concerning myself with which decks are how powerful. Only why players do or do not like to sit next to certain decks, apart from pure metagame issues. (And I'm not even commenting on the "morality" of playing one deck vs. another, by the way.) > "you" reffering to a generic player, of course - sorry if you were > taking that personally Fred. No, I don't any of this personally. Fred

>> I'm arguing that your ability to get an oust is *enhanced* by having a >> predator who doesn't affect your minions or pool for many turns. That >> enhancement is roped in at about the 12 turn mark, but you still have a >> chance to gain vps and win. You are not totally screwed. > > Ah, sorry. I quoted you and then totally missed your point. (I didn't > notice it until David restated it. Sorry.) No problem. > The compensating "advantage" isn't worth the disadvantage. For one > thing, there isn't much enhancement. In fact, in some ways, it's even > worse. Why? I guess I'd like you to tell me in a fairly step-by-step manner why the specific positive consequences of a milling predator don't constitute an advantage. I had mentioned these in my last post. > The only library deprivation deck that even comes close to working is > one that concentrates on Slaughterhouses, Harbingers, and uses their > auspex. Since they don't have to go forward for a long while using this > strategy, they're just giving up some master phase actions to put out > Slaughterhouses, and sitting back on both defense (which will readily > include bleed bounces, a form of offense as well that I'll have to fend > off) and stopping everything I do with intercept. This isn't of course true. A milling deck gains little from bouncing bleeds, largely because it doesn't have much forward pressure itself. Its forward-pressure is orthogonal to your loss of pool. Besides, a wallish deck's first priority is to not die. In that sense, it must save the largest share of its resources to prevent its predator from killing *him*. And, since Harbingers have limited ability to actually torpor people in combat (without devoting a lot of deck space to it, which is key), it tends to be defensive in nature. A milling predator hardly cares what you do, so long as you're not thwarting its ability to defend itself and lay Slaughterhouses. What are they going to block? What's the value in stopping anything? They want you to play more cards! > Just doing that alone - without the library deprivation - is actually > another really form of objectionable neighbor strategy: the intercept > wall. Add library deprivation, and yes, I'm totally screwed. What > you're trying to argue is some form of compensating advantage is at best > totally lame and at worst, more injury heaped on top of injury. Not particularly, no. Unlike the intercept wall deck, a milling predator has little to no incentive to prevent you from doing your thing. So long as it's going forward, it couldn't be bothered. >> I've won many games with 10 or fewer cards. I've won many games with >> millers as my predator. > > I never claimed you couldn't win a game with a miller as your > predator. I claimed that millers frequently screwed their prey > even they failed to win, which is the reason people hate them > as predators. Yes, and I claimed that bleeders frequently screwed their prey even if they failed to win, which is the reason people hate them as predators. And, I claimed that voters frequently screwed their prey even if they failed to win, which is the reason people hate them as predators. And I claimed that combat monsters frequently screwed their prey even if they failed to win, which is the reason people hate them as predators. Again. . . what's the difference? Can you say that any of my statements are untrue? What makes milling special? > As for winning with 10 or fewer cards, we've all done that - when we had > a whole library of cards to PUT us in that position. If you mean, > you've won lots of games after a miller hammered your library severly > and got it down to 10 cards WAY prematurely, I can't speak to that > because I didn't see the games you're talking about. Ok, so we're going to allow some sorts of anecdotal evidence but not all sorts. Fine. Where do you get the WAY prematurely from? Let's look at that Harbingers deck that mills you dead and see how it does, shall we? Let's put together an optimal draw: Turn 1 Info Highway, 6 transfers pops out Agaitas Turn 2 Slaughterhouse -2 cards total Turn 3 Slaughterhouse -6 cards total Turn 4 Slaughterhouse -12 cards total Turn 5 Slaughterhouse -20 cards total Turn 6 Slaughterhouse -30 cards total Turn 7 Slaughterhouse -42 cards total Turn 8 Slaughterhouse -56 cards total Turn 9 Slaughterhouse -72 cards total Turn 10 Slaughterhouse -90 cards total That is to say, in 10 turns, without using any other abilities or you using your deck and a perfect draw from your predator, you're completely decked. This never happens. To play 9 Slaughterhouses in a row is extremely unlikely. If we look at a more moderate view, you're gonna get 12 turns. (You get an extra one just if you assume that your predator doesn't get a god draw turn 1.) Now, can we please stop arbitrarily refuting the statement about "12 turns"? I gave you the most extreme case above, and even in that case, you get 9-10 turns. If you moderate it a bit, it's quite reasonable you'll get 12 full, healthy turns of play. > There could be lots of reasons - like your predator's deck sucked and/or > he played it badly and/or he got so unlucky, the milling didn't affect > you that much. Doesn't change anything. Invalidating games you haven't seen Fred? The real question is, can I do that to your examples without proof? > For the record, I'm fine with having a predator who's game is so bad it > doesn't affect me hardly at all. (Though my prey will no doubt hate > that.) But if my predator substantial does what he's trying to do but > just fails to oust me in the end, THAT will undoubtably cripple me far > more than a bleed or vote deck doing the same thing - which is my point. No, no, it won't. No more than ANY other strategy would cripple you. Because you're HOSED on one pool. Most people are HOSED on one pool. Most people die on one pool. Everyone has a story where they pulled it out. But the vast majority of cases. . . you DIE on one pool. >>> Sorry, nope. Not the same thing. As I pointed out, people can and do >>> come back from 1 pool left all the time. Paul Johnson built a deck >>> that REQUIRES he play with with one or two pool at all times. >> >> I can't assist you with understanding that given milling is a new >> strategy, some players can't understand how to win with that >> consideration. > > Well, you'll have to explain that very thing before the rest of your > position makes any sense. I've never seen the kind of thing you're > talking about is any discernable advantage to the miller's prey. To be crystal clear: you're not in happy land with a miller's prey. But compared to ANY DECK THAT MOVES FORWARD, you are in happy land. I have explained it over and over again: Wouldn't you love to have a predator that never did pool/minion damage to you, and instead took X cards from the bottom of your deck (that you weren't going to play with anyway)? Everyone I know would. Now, a miller has to mill Y>X cards before it matters to you. Do you realize how much time that gives you? Lots of time. Lots of toolup. You get to really make use of that time. >> People can and do come back from being milled out. > > And how would they do that, with no library? I've been inviting you to > point that out to me pretty much since this part of this thread started? > I can bloat back from being down to one pool. Or just get ousts despite > the fact I'm down to one pool. The way they come back from being milled out is to PROACTIVELY understand their situation, take their lumps, and go for it. You then have the freedom to know that you can move with little to no chance of things going badly for pool/minions because of your predator's inaction. You may be in a tough spot once you're actually decked, but if you've done your job before that (which is something that's not often hindered by the miller), then you're well-set to succeed at a game win. It's not all that improbable. You just have to prepare differently. Just like you "bloat" before you lose pool, here, you use your resources before you lose them. Simple. Straightforward. And, something I've described in detail over the last 4-5 posts that you haven't yet responded to. > Sometimes, if you're right on the verge of ousting someone, you might do > it with just the permanents you have on the table. But it's usually > unlikely, much more so than making ousts after having been bled down to > one pool. You can often hang out and do well. Tell me. . . what does a milling predator do when his prey have no deck? He sits there, staring at his Slaughterhouses and waits for his Brinksmanship. That's *another* thing you can try to knock down. You get extra turns of life and pressure from permanents, even though you're decked. In an end game, that may be enough. >> Another question: Does Paul sit at tables where From a Sinking Ship is >> used? Collatoral pool damage? Unblockable bleeds for X? Tension in the >> Ranks? Any number of random pool point things? (Intellectual curiosity: >> what kind of deck is this?) > > What, you're about to construct some argument around, "What does Paul do > if someone has the exact correct hoser card to stop him?" I don't know, > I've never seen it. I suppose he'd probably lose but who knows? Maybe > he packs lots of Sudden Reverses. > > Either way, I don't care. The point pretty much speaks for itself > whether a silver bullet card exists to stop it or not. I think it's interesting that you consider a single silver bullet when I mentioned at least FIVE different methods by which Paul might lose a pool or the game. Three of those are actually larger categories of pool loss, and don't refer to specific cards at all. No, I'm not asking about silver bullets. I'm asking how he deals with pool loss when he's at 1 pool. Well? If you want to make him an anecdote, then back up your anecdote. Otherwise, drop him as part of your argument. >> What I want to know from you is: how many times do you see a Methuselah >> come back from 1 pool compared to the number of times that that player >> is ousted? I'd guess no more than about 10% of the time. > > Well, a lot more of the time than I see a Methuselah go on to do much > after he's had his whole library waxed in the early game. By far. I thought you didn't see many such games. Are you sure you're giving milling the same historical perspective as other decks? >>> Bah. No point going on and on with this. Refusal to concede obvious >>> implications of library deprivation is the source of your confusion >>> about why people regard such decks as they do. >> >> Insistence upon postulating that "my word is obviously correct and >> you're a blithering idiot" is unlikely to promote discussion. >> >> I accept implications of library deprivation. I do not accept frothing >> at the mouth, ignorance of positive consequences of a miller, or biased >> interpretations of probability of ousting with limited library. > > I'm sorry, but it just doesn't seem like you do. The point I was trying > to make never involved trying to prove milling was unbalanced. If Note that I have never *ever* postulated that milling was unbalanced. I'm not doing it now. I'm stating that you may still win with a miller behind you, and that the likelihood of such an event is just as much as in the bleed/vote/combat case. > its not the prey who benefits. It's the rest of the table excepting, > possibly, the grand prey. But usually even the grand prey is better off > with a milling grand predator because your claim that the miller's prey > is so "freed" from the miller's strategy is wrong. Especially because > miller's prey usually does the logical thing and goes straight backwards > because he knows he's not going to be allowed to oust his prey in peace, > even if he's allowed to come close. The miller's prey should move forward. This is the first mistake of the prey. When a prey decides he can do nothing, the miller wins. This is precisely when the miller wins. Whether the prey goes upstream or just sits around, the prey still loses. > The miller will use Eagle's Sights, Life Boons, and other tricks to > prevent it. Any indirect actions he takes geared towards ousting his > prey faster (e.g. equipping with laptops), will be intercepted. This is > not "bias" this is reality. A predator that mills *cannot* do that and defend his pool at the same time and win! And if a miller is doing such a thing, you should consider similarly bad examples for bleed/vote/combat! An intercept block deck cannot block multiple people all day and live. It will deck itself (thereby ousting itself with Brinksmanship), or lose its minions, or run out of blocks, or be unable to pass its Brinksmanship. It cannot magically do all of these things. >> To me, that seems like an *ideal* scenario to earn not one vp, but >> possibily two, three, or the table. You're of course ultimately reigned >> in by the size of your ever-depleting library, but it's usually not >> fast enough to prevent you from taking your due. A miller is in a >> classical game sense not a predator at all. Not for about 12 turns. >> >> Refute that. You haven't done so yet. > > Refute what? Your conjecture that things are just hunky-dory for the > miller's prey. OK, I'll refute it with my own conjecture: things aren't > hunky dory. I don't know where you got "12 turns" as the amount of time > he has nor how you figured out he was totally unfettered in all these > wonderful ways. He's not. He just has different challenges, assuming > his predator's deck is very effective. If his predator's deck is very effective, then you'll be ousted. You have no argument if that is the case, because despite the means, the fact that he's ousted you means his deck worked. And, I've already stated that you're not in happy land when you're a miller's prey. You're not in happy land as anyone's prey. But, among people to be preyed on by, you get more freedom and flexibility to move and oust and win. I notice that you're still unwilling to specifically address those positive consequences of sitting behind a miller. Any reason? >> Call it dazzling if you wish, but it won't help you to have a correct >> understanding of table state when a miller is your predator. A miller >> always prefers a prey who feels as if he can do nothing, and so, in >> fact, does nothing. > > I don't care what he "feels like". That sounds like a stab at another > unsubstantiated argument, presumably that "the whiners are screwing > themselves by not acting when they could" or something. No, it's not a stab. A prey who feels that he can do nothing feeds into a miller's strategy. That's a simple fact. Because sitting around squanders your resources. Not moving towards an oust squanders your resources. That's a fact of the game state. > I'm not saying it hasn't happened. Perhaps it has. Or perhaps it's > just a form of whining in its own right - that prey tend to go backwards > for completely understandable reasons instead of selflessly going > forward to gather what VPs they can before contently sacrificing > themselves when they prematurely run out of library, like lambs to > slaughter. Whatever. Or they could actually win. Because a miller can't stop you forever. A milling deck that devotes enough transient cards towards stopping you risks being ousted him/herself. A miller that takes permanent steps can be blocked by you and his/her predator. A miller that stops you from ousting likely dies himself. A miller that has a prey who can activate one of the 6 ways to stop/slow down his deck suffers a great deal because the game drags on and on. That's something the miller can't afford. Just out of curiosity, any reason you delete large portions of my posts that make the points that you consistently refuse to consider, thereby making me repeat them over and over? [ quoted text not captured ]

"Ankur Gupta" <agu...@cs.duke.edu> wrote in message news:Pine.GSO.4.62.06...@eenie.cs.duke.edu... >>> I'm arguing that your ability to get an oust is *enhanced* by having a >>> predator who doesn't affect your minions or pool for many turns. That >>> enhancement is roped in at about the 12 turn mark, but you still have a >>> chance to gain vps and win. You are not totally screwed. ... >> The compensating "advantage" isn't worth the disadvantage. For one >> thing, there isn't much enhancement. In fact, in some ways, it's even >> worse. > > Why? I guess I'd like you to tell me in a fairly step-by-step manner why > the specific positive consequences of a milling predator don't constitute > an advantage. I had mentioned these in my last post. It isn't something that can reduced to a single statement other than to say, "There's no reason it needs to be." In a multiplayer game, the designers - in a strict sense - need only balance the rewards of pursuing a strategy vs. the costs and challenges from the standpoint of the player pursuing it. It's nicer if they were to also pay attention to the balance of problems and opportunities a given strategy one player might pursue as it affects both his prey, his predators, and his crosstable allies, but: 1) There's no strict need for it; and 2) It's probably impossible or at least incredibly difficult, which is probably why it doesn't happen. In follow-up to #2 above, I'll point out that for instance, an intercept wall deck is much harder on one's predator than one's prey overall. On the other hand, a weeny stealth-bleed deck with little or no defense is certainly much harder on one's prey than one's predator. And in both these cases, I'd assert that these things are true even taking into account that metagame choices can be made against both which will trump each one (as appropriate). But so what? The metagame, looked at as a basic Games Theory matrix game, isn't balanced (zero sum) in this sense. That is to say, even if there's no perfect screw-your-predator or screw- your-prey choices, the choice you make will affect the expected value of the predator matrix vs. the prey matrix. I don't know if any of this is clear. I'm using terminoloy and concepts that I learned about 30 years and probably using them both poorly. But if you know anything about Games Theory, hopefully this was at least a foggy description of what I'm getting at. So, to make a long story as short as I can, the answer is, although I can see where depriving a HoS player of many of his master phase actions (and possibly making him expend resources to pursue getting more MPAs) to the end of getting Slaughterhouses out probably lessens the pressure on his prey somewhat, it really doesn't lessen it very much. It doesn't have to. The nature of the task of running one's prey out of cards is so difficult that to make to something that's possible to accomplish at all, the designers made the library deprivation part pretty easy to accomplish. It really doesn't consume many resources. I'm not sneezing at all the MPAs used, mind you. But it does still leave all their minion cards free for other purposes - like intercepting a lot of actions and still having a good supply of combat cards. I'm not saying I know how to build a good library deprivation deck. I've never done it myself. But it sure looks to me like Eagle's Sighting actions your grand prey can't stop is a very reasonable tactic. They may not be able to do it a lot, but I don't think they have to in order to simply screw you over (on the road to hopefully breaking through and ousting you). >> The only library deprivation deck that even comes close to working is >> one that concentrates on Slaughterhouses, Harbingers, and uses their >> auspex. Since they don't have to go forward for a long while using this >> strategy, they're just giving up some master phase actions to put out >> Slaughterhouses, and sitting back on both defense (which will readily >> include bleed bounces, a form of offense as well that I'll have to fend >> off) and stopping everything I do with intercept. > > This isn't of course true. A milling deck gains little from bouncing > bleeds, largely because it doesn't have much forward pressure itself. Its > forward-pressure is orthogonal to your loss of pool. Besides, a wallish > deck's first priority is to not die. In that sense, it must save the > largest share of its resources to prevent its predator from killing *him*. > And, since Harbingers have limited ability to actually torpor people in > combat (without devoting a lot of deck space to it, which is key), it > tends to be defensive in nature. All right, again, I'll grant, I don't know exactly what works best. But it seems to me that Telepathic Misdirections are by far the most efficient bleed defense. That's why I'd probably be tempted to use a fair number of them (especially given that they'll help with interception in a pinch, too). And there is too something to be gained by bouncing bleeds: it distracts your prey and slows him down. I agree that you're not going to actually bleed him out unless you're incredibly lucky and your predator is an incredibly irresponsible bleeder. But anything that causes him to not go forward as fast can't hurt. In some cases, bounce may not help in this way at all but I suspect you'll often get at least some milage out it. And since it's so easy to use, why not? > A milling predator hardly cares what you do, so long as you're not > thwarting its ability to defend itself and lay Slaughterhouses. What are > they going to block? Eagles sight particularly damaging bleeds or directed actions. Block JS Simmons, Tasha Morgon, Laptops, or any other bleed enhancers. Block Mr. Winthrop, Sport Bikes, Ravens, etc. that he'll use to screw with his prey. Block damaging votes. Any sort of miscellaneous undirected actions that may be of value to him towards gaining an oust (Army of Rats, for instance). There's all sorts of ways your untapped minions sitting around with a boatload of intercept can slow your prey down. And this is not what I call "no pressure". >>> I've won many games with 10 or fewer cards. I've won many games with >>> millers as my predator. >> >> I never claimed you couldn't win a game with a miller as your >> predator. I claimed that millers frequently screwed their prey >> even they failed to win, which is the reason people hate them >> as predators. > > Yes, and I claimed that bleeders frequently screwed their prey even if > they failed to win, which is the reason people hate them as predators. Right - but I disagree, to finish the rehash. Again, bringing my prey down to a single pool is not like bringing my prey down to his last 10 library cards way prematurely. I'm not going to argue about how many turns he's had to pursue an oust. I understand 12 turns is the average length of a game so it seems to that miller who can only get his prey's library down to 10 cards after 12 whole turns is probably doing a crappy job. But I haven't sat down and analyzed it. I'm just assuming the miller has done a very effective job of destroying his prey's library but failed - just barely - to get the oust at the end. There are ways to come back from being down to one pool. There are no effective ways to reconstruct your library. > And I claimed that combat monsters frequently screwed their prey even if > they failed to win, which is the reason people hate them as predators. ...on that last claim, I'll agree. > Ok, so we're going to allow some sorts of anecdotal evidence but not all > sorts. I didn't really say that. I'm just saying that although you're experience is interesting to the discussion, it doesn't prove anything one way or another because there's could be all sort of mitigating factors that caused the situations you reported. > Fine. Where do you get the WAY prematurely from? Inductive reasoning (and some deductive reasoning): 1) Players using mill decks are attempting to win. 2) Therefore, they must use mill decks because mill decks allow them to win some of the time. 3) In order to win by milling, they must be able to mill all their prey's cards away and either bleed them out when helpless or by some other means, like Brinksmanship. The point is, it doesn't work unless some of the time, miller succeeds at decking his prey. 4) Luck varies. 5) Because miller must succeed a significant amount of the time, miller MUST nearly succeed some of the time but barely fall short. This step of the argument is key. My justifications are: Average success quantity approximates either a bell-shaped curve or, at worse, a flat curve. Most likely at least somewhat bell-shaped. The thickness of the "bell" must favor failure, since to favor success would allow the miller to at gat least one oust over 50% of the time, which would be unbalanced. (And milling would then be a highly popular strategy.) So JUST BARELY falling short is more likely than succeeding. Since the miller must succeed a signficant amount of time, he must just barely fall short even more often. 6) I assert that "just falling short" *IS* causing your prey to exhaust his library "way prematurely". At least, that's what it looks like to me. I don't know what you think it looks like when a miller just misses ousting his prey. It seems to me it would be very bad for the prey. A milling deck that gave his prey a more than fair chance at getting ousts wouldn't be a very successful milling deck. (ellide logic about "12 turns") > Now, can we please stop arbitrarily refuting the statement about "12 > turns"? My point is, I don't care how long it is. Either it must be very bad for the miller's prey or it isn't a very good milling deck that's likely to ever win much. I don't care about the latter case so much because I think misguided, self-ousting strategies tend to be their own punishment. But I just don't see how this _can't_ be very bad for the prey. >> There could be lots of reasons - like your predator's deck sucked and/or >> he played it badly and/or he got so unlucky, the milling didn't affect >> you that much. Doesn't change anything. > > Invalidating games you haven't seen Fred? The real question is, can I do > that to your examples without proof? It's just that there's no way to respond to them. I'm not saying you're wrong and I'm certainly not accusing you of lying. You may not have noticed something I would consider to be a corrupting factor. I'm just saying the relevance of ancedotal evidence cannot be established for these purposes so it's no use trying to rely on it to back up your opinion. Absent game trends we can both readily agree on, you have to stick to logic. (removed a bunch of stuff that's more rehash...) >>> People can and do come back from being milled out. >> >> And how would they do that, with no library? I've been inviting you to >> point that out to me pretty much since this part of this thread started? >> I can bloat back from being down to one pool. Or just get ousts despite >> the fact I'm down to one pool. > > The way they come back from being milled out is to PROACTIVELY understand > their situation, take their lumps, and go for it. I guess I'll just have to say, I've never observed that to work for a lot of reasons I've already listed. At least, I'll say I understand where we disagree that's hard to reduce to reason. To me, the vast marjority of decks are just not going to gain much in terms of ousting the rest of the table from the knowledge that their predator isn't really after their pool. If you think they can, then that explains a lot. >> Sometimes, if you're right on the verge of ousting someone, you might do >> it with just the permanents you have on the table. But it's usually >> unlikely, much more so than making ousts after having been bled down to >> one pool. > > You can often hang out and do well. Usually not, no. Again, if you think people often do "well" after they've been decked, that also explains a lot. > Tell me. . . what does a milling > predator do when his prey have no deck? He sits there, staring at his > Slaughterhouses and waits for his Brinksmanship. It shouldn't be a long wait. In fact, I expect him to usually have drawn it by the time of the decking. If the miller hasn't, he's either built a bad deck or has gotten pretty unlucky. And what is one supposed to do when one has no library in the mid-game and one's prey is still alive WITH library. Almost always nothing. Defense is weak without a library. Offense is almost always non-existant, unless one has, for instance, Jost Werner with a Flak Jacket or two. > That's *another* thing > you can try to knock down. You get extra turns of life and pressure from > permanents, even though you're decked. In an end game, that may be enough. How are you even getting to an end game. If you're in "end game", the >>> Another question: Does Paul sit at tables where From a Sinking Ship is >>> used? Collatoral pool damage? Unblockable bleeds for X? Tension in the >>> Ranks? Any number of random pool point things? (Intellectual curiosity: >>> what kind of deck is this?) >> >> What, you're about to construct some argument around, "What does Paul do >> if someone has the exact correct hoser card to stop him?" I don't know, >> I've never seen it. I suppose he'd probably lose but who knows? Maybe >> he packs lots of Sudden Reverses. >> >> Either way, I don't care. The point pretty much speaks for itself >> whether a silver bullet card exists to stop it or not. > > I think it's interesting that you consider a single silver bullet when I > mentioned at least FIVE different methods by which Paul might lose a pool > or the game. Absolutely. The deck is not foolproof. So what? No deck is. The point that it even exists says enough about how viable a Methuselah with one or two pool can be. It's not intended as proof positive that being cut down to one pool is better than 5 or 10 library cards way early. I know that. It just expresses what I think is the reality of death-by-pool vs. death- by-early-library-deprivation. > Three of those are actually larger categories of pool loss, > and don't refer to specific cards at all. No, I'm not asking about silver > bullets. I'm asking how he deals with pool loss when he's at 1 pool. My observation was that he had ready answers to almost any form of pool loss. It wasn't foolproof but it was damned impressive. And it was what he had to do to make all of his Parity Shifts useful. > If you want to make him an anecdote, then back up your anecdote. > Otherwise, drop him as part of your argument. It isn't intended for the same purpose as yours. >>> What I want to know from you is: how many times do you see a Methuselah >>> come back from 1 pool compared to the number of times that that player >>> is ousted? I'd guess no more than about 10% of the time. >> >> Well, a lot more of the time than I see a Methuselah go on to do much >> after he's had his whole library waxed in the early game. By far. > > I thought you didn't see many such games. I haven't. "Of those I've seen..." is how I intended people to take the above statement. I will grant that my experience is pretty scant. Not non-existant, however. > Are you sure you're giving > milling the same historical perspective as other decks? It's more a matter of reasoning how such things work and seeing my reasoning vindicated in the games I've observed. Again, I will grant that there maybe angles I haven't seen. I just haven't heard you say anything to really feel I've missed something. >> The miller will use Eagle's Sights, Life Boons, and other tricks to >> prevent it. Any indirect actions he takes geared towards ousting his >> prey faster (e.g. equipping with laptops), will be intercepted. This is >> not "bias" this is reality. > > A predator that mills *cannot* do that and defend his pool at the same > time and win! I've seen players who were not milling and had to win in other ways (e.g. combat, using lots of combat cards) do it. I have a hard time imagining why an HoS deck could not just because his master cards are tied up in Slaughterhouses (but he need not actually cause combat damage, otoh, unlike blocky-fighty decks). > And if a miller is doing such a thing, you should consider > similarly bad examples for bleed/vote/combat! An intercept block deck > cannot block multiple people all day and live. It will deck itself > (thereby ousting itself with Brinksmanship), or lose its minions, or run > out of blocks, or be unable to pass its Brinksmanship. It cannot magically > do all of these things. He doesn't have to do it "all day". He just has to block the key things his grand-prey cannot. Hopefully his grandprey has _some_ kind of defense, right? > I notice that you're still unwilling to specifically address those > positive consequences of sitting behind a miller. Any reason? Basically, because I don't think they're very positive. I don't think you get very much acceleration toward ousting your prey. This is not something that can be reduced to positive proof because it's a broad statement that addresses the entire metagame and talks about what happens when an "average" player is _somewhat_ releived of having to worry (as much) about his predator exhausting his pool. Or were you talking about being being a miller's predator? If so, this would be the first time I'd noticed you raising the issue. Let's see: a deck that has to prey on another deck which is designed to sit there and intercept everything and slow everything down. My question would be, "What positive consequences?" >>> A miller >>> always prefers a prey who feels as if he can do nothing, and so, in >>> fact, does nothing. ... >> I'm not saying it hasn't happened. Perhaps it has. Or perhaps it's >> just a form of whining in its own right - that prey tend to go backwards >> for completely understandable reasons instead of selflessly going >> forward to gather what VPs they can before contently sacrificing >> themselves when they prematurely run out of library, like lambs to >> slaughter. Whatever. > > Or they could actually win. Because a miller can't stop you forever. Sure he can. He runs you out of library cards quicky. Then you are stopped. Forever. The offense of most decks effectively grinds to a halt when there is no library cards. I guess I take that as a general truth. Again, if you don't, that explains much of our differences. > Just out of curiosity, any reason you delete large portions of my posts > that make the points that you consistently refuse to consider, thereby > making me repeat them over and over? I will delete anything that is essentially the same point made further up in the post or previously in the thread. In short, I do not believe them to be points I have "consistently refused to consider" (though clearly I make mistakes from time to time when I just flat miss something). I suspect at least some of the time, I _have_ responded to them and you are refusing to consider the response. This is typical of people who see an issue in vastly different terms. At least, I'm starting to get some rough ideas of how we see "reality" different. In that sense, we seem to be making some headway. Fred

I'm not even certain where you get the idea that this last part of your paragraph is true. First off, I suppose your "mill decks" are built better than the ones I've played against and are grabbing their VP's with their Eagle's Sights or intercept wall (perhaps I can see a copy of this?) Furthermore, if your mill deck is already an intercept wall and SOMEHOW preventing you from ousting your prey via it's library destruction (which as far as I usually see is doing just as much as re randomizing the deck everytime), why the heck would you even need to go backwards if he's already able to block everything you do? And furthermore, why WOULDN'T the prey go forward to gather VP's? Isn't that part of how you win? You claim Ankur's making all this hearsay and dazzling with bs when I'm not even sure how your arguments are even substantiated any better ...

I obviously still have to master the finer parts of "quoting" here but I was responding to a much earlier point of Fred's.

"Drace" <Chrysanth...@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:1136871149.5...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > I'm not even certain where you get the idea that this last part of your > paragraph is true. First off, I suppose your "mill decks" are built > better than the ones I've played against and are grabbing their VP's > with their Eagle's Sights or intercept wall (perhaps I can see a copy > of this?) I don't know what this means. It doesn't matter how good they are. If they're good enough to win or get ousts at all, they're good enough to wax a library and fail, which is the point. > Furthermore, if your mill deck is already an intercept wall > and SOMEHOW preventing you from ousting your prey via it's library > destruction (which as far as I usually see is doing just as much as re > randomizing the deck everytime), why the heck would you even need to go > backwards if he's already able to block everything you do? You're conflating two different responses that apply to two different situations in order to create an apparent contradiction. The point of the eagles sights was suggested as means of slowing your prey down on his quest to oust his prey. It would apply to key pool attacking actions by a miller's prey who was geared to launch them aginst the miller's grand prey. It would apply to situation where the miller was confident that a combat encounter would not be destructive to his own minions. The "going backwards" reference was suggested as a general, long-term response by the prey of a miller and such actions would be assumed to be situations at a time of the prey's choosing where the prey was confident that some hard could be inflicted on the miller. And, in any event, I didn't suggest that going backwards was necessarily an effective response. It all depends. In some cases, it may not accomplish much but it may be all the prey can do to gain some measure of revenge. At the very least, it may accomplish this: it will ensure that his prey is in a healthier shape to oust HIS prey and destablize the game in a way the miller likely will not care for. > And furthermore, why WOULDN'T the prey go forward to gather VP's? If he doesn't think he can succeed before he's decked (meaning he probably won't succeed at all), he may reason that it will only weaken his prey's ability to operate against his grandprey and/or the (new) HoS predator (after he is ousted). As I said, revenge. Fred

"Ankur Gupta" <agu...@cs.duke.edu> wrote in message news:Pine.GSO.4.62.06...@eenie.cs.duke.edu... > Ok, so we're going to allow some sorts of anecdotal evidence but not all > sorts. Fine. Where do you get the WAY prematurely from? Let's look at that > Harbingers deck that mills you dead and see how it does, shall we? Let's > put together an optimal draw: > > Turn 1 Info Highway, 6 transfers pops out Agaitas > Turn 2 Slaughterhouse -2 cards total > Turn 3 Slaughterhouse -6 cards total > Turn 4 Slaughterhouse -12 cards total > Turn 5 Slaughterhouse -20 cards total > Turn 6 Slaughterhouse -30 cards total > Turn 7 Slaughterhouse -42 cards total > Turn 8 Slaughterhouse -56 cards total > Turn 9 Slaughterhouse -72 cards total > Turn 10 Slaughterhouse -90 cards total > > That is to say, in 10 turns, without using any other abilities or you > using your deck and a perfect draw from your predator, you're completely > decked. This never happens. To play 9 Slaughterhouses in a row is > extremely unlikely. If we look at a more moderate view, you're gonna > get 12 turns. (You get an extra one just if you assume that your predator > doesn't get a god draw turn 1.) I couldn't resist stopping and studying this. A few weakness in your analysis: 1) Why does Agaitas need to come out in the first turn, necessitating (in turn) the play of Info Highway? Admittedly, she supports the general theme of the deck, but then you turn around and fail to account for any library she eats up. And - in any event - who cares whether she comes out the first turn? Play a Slaughterhouse on the first turn, gaining 2 additional cards every turn of play and use four transfers per turn, like everybody else. That would speed up things significantly. 2) Does your prey actually USE any of his own library?!? Mine always does. Does our metagame differ that way? 3) I know a lot of people just mindlessly build 90 card decks but unless it's a card-intensive combat deck (which would be that much more vulnerable to library deprivation), there's no reason you should. Personally, I shoot for 75-78 card decks and occasionally less that, depending on what type of deck I'm building. 4) It's not totally ridiculous to think in terms of adding half a dozen Parenthenons and the turbo-charge the Slaughterhouse play. Of course, this will interfere with deck reliability in other ways and degrade your minion card play (so intercept, waking, and combat defense will suffer somewhat) but it should usually insure that your prey has very little time indeed to get any ousts. Granted, you're not going to draw 10 Slaughterhouses (except perhaps in the Parthenon scenario, given sufficient Slaughterhouses in the deck). The bottom line is, it's still not clear to me how many turns a Slaughterhouse deck might take to eat it's prey's library on average. It might very easily be less than 12, depending on how you built the deck. > Now, can we please stop arbitrarily refuting the statement about "12 > turns"? Decidedly not. Fred

> 1) Why does Agaitas need to come out in the first turn, necessitating > (in turn) the play of Info Highway? Admittedly, she supports the > general theme of the deck, but then you turn around and fail to > account for any library she eats up. And - in any event - who cares > whether she comes out the first turn? Play a Slaughterhouse on the > first turn, gaining 2 additional cards every turn of play and use > four transfers per turn, like everybody else. That would speed up > things significantly. You can't play Slaughterhouse on the first turn. It requires a ready Harbringer of Skulls. Not that I care much about this particular "debate", but it seems to me that if you're going to pretend to post well thought out arguments against what are people are saying you might as well get the rules of the game straight. Again, that's "you" in the general sense, as always. Just my 2 cents.

"Cthulukitty" <wurmt...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1136880307....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com... >> 1) Why does Agaitas need to come out in the first turn, necessitating >> (in turn) the play of Info Highway? Admittedly, she supports the >> general theme of the deck, but then you turn around and fail to >> account for any library she eats up. And - in any event - who cares >> whether she comes out the first turn? Play a Slaughterhouse on the >> first turn, gaining 2 additional cards every turn of play and use >> four transfers per turn, like everybody else. That would speed up >> things significantly. > > You can't play Slaughterhouse on the first turn. It requires a ready > Harbringer of Skulls. D'oh! Totally missed the point. Thank you for the correction. Fred

I think arguments should stand or fall on their own merits, but I just wanted to throw in that Ankur's arguments are not entirely hypothetical. I don't know about lately, but he got milled a lot, and generally got to watch a lot of milling, back when he was in my playgroup and I was working out how to win with the new toy. So anyway, one side of this argument has a lot of empirical data points from which to draw conclusions. The other has a firm conviction that he really prefers blue to red. And, at least the way I play it, it's pretty much a given that my prey will get one VP. Millers don't sweep, but they sure as hell can win. And since, barring Brinksmanship and Slaughterhouses, the deck is entirely reactionary, if you don't pick up two predators you probably won't generate enough card churn to hit your Slaughterhouses in a timely way. -- David Cherryholmes

Fred Scott wrote: > If he doesn't think he can succeed before he's decked (meaning > he probably won't succeed at all), he may reason that it will > only weaken his prey's ability to operate against his grandprey > and/or the (new) HoS predator (after he is ousted). As I > said, revenge. Which usually goes something like this: "Whaaa!!! I'm *psychic*!! It's turn 3 and you aren't going to bleeeeeed me! I can lose as I choose! Whaaa!!!" ....and then, queue the self-fulfilling prophecy about how miller decks monkey-fuck tables as you proceed to vear about, tossing the pred-prey relationship to the wind. -- David Cherryholmes

Drace wrote: > I obviously still have to master the finer parts of "quoting" here but > I was responding to a much earlier point of Fred's. You're using Google, and Google's interface is for some reason designed to make it difficult to quote context properly. To remedy: 1) Use a real newsreader for posting. or 2) When using Google, don't click on "reply" to reply. Instead, click on "more options" and use the "reply" link in that area.

bluedevil wrote: > ....and then, queue the self-fulfilling prophecy about how miller decks > monkey-fuck tables as you proceed to vear about, tossing the pred-prey > relationship to the wind. > > -- > > David Cherryholmes I feel compelled to share an anecdote. I recently tested a Tupdog/Gargoyle build that had 2x Jacob the Glitch. I had never used Jacob, so I figured I'd give him a whirl, and see how the table responded (not using any tricks to bloat with him, basically just a cheap Tupdog enabler). The deck was working well, my Gargoyles were competent blockers and slaves, and when my opponents made me dump my hand, I simply redrew more of the same stuff and kept playing my game. I WAS DOING JUST FINE. Then, I was made to discard my hand and could not replace it all from my library. All in all, I was made to discard 35 cards. I promply was ousted with three cards in my hand. My pred was a weenie Nos/ANI, who didn't take a whole lot of actions while I was running out of cards, and then swarm bled his way to victory. Not sure how it relates to the discussion, though yubetcherass I have removed Jacob from that deck.

>> Why? I guess I'd like you to tell me in a fairly step-by-step manner >> why the specific positive consequences of a milling predator don't >> constitute an advantage. I had mentioned these in my last post. > > It isn't something that can reduced to a single statement other than to > say, "There's no reason it needs to be." In a multiplayer game, the The thing is Fred, it wasn't reduced to a single statement. It was 5 or so specific points which, ironically enough *aren't* considered in isolation. I understand that vtes isn't a zero-sum game. (I'm rather familiar with Game Theory, in case it matters.) What I'm challenging you to do is deny that the specific points I brought up aren't positive in nature. And, more to the point, that if you had all of those advantages in any game you're playing, at the cost of 30 cards, wouldn't you want it? What about for 40 cards? What about for X cards, where X is the number of cards you won't play by the end of the game? Again, the miller earns NOTHING by simply milling X cards. Please take a look at those statements. I'm not trying to batter your head into a wall -- I'm bringing you a perspective that seems to be much more informed about the capability of milling decks and how to play against them. It requires a different mindset, and those points are intended to encourage that thought process. > That is to say, even if there's no perfect screw-your-predator or screw- > your-prey choices, the choice you make will affect the expected value of > the predator matrix vs. the prey matrix. I'm not sure what your point is though. Sure, your choice will affect the pre-existing game state in a meaningful way. So what? > So, to make a long story as short as I can, the answer is, although I > can see where depriving a HoS player of many of his master phase actions > (and possibly making him expend resources to pursue getting more MPAs) > to the end of getting Slaughterhouses out probably lessens the pressure > on his prey somewhat, it really doesn't lessen it very much. It doesn't Again, even supposing you had NO counter to your predator's milling strategy, you still have a significant number of turns, which are a resource in a game. Is it not evident that you get more use of these turns than one in which a different predator is your predator? > have to. The nature of the task of running one's prey out of cards is > so difficult that to make to something that's possible to accomplish at > all, the designers made the library deprivation part pretty easy to > accomplish. It really doesn't consume many resources. I'm not sneezing > at all the MPAs used, mind you. But it does still leave all their > minion cards free for other purposes - like intercepting a lot of > actions and still having a good supply of combat cards. It's very hard to build such a deck. Give it a go. You don't have the space to a) save your vampires b) block 300 times c) torpor other vampires d) drop out Slaughterhouses e) pack intercept f) defend your pool and g) tech to pass Brinksmanship. There's not enough deck space for that. And so, the elements which survive to the actual deck tends to be a), d), f), g) and enough b) and e) to support f), not block downstream at the prey. There just isn't space to uberscrew the prey. g) in particular requires a lot of tech. > I'm not saying I know how to build a good library deprivation deck. I've > never done it myself. But it sure looks to me like Eagle's Sighting > actions your grand prey can't stop is a very reasonable tactic. They > may not be able to do it a lot, but I don't think they have to in order > to simply screw you over (on the road to hopefully breaking through and > ousting you). If they can block. . . three of your actions in the game, I don't call that screwing. That's what you should expect of any predator. I don't really think they can block more than that. >> This isn't of course true. A milling deck gains little from bouncing >> bleeds, largely because it doesn't have much forward pressure itself. >> Its forward-pressure is orthogonal to your loss of pool. Besides, a >> wallish deck's first priority is to not die. In that sense, it must >> save the largest share of its resources to prevent its predator from >> killing *him*. And, since Harbingers have limited ability to actually >> torpor people in combat (without devoting a lot of deck space to it, >> which is key), it tends to be defensive in nature. > > All right, again, I'll grant, I don't know exactly what works best. But > it seems to me that Telepathic Misdirections are by far the most > efficient bleed defense. There's much better in Protected Resources + Telepathic Counter. Folderol sees a lot of play as well, which can be used to prevent your oust, but it's rarely enough. Minimally, you can't run that and Eagle's Sight. > That's why I'd probably be tempted to use a fair number of them > (especially given that they'll help with interception in a pinch, too). > And there is too something to be gained by bouncing bleeds: it distracts > your prey and slows him down. I agree that you're not going to actually > bleed him out unless you're incredibly lucky and your predator is an > incredibly irresponsible bleeder. But anything that causes him to not > go forward as fast can't hurt. In some cases, bounce may not help in > this way at all but I suspect you'll often get at least some milage out > it. And since it's so easy to use, why not? I'm not saying not to use it. But, for a miller, he wants his prey to be around for a while -- that's his best chance to pass Brinksmanship, when someone who's decked is his prey. That way, the prey can't really do much to stop his own oust. Others do care about such a vote, of course, but probably not enough at that stage in the game to give up real resources to fail it. YMMV, of course. >> A milling predator hardly cares what you do, so long as you're not >> thwarting its ability to defend itself and lay Slaughterhouses. What >> are they going to block? > > Eagles sight particularly damaging bleeds or directed actions. Block JS > Simmons, Tasha Morgon, Laptops, or any other bleed enhancers. Block > Mr. Winthrop, Sport Bikes, Ravens, etc. that he'll use to screw with > his prey. Block damaging votes. Any sort of miscellaneous undirected > actions that may be of value to him towards gaining an oust (Army of > Rats, for instance). There's all sorts of ways your untapped minions > sitting around with a boatload of intercept can slow your prey down. > And this is not what I call "no pressure". A predator who's blocking all that stuff is definitely pressuring you, yes. The likelihood that your milling predator is doing that is relatively low. Perhaps you could give this kind of deck a go. Personally, I think you'll lose vampires or pool faster than you can afford to put up Slaughterhouses and you'll see that you can't constantly put your vampires in threatening situations. >>>> I've won many games with 10 or fewer cards. I've won many games with >>>> millers as my predator. >>> >>> I never claimed you couldn't win a game with a miller as your >>> predator. I claimed that millers frequently screwed their prey even >>> they failed to win, which is the reason people hate them as predators. >> >> Yes, and I claimed that bleeders frequently screwed their prey even if >> they failed to win, which is the reason people hate them as predators. > > Right - but I disagree, to finish the rehash. Again, bringing my prey > down to a single pool is not like bringing my prey down to his last 10 > library cards way prematurely. I'm not going to argue about how many > turns he's had to pursue an oust. I understand 12 turns is the average The thing is, Fred, you don't have to argue how many turns he's had to pursue an oust. It's *AT LEAST* 9. And, if you ignore that resource, then you've chosen to invalidate my entire argument. It's like me saying that X+Y=Z, and you saying that X!=Z. You can't ignore Y. That's the point. That's the reason you aren't screwed. > length of a game so it seems to that miller who can only get his prey's > library down to 10 cards after 12 whole turns is probably doing a > crappy job. But I haven't sat down and analyzed it. I'm just assuming Luckily, I did analyze it. And, a miller who takes you down to 10 cards after 12 turns, ISN'T DOING A CRAPPY JOB!!! That's the expected number of turns! That's an average! That's what it takes! Look at your "best case scenario". . . . And then moderate it. 12 turns, Fred. I've analyzed it for you already. > the miller has done a very effective job of destroying his prey's > library but failed - just barely - to get the oust at the end. Which then implies that the miller has taken, oh, about 12 turns to do it. Which means you have 12 relatively free turns to make your mark. > There are ways to come back from being down to one pool. There are no > effective ways to reconstruct your library. Again, defending your library is a PROACTIVE activity. You defend your library by using it well. You use your library to its fullest for many turns (12, as it turns out), and defeat the miller. This is not Magic, where once a miller gets going, he can devastate you in a turn or three. This takes FOREVER. >> And I claimed that combat monsters frequently screwed their prey even >> if they failed to win, which is the reason people hate them as >> predators. > > ...on that last claim, I'll agree. Ok, that's 1 out of 3. >> Ok, so we're going to allow some sorts of anecdotal evidence but not >> all sorts. > > I didn't really say that. I'm just saying that although you're > experience is interesting to the discussion, it doesn't prove anything > one way or another because there's could be all sort of mitigating > factors that caused the situations you reported. Then neither does Paul's example. That's my point. Either allow anecdotal evidence or don't. Don't undermine the validity of mine because it doesn't suit you but still hold your own up for investigation. >> Fine. Where do you get the WAY prematurely from? > > Inductive reasoning (and some deductive reasoning): > > 5) Because miller must succeed a significant amount of the time, > miller MUST nearly succeed some of the time but barely fall short. > This step of the argument is key. My justifications are: > Average success quantity approximates either a bell-shaped > curve or, at worse, a flat curve. Most likely at least somewhat > bell-shaped. The thickness of the "bell" must favor failure, > since to favor success would allow the miller to at gat least > one oust over 50% of the time, which would be unbalanced. (And > milling would then be a highly popular strategy.) So JUST > BARELY falling short is more likely than succeeding. What you've just described is the same for all decks across the board, where you replace milling with strategy X. I don't see why this analysis applies only to milling. > Since the miller must succeed a signficant amount of time, > he must just barely fall short even more often. Same. > 6) I assert that "just falling short" *IS* causing your prey to exhaust > his library "way prematurely". At least, that's what it looks like to > me. I don't know what you think it looks like when a miller just misses > ousting his prey. It seems to me it would be very bad for the prey. A > milling deck that gave his prey a more than fair chance at getting ousts > wouldn't be a very successful milling deck. "way prematurely" has been defined, using logic in my previous post, to be about 12 turns. If your milling predator dies before 12 turns are up, you probably have at least 20ish cards in your library. If not, well, you might be decked. But that's after 12 turns. TWELVE TURNS IS NOT WAY PREMATURE. Am I just not writing things in English? Why is "way premature" still in this discussion? Did you read the analysis? You cut it out of your post, but if you hadn't, it might be evident to you that 12 turns is what it takes. . . and that's not premature. In fact, in one of my posts, I stated exactly this fact. It's more like mid/end game, or some such. A milling deck must accept that his prey might get a vp. He doesn't really have the resources or pressure to prevent that. A milling deck hopes that he can reign in his prey by the 12 turn mark and prevent the second vp. This is what the prey should be going for. Because, if he takes 2 vps, the miller has probably lost. And, you're well on your way to victory. > (ellide logic about "12 turns") >> Now, can we please stop arbitrarily refuting the statement about "12 >> turns"? > > My point is, I don't care how long it is. Either it must be very bad > for the miller's prey or it isn't a very good milling deck that's likely > to ever win much. I don't care about the latter case so much because I > think misguided, self-ousting strategies tend to be their own > punishment. But I just don't see how this _can't_ be very bad for the > prey. Fred, again: The main reason it can't be very bad for the prey is because you have a HUGE NUMBER OF TURNS AVAILABLE TO WIN WITH. Let's take a ridiculous example: Suppose I had a deck that was guaranteed to win, but only if I have 3 million hours of play time. This deck milled its prey for 1 card every 100,000 hours. Is this milling deck very bad for its prey? Why not? Do you think it has something to do with the rate of milling? If we take this ridiculous example and reign it back in, would you say there's a threshold point after which it becomes bad for its prey? Wouldn't you count that threshold as number of cards milled/turn? Why are we counting number of cards milled/turn? Is it because milled cards are the measure here or turns of life for the prey? Can we instead use another measure that's more relevant to the "badness for its prey"? How about. . . number of turns prey has to play? Would you say that 3 turns is bad? 4? 6? 10? 12? 23? 246? What if I told you that an average game lasts 12 turns (which you don't deny)? Would it seem fair to you that a 12-turn milling strategy is a reasonable compromise that puts sufficient pressure on its prey, but not so much so that one is hosed sitting next to a mill? Do you think that perhaps by ignoring THE resource that brings milling into line is a good thing for analysis? >>> There could be lots of reasons - like your predator's deck sucked >>> and/or he played it badly and/or he got so unlucky, the milling didn't >>> affect you that much. Doesn't change anything. >> >> Invalidating games you haven't seen Fred? The real question is, can I >> do that to your examples without proof? > > saying the relevance of ancedotal evidence cannot be established for > these purposes so it's no use trying to rely on it to back up your > opinion. Absent game trends we can both readily agree on, you have to > stick to logic. Ok, then why bring up Paul's anecdotal evidence, or anecdotal evidence that "people can survive on 1 pool"? Be fair. Either allow anecdotal evidence, or don't use it yourself. > (removed a bunch of stuff that's more rehash...) >>>> People can and do come back from being milled out. >>> >>> And how would they do that, with no library? I've been inviting you to >>> point that out to me pretty much since this part of this thread started? >>> I can bloat back from being down to one pool. Or just get ousts despite >>> the fact I'm down to one pool. >> >> The way they come back from being milled out is to PROACTIVELY understand >> their situation, take their lumps, and go for it. > > I guess I'll just have to say, I've never observed that to work for a > lot of reasons I've already listed. At least, I'll say I understand > where we disagree that's hard to reduce to reason. To me, the vast > marjority of decks are just not going to gain much in terms of ousting > the rest of the table from the knowledge that their predator isn't > really after their pool. If you think they can, then that explains a > lot. Wait, you're telling me that you can't understand that you get to bring out another minion? That you get to sit there on 3-5 pool and attack like a mad fiend? (After all, if players can survive on 1 pool, they're 3 to 5 times more likely to survive on 3-5 pool.) You're telling me that you don't know how to use your 30 pool to its fullest? >>> Sometimes, if you're right on the verge of ousting someone, you might >>> do it with just the permanents you have on the table. But it's >>> usually unlikely, much more so than making ousts after having been >>> bled down to one pool. >> >> You can often hang out and do well. > > Usually not, no. Again, if you think people often do "well" after > they've been decked, that also explains a lot. I contend that they do no less well than if they were at 1 pool. >> Tell me. . . what does a milling predator do when his prey have no >> deck? He sits there, staring at his Slaughterhouses and waits for his >> Brinksmanship. > > It shouldn't be a long wait. In fact, I expect him to usually have > drawn it by the time of the decking. If the miller hasn't, he's either > built a bad deck or has gotten pretty unlucky. Fair enough. I'm just providing examples where you might get to live an extra turn or two. More likely, he has the Brinksmanship, but does not have all the tech to pass it, such as unblockability, Dia, vote-push, etc etc. > And what is one supposed to do when one has no library in the mid-game > and one's prey is still alive WITH library. Almost always nothing. > Defense is weak without a library. Offense is almost always > non-existant, unless one has, for instance, Jost Werner with a Flak > Jacket or two. Again, you won't be decked in the midgame. I find it interesting that all of your examples of being horribly screwed happen in the "way premature" and mid-game stages of the game. . . . Which is patently NOT when you'll be decked. Please see the "rehash" above. I rehash because you're not reading it. >> That's *another* thing you can try to knock down. You get extra turns >> of life and pressure from permanents, even though you're decked. In an >> end game, that may be enough. > > How are you even getting to an end game. If you're in "end game", the TWELVE TURNS. Nuff said. >> I think it's interesting that you consider a single silver bullet when >> I mentioned at least FIVE different methods by which Paul might lose a >> pool or the game. > > Absolutely. The deck is not foolproof. So what? No deck is. The > point that it even exists says enough about how viable a Methuselah with > one or two pool can be. It's not intended as proof positive that being > cut down to one pool is better than 5 or 10 library cards way early. I > know that. It just expresses what I think is the reality of > death-by-pool vs. death- by-early-library-deprivation. It's an anecdote. Drop it, or accept the validity of mine without question as data points. If you allow my data points, your conclusion doesn't follow. Nor does mine, but the point is, be fair. By the way, "way early" in the above paragraph isn't correct. TWELVE TURNS. >> Three of those are actually larger categories of pool loss, and don't >> refer to specific cards at all. No, I'm not asking about silver >> bullets. I'm asking how he deals with pool loss when he's at 1 pool. > > My observation was that he had ready answers to almost any form of pool > loss. It wasn't foolproof but it was damned impressive. And it was > what he had to do to make all of his Parity Shifts useful. So, you're telling me that he built a deck designed to not lose pool? Am I allowed to design a deck that protects its library and then claim that it's virtually impossible for me to be ousted by a miller? I can even do it with general cards that aren't magic bullets. Am I allowed to? >> If you want to make him an anecdote, then back up your anecdote. >> Otherwise, drop him as part of your argument. > > It isn't intended for the same purpose as yours. Sure it is. You want to say that "Here's one of a billion examples where 1 pool is no hindrance". I want to say that "Here's 5000 examples of someone ousting with 10 or fewer cards in library." It's the same Fred. >>> Well, a lot more of the time than I see a Methuselah go on to do much >>> after he's had his whole library waxed in the early game. By far. >> >> I thought you didn't see many such games. > > I haven't. "Of those I've seen..." is how I intended people to take the > above statement. I will grant that my experience is pretty scant. Not > non-existant, however. So how can you make an anecdotal judgement which is fair? >> Are you sure you're giving milling the same historical perspective as >> other decks? > > It's more a matter of reasoning how such things work and seeing my > reasoning vindicated in the games I've observed. Again, I will grant > that there maybe angles I haven't seen. I just haven't heard you say > anything to really feel I've missed something. TWELVE TURNS, for one. And I've posited a huge repository of thought about how to consider a milling predator. I can't help you when you don't intend to read it. >> A predator that mills *cannot* do that and defend his pool at the same >> time and win! > > I've seen players who were not milling and had to win in other ways > (e.g. combat, using lots of combat cards) do it. I have a hard time > imagining why an HoS deck could not just because his master cards are > tied up in Slaughterhouses (but he need not actually cause combat > damage, otoh, unlike blocky-fighty decks). I've explained the structure of a milling deck above. >> And if a miller is doing such a thing, you should consider similarly >> bad examples for bleed/vote/combat! An intercept block deck cannot >> block multiple people all day and live. It will deck itself (thereby >> ousting itself with Brinksmanship), or lose its minions, or run out of >> blocks, or be unable to pass its Brinksmanship. It cannot magically do >> all of these things. > > He doesn't have to do it "all day". He just has to block the key things > his grand-prey cannot. Hopefully his grandprey has _some_ kind of > defense, right? A blocky deck cannot produce combat over and over again. A blocky deck must play with Auspex or Spiritus to have an opportunity to stand in the way of a hefty number of actions. I don't know why I'm trying to show you that it's not possible more than 1-2 times in a game. Are you telling me that a regular deck can't handle 1-2 more block attempts? > Basically, because I don't think they're very positive. I don't think > you get very much acceleration toward ousting your prey. This is not > something that can be reduced to positive proof because it's a broad > statement that addresses the entire metagame and talks about what > happens when an "average" player is _somewhat_ releived of having to > worry (as much) about his predator exhausting his pool. Disprove it Fred. Show me reasons or something, ANYTHING that suggests that those statements aren't giving you the acceleration you need to oust your prey. Again, if someone handed you a pile of 10 extra pool and said, "Go for it", you'd probably be able to put together a significantly better offense. > Or were you talking about being being a miller's predator? If so, this > would be the first time I'd noticed you raising the issue. Let's see: a > deck that has to prey on another deck which is designed to sit there and > intercept everything and slow everything down. My question would be, > "What positive consequences?" No, I wasn't. I have no idea where you might have concluded this from. >>>> A miller always prefers a prey who feels as if he can do nothing, and >>>> so, in fact, does nothing. > ... >>> I'm not saying it hasn't happened. Perhaps it has. Or perhaps it's >>> just a form of whining in its own right - that prey tend to go >>> backwards for completely understandable reasons instead of selflessly >>> going forward to gather what VPs they can before contently sacrificing >>> themselves when they prematurely run out of library, like lambs to >>> slaughter. Whatever. >> >> Or they could actually win. Because a miller can't stop you forever. > > Sure he can. He runs you out of library cards quicky. Then you are > stopped. Forever. The offense of most decks effectively grinds to a > halt when there is no library cards. I guess I take that as a general > truth. Again, if you don't, that explains much of our differences. I take it as a general truth. In TWELVE TURNS. I'm hoping that you'll have to read that sometime. If you define" quickly" as TWELVE TURNS LATER, then I agree with the above statement. > I will delete anything that is essentially the same point made further > up in the post or previously in the thread. In short, I do not believe > them to be points I have "consistently refused to consider" (though > clearly I make mistakes from time to time when I just flat miss something). Fred, one post ago, you completely failed to see the point of an entire 11k long post. I had mentioned in that post, in SIX different locations, a major thrust. I'd prefer if you deleted nothing, and dedicated yourself to responding to each paragraph. Each paragraph presents a step in a logical series that brings you to something. You must read these things! As of this post, you have not yet responded to 1) how you don't get acceleration with little pool pressure. 2) why a TWELVE TURN miller is, with high probability, realistic 3) how a milling deck that hopes to win can be developed to constantly block its prey 4) How the TWELVE TURN assumption is slowed down considerably by the inclusion of easy, standard, and available counters which are general purpose To respond to these adequately, you'll have to re-read my posts and paste the relevant quotes and then explain why those don't work. I've done the same for every paragraph of your posts. . . . > I suspect at least some of the time, I _have_ responded to them and you > are refusing to consider the response. This is typical of people who > see an issue in vastly different terms. At least, I'm starting to get > some rough ideas of how we see "reality" different. In that sense, we > seem to be making some headway. I hope so. I'm seeing reality in terms of logic. I don't know where you're seeing it from. I suspect you're trying to take your anecdotal evidence and put the skin of logic over it as an explanation. I'm inferring things from logical facts. [ quoted text not captured ]

>> That is to say, in 10 turns, without using any other abilities or you >> using your deck and a perfect draw from your predator, you're >> completely decked. This never happens. To play 9 Slaughterhouses in a >> row is extremely unlikely. If we look at a more moderate view, you're >> gonna get 12 turns. (You get an extra one just if you assume that your >> predator doesn't get a god draw turn 1.) > > I couldn't resist stopping and studying this. A few weakness in your > analysis: > > 1) Why does Agaitas need to come out in the first turn, necessitating > (in turn) the play of Info Highway? Admittedly, she supports the > general theme of the deck, but then you turn around and fail to account > for any library she eats up. And - in any event - who cares whether she > comes out the first turn? Play a Slaughterhouse on the first turn, You can't. It requires Harbingers. I was actually giving you the ability to play a Slaugherhouse one turn early. . . . > gaining 2 additional cards every turn of play and use four transfers per > turn, like everybody else. That would speed up things significantly. Except that it's illegal. > 2) Does your prey actually USE any of his own library?!? Mine always > does. Does our metagame differ that way? No, I captured this in the "moderate the example" comment. First of all, I wanted to make the point of how ridiculously weird a miller's hand would have to be to deck you by turn 10 just on the strength of the deck alone. He's not going to operate like that. And you're going to play cards. I had hoped that you would take the logical steps to work it out. . . . It comes out to TWELVE TURNS. > 3) I know a lot of people just mindlessly build 90 card decks but unless > it's a card-intensive combat deck (which would be that much more > vulnerable to library deprivation), there's no reason you should. > Personally, I shoot for 75-78 card decks and occasionally less that, > depending on what type of deck I'm building. Then you're more susceptible to milling decks. It's a weakness of your decks. By the way, card-intensive combat decks can stop milling. . . unready Harbingers cannot play Slaughterhouses. > 4) It's not totally ridiculous to think in terms of adding half a dozen > Parenthenons and the turbo-charge the Slaughterhouse play. Of course, > this will interfere with deck reliability in other ways and degrade your > minion card play (so intercept, waking, and combat defense will suffer > somewhat) but it should usually insure that your prey has very little > time indeed to get any ousts. Not really. You can't play that many in a turbo-charged manner and still do what you want. Check it out. It's about the same as what I've stated above, unless, godlike, you draw a parthenon 1st turn. > Granted, you're not going to draw 10 Slaughterhouses (except perhaps in > the Parthenon scenario, given sufficient Slaughterhouses in the deck). > The bottom line is, it's still not clear to me how many turns a > Slaughterhouse deck might take to eat it's prey's library on average. It > might very easily be less than 12, depending on how you built the deck. If you put 20 slaughterhouses in your deck, your deck will die. Because you'll jam on those things. And you can't defend yourself. Heck, people "jam" on 10 of them. . . After about 4 slaughterhouses, you generally have better things to play. . . the things that keep you alive. >> Now, can we please stop arbitrarily refuting the statement about "12 >> turns"? > > Decidedly not. Do the analysis Fred. Do. The. Analysis. [ quoted text not captured ]

Ankur Gupta wrote: > If you put 20 slaughterhouses in your deck, your deck will die. Because > you'll jam on those things. And you can't defend yourself. Heck, people > "jam" on 10 of them. . . After about 4 slaughterhouses, you generally have > better things to play. . . the things that keep you alive. This is a little off topic, but this statement makes me wonder how a well a Mata Hari milling deck would work, since she could afford to include more Slaughterhouses to ensure she gets one almost every turn and use the burn option on excess copies to keep from jamming. Of course, being Redlist may be a big enough drawback to keep that from working out too well. May try it sometime.

> This is a little off topic, but this statement makes me wonder how a > well a Mata Hari milling deck would work, since she could afford to > include more Slaughterhouses to ensure she gets one almost every turn > and use the burn option on excess copies to keep from jamming. Of > course, being Redlist may be a big enough drawback to keep that from > working out too well. May try it sometime. That's an interesting concept. I'll have to try that sometime. Ankur

On Mon, 9 Jan 2006 18:24:19 -0500, Ankur Gupta <agu...@cs.duke.edu> wrote: > Your complicated form is an incorrect way to model this. Instead, let > > x*a*t1 be the formula that should be used for being bled/voted out. > y*a*t2 be the formula that should be used for being combatted out. > > where t1 is much less than t2. This is the appropriate model. Sure. Then all we have to do is divide by time to get the utility-per-time unit ratio (which shows how much fun is playing the given game at a given moment). >> Mind you, this says nothing about a well-played combat deck that can >> actually win games in even a remotely entertaining fashion. The general > > Where entertaining must be defined by you, it seems, and not the > combat-deck player. Yes. Of course, even though we are different, there are good pointers to what a VtES player might consider fun. Hint: playing their game, actually using their cards, having minions around to do that? > My point: you should be equally frustrated by a badly played combat deck > as with a badly-played bleed/vote deck. What the holy fuck should that be true for? Are you completely out of your senses (if any)? >>> Social engineering hard at work. >> >> Re-reading your earlier posts you lobby heavily beside the "good cause" >> - more acceptance for combat decks. I'm not sure that in that light you >> have any ground left to accuse anyone of social engineering. [snip] > Furthermore, I'm not arguing social engineering. Well, hard to get any more overt than that. > I've personally got a winning percentage in losing situations of > significantly more than 1/100. I don't really think it's all that low > for anyone who actually does win. Between the two of us, we probably > haven't even *played* 100 games in which all our vampires were in > torpor. And I've won at least three times in those situations. Well, losing situation isn't necessarily defined as having all vampires in torpor. There are different kinds of losing situations. The only thing common in them is that, well, they're losing situations. -- Bye, Daneel

>> x*a*t1 be the formula that should be used for being bled/voted out. >> y*a*t2 be the formula that should be used for being combatted out. >> >> where t1 is much less than t2. This is the appropriate model. > > Sure. Then all we have to do is divide by time to get the > utility-per-time unit ratio (which shows how much fun is playing the > given game at a given moment). Oh for the love of god. I accept that you are one of the sorts of people I'm truly irritated by when I sit down to play a combat deck. A filthy whiner. Geez. If you've already decided to be irritated by combat decks a priori, no one can change that. Lemme know when you want to have a discussion about that. >> Where entertaining must be defined by you, it seems, and not the >> combat-deck player. > > Yes. Of course, even though we are different, there are good pointers to > what a VtES player might consider fun. Hint: playing their game, > actually using their cards, having minions around to do that? But this is all about you. Only you. Your fun > everyone else's fun. You would never ever compromise in that, right? Whiner. >> My point: you should be equally frustrated by a badly played combat >> deck as with a badly-played bleed/vote deck. > > What the holy fuck should that be true for? Are you completely out of > your senses (if any)? I think I'm done talking with you. You cannot make a logical argument, you keep shifting goalposts, and you've resorted to deleting entire portions of my post which validate the statements you lambast. I know it must be convenient to undermine another person's argument by not actually responding to it, but see, you don't actually get to win by doing that. >> Furthermore, I'm not arguing social engineering. > > Well, hard to get any more overt than that. Well, it wouldn't be so overt if you'd leave the context. See, because I make a habit not to sound like a buffoon. >> I've personally got a winning percentage in losing situations of >> significantly more than 1/100. I don't really think it's all that low >> for anyone who actually does win. Between the two of us, we probably >> haven't even *played* 100 games in which all our vampires were in >> torpor. And I've won at least three times in those situations. > > Well, losing situation isn't necessarily defined as having all vampires > in torpor. There are different kinds of losing situations. The only > thing common in them is that, well, they're losing situations. You had earlier defined losing situations as those when your vampires are all in torpor, which was your point. Combat decks put you in losing positions and don't win and make my fun disappear and make me not play my deck and I can cry about it because I could play another game where I don't have to think about how to come back from this losing position of all my vampires being in torpor. Quit. Moving. Goalposts. You might not sound stupid if you did. Ankur Gupta Prince of West Lafayette

"Ankur Gupta" <agu...@cs.duke.edu> wrote in message news:Pine.GSO.4.62.06...@cipher1.cs.duke.edu... >>> Why? I guess I'd like you to tell me in a fairly step-by-step manner >>> why the specific positive consequences of a milling predator don't >>> constitute an advantage. I had mentioned these in my last post. >> >> It isn't something that can reduced to a single statement other than to >> say, "There's no reason it needs to be." In a multiplayer game, the > > The thing is Fred, it wasn't reduced to a single statement. It was 5 or > so specific points which, ironically enough *aren't* considered in > isolation. I understand that vtes isn't a zero-sum game. (I'm rather > familiar with Game Theory, in case it matters.) What I'm challenging you > to do is deny that the specific points I brought up aren't positive in > nature. Huh? Who said they weren't positive in nature? Sure, I'll grant that they are. But so what? They're not positive _enough_ to compensate for the disadvantage of losing all your library. > And, more to the point, that if you had all of those advantages in > any game you're playing, at the cost of 30 cards, wouldn't you want it? > What about for 40 cards? What about for X cards, where X is the number of > cards you won't play by the end of the game? Again, the miller earns > NOTHING by simply milling X cards. 1) See, this is where we keep getting into trouble. It seems like you're imagining the Slaughterhouses eating only part of the library before the HoS deck gets ousted and that's not the problem. The problem is when the HoS deck just about finishes its prey's library off before getting ousted AS WILL FREQUENTLY HAPPEN. and 2) Assuming we're talking about my library being nearly eliminated, NO. Of course not. I don't know what kind of advantage you think it is but it's not worth it. > Please take a look at those statements. I'm not trying to batter your head > into a wall -- I'm bringing you a perspective that seems to be much more > informed about the capability of milling decks and how to play against > them. It requires a different mindset, and those points are intended to > encourage that thought process. I don't know how they're intended to do that. Clearly, we seem to think about the problems caused by the mill deck to its prey in different ways. I don't know why you think advantage of having milling prey who isn't aiming to bleed its prey out is all that big of an advantage and I especially don't understand why you think it's relevent to be talking about, specifically, 30 cards or 40 cards or whatever. It should usually be most or all of the prey's library or the milling deck would - BY DEFINITION - be a bad deck that's not worth playing. If it's leaving significant number of its prey's cards in his library a significant amount of the time, then the deck is a terrible deck and I don't care about such a deck. I assume we're not discussing such a deck. I've passed on the argument about, "Can the HoS deck affect his prey by block its actions much?" You say no and I say yes. I don't think there's anything more you can say to convince me. Furthermore, I've seen HoS decks that do just that. >>>>> I've won many games with 10 or fewer cards. I've won many games with >>>>> millers as my predator. >>>> >>>> I never claimed you couldn't win a game with a miller as your >>>> predator. I claimed that millers frequently screwed their prey even >>>> they failed to win, which is the reason people hate them as predators. >>> >>> Yes, and I claimed that bleeders frequently screwed their prey even if >>> they failed to win, which is the reason people hate them as predators. >> >> Right - but I disagree, to finish the rehash. Again, bringing my prey >> down to a single pool is not like bringing my prey down to his last 10 >> library cards way prematurely. I'm not going to argue about how many >> turns he's had to pursue an oust. I understand 12 turns is the average > > The thing is, Fred, you don't have to argue how many turns he's had to > pursue an oust. It's *AT LEAST* 9. OK, sure. It's probably at least nine most of the time. > And, if you ignore that resource, then > you've chosen to invalidate my entire argument. It's like me saying that > X+Y=Z, and you saying that X!=Z. You can't ignore Y. That's the point. > That's the reason you aren't screwed. You have nine turns - or sometimes ten or eleven or even twelve - to accomplish everything in your entire game. Yes, I think that's not enough. I think the average deck is screwed operating under those constraints, EVEN with the advantage of the HoS deck not bleeding them. Partly because I don't think the advantage is worth a great deal as you seem to, partly because I think the HoS deck will often screw with its prey trying to get its oust at key moments, and partly because I don't really think 9-12 turns is a lot of time. As always, it depends on the kind of deck you have and the kind your prey and the rest of the guys on the table have. But if there's a lot of defense or bloating, you're automatically going to be in trouble usually. > Luckily, I did analyze it. And, a miller who takes you down to 10 cards > after 12 turns, ISN'T DOING A CRAPPY JOB!!! That's the expected number of > turns! That's an average! That's what it takes! Look at your "best case > scenario". . . . And then moderate it. 12 turns, Fred. I've analyzed it > for you already. And I disagree, as posted. You clearly made at least a couple of convenient but unrealistic assumptions in your analysis. > Again, defending your library is a PROACTIVE activity. You defend your > library by using it well. You use your library to its fullest for many > turns (12, as it turns out), and defeat the miller. This is not Magic, > where once a miller gets going, he can devastate you in a turn or three. > This takes FOREVER. If it takes "forever", then I go back to my other line of reasoning: It will take "forever" all the time, the milling deck is therefore almost never going to win, therefore, why play it at all EVER?!? If it basically doesn't work much, it's a meaningless self-ousting deck that I don't care about and I'm not going to argue with you about. If you want to play a milling deck that takes quote-FOREVER-unquote to mill my library down, go ahead and have at it. I don't know why you would but there you go: problem solved. >>> Fine. Where do you get the WAY prematurely from? >> >> Inductive reasoning (and some deductive reasoning): >> >> 5) Because miller must succeed a significant amount of the time, >> miller MUST nearly succeed some of the time but barely fall short. >> This step of the argument is key. My justifications are: >> Average success quantity approximates either a bell-shaped >> curve or, at worse, a flat curve. Most likely at least somewhat >> bell-shaped. The thickness of the "bell" must favor failure, >> since to favor success would allow the miller to at gat least >> one oust over 50% of the time, which would be unbalanced. (And >> milling would then be a highly popular strategy.) So JUST >> BARELY falling short is more likely than succeeding. > > What you've just described is the same for all decks across the board, > where you replace milling with strategy X. I don't see why this analysis > applies only to milling. This has been been answered a million times: because one pool can be recovered from. But the implication of NEARLY being ousted by a mill deck can not be recovered from. You don't agree, fine. There's nowhere we can take the argument if you won't concede the difference. To me, it's pretty self-apparent what the difference is but I can't see inside your head. > "way prematurely" has been defined, using logic in my previous post, to be > about 12 turns. If your milling predator dies before 12 turns are up, you > probably have at least 20ish cards in your library. Here is where you're not reading what *I* wrote. Having "20ish cards" left in your library is *NOT* the scenario I give a shit about, it's *NOT* going to happen as often as having, say 1-5 cards or zero cards. This is exactly what I wrote point 5 about above! "Nearly succeeding at ousting its prey" does NOT mean "20ish cards in your library"! "Nearly succeeding" means you almost did it. ALMOST succeeded. Where do you get having "20ish cards in your library" from that?!? Bleh. This is frustrating. > Am I just not writing things in English? Why is "way premature" still in > this discussion? I could make the same statement! I just wrote a whole big string of logic *EXPLAINING* why "way premature" is still in this discussion. Basically, any mill deck that does NOT exhaust its prey's library "way prematurely" is not going to win much at all. I am not constructing arguments about the problem of playing against stupid, self-ousting decks. (Deleted more stuff that is just rehash and demands to explain stuff I've already explained. You can take the point or you can ignore the point but if you choose the latter, I'm not going to then repeat the same point over and over. That's needlessly going around in circles.) >> Basically, because I don't think they're very positive. I don't think >> you get very much acceleration toward ousting your prey. This is not >> something that can be reduced to positive proof because it's a broad >> statement that addresses the entire metagame and talks about what >> happens when an "average" player is _somewhat_ releived of having to >> worry (as much) about his predator exhausting his pool. > > Disprove it Fred. Show me reasons or something, ANYTHING that suggests > that those statements aren't giving you the acceleration you need to oust > your prey. Again, if someone handed you a pile of 10 extra pool and said, > "Go for it", you'd probably be able to put together a significantly better > offense. I can't show you anything. How does one "prove" something like that? In the negative, no less. First, you need to prove that 10 extra pool *is* going to allow signficantly better offense. And I mean specifically, "signficantly better" such that it makes up for the disadvantage of having your game cut short for sure after 9-12 turns. I don't know how you're going "prove" such a thing nor how I would "prove" the negative of it. We either innately agree on it or we don't and it appears we don't. >> I will delete anything that is essentially the same point made further >> up in the post or previously in the thread. In short, I do not believe >> them to be points I have "consistently refused to consider" (though >> clearly I make mistakes from time to time when I just flat miss something). > > Fred, one post ago, you completely failed to see the point of an entire > 11k long post. I had mentioned in that post, in SIX different locations, a > major thrust. I'd prefer if you deleted nothing, and dedicated yourself to > responding to each paragraph. Sorry, I'm not going to delete nothing. (Double negative. I mean, I will delete whatever I think is useless to bother responding to.) Far too many of your paragraphs are essentially demands for me to explain something I've already explained on a number of occasions when you didn't seem to make any relevent objections to them in the past. You don't seem to understand why I don't care what is the exact number of turns by which a mill deck would shorten its preys game, you don't seem willing to accept why I think library deprivation is different in nature than pool deprivation to a prey, you don't seem to care that the advantage granted by not having a predator who is actively reducing your pool is not a thing that can be meaningfully quantified, and you don't seem to grasp the importance of implications of mill deck coming _close_ to ousting its prey but failing nor what that scenario truly looks like. As I stated in parenthesis above, you can try to grasp these things or you can just ignore them and assume - for whatever reasons you like - that they're all specious bullshit. I don't care. But if you choose to ignore them, then there's no point my repeating them. But in them is the key to why I think merely having an effective mill deck as your predator is, on balance, very unlucky for its prey. Fred

Ankur Gupta wrote: > > This is a little off topic, but this statement makes me wonder how a > > well a Mata Hari milling deck would work, since she could afford to > > include more Slaughterhouses to ensure she gets one almost every turn > > and use the burn option on excess copies to keep from jamming. Of > > course, being Redlist may be a big enough drawback to keep that from > > working out too well. May try it sometime. > > That's an interesting concept. I'll have to try that sometime. > > Ankur Better idea (I think): swap to group 3/4 Harbingers and use Babalawo Alafin to ditch the extra Slaughterhouses. Also helps you get started on your second prey's deck by forcing them to cycle, but may attract cross-table ire if you don't sell it as a boon to your cross-table buddies. Zygodat's also got a useful special, although you probably won't use it often. It could provide the oomph you need to oust a prey one turn sooner, though. John

"Ankur Gupta" <agu...@cs.duke.edu> wrote in message news:Pine.GSO.4.62.06...@cipher1.cs.duke.edu... >>> That is to say, in 10 turns, without using any other abilities or you >>> using your deck and a perfect draw from your predator, you're >>> completely decked. This never happens. To play 9 Slaughterhouses in a >>> row is extremely unlikely. If we look at a more moderate view, you're >>> gonna get 12 turns. (You get an extra one just if you assume that your >>> predator doesn't get a god draw turn 1.) >> >> I couldn't resist stopping and studying this. A few weakness in your >> analysis: >> >> 1) Why does Agaitas need to come out in the first turn, necessitating >> (in turn) the play of Info Highway? ... > You can't. It requires Harbingers. All right. Got it. I concede the point. >> 2) Does your prey actually USE any of his own library?!? Mine always >> does. Does our metagame differ that way? > > No, I captured this in the "moderate the example" comment. First of all, I > wanted to make the point of how ridiculously weird a miller's hand would > have to be to deck you by turn 10 just on the strength of the deck alone. > He's not going to operate like that. And you're going to play cards. I had > hoped that you would take the logical steps to work it out. . . . It comes > out to TWELVE TURNS. What the hell does, "...how ridiculously weird a miller's hand would have to be to deck you by turn 10 just on the strength of the deck alone" have to do with anything. I don't CARE how long it takes a mill deck to deck on the strength of "its hand alone". It's not going to deck on the strength of just the Slaughterhouses, its going to deck you on both that AND the cards you play. I don't see where you're going with this unless you're trying to equate unrealistically drawing 10 Slaughterhouses in a row with the cards a player will use himself. If so, I do NOT concede that the two somehow magically cancel out. >> 3) I know a lot of people just mindlessly build 90 card decks but unless >> it's a card-intensive combat deck (which would be that much more >> vulnerable to library deprivation), there's no reason you should. >> Personally, I shoot for 75-78 card decks and occasionally less that, >> depending on what type of deck I'm building. > > Then you're more susceptible to milling decks. It's a weakness of your > decks. Fine. I'm susceptible to milling decks ant that's a "weakness" of my deck. So what?!? It's not fear of milling deck is some kind of good reason to build all 90 card decks. And, to preempt any such argument I would hope you're not going to try and make, it's not a good reason to act like people should blame themselves for not having built a 90- card deck if they run into a milling deck. Milling decks are a trifle on the metagame spectrum, not worth the slightest consideration when you're trying to decide how large your deck should be. If you're building a card-intensive deck, it's stupid to build a 90-card deck. ;arg > By the way, card-intensive combat decks can stop milling. . . > unready Harbingers cannot play Slaughterhouses. Excellent point. I agree: card-intensive combat decks can stop milling decks because unready Harbingers cannot play Slaughterhouses. And they should. >> Granted, you're not going to draw 10 Slaughterhouses (except perhaps in >> the Parthenon scenario, given sufficient Slaughterhouses in the deck). >> The bottom line is, it's still not clear to me how many turns a >> Slaughterhouse deck might take to eat it's prey's library on average. It >> might very easily be less than 12, depending on how you built the deck. > > If you put 20 slaughterhouses in your deck, your deck will die. Because > you'll jam on those things. And you can't defend yourself. Heck, people > "jam" on 10 of them. . . After about 4 slaughterhouses, you generally have > better things to play. . . the things that keep you alive. > >>> Now, can we please stop arbitrarily refuting the statement about "12 >>> turns"? >> >> Decidedly not. > > Do the analysis Fred. Do. The. Analysis. Did. The. Analysis. Yours. Is. Bogus! Fred

Fred Scott wrote: > I've passed on the argument about, "Can the HoS deck affect his prey > by block its actions much?" You say no and I say yes. I don't think > there's anything more you can say to convince me. Furthermore, I've > seen HoS decks that do just that. I don't think Ankur's trying to say that they can't do it in a "it's not conceivable" sort of way. He's trying to say that they *shouldn't* do it, for a variety of reasons; i.e. doing so is bad play on their part (in general) - and bad play is covered elsewhere in the thread as being annoying in its own right. I think it's a good point. In general, they want you to burn as many cards as possible, making their job easier, and spend their own resources holding back their predator until you're decked. Now, if you're playing a stealthy deck, they may try to "help" you cycle that stealth with an Eagle's Sight or whatever, but otherwise, why would they care if you can oust your prey if it gets them that much closer to a VP of their own? Sure, beat up his vampires into torpor, bleed him for 7 at a time, who cares? As long as I survive until the endgame I get 2 VPs at least, maybe 3 and the win. They really just want to make sure you don't get 3 in a row and take the GW from them, and otherwise they should be more concerned about their own pool than the state of your prey. In other words, the HoS milling decks you've seen that "do just that" are playing quite differently from what Ankur would expect of them. Which explains a lot of where your differences of opinion are. John

"bluedevil" <david.che...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1136896741....@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... >I think arguments should stand or fall on their own merits, but I just > wanted to throw in that Ankur's arguments are not entirely > hypothetical. I don't know about lately, but he got milled a lot, and > generally got to watch a lot of milling, back when he was in my > playgroup and I was working out how to win with the new toy. So > anyway, one side of this argument has a lot of empirical data points > from which to draw conclusions. The other has a firm conviction that > he really prefers blue to red. It's not a "firm conviction that I prefer blue to red". Its how I reason things would happen when a player builds an HoS Slaughterhouse deck and how that affects its prey, which seems fucked up whether the HoS deck succeeds or fails. And this reasoning is at least somewhat backed up by observation, if admittedly not as much observation as I would like to accept it as gospel truth. I also concede that there may be angles to this I'm not seeing and not taking into account but Ankur isn't bringing up a lot of them. The one thing I find interesting is the contention that a miller's prey has a significantly better shot at getting at least one VP and perhaps more based on the notion that he doesn't have to defend his pool. I find that a dubious assertion because I think it's very risky to be spending a signficantly greater amount on pool based on the faith that you know what kind of a deck your predator's playing and you know it won't take a stab at finishing off your pool if you turn your back very much. But I'm just kind of guessing at how that works, exactly. Maybe there's more to it than I think right now. > will get one VP. Millers don't sweep, but they sure as hell can win. > And since, barring Brinksmanship and Slaughterhouses, the deck is > entirely reactionary, if you don't pick up two predators you probably > won't generate enough card churn to hit your Slaughterhouses in a > timely way. I'm not sure what this last part means. What do you mean by, "if you don't pick up two predators"? Fred

"bluedevil" <david.che...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1136897431.7...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com... > > Fred Scott wrote: > >> If he doesn't think he can succeed before he's decked (meaning >> he probably won't succeed at all), he may reason that it will >> only weaken his prey's ability to operate against his grandprey >> and/or the (new) HoS predator (after he is ousted). As I >> said, revenge. > > Which usually goes something like this: "Whaaa!!! I'm *psychic*!! It's > turn 3 and you aren't going to bleeeeeed me! I can lose as I choose! > Whaaa!!!" I think if there's three or four Slaughterhouses out right away and your deck is based on (say), bloat, slow buildup, and overwhelm that normally takes many turns, you can probably be pretty "psychic". In any event, that's six or eight library that's going away every turn. You need to decide pretty fast what you're going to do about it. > ....and then, queue the self-fulfilling prophecy about how miller decks > monkey-fuck tables as you proceed to vear about, tossing the pred-prey > relationship to the wind. I also glossed over the other reason for going backwards: if you can effectively speed your predator's ousting, doing so might save you your library. Again, whichever direction you choose to go first, better decide fast. No point in going backwards in a half-assed way. Fred

<jnew...@difsol.com> wrote in message news:1136924415.9...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com... > > Fred Scott wrote: >> I've passed on the argument about, "Can the HoS deck affect his prey >> by block its actions much?" You say no and I say yes. I don't think >> there's anything more you can say to convince me. Furthermore, I've >> seen HoS decks that do just that. > > I don't think Ankur's trying to say that they can't do it in a "it's > not conceivable" sort of way. He's trying to say that they *shouldn't* > do it, for a variety of reasons; i.e. doing so is bad play on their > part (in general) - and bad play is covered elsewhere in the thread as > being annoying in its own right. I guess I didn't see him suggest why it should be "bad play". He seemed to be saying that if the mill deck expends reaction resources trying to stop its prey from doing things that are not direct attacks on the mill deck, then it wouldn't have enough to respond to its own predator as well. And I just don't agree. As for it being bad play, it seems to me the more stable the HoS player can keep the game, the better it is for a mill deck. And he might get more VPs on the way to a win. So if this is the line of argument, I'd want to know why anyone thought it was "bad" - as in "irresponsible" or needless affecting things are of no concern to the mill deck. They may not be crucial things exactly. But they are of legimate concern to him. > I think it's a good point. In general, they want you to burn as many > cards as possible, making their job easier, and spend their own > resources holding back their predator until you're decked. Now, if > you're playing a stealthy deck, they may try to "help" you cycle that > stealth with an Eagle's Sight or whatever, but otherwise, why would > they care if you can oust your prey if it gets them that much closer to > a VP of their own? It's VP they can't get. And the sooner your prey ousts his prey, the more the table is destablized. I realize this last statement is kind of broad and often not true (and thus the miller is always free to judge otherwise, depending on the specific situation) but I think as a general rule of thumb, it's accurate. In general, a mill deck wants ousts to happen later and less often (except the ousts he makes, of course). > In other words, the HoS milling decks you've seen that "do just that" > are playing quite differently from what Ankur would expect of them. I don't know. The tactic makes a lot of sense to me. Fred

>>> 3) I know a lot of people just mindlessly build 90 card decks but unless >>> it's a card-intensive combat deck (which would be that much more >>> vulnerable to library deprivation), there's no reason you should. >>> Personally, I shoot for 75-78 card decks and occasionally less that, >>> depending on what type of deck I'm building. >> >> Then you're more susceptible to milling decks. It's a weakness of your >> decks. I wrote: > Fine. I'm susceptible to milling decks and that's a "weakness" of my > deck. So what?!? It's not fear of milling deck is some kind of good (Correction: "It's not LIKE fear of milling decks is some kind of good reason to build all 90 card decks.") > reason to build all 90 card decks. And, to preempt any such argument > I would hope you're not going to try and make, it's not a good reason > to act like people should blame themselves for not having built a 90- > card deck if they run into a milling deck. Milling decks are a trifle > on the metagame spectrum, not worth the slightest consideration > when you're trying to decide how large your deck should be. If you're > building a card-intensive deck, it's stupid to build a 90-card deck. (Correction: If you're NOT building a card-intensive deck, like a rush combat deck, it's stupid to build a 90-card deck.) Fred

>> The thing is Fred, it wasn't reduced to a single statement. It was 5 or >> so specific points which, ironically enough *aren't* considered in >> isolation. I understand that vtes isn't a zero-sum game. (I'm rather >> familiar with Game Theory, in case it matters.) What I'm challenging >> you to do is deny that the specific points I brought up aren't positive >> in nature. > > Huh? Who said they weren't positive in nature? Sure, I'll grant that > they are. But so what? They're not positive _enough_ to compensate for > the disadvantage of losing all your library. Why aren't they positive enough? I have been trying to get you to answer this over and over again. You refuse to do so. >> And, more to the point, that if you had all of those advantages in any >> game you're playing, at the cost of 30 cards, wouldn't you want it? >> What about for 40 cards? What about for X cards, where X is the number >> of cards you won't play by the end of the game? Again, the miller earns >> NOTHING by simply milling X cards. > > 1) See, this is where we keep getting into trouble. It seems like > you're imagining the Slaughterhouses eating only part of the library > before the HoS deck gets ousted and that's not the problem. The problem > is when the HoS deck just about finishes its prey's library off before > getting ousted AS WILL FREQUENTLY HAPPEN. Fred, stay focused here. I'm making two points: first, there is a clear advantage UP TO A POINT. That point is just before you get decked. You see how that constitutes an advantage? The part after being decked is irrelevant, according to YOUR OWN PARAMETERS. Stay on target. I am. And "AS WILL FREQUENTLY HAPPEN" has not been shown, so don't say it. I'm going to have to catch you on every caveat you try to slip into this, aren't I? > and 2) Assuming we're talking about my library being nearly eliminated, > NO. Of course not. I don't know what kind of advantage you think it is > but it's not worth it. Sigh. Read other posts. >> Please take a look at those statements. I'm not trying to batter your >> head into a wall -- I'm bringing you a perspective that seems to be >> much more informed about the capability of milling decks and how to >> play against them. It requires a different mindset, and those points >> are intended to encourage that thought process. > > I don't know how they're intended to do that. Clearly, we seem to think > about the problems caused by the mill deck to its prey in different ways. Ok, listen. > I don't know why you think advantage of having milling prey who isn't > aiming to bleed its prey out is all that big of an advantage and I > especially don't understand why you think it's relevent to be talking > about, specifically, 30 cards or 40 cards or whatever. It should Read carefully, and you will understand. I promise. > usually be most or all of the prey's library or the milling deck would - > BY DEFINITION - be a bad deck that's not worth playing. If it's leaving > significant number of its prey's cards in his library a significant > amount of the time, then the deck is a terrible deck and I don't care > about such a deck. I assume we're not discussing such a deck. No, we're not talking about such a deck. But, you get 12 turns!!!! And for the first X < 12 turns (according to that partial milling argument above), IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT YOUR PREDATOR IS DOING, CAUSE HE SURE AS HELL AIN'T HURTING YOU. Does that constitute an advantage or what? > I've passed on the argument about, "Can the HoS deck affect his prey by > block its actions much?" You say no and I say yes. I don't think > there's anything more you can say to convince me. Furthermore, I've > seen HoS decks that do just that. Right, do they win? If not, do you compare them to decks that are equally as bad that bleed/vote/combat? I suspect not. >> The thing is, Fred, you don't have to argue how many turns he's had to >> pursue an oust. It's *AT LEAST* 9. > > OK, sure. It's probably at least nine most of the time. No, Fred. It's at least nine ALWAYS. You're not going to try to edge out this stuff. It's always always always nine. Unless you build a deck with 5000 slaughterhouses. It's at least nine. Geez. Why is it so hard to say something definitively when it's staring you in the face? >> And, if you ignore that resource, then you've chosen to invalidate my >> entire argument. It's like me saying that X+Y=Z, and you saying that >> X!=Z. You can't ignore Y. That's the point. That's the reason you >> aren't screwed. > > You have nine turns - or sometimes ten or eleven or even twelve - to > accomplish everything in your entire game. Yes, I think that's not You usually have 12. Nine is a gross understatement of how few turns you have available to you. I can't believe you're doing this. It's TWELVE TURNS man. Build a deck. > enough. I think the average deck is screwed operating under those > constraints, EVEN with the advantage of the HoS deck not bleeding them. No, it's not screwed. Not for you see, 12 turns. > Partly because I don't think the advantage is worth a great deal as you > seem to, partly because I think the HoS deck will often screw with its > prey trying to get its oust at key moments, and partly because I don't > really think 9-12 turns is a lot of time. As always, it depends on the > kind of deck you have and the kind your prey and the rest of the guys on > the table have. But if there's a lot of defense or bloating, you're > automatically going to be in trouble usually. Go through and pick out how many caveat terms you have in there. But, before you come back and refute it, consider that I have given you specific, concrete, and tangible reasons you have advantages. You have given me . . . rubbish. >> Luckily, I did analyze it. And, a miller who takes you down to 10 cards >> after 12 turns, ISN'T DOING A CRAPPY JOB!!! That's the expected number >> of turns! That's an average! That's what it takes! Look at your "best >> case scenario". . . . And then moderate it. 12 turns, Fred. I've >> analyzed it for you already. > > And I disagree, as posted. You clearly made at least a couple of > convenient but unrealistic assumptions in your analysis. In your favor, Fred. I made assumptions IN YOUR FAVOR. And it still comes out to TWELVE TURNS. >> turns (12, as it turns out), and defeat the miller. This is not Magic, >> where once a miller gets going, he can devastate you in a turn or three. >> This takes FOREVER. > > If it takes "forever", then I go back to my other line of reasoning: It > will take "forever" all the time, the milling deck is therefore almost > never going to win, therefore, why play it at all EVER?!? If it It can win. You're taking a point to its ridiculous conclusion for no reason. It can win. But it takes time, and if you choose, you can actually beat such a deck by taking that free time and flat-gun it forward. > basically doesn't work much, it's a meaningless self-ousting deck that I > don't care about and I'm not going to argue with you about. If you want > to play a milling deck that takes quote-FOREVER-unquote to mill my > library down, go ahead and have at it. I don't know why you would but > there you go: problem solved. No, not solved. You have a chance to get a game win by going forward. You auto-lose by whining/going backwards. >> What you've just described is the same for all decks across the board, >> where you replace milling with strategy X. I don't see why this >> analysis applies only to milling. > > This has been been answered a million times: because one pool can be > recovered from. But the implication of NEARLY being ousted by a mill > deck can not be recovered from. You don't agree, fine. There's nowhere > we can take the argument if you won't concede the difference. To me, > it's pretty self-apparent what the difference is but I can't see inside > your head. You keep using the word recover, that's why. The method by which one defeats a mill deck is by PROACTIVE movement. By definition that's not recovery. If you only wish to consider solutions revolving around recovery, then well, yeah, you can choose to lose. And I'll be happy to be playing the milling deck as your predator. >> "way prematurely" has been defined, using logic in my previous post, to >> be about 12 turns. If your milling predator dies before 12 turns are >> up, you probably have at least 20ish cards in your library. > > Here is where you're not reading what *I* wrote. Having "20ish cards" > left in your library is *NOT* the scenario I give a shit about, it's > *NOT* going to happen as often as having, say 1-5 cards or zero cards. With what copious amounts of anecdotal evidence? Eh, forget that. I've addressed this. You have 10 cards in your library. You can oust. See other posts for reasons why, etc, etc, ad nauseum. > This is exactly what I wrote point 5 about above! "Nearly succeeding at > ousting its prey" does NOT mean "20ish cards in your library"! "Nearly > succeeding" means you almost did it. ALMOST succeeded. Where do you > get having "20ish cards in your library" from that?!? I addressed that already. This portion was talking about what advantage you *DO* have. Because you can't understand it with 10 cards in library, maybe you'd understand it with 20. Clearly not. > Bleh. This is frustrating. You're telling me. >> Am I just not writing things in English? Why is "way premature" still >> in this discussion? > > I could make the same statement! I just wrote a whole big string of > logic *EXPLAINING* why "way premature" is still in this discussion. > Basically, any mill deck that does NOT exhaust its prey's library "way > prematurely" is not going to win much at all. I am not constructing > arguments about the problem of playing against stupid, self-ousting > decks. WAY PREMATURELY IS > 9 TURNS AND USUALLY GREATER THAN 12 TURNS. DEAL WITH IT FRED. IT WILL NOT CHANGE. 12 TURNS IS NEAR THE END GAME. IT IS NOT NEAR THE EARLY GAME. MILL DECKS WIN WHEN THEY DO THIS. WHEN THEY DO NOT (WHICH IS YOUR CASE) YOU CAN STILL WIN. > (Deleted more stuff that is just rehash and demands to explain stuff > I've already explained. You can take the point or you can ignore the > point but if you choose the latter, I'm not going to then repeat the > same point over and over. That's needlessly going around in circles.) Ugh. Read posts. >> Disprove it Fred. Show me reasons or something, ANYTHING that suggests >> that those statements aren't giving you the acceleration you need to >> oust your prey. Again, if someone handed you a pile of 10 extra pool >> and said, "Go for it", you'd probably be able to put together a >> significantly better offense. > > I can't show you anything. How does one "prove" something like that? In > the negative, no less. First, you need to prove that 10 extra pool *is* > going to allow signficantly better offense. And I mean specifically, > "signficantly better" such that it makes up for the disadvantage of > having your game cut short for sure after 9-12 turns. Give counterarguments that are as concrete and reasonable perhaps? here's the answer to your 10 extra pool challenge: 1) Bring out a minion or two 2) Act with those minions and put 50% more pressure on your prey for 12 turns. 3) Get an oust. 4) Set up for the eventuality that you will be decked by investing in permanents, such as expensive guns, locations or other permanent tech. 5) Spend your 10 pool. Now, you don't think a 50% faster movement for 12 turns is positive enough? Now, please respond to my exact positive statements. I've humored you, now let's see if you can do the same. No caveats. Show me. > I don't know how you're going "prove" such a thing nor how I would > "prove" the negative of it. We either innately agree on it or we don't > and it appears we don't. You choose not to consider other methods of playing the game. I can't help that. >> Fred, one post ago, you completely failed to see the point of an entire >> 11k long post. I had mentioned in that post, in SIX different >> locations, a major thrust. I'd prefer if you deleted nothing, and >> dedicated yourself to responding to each paragraph. > > too many of your paragraphs are essentially demands for me to explain > something I've already explained on a number of occasions when you > didn't seem to make any relevent objections to them in the past. You There are no such instances. Find them. Prove that wrong. > don't seem to understand why I don't care what is the exact number of > turns by which a mill deck would shorten its preys game, you don't seem The fact that you don't care undermines the entire point. I've addressed this; you cannot ignore it just because you will it so. That is critical to whether it's feasible. See also my ridiculous milling deck example. > willing to accept why I think library deprivation is different in nature > than pool deprivation to a prey, you don't seem to care that the Milling is different than pool loss. But X->Z and Y->Z in both cases. Also addressed. > advantage granted by not having a predator who is actively reducing your > pool is not a thing that can be meaningfully quantified, and you don't > seem to grasp the importance of implications of mill deck coming _close_ > to ousting its prey but failing nor what that scenario truly looks like. I have. I have addressed it as such very specifically. I then made a series of 20ish library card examples to try to drive your understanding. It seems that I've failed in that. > As I stated in parenthesis above, you can try to grasp these things or > you can just ignore them and assume - for whatever reasons you like - > that they're all specious bullshit. I don't care. But if you choose to > ignore them, then there's no point my repeating them. But in them is > the key to why I think merely having an effective mill deck as your > predator is, on balance, very unlucky for its prey. Bullshit. Respond. To. Specific. Arguments. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Tue, 10 Jan 2006 13:46:16 -0500, Ankur Gupta <agu...@cs.duke.edu> wrote: >>> x*a*t1 be the formula that should be used for being bled/voted out. >>> y*a*t2 be the formula that should be used for being combatted out. >>> >>> where t1 is much less than t2. This is the appropriate model. >> >> Sure. Then all we have to do is divide by time to get the >> utility-per-time unit ratio (which shows how much fun is playing the >> given game at a given moment). > > Oh for the love of god. I accept that you are one of the sorts of people > I'm truly irritated by when I sit down to play a combat deck. A filthy > whiner. Geez. Stupid. I love combat decks. I play them a lot. I've won tournaments with them. You just can't seem to get that life isn't black and white, can you? I may love combat, but I fucking hate morons. > But this is all about you. Only you. Your fun > everyone else's fun. You > would never ever compromise in that, right? Whiner. No. Quite the contrary. Building combat decks that don't kill the mood is something I try hard to achieve. Why? Because I sympathize with the poor sod who is beaten minionless and can't play his game. The point is, everyone should have fun. >>> My point: you should be equally frustrated by a badly played combat >>> deck as with a badly-played bleed/vote deck. >> >> What the holy fuck should that be true for? Are you completely out of >> your senses (if any)? > > I think I'm done talking with you. Not really. You never started talking. At least not in the sense that conveys any sort of information, or has anything close to a sincere desire to actually understand what someone is saying. > You cannot make a logical argument, you keep shifting goalposts, and > you've resorted to deleting entire portions of my post which validate > the statements you lambast. I know it must be convenient to undermine > another person's argument by not actually responding to it, but see, > you don't actually get to win by doing that. Well gee, I don't *want* to win. Win what, anyway? I had hoped, all this time, to actually make you understand... >>> Furthermore, I'm not arguing social engineering. >> >> Well, hard to get any more overt than that. > > Well, it wouldn't be so overt if you'd leave the context. See, because I > make a habit not to sound like a buffoon. Well, no context explains you stating two completely contradictory things in consecutive posts. (Not as a general rule; I'm referring to this particular case.) > You had earlier defined losing situations as those when your vampires > are all in torpor, which was your point. No. I had defined having all minions destroyed as a losing situation, but that does not mean I have defined losing situation to be having all vampires in torpor. Not even having all minions destroyed. There are many different kinds of losing situations. > Combat decks put you in losing positions and don't win and make my fun > disappear and make me not play my deck and I can cry about it because I > could play another game where I don't have to think about how to come > back from this losing position of all my vampires being in torpor. No. My original point was something like: Getting a poorly played combat deck demolish my minions and put me into a losing situation without actually winning is more frustrating than getting bled to pieces by an irresponsible bleedzooka, because in the former case I am deprived from playing my game, whereas in the second case I can move on to another table and start a new game. The real difference, come to think of it, without including the concept of any additional games, is the period of helplessness associated with having been beaten minionless and not being able to play one's deck. I'd say that is the reason I prefer a poorly played bleed deck, because there is no lengthy helpless-minionless (read, not fun) phase. I probably would prefer this even if further games weren't readily available at a gaming night. > Quit. Moving. Goalposts. > > You might not sound stupid if you did. Right. -- Bye, Daneel

>>> 2) Does your prey actually USE any of his own library?!? Mine always >>> does. Does our metagame differ that way? >> >> No, I captured this in the "moderate the example" comment. First of >> all, I wanted to make the point of how ridiculously weird a miller's >> hand would have to be to deck you by turn 10 just on the strength of >> the deck alone. He's not going to operate like that. And you're going >> to play cards. I had hoped that you would take the logical steps to >> work it out. . . . It comes out to TWELVE TURNS. > > What the hell does, "...how ridiculously weird a miller's hand would > have to be to deck you by turn 10 just on the strength of the deck alone" > have to do with anything. I don't CARE how long it takes a mill deck > to deck on the strength of "its hand alone". It's not going to deck > on the strength of just the Slaughterhouses, its going to deck you on > both that AND the cards you play. I don't see where you're going with Fred, you have to have a baseline. First we see raw ability to remove cards in an extreme sense. Then we moderate it. We assume you play some cards, and the Slaughterhouse deck isn't uber-set up. Net result: slower than this model. Twelve turns, as it turns out. > this unless you're trying to equate unrealistically drawing 10 > Slaughterhouses in a row with the cards a player will use himself. If > so, I do NOT concede that the two somehow magically cancel out. You're right, they don't. A player gets about 12 turns of play, as opposed to this example, in which he gets 9. >> Then you're more susceptible to milling decks. It's a weakness of your >> decks. > > Fine. I'm susceptible to milling decks ant that's a "weakness" of my > deck. So what?!? It's not fear of milling deck is some kind of good > reason to build all 90 card decks. And, to preempt any such argument I > would hope you're not going to try and make, it's not a good reason to > act like people should blame themselves for not having built a 90- card > deck if they run into a milling deck. Milling decks are a trifle on the > metagame spectrum, not worth the slightest consideration when you're > trying to decide how large your deck should be. If you're building a > card-intensive deck, it's stupid to build a 90-card deck. ;arg I build 90 card decks regularly, and not due to milling reasons. Most others do as well. I think it's definitely fair to accept this assumption. >> By the way, card-intensive combat decks can stop milling. . . unready >> Harbingers cannot play Slaughterhouses. > > Excellent point. I agree: card-intensive combat decks can stop milling > decks because unready Harbingers cannot play Slaughterhouses. And they > should. And that's because it presents and unusually large threat to their library. Read that. Unusually large. But, luckily for them, it's one they can handle. And, more than that, combat decks are *designed* with the mindset of destroying one or more of their predator's vampires. Net result? Combat decks play just the same as usual. >> Do the analysis Fred. Do. The. Analysis. > > Did. The. Analysis. Yours. Is. Bogus! No. You. Didn't. On average Fred, you'll have 12 turns. You'll have it. Slaughterhouses that hit a table? About 4-5. That's say, 10 cards a turn with this metric, of which the first 3 turns were half that or less. You get milled, then, in about 10 turns for 30-35 cards. You burn about 30-40ish cards in say, 10 turns. That's about 3-4 cards a turn, and that's rather fair. End result? You have, roughly speaking 28ish cards in your library at the end of turn 10. That means you have. . . wait for it. . . 8 cards on turn 12. Amazing. It's like I did analysis. Sorry for being snarky, but you're just not willing to think about this. You're too set in your ways. [ quoted text not captured ]

> You just can't seem to get that life isn't black and white, can you? I > may love combat, but I fucking hate morons. So do I. Now, the point is, a moron playing any deck should be equally frustrating. Because the frustration stems from the moron, not the deck. > No. Quite the contrary. Building combat decks that don't kill the mood > is something I try hard to achieve. Why? Because I sympathize with the > poor sod who is beaten minionless and can't play his game. The point is, > everyone should have fun. Sure. But a moron will ruin your fun no matter what you play with or they play with. >>> What the holy fuck should that be true for? Are you completely out of >>> your senses (if any)? >> >> I think I'm done talking with you. > > Not really. You never started talking. At least not in the sense that > conveys any sort of information, or has anything close to a sincere > desire to actually understand what someone is saying. The above is where you really pissed me off. >> You cannot make a logical argument, you keep shifting goalposts, and >> you've resorted to deleting entire portions of my post which validate >> the statements you lambast. I know it must be convenient to undermine >> another person's argument by not actually responding to it, but see, >> you don't actually get to win by doing that. > > Well gee, I don't *want* to win. Win what, anyway? I had hoped, all this > time, to actually make you understand... All that I've understood from you is that you're having trouble separating the fault of the moron from the fault of the deck. The deck suffers from nothing untoward. It's the moron. >> Well, it wouldn't be so overt if you'd leave the context. See, because >> I make a habit not to sound like a buffoon. > > Well, no context explains you stating two completely contradictory > things in consecutive posts. (Not as a general rule; I'm referring to > this particular case.) That wasn't a contradiction. Really, it wasn't. >> You had earlier defined losing situations as those when your vampires >> are all in torpor, which was your point. > > No. I had defined having all minions destroyed as a losing situation, > but that does not mean I have defined losing situation to be having all > vampires in torpor. Not even having all minions destroyed. There are > many different kinds of losing situations. Again, the comments I'm addressing are in the specific focus of the things we're agreed-upon. I only care about the minions dead -> losing part. I'm not trying to force something on you from the losing -> minions dead angle. Stay on target. >> Combat decks put you in losing positions and don't win and make my fun >> disappear and make me not play my deck and I can cry about it because I >> could play another game where I don't have to think about how to come >> back from this losing position of all my vampires being in torpor. > > No. My original point was something like: > > Getting a poorly played combat deck demolish my minions and put me into > a losing situation without actually winning is more frustrating than > getting bled to pieces by an irresponsible bleedzooka, because in the > former case I am deprived from playing my game, whereas in the second > case I can move on to another table and start a new game. Sounds like basically the same thing, without all the venom. > The real difference, come to think of it, without including the concept > of any additional games, is the period of helplessness associated with > having been beaten minionless and not being able to play one's deck. I'd > say that is the reason I prefer a poorly played bleed deck, because > there is no lengthy helpless-minionless (read, not fun) phase. I > probably would prefer this even if further games weren't readily > available at a gaming night. I'm not sure you would. You might actually stick around and try to derive enjoyment out of playing from such a state. You might like it. I dunno. Ankur

> "way prematurely" has been defined, using logic in my previous post, to > be about 12 turns. If your milling predator dies before 12 turns are up, > you probably have at least 20ish cards in your library. If not, well, > you might be decked. But that's after 12 turns. TWELVE TURNS IS NOT WAY > PREMATURE. Ugh, is this where you're attacking me for saying 20ish cards? That doesn't even refer to how badly you were screwed. If you're down to 10 cards, you've had 12 turns. In cases where you don't have 12 turns. . . you have cards enough that you seem satisfied. (Since you had previously mentioned that 30 or so total cards was enough to oust, and you'd have 27 or so.) Ankur

> It can win. You're taking a point to its ridiculous conclusion for no > reason. It can win. But it takes time, and if you choose, you can > actually beat such a deck by taking that free time and flat-gun it > forward. To clarify, the above statement in my post is referring to the fact that you can beat it as often as you can get out of a jam with 1 pool and win. Ankur

Fred Scott wrote: > I guess I didn't see him suggest why it should be "bad play". He > seemed to be saying that if the mill deck expends reaction resources > trying to stop its prey from doing things that are not direct attacks > on the mill deck, then it wouldn't have enough to respond to its own > predator as well. And I just don't agree. You may be right. Again, though, this is the main source of your contention. > As for it being bad play, it seems to me the more stable the HoS > player can keep the game, the better it is for a mill deck. And > he might get more VPs on the way to a win. So if this is the line > of argument, I'd want to know why anyone thought it was "bad" - > as in "irresponsible" or needless affecting things are of no > concern to the mill deck. They may not be crucial things exactly. > But they are of legimate concern to him. Possibly, so long as that "stability" favors him. Trying to slow down an incredibly fast deck is obviously in his interest in terms of getting a Game Win, as is speeding up an incredibly slow deck in front of him (because he needs that first VP to get anywhere, and his prey playing cards is one of the best ways for him to get there). It's also (often) good if his prey is the one that appears strongest and attracts some attention from the rest of the table. > It's VP they can't get. And the sooner your prey ousts his prey, the > more the table is destablized. I realize this last statement is kind > of broad and often not true (and thus the miller is always free to > judge otherwise, depending on the specific situation) but I think > as a general rule of thumb, it's accurate. In general, a mill deck > wants ousts to happen later and less often (except the ousts he makes, > of course). So long as he can actually get his own ousts, yes. But the deck (at least as I understand it) is built on the premise that it's not really likely to sweep anyway. So your prey needs to be able to play his cards, and you need to make sure you have enough resources to hold back your predator. Thus, the HoS deck should try to *slow* your ousts where he can reasonably do so without overexposing himself (especially if this makes you play more cards), but should probably not be overly concerned with *stopping* it unless you're failry certain that you can also defend yourself from your own predator - which should take a pretty high priority, since (eventually) ousting your own prey is practically guaranteed if you surive long enough. > > In other words, the HoS milling decks you've seen that "do just that" > > are playing quite differently from what Ankur would expect of them. > > I don't know. The tactic makes a lot of sense to me. Consider this: You indicate that a) the HoS deck should interfere with your actions to a somewhat large degree and b) the HoS deck will somewhat often screw you by interfering too much, leaving you little or no chance to earn VP, and then die to its predator. Ankur's contention (as I read it) is that if the resources devoted to a) were instead used to protect the HoS deck from its predator, b) would happen less frequently and less harshly, allowing both you and the HoS a greater chance at VP. Having never really played with or against it, I've no idea what's right in practice, but this seems reasonable to me in at least a good portion of cases. It would be interesting to do some sort of comparison and determine which style actually wins more with such decks. John

On Tue, 10 Jan 2006 16:24:52 -0500, Ankur Gupta <agu...@cs.duke.edu> wrote: >> You just can't seem to get that life isn't black and white, can you? I >> may love combat, but I fucking hate morons. > > So do I. Now, the point is, a moron playing any deck should be equally > frustrating. Because the frustration stems from the moron, not the deck. I have to admit, that's a fair point. >> No. Quite the contrary. Building combat decks that don't kill the mood >> is something I try hard to achieve. Why? Because I sympathize with the >> poor sod who is beaten minionless and can't play his game. The point >> is, everyone should have fun. > > Sure. But a moron will ruin your fun no matter what you play with or > they play with. Hmm. I guess another point might be - if the moron gets you ousted, you don't have to sit with him any longer. >>>> What the holy fuck should that be true for? Are you completely out of >>>> your senses (if any)? >>> >>> I think I'm done talking with you. >> >> Not really. You never started talking. At least not in the sense that >> conveys any sort of information, or has anything close to a sincere >> desire to actually understand what someone is saying. > > The above is where you really pissed me off. Really, this discussion is like the windmill battles of Don Quixote. I'm always trying to make the point, and it never really gets through. Maybe we're just different. >>> You cannot make a logical argument, you keep shifting goalposts, and >>> you've resorted to deleting entire portions of my post which validate >>> the statements you lambast. I know it must be convenient to undermine >>> another person's argument by not actually responding to it, but see, >>> you don't actually get to win by doing that. >> >> Well gee, I don't *want* to win. Win what, anyway? I had hoped, all >> this time, to actually make you understand... > > All that I've understood from you is that you're having trouble > separating the fault of the moron from the fault of the deck. The deck > suffers from nothing untoward. It's the moron. But I don't want to judge people. I'm not necessarily pissed off by the essence of moronity; I am more pissed off by its manifestation. Different manifestations of moronity carry different consequences for my gameplay. I prefer no moronity over some moronity, but if I have to choose between different manifestations of moronity, I'm sure I can choose what pisses me more off. >>> Well, it wouldn't be so overt if you'd leave the context. See, because >>> I make a habit not to sound like a buffoon. >> >> Well, no context explains you stating two completely contradictory >> things in consecutive posts. (Not as a general rule; I'm referring to >> this particular case.) > > That wasn't a contradiction. Really, it wasn't. If you say so... >>> You had earlier defined losing situations as those when your vampires >>> are all in torpor, which was your point. >> >> No. I had defined having all minions destroyed as a losing situation, >> but that does not mean I have defined losing situation to be having all >> vampires in torpor. Not even having all minions destroyed. There are >> many different kinds of losing situations. > > Again, the comments I'm addressing are in the specific focus of the > things we're agreed-upon. I only care about the minions dead -> losing > part. I'm not trying to force something on you from the losing -> > minions dead angle. Stay on target. Which is odd, you know, because when I made a generic comment on losing situations having a roughly 1:100 ratio of heroic recovery, you countered with examples of having had your vampires sent to torpor and still scoring VPs. Also, you drew some sort of conclusion in the paragraph I dissected with my comment based on this assumption. >>> Combat decks put you in losing positions and don't win and make my fun >>> disappear and make me not play my deck and I can cry about it because >>> I could play another game where I don't have to think about how to >>> come back from this losing position of all my vampires being in torpor. >> >> No. My original point was something like: >> >> Getting a poorly played combat deck demolish my minions and put me into >> a losing situation without actually winning is more frustrating than >> getting bled to pieces by an irresponsible bleedzooka, because in the >> former case I am deprived from playing my game, whereas in the second >> case I can move on to another table and start a new game. > > Sounds like basically the same thing, without all the venom. I see some basic differences, but it might be just my perception. >> The real difference, come to think of it, without including the concept >> of any additional games, is the period of helplessness associated with >> having been beaten minionless and not being able to play one's deck. >> I'd say that is the reason I prefer a poorly played bleed deck, because >> there is no lengthy helpless-minionless (read, not fun) phase. I >> probably would prefer this even if further games weren't readily >> available at a gaming night. > > I'm not sure you would. You might actually stick around and try to > derive enjoyment out of playing from such a state. You might like it. I > dunno. Well, I guess you do, trying to lecture me into this direction. The problem is, I've been there. Done that. Have drawn my conclusions. Also, you seem to assume that I don't stick around. Truth is, I don't often stand up from a game. Sticking around does have its merits (having quick turns, for example), but all in all, generally, it is less fun than many-many alternative passtimes (including sitting down with another ousted player and chatting). I can't really put it in another way. I play to *play*. Getting ousted does not matter much to me, as long as I can play my game in the meantime. -- Bye, Daneel

>> I don't know. The tactic makes a lot of sense to me. > > Consider this: You indicate that a) the HoS deck should interfere with > your actions to a somewhat large degree and b) the HoS deck will > somewhat often screw you by interfering too much, leaving you little or > no chance to earn VP, and then die to its predator. > > Ankur's contention (as I read it) is that if the resources devoted to a) > were instead used to protect the HoS deck from its predator, b) would > happen less frequently and less harshly, allowing both you and the HoS a > greater chance at VP. Having never really played with or against it, > I've no idea what's right in practice, but this seems reasonable to me > in at least a good portion of cases. > > It would be interesting to do some sort of comparison and determine > which style actually wins more with such decks. Thanks John, your entire post was pretty on-target and captures our disagreements nicely. It's a frustrating exercise to repeatedly make arguments over and over again, and I apologize for any errors of tone this may have caused to Fred. Anyway, I think John's doing a fantastic job of summarizing our points, instead of us scrambling to find where points were made in other posts. And though I've cut some portion of his post, the comment applies universally to all of it. [ quoted text not captured ]

>> So do I. Now, the point is, a moron playing any deck should be equally >> frustrating. Because the frustration stems from the moron, not the >> deck. > > I have to admit, that's a fair point. Well, that was my point. Ergo, no more frustrating for bleed vs. vote. Caveats below. >> Sure. But a moron will ruin your fun no matter what you play with or >> they play with. > > Hmm. I guess another point might be - if the moron gets you ousted, you > don't have to sit with him any longer. I guess this is the part where I find trouble. In an ideal world, our patience level would be the same for the two cases. For me, it is. Casually, I just start talking to people outside the game when it's not my turn, and do the best I can. Often, I get help and get back into the game. Just my experience. >> All that I've understood from you is that you're having trouble >> separating the fault of the moron from the fault of the deck. The deck >> suffers from nothing untoward. It's the moron. > > But I don't want to judge people. I'm not necessarily pissed off by the > essence of moronity; I am more pissed off by its manifestation. So fault the manifestation and not the person or the deck. That's not too hard to do. Statements like, "You know, X, I like you, but you played like a moron today." would work. >> Again, the comments I'm addressing are in the specific focus of the >> things we're agreed-upon. I only care about the minions dead -> losing >> part. I'm not trying to force something on you from the losing -> >> minions dead angle. Stay on target. > > Which is odd, you know, because when I made a generic comment on losing > situations having a roughly 1:100 ratio of heroic recovery, you > countered with examples of having had your vampires sent to torpor and > still scoring VPs. > > Also, you drew some sort of conclusion in the paragraph I dissected with > my comment based on this assumption. Yeah, I don't remember anymore. Sure, I accept defeat on this just to close things down. >> I'm not sure you would. You might actually stick around and try to >> derive enjoyment out of playing from such a state. You might like it. I >> dunno. > > Well, I guess you do, trying to lecture me into this direction. The > problem is, I've been there. Done that. Have drawn my conclusions. > > Also, you seem to assume that I don't stick around. Truth is, I don't > often stand up from a game. Sticking around does have its merits (having > quick turns, for example), but all in all, generally, it is less fun > than many-many alternative passtimes (including sitting down with > another ousted player and chatting). Well, standing up from a table is one of my pet peeves, especially with tons of new players around. They often suffer from not knowing when to stay and it's done. I extrapolate that to most people as an exercise in becoming a better player. I never stand or influence out because I *never* can expect what will happen. By the way, nothing prevents you from chatting with another ousted player in casual play. Ankur

jnew...@difsol.com wrote: > Consider this: You indicate that a) the HoS deck should interfere with > your actions to a somewhat large degree and b) the HoS deck will > somewhat often screw you by interfering too much, leaving you little or > no chance to earn VP, and then die to its predator. > > Ankur's contention (as I read it) is that if the resources devoted to > a) were instead used to protect the HoS deck from its predator, b) > would happen less frequently and less harshly, allowing both you and > the HoS a greater chance at VP. Having never really played with or > against it, I've no idea what's right in practice, but this seems > reasonable to me in at least a good portion of cases. > > It would be interesting to do some sort of comparison and determine > which style actually wins more with such decks. The most successful milling deck I'm aware of, as it appears in Lasombra's TWDA, is clearly designed for a non-blocking style of play: The Unmasking: Umea Umea, Sweden June 20th, 2004 12 players Name: Alea jacta est Created by: Erik Torstensson Crypt (13) [avg=5.69]: 2 Gisela Harden 2 Egotha 1 Fredrick the Weak 4 Anson 1 Deliah Easton 1 Mariana Gilbert 1 Dorian Stack 1 Dieter Kleist Library (90): 11 Slaughterhouse 1 Lazarene Inquisitor 4 Toreador grandball 1 Art museum 1 Waste management operation 1 Recuitment 1 Fortschritt Library 3 Parthenon 1 Dreams of the sphinx 7 Storage annex 1 Lupine Assault 1 Specialization 3 Brothers grim 7 Minion tap 3 Golconda 1 Giants blood 4 Dominate: skillcard 1 Protected resources 1 Secure heaven 1 Secret passage 1 Dummy cooperation 1 Millicent Smith 1 Jake Washington (hunter) 1 Sudden reversal 1 Direct intervention 1 Archon investigation Actions: 3 Revelations Political Actions: 3 Brinksmanship Action Modifiers: 4 Awe Reactions: 8 Obedience 9 Telepatic counter Events: 2 Anthelios 1 Absmiliards army

Fred Scott wrote: > It's not a "firm conviction that I prefer blue to red". Its how > I reason things would happen when a player builds an HoS Slaughterhouse > deck and how that affects its prey, which seems fucked up whether the > HoS deck succeeds or fails. Define "fucked up." I think when you get down to it, you'll admit that predators exist to do damage to preys. You were somebody's prey, hence they "fucked you up". But hey, this is just a re-hash of Ankur's head-pounding. > The one thing I find interesting is the contention that a miller's > prey has a significantly better shot at getting at least one VP > and perhaps more based on the notion that he doesn't have to defend > his pool. Hey Fred, I think the sky is *blue*. Just wondering if you had any thoughts on that? > I find that a dubious assertion because I think it's very > risky to be spending a signficantly greater amount on pool based on > the faith that you know what kind of a deck your predator's playing > and you know it won't take a stab at finishing off your pool if you > turn your back very much. First off, I didn't say "spend yourself down to one". Actually, if you care to know, I put a lone Conditioning in my deck (has Le Din Tho, Dr. Jest, and Bartholomew with dominate in the crypt), just to nail those assholes who spend themselves down to nothing. Got Daring the Dawn, too. But really, that's just a lark. You probably shouldn't spend yourself down to 1, but you could spend yourself down to 5 with a pretty *damn* high degree of confidence (there aren't any certainties in this game). And you've probably got bounces, and wakes, and ways to generate pool that will happen anyway as you flow your deck. So all this bullshit hoo-ha of "yeah but I can't really spend that pool because, you know, a 747 might land on my head and I'll need those counters in a pile to hide under" is just that: a bunch of pseudo-intellectual sounding, backpedaling hoo-ha. > But I'm just kind of guessing at how > that works, exactly. Maybe there's more to it than I think right > now. Well, I'm just one guy, but speaking as someone who's plunked the deck down at a tournament (and won with it), here's how it works: I WANT YOU TO HAVE A VP. Here, take it, it's yours. That's how it works. And now I've blown my sooper-sekrit strategy to the whole of usenet. Thanks, you stubborn punk. ;) > > will get one VP. Millers don't sweep, but they sure as hell can win. > > And since, barring Brinksmanship and Slaughterhouses, the deck is > > entirely reactionary, if you don't pick up two predators you probably > > won't generate enough card churn to hit your Slaughterhouses in a > > timely way. > > I'm not sure what this last part means. What do you mean by, "if > you don't pick up two predators"? I mean if I don't have a prey who is tearing his hair out like some hysterical *woman* (my apologies, ladies) and trying to backoust me, then my deck probably can't generate enough card flow to keep from dying. So, you know..... keep up the good work! -- David Cherryholmes

Fred Scott wrote: > It's VP they can't get. And the sooner your prey ousts his prey, the > more the table is destablized. I realize this last statement is kind > of broad and often not true (and thus the miller is always free to > judge otherwise, depending on the specific situation) but I think > as a general rule of thumb, it's accurate. In general, a mill deck > wants ousts to happen later and less often (except the ousts he makes, > of course). Again, just speaking as one guy playing his deck, but: I have Antedeluvian Awakening in mine, and I took out Millicent and every "prop up the table" card I initially thought were good ideas before I started, you know, actually playing these things. Ante Awakening..... that's how far off the mark you are on what "should" be in these decks. -- David Cherryholmes

Fred Scott wrote: > I think if there's three or four Slaughterhouses out right away and It's impossible to have 3 or 4 "right away". It takes two turns to get a Harbinger, and then on turn 3 you can play your first one. Fred, look at what you are writing. It's just straw man after straw man after straw man. Just fold on this one, man. > your deck is based on (say), bloat, slow buildup, and overwhelm that > normally takes many turns, you can probably be pretty "psychic". In > any event, that's six or eight library that's going away every turn. > You need to decide pretty fast what you're going to do about it. "Pretty fast" just like your "right away" up above, right? Man, you've been confronted with the numbers and all you can do is go "LA LA LA! I CAN'T HEAR YYOOOUUUU!!" And just be honest, every damn deck you'd play you would say "requires" slow buildup and bloat i.e. "my weenie obfuscate deck gets more minions over time, and I agree that Blood Dolls go in every deck." This is just more bullshit. You don't like miller decks, because you are an hysteric. That's really all there is to this one. > I also glossed over the other reason for going backwards: if you can > effectively speed your predator's ousting, doing so might save you your > library. Again, whichever direction you choose to go first, better > decide fast. No point in going backwards in a half-assed way. Again with the "fast". Say you're losing 10 a turn, just to make things easy. Can't start before turn 3. By turn 5 you've lost 20 cards. You're about half-way through the game at this point, and you haven't lost any more than you almost always have left over after a game anyway. So, Fred.... tell me how you *feel*. I'm all ears. -- David Cherryholmes

Hmmm...there've been quite a few posts in this thread since the last time I said anything substantial. That post got into the newsgroup 8 times (oops), so people must have noticed it, but only Peter Bakija has responded to it directly. My general impression on the internet is that people don't reply to posts unless they disagree with them (kind of reverse academia in that regard)... Does this mean everyone agrees with me? Waiting for the flames...really, seriously, eager for them.... Jesse

"bluedevil" <david.che...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1136936384.0...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... [ quoted text not captured ] Fascinating! But why are you leaving off the explanation?!? What does the AA do which helps the deck? Fred

<jnew...@difsol.com> wrote in message news:1136930206.9...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > Fred Scott wrote: >> I guess I didn't see him suggest why it should be "bad play". He >> seemed to be saying that if the mill deck expends reaction resources >> trying to stop its prey from doing things that are not direct attacks >> on the mill deck, then it wouldn't have enough to respond to its own >> predator as well. And I just don't agree. > > You may be right. Again, though, this is the main source of your > contention. > >> As for it being bad play, it seems to me the more stable the HoS >> player can keep the game, the better it is for a mill deck. And >> he might get more VPs on the way to a win. So if this is the line >> of argument, I'd want to know why anyone thought it was "bad" - >> as in "irresponsible" or needless affecting things are of no >> concern to the mill deck. They may not be crucial things exactly. >> But they are of legimate concern to him. > > Possibly, so long as that "stability" favors him. Trying to slow down > an incredibly fast deck is obviously in his interest in terms of > getting a Game Win, as is speeding up an incredibly slow deck in front > of him (because he needs that first VP to get anywhere, and his prey > playing cards is one of the best ways for him to get there). I think that depends. If the table is completely stable - including, of course, that he is holding off his own predator - then it's just fine to sit there and mill his prey's library away. It would be better, I agree, if his prey would compliantly use lots of library cards to little effect but I don't see where that's critical. > It's also > (often) good if his prey is the one that appears strongest and attracts > some attention from the rest of the table. Well, sure. But in what kind of deck is that not true? We get back to, how powerful is his prey given the lack of his HoS predator attempting to bleed him or do anything offensive? If he's more powerful, fine. But everyone on the table knows he has a time limit. It's like being a lame duck President. You may have all the power now but people know you'll be gone soon. >> It's VP they can't get. And the sooner your prey ousts his prey, the >> more the table is destablized. I realize this last statement is kind >> of broad and often not true (and thus the miller is always free to >> judge otherwise, depending on the specific situation) but I think >> as a general rule of thumb, it's accurate. In general, a mill deck >> wants ousts to happen later and less often (except the ousts he makes, >> of course). > > So long as he can actually get his own ousts, yes. But the deck (at > least as I understand it) is built on the premise that it's not really > likely to sweep anyway. So your prey needs to be able to play his > cards, and you need to make sure you have enough resources to hold back > your predator. Thus, the HoS deck should try to *slow* your ousts where > he can reasonably do so without overexposing himself (especially if > this makes you play more cards), but should probably not be overly > concerned with *stopping* it unless you're failry certain that you can > also defend yourself from your own predator - which should take a > pretty high priority, since (eventually) ousting your own prey is > practically guaranteed if you surive long enough. Sure. I agree with all of that. >> > In other words, the HoS milling decks you've seen that "do just that" >> > are playing quite differently from what Ankur would expect of them. >> >> I don't know. The tactic makes a lot of sense to me. > > Consider this: You indicate that a) the HoS deck should interfere with > your actions to a somewhat large degree and b) the HoS deck will > somewhat often screw you by interfering too much, leaving you little or > no chance to earn VP, and then die to its predator. > > Ankur's contention (as I read it) is that if the resources devoted to > a) were instead used to protect the HoS deck from its predator, b) > would happen less frequently and less harshly, allowing both you and > the HoS a greater chance at VP. Having never really played with or > against it, I've no idea what's right in practice, but this seems > reasonable to me in at least a good portion of cases. I agree that if there's an issue of risking my own neck in order to stop my prey from ousting someone, I obviously want to preserve my own neck first and foremost. I guess I'd been assuming that it isn't hard to at least slow a prey down from time to time. Again, I stress that the HoS deck is only stepping in (with Eagle's Sights if necessary) on *key* actions; not left and right. But if he just stops a few key actions, that by itself can narrow the difference between prey's power level with HoS predator vs. prey's power level with an average predator. At least, IMHO. As always, all of this depends. It depends on who has what kind of a deck and how the game is going. But the HoS deck can vary his play a great deal to respond to circumstances. So I guess I just think it's quite reasonable to assume the HoS deck would be able to interfere quite a lot. Fred

Fred Scott wrote: > I agree that if there's an issue of risking my own neck in order to > stop my prey from ousting someone, I obviously want to preserve my > own neck first and foremost. I guess I'd been assuming that it isn't > hard to at least slow a prey down from time to time. Again, I stress > that the HoS deck is only stepping in (with Eagle's Sights if necessary) > on *key* actions; not left and right. But if he just stops a few key > actions, that by itself can narrow the difference between prey's power > level with HoS predator vs. prey's power level with an average > predator. At least, IMHO. You just said your average predator won't stop a few key actions. Fess up: your meta is a bunch of non-interactive weenie-ish decks playing the bleed game, isn't it? That's fine, everybody has their meta. But you've gotta own up to the fact that the game as a whole is a lot bigger than that. -- David Cherryholmes

Fred Scott wrote: > I'm saying that an unlucky bleed deck which > accomplishes most of what it's trying to do but loses anyway hurts > its neighbors less than an unlucky combat deck which accomplishes > most of what it's trying to do but loses anyway. In other words, > the key to understanding why people whine about sitting next to > certain non-overpowered decks is understanding what happens when > those deck accomplish what they're trying to do but don't win. OK - starting to get you. When the neighbors of the combat deck defeat it, they find theyselves with some trashed minions in torpor, and maybe a couple of toothless or armless vampires with 0 or no blood, and without sufficient minion ability to defend themselves against the remaining table dynamic, which is probably 'direct Pool damage' oriented. I REALLY REALLY REALLY don't want to start up on the mill thing, but obviously you believe that when the neighbors of the mill deck finally defeat it, the prey is left with scant few cards remaining in the library, making it difficult to defend against the remaining table dynamic, which is likely 'direct Pool damage' oriented. Conversely, when the neighbors of a 'direct Pool damage' oriented deck, like your basic Dom bleed or KRC & Cap vote pusher, finally defeat it, they still have their minions reasonably intact, and their library available, to defend against the remaining table dynamic, which is still likely 'direct Pool damage' oriented. But's that's OK, because that's what you build your decks to defend against. The only thing I can gather is that the predominance of 'direct pool damage' strategies, that do not involve direct threats to seconadry resources, cause players to predominantly pack defenses for said strategy (bloat and bounce). When the occasional non-traditional ousting strategy shows at the table, the traditionals scamper to try to return the game to it's traditional state. If they succeed, the game has been altered in the process, and does not resemble a 'normal' game. This is disconcerting to the traditional player, who wonders why people would want to ruin a perfectly good game of "Bleed Fastest". To those players, I say "Too bad". The very reason I play non-bleed strategies is because most decks only pack bleed defense and piles of bloat (which requires minions, most often). It's a risky play, I'll grant, because if your predator is hyper-focussed, your in for "one of those games". Still, attacking minions directly, at it's core, trumps ALL strategies, because they all require MINION ACTIONS to advance. By limiting those actions, you limit the decks overall potential. A player who does not use deck space for combat defense is simply asking for it, IMO. For Pete's sake, protect your investment!! I have the priviledge of playing in a high combat meta, where 20 combat cards would be considered 'light', and Fame is almost always contested at some point in the course of a game. It makes for a very interactive experience, and extremely intense end-games. IMO, it makes for a much better game.

"Ankur Gupta" <agu...@cs.duke.edu> wrote in message news:Pine.GSO.4.62.06...@cipher1.cs.duke.edu... >>> The thing is Fred, it wasn't reduced to a single statement. It was 5 or >>> so specific points which, ironically enough *aren't* considered in >>> isolation. I understand that vtes isn't a zero-sum game. (I'm rather >>> familiar with Game Theory, in case it matters.) What I'm challenging >>> you to do is deny that the specific points I brought up aren't positive >>> in nature. >> >> Huh? Who said they weren't positive in nature? Sure, I'll grant that >> they are. But so what? They're not positive _enough_ to compensate for >> the disadvantage of losing all your library. > > Why aren't they positive enough? I have been trying to get you to answer > this over and over again. You refuse to do so. I refuse to do so because it's an impossible question to answer. It's judgement, for crying' out loud!!! What I am suppose to do?!? Give every possible situation with every possible deck archetype and show how - on average to four decimal places - some definition of a quantified "advantage" I've pulled out of my ass compares to another quantified "disadvantage" (of playing with no library in the late game) and that the first number is signficantly smaller than the second number. I'm totally confused how you think I'm going to this. Judgements are judgements. It's saying, I know how it sucks to not have a library after turn X (disputed but whatever it is) and I know that it's good to have predator who doesn't bleed me. The question is, "Is this 'good' more important than that 'bad' or vice versa?" I think vica and you apparently think versa. How the hell am I supposed to "prove" my point of view?!? And why don't you *FIRST* prove me it *IS* as good an advantage?!? You've never said 'boo' about that, I notice. Sheesh. >>> And, more to the point, that if you had all of those advantages in any >>> game you're playing, at the cost of 30 cards, wouldn't you want it? >>> What about for 40 cards? What about for X cards, where X is the number >>> of cards you won't play by the end of the game? Again, the miller earns >>> NOTHING by simply milling X cards. >> >> 1) See, this is where we keep getting into trouble. It seems like >> you're imagining the Slaughterhouses eating only part of the library >> before the HoS deck gets ousted and that's not the problem. The problem >> is when the HoS deck just about finishes its prey's library off before >> getting ousted AS WILL FREQUENTLY HAPPEN. > > Fred, stay focused here. I'm making two points: first, there is a clear > advantage UP TO A POINT. That point is just before you get decked. You see > how that constitutes an advantage? Of course. > The part after being decked is > irrelevant, according to YOUR OWN PARAMETERS. Why not? After it's decked, it's screwed. > Stay on target. I am. And "AS WILL FREQUENTLY HAPPEN" has not been shown, Only if you want to ignore how I've showed it, I suppose. > so don't say it. I'm going to have to catch you on every caveat you try to > slip into this, aren't I? I will say it because I showed it. If you want to ignore it, then you're off in your never-never land and I don't care. I will continue to say it. >> and 2) Assuming we're talking about my library being nearly eliminated, >> NO. Of course not. I don't know what kind of advantage you think it is >> but it's not worth it. > > Sigh. Read other posts. Like what you're accusing me of, you've never made anything but a general statement. Sure, one can invest more pool in resource to oust one's prey but how "good" is good, exactly? Not that I really expect you to quantify it either. No one can. Which is precisely what I mean by, "I don't know what kind of an advantage you think it is". I can't know. But it's obviously larger than what I think it is. > Read carefully, and you will understand. I promise. ... > No, we're not talking about such a deck. But, you get 12 turns!!!! And for > the first X < 12 turns (according to that partial milling argument above), > IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT YOUR PREDATOR IS DOING, CAUSE HE SURE AS HELL AIN'T > HURTING YOU. Does that constitute an advantage or what? Sure. It constitutes "an advantage". But HOW MUCH OF AN ADVANTAGE?!? You haven't proved pigshit about that issue. Look, let's say I watch my prey shuffle is deck. I see one card he's using on the bottom of his library as he shuffles. I have "an advantage". Certainly, you will admit that is an advantage. That means I should oust him with little problem, right? Of course it means nothing of the sort. It's a trivial advantage that may or may not be helpful. Usually it would be pretty meaningless. That's the difference between knowing one has "an advantage" and knowing how much of advantage it is? And how it compares to a clear disadvantage, which is also in dispute. >> I've passed on the argument about, "Can the HoS deck affect his prey by >> block its actions much?" You say no and I say yes. I don't think >> there's anything more you can say to convince me. Furthermore, I've >> seen HoS decks that do just that. > > Right, do they win? If not, do you compare them to decks that are equally > as bad that bleed/vote/combat? I suspect not. I don't know. I assume they do because that's how they were built in order to win and do so. But I haven't watched enough to know for sure, I agree. > Geez. Why is it so hard to say something definitively when it's staring > you in the face? Because you don't prove what you claim you've proved. >>> What you've just described is the same for all decks across the board, >>> where you replace milling with strategy X. I don't see why this >>> analysis applies only to milling. >> >> This has been been answered a million times: because one pool can be >> recovered from. But the implication of NEARLY being ousted by a mill >> deck can not be recovered from. You don't agree, fine. There's nowhere >> we can take the argument if you won't concede the difference. To me, >> it's pretty self-apparent what the difference is but I can't see inside >> your head. > > You keep using the word recover, that's why. The method by which one > defeats a mill deck is by PROACTIVE movement. Sure, I understand that. > By definition that's not recovery. I totally agree, this is not a recovery. And I understand the comparison if the prey can accomplish more in the time he's been given than he normally could. But THAT issue goes back to, whether a limited number of turns of "proactive movement" is a meaningful compensation for the time limitation - which is what's been disputed up and down this post. > If you only wish to consider solutions revolving around > recovery, then well, yeah, you can choose to lose. No, I don't _always_ wish to consider solutions that way. Trouble is, the way you're proffering only works if the tradeoff is worthwhile, which is what I'm dubious of. >>> "way prematurely" has been defined, using logic in my previous post, to >>> be about 12 turns. If your milling predator dies before 12 turns are >>> up, you probably have at least 20ish cards in your library. >> >> Here is where you're not reading what *I* wrote. Having "20ish cards" >> left in your library is *NOT* the scenario I give a shit about, it's >> *NOT* going to happen as often as having, say 1-5 cards or zero cards. > > With what copious amounts of anecdotal evidence? No, with a logical proof. > Eh, forget that. ...indeed you have... > I've addressed this. You have 10 cards in your library. You can oust. Bleh. We're going round and round in circles here. No point. Fast forward... >>> Disprove it Fred. Show me reasons or something, ANYTHING that suggests >>> that those statements aren't giving you the acceleration you need to >>> oust your prey. Again, if someone handed you a pile of 10 extra pool >>> and said, "Go for it", you'd probably be able to put together a >>> significantly better offense. >> >> I can't show you anything. How does one "prove" something like that? In >> the negative, no less. First, you need to prove that 10 extra pool *is* >> going to allow signficantly better offense. And I mean specifically, >> "signficantly better" such that it makes up for the disadvantage of >> having your game cut short for sure after 9-12 turns. > > Give counterarguments that are as concrete and reasonable perhaps? here's the answer to your 10 extra pool challenge: > > 1) Bring out a minion or two Sure. Or it could be three. Or, if you're playing Caitiff or Pander, perhaps 10. > 2) Act with those minions and put 50% more pressure on your prey for 12 > turns. What makes you think acting with "a minion or two" is exactly "50% more pressure"? 50% more than what?!? What is the quantification of "pressure" and how does one measure it? > 3) Get an oust. How do you know "50% more pressure" constitutes an oust? Depending on the type of pressure you can bring, it may be worthless. Or it may get five ousts. Who knows? > 4) Set up for the eventuality that you will be decked by investing in > permanents, such as expensive guns, locations or other permanent tech. What if I have no "expensive guns, locations or other permanent tech"? What is the quantification of these things that proves I can continue to move forward and get more ousts? > 5) Spend your 10 pool. Whatever. > > Now, you don't think a 50% faster movement for 12 turns is positive > enough? Now, please respond to my exact positive statements. I've humored > you, now let's see if you can do the same. No caveats. Show me. OF COURSE I'm going to respond to your exact positive statements. Because they're indicative of precisely the weakness of what you - on some planet - apparently call a "concrete and reasonable argument". As near as I can determine from the above, it's constituted by pulling facts that aren't facts and don't even mean anything out of your ass. Of course I understand the gist of it. "Use the extra pool to do good, offensive thing against your prey." I've always understood that. The problem is just what I've indicated all over the place: none of this quantifies *HOW* much quicker or easier you can get an oust on average because you can use around 10 extra pool. (I'm glad we both agree at least on the 10 extra pool figure.) You need to get it through your head that this is an unprovable assertion and let it go at that. I understand it. I just don't agree with it. Removed more that's just more bickering about the S.O.S. Booorrrring... Fred

CthuluKitty wrote: > Hmmm...there've been quite a few posts in this thread since the last > time I said anything substantial. That post got into the newsgroup 8 > times (oops), so people must have noticed it, but only Peter Bakija has > responded to it directly. My general impression on the internet is > that people don't reply to posts unless they disagree with them (kind > of reverse academia in that regard)... > > Does this mean everyone agrees with me? Well, you were agreeing with me, so I'm obviously in agreeance with you. > Waiting for the flames...really, seriously, eager for them.... Be careful what you wish for.

"Ankur Gupta" <agu...@cs.duke.edu> wrote in message news:Pine.GSO.4.62.06...@cipher1.cs.duke.edu... >> What the hell does, "...how ridiculously weird a miller's hand would >> have to be to deck you by turn 10 just on the strength of the deck alone" >> have to do with anything. I don't CARE how long it takes a mill deck >> to deck on the strength of "its hand alone". It's not going to deck >> on the strength of just the Slaughterhouses, its going to deck you on >> both that AND the cards you play. I don't see where you're going with >> this > > Fred, you have to have a baseline. First we see raw ability to remove > cards in an extreme sense. In that case, what' you're proving is *NOT* that the prey has "12 turns" to play. You've just proved that however long the prey would NORMALLY play, he has 12 turns LESS THAN THAT. It's a subtraction from normal, it isn't the normal number of turns by itself. There's a huge difference between the two statements. And it really doesn't say a thing about how long the prey actually has in raw turns. That would depend on the how long he would normally have (which in turn depends on how fast he plays cards and how many cards his library has). > Then we moderate it. We assume you play some > cards, and the Slaughterhouse deck isn't uber-set up. Net result: slower > than this model. There is no net result. There is no proof that it would be slower than this model. Whatever the result is would be faster if the miller draws 10 straight Slaughterhouses than not. But that's all you can say from any of this. >>> Then you're more susceptible to milling decks. It's a weakness of your >>> decks. >> >> Fine. I'm susceptible to milling decks and that's a "weakness" of my >> deck. So what?!? It's not like fear of milling deck is some kind of >> good reason to build all 90 card decks. And, to preempt any such >> argument I would hope you're not going to try and make, it's not a good >> reason to act like people should blame themselves for not having built >> a 90-card deck if they run into a milling deck. Milling decks are a >> trifle on the metagame spectrum, not worth the slightest consideration >> when you're trying to decide how large your deck should be. If you're >> not building a card-intensive deck, it's stupid to build a 90-card deck. > > I build 90 card decks regularly, and not due to milling reasons. Most > others do as well. Some people do. But not for a good reason. If you have one, present one. > I think it's definitely fair to accept this assumption. I think it's definitely a convenient assumption. But it's not a fair one, no. >> Did. The. Analysis. Yours. Is. Bogus! > > No. You. Didn't. On average Fred, you'll have 12 turns. You'll have it. > Slaughterhouses that hit a table? About 4-5. That's say, 10 cards a turn > with this metric, of which the first 3 turns were half that or less. You > get milled, then, in about 10 turns for 30-35 cards. Huh?!? Maybe I'm missing something but I think four Slaughterhouses for seven turns is 56 cards. Add 22 cards that I played out of my hand in ten turns and that would be all the cards in my 78-card deck. And that's a mild example, by your own admission above. (I didn't count Slaughterhouses in the first three turns at all. I'm not counting any Agaitas action either.) > Amazing. It's like I did analysis. I don't think you did it correctly. At least, please show me how I'm screweing this up. > Sorry for being snarky, but you're just not willing to think about this. > You're too set in your ways. No comment...for obvious reasons. Fred

"bluedevil" <david.che...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1136936135.5...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > Hey Fred, I think the sky is *blue*. Just wondering if you had any > thoughts on that? I don't know. Do you think it's "Asshole Blue" or "Pansy Blue"? I'd have to reserve judgement. >> I find that a dubious assertion because I think it's very >> risky to be spending a signficantly greater amount on pool based on >> the faith that you know what kind of a deck your predator's playing >> and you know it won't take a stab at finishing off your pool if you >> turn your back very much. > > First off, I didn't say "spend yourself down to one". Neither did I. > Actually, if you > care to know, I put a lone Conditioning in my deck (has Le Din Tho, Dr. > Jest, and Bartholomew with dominate in the crypt), just to nail those > assholes who spend themselves down to nothing. Got Daring the Dawn, > too. But really, that's just a lark. Precisely. This is exactly what I would expect. And if you hadn't done it, I would expect it anyway so people who don't pretty much have all the advantages of people who did. (Except when a bluff needs to be called, of course.) Unless I know their entire deck, somehow. > You probably shouldn't spend > yourself down to 1, but you could spend yourself down to 5 with a > pretty *damn* high degree of confidence (there aren't any certainties > in this game). I don't know. I don't know what to expect. All I know is that I've seen a couple of Slaughterhouses and Agaitus. Next turn, my predator might drop an OBF discipline card on her and Pulse her and I'm starting to pee my pants looking for a bounce or an intercept card to replace the ones I threw away back when I thought 5 pool was Fort Knox. > And you've probably got bounces, and wakes, and ways to > generate pool that will happen anyway as you flow your deck. So all > this bullshit hoo-ha of "yeah but I can't really spend that pool > because, you know, a 747 might land on my head and I'll need those > counters in a pile to hide under" is just that: a bunch of > pseudo-intellectual sounding, backpedaling hoo-ha. To quote Darth Vader, "Impressive!" You have me pegged exactly. This is what I would say if I were me. And I am. So in the future, you may write my responses to you for me if you'd like to save time since you're clearly just as qualified. Perhaps more so. >> But I'm just kind of guessing at how >> that works, exactly. Maybe there's more to it than I think right >> now. > > Well, I'm just one guy, but speaking as someone who's plunked the deck > down at a tournament (and won with it), here's how it works: I WANT > YOU TO HAVE A VP. Here, take it, it's yours. That's how it works. But am I smart enough to take it? That's the question. > And now I've blown my sooper-sekrit strategy to the whole of usenet. > Thanks, you stubborn punk. ;) Bleh. I don't believe you. Unless you told the truth expecting me to think you'd lie. >> > will get one VP. Millers don't sweep, but they sure as hell can win. >> > And since, barring Brinksmanship and Slaughterhouses, the deck is >> > entirely reactionary, if you don't pick up two predators you probably >> > won't generate enough card churn to hit your Slaughterhouses in a >> > timely way. >> >> I'm not sure what this last part means. What do you mean by, "if >> you don't pick up two predators"? > > I mean if I don't have a prey who is tearing his hair out like some > hysterical *woman* (my apologies, ladies) and trying to backoust me, > then my deck probably can't generate enough card flow to keep from > dying. > > So, you know..... keep up the good work! Sure. Whatever. Glad to be of service. Fred

"Tom Duncan" <veknp...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1136943333....@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > Fred Scott wrote: > OK - starting to get you. Yup. Reading your summation, you seem to have a pretty accurate grasp of what I've been trying to say about both combat and milling opponents. Well done! And of course, I understand that both of these opinions may prove incomplete or just plain wrong given future experience. But for now, there's where I am. > Conversely, when the neighbors of a 'direct Pool damage' oriented > deck, like your basic Dom bleed or KRC & Cap vote pusher, finally > defeat it, they still have their minions reasonably intact, and their > library available, to defend against the remaining table dynamic, which > is still likely 'direct Pool damage' oriented. But's that's OK, because > that's what you build your decks to defend against. Yes, exactly. > The only thing I can gather is that the predominance of 'direct pool > damage' strategies, that do not involve direct threats to seconadry > resources, cause players to predominantly pack defenses for said > strategy (bloat and bounce). When the occasional non-traditional > ousting strategy shows at the table, the traditionals scamper to try to > return the game to it's traditional state. If they succeed, the game > has been altered in the process, and does not resemble a 'normal' game. > This is disconcerting to the traditional player, who wonders why people > would want to ruin a perfectly good game of "Bleed Fastest". Well, I suppose there's some of that, yes. Some people just plain get insecure when the game morphs into something they're not comfortable with and haven't grokked the 'rules' to. (I'm probably one of them, now that you mention it. I'm not a quick study on game tactics.) But I don't think that's only it. I would also point out that certain types of wierd decks occupy very strange places on the metagame matrix and that likely dictates some of their unpopularity as well. Take Brujhah rush combat. It can be easily controlled with certain kinds of fortitude cards or reaction and Obedience but how many decks use such cards? Ankur's point about milling decks allowing their prey to go hog wild reminded me of a couple bad anarch weenie bleed I still carry around that NEVER win. They NEVER WIN! My prey always turtles up or bloats a ton a turn or two before I get close to ousting them and my predator inevitably gets me before I can get my prey. (But people often complement me on how imaginative these decks are. How ironic is that?) I was thinking how these decks would be quick-ousting gods if they could ever draw a mill deck as predator. But mill decks are (as I've admitted) pretty rare in my part of the world and I suspect just about everywhere. So it's not just that it's different but that people don't perceive there's an answer to the way they damage their neighbors. Of course there are answers. But the answers usually aren't things that can be played in the existing metagame. > To those players, I say "Too bad". The very reason I play non-bleed > strategies is because most decks only pack bleed defense and piles of > bloat (which requires minions, most often). It's a risky play, I'll > grant, because if your predator is hyper-focussed, your in for "one of > those games". Still, attacking minions directly, at it's core, trumps > ALL strategies, because they all require MINION ACTIONS to advance. By > limiting those actions, you limit the decks overall potential. A player > who does not use deck space for combat defense is simply asking for it, > IMO. For Pete's sake, protect your investment!! Right. The trouble is just what I indicated above. "Protecting your investment" usually means a deck that is disadvantaged - on average - in the metagame. Some archetypes can afford to drop in real combat protection without losing much but for many, it just isn't worth it. Unless there's a whole lot more combat decks, it often turns out to be a waste bothering to defend against. Might as well just win what you can and whine when you can't. (Hey! I like that saying!) > I have the priviledge of playing in a high combat meta, where 20 > combat cards would be considered 'light', and Fame is almost always > contested at some point in the course of a game. It makes for a very > interactive experience, and extremely intense end-games. IMO, it makes > for a much better game. Nothing wrong with that. Just a different metagame than most are used to. Fred

"bluedevil" <david.che...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1136941945....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com... > > Fred Scott wrote: > >> I agree that if there's an issue of risking my own neck in order to >> stop my prey from ousting someone, I obviously want to preserve my >> own neck first and foremost. I guess I'd been assuming that it isn't >> hard to at least slow a prey down from time to time. Again, I stress >> that the HoS deck is only stepping in (with Eagle's Sights if necessary) >> on *key* actions; not left and right. But if he just stops a few key >> actions, that by itself can narrow the difference between prey's power >> level with HoS predator vs. prey's power level with an average >> predator. At least, IMHO. > > You just said your average predator won't stop a few key actions. No, that's not exactly what I said. Some may. Most would't be sitting around with as many wakes and and as much intercept in hand and often untapped like that. But on the other hand, they would be going forward in some way. Seems a reasonable tradeoff. > Fess > up: your meta is a bunch of non-interactive weenie-ish decks playing > the bleed game, isn't it? It really isn't. Believe it or not, my loudly proclaimed proclivities don't define any metagame I play in. People I play with just have to deal with me. They don't have to imitate me. >That's fine, everybody has their meta. But > you've gotta own up to the fact that the game as a whole is a lot > bigger than that. Sure. Even if you're wrong about my metagame, you're correct to point out that whatever it is, it may not reflect the game as a whole. And that's true everywhere. (But in my podunk center, it may be even more off-center than usual, I'll also grant.) Fred

"bluedevil" <david.che...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1136938474....@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > Fred Scott wrote: >> I think if there's three or four Slaughterhouses out right away and > > It's impossible to have 3 or 4 "right away". It takes two turns to get > a Harbinger, and then on turn 3 you can play your first one. Fred, > look at what you are writing. It's just straw man after straw man > after straw man. Just fold on this one, man. You have to cut some slack for what three or four "right away" means. Sure. You have to bring out a Harbinger. Then they drop three or four Slaughterhouses. At the same time, your first few turns are ALSO spent bringing out minions. You're ALSO not going to be doing much of consequence at the beginning of the game. >> your deck is based on (say), bloat, slow buildup, and overwhelm that >> normally takes many turns, you can probably be pretty "psychic". In >> any event, that's six or eight library that's going away every turn. >> You need to decide pretty fast what you're going to do about it. > > "Pretty fast" just like your "right away" up above, right? Sure. I'm having trouble understanding what you're not understanding about this. Assume it takes him 2-3 turns bringing out Agaitas and assume my minions are about the same size as his minions. So I have *ONE* minon out while he's dropping his first two Slaughterhouses. I probably don't get my second one until I've got a good idea what the deal is and definitely not my third one. Can you give me that "right away" is more or less when all my minions are out? Can you please?!? (whiny voice) It really doesn't seem like a lot. > This is just more bullshit. You don't like > miller decks, because you are an hysteric. That's really all > there is to this one. Sure, I'm a hysteric. Sadly, unforutnately, that's not the only reason to dislike milling decks. >> I also glossed over the other reason for going backwards: if you can >> effectively speed your predator's ousting, doing so might save you your >> library. Again, whichever direction you choose to go first, better >> decide fast. No point in going backwards in a half-assed way. > > Again with the "fast". Say you're losing 10 a turn, just to make > things easy. Can't start before turn 3. By turn 5 you've lost 20 > cards. You're about half-way through the game at this point, and you > haven't lost any more than you almost always have left over after a > game anyway. So? I don't want to lose the rest. What's your point. > So, Fred.... tell me how you *feel*. I'm all ears. I feel...purple...I think. Er, what was the question, again? Fred

Fred Scott wrote: > > You just said your average predator won't stop a few key actions. > > No, that's not exactly what I said. Some may. Most would't be sitting > around with as many wakes and and as much intercept in hand and often > untapped like that. But on the other hand, they would be going > forward in some way. Seems a reasonable tradeoff. Come *on*! It is exactly what you said, and it's a crystal-clear window into the flawed assumptions which you are bringing into the analysis. Your arguments don't even begin to hold water without all of these really silly, disingenuous assumptions. "Straw Man" gets flung around a lot, but this is a text-book case. And, BTW, HoS Mill decks don't (shouldn't?) have wakes. Why would they? When do they tap? Bad assumptions, obstinate resistance to logic, and little understanding of the archetype in question. Were it only possible for you to just accept someone else's word on something for once..... > It really isn't. Believe it or not, my loudly proclaimed proclivities > don't define any metagame I play in. People I play with just have to > deal with me. They don't have to imitate me. And yet, you clearly, *clearly* asserted it was out of the ordinary for a predator to block a few key actions. You cite it as a difference, something exhibited by the milling deck that other decks don't exhibit. That's just pure crapola. > Sure. Even if you're wrong about my metagame, you're correct to > point out that whatever it is, it may not reflect the game as a > whole. And that's true everywhere. (But in my podunk center, > it may be even more off-center than usual, I'll also grant.) The vagaries of your metagame aren't that relevant to the point at hand (except perhaps as an explanation for why you are arguing like a nut-job), so it's OK. -- David

> > I build 90 card decks regularly, and not due to milling reasons. Most > > others do as well. > > Some people do. But not for a good reason. If you have one, present > one. > If you can fiddle with percentages and don't require a specific, once a game, card, there's really no actual detriment to a 90 card deck compared to a 75 or less one. It really depends on the ratio of cards you want to work with. For example, let's say you play with a ten card deck, one of each copy of a card, it's about the same chances of getting that card as one hundred card deck but ten of each copy. Granted if you're using cards like Giants blood, you have more of a chance of drawing a "dead" card later, it's a trade off for the ability of increased versatility of the cards in your deck as well as staying power.

Fred Scott wrote: > > I build 90 card decks regularly, and not due to milling reasons. Most > > others do as well. > > Some people do. But not for a good reason. If you have one, present > one. Your library is a resource. Just like your Pool and your crypt. You can limit it if you want to, but would you look through your 75 card library, realize you only intended to spend 24 Pool, and then say to the table at set-up, "You know what, guys, I'm only going to play with 25 Pool, because that's all I'll need." I've built plenty of decks under 90 cards, but I try to take them to 90 if I can, because you never know when you might need your entire library. The trick is keeping the ratios of card type on target with your card flow.

I think the main problem is, you have experiences with just bad mill decks that aren't really well played and as a result wind up feeling screwed. Examples like below, as well as the fact that the mill decks you play seem very very tool box just from the examples you're giving leads me to that impression. The dilemna Ankur puts forward then, is quite relevant, badly played badly made decks where instead of ousting your prey, just screws up his game and loses is a problem REGARDLESS of whether it's a combat, mill, bleed or vote deck. Yes, combat and mill probably has the most potential for this as they are hard to play and build, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't respect a well played, well built one. A stealth bleed deck that's poorly played can just as much cripple you. I know this from personal experience because there's one player in my circle (or ... ex player I should say) who's entire strategy is built upon bleeding forward. No defense, no nothing. To be frank, almost EVERY game, his predator would win. The reason I think is rather obvious. Just as much as a horribly targetted PTO can throw the game awry, the problem is with the player not the decktype. > I don't know. I don't know what to expect. All I know is that I've > seen a couple of Slaughterhouses and Agaitus. Next turn, my > predator might drop an OBF discipline card on her and Pulse her and I'm > starting to pee my pants looking for a bounce or an intercept card > to replace the ones I threw away back when I thought 5 pool was Fort > Knox. > Fred

[ quoted text not captured ] For some decks its a definite advantage to have a library under 90 cards, the larger library you have, even if the ratios are exactly the same between the 90 and the 60 card library, the more likely you are to get significant deviation from a perfect spread and get more freakish results as in not seeing any of your card x for 20 cards. Also when you consider that there may be many 1 per deck cards that you want to cycle into as fast as posible, smaller libraries are even more attractive as you are again likely to see these cards sooner. When I build a deck I will always consider what library size is needed for that deck type, ie how many of my key cards do I need to play in order to be able to get the win - then add a bit for good measure, and build around that. I mean, Ive never beeen able to make a combat deck that uses transient cards under 90, as you know damn well you may need all your library to get a win, but for things like walls, WG's and embrace type decks, 90 isnt required and is detrimental to the decks performance. cheers, Anthony

The key is still the word that you used, for "some" decks. Not all decks. That's the point I'm trying to present. I don't think 90 cards are required, but I wouldn't be so quicked to denounce them to be inferior to lower card count.

"bluedevil" <david.che...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1136990196.7...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > Fred Scott wrote: >> > You just said your average predator won't stop a few key actions. >> >> No, that's not exactly what I said. Some may. Most would't be sitting >> around with as many wakes and and as much intercept in hand and often >> untapped like that. But on the other hand, they would be going >> forward in some way. Seems a reasonable tradeoff. > > Come *on*! It is exactly what you said, Fine, have it your way. > and it's a crystal-clear > window into the flawed assumptions which you are bringing into the > analysis. It's NOT a flawed assumption. You don't think Agaitus sitting around during his prey's turns with intercept in hand is going to allow an HoS deck to have a better shot at blocking his prey's key actions than one who's trying to go forward?!? I'm sorry, I can help you then. Seems reasonable to me, but what do I know? > And, BTW, HoS Mill decks don't (shouldn't?) have wakes. Why would > they? Why not? I guess if your way of doing things means you're just going to sit back and Telepathic Counter bleeds and otherwise behave in a generally comotose manner, then you're right. Who'd need wakes? If your prey want wants call Protect Thine Own against Agaitus, that's his business. She wasn't intended to do anything anyway. She's just a 6-cap decoy with the side power to draw from your prey's deck if you were to ever play any cards, which apparently you're not going to. You're right, my assumptions are chock full of bad. >> It really isn't. Believe it or not, my loudly proclaimed proclivities >> don't define any metagame I play in. People I play with just have to >> deal with me. They don't have to imitate me. > > And yet, you clearly, *clearly* asserted it was out of the ordinary for > a predator to block a few key actions. Sure. I agree. That was indeed your twisting of my words. > You cite it as a difference, > something exhibited by the milling deck that other decks don't exhibit. > That's just pure crapola. Correct. Crapola is what I eat for breakfast. It has fiber, doncha know? >> Sure. Even if you're wrong about my metagame, you're correct to >> point out that whatever it is, it may not reflect the game as a >> whole. And that's true everywhere. (But in my podunk center, >> it may be even more off-center than usual, I'll also grant.) > > The vagaries of your metagame aren't that relevant to the point at hand So why did you bring it up? > (except perhaps as an explanation for why you are arguing like a > nut-job), so it's OK. David, I'm arguing like a nut-job because I am a nut-job. My metagame has nothing to do with it. The point is to have words in my mouth, so you can take them out, twist them around to mean something they were never intended to mean and don't really mean, and then insert them back in my mouth so you can make a point. I'm not sure why this bothers you so much. Fred

"Drace" <Chrysanth...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1136996973.9...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... >> > I build 90 card decks regularly, and not due to milling reasons. Most >> > others do as well. >> >> Some people do. But not for a good reason. If you have one, present >> one. >> > > If you can fiddle with percentages and don't require a specific, once a > game, card, there's really no actual detriment to a 90 card deck > compared to a 75 or less one. It really depends on the ratio of cards > you want to work with. I'm sorry, that's not true. It does make a difference and you are better off with a smaller deck as long as you're not in danger of running out of cards. The reason is that you're not as likely to have extreme swings of draws with a smaller deck. If you a 75 card deck with five copies of card X, which you generally won't need more than one or two of in a four game-turn span, you're less likely to draw three in a row than if you have six copies in a 90 card deck (the same ratio). The difference is a bit subtle but it's certainly more pronounced than the need to be ready for mill deck. > it's a trade off for the ability > of increased versatility of the cards in your deck as well as staying > power. I don't know what you mean by "increased versatility of the cards in your deck" nor "staying power". You do not get increased versatility by including more cards in your deck because either way, you only draw as many as you draw. It's pointless to have extra toolbox cards in your deck that sit down in the bottom pack of 15 that you'll never (normally) draw. As for staying power, if you're running out of cards from time to time in normal games, then you should absolutely increase the number of cards, I agree. I've found 75-78 cards works just fine in normal decks and you don't need to increase to 90 for this reason. Fred

"Tom Duncan" <veknp...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1136998128....@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > Fred Scott wrote: >> > I build 90 card decks regularly, and not due to milling reasons. Most >> > others do as well. >> >> Some people do. But not for a good reason. If you have one, present >> one. > > Your library is a resource. Just like your Pool and your crypt. You can > limit it if you want to, but would you look through your 75 card > library, realize you only intended to spend 24 Pool, and then say to > the table at set-up, "You know what, guys, I'm only going to play with > 25 Pool, because that's all I'll need." As posted in response to Drace, there is a distinct advantage to smaller decksize. It's why Magic players seldom ever use more than 64 or 65 cards in their decks (and many will stick to the minimum of 60) even though there's no upper limit to the size of a Magic deck. Fred

"Drace" <Chrysanth...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1137000379.2...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > The key is still the word that you used, for "some" decks. I never disputed that some decks need as many cards as they're allowed to have. Most decks do not, however. Fred

"Drace" <Chrysanth...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1136998986.1...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com... >I think the main problem is, you have experiences with just bad mill > decks that aren't really well played and as a result wind up feeling > screwed. Examples like below, as well as the fact that the mill decks > you play seem very very tool box just from the examples you're giving > leads me to that impression. The dilemna Ankur puts forward then, is > quite relevant, badly played badly made decks where instead of ousting > your prey, just screws up his game and loses is a problem REGARDLESS of > whether it's a combat, mill, bleed or vote deck. That might well be true. Part of the problem then, is that it's hard to tell a badly inspired Slaughterhouse deck from a good one until after the game. Come to think of it, I never recall seeing an HoS deck just sit there, comotose-style like what David's talking about, and JUST mill. But, in any case, being unable to tell what an HoS deck is up to, exactly, until it does it is one of the problems. As I pointed out, sort of half- jokingly to David - but it's a serious consideration - is that no one knows exactly what's in the HoS deck until the cards are played. So I don't think all that much of the "big advantage" of spending yourself down to five pool in order to go forward faster just because your predator plays a couple of Slaughterhouses. It's easy to imagine yourself being suddenly bled out and saying to yourself, as you're gathering up your cards, "Damn! I sure THOUGHT that was just a mill deck..." > Yes, combat and mill > probably has the most potential for this as they are hard to play and > build, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't respect a well played, well > built one. Who said anything about not respecting it? It's imaginative and that's cool. But the fact is, both combat and mill decks can be badly played either because they're being built and played by a bad player or because they were built and played by a very good, experienced player who had bad luck. You have to play what you draw. And I think there's a higher potential there for taking your prey down with you than the average deck. That's just my uninformed opinion, granted, but it seems to be a fairly commonly held one, which is what Ankur was grousing about. > A stealth bleed deck that's poorly played can just as much > cripple you. I know this from personal experience because there's one > player in my circle (or ... ex player I should say) who's entire > strategy is built upon bleeding forward. No defense, no nothing. To > be frank, almost EVERY game, his predator would win. Yea, I know. It isn't my intent to say that ONLY combat and ONLY mill decks can be badly or irresponsibly played, thus screwing up table balance and warping the game. I'm sure there's all kinds of variations on this theme. Only that mill decks seem to have a high potential for it. > The reason I > think is rather obvious. Just as much as a horribly targetted PTO can > throw the game awry, the problem is with the player not the decktype. Actually, in that example, I would say the problem is also the type of deck, depending on how your categorizing. A deck that will only go forward and has no defense would be another animal that has a high potential for causing this problem, no matter how well built or how good the player. Fred

"Fred Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote in message news:HUcxf.7802$JT.6862@fed1read06... [ quoted text not captured ] Actually, strike that. I'll preemptively flame myself for forgetting that Magic has card limits. Bad Fred! Smaller decks are still better than same-ratioed larger decks in Jyhad, though. Fred

Fred Scott wrote: > It's NOT a flawed assumption. You don't think Agaitus sitting around > during his prey's turns with intercept in hand is going to allow an > HoS deck to have a better shot at blocking his prey's key actions > than one who's trying to go forward?!? I'm sorry, I can help you > then. Seems reasonable to me, but what do I know? Of course that stuff goes on. But you were making a relative comparison and concluding that the HoS deck extra-fucks you, because it'll block a "few key actions." So the fact that Agaitus might, I dunno, play Eagle's Sight and block a Praxis Seizure (because that matters) doesn't some how give you the right to claim extra fucked-osity just because your predator is a mill deck. > Why not? I guess if your way of doing things means you're just going > to sit back and Telepathic Counter bleeds and otherwise behave in a > generally comotose manner, then you're right. Who'd need wakes? > If your prey want wants call Protect Thine Own against Agaitus, that's > his business. She wasn't intended to do anything anyway. She's just a > 6-cap decoy with the side power to draw from your prey's deck if you were > to ever play any cards, which apparently you're not going to. You're > right, my assumptions are chock full of bad. I might block a PTO. Maybe not. I need a HoS as a platform for playing SH's and to do some defensive stuff, but I can let a resource go without dry-humping the table with my victimization complex. > > And yet, you clearly, *clearly* asserted it was out of the ordinary for > > a predator to block a few key actions. > > Sure. I agree. That was indeed your twisting of my words. I didn't twist your words, which are there for anybody to read. It doesn't even require any inference, since you said it plain as day. Anything else you have to say about my twisting your words based on that amounts to exactly "blah, blah, blah." > > The vagaries of your metagame aren't that relevant to the point at hand > > So why did you bring it up? That was just me spotting you one. > David, I'm arguing like a nut-job because I am a nut-job. My > metagame has nothing to do with it. The point is to have words > in my mouth, so you can take them out, twist them around to mean > something they were never intended to mean and don't really mean, > and then insert them back in my mouth so you can make a point. Blah. Blah. Blah. > I'm > not sure why this bothers you so much. Because Fred, while I like you as a guy, your arguments on this one are pure crap. It just occurred to me that a quote I read recently that struck me and stuck with me is *particularly* apt, so I think I'll share it with you: Those who assume hypotheses as first principles of their speculations.... may indeed form an ingenious romance, but a romance it will still be. -- Roger Cotes, Preface to Sir Isaac Newton's _Principia Mathematica_ That's pretty much what I see your problem to be. -- David Cherryholmes

"bluedevil" <david.che...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1137013130....@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > Fred Scott wrote: >> It's NOT a flawed assumption. You don't think Agaitus sitting around >> during his prey's turns with intercept in hand is going to allow an >> HoS deck to have a better shot at blocking his prey's key actions >> than one who's trying to go forward?!? I'm sorry, I can help you >> then. Seems reasonable to me, but what do I know? > > Of course that stuff goes on. But you were making a relative > comparison and concluding that the HoS deck extra-fucks you, because > it'll block a "few key actions." So the fact that Agaitus might, I > dunno, play Eagle's Sight and block a Praxis Seizure (because that > matters) doesn't some how give you the right to claim extra > fucked-osity just because your predator is a mill deck. Huh?!? Of course it does. That's what I just got through saying: Agaitus sitting around during his prey's turns which intercept in hand is going to allow an HoS deck to have a better shot at blocking his pery's key action than one who's trying to go forward. He will be untapped more often with more intercept and have more room in his decks for more wakes allowing him more freedom to block things. That guy who's trying to go forward...wanna know a secret....SOMETIMES, he may not have a minion free to block just, I dunno, a Praxis Seizure even if he's afraid it matters. Sometimes he may not have a guy with superior Auspex untapped and ready to go like, I dunno, Agaitas? YES. It "extra-fucks you", that's what I'm saying. What is the issue here? What is it about this position you do NOT understand or that does not make sense to you?!? >> Why not? I guess if your way of doing things means you're just going >> to sit back and Telepathic Counter bleeds and otherwise behave in a >> generally comotose manner, then you're right. Who'd need wakes? >> If your prey want wants call Protect Thine Own against Agaitus, that's >> his business. She wasn't intended to do anything anyway. She's just a >> 6-cap decoy with the side power to draw from your prey's deck if you were >> to ever play any cards, which apparently you're not going to. You're >> right, my assumptions are chock full of bad. > > I might block a PTO. Maybe not. I need a HoS as a platform for > playing SH's and to do some defensive stuff, but I can let a resource > go without dry-humping the table with my victimization complex. I didn't say "dry-hump the table with your victimization complex". I said, "block a few key actions". >> > And yet, you clearly, *clearly* asserted it was out of the ordinary for >> > a predator to block a few key actions. >> >> Sure. I agree. That was indeed your twisting of my words. > > I didn't twist your words, which are there for anybody to read. It > doesn't even require any inference, since you said it plain as day. I didn't say what you said. I said, "...if he just stops a few key actions, that by itself can narrow the difference between a prey's power level with an HoS predator vs. a prey's power level with an average predator." YOU said, "...your average predator won't stop a few key actions". They're not the same thing, blah, blah, blah. >> I'm not sure why this bothers you so much. > > Because Fred, while I like you as a guy, your arguments on this one are > pure crap. > > It just occurred to me that a quote I read recently that struck me and > stuck with me is *particularly* apt, so I think I'll share it with you: > > Those who assume hypotheses as first principles of their > speculations.... may indeed form an ingenious romance, but a romance it > will still be. > -- Roger Cotes, Preface to Sir Isaac Newton's _Principia > Mathematica_ > > That's pretty much what I see your problem to be. Sure. Got it. I'm a nice, romantic guy with too many hypotheses. Blah. Blah. Blah. Fred

Fred Scott wrote: > Huh?!? Of course it does. That's what I just got through saying: > Agaitus sitting around during his prey's turns which intercept in > hand is going to allow an HoS deck to have a better shot at blocking > his pery's key action than one who's trying to go forward. He will > be untapped more often with more intercept and have more room in > his decks for more wakes allowing him more freedom to block things. None of that matters. What matters is that you think the HoS deck will block a few key actions, and that this is somehow different than what an average predator will do. It is crystal-fucking-clear from this that you don't think average predators block a few key actions. Which is nuts. > That guy who's trying to go forward...wanna know a secret....SOMETIMES, > he may not have a minion free to block just, I dunno, a Praxis Seizure > even if he's afraid it matters. Sometimes he may not have a guy > with superior Auspex untapped and ready to go like, I dunno, Agaitas? And sometimes a HoS deck that never takes an action still can't block everything he'd like. Which Ankur pointed out explicitly. Which you ignored. Which is nuts. Fuck it, I'm exhausted. Done. -- David Cherryholmes

"bluedevil" <david.che...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1137019722....@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... [ quoted text not captured ] No one said an average predator wouldn't be able to block a few key actions. No one said an HoS deck would block every action under the sun or be able to. These are not original words I said. These are David-implanted words. All *I* said was that the latter was in a better position to do so than the former. Therefore, it *will* do so more often. Therefore, in that way, there is compensating disadvantage to the compensating advantage to the disadvantage of losing all your library. Which is NOT nuts. Blah. Blah. Blah. > Fuck it, I'm exhausted. Done. Bye.

Fred Scott wrote: > Smaller decks are still better than same-ratioed larger decks in > Jyhad, though. > > Fred "It's not the size, it's how you use it."? Sounds like something a guy with a small deck would say. I crack myself up. But seriously, folks... I agree with you. there's no denying a trimmed library runs more smoothly, provided you have 1/2 a clue when building it.

> But seriously, folks... I agree with you. there's no denying a trimmed > library runs more smoothly, provided you have 1/2 a clue when building > it. Yeah, it's an interesting quirk of Jyhad players that almost everyone seems to build their library to the maximum size and their crypt to the minimum. It's somewhat counterintuitive. I have to admit to being among the people that do that, largely because I've gotten really well accustomed to thinking in terms of the numbers one would want in a 90 card deck. I also tend to play a lot of combat-intensive decks (though seldom rush combat), and my metagame is very combat heavy with a serious lean towards longer games. That said, I often wonder if going up to 90 cards is always the best approach, and typically do it anyhow. The most notable exception in my case was a 70some card weenie/midcap anarch PRE deck that plunked down Anarch Revolts (old version) and bloated like hell with Anarch Salon and Tribute to the Master. Games with that deck tended to be short, though it's been on ice since the rewording of AR. I sort of wonder if it might actually do ok with that new wording anyhow. Regarding ratios. it's worth noting that different library counts have different prime factors, so if you're looking for exact ratios certain numbers are unlikely to work. For example, if I felt my deck was optimal at 90 cards with 9 copies of Ascendence, and I wanted to cut the deck to 70, the new optimal count would be 7. However, if I had 3 copies of Ascendence, and wanted to cut down to 70 I would be hard pressed to decide whether or not to cut a copy, since the ratio would be skewed at either 2 or 3.

CthuluKitty wrote: > Yeah, it's an interesting quirk of Jyhad players that almost everyone > seems to build their library to the maximum size and their crypt to the > minimum. It's somewhat counterintuitive. There is incentive to build your deck to the maximum size--barring the vagaries of clumping theory (that is of dubious impact with the large deck sizes), there is minimal difference between using a 45 card deck, or two identical 45 card decks shuffled together, except that in the second instance, you are much less likely to run out of cards. It is true that you are unlikely to run out of cards in a given game with 90 cards, let alone 70, but that you *can* run out of cards, the incentive to build a maximum size deck is concrete. With your crypt, you are unlikely to ever run out of crypt cards at 12--it is rare that a player gets out more than 5 or 6 vampires in a given game, so there is almost no incentive to make a crypt larger than the minimum. I've run out of library cards plenty of times in games of VTES. I have *never* run out of crypt cards. And with the small size of crypts, the clumping issues become more concrete--with 2 of a vampire in a 12 card crypt, it is impossible to draw into 4 of them in your opening crypt; with 4 of a vampire in a 24 card crypt, while it is unlikely, the possibility of drawing all 4 in your opening crypt is a possibility, providing concrete disincentive to build an identical twice as big crypt. -Peter

pd...@lightlink.com wrote: > There is incentive to build your deck to the maximum size--barring the > vagaries of clumping theory (that is of dubious impact with the large > deck sizes), there is minimal difference between using a 45 card deck, > or two identical 45 card decks shuffled together, except that in the > second instance, you are much less likely to run out of cards. It is > true that you are unlikely to run out of cards in a given game with 90 > cards, let alone 70, but that you *can* run out of cards, the incentive > to build a maximum size deck is concrete. This is definitely true. The clumping issue, I think, revolves more around card types than anything else, though. Specifically master cards, and to a lesser extent action cards (and to a far lesser extent any other type of card.) Master cards are often used as single copies, making it desireable to cut the total number of cards in a deck, and jamming on masters is the bane of most players, making it undesireable to run a bunch in your deck. That said, I still run damn near all my decks at 90, with at least 16 masters (utilizing Life in the City a lot to avoid jamming) because library cards are a resource. Often if a game is tight, I'll look to deck someone with combat, and win the endgame due to increased permanents, usually in the form of masters. That is one of the other advantages of combat decks, that you can alter the expenditure rate of library cards by yourself and your opponents. Of course, this can lead to the longer games and combat heavy environments that Jesse was refering to, but this is where I argue for faster play, not fewer turns or shorter time limits. > With your crypt, you are unlikely to ever run out of crypt cards at > 12--it is rare that a player gets out more than 5 or 6 vampires in a > given game, so there is almost no incentive to make a crypt larger than > the minimum. I've run out of library cards plenty of times in games of > VTES. I have *never* run out of crypt cards. And with the small size of > crypts, the clumping issues become more concrete--with 2 of a vampire > in a 12 card crypt, it is impossible to draw into 4 of them in your > opening crypt; with 4 of a vampire in a 24 card crypt, while it is > unlikely, the possibility of drawing all 4 in your opening crypt is a > possibility, providing concrete disincentive to build an identical > twice as big crypt. > > -Peter I've often wondered what the game would be like if the crypt rules were different (fewer than 12 minions necessary, different transfer rules, etc.) but they affect the game so fundamentally that I think changing them would drastically alter the whole game. Smaller libraries are an easier proposition. Larger libraries would be fun for combat strategies, but I think that would just degenerate into abuse of infernal pursuit (at least it would for me.) -Dave Clooney

pd...@lightlink.com wrote: > > There is incentive to build your deck to the maximum size--barring the > vagaries of clumping theory (that is of dubious impact with the large > deck sizes), there is minimal difference between using a 45 card deck, > or two identical 45 card decks shuffled together, except that in the > second instance, you are much less likely to run out of cards. It is > true that you are unlikely to run out of cards in a given game with 90 > cards, let alone 70, but that you *can* run out of cards, the incentive > to build a maximum size deck is concrete. > I tend to agree with you, Peter, but I wonder what a statistical anylsis will show. I'll take a crack, not knowing at the beginning what the results will be (this, of course, could be dangerous - as any lawyer will tell you, never ask a question to which you don't already know the answer). There are several metrics which might show what the difference is between different library sizes, but for the sake of argument, I'll pick one. The chance of drawing a given card in your opening hand is always something of interest to Jyhad players - especially with cards like Information Highway, which are unique and highly useful at the start of a game. This is also an area that is very strongly effected by deck size. As luck would have it, an article by "Chance" on the topic is archived at Mark & Judith's Jyhad page (last updated circa 1998 ;)), though the formatting isn't conducive to this particular question (the point of that article was mostly to tell you how many Info Highways to put into your deck based on its size). I'll list the results by size of deck and proportion of the card in question (I used 5%, 10%, 20%, except in cases where 5% wasn't a whole number). The numbers that follow are the chances of drawing at least one, the chance of drawing exactly one, and the chance of drawing more than one of the given card. 40 card deck, chance of 1+, chance of 1, chance of 2+ 5% (2 cards) -- 32.31%, 29.62%, 2.69% 10% (4 cards) -- 55.22%, 41.79%, 13.43% 20% (8 cards) -- 81.95%, 38.88%, 43.07% 50 card deck, chance of 1+, chance of 1, chance of 2+ 6% (3 cards) -- 37.04%, 32.25%, 4.79% 10% (5 cards) -- 54.57%, 40.77%, 13.80% 20% (10 cads) -- 81.33%, 38.43%, 42.90% 60 card deck, chance of 1+, chance of 1, chance of 2+ 5% (3 cards) -- 31.54%, 28.19%, 3.35% 10% (6 cards) -- 54.14%, 40.12%, 14.02% 20% (12 cards) -- 80.94%, 38.13%, 42.81% 70 card deck, chance of 1+, chance of 1, chance of 2+ 5.71% (4 cards) -- 35.03%, 30.32%, 4.71% 10% (7 cards) -- 53.85%, 39.68%, 14.17% 20% (14 cards) -- 80.65%, 37.92%, 42.73% 80 card deck, chance of 1+, chance of 1, chance of 2+ 5% (4 cards) -- 31.18%, 27.53%, 3.65% 10% (8 cards) -- 53.63%, 39.35%, 14.28% 20% (16 cards) -- not calculated 90 card deck, chance of 1+, chance of 1, chance of 2+ 5.56% (5 cards) -- 33.94%, 29.27%, 4.67% 10% (9 cards) -- 53.46%, 39.09%, 14.37% 20% (18 cards) -- not calculated Chance did not calculate probabilities for more than 15 copies of a card in your deck, and I decided that the tediousness of computing those probabilites was probably not worth the minor gain, since the trends had already been established. A few things to take away from this data: -The ~5% line only has 3 data points of any real value, although the values for 50, 70, and 90 data points do well to illustrate the fact that certain ratios of cards are only possible for certain deck sizes. The difference between a 40 card and 80 card deck in drawing *at least one* of the given card is 1.13% (in favor of the 40 card deck). The difference in probability of drawing *exactly one* is 2.09% (again in favor of 40 cards). Only a ~1% gain for cutting the deck in half seems dubious at best. -The 20% line has an odd effect... with this many cards in your deck, the *greater* the deck size, the less chance that you will draw more than one of the given card. This isn't true for 5% or 10%. Basically it just means that your 40 card deck with 8 Torn Signposts is more likely to draw 2 of them first turn than your 90 card deck with 18 Torn Signposts. But your 90 card deck with 9 Deflections is more likely to draw 2 of those than the 40 card deck with only 4 Deflections. Not sure exactly what the effect of this on deck building might be. In either case, though, the difference is minimal. -The 10% line is the most interesting, because it has the most data points, and represents the most common quantities of key cards in most decks. Going for the extremes, the difference in the chance to draw *at least one* of your Deflections first turn, between a 90 card and 40 card deck is 1.76%, while the difference in the chance to draw *exactly one* is 2.70%. That's not a lot of difference. To normalize this a little bit, 2.7% is about a 7% increase on the original percentage, while 1.76% is about a 3% improvement. Assuming you're particularly interested in drawing *exactly* one, we'll say that a 40 card deck is a 7% improvement on a 90 card deck in this regard. Note that those are absolute extremes. 40 card decks aren't even tournament legal, and if you're not doing crazy stuff with Pochtli, Waste Managment, Reinforcements, and/or Summon Soul, it's not enough for nearly any deck. A 60 card deck is only about a 2.6% improvement on 90 cards, and 80 cards is only about a 0.7% improvement. The question is whether or not this improvement is worth it. If you're 100% unlikely to ever run out of cards, then even a 0.7% improvement is worthwhile. However, if 1% of decks are mill decks, or include some milling component, those 10 cards will be worthwhile to you at least 1% of the time. Personally, most of my decks will run down to the last 10 cards almost everytime I am not ousted before I get that far. So if I'm an average player who is the last-man-standing approximately 20% of the time, I will need every card I can get almost 20% of the time (not including times where I am milled, or go through my deck exceptionally fast and then get ousted). But this depends on your deck, of course. Combat decks will tend to churn though cards faster than most. Bottom line, this analysis suggests that if your metagame contains *any* mill decks at all, play with 90 cards everytime. If you haven't seen a mill deck, decide if you're going to get enough benefit (generally from 1 to 7%) out of a smaller deck size to outweigh the chance (deck dependent) of you running through your entire deck. Of course, there are other metrics for measuring the benefit of a smaller deck, but most of them are going to be considerably more complicated. One way might be to calculate the aggregate possibility throughout the game of each card drawn being a particular card, or the possibility of that card being distinct in your hand, or being sufficiently varied from what you've drawn so far - all of those would be mind-numbing to calculate, but they could be done. People can talk about the "flow" of a deck, but until you have some sort of statistical or empirical evidence to back it, I don't see that it means much.

> Of course, there are other metrics for measuring the benefit of a > smaller deck, but most of them are going to be considerably more > complicated. One way might be to calculate the aggregate possibility > throughout the game of each card drawn being a particular card, or the > possibility of that card being distinct in your hand, or being > sufficiently varied from what you've drawn so far - all of those would > be mind-numbing to calculate, but they could be done. People can talk > about the "flow" of a deck, but until you have some sort of statistical > or empirical evidence to back it, I don't see that it means much. Yeah, it's clearly very complicated on the math end, and I appreciate the preliminary data analysis you posted. The biggest problem with it is that it only concerns what you're likely to draw in your first 7 cards. Math like that does well for figuring out appropriate crypt ratios since most of the time you'll be relying primarily--if not entirely--on your first 4 vampires. It seems much less appropriate for the library since you'll be drawing and playing cards from it throughout the entire game. The best reason that I can think of for running fewer than 90 cards concerns unique cards more than clumping. Various decks will perform much better when they manage to get certain unique cards reasonably early in the game, but it's very dangerous to run more than 1 or perhaps 2 copies of any such card. In any case, there are certainly good arguments for always building to 90. What I don't like is that so many people, myself included, do this without thinking about it. Ideally, players would think through the logic of each and every step in deck building, and deciding an appropriate number for the library is one of the things that should be considered, instead of just taken for granted.

CthuluKitty wrote: > The best reason that I can think of for running fewer than 90 cards > concerns unique cards more than clumping. Various decks will perform > much better when they manage to get certain unique cards reasonably > early in the game, but it's very dangerous to run more than 1 or > perhaps 2 copies of any such card. I don't know that I'd call it "dangerous" to run multiple copies of uniques--like, say, you really want to draw a given unique location (Ventrue HQ?), you could run 1 in a 45 card deck to maximize your chances of drawing it, or you could run 2 in a 90 card deck for a similar chance to draw it, and if you draw the second when the first is in play you can either just discard it, or use it as a back up. Going from, say, 2 in a 45 to 4 in a 90 is less viable, I suppose (as while having a second as a backup seems reasonable, it is unlikely that you'll need three backups), but then you are really only going to have that many of a given unique if you *really* need to have it, and then I suppose if you need it, drawing the extras can be dealt with via discards. -Peter

Chris Berger wrote: > 40 card deck, chance of 1+, chance of 1, chance of 2+ > 5% (2 cards) -- 32.31%, 29.62%, 2.69% > 10% (4 cards) -- 55.22%, 41.79%, 13.43% > 20% (8 cards) -- 81.95%, 38.88%, 43.07% > > 80 card deck, chance of 1+, chance of 1, chance of 2+ > 5% (4 cards) -- 31.18%, 27.53%, 3.65% > 10% (8 cards) -- 53.63%, 39.35%, 14.28% > 20% (16 cards) -- not calculated I think these two are the most interesting comparison, as they illustrate (to some extent) the difference between having deck of size X and the mixing together 2 of identical deck X (i.e. what is the difference between a 40 card deck and an 80 card deck made of two identical 40 card decks). Focusing on the 10% line, at least to my not super statisitical anylisis minded eyes, the difference between the two is pretty minimal--the chance of having 1 of card X in your opening hand in the 40 card deck is 41.8% and the chance of having 1 in the 80 card deck is 39.4%. --slightly less, but balanced out by a greater chance of having 2 in your opening hand, but in either case, less than a 2% difference, which strikes me as reasonable. -Peter

CthuluKitty wrote: > > Yeah, it's clearly very complicated on the math end, and I appreciate > the preliminary data analysis you posted. The biggest problem with it > is that it only concerns what you're likely to draw in your first 7 > cards. Math like that does well for figuring out appropriate crypt > ratios since most of the time you'll be relying primarily--if not > entirely--on your first 4 vampires. It seems much less appropriate for > the library since you'll be drawing and playing cards from it > throughout the entire game. > Well, it only specifically addresses the first 7 cards, but it is equally applicable to any 7 cards in the library (when taken independently from the rest of the library), so it does address the possibility of clumping. Also, it's my hypothesis that this metric is highly dependent on library size, and so it should be an indicator of the data that would be found by more complicated metrics. Your point about unique cards is definitely valid. If you have a 60 card deck with 2 Hunting Grounds in it (assuming you really need your HG), it may not be worth it to put 3 HG's in your 90 card deck, because 2 of them are dead draws. On the other hand, I've played a deck with 4 Alamut's in it - sometimes you just have to be resigned to discarding. Again, it depends on the likelihood of your deck running out of cards (and sometimes on whether or not you own enough of the cards in question), but I normally choose not to worry about having 2 or 3 dead draws in a deck - that card could just as well be an extra stealth card I don't need, or a 3rd PA when I only have 2 vamps, etc... And then, in some cases, there are a few different unique cards that do the same thing. You can add J.S. Simmons, Tasha Morgan, and Robert Carter (and non-unique Laptops). You can add WMRH, KRCG, and Rumor Mill. You can add PB: Montreal, PB: Baranquilla, and PB: Mexico City (if you're into that sort of thing). A 40 card deck might not have room for 3 (or 5?) intercept locations. A 90 card deck may have a similar ratio of intercept locations, so it has almost the same chance of getting 1 out, but it can also get 2 or 3 of them out by the end of the game, which a 40 card deck may not be able to. Another wild-card is cards that allow you to shrink your deck at will. Barrens, Fragment, Dreams, Aura Reading, Lear Jet, Katherine Stoddard, several other vampires that let you discard... Including some of these cards in your deck will decrease the small drawbacks of having a larger deck, since you can selectively shrink it during the game.

<pd...@lightlink.com> wrote in message news:1137028504.9...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com... > CthuluKitty wrote: >> Yeah, it's an interesting quirk of Jyhad players that almost everyone >> seems to build their library to the maximum size and their crypt to the >> minimum. It's somewhat counterintuitive. > > There is incentive to build your deck to the maximum size--barring the > vagaries of clumping theory (that is of dubious impact with the large > deck sizes), there is minimal difference between using a 45 card deck, > or two identical 45 card decks shuffled together, except that in the > second instance, you are much less likely to run out of cards. Not having done a rigourous analysis on it, it is my impression that the single 45 card deck will be signficantly less prone to streaks. You should not be running a deck so small that you're running out of cards any appreciable portion of the time. (I would say certainly less than 10% of all the games you play with it and usually less than 3-5%.) This is why I don't play 60-card decks unless it's a real combination- based, lock-down-and-win type of deck. (Meaning, in practice, never. Last one I can recall was Legacy of Pander deck, prior to the card's alteration.) But for non-combat decks, you don't need 90 cards to be much less likely to run out of cards. > It is > true that you are unlikely to run out of cards in a given game with 90 > cards, let alone 70, but that you *can* run out of cards, the incentive > to build a maximum size deck is concrete. Judgement, I guess. I'd much rather have the advantage of a better flowing deck than worry about running out of cards in those once-in-a- blue-moon games where it would make a difference. To be honest, I think so many people build 90-card decks because they can't bear to remove cards from it, even though it's a good idea on balance. Fred

"Chris Berger" <ark...@ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote in message news:1137041640....@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > I tend to agree with you, Peter, but I wonder what a statistical > anylsis will show. I'll take a crack, not knowing at the beginning > what the results will be (this, of course, could be dangerous - as any > lawyer will tell you, never ask a question to which you don't already > know the answer). > > There are several metrics which might show what the difference is > between different library sizes, but for the sake of argument, I'll > pick one. The chance of drawing a given card in your opening hand is > always something of interest to Jyhad players - especially with cards > like Information Highway, which are unique and highly useful at the > start of a game. This is also an area that is very strongly effected > by deck size. I think the one that interest me most is the chance of clumping and the length of clumps. Also, how long will you have to wait (that is, how many library cards will you have to draw on average) before drawing your first copy card X when you've put Y copies of card X in your library? That opening hand draws isn't much different between large and small decks was sort of my intuitive opinion on the matter anyway. But I think deck size has a much more signficant affect on these other issue (again for no solid reason other than intuition). > Of course, there are other metrics for measuring the benefit of a > smaller deck, but most of them are going to be considerably more > complicated. Agreed. These seems like things that would be hard prove or disprove with rigourous analysis. > People can talk > about the "flow" of a deck, but until you have some sort of statistical > or empirical evidence to back it, I don't see that it means much. Why? If you're winning and losing games based on card flow, it's absolutely critical. Just because you're not sure whether the size of the deck actually affects this doesn't make the issue trivial. It just means no one can prove whether keeping deck size minimal is really important or not. Fred

"CthuluKitty" <vtana...@riseup.net> wrote in message news:1137048456....@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > In any case, there are certainly good arguments for always building to > 90. This confuses me. What argument is there, apart from running out of cards? Depending on the type of deck, beyond some certain level, you're not going to affect that much by adding more cards. Fred

On Thu, 12 Jan 2006 12:33:00 -0700, Fred Scott <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: > "Chris Berger" <ark...@ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote in message > news:1137041640....@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... >> I tend to agree with you, Peter, but I wonder what a statistical >> anylsis will show. I'll take a crack, not knowing at the beginning >> what the results will be (this, of course, could be dangerous - as any >> lawyer will tell you, never ask a question to which you don't already >> know the answer). >> >> There are several metrics which might show what the difference is >> between different library sizes, but for the sake of argument, I'll >> pick one. The chance of drawing a given card in your opening hand is >> always something of interest to Jyhad players - especially with cards >> like Information Highway, which are unique and highly useful at the >> start of a game. This is also an area that is very strongly effected >> by deck size. > > I think the one that interest me most is the chance of clumping and > the length of clumps. Also, how long will you have to wait (that is, > how many library cards will you have to draw on average) before > drawing your first copy card X when you've put Y copies of card X > in your library? That opening hand draws isn't much different > between large and small decks was sort of my intuitive opinion on > the matter anyway. But I think deck size has a much more signficant > affect on these other issue (again for no solid reason other than > intuition). I guess you might wish to consider taking a look at Ira's probability tool: http://ira.mudder.net/cards.php It's kind of designed to answer questions like this. It uses a trial-and-error algorythm, which I consider inferior to theoretical mathematical calculations, but which is probably more convincing to a lot of more practical people. Also, depending on your speed, you may set the number of tries to a high number and get closer to an accurate result. -- Bye, Daneel

Fred Scott wrote: > > > > There are several metrics which might show what the difference is > > between different library sizes, but for the sake of argument, I'll > > pick one. The chance of drawing a given card in your opening hand is > > always something of interest to Jyhad players - especially with cards > > like Information Highway, which are unique and highly useful at the > > start of a game. This is also an area that is very strongly effected > > by deck size. > > I think the one that interest me most is the chance of clumping and > the length of clumps. Also, how long will you have to wait (that is, > how many library cards will you have to draw on average) before > drawing your first copy card X when you've put Y copies of card X > in your library? That opening hand draws isn't much different > between large and small decks was sort of my intuitive opinion on > the matter anyway. But I think deck size has a much more signficant > affect on these other issue (again for no solid reason other than > intuition). > I said that this was an analysis of your "opening hand", which was perhaps a mistake. It's actually the analysis of any given 7 cards in your deck, whether they're the first 7 or the last 7 or somewhere in between. The chance of having 2+ of a given card in any 7 card slice is a good indication of the chance of clumping. To find out how long you will have to wait before drawing card X, ~90% of the time, we would figure out 2 standard deviations away from the average time to draw card X (starting from any point in the deck). That's actually not the hardest calculation in the world, and maybe I'll do it tonight if I get a chance, though it's been a while since college statistics class - I'll have to look up the formulas. But I will go on record right now as saying I'm sure it's not very much improved for a 40 card deck vs. 80 cards. > > People can talk > > about the "flow" of a deck, but until you have some sort of statistical > > or empirical evidence to back it, I don't see that it means much. > > Why? If you're winning and losing games based on card flow, it's > absolutely critical. > *IF*, yes. More likely you're perceiving that you're winning and losing games based on the perception of card flow. Card flow has a lot more to do with stuff like per-card opportunity cost, having the correct proportions of card-types, most of your minions being able to play most of your cards, using cards with multiple applications, etc... Sure, if you include that, then card flow is a huge part of winning and losing. If you tell me that it "feels like" a 60 card deck flows better than a 90 card deck... that doesn't really mean much. Poker players may tell you that it seems like AK in the hole *always* loses to a small pocket pair, but statistically, it's a coin-flip - they just happen to remember the times that they lose a lot more strongly.

"Chris Berger" <ark...@ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote in message news:1137107984.8...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > Fred Scott wrote: >> > People can talk >> > about the "flow" of a deck, but until you have some sort of statistical >> > or empirical evidence to back it, I don't see that it means much. >> >> Why? If you're winning and losing games based on card flow, it's >> absolutely critical. >> > *IF*, yes. More likely you're perceiving that you're winning and > losing games based on the perception of card flow. Card flow has a lot > more to do with stuff like per-card opportunity cost, having the > correct proportions of card-types, most of your minions being able to > play most of your cards, using cards with multiple applications, etc... > Sure, if you include that, then card flow is a huge part of winning > and losing. Well, yes, that's all part of card flow, agreed. I was kind of implicitly referring to how card flow is affected by deck size only in this context. I'm saying I don't perceive I get as many clumps and I don't get as bad of clumps with smaller decks. I believe the difference is subtle but meaningful. > If you tell me that it "feels like" a 60 card deck flows > better than a 90 card deck... that doesn't really mean much. Actually, from what I've read, such intuition may be very meaningful or very misleading. It's possible I'm fooling myself, I suppose. But it's also possible I'm right. Certainly, I think smaller decks are only good in this sense. The question is how good? Totally marginal, a fraction of a percentage chance of making a difference, or actually meaningful. > Poker > players may tell you that it seems like AK in the hole *always* loses > to a small pocket pair, but statistically, it's a coin-flip - they just > happen to remember the times that they lose a lot more strongly. That's an example of how it can be misleading, yes. Fred

Fred Scott wrote: > > Actually, from what I've read, such intuition may be very meaningful > or very misleading. It's possible I'm fooling myself, I suppose. > But it's also possible I'm right. Certainly, I think smaller decks > are only good in this sense. The question is how good? Totally > marginal, a fraction of a percentage chance of making a difference, > or actually meaningful. > Okay, Fred. We can both agree on the above paragraph. Either you're coming along nicely in reasonable argument, or you've been simply misunderstood by some others on this NG, or I'm catching some of your personal dementia... ;) Since I've been accused of being an unreasonable ass on r.g.t-c.j before, I'll go with the latter. Or else you've caught some of *my* personal dementia... My opinion is that it's totally marginal, or at least more marginal than the benefits of a larger deck (though, with decks that play a particularly small number of cards per turn, the benefits of a larger deck would, it's true, be mostly moot - it's just that most decks I play with are more likely to use most of the library than not). Your opinion is that it's actually meaningful. But it hasn't necessarily been proven either way (I think I've shown that it's *likely* to be marginal, based on other data, but I could be wrong). My fiance will hurt me if I spend another hour doing calculations like I did last night, so I'll wait till she's asleep and if I haven't had another beer or two by then, I'll try and figure out how to do standard deviations on deck distributions. ;) Otherwise, any statistics majors out there, feel free to have a go...

"Chris Berger" <ark...@ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote in message news:1137125431.8...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > > Fred Scott wrote: >> >> Actually, from what I've read, such intuition may be very meaningful >> or very misleading. It's possible I'm fooling myself, I suppose. >> But it's also possible I'm right. Certainly, I think smaller decks >> are only good in this sense. The question is how good? Totally >> marginal, a fraction of a percentage chance of making a difference, >> or actually meaningful. [snip agreement paragraph] > My opinion is that it's totally marginal, or at least more marginal > than the benefits of a larger deck (though, with decks that play a > particularly small number of cards per turn, the benefits of a larger > deck would, it's true, be mostly moot - it's just that most decks I > play with are more likely to use most of the library than not). Your > opinion is that it's actually meaningful. But it hasn't necessarily > been proven either way (I think I've shown that it's *likely* to be > marginal, based on other data, but I could be wrong). My fiance will > hurt me if I spend another hour doing calculations like I did last > night, so I'll wait till she's asleep and if I haven't had another beer > or two by then, I'll try and figure out how to do standard deviations > on deck distributions. ;) Otherwise, any statistics majors out there, > feel free to have a go... I don't have time to get into any stats analysis right now either, but I think your earlier work may be leaving out another important factor in card-play: the percentages you calculated for "any seven cards in the library" don't take into account the fact that in VTES, cards are replaced when played and the windows for playing different cards affect the playability of other cards that may also be in your hand. That is, the makeup of the seven cards that happen to be in your hand at any one time affects which of those seven cards are currently playable, which in turn affects which cards are going to become playable when you draw replacements in the course of the game. I don't know if that was very intelligible... hopefully it didn't come out as complete nonsense. :-) What I'm trying to say is, it's important in VTES not only whether you have 1 or 2 or 0 copies of a particular card in your hand when you draw 7 random cards. It's also important what combinations those cards create, and how frequently you'll re-assemble combinations as you go through the library, given card-flow rates that result from your particular set of of minions, permanents, and hand. Josh not a stats major, but plays one on rgtcj

Joshua Duffin wrote: That is, the > makeup of the seven cards that happen to be in your hand at any one time > affects which of those seven cards are currently playable, which in turn > affects which cards are going to become playable when you draw replacements > in the course of the game. This is very true, and something I take into consideration, especially when building a combat deck (see how I kinda brought that around to relate to the original post a little?) Ratios of card types is so important. Card typrs being Master Trifle Action Equipment Retainers Allies Action Modifier Combat Reaction The ratio of action cards to action modifiers is very important - if the numbers are right, I can expect to move more cards during the actions I take, etc.

Joshua Duffin wrote: > "Chris Berger" <ark...@ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote in message > news:1137125431.8...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > > > > Fred Scott wrote: > >> snip some stuff > > I don't have time to get into any stats analysis right now either, but I > think your earlier work may be leaving out another important factor in > card-play: the percentages you calculated for "any seven cards in the > library" don't take into account the fact that in VTES, cards are replaced > when played and the windows for playing different cards affect the > playability of other cards that may also be in your hand. That is, the > makeup of the seven cards that happen to be in your hand at any one time > affects which of those seven cards are currently playable, which in turn > affects which cards are going to become playable when you draw replacements > in the course of the game. > > I don't know if that was very intelligible... hopefully it didn't come out > as complete nonsense. :-) What I'm trying to say is, it's important in > VTES not only whether you have 1 or 2 or 0 copies of a particular card in > your hand when you draw 7 random cards. It's also important what > combinations those cards create, and how frequently you'll re-assemble > combinations as you go through the library, given card-flow rates that > result from your particular set of of minions, permanents, and hand. > I think I understood. From what I've read, I think some people haven't been considering it. Considering including X copies of a unique card is something to think about, but also all copies of all unique cards in the deck. Expanding on the Alamut example, if I include 4 Alamuts in a 90 card deck to help draw it early, I know I might run into 3 cards I have to discard later in the game. Now if I also include 4 Market Squares and 4 Assamite Hunting Grounds (not saying you'd do this, just follow with me), once I get Alamut, Market Square, and HG in play, I have 9 cards in my deck that are essentially dead cards. If an average game is 12 turns, I'll have to use most of my discard phase actions just to clear cards that I can't play. A 60 card deck with 3/3/3, will only have up to 6 cards to discard once it gets one of each in play. Without cards like The Barrens in your deck, you have a limited resource in Discard Phase Actions which you must compare against something you can control, like deck size and the risk of decking yourself. Now going from uniques to card types, we can see how clumping can really screw you. If it is your turn, reaction cards in hand are all but worthless (if I see I have Wakes in my hand, I might tap more minions, so knowledge gives some value, even if I can't play it now). So during your turn you play cards that are not reaction cards and have y% chance to replace it with a reaction card. I am creating a virtual minus hand size for myself, which in turn makes it harder to play the other cards in my hand. I wish I knew the math to see how 60 cards vs 90 cards works out, but if 33% of your deck is one card type you have 20 cards vs 30 of one type. With 30 cards you are more likely to clog your hand out with cards of a specific type during any given turn. And if you clog your hand too badly and then can't play those cards, it takes a long time to clear the jam. Combat decks face this all the time with number of rushes vs number of combat cards. Since I can't prove anything, I'll stop here. Maybe some with the math skills can prove or disprove my theories. Also as an aside, it looked like those that believed decks less than 90 cards were better were about to win some converts and then decking became a strategy. Oh well, I still love Bloodlines (go The Baron!!!!). Later, ~Rehlow

> Judgement, I guess. I'd much rather have the advantage of a better > flowing deck than worry about running out of cards in those once-in-a- > blue-moon games where it would make a difference. > > To be honest, I think so many people build 90-card decks because they > can't bear to remove cards from it, even though it's a good idea > on balance. > > Fred In a toolbox deck, particularly one that uses the barrens, aura reading, infernal pursuit, or something similar, it is useful to use 90 cards just to fit in all your tools. It isn't so much that you plan to use every card, rather that you plan to use your discard phase to dump the things you don't need. I've run decks with moderate intercept before, with 3-5 permanent intercept cards and 10-12 transient intercept, and used discard phases and aura reading to dump the excess if I wasn't facing heavy stealth. I know the tendency around here is for optimized decks, but for a more generalist deck that plans to use discards, 90 is a fine size. -Dave Clooney Camarilla threat, anyone?

On 13 Jan 2006 21:30:30 -0800, quickbeam <dcqui...@yahoo.com> wrote: > In a toolbox deck, particularly one that uses the barrens, aura > reading, infernal pursuit, or something similar, it is useful to use 90 > cards just to fit in all your tools. It isn't so much that you plan to > use every card, rather that you plan to use your discard phase to dump > the things you don't need. I've run decks with moderate intercept > before, with 3-5 permanent intercept cards and 10-12 transient > intercept, and used discard phases and aura reading to dump the excess > if I wasn't facing heavy stealth. > > I know the tendency around here is for optimized decks, but for a more > generalist deck that plans to use discards, 90 is a fine size. One tournament deck I built was designed to run out of cards when I score my last VP, and in the meantime provide that much better card flow. It turned out to be around 67 cards in the end, had the punch, and was generally better in more games than a 90-card version would have been. Sure, I did lose every now and then because of a stalemate situation depleted my library and the 20-some extra cards my opponents had proved to be decisive, but in the majority of cases I scored what I could before actually running out of cards (or won with less than a full hand, as it happened sometimes). I guess one point could be, if you bolt some flush tech and a tangential angle on top of an otherwise compact deck, you'll end up with more flexibility at a cost to card flow. If you don't include flush tech, your card flow may suffer even more. > Camarilla threat, anyone? Heh. I actually tried to use that card. ;) -- Bye, Daneel

"quickbeam" <dcqui...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1137216630.7...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com... I wrote: >> Judgement, I guess. I'd much rather have the advantage of a better >> flowing deck than worry about running out of cards in those once-in-a- >> blue-moon games where it would make a difference. >> >> To be honest, I think so many people build 90-card decks because they >> can't bear to remove cards from it, even though it's a good idea >> on balance. (meant to say, it's NOT a good idea, on balance) > > In a toolbox deck, particularly one that uses the barrens, aura > reading, infernal pursuit, or something similar, it is useful to use 90 > cards just to fit in all your tools. It isn't so much that you plan to > use every card, rather that you plan to use your discard phase to dump > the things you don't need. Hmm. That's an interesting idea but I don't think it's exactly right unless you're building kinds of decks you'd expect to run out of cards even with 90 cards. (In which case, it may not be so good to use things like The Barrens.) The problem with the concept is however many extra cards we're talking about will still wind up at the bottom of your deck, not helping you and just making things more random and therefore bad. For instance, say you're considering adding 12 more cards to a 78-card deck for the sole purpose of varying your toolbox cards more widely. There's only three possibilities in any given game you will play with this deck: 1) You will not run out of cards at all, whether it has 78 or 90 cards. Where this is the case, all you're done is add 12 extra cards that wound up at the bottom of your deck or randomly caused one of your original 78 cards to wind up there in its place. This is totally bad except insofar as one of the new cards turns out to be the one you happened to need that game in place of one of the original 78. The chances of this happening and helping you are, at best, a wash with the chances that a new card is drawn and not wanted in place of one of the original ones that was needed (unless your original 78 cards were poorer choices than the additional 12, which shouldn't be the case). 2) You would run out of the original 78 cards just using The Barrens and the like but the additional 12 cards prevent this. I can see where this would be an improvement. The way I think about this myself is to say that I'm adding The Barrens for my card churn, which is what's good about The Barrens. OK, now how many cards do I need in the deck to make sure I usually don't run out? More than 78? Then I better have more than 78 cards in the deck. If the number is 90 or higher, then I better have a 90-card deck. 3) You would run out either way, but faster with the 78-card deck. If The Barrens (and other such cards) makes even 90-card decks run out a signficant amount of the time, you may want to reconsider if you want to use them. But you'd certainly want the 90 card deck, sure. In practice, I've usually found that card churners don't make my 78-card decks run out very often. Therefore, if I want the card churners, I add them but don't bother increasing the deck size. (I suppose that means I might want to consider reducing the size of my decks that don't have card churners like that but I guess I don't think about the issue that finely.) As always, it depends on what you're doing, though. I can see where they might cause problems in certain types of decks if you didn't increase deck size. By the way, another card that I've found is just as good or a better card churner than The Barrens is Dreams of the Sphinx. In the types of decks I build and the types of games I seem to get into, the six sure immediate card draws in three turns tend to be enough better than the one-per-turn over time to justify the pool spent on it. Depending on how many churners I'm prepared to add, I usually choose Dreams as my first one, Barrens as my second, and then more copies of Dreams beyond that. (I don't usually use decks that would make use of Aura Reading so I don't know where that fits.) Fred