Deck list - comments appreciated

Idea is to push forward with weenie camera phone bleeds, and then have Samat use Hidden Lurker to torp+eat blocking minions. I have had problems with pulling off the 4-card combo (hidden, disguised, weapon, amaranth) but I think the way to go is to use Vast Wealth/Cristos to get equipment on Samat, and then focus on hidden/ amaranth combo. Any suggestions/comments?? Deck Name: Archon gets the munchies Created By: Christian Nislev Description: Samat tools up and starts munching… Crypt: (12 cards, Min: 8, Max: 24, Avg: 3,84) ---------------------------------------------- 4 Samat Ramal-Ra OBF pre ser tha 6 Follower of Set 2 Cristos Mantigo obf cel pre dom aus 5 !Toreador 1 Mustafa Rahman dom 2 Tremere 1 Ohanna dom 2 Malkavian 1 Samson dom 2 !Ventrue 1 Marcianna Giovanni dom 2 Giovanni 1 Hannah Redmonds obf tha 2 Caitiff 1 Krid obf 2 Nosferatu Library: (60 cards) ------------------- Master (11 cards) 2 Blood Doll 2 Vessel 1 Minion Tap 2 Vast Wealth 1 Barrens 1 Fragment of the Book of Nod 2 Nod Action modifier (12 cards) 6 Hidden Lurker 6 Swallowed by the Night Combat (14 cards) 6 Disguised Weapon 6 Amaranth 2 Autonomic Mastery Equipment (15 cards) 2 IR Goggles 1 Improvised Flamethrower 3 Rowan Ring 2 Ivory Bow 1 Sire's Index Finger 1 Sargon Fragment 5 Camera Phones Reaction (8 cards) 5 Deflection 3 Delaying Tactics

On 26 Mrz., 16:44, cnislev <c.nis...@gmail.com> wrote: > Idea is to push forward with weenie camera phone bleeds, and then have > Samat use Hidden Lurker to torp+eat blocking minions. > > I have had problems with pulling off the 4-card combo (hidden, > disguised, weapon, amaranth) but I think the way to go is to use Vast > Wealth/Cristos to get equipment on Samat, and then focus on hidden/ > amaranth combo. so it's a bit like Tariq eats the world, but without inbuilt rush und untap ability :) > Deck Name: Archon gets the munchies > Created By: Christian Nislev > Description: Samat tools up and starts munching… > > Crypt: (12 cards, Min: 8, Max: 24, Avg: 3,84) > ---------------------------------------------- > 4 Samat Ramal-Ra OBF pre ser tha 6 Follower of Set > 2 Cristos Mantigo obf cel pre dom aus 5 !Toreador > 1 Mustafa Rahman dom 2 Tremere > 1 Ohanna dom 2 Malkavian > 1 Samson dom 2 !Ventrue > 1 Marcianna Giovanni dom 2 Giovanni > 1 Hannah Redmonds obf tha 2 Caitiff > 1 Krid obf 2 Nosferatu > > Library: (60 cards) > ------------------- > > Master (11 cards) > 2 Blood Doll > 2 Vessel > 1 Minion Tap you don't need the tap. maybe replace with a dreams of the sphinx. > 2 Vast Wealth > 1 Barrens > 1 Fragment of the Book of Nod > 2 Nod get rid of the Nod. > Action modifier (12 cards) > 6 Hidden Lurker > 6 Swallowed by the Night if you shown what you do people tend to well just not block your bleeds for 1, so maybe add in some Conditionings for that extra oomph? and probably up the lurkers to 8 since you're really dependent on them with no other rushes to get reliably into combat with Samat. > Combat (14 cards) > 6 Disguised Weapon I personally would prefer to use concealed weapons so your weenie can pack out the suprise rowan ring :) > 6 Amaranth > 2 Autonomic Mastery don't need these. maybe > > Equipment (15 cards) > 2 IR Goggles > 1 Improvised Flamethrower > 3 Rowan Ring > 2 Ivory Bow > 1 Sire's Index Finger > 1 Sargon Fragment > 5 Camera Phones I personally would remove the 5 phones for something like 2 fake out, 2 dodge and 2 veil the legions > Reaction (8 cards) > 5 Deflection > 3 Delaying Tactics would go to 4 flicks, 2 DT's and 2 on the qui vive

On Mar 26, 5:05 pm, bernd.schw...@firstdata.de wrote: > On 26 Mrz., 16:44, cnislev <c.nis...@gmail.com> wrote: > > 2 Vast Wealth > > 1 Barrens > > 1 Fragment of the Book of Nod > > 2 Nod > > get rid of the Nod. > > Combat (14 cards) > > 6 Disguised Weapon > > I personally would prefer to use concealed weapons so your weenie can > pack out the suprise rowan ring :) Concealed does not allow agg or unique qeapons, disguised is the correct choice here, also why nod is included > > > 6 Amaranth > > 2 Autonomic Mastery > > don't need these. maybe Very nice for killing those pesky war ghouls > > 5 Camera Phones > > I personally would remove the 5 phones for something like 2 fake out, > 2 dodge and 2 veil the legions It is his only bleed boost > > Reaction (8 cards) > > 5 Deflection > > 3 Delaying Tactics > > would go to 4 flicks, 2 DT's and 2 on the qui vive Once you have HL'ed enough minions people tend to stop blocking you, making OtQV lees usefull. But one or two would be good...

> > I personally would prefer to use concealed weapons so your weenie can > > pack out the suprise rowan ring :) > > Concealed does not allow agg or unique qeapons, disguised is the > correct choice here, also why nod is included forgot that...silly me :(

[ quoted text not captured ] Monster and/or Temptation will allow Samat to untap after HL to remain a threat for more HL. btw Sometimes people will forget you have Temptation on Samat i.e. he can be untapped during an action. Heidelberg Castle will help control blood (equipment) on Samat and Co. Pier 13 Baltimore w/ Nod will save you actions 1-2 Graverobbing whats not to like 3 DI there are many cards that can screw this deck. Can't Take it with You and Carlton Van Wick come to mind Gregory Winter might also find a place but probably not. Matt

Howdy, On Mar 26, 8:44 am, cnislev <c.nis...@gmail.com> wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] Magic of the Smith instead of Cristos/Nod/Vast Wealth? Then you can use fewer copies of your unique weapons. A Rutor's Hand for Samat (to go with the Monster and Temptation already suggested)? NRA PAC? One or two Cloak or Veil for the killing bleeds (when they will definitely block and see whether you have a Hidden Lurker in hand instead of taking it)? Pier 13 is a good idea. I don't really see the need for The Barrens and the (undefendable) Fragment. I'd also go with more stealth (and Magic) instead of Disguised Weapon - it'll cost you an action to equip, but then the rest can be something that won't be more or less useless. Finally, Camera Phones for dom weenies seems...suboptimal. If you paid a little more and got pre and dom/pre weenies, you could put Staredowns in to make the initial combats less painful, while still having some Deflection capability. Samat could play them too, if needed. Effective Management and/or Info Highway might help you keep weenies in play. Hope that helps, Alex

On Mar 26, 1:26 pm, wumpus <wump...@comcast.net> wrote: > Howdy, > > Magic of the Smith instead of Cristos/Nod/Vast Wealth? Then you can > use fewer copies of your unique weapons. A Rutor's Hand for Samat (to > go with the Monster and Temptation already suggested)? NRA PAC? One > or two Cloak or Veil for the killing bleeds (when they will definitely > block and see whether you have a Hidden Lurker in hand instead of > taking it)? Pier 13 is a good idea. > > I don't really see the need for The Barrens and the (undefendable) > Fragment. I'd also go with more stealth (and Magic) instead of > Disguised Weapon - it'll cost you an action to equip, but then the > rest can be something that won't be more or less useless. > > Finally, Camera Phones for dom weenies seems...suboptimal. If you > paid a little more and got pre and dom/pre weenies, you could put > Staredowns in to make the initial combats less painful, while still > having some Deflection capability. Samat could play them too, if > needed. Effective Management and/or Info Highway might help you keep > weenies in play. > > Hope that helps, > Alex- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Oh, and a Dominate master and Sport Bike for Samat... He should end most turns untapped if his threat is working. Alex

The original poster wrote: > Idea is to push forward with weenie camera phone bleeds, and then have > Samat use Hidden Lurker to torp+eat blocking minions. It amazes me that year after year people keep posting decks that attempt to use Hidden Lurker. Public service announcement: all of you, please stop. Hidden Lurker is a terrible card because it requires that your first minion get blocked, fight the blocking minion, and only then do you get a chance to move in and fight with your intended combat minion. This causes several major problems: (1) If the original acting minion can't fight, there's a very good chance that it will go to torpor. (2) If the original acting minion can fight, why bother sending in a second one? (3) Your entire combat system can be completely shut down if your prey just stops blocking you, or only blocks you with disposable weenies. Your trick just might work out a couple times if no one at the table knows what you're doing, though that's less likely now that you've posted the deck on the newsgroup. Even then, you probably won't win any games. Once people know what the deck does, they will simply refuse to block you with any important minions, or only do so when they have sufficient combat abilities to trump your extremely predictable offense, which is easy to do. My suspicion is that there isn't really a way you could modify this deck to solve those problems. The concept is flawed from the get-go.

[ quoted text not captured ] so?!? should we all start playing super-powered lame decks cause they are effective. Why not try to have some fun with bad cards?

On Mar 27, 9:37 am, bernd.schw...@firstdata.de wrote: > so?!? should we all start playing super-powered lame decks cause they > are effective. Why not try to have some fun with bad cards The point about Hidden Lurker is that it entierly relies on your opponents being willing to be comepletely complicit in you killing them. There are plenty of bad cards that are fun to build decks around that *don't* require your opponents to conspire with you to make them work. You wanna make Werewolf Packs into Abominations? Go nuts! You wanna start each and every one of your deck strategies with "First, you clan impersonate..." Awe. Some. There is nothing at all wrong with trying to have fun with bad cards. Hidden Lurker is beyond that. It is a bad card that only does *anything* if your opponents say "Huh. If I block your bleed of 2, the Rabbat is going to Hidden Lurker in and kill my huge important minion. I'd better block that bleed of 2 then!" If you want to make fun decks out of bad cards, go nuts and have fun. But it is a bad idea to try and make fun decks out of bad cards that require your opponents to conspire with you to make them work at all. -Peter

Peter D Bakija wrote: > Hidden Lurker is beyond that. It is a bad card that only does > *anything* if your opponents say "Huh. If I block your bleed of 2, the > Rabbat is going to Hidden Lurker in and kill my huge important minion. > I'd better block that bleed of 2 then!" Kind of like a one-card infinite-responsible-stealth solution that returns to your hand. Totally weak.

some guy wrote: > so?!? should we all start playing super-powered lame decks cause they > are effective. Why not try to have some fun with bad cards? I more or less agree with Peter's points, which are similar to some of the ones I originally made. Additionally, the original poster asked for comments on a deck. I pointed out that the deck in question is conceptually flawed from the standpoint of wanting to win games. If your goal is to do something other than win games, you (or the OP) can ignore that advice. That said, there's plenty of ground between net decking tier one decks from the TWDA and building horrible trick combat decks that can't win. I like to build decks that I consider fairly original, often trying to find uses for cards that aren't seeing much play, but I always think about the goals of the game, which are ousting your prey and not getting ousted by your predator. There are a lot of cards that aren't proven components of winning decks, but that could very well be good in competetive play. This is obviously most often true for new cards. Hidden Lurker is not new. It has been around since 1994 (though the text has changed a few times), and it has always been a bad card. Your definition of fun probably differs from mine, but I think the game is best when everyone is playing decks that are built with the intent of trying to win. This is especially true given the multi- player nature of the game. It is really annoying when someone at a table brings a terrible deck and hands the game to someone else. Unfortunately, this happens a lot, and I would prefer to see it far less often. Jesse

[ quoted text not captured ] Answer to problem: All actions are so heinous, target *must* block. Bleeds of 3+ are a good example (lots of vamps in group 3-5 of capacity 5 or less with AUS (Pulse of Canaille)). Change of Target works well with Hidden Lurker, especially as a response to your reason #2. Hidden Lurker still terrible in high damage prevention metagame however. But of course Rabbat's special gets around that... Posted deck list down-group somewhere. best - chris

[ quoted text not captured ] Thank you LSJ. In my view, the major upside of hidden lurker is that its very card efficient. When I have played that one card, I only have to worry about manouvering away from grapples, apart from that the other minion WILL go to torpor. And I can then focus the rest of the deck on doing other stuff. The challenge, then, (and I LIKE challenges, perhaps one of the reasons I started on this deck) with Hidden Lurker is to produce actions that ousts your prey/wins you the game if theyre not blocked. That IS after all one of the most common ways of winning games: by taking succesfull actions. Bleeding for 2 with 3-4 minions each turn (weenies with camera phones) is my attempt at this. Bounce is not a viable defence against this, and if a bleed is blocked, I "win". Arguably not a fantastic solution, but it fits well with the rest of the deck, and is cheap and reliable. Graverobbing is a nasty card (thanks for the heads up Wedge). Another card I was considering was Zoning Board - in short, the more good actions you can direct at your prey/predator, the better. If they don't block, your chances of winning are improved. And once the non- lurking minions have acted, Samat can perhaps stealth a bleed/other action through, or just straightforward bleed/bruise. Perhaps the trick is to make the hidden lurker "threat"-part of the deck take up as few card slots as possible, and let the "nasty action" bit take up as much as possible. I shall go away and contemplate..... And finally, this was an attempt to use Samat AND his special ability, more than it was an attempt at building a TWD. Jcrossnicker..., the gauntlet is down for you to come up with a better attempt at this.

On Mar 27, 10:34 am, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > Kind of like a one-card infinite-responsible-stealth solution that returns to > your hand. > > Totally weak. 1 card, or 6 cards? Or 8 cards? 'Cause if it is 1 card, you are highly unlikely to have it hand when you need it the first time they block you ('cause they don't know what you are doing). If it is enough so that you have them early when you need them (when people are likely to block 'cause they don't know the trick), you need 8+ of them. At which point you play 1, and then they clog your hand for the rest of the game (along with all the rest of the combat support built into the deck to make sure that Rabbat or whoever can maintain close range and not get killed when she gets counter rushed). And your strategy then becomes "My dudes bleed for 1. End of turn." Which isn't the most optimal ousting strategy. Now, on the other hand, if you play your Rabbat Hidden Lurker deck, horrify everyone with it the one time they block, and then bring it back next week to the same group looking exactly the same, but you took all the Hidden Lurkers out and replaced them with something good, *then* you might be on to something... :-) -Peter

Librarian wrote: > Answer to problem: All actions are so heinous, target *must* block. > Bleeds of 3+ are a good example (lots of vamps in group 3-5 of capacity > 5 or less with AUS (Pulse of Canaille)). Change of Target works well > with Hidden Lurker, especially as a response to your reason #2. This theory has been put forward a thousand times, and it still does not actually work in real games of VTES. There is no such thing as an action that someone must block. Bleeding is indeed the most obvious example of a heinous action, but bounce, reduce, and heavy bloat are all ways to effectively ignore it. Even supposing that you did get set up with a ton of permanent bleed (if your plan is to use Pulse for this, the high blood cost is yet another factor against you), your prey can take those bleeds up until the point when she's almost ousted, and then start blocking. She might start losing minions left and right at that point, but she can stop probably you from getting your VP. Change of Target ends the action. No action modifiers can be played after it. > Hidden Lurker still terrible in high damage prevention metagame however. > But of course Rabbat's special gets around that... Though it does not get around maneuvers, range setting, or Immortal Grapple, or some of the more esoteric defenses out there. > Posted deck list down-group somewhere. I'll take a look.... Jesse

Peter D Bakija wrote: > On Mar 27, 10:34 am, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: >> Kind of like a one-card infinite-responsible-stealth solution that returns to >> your hand. >> >> Totally weak. > > 1 card, or 6 cards? Or 8 cards? 'Cause if it is 1 card, you are highly > unlikely to have it hand when you need it the first time they block > you ('cause they don't know what you are doing). Whatever you were thinking. I was just pointing out that the argument you presented (namely: they know if they block, they'll die, so they won't block even when the action is painful), can be paraphrased as above.

cnislev challenged me: > And finally, this was an attempt to use Samat AND his special ability, > more than it was an attempt at building a TWD. Jcrossnicker..., the > gauntlet is down for you to come up with a better attempt at this. Dude, you can throw down gauntlets wherever you like, but I don't have any interest in taking that challenge, either in theory or in practice. My point wasn't that you did a bad job of building the deck, but that the idea is flawed. I'm not really interested in trying to improve it. Jesse

On Mar 27, 1:11 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > Whatever you were thinking. I was just pointing out that the argument you > presented (namely: they know if they block, they'll die, so they won't block > even when the action is painful), can be paraphrased as above. It certainly can. But doing so doesn't make Hidden Lurker suddenly become a good card to actually use. -Peter

[ quoted text not captured ] True, talking won't make a card become better or worse. Card text. But pointing out things that are being overlooked in a discussion on deck building (for instance, by paraphrasing as above) may help a deck builder build a better deck.

On Mar 27, 2:27 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > But pointing out things that are being overlooked in a discussion on deck > building (for instance, by paraphrasing as above) may help a deck builder build > a better deck. Fair enough. But so might pointing out that their plan is flawed in the first place, 'cause they are using bad cards :-) -Peter

[ quoted text not captured ] The claim that it's bad because it acts, in that deck, like a "don't block me" card that you don't have to play to get the "don't block" effect is suspect. Saying that it has that effect isn't a reason not to try to use it for that effect.

On Mar 27, 4:13 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > The claim that it's bad because it acts, in that deck, like a "don't block me" > card that you don't have to play to get the "don't block" effect is suspect. The claim is that it is bad 'cause it is bad. The example I game was just an example of one of the many reasons that it is bad. I could have used many other examples, but I figured that one was easy and humorous. > Saying that it has that effect isn't a reason not to try to use it for that effect. Saying it has that effect is one of many reasons why the card is not real useful. Yes. It might convince your prey to not block you. In which case your hand becomes jammed with Hidden Lurkers and cards that you were going to play when you Hidden Lurkered in. And the actions you take that aren't being blocked by your prey become less and less useful as your hand becomes more and more jammed with things you can't play, as you aren't being blocked. Cards that require your prey to do exactly what you want them to do tend to not work out so well in the long run. Hidden Lurker is such a card. Really. I have tried. Over and over and over again. To make Hidden Lurker useful. It isn't. And one of the main reasons is 'cause once you pull off the trick once, it never works again. -Peter

[ quoted text not captured ] The trick is to make them afraid to block you. That is all, nothing else. You are not supposed to need to play cards. Everything should be on the table. There are no surprises. There is only the threat. Are you going to lose a minion this turn? Matt

On Mar 27, 4:59 pm, wedge <matt...@gmail.com> wrote: > The trick is to make them afraid to block you. That is all, nothing > else. > You are not supposed to need to play cards. Everything should be on > the table. > There are no surprises. There is only the threat. Are you going to > lose a minion this turn? Yes. I realize that. Good luck with that, using Hidden Lurker as the main mechanism of making them afraid of you. And still being able to win games. -Peter

LSJ wrote: > Peter D Bakija wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] I think you're being too literal, Scott. I'd suggest that Noal McDonald discussing Uriah Winter made Uriah a much better card. Etc. Kevin M., Prince of Las Vegas "Know your enemy and know yourself; in one-thousand battles you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, *The Art of War* "Contentment...Complacency...Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier Please visit VTESville daily! http://vtesville.myminicity.com/

[ quoted text not captured ] > Matt- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Another solution, but not one for this deck, is simple: you want to fight them... so rush them. HL could be a viable option with a superstar, disciplineless rush and obf weenies. Obf weenie does a "sniper shot rush" at 2+ stealth, Behind You or similar to try get out of harms way... then Superstar HLs for the kill. Combined with other Rush-Oust gear and the trick is viable. Also works handily with a horde of medium-cap Cel-Obf minions (Dacin Dana, Ruth McGinley, [Insert Assamite Here]) who can negate any maneuvering shennanigans of your target w/ their Cel.

On Mar 28, 8:16 am, Juggernaut1981 <brasscompo...@gmail.com> wrote: > Another solution, but not one for this deck, is simple: you want to > fight them... so rush them. HL could be a viable option with a > superstar, disciplineless rush and obf weenies. Obf weenie does a > "sniper shot rush" at 2+ stealth, Behind You or similar to try get out > of harms way... then Superstar HLs for the kill. Hidden Lurker only works of someone blocks you. -Peter

[ quoted text not captured ] Then hope like crap there is a wall deck as your prey...or Plan B your deck. No deck should be without a viable Plan B. For most decks, this is identifying a few cards that will let you push into a useful bleed module for at least one to two ousts...