Hi. just was alerted to this post on an AEG forum... check it out:
http://www.meatpatrol.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=580
How does this post apply to VTES? Does it apply to VTES?
I mean in a way, it seems this poster is right... VTES (thogh she was
referring to L5R...) seems to be more about WHAT you're playing at a
table (and where you're sitting) rather than HOW well you're playing
what you have!
Or not... just thoughts randomly passing through my brain that I'm
sharing for the world at large...
Comments? Flames? Huhs?
IMHO, VTES does a pretty good job of avoiding these issues. Essentially
you are there to kill your prey and avoid being killed in the process.
There are four traditional methods of doing this: bleeding, voting,
combat, or wall. Now all of the clans are not able to do each of the
four effectively, but they are all able to interact on all four of
these facets to a certain extent. In addition, VTES is an extremely
easy game to mix and match on, such that if you want a vote/combat
deck, you can easeily make it in a variety of different ways using a
variety of different vamps and clans. You deck can be as focused or
diffuse as you wish: I have one weenie dominate deck that does little
but bleed, while I have another Gangrel Royalty deck that bleeds at
stealth, Parity Shift Votes you, drops the occasional wolf claws on
you, or just Form of Mist/Earth Meld/Boucnes its way to victory.
Therefore, IMHO, VTES does not degenerate into Rock/Paper/Scissors at
all and a player of any given strategy is allowed to make sublte
changes to his deck composition to make adjustments to the metagame he
is facing without fundamentally changing his deck around.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Screaming Vermillian wrote:
| Hi. just was alerted to this post on an AEG forum... check it out:
|
| http://www.meatpatrol.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=580
|
| How does this post apply to VTES? Does it apply to VTES?
|
| I mean in a way, it seems this poster is right... VTES (thogh she was
| referring to L5R...) seems to be more about WHAT you're playing at a
| table (and where you're sitting) rather than HOW well you're playing
| what you have!
Not true. I did not intend to play in the Lafayette qualifier, and I
played a 76-card deck randomly thrown together with a crypt from another
deck, and I finished 6th out of 20.
I picked a "strong" archetype, weenie OBF -- but with some twists and of
course a non-optimal crypt and library. My seating was near the worst
possible each round:
Round 1: Predator OBF/AUS/dom, turn 2 Ozmo comes out, turn 3 Ozmo gets
a Secure Haven and a Pulse. Gilbert is next and gets his Pulse on his
first action as well. I almost oust my first prey anyway, but on the
free turn I was expecting to have my grandpredator's stealth bleed
chokes and can't bleed for 6 even though he has 5 standing on the table.
~ I get bled for 12 and ousted; if I get my free turn, I have 18 pool and
an easy sweep set up.
Round 2: Prey is ANI Raven Spy wall, with some Black Hand and location
toys. I get him anyway after a long, long time, as well as my next
prey. No GW though, pesky predator.
Round 3: Prey is Ahrimanes wall, the eventual tourney winner. I
eventually get him and my next prey 5 minutes before timeout to pick up
the GW with 2.5 VP.
Also note: No Dominate in my deck or other form of bleed bounce.
Sometimes you are just screwed, but that happens far more rarely than
people believe. I know people who would've given up as soon as they saw
Ozmo get the "perfect opening hand" behind them; I hung in there and had
more than a respectable chance to win that game.
Most people would just rather not admit that they misplayed their deck
and made poor decisions and guesses; instead, they'd prefer to blame the
seating. Fine by me; more VP coming my way.
- --
Derek
insert clever quotation here
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (MingW32)
iD8DBQFCb+uHtQZlu3o7QpERAg/GAKCefY4epHjzk50UFrVnwOM5JS7NtACfZBtY
dpvq2t7lyzvL7VTZoU6MQec=
=wssc
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
"Screaming Vermillian" <vermil...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1114621334.1...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> Hi. just was alerted to this post on an AEG forum... check it out:
>
> http://www.meatpatrol.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=580
>
> How does this post apply to VTES? Does it apply to VTES?
>
> I mean in a way, it seems this poster is right... VTES (thogh she was
> referring to L5R...) seems to be more about WHAT you're playing at a
> table (and where you're sitting) rather than HOW well you're playing
> what you have!
>
If that were true, then WHO you are playing would be irrelevant. More often
than not, I find the quesiton of "Who am I Playing" to be the most important
one. The better you know them, and the game they're choosing to play. The
consistency of the highest ranked players in maintaining that status is
another indication that skill (HOW) is at least as important as deck (WHAT).
See also, Leggie's treatise on making mistakes (the second time in a week
that artilce is relevant, Leggie!), in the Oct. '04 edition of the !Gangrel
newsletter.
DaveZ
Atom Weaver
[ quoted text not captured ]
There is, however, Harbingers deck grinding, which can be very
difficult to defend against and almost guarantees that its prey will
not win the game. Rock, paper nor scissors will help you out in this
situation. You've got to use all your resources to try and oust your
prey(s) as fast as you can or go upstream and oust them (maiming isn't
good enough if they still have Slaughterhouses in play). Either way,
your chances of winning the table are significantly lowered no matter
how good a deck you have and/or how well you play it.
Robert Scythe
IMHO, most people build decks that are rather slow to develop. This
suits VTES because typically the first major player to establish
himself as a threat is at a disadvantage, but it does mean that a fast
and focused deck will virtually always earn 1 VP before running afoul
of the table.
Given that dynamic, I feel that the Harbingers deck grinding which will
at least caused problems for its pray and may oust it, but is limited
in who else it can oust does seem a real problem. Sure, its hard to
defense against and means that if they are your predator you can most
likely only earn 1VP at most, but that's not nearly as bad as a speed
deck ousting you entirely.
On 27 Apr 2005 13:00:31 -0700, Robert Scythe <rob...@exploretalent.com>
wrote:
> There is, however, Harbingers deck grinding, which can be very
> difficult to defend against and almost guarantees that its prey will
> not win the game. Rock, paper nor scissors will help you out in this
> situation. You've got to use all your resources to try and oust your
> prey(s) as fast as you can or go upstream and oust them (maiming isn't
> good enough if they still have Slaughterhouses in play). Either way,
> your chances of winning the table are significantly lowered no matter
> how good a deck you have and/or how well you play it.
I've found that when I'm playing a good deck I don't often mind a
milling predator (that is, one who destroys my library but does
little else to harm my game).
If the miller starts with a Slaughterhouse on turn 3 and plays one every
turn until the 10th, I lose 72 cards in 10 turns. Likely, I will get
decked around the 9th turn. If I optimize my deck to last 12 rounds
(with probably some option for a more lengthy endgame in the form of
permanents or reusable vampire specials), I end up 3 rounds short, but
with basically no predator (because until I'm decked, my lost cards
could well be at the bottom of my library). Once I get decked, the tune
suddenly changes; though I find an inevitable doom and no predator to
be preferable in many cases. It's a fair trade: my predator gives me a
free ride at VPs for a period of time, after which he collects my VP
with an almost inevitable certainty. Much better then getting (D)
rushed to pieces by a combat deck predator and then getting ousted by an
opportunistic grand-predator...
--
Bye,
Daneel
Derek Ray wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1> Not true. I did not intend to play in the Lafayette qualifier, and I
> played a 76-card deck randomly thrown together with a crypt from
another
> deck, and I finished 6th out of 20.
Congrats, though poopy that that tournament had such a small turn
out... about a quarter of them were from my home state then, probably!
:) (OH. IO. poo
)
> I picked a "strong" archetype, weenie OBF -- but with some twists and
of
> course a non-optimal crypt and library.
Oddl enough I'd call that a non interactive archetype. I mean, that's
what OBF does... it doesn't want to interact. Well, ok, most obf
archetypes don't want to interact.
> My seating was near the worst
> possible each round:
>
> Round 1: Predator OBF/AUS/dom, turn 2 Ozmo comes out, turn 3 Ozmo
gets
> a Secure Haven and a Pulse. Gilbert is next and gets his Pulse on
his
> first action as well. I almost oust my first prey anyway, but on the
> free turn I was expecting to have my grandpredator's stealth bleed
> chokes and can't bleed for 6 even though he has 5 standing on the
table.
> ~ I get bled for 12 and ousted; if I get my free turn, I have 18 pool
and
> an easy sweep set up.
Poop. Did you interact with your pred? Didn't seem like you really
could. Your rock got papered.
> Round 2: Prey is ANI Raven Spy wall, with some Black Hand and
location
> toys. I get him anyway after a long, long time, as well as my next
> prey. No GW though, pesky predator.
There's the answer to resisting non-interaction. Interact with
reactions.
> Round 3: Prey is Ahrimanes wall, the eventual tourney winner. I
> eventually get him and my next prey 5 minutes before timeout to pick
up
> the GW with 2.5 VP.
Wait... didn't Jay Kristoff win that day? That Ahrimines deck was his
brother, Will, who was the last one ousted at the finals, right?
NEhow...
> Also note: No Dominate in my deck or other form of bleed bounce.
Oh man. Thats why you loose. j/k (or am I?)
~SV
On 27 Apr 2005 20:54:00 -0700, "Screaming Vermillian"
<vermil...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Wait... didn't Jay Kristoff win that day? That Ahrimines deck was his
>brother, Will, who was the last one ousted at the finals, right?
>NEhow...
The South Central Qualifier was in Lafayette, Louisiana. (Chad
Brinkley)
The Great Lakes Qualifier was in Lafayette, Indiana. (Jay Kristoff)
We were hoping to have the South East Qualifier in a Lafayette, but no
more were available, so we will hold it in Atlanta, Georgia.
Carpe noctem.
Lasombra
http://www.TheLasombra.com
Your best online source for information about V:TES.
Now also featuring individual card sales and sales
of booster and starter box displays.
[ quoted text not captured ]
Um... hmm... ok... who I'm playing is important. But lets say that's
fixed. Now its just a matter of what I'm playing. If there's an even
chance, and we're both playing what the AEG poster refered to as
military lion something... whatever. Say we're both playing combat or
something... then now its a matter of HOW WELL I'm playing. But if its
a set up of archetypes that typically can't beat one another, then its
just a matter of how many cards I have in my deck that MIGHT be able to
give me an advantage on that deck type... Like the AEG poster was
referring to about having different types of cards to confront each
type of deck... what we call tollboxing... meh...
ANyhow. OK. I'll read Leggies Oct 04 !gan newsie.
Later
~SV
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Screaming Vermillian wrote:
| Derek Ray wrote:
|
|>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
|>Hash: SHA1
|>Not true. I did not intend to play in the Lafayette qualifier, and I
|>played a 76-card deck randomly thrown together with a crypt from
| another deck, and I finished 6th out of 20.
|
| Congrats, though poopy that that tournament had such a small turn
| out... about a quarter of them were from my home state then, probably!
20 isn't especially small in the land of 70-degree March. It's hard to
get people to show up when sunshine's around.
|>I picked a "strong" archetype, weenie OBF -- but with some twists and
| of course a non-optimal crypt and library.
|
| Oddl enough I'd call that a non interactive archetype. I mean, that's
| what OBF does... it doesn't want to interact. Well, ok, most obf
| archetypes don't want to interact.
Correct. Most. This one packed Walking Sticks, some Dodges, and Fake
Outs. It would have done better to throw out all the Dodges and replace
them with Lucky Blows, because people tend to get very careless about
blocking what looks at first glance like stock weenie Obfuscate.
|>My seating was near the worst
|>possible each round:
|>
|>Round 1: Predator OBF/AUS/dom, turn 2 Ozmo comes out, turn 3 Ozmo
| gets a Secure Haven and a Pulse. Gilbert is next and gets his Pulse on
| his
|>first action as well. I almost oust my first prey anyway, but on the
|>free turn I was expecting to have my grandpredator's stealth bleed
|>chokes and can't bleed for 6 even though he has 5 standing on the
| table.
|>~ I get bled for 12 and ousted; if I get my free turn, I have 18 pool
| and an easy sweep set up.
|
| Poop. Did you interact with your pred? Didn't seem like you really
| could. Your rock got papered.
I interacted with my predator exactly as much as was appropriate for
what was obviously a heavy-stealth deck; I NEVER attempted to block, and
I altered my pool expenditure and gain tactics appropriately.
Interpreting the performance in this round as "my rock got papered" is
silly; not many people could have managed to get within 1 pool of a VP
in front of such a deck, and it took quite a bit of doing to engineer
it, such as allowing my prey to block me in order to move combat cards
out of my hand.
|>Round 2: Prey is ANI Raven Spy wall, with some Black Hand and
| location
|>toys. I get him anyway after a long, long time, as well as my next
|>prey. No GW though, pesky predator.
|
| There's the answer to resisting non-interaction. Interact with
| reactions.
Sound bites don't really mean much. Is there a point?
My point remains: It isn't just rock, paper, scissors. This deck is
"paper" to my "rock", for many people; however, by altering my gameplay
carefully to attack his untap instead of his intercept, as well as
allowing myself to interact far more often with his minions than he was
expecting, I was able to overcome this instance of worst possible
seating and gain 2VP. This demonstrates quite well that there is, in
fact, a great deal of play skill involved, as opposed to "where you
sit". If I had played it in the typical fashion (try to stealth past
everything), all my minions would have been torporized and I would have
been ousted early on.
|>Round 3: Prey is Ahrimanes wall, the eventual tourney winner. I
|>eventually get him and my next prey 5 minutes before timeout to pick
| up the GW with 2.5 VP.
Jeff has already pointed out that this was the Lafayette, LA tournament.
See above for similar explanation of "it ain't just where you sit".
This particular Ahrimanes deck equipped with a Raven Spy on turn 2, and
then Muricia's Called up another one on turn 3 for standing +2
intercept. With this in front of you, it's not quite as easy as just
throwing 3 stealth cards out per turn.
|>Also note: No Dominate in my deck or other form of bleed bounce.
|
| Oh man. Thats why you loose. j/k (or am I?)
It's this sort of single-minded, sound-bite-oriented focus that holds
you back from properly understanding the game. Trying to include
Dominate in this deck would not have improved it any; instead, it would
actually have harmed it since I would've had to increase the crypt size
and use over-expensive, less-disposable vampires. Properly working out
the ratios and building this deck, instead of throwing together a bunch
of someone else's cards 15 minutes before the tourney start, would
surely have been the difference between 6th place and a seat in the
finals... where this deck is particularly geared to "getting a good start".
The Malk deck above, by the way, which is particularly non-interactive
(Secure Haven, no combat cards that I saw)... didn't make the finals.
Non-interactive decks look good on paper, but tend to lose with _no_
hope when they don't get a good seating position. So yes, you can
CHOOSE to make your game rock, scissors, paper if you like -- but it is
a weaker style of play, and as such will yield weaker results.
- --
Derek
insert clever quotation here
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (MingW32)
iD8DBQFCcGcntQZlu3o7QpERAu2fAJ9s/Rj4MGu6YJcfv+OZaLTljT3WbgCg7y3y
YNZEtY9xMPNYsf7PVevwMy8=
=0FUA
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
In message <2qn0715e1qap4bhpk...@4ax.com>, The Lasombra
<TheLa...@hotmail.com> writes:
>We were hoping to have the South East Qualifier in a Lafayette, but no
>more were available, so we will hold it in Atlanta, Georgia.
Campaign with your local senators and congressmen to have another
Lafayette created. Turn V:EKN into a political weapon, and not just a
vehicle for card games!
--
James Coupe "Why do so many talented people turn out to be sexual
PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D deviants? Why can't they just be normal like me and
EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 look at internet pictures of men's cocks all day?"
13D7E668C3695D623D5D -- www.livejournal.com/users/scarletdemon/
Derek Ray wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Screaming Vermillian wrote:
> | Derek Ray wrote:
> |
> |>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> |>Hash: SHA1
> |>Not true. I did not intend to play in the Lafayette qualifier, and
I
> |>played a 76-card deck randomly thrown together with a crypt from
> | another deck, and I finished 6th out of 20.
> |
> | Congrats, though poopy that that tournament had such a small turn
> | out... about a quarter of them were from my home state then,
probably!
>
> 20 isn't especially small in the land of 70-degree March. It's hard
to
> get people to show up when sunshine's around.
True. I thought it was indana. Not paying attention to my lafayettes...
> |>My seating was near the worst
> |>possible each round:
> |>
> |>Round 1: Predator OBF/AUS/dom, turn 2 Ozmo comes out, turn 3 Ozmo
> | gets a Secure Haven and a Pulse. Gilbert is next and gets his
Pulse on
> | his
> |>first action as well. I almost oust my first prey anyway, but on
the
> |>free turn I was expecting to have my grandpredator's stealth bleed
> |>chokes and can't bleed for 6 even though he has 5 standing on the
> | table.
> |>~ I get bled for 12 and ousted; if I get my free turn, I have 18
pool
> | and an easy sweep set up.
> |
> | Poop. Did you interact with your pred? Didn't seem like you really
> | could. Your rock got papered.
>
> I interacted with my predator exactly as much as was appropriate for
> what was obviously a heavy-stealth deck; I NEVER attempted to block,
and
> I altered my pool expenditure and gain tactics appropriately.
>
> Interpreting the performance in this round as "my rock got papered"
is
> silly;
But fun! I'm into the whole brevity thing sometimes.
> not many people could have managed to get within 1 pool of a VP
> in front of such a deck, and it took quite a bit of doing to engineer
> it, such as allowing my prey to block me in order to move combat
cards
> out of my hand.
Well yeah, tru. Like I've mentioned, its not ALL what or who you're
playing... its a bit HOW you pla, especially if you and who you're
playing's decks are on a level playing ground, and even if they aren't,
its about waiting for your opponent or some cross table guy to do
something stupid and then exploiting it.
> | There's the answer to resisting non-interaction. Interact with
> | reactions.
>
> Sound bites don't really mean much. Is there a point?
Um... what little non interactive-ness there is in VTES is shut down by
intercept? That is, if you want your deck to do what it does and be all
non interactive, expect intercept to stop it. Maybe at the core, some
key concepts of VTES are geared towards a non interactive game, but the
mechanic of intercept makes this much less true. ( and maybe that when
it feels like its non interactive whenever there's that Old School
Ventrue Vote and Bloater on a table lacking intercept).
> |>Also note: No Dominate in my deck or other form of bleed bounce.
> |
> | Oh man. Thats why you loose. j/k (or am I?)
>
> It's this sort of single-minded, sound-bite-oriented focus that holds
> you back from properly understanding the game.
Its this paragraph-long sarcastic elitist-sounding response to a stupid
one-liner with the three charaters 'j' '/' and 'k' at the end that
makes me think you're a jerk. (you know my position on dom, so why
bother commenting: SIde point. More proof dom is broken. 20 deflections
are going for 12 bucks on ebay. :)).
> Trying to include
> Dominate in this deck would not have improved it any; instead, it
would
> actually have harmed it since I would've had to increase the crypt
size
> and use over-expensive, less-disposable vampires. Properly working
out
> the ratios and building this deck, instead of throwing together a
bunch
> of someone else's cards 15 minutes before the tourney start, would
> surely have been the difference between 6th place and a seat in the
> finals... where this deck is particularly geared to "getting a good
start".
Yes yes. Not every deck needs dom. In this case, I understand its
exclusion.
> The Malk deck above, by the way, which is particularly
non-interactive
> (Secure Haven, no combat cards that I saw)... didn't make the finals.
> Non-interactive decks look good on paper, but tend to lose with _no_
> hope when they don't get a good seating position. So yes, you can
> CHOOSE to make your game rock, scissors, paper if you like -- but it
is
> a weaker style of play, and as such will yield weaker results.
And I agree. Its best to have a style of play that can rule multiple
archetypes at once, rather than stream lined, if you can get it to flow
properly. I think the AEG article was even mentioning this much,
something about what we call toolboxing, though its more like just
having a deck capacble of interacting more with more deck types...
> - --
> Derek
>
> insert clever quotation here
[I've got beans in my pants!]
~SV
Screaming Vermillian wrote:
> I mean in a way, it seems this poster is right... VTES (thogh she was
> referring to L5R...) seems to be more about WHAT you're playing at a
> table (and where you're sitting) rather than HOW well you're playing
> what you have!
>
> Or not... just thoughts randomly passing through my brain that I'm
> sharing for the world at large...
>
> Comments? Flames? Huhs?
On one hand, we all have the same goal in The Eternal Struggle; to
reduce your prey (well 2 or more of them) to 0 pool. So, we all have
to interact with each other on that basis. Let us forget about
Brinksmanship for now, as I don't see such a deck getting more than one
VP on a regular basis. On the other hand, I am a fan of claiming that
where you sit can be more important than your deck and your skill. I
do recognize that this factor can be mitigated by the flexibility of
your deck and your abiliy to talk the table. I guess I often play
focused decks that can be victimized by the right kind of trump and
rarely try to win the table with my voice.
Screaming Vermillian wrote:
> Derek Ray wrote:> > I picked a "strong" archetype, weenie OBF ....>
> Oddl enough I'd call that a non interactive archetype. I mean, that's
> what OBF does... it doesn't want to interact. Well, ok, most obf
> archetypes don't want to interact.
So an "interactive" deck is one that wants to get into combat? There's
another name for that kind of deck: a combat deck.
All well-designed V:tES decks are interactive. They want to interact
with their prey's pool, or in some cases with their library.
The folks who are using "non-interactive" as a derogatory term for
decks they don't like appear to be defining it as "a deck I can't
figure out how to beat with my current deck".
When you're seated next to the rock to your scissors, remember that
sometimes scissors beats rock in this game. Any deck can sputter out
and fail. Reason out what circumstances are most likely to cause that
trump deck to fail against you, then play your game to create those
circumstances. You won't win all the time, but you can certainly better
your odds.
"James Coupe" <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote in message
news:6x9ks67Z...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk...
> In message <2qn0715e1qap4bhpk...@4ax.com>, The Lasombra
> <TheLa...@hotmail.com> writes:>>We were hoping to have the South East Qualifier in a Lafayette, but no
>>more were available, so we will hold it in Atlanta, Georgia.>
> Campaign with your local senators and congressmen to have another
> Lafayette created. Turn V:EKN into a political weapon, and not just a
> vehicle for card games!
This is *CULT* game!
People will laugh.
Emmit Svenson wrote:
> Screaming Vermillian wrote:>>Oddl enough I'd call that a non interactive archetype. I mean, that's
>>what OBF does... it doesn't want to interact. Well, ok, most obf
>>archetypes don't want to interact.>
> So an "interactive" deck is one that wants to get into combat? There's
> another name for that kind of deck: a combat deck.
>
> All well-designed V:tES decks are interactive. They want to interact
> with their prey's pool, or in some cases with their library.
>
> The folks who are using "non-interactive" as a derogatory term for
> decks they don't like appear to be defining it as "a deck I can't
> figure out how to beat with my current deck".
I think that perhaps the issue with the originally-cited message
is one of definitions as well.
"Good players with good decks should be able to win regardless
of the opposition" sort of defines what a good player and a good
deck are, rather than setting some sort of measure for an
acceptably-developed game.
e.g., if a toolbox deck is the only type that can *theoretically*
have a *reasonable* chance of winning regardless of the opposition,
then the statement above basically makes "good" decks a subset of
toolbox decks, excluding feast-or-famine (sweep or quickly ousted)
decks, like some focussed decks which would otherwise be
considered "good" decks.
--
LSJ (vtesr...@TRAPwhite-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep (remove spam trap to reply)
Links to V:TES news, rules, cards, utilities, and tournament calendar:
http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Screaming Vermillian wrote:
| Derek Ray wrote:
|
|
|>20 isn't especially small in the land of 70-degree March. It's hard
| to get people to show up when sunshine's around.
|
| True. I thought it was indana. Not paying attention to my lafayettes...
You get used to watching for specifics living in a city with 35+ streets
named "Peachtree".
|>| Poop. Did you interact with your pred? Didn't seem like you really
|>| could. Your rock got papered.
|>
|>I interacted with my predator exactly as much as was appropriate for
|>what was obviously a heavy-stealth deck; I NEVER attempted to block,
| and I altered my pool expenditure and gain tactics appropriately.
|>Interpreting the performance in this round as "my rock got papered"
| is
|>silly;
|
| But fun! I'm into the whole brevity thing sometimes.
Me, I'm into the accuracy thing.
|>not many people could have managed to get within 1 pool of a VP
|>in front of such a deck, and it took quite a bit of doing to engineer
|>it, such as allowing my prey to block me in order to move combat
| cards out of my hand.
|
| Well yeah, tru. Like I've mentioned, its not ALL what or who you're
| playing... its a bit HOW you pla, especially if you and who you're
| playing's decks are on a level playing ground, and even if they aren't,
| its about waiting for your opponent or some cross table guy to do
| something stupid and then exploiting it.
If you intend to win, it's almost ALL about how you play. I don't think
my predator ever made any stupid plays exactly -- it's sort of hard to
do so with a deck whose actions every turn are "I bleed" and whose
reactions are "I don't block; I deflect?"
It's hard to say if my prey made any stupid plays. He was playing with
Elder Impersonation and Pack Tactics (in a !Brujah deck), so some of his
block attempts weren't TOTALLY pointless -- they moved the card. His
error, if any, was probably more in deck construction and choice.
The minimal amount of "how you play" comes in when you're faced with a
predator or prey whose deck happens to exploit exactly the weaknesses in
yours. But there's still plenty you can do to avoid getting exploited,
or to minimize the damage -- witness the cases in rounds 2 and 3 where
stealth/bleed overcame two intercept/combat walls, even though
conventional wisdom says I'm dead meat both times and should never even
make a VP. And that's worst-case scenario; it only gets better from there.
No, "how you play" is the #1 factor. Do you think Jay Kristoff simply
gets lucky in seating position and opponent choice every time he sits
down at a table? Or does he understand "how to play" much better than
the rest of us?
|>| There's the answer to resisting non-interaction. Interact with
|>| reactions.
|>
|>Sound bites don't really mean much. Is there a point?
|
| Um... what little non interactive-ness there is in VTES is shut down by
| intercept? That is, if you want your deck to do what it does and be all
I ousted both intercept decks. I don't consider this "shut down".
There were definitely points in time where my deck was very
non-interactive; the bits where I was burning stealth cards to get past
them. The rest of the time, I chose to interact so that I could win, in
direct opposition to conventional wisdom. If the opposing decks had
been able to force more interaction (possibly via better combat?), or to
ignore my attempts at interaction completely (better pool gain?), I
probably would have lost.
| non interactive, expect intercept to stop it. Maybe at the core, some
Many things besides intercept will stop a purely-non-interactive deck.
| key concepts of VTES are geared towards a non interactive game, but the
| mechanic of intercept makes this much less true. ( and maybe that when
| it feels like its non interactive whenever there's that Old School
| Ventrue Vote and Bloater on a table lacking intercept).
Perhaps this is a lesson: bring decks that have the option to interact.
~ Jay's deck has plenty of CAPACITY to interact with the table ... it
just would prefer to interact only with its prey, at +1 stealth, and
never need to worry about the rest.
You can handle an old-school Ventrue deck in many ways besides just
trying to block it; in fact, intercept is probably one of the worst
methods of attack, because they have way more untap than you do. They
EXPECT to take three actions a turn per minion, and you can only move 1
intercept card, at most, per action -- you'll rapidly jam on intercept
and run out of untap, and die.
|>|>Also note: No Dominate in my deck or other form of bleed bounce.
|>|
|>| Oh man. Thats why you loose. j/k (or am I?)
|>
|>It's this sort of single-minded, sound-bite-oriented focus that holds
|>you back from properly understanding the game.
|
| Its this paragraph-long sarcastic elitist-sounding response to a stupid
| one-liner with the three charaters 'j' '/' and 'k' at the end that
You forgot to mention the "(or am I?)", which far more accurately
represents your real position on the issue; you won't pass up any
opportunity to beat the dead Chicken-Little horse that "dom is broken",
whether or not the facts accurately point to that conclusion.
Of course, Jay's deck didn't have Dominate in it, and neither did
Chad's, and those were both qualifier-winners. Hmmmmmmmm...
| makes me think you're a jerk. (you know my position on dom, so why
| bother commenting: SIde point. More proof dom is broken. 20 deflections
| are going for 12 bucks on ebay. :)).
Because your position on DOM is built on a short-sighted, improperly
understood foundation, and you spend all your time desperately clinging
to that foundation instead of attempting to adapt your views.
Analogy: It does me no good to repeatedly insist the sky is green, even
if I perceive it to be the same color as the grass. I need to accept
that the sky is actually blue, and go see an eye doctor.
| Yes yes. Not every deck needs dom. In this case, I understand its
| exclusion.
But wouldn't that mean DOM isn't broken?
- --
Derek
insert clever quotation here
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (MingW32)
iD8DBQFCcWl3tQZlu3o7QpERAkZsAKCIqnjmB0H/5UmhQd8Wf/ZUCCKVIACeMjn+
ShBnrBmnjGYNSjb8TKe5RyQ=
=9pPR
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
DJ Feng Shui wrote:
> Screaming Vermillian wrote:
> > I mean in a way, it seems this poster is right... VTES (thogh she
was
> > referring to L5R...) seems to be more about WHAT you're playing at
a
> > table (and where you're sitting) rather than HOW well you're
playing
> > what you have!
> >
> > Or not... just thoughts randomly passing through my brain that I'm
> > sharing for the world at large...
> >
> > Comments? Flames? Huhs?
>
> On one hand, we all have the same goal in The Eternal Struggle; to
> reduce your prey (well 2 or more of them) to 0 pool. So, we all have
> to interact with each other on that basis. Let us forget about
> Brinksmanship for now, as I don't see such a deck getting more than
one
> VP on a regular basis. On the other hand, I am a fan of claiming
that
> where you sit can be more important than your deck and your skill.
Me too. It can be in situations. I wonder wha the percent of situations
in which this is the case?
> I
> do recognize that this factor can be mitigated by the flexibility of
> your deck and your abiliy to talk the table. I guess I often play
> focused decks that can be victimized by the right kind of trump and
> rarely try to win the table with my voice.
So HOW YOU PLAY also includes HOW YOU BITCH... right. :)
On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 18:53:43 -0400, Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I ousted both intercept decks. I don't consider this "shut down".
> There were definitely points in time where my deck was very
> non-interactive; the bits where I was burning stealth cards to get past
> them. The rest of the time, I chose to interact so that I could win, in
> direct opposition to conventional wisdom. If the opposing decks had
> been able to force more interaction (possibly via better combat?), or to
> ignore my attempts at interaction completely (better pool gain?), I
> probably would have lost.
My experience is that Stealth Bleed has a good chance of ousting the first
prey even if it is an Intercept deck. It is heavy bloat or (D) rush and
non-blocking that have a good chance of stopping the stealth bleeder
(even though the latter often sacrafices any forward pressure for this
end). Elder Impersonation and (to a lesser degree) Faceless Night make
sure that after the initial bleed (and stealth) cards the stealth bleeder
is better off in using his cards. Especially if the Intercept deck also
packs combat; the Stealth Bleeder cycles both main strategy chunks (bleed
and stealth), while the Intercept deck may well jam on combat and end up
being toast.
It is subsequent Intercept preys that are theoretically impossible (or
very hard and unlikely) to oust.
That said, I've often seen a stealth bleeder grind through two walls with
a lucky draw (or, if you prefer it that way, extremely good play).
--
Bye,
Daneel
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Daneel wrote:
| On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 18:53:43 -0400, Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote:
|
|> I ousted both intercept decks. I don't consider this "shut down".
|> There were definitely points in time where my deck was very
|> non-interactive; the bits where I was burning stealth cards to get past
|> them. The rest of the time, I chose to interact so that I could win, in
|> direct opposition to conventional wisdom. If the opposing decks had
|> been able to force more interaction (possibly via better combat?), or to
|> ignore my attempts at interaction completely (better pool gain?), I
|> probably would have lost.
|
| My experience is that Stealth Bleed has a good chance of ousting the first
| prey even if it is an Intercept deck. It is heavy bloat or (D) rush and
| non-blocking that have a good chance of stopping the stealth bleeder
| (even though the latter often sacrafices any forward pressure for this
| end). Elder Impersonation and (to a lesser degree) Faceless Night make
If I'd had more time to build it, I surely would've included at least
four Elder Impersonations instead of zero.
- --
Derek
insert clever quotation here
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (MingW32)
iD8DBQFCci4PtQZlu3o7QpERAocAAJ4mpm5xjE4wqNeRxO/lg5hw5HIaZwCfVSD2
skkkIn/5Ibk82nwjLgOLAqA=
=pXUI
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Screaming Vermillian wrote:
> Me too. It can be in situations. I wonder wha the percent of
situations
> in which this is the case?
Hard to say without data. The lower your skill and worse your deck,
the more the table seating matters. Also, your voice can change
things. In addition, you have to consider that nowadays you can't
change your seating at the table. So, you have to draw conclusions
from games played from the beginning of 2005. In this era, do you
count casual or only tournament games?
> So HOW YOU PLAY also includes HOW YOU BITCH... right. :)
Most definately. The more help you get from other players strengthens
you while sapping their resources. Overall, that improves your table
posture.
Derek Ray wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Screaming Vermillian wrote:
> | Derek Ray wrote:
> |
> |
> |>20 isn't especially small in the land of 70-degree March. It's
hard
> | to get people to show up when sunshine's around.
> |
> | True. I thought it was indana. Not paying attention to my
lafayettes...
>
> You get used to watching for specifics living in a city with 35+
streets
> named "Peachtree".
Spooky...
> |>| Poop. Did you interact with your pred? Didn't seem like you
really
> |>| could. Your rock got papered.
> |>
> |>I interacted with my predator exactly as much as was appropriate
for
> |>what was obviously a heavy-stealth deck; I NEVER attempted to
block,
> | and I altered my pool expenditure and gain tactics appropriately.
> |>Interpreting the performance in this round as "my rock got papered"
> | is
> |>silly;
> |
> | But fun! I'm into the whole brevity thing sometimes.
>
> Me, I'm into the accuracy thing.
I'm not against saying something outragious if its fun. My position as
a professional slacker affords me that luxury.
> If you intend to win, it's almost ALL about how you play.
Which includes how well you bitch.
But no really... I think its more than that. Its all about how you
handle typical things you'll see in tournaments. Combat. Bleed. and
Vote. (more so one of these than the other. You decide which).
> I don't think
> my predator ever made any stupid plays exactly -- it's sort of hard
to
> do so with a deck whose actions every turn are "I bleed" and whose
> reactions are "I don't block; I deflect?"
and is that interaction? :)
> It's hard to say if my prey made any stupid plays. He was playing
with
> Elder Impersonation and Pack Tactics (in a !Brujah deck),
that's tech! Was he also packing vendetta?
> so some of his
> block attempts weren't TOTALLY pointless -- they moved the card. His
> error, if any, was probably more in deck construction and choice.
Likenot packing vendetta! That card rawks!
> The minimal amount of "how you play" comes in when you're faced with
a
> predator or prey whose deck happens to exploit exactly the weaknesses
in
> yours. But there's still plenty you can do to avoid getting
exploited,
> or to minimize the damage
right, like bitch to the rest of the table for help. (and other things)
> -- witness the cases in rounds 2 and 3 where
> stealth/bleed overcame two intercept/combat walls, even though
> conventional wisdom says I'm dead meat both times and should never
even
> make a VP. And that's worst-case scenario; it only gets better from
there.
Some one mentioned that there are more worse scenarios. Like having a
weenie pot prey... (interactive) Or a SB prey faster than you... (non
interactive)
> No, "how you play" is the #1 factor. Do you think Jay Kristoff
simply
> gets lucky in seating position and opponent choice every time he sits
> down at a table? Or does he understand "how to play" much better
than
> the rest of us?
He understands how to bitch. M I Rite? :)
> | Um... what little non interactive-ness there is in VTES is shut
down by
> | intercept? That is, if you want your deck to do what it does and be
all
>
> I ousted both intercept decks. I don't consider this "shut down".
Oh ok... intercepts goal is control, which is about shutting you down.
They didn't succeed, but that was their raison d'etre. <--- french
means I'm cool!
> There were definitely points in time where my deck was very
> non-interactive; the bits where I was burning stealth cards to get
past
> them. The rest of the time, I chose to interact so that I could win,
in
> direct opposition to conventional wisdom. If the opposing decks had
> been able to force more interaction (possibly via better combat?)
probably a big factor. I think THAT'S the answer to non interaction.
That and intercept.
>, or to
> ignore my attempts at interaction completely (better pool gain?)
better stealth bleed. But even then it'd probably be like, he gets one,
and there's just a short delay on you getting them... Or maybe not.
>, I
> probably would have lost.
>
> | non interactive, expect intercept to stop it. Maybe at the core,
some
>
> Many things besides intercept will stop a purely-non-interactive
deck.
like combat, or another non-interactive deck that's better at what it
does than yours?
> | key concepts of VTES are geared towards a non interactive game, but
the
> | mechanic of intercept makes this much less true. ( and maybe that
when
> | it feels like its non interactive whenever there's that Old School
> | Ventrue Vote and Bloater on a table lacking intercept).
>
> Perhaps this is a lesson: bring decks that have the option to
interact.
> ~ Jay's deck has plenty of CAPACITY to interact with the table
This is a lesson for us all... ok, maybe just like... two of us.
> ... it
> just would prefer to interact only with its prey, at +1 stealth, and
> never need to worry about the rest.
>
> You can handle an old-school Ventrue deck in many ways besides just
> trying to block it; in fact, intercept is probably one of the worst
> methods of attack, because they have way more untap than you do.
They
> EXPECT to take three actions a turn per minion, and you can only move
1
> intercept card, at most, per action -- you'll rapidly jam on
intercept
> and run out of untap, and die.
seems old school ventrue is probably non-interactive... how do YOU
screw the Ventrue Law Firm? (gently with lots of lube?)
> | Its this paragraph-long sarcastic elitist-sounding response to a
stupid
> | one-liner with the three charaters 'j' '/' and 'k' at the end that
>
> You forgot to mention the "(or am I?)", which far more accurately
> represents your real position on the issue; you won't pass up any
> opportunity to beat the dead Chicken-Little horse that "dom is
broken",
> whether or not the facts accurately point to that conclusion.
I'm more of a parady of myself complaining about dom now-a-days more
than I am TRUELY feeling that dom is broken. I mean, its frippin' rude,
and rediculous that certain cards exist and have existed and haven't
had much answer or power-digm shift (GtuA, deflection, conditioning,
kine dominance), but I'm in transition of more believing that there is
more going on in the game than I am about believing that DOM rules all.
(like, um... that bleeding is too good, hence dom is too good, as
you've mentioned yourself).
> Of course, Jay's deck didn't have Dominate in it, and neither did
> Chad's, and those were both qualifier-winners. Hmmmmmmmm...
meh. That's just why I'm thinking other things are working for the game
now. We are witnessing a paradigm shift, butin a direction of the
weenie and the disciplineless... Perhaps.
> | makes me think you're a jerk. (you know my position on dom, so why
> | bother commenting: SIde point. More proof dom is broken. 20
deflections
> | are going for 12 bucks on ebay. :)).
>
> Because your position on DOM is built on a short-sighted, improperly
> understood foundation, and you spend all your time desperately
clinging
> to that foundation instead of attempting to adapt your views.
meh. Just a complaint within a parady within a complaint now, for me.
Its fun to spout, but its still simmering within me, too.
But don't give me this crap. you yourself admited that dom is strong,
perhaps more strong than it should be!
> Analogy: It does me no good to repeatedly insist the sky is green,
even
> if I perceive it to be the same color as the grass. I need to accept
> that the sky is actually blue, and go see an eye doctor.
Who do I go visit? The LSJ?
> | Yes yes. Not every deck needs dom. In this case, I understand its
> | exclusion.
>
> But wouldn't that mean DOM isn't broken?
Skull clamp was broken in MTG, yet not every deck could justify its
inclusion. Sometimes people won without it, but usually if your deck
had it, the stats were better in your favor.
> - --
> Derek
>
> insert clever quotation here
Now is the only thing that's real.
~SV
On Fri, 29 Apr 2005 08:52:31 -0400, Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> | My experience is that Stealth Bleed has a good chance of ousting the
> first
> | prey even if it is an Intercept deck. It is heavy bloat or (D) rush
> and
> | non-blocking that have a good chance of stopping the stealth bleeder
> | (even though the latter often sacrafices any forward pressure for this
> | end). Elder Impersonation and (to a lesser degree) Faceless Night make
>
> If I'd had more time to build it, I surely would've included at least
> four Elder Impersonations instead of zero.
You managed to oust two blocky decks with no Elder Impersonations? That's
remarkable and quite uncommon. I consider EI to be the card that can tip
the scales in the stealth bleeder's favor against an Intercept deck.
Without it, you need what I would call luck (but which undoubtedly
contains, in no small part, the attitude which permits one to harvest a
lucky situation if it indeed comes up).
--
Bye,
Daneel
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Daneel wrote:
| On Fri, 29 Apr 2005 08:52:31 -0400, Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote:
|
|> If I'd had more time to build it, I surely would've included at least
|> four Elder Impersonations instead of zero.
|
| You managed to oust two blocky decks with no Elder Impersonations? That's
| remarkable and quite uncommon. I consider EI to be the card that can tip
| the scales in the stealth bleeder's favor against an Intercept deck.
It is the reason offense still wins in the game, which is key to a good
game. Offense should always beat defense.
| Without it, you need what I would call luck (but which undoubtedly
| contains, in no small part, the attitude which permits one to harvest a
| lucky situation if it indeed comes up).
I don't agree with "luck", but then I was the one playing it, so I
wouldn't be inclined to. I prefer to think of it as the ability to
enumerate one's own advantages, and play in such a fashion as to
maximize your own advantages while minimizing your prey's.
In this case (I will use Chad's winning Ahrimanes deck as an example):
- -- He has Howler, Juanita, and the Siamese. I have weenies, so I have a
numerical advantage. I need to assert this whenever possible.
- -- By turn 4, he had two Raven Spies on the Siamese, the KRCG radio, and
his untap card (speak with spirits) gives him another point of
intercept. I am at a stealth disadvantage, because I will have to spend
too many stealth cards for each minion if I try to just be ultra-sneaky.
- -- He has decent combat (Crows/Strength), but his intercept is not on
the minion he'd prefer to be fighting with, and The Siamese has little
ANI. I have Walking Sticks, maneuvers, and dodges. I can potentially
wear down the Siamese at a critical moment by suiciding a couple guys
(numerical advantage), and I do not need to be afraid of Carrion Crows
from his main interceptor. I will need to always stealth past Howler,
but Howler can only generate 2-3 intercept at most, and doing so forces
him to match me transient-for-transient, which is an advantage to me
since my deck is 70% transient stealth.
- -- My prey is a skilled player, and as such knows that taking no actions
does not win him the game. If I am patient and do not throw my minions
into the meat grinder, I will eventually lull him into a false sense of
security and have a chance.
- -- I have a Fame on my 2-cap from my predator; this is actually my
advantage, because my pool gain is far superior to my prey's. I can
absorb a single dunk and 1 per turn; he cannot.
The way it played out was that I slowly built up a great number of
minions via stupid pool gain, and he spent a lot of time pulling blood
off his guys with Dolls and cautiously poking forward. I rarely bled my
prey except to take the Edge from him (saying so every time), and he
tended to send Howler forward with Legal Manipulations a lot while
leaving the Siamese untapped. Eventually, I built up enough of a
critical mass, dropped a Dreams for hand size, and threw one of my guys
in the grinder to tap out the Siamese ("ok, you block.") I dropped my
two Computer Hacks with superior OBF minions, which drew out his untap
and allowed me to Faceless Night his guys and bleed with everyone else
using no cards. After that turn, he was at 6 pool and left all his
minions untapped every turn. I used Pochtli as my first action of the
next turn to put my two Hacks back in the deck, and spent some time
hunting and regaining blood -- the turn after that, I used Dreams again,
redrew one of my two Hacks, and simply bled with everyone, starting off
with the Famous vampire, who he correctly didn't block (I'd have let him
torporize it; one less pool I have to bleed for). I stealthed past
Howler to force the Siamese to try to block, and then let the block
succeed to tap him out; after that a Hack and Faceless Night tapped
Howler, and then I just spent one stealth card per minion to finish off
the last 4 pool since Juanita didn't have much to say.
Along with EI, I would have gladly put 3x Anarch Troublemaker in the
deck, of course. Wish I'd known where in Mike's collection those were.
- --
Derek
insert clever quotation here
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (MingW32)
iD8DBQFCc5watQZlu3o7QpERAmwIAJ9ZLYBEXMHX+6WtUVefv42oRuEaIwCdH9UI
7V+FNTUIUaVtO3kX1I+BDFA=
=Me0r
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
[ quoted text not captured ]
Well, that was an interesting read. Seems you were playing well.
However, I consider the following items to be luck:
- Your prey made the critical mistake of having those spies on the
+1 bleed - ani Siamese instead of the +1 Strength - Maneuver - ANI
Howler. You exploited that mistake well; but you needed the mistake.
- Perhaps related to the previous point, your prey also made the mistake
of deluding himself regarding your intentions or the game state. When
he should have methodically kept the number of minions behind him at no
more than 4 through intercepting your benign actions as well as your
hostile ones, he instead chose to let you build up your critical mass.
Being a significantly slower deck than yours, it should have been his
objective to quench the predatory threat.
- Having 70% transient stealth and a bunch of weenies means that unless
you actually wanted to waste 3+ cards on each action (by trying to sneak
past the 2 permanent Intercept), you were in the green. This is not to
diminish your decisions and play; it is simply to point out that you
needed your prey to make some grave mistakes to win.
In my interpretation, you got lucky to have your prey make those mistakes
for you. You possibly also got lucky in your draw (you did not mention
how many Hacks you included, etc.).
--
Bye,
Daneel
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Daneel wrote:
| On Sat, 30 Apr 2005 10:54:18 -0400, Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote:
|
|> | Without it, you need what I would call luck (but which undoubtedly
|> | contains, in no small part, the attitude which permits one to
|> harvest a
|> | lucky situation if it indeed comes up).
|>
|> I don't agree with "luck", but then I was the one playing it, so I
|> wouldn't be inclined to. I prefer to think of it as the ability to
|> enumerate one's own advantages, and play in such a fashion as to
|> maximize your own advantages while minimizing your prey's.
|>
|> In this case (I will use Chad's winning Ahrimanes deck as an example):
(example snipped, as it should have been)
| Well, that was an interesting read. Seems you were playing well.
|
| However, I consider the following items to be luck:
|
| - Your prey made the critical mistake of having those spies on the
| +1 bleed - ani Siamese instead of the +1 Strength - Maneuver - ANI
| Howler. You exploited that mistake well; but you needed the mistake.
He didn't have a choice. I influenced Normal on my first turn, and two
more minions on my second; he had to go for the minion he could get out
on turn 2 so that he could start stacking up Spies before he got run
over. He didn't get Howler until much later. If he hadn't put the
spies on the Siamese, I'd have ousted him sooner -- the standing +2
intercept saved him from a quick trip to the showers.
| - Perhaps related to the previous point, your prey also made the mistake
| of deluding himself regarding your intentions or the game state. When
| he should have methodically kept the number of minions behind him at no
| more than 4 through intercepting your benign actions as well as your
I didn't take _that_ many benign actions. He did try to block some, and
I simply burned some stealth to get by. After a couple goes at this, he
realized I wasn't going to let him block things like hunts, etc., unless
I had the maneuvers and/or Dodges in hand to save myself. After I got
some Walking Sticks on guys, he couldn't afford to use the Siamese too
carelessly, as she was usually around 3 blood. Spending one blood for
intercept and getting whacked for 2 as well forces your main blocker to
hunt -- not what you want to happen, and he knew I was quite willing to
throw some guys in the bin if I had the opportunity to torporize and eat
the Siamese (with, of course, the Famous Normal). Weenie OBF can always
rescue itself.
The Famous vampire I mention below got Famous on turn 4, and never took
another action again until it was time to use him as offense.
Understand this was the tourney winner I was playing against. He's not
stupid; he's just not a mind reader.
| hostile ones, he instead chose to let you build up your critical mass.
| Being a significantly slower deck than yours, it should have been his
| objective to quench the predatory threat.
Which would've lost him the game just as surely, except he would have
given himself no chance to win.
| - Having 70% transient stealth and a bunch of weenies means that unless
| you actually wanted to waste 3+ cards on each action (by trying to sneak
| past the 2 permanent Intercept), you were in the green. This is not to
That's the point. With no Elder Impersonation and a limited number of
Faceless Night... and a prey using Speak with Spirits to untap, meaning
that it might take more than one Faceless Night to keep him down... it's
no guarantee that I won't have to face the 3+ permanent intercept every
single action. I could not afford to be careless with my minions on
"hope", or to assume that I was automatically good no matter what -- I
had to be sure, and had to save the stealth cards to attack his untap,
since attacking his intercept would have simply lost it for me horribly.
| diminish your decisions and play; it is simply to point out that you
| needed your prey to make some grave mistakes to win.
The typical response of the unskilled player is to blame it all on luck
of seating, luck of the draw, etc. But understand that Chad's objective
was not "beat Derek", his objective was "gain VPs". A less skilled
player might have panicked and walled up to oust me by any means
necessary; this would simply have given the game to his own prey, who
was quite merrily going forward during all of this. I repeat: this is
the player who eventually won the tournament. He's not stupid, but he's
not a mind reader either. Some of the decisions you are suggesting he
make require him to know the exact contents of my deck to successfully
arrive at that conclusion -- patently impossible.
- --
Derek
insert clever quotation here
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (MingW32)
iD8DBQFCc+QwtQZlu3o7QpERAiwsAJ4mEhwELhNiARpWvEiIwPboMi5SKgCfYicV
ti+lQA7i4PpLtnxQGfO8zIo=
=Elxt
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----