Clandestine Contract [FN:C2]
Cardtype: Action
Clan: Assamite
Cost: 1 pool
Contract.
Requires an Assamite with a capacity above 4. +1 stealth action.
(D) Enter combat with a ready minion controlled by another Methuselah and
put this card on that minion. This Assamite is chosen for this
contract. This Assamite may enter combat with the minion with this card as
a +1 stealth (D) action.
Can an Assamite play this card to enter combat with a minion, then Freak
Drive and re-enter combat with the same minion? Obviously it's from the
same card, so I'd think not, but the redundant language on the card got me
wondering if the two rushes are considered to be from seperate sources.
David Cherryholmes
Duke Radiology
P.E.T. Facility
(919) 684-7714
david.che...@duke.edu
David Cherryholmes wrote:
> Can an Assamite play this card to enter combat with a minion, then Freak
> Drive and re-enter combat with the same minion?
No, because it's still the same card (the redundant language just states
that you can continue to rush in future turns). If the Assamite had two
Clandestine Contracts on the minion (played on two different turns),
then they could rush twice, though.
--Colin McGuigan
David Cherryholmes wrote:
> Clandestine Contract [FN:C2]> Can an Assamite play this card to enter combat with a minion, then Freak> Drive and re-enter combat with the same minion [via the card in play]?
Yes.
--
LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc.
Links to V:TES news, rules, cards, utilities, and tournament calendar:
http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/
On Mon, 7 Jul 2003, LSJ wrote:
> David Cherryholmes wrote:
> > Clandestine Contract [FN:C2]
> > Can an Assamite play this card to enter combat with a minion, then Freak
> > Drive and re-enter combat with the same minion [via the card in play]?> Yes.
Thought it smelled a little loopy. For those following the Fatima
Multi-rush thread, this is a nice piece of tech, since each Clandestine
Contract you play from the hand will support two rushes that turn.
[ quoted text not captured ]
LSJ wrote:
> David Cherryholmes wrote:
>>> Clandestine Contract [FN:C2]
>> Can an Assamite play this card to enter combat with a minion, then Freak
>> Drive and re-enter combat with the same minion [via the card in play]?>
>
> Yes.
Oops. Guess I'm wrong. Bad habit of mine.
--Colin McGuigan
On Mon, 07 Jul 2003 13:09:56 -0500, Colin McGuigan
<maguaSP...@speakeasy.net> scrawled:
[ quoted text not captured ]
Just for a bit of explanation, the first rush is from an action card,
so you can't _play_ the same action card that turn for another rush.
the second rush from clandestine contract is from a card in play, so
you may not take the same action provided by that copy of the card in
play that turn.
But you are allowed to play it from your hand, freak, and use the
action provided by the card in play.
which is neat.
salem
domain:canberra http://www.geocities.com/salem_christ.geo/vtes.htm
salem <salem_ch...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<c1fkgv4hu4il8k52b...@4ax.com>...
[ quoted text not captured ]
Which is neat just in case you haven't torporized or burned the
vampire in the first combat, which is not neat :D
Angus, the Unruled wrote:
>> Just for a bit of explanation, the first rush is from an
>> action card,
>> so you can't _play_ the same action card that turn for another rush.
>> the second rush from clandestine contract is from a card in play, so
>> you may not take the same action provided by that copy of
>> the card in
>> play that turn.
>>
>> But you are allowed to play it from your hand, freak, and use the> etc..>
> Which is neat just in case you haven't torporized or burned the
> vampire in the first combat, which is not neat :D
I think it, combined with a lot of Psyche and .44s is one of the only
effective ways for Assamites not to spuff all there lovely combat cards
only to be combat ends by some presence blob.
A few .44's goes a hella long way in an Assamite deck. Rush with
Clandestine and threaten a pasting (playing no other cards), get S:CE
played on you then either Psyche and go again or Freak and rush again or
both if need be. You get to play minimal cards and more importantly
deliver them on target as opposed to laying down - range, Blood Sweat,
Taste of Death etc. and wasting them by getting S:CE.
Got to watch the 1 cost on Clandestine... nothing that a few Blood dolls
and Tastes won't sort out mind.
Rob
--
Direct access to this group with http://web2news.comhttp://web2news.com/?rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad
In message <690c2085.0307...@posting.google.com>, "Angus, the
Unruled" <athosg...@gmx.at> writes:
[Clandestine Contract->Freak Drive->use of CC's in play action]
>Which is neat just in case you haven't torporized or burned the
>vampire in the first combat, which is not neat :D
What it *does* allow, however, is a combination with Fame. If you're
trying one of the repetitive Fame/rescue decks, two cards let you get in
another rush. Without CC, you'd either have to use a Rush, an untap, a
Rush. or you'd have to use up a potentially expensive master phase and
you couldn't even use that twice in the same turn anyway, it being a
card in play.
A card slot saved is a card slot you can spend on making
Fame/Rescue/Repeat work less badly.
--
James Coupe
PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D
Lucky that my breasts are small and humble, EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2
So you don't confuse them with mountains. 13D7E668C3695D623D5D
James Coupe wrote:
>
> A card slot saved is a card slot you can spend on making
> Fame/Rescue/Repeat work less badly.
Innnnnnteresting. Am I correct in thinking that you think of this a duff
combo / tactic? I think it's pretty darn workable myself.
When are we going to see you again anyway? Tourneys aren't the same
without you dude.
[ quoted text not captured ]
On Tue, 8 Jul 2003, robtreasure wrote:
> I think it, combined with a lot of Psyche and .44s is one of the only
> effective ways for Assamites not to spuff all there lovely combat cards
> only to be combat ends by some presence blob.
I'm still thinking about the Psyche thing. Psyche answers S:CE by
continuing another combat. You get the same thing out of freaking and
just rushing again, but it's obviously half as efficient. OTOH, it's gun
combat which is virtually free of the need for support cards, so you've
got an incredibly tight combat module and room to be a little less
efficient elsewhere. Since generating another rush is more potent than
just starting another combat with the minion you are currently fighting, I
think it's better to do a little less with Psyche and make the rushing and
freaking even more solid.
Total aside: I took a six player game last night with my 80 card version
of Fatima multirush. You can add "prey is a rush deck" to the things that
kill Turbo Baron. ;)
[ quoted text not captured ]
> Thought it smelled a little loopy. For those following the Fatima
> Multi-rush thread, this is a nice piece of tech, since each Clandestine
> Contract you play from the hand will support two rushes that turn.
Given that the Clandestine Contract is a successfull action, which requires
some stealth ... instead of the stealth you could as well pack another rush.
Keep it simple, keep it good :-). I am not saying that it is bad thing to
play CC but I would not totally rely on it.
--
johannes walch
v:ekn germany - http://www.vekn.de/
David Cherryholmes wrote:
[snip my Psyche / Freak musings]
> I'm still thinking about the Psyche thing. Psyche answers S:CE by
> continuing another combat. You get the same thing out of
> freaking and
> just rushing again, but it's obviously half as efficient.
Bit different as well because you have to 'hit the target' again which
involves a whole new set of 'do you block with disposable minion x?'
etc. What it does do of course, is give multi rush (which in effect is
what Psyche does on one minion) access to Fortitude and to a very lesser
extent AUS (Precog Mobility :o)
Both of Clandestine's rushes are +1 Stealth which is great for hitting
the target and being able to deliver the goods more times than not,
which if you ask me is what successful rush decks are all about.
> OTOH, it's gun
> combat which is virtually free of the need for support
> cards, so you've
> got an incredibly tight combat module and room to be a little less
> efficient elsewhere.
Agreed. I do however think some support is almost essential in the form
of Prevention for when you get nasty stuff like DotB played on you or
maybe Terror Frenzy to counter _all_ other close range.
> Since generating another rush is
> more potent than
> just starting another combat with the minion you are
> currently fighting, I
> think it's better to do a little less with Psyche and make
> the rushing and
> freaking even more solid.
Not a bad theory. I had a Lazbo deck that had 20 Freaks in and made with
Templar on him and went to town. Binned it cos it just burnt through too
much blood, even with Masochism and Blood of the Sabbat on him. Might
try a version with the Templar thing out (booo) and a standard Bum's,
Ambush, Nose etc rush module in. That one cost on Freak does add up if
you are using it in any heavy quantity though.
> Total aside: I took a six player game last night with my
> 80 card version
> of Fatima multirush. You can add "prey is a rush deck" to
> the things that
> kill Turbo Baron. ;)
Nice, I think it's a powerful archetype. Very open to one vamp sew up
tactics (Sensory Dep, PTO etc.) but still very nasty.
[ quoted text not captured ]
In message <4920...@web2news.com>, robtreasure <robtreasure.news.inval
i...@web2news.net> writes:
>> A card slot saved is a card slot you can spend on making
>> Fame/Rescue/Repeat work less badly.>
>Innnnnnteresting. Am I correct in thinking that you think of this a duff
>combo / tactic? I think it's pretty darn workable myself.
I think it's workable but...
Unlike most combat-oriented decks, it works based on the fact that
you're going to give them the vampire back. Yes, careful planning can
mean that you can try to organise so that Parnassus rushes, Harika
rescues and then Parnassus rushes again *but* in between time, the
target deck may have cycled some cards (there's quite a few actions in
there it could react to - intercept, Wake (Forced, in this instance))
and you could find yourself on the wrong end of Skin of Rock and
suddenly that guaranteed torpor is suddenly an active vampire.
Assamite combat - Taste of Death isn't the only card in the world, first
round aggravated damage is moderately tricky to garner properly.
Weapons or something. So death by massive damage (or blood loss, which
is the same for this purpose) is quite possible and, if you're going for
anti-Fortitude, moderately likely - Blood Sweat, Exuding Blood, and so
on, with gun support? So lots of people going to torpor are doing it
via blood loss and hitting zero. So when you rescue, you'll end up
spending some blood. Probably not on EVERY minion, but on some, at
least. So combat - which is blood intensive and scary - is being hurt
by losing some blood too.
Unlike most of the obvious successful strategies, for Fame/Torpor/Repeat
to work, you need Fame. This makes it very, very master intensive and
susceptible. Which also screws up your play of Sudden Reversal and
Direct Intervention, losing the flexibility for which is a pain.
Obviously, any deck using masters has those issues - but they seem to be
less expensive, opportunity wise. Everyone wants to play Blood Doll,
everyone wants to play Minion Tap but you don't have to spend a turn
thinking "I can't do my deck if I don't play it this turn" in usual
circumstances. (Obviously, in the late game with little pool and so on
it's different.)
So you don't have innate untap to make it more efficient, so need to
play some of the trickier vampires, are losing blood (if not
haemorrhaging it under bad conditions) and can't keep the vampires down
properly...
It's certainly playable, and it's certainly something you can do well
with. But combat decks that rely on curtailing their offence seem
tricky.
>When are we going to see you again anyway? Tourneys aren't the same
>without you dude.
With luck, I should be able to play at this month's Watford tournament.
I'm in Cambridge for the fortnight before, so how I'll get down to the
tournament, and where I'll be the night before, is anyone's guess.
[ quoted text not captured ]
On Tue, 8 Jul 2003, robtreasure wrote:
> Both of Clandestine's rushes are +1 Stealth which is great for hitting
> the target and being able to deliver the goods more times than not,
> which if you ask me is what successful rush decks are all about.
I think the big design hurdle for the Assamites is answering the question
"what do I do after I torpor them?" Burn, Graverob, diablerize with Tariq
or disposable minions.... these are some possible answers, of
course. Generating enough minion actions to be effective at rushing used
to seem like the insurmountable obstacle, but the deck we're talking
around has that covered.
<snip guns are good>
> Agreed. I do however think some support is almost essential in the form
> of Prevention for when you get nasty stuff like DotB played on you or
> maybe Terror Frenzy to counter _all_ other close range.
Definitely. It's just that, considered over a large number of combats,
you generally won't *need* to have that stuff to be the winner.
> That one cost on Freak does add up if
> you are using it in any heavy quantity though.
Were you playing with many Tastes? It's a card with diminishing returns,
but even if your target has only has one blood, it'll break you even for
the next rush. With decks like Laz or Fatima + AR, the default damage is
so high that scooping blood from a Taste every two or three combats will
keep you going.
> Nice, I think it's a powerful archetype. Very open to one vamp sew up
> tactics (Sensory Dep, PTO etc.) but still very nasty.
Yup. I think Secure Haven is important for this deck, beyond simply
contesting it away from targets, but you'll always have that one vamp
vulnerability. Blitzkrieging whoever may pose that threat may be
required. Certainly in that six-way last night I had already worked
out who needed to get victory points in what order for me to win. It's
also good to understand how to affect your grand-predator or grand-prey by
pushing or pulling on your predator or prey. That tends to nudge the
table in the right direction without blatantly rushing
cross-table. People playing one vampire decks need to think about these
things more than others.
[ quoted text not captured ]
<snip interesting tactical talk>
>
>
> >When are we going to see you again anyway? Tourneys aren't the same
> >without you dude.
True. More Coupe = better fun.
>
> With luck, I should be able to play at this month's Watford tournament.
Good News!
> I'm in Cambridge for the fortnight before, so how I'll get down to the
> tournament, and where I'll be the night before, is anyone's guess.
Man, beg, borrow or steal a place to sleep. Actually, i might be able
to help for the rather-more-important August do. Let me know if this
is of interest.
In message <22fea992.03070...@posting.google.com>, legbiter
<legb...@mailandnews.com> writes:
>> I'm in Cambridge for the fortnight before, so how I'll get down to the
>> tournament, and where I'll be the night before, is anyone's guess.>
>Man, beg, borrow or steal a place to sleep.
The "problem" is that I'm in Cambridge for a course as prep for next
year. It finishes that Friday, so I don't know if I'll have time to
move home on the Friday and have my car available on the Saturday, or
similar. Getting the train to Birmingham Friday afternoon/evening,
driving to Watford on Saturday, then back to Cambridge that night, then
move home on Sunday looks likely.
[ quoted text not captured ]
David Cherryholmes wrote:
> I think the big design hurdle for the Assamites is answering the question
> "what do I do after I torpor them?"
Heh...I always thought it was a tie between "How will I oust my prey?"
and "How will I manage to not get ousted?" ;)
> > That one cost on Freak does add up if
> > you are using it in any heavy quantity though.
>
> Were you playing with many Tastes? It's a card with diminishing returns,
> but even if your target has only has one blood, it'll break you even for
> the next rush. With decks like Laz or Fatima + AR, the default damage is
> so high that scooping blood from a Taste every two or three combats will
> keep you going.
Hunting Grounds are always nice (and you've got a longer-term strategy
going anyway), and I've become more and more a fan of The Coven in
combat decks and multi-action decks. Yeah, you're giving away two blood
to another player, but if you're a combat deck, you should be able to
handle that.
> > Nice, I think it's a powerful archetype. Very open to one vamp sew up
> > tactics (Sensory Dep, PTO etc.) but still very nasty.
>
> Yup. I think Secure Haven is important for this deck, beyond simply
> contesting it away from targets, but you'll always have that one vamp
> vulnerability.
Secure Haven won't protect you from PTO, but your point is made.
> Blitzkrieging whoever may pose that threat may be required.
I also like having a mid-cap vampire who can be a bodyguard for
your main vampire, and who can generally do mid-cap-sized jobs
rather than risking your main guy.
- Ben Peal, Prince of Boston
fu...@mindstorm.com
On 9 Jul 2003, Ben Peal wrote:
> David Cherryholmes wrote:
> > I think the big design hurdle for the Assamites is answering the question
> > "what do I do after I torpor them?"
>
> Heh...I always thought it was a tie between "How will I oust my prey?"
> and "How will I manage to not get ousted?" ;)
The question I posed is essentially the same thing as "how will I oust my
prey". The point being, merely torping a bunch of vampires isn't going to
do it. Rather, it won't do it with a "standard" Assamite deck fast
enough. This lack of ousting "oomph" also contributes to the tendency to
flat-out erase your predator as the only way to stay alive.
> Hunting Grounds are always nice (and you've got a longer-term strategy
> going anyway), and I've become more and more a fan of The Coven in
> combat decks and multi-action decks. Yeah, you're giving away two blood
> to another player, but if you're a combat deck, you should be able to
> handle that.
I'm currently at a low point in my "HG cycle". If there are no better
options I'll use one (I think they are nice for bleed decks that will be
paying one for lots of cards). Any combat deck has better options than a
HG, though. But I also tend to walk a thin line where pool gain is
concerned, and that colors my decisions. As always, depends on the
deck. I've had similiar thoughts wrt Coven, though. If you are tasting,
and supporting your Freak Drives with that tasted blood, the argument gets
even stronger.
> I also like having a mid-cap vampire who can be a bodyguard for
> your main vampire, and who can generally do mid-cap-sized jobs
> rather than risking your main guy.
One caps make great chaff.
[ quoted text not captured ]
>> David Cherryholmes wrote:>>> I think the big design hurdle for the Assamites is answering the question
>>> "what do I do after I torpor them?">>
>> Heh...I always thought it was a tie between "How will I oust my prey?"
>> and "How will I manage to not get ousted?" ;)>
> The question I posed is essentially the same thing as "how will I oust my
> prey". The point being, merely torping a bunch of vampires isn't going to
> do it. Rather, it won't do it with a "standard" Assamite deck fast
> enough. This lack of ousting "oomph" also contributes to the tendency to
> flat-out erase your predator as the only way to stay alive.
I never tried Assamites but how about:
1. Erase your predator.
2. Erase your predator
3. Erase your predator
4. Erase your predator
5. 2VP GW.
Feasible? Could you stop someone else getting the VP before you are ready
for them?
David Cherryholmes wrote:
> Ben Peal wrote:
> > David Cherryholmes wrote:
> > > I think the big design hurdle for the Assamites is answering the question
> > > "what do I do after I torpor them?"
> >
> > Heh...I always thought it was a tie between "How will I oust my prey?"
> > and "How will I manage to not get ousted?" ;)
>
> The question I posed is essentially the same thing as "how will I oust my
> prey".
Ah...well, you followed up that question with comments about burning
vamps and Graverobbing them and diablerizing them, with only Graverobbing
contributing to the actual ousting part of the plan, which is why I made
the snarky comment. :)
> The point being, merely torping a bunch of vampires isn't going to
> do it. Rather, it won't do it with a "standard" Assamite deck fast
> enough. This lack of ousting "oomph" also contributes to the tendency to
> flat-out erase your predator as the only way to stay alive.
Oh, totally.
> > Hunting Grounds are always nice (and you've got a longer-term strategy
> > going anyway), and I've become more and more a fan of The Coven in
> > combat decks and multi-action decks. Yeah, you're giving away two blood
> > to another player, but if you're a combat deck, you should be able to
> > handle that.
>
> I'm currently at a low point in my "HG cycle". If there are no better
> options I'll use one (I think they are nice for bleed decks that will be
> paying one for lots of cards). Any combat deck has better options than a
> HG, though.
I find that odd, given that you're such a Freak Drive fan. Why would
you pass up on a card that pays for one Freak Drive every turn?
> But I also tend to walk a thin line where pool gain is concerned, and that
> colors my decisions. As always, depends on the deck. I've had similiar
> thoughts wrt Coven, though. If you are tasting, and supporting your Freak
> Drives with that tasted blood, the argument gets even stronger.
*nod* And presumably you've got a Giant's Blood thrown in there, too.
> > I also like having a mid-cap vampire who can be a bodyguard for
> > your main vampire, and who can generally do mid-cap-sized jobs
> > rather than risking your main guy.
>
> One caps make great chaff.
Oh sure, and I'll throw a few weenies into a deck for general errand-
running and chump-blocking. However, I still like to have a mid-cap
who can still fight competently so that I'm not exposing my main big
vamp to every threat out there.
[ quoted text not captured ]
On 10 Jul 2003, Ben Peal wrote:
> Ah...well, you followed up that question with comments about burning
> vamps and Graverobbing them and diablerizing them, with only Graverobbing
> contributing to the actual ousting part of the plan, which is why I made
> the snarky comment. :)
I think if you can go for the burn, victory is possible. Although the
speed issue is still there, presumably under this scenario you can burn
pretty much whomever you wish, on account of throwing your whole deck at
that goal. This should be sufficient intimidation towards your predator,
and bleeding for three a turn (i.e. one each with three minions) is *just
barely* the benchmark. The main problem with having no followup on the
torpor is that some other guy just yanks them out, as I'm sure you're
aware.
> I find that odd, given that you're such a Freak Drive fan. Why would
> you pass up on a card that pays for one Freak Drive every turn?
You must know why I'm a freak drive fan. They're all taking six actions a
turn That Other Way. I'd like to be able to get away from the card,
personally, but I'd be hugging fortitude against the KoR, anyway. Maybe
ultra-paranoid, but my VTES games tend to come in three flavors: weenie,
pure S+B, or big-ass Ventrue. Anyway, that hunting ground slot could be
another Taste. Lessee, two pool and a turn later for one blood, or I
could gain, say, four, right here and now. I just don't think HG's that
good for a *combat deck*.
> *nod* And presumably you've got a Giant's Blood thrown in there, too.
Natch. Good in about three different ways.
> Oh sure, and I'll throw a few weenies into a deck for general errand-
> running and chump-blocking. However, I still like to have a mid-cap
> who can still fight competently so that I'm not exposing my main big
> vamp to every threat out there.
There is only one Fatima. Either you *are* Fatima, or you're chaff. For
lots and lots and lots of other decks, I agree.
[ quoted text not captured ]
In message <1jxxwb3niebsg.6...@40tude.net>, Timlagor
<Timlagor...@yahoo.co.uk> writes:
> never tried Assamites but how about:
>1. Erase your predator.
>2. Erase your predator
>3. Erase your predator
>4. Erase your predator
>5. 2VP GW.
Hard. Backwards play works quite well with the !Malks (and now
neoMalks, with dem), who can do it with bleed, because it's quick.
The Assamites have to try to take out the vampires (slower) or take out
the pool (much slower than the !Malks - Night Moves is good, but slow).
And just because you take out my vampires doesn't mean I lose.
Five players on a table:
LSJ Derek Ray Me You (Lasombra)
You're playing backwards against me. As a result, the Lasombra gets a
relatively easy ride. (Uh-oh.) But if he's chosen to play a wall-ish
deck, for instance, he might be slower. On a four player table,
however, Lasombra isn't there - and LSJ gets a free ride. He can come
in and throw everything he's got at Derek. Which means that even when
you destroy my vampires, Derek can't come forward. Or might already be
dead, even.
>Feasible? Could you stop someone else getting the VP before you are ready
>for them?
Backwards play is very risky anyway.
You don't have that good a pool gain mechanism for Life Boon, in most
decks. A good Provisions of the Silsila combo-ed with Minion Tap might
do something, but it's still tricky - that's fairly poor against weenie-
ish decks, for instance. Nor do you have that good a pro-vote option,
for Dramatic Upheavel - your cards are usually a wee bit expensive for
Mob Rule to be hugely feasible.
[ quoted text not captured ]
In message <MUFW56C+1fD$Ew...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk>, James Coupe
<ja...@zephyr.org.uk> writes:
>A good Provisions of the Silsila combo-ed with Minion Tap might
>do something, but it's still tricky - that's fairly poor against weenie-
>ish decks, for instance.
Ack, that was probably supposed to be "That's fairly poor if you *are* a
weenie-ish deck", probably due to me misremembering the Provisions text.
Funnily, though, at a point near falling asleep at the keyboard, I
remember exactly how it works.
Life, eh?
[ quoted text not captured ]
David Cherryholmes wrote:
> Ben Peal wrote:
> > Ah...well, you followed up that question with comments about burning
> > vamps and Graverobbing them and diablerizing them, with only Graverobbing
> > contributing to the actual ousting part of the plan, which is why I made
> > the snarky comment. :)
>
> I think if you can go for the burn, victory is possible. Although the
> speed issue is still there, presumably under this scenario you can burn
> pretty much whomever you wish, on account of throwing your whole deck at> that goal. This should be sufficient intimidation towards your predator...
The irony being that it is _you_ who are intimidated by your predator,
causing you to implement the rush-defense strategy.
> and bleeding for three a turn (i.e. one each with three minions) is *just
> barely* the benchmark.
I'm not really a fan of "just barely", so I'd be inclined to throw some
extra bleed in there to hasten the process. (and presumably you're
using Fame and/or Tension)
> > I find that odd, given that you're such a Freak Drive fan. Why would
> > you pass up on a card that pays for one Freak Drive every turn?
>
> You must know why I'm a freak drive fan. They're all taking six actions a
> turn That Other Way.
:) I've been addicted to Wakes for basically the same reason.
> I'd like to be able to get away from the card, personally, but I'd be
> hugging fortitude against the KoR, anyway. Maybe ultra-paranoid, but
> my VTES games tend to come in three flavors: weenie, pure S+B, or
> big-ass Ventrue.
You need to get your group out to more of the major tournaments. :)
> Anyway, that hunting ground slot could be another Taste. Lessee, two
> pool and a turn later for one blood, or I could gain, say, four, right
> here and now. I just don't think HG's that good for a *combat deck*.
You've got a longer-term ousting strategy, and as the game wears on
and you're only getting one or two from the Tastes, you'll be looking
at the Hunting Grounds differently.
> > Oh sure, and I'll throw a few weenies into a deck for general errand-
> > running and chump-blocking. However, I still like to have a mid-cap
> > who can still fight competently so that I'm not exposing my main big
> > vamp to every threat out there.
>
> There is only one Fatima. Either you *are* Fatima, or you're chaff. For
> lots and lots and lots of other decks, I agree.
*shrug* I'd still like to have that backup vamp with CEL.
[ quoted text not captured ]
Timlagor wrote:
> I never tried Assamites but how about:
> 1. Erase your predator.
> 2. Erase your predator
> 3. Erase your predator
> 4. Erase your predator
> 5. 2VP GW.
>
> Feasible? Could you stop someone else getting the VP before you are ready
> for them?
If you could exhibit that much control over the table, you might as
well just go downstream and get 5 VP.
[ quoted text not captured ]
On 11 Jul 2003, Ben Peal wrote:
> The irony being that it is _you_ who are intimidated by your predator,
> causing you to implement the rush-defense strategy.
We could easily get distracted by the semantics of "intimidation". I'm
always intimidated by my predator in one sense, since he's trying to oust
me and I assume he's got a good deck. What I meant by my comment was
that, if you have a clearly demonstrated ability to back oust, *some*
players can be convinced to slow down their attacks. Against some other
players, it is possible to trim back their minions to something you can
survive, without them throwing a hissy fit and influencing themselves
out. Only some, though. The others I guess you go ahead and erase, for
lack of any better options.
> I'm not really a fan of "just barely", so I'd be inclined to throw some
> extra bleed in there to hasten the process. (and presumably you're
> using Fame and/or Tension)
I'm an enormous fan of "just barely". I would like to get the job done
with exactly the amount of resources required and not a bit more (there
are parallels here with the 80 card deck philosophy). The
counterbalancing notion is my equal belief in the need for "slop". So I
tend to build decks that aim for just barely, and just a smidgeon
more. For example, I'd say a primary payload of Fame-dunk, with followup
bleeds for one or two a turn, is just barely + a smidgeon.
> :) I've been addicted to Wakes for basically the same reason.
I've just got no deck-building discipline for Wakes. Maybe we can chew on
that over GenCon. I mean, yeah, I've got decks with Wakes, a few with
lots, but I don't see how these other people I play with (who are pretty
good), always manage to squeeze in a block of them in any deck they
play. I'm probably overcompensating somewhere that I can't see.
> You've got a longer-term ousting strategy, and as the game wears on
> and you're only getting one or two from the Tastes, you'll be looking
> at the Hunting Grounds differently.
I toyes last night with putting a HG in. It's more to do with the pool
cost and the Mastercard slot than with not thinking the effects are good.
> *shrug* I'd still like to have that backup vamp with CEL.
I just don't see the wisdom in putting 5 pool worth of gun in the hands of
someone who could very well get punked. It may even be handing out that
gun to an opponent. Still, that's a very specific deck. Generally I
agree with you.
[ quoted text not captured ]
David Cherryholmes wrote:
> Ben Peal wrote:> > I'm not really a fan of "just barely", so I'd be inclined to throw some
> > extra bleed in there to hasten the process. (and presumably you're
> > using Fame and/or Tension)
>
> I'm an enormous fan of "just barely". I would like to get the job done
> with exactly the amount of resources required and not a bit more (there
> are parallels here with the 80 card deck philosophy). The
> counterbalancing notion is my equal belief in the need for "slop". So I
> tend to build decks that aim for just barely, and just a smidgeon
> more. For example, I'd say a primary payload of Fame-dunk, with followup
> bleeds for one or two a turn, is just barely + a smidgeon.
By contrast, I prefer the primary payload to be bleeds, with a follow-up
of Fame. I really, really don't like waiting to draw into a Fame to get
my primary offense going.
> > :) I've been addicted to Wakes for basically the same reason.
>
> I've just got no deck-building discipline for Wakes. Maybe we can chew on
> that over GenCon. I mean, yeah, I've got decks with Wakes, a few with
> lots, but I don't see how these other people I play with (who are pretty
> good), always manage to squeeze in a block of them in any deck they
> play. I'm probably overcompensating somewhere that I can't see.
Yeah, I imagine we'll have lots of time to chew on design strategy. :)
I see Wakes as being similar to Freak Drives in that they help you
generate additional actions that would have otherwise been simply
vampires left untapped to defend.
> > *shrug* I'd still like to have that backup vamp with CEL.
>
> I just don't see the wisdom in putting 5 pool worth of gun in the hands of
> someone who could very well get punked. It may even be handing out that
> gun to an opponent. Still, that's a very specific deck. Generally I agree
> with you.
I look at it from the perspective of spending 5 pool on a vampire that's
quite strong in combat, and who can handle a lot of tasks without having
to risk my 10-pool combat monster. If my predator or prey is playing
Animalism, then yeah, I'll question the wisdom of that idea. :)
[ quoted text not captured ]
>> :) I've been addicted to Wakes for basically the same reason.>
> I've just got no deck-building discipline for Wakes. Maybe we can chew on
> that over GenCon. I mean, yeah, I've got decks with Wakes, a few with
> lots, but I don't see how these other people I play with (who are pretty
> good), always manage to squeeze in a block of them in any deck they
> play. I'm probably overcompensating somewhere that I can't see.
I am appaling at getting decks down to size -even when i start with a clear
plan of just how much of what to put in it, I can't resist adding things and
then I have to trim painfully so from my point of superior ability im' going
to make a recommendation ;-D
Try building an 80 card deck.
Now add the wakes.
Simple eh? and you still have room for a few extras -like intercept/bounce
;-)
Wakes won't clog you up too much as you can always ditch them on things you
can't block (might cost some blood...) and they are usually going to be
useful. (get at least 1 oinmt of intercept -of course you may be able to
borrow this from someone else's location but I wouldn't count on it.)
On Mon, 14 Jul 2003, Timlagor wrote:
> Try building an 80 card deck.
I do, frequently.
> Now add the wakes.
But then it's not an eighty card deck.
> Simple eh? and you still have room for a few extras -like intercept/bounce
Yeah, if I wanted to be at ninety cards. The only decks I'll play at 90
are foh-real combat decks, in which case I'm not playing with wakes
anyway.
Trifles, on the other hand, are looking like tempting bolt-ons.
[ quoted text not captured ]
In message <9hdc1etigoa.ny3sxmteyoh4$.d...@40tude.net>,
Timlagor <Timlagor...@yahoo.co.uk> mumbled something about:
>Try building an 80 card deck.
>
>Now add the wakes.
Now remove exactly as many cards of fluff as you added Wakes. ;)
>Wakes won't clog you up too much as you can always ditch them on things you
>can't block (might cost some blood...) and they are usually going to be
>useful. (get at least 1 oinmt of intercept -of course you may be able to
>borrow this from someone else's location but I wouldn't count on it.)
The only real problem you can run into with a Wake is when you draw them
early on in your own turn -- if you're playing a cardflow-intensive
deck, it can suck. :)
--
How do you know if your keyboard was made by the KGB?
... There's no ESC.
On 14 Jul 2003 15:03:14 -0700, Ben Peal wrote:
> Yeah, I imagine we'll have lots of time to chew on design strategy. :)
Heh. Count me in. That was some of the most entertaining stuff last
year. :)
> I see Wakes as being similar to Freak Drives in that they help you
> generate additional actions that would have otherwise been simply
> vampires left untapped to defend.
Given the choice, do you prefer Wake or Freak? Freak costs, but maybe
allows more options? Less surprise, though.
Xian
On 14 Jul 2003, Ben Peal wrote:
> By contrast, I prefer the primary payload to be bleeds, with a follow-up
> of Fame. I really, really don't like waiting to draw into a Fame to get
> my primary offense going.
That's B+B, though.
> I look at it from the perspective of spending 5 pool on a vampire that's
> quite strong in combat, and who can handle a lot of tasks without having
> to risk my 10-pool combat monster. If my predator or prey is playing
> Animalism, then yeah, I'll question the wisdom of that idea. :)
Part of the idea with the deck is that the weeners could fetch a gun off
of Fatima, but that presumes having the pool to get additional AR's and
the general environment being condusive to the weenie doing something
productive with it. Unlikely, really, but it's there as an option.
[ quoted text not captured ]
David Cherryholmes wrote:
> Ben Peal wrote:
> > By contrast, I prefer the primary payload to be bleeds, with a follow-up
> > of Fame. I really, really don't like waiting to draw into a Fame to get
> > my primary offense going.
>
> That's B+B, though.
It's all a matter of degree. A rush-combat deck isn't going to be
ousting its prey solely by Fame or Tension in the Ranks. It's going
to throw some bleeds in there. A bruise-bleed deck is likely going
to have Fame or Tension to supplement the bleeds and discourage
blocking.
Unless I'm playing weenie-rush, I consider bleeds for one to be a
bad plan for a rush-combat deck. Hence the desire for some extra
bleed cards.
> > I look at it from the perspective of spending 5 pool on a vampire that's
> > quite strong in combat, and who can handle a lot of tasks without having
> > to risk my 10-pool combat monster. If my predator or prey is playing
> > Animalism, then yeah, I'll question the wisdom of that idea. :)
>
> Part of the idea with the deck is that the weeners could fetch a gun off
> of Fatima, but that presumes having the pool to get additional AR's and
> the general environment being condusive to the weenie doing something
> productive with it. Unlikely, really, but it's there as an option.
Ah, I missed the part about giving Fatima an Assault Rifle. I was assuming
.44's. My bad.
So, yeah, giving Sarah Brando an Assault Rifle as a backup would be...
umm...questionable. :)
[ quoted text not captured ]
Xian <xi...@visi.nospam.com> writes:
> > I see Wakes as being similar to Freak Drives in that they help you
> > generate additional actions that would have otherwise been simply
> > vampires left untapped to defend.
>
> Given the choice, do you prefer Wake or Freak? Freak costs, but maybe
> allows more options? Less surprise, though.
Well, it's one of those "It depends" questions. Daddy or chips?
However, surprise isn't an altogether good thing, necessarily so.
Consider the player who, on seeing you untapped, decides not to
attempt the bleed in the first place and so keeps their hand more
clogged. Which may or may not be better than the player who attempts
it, cycling cards, and sees you play Wake. That will, of course,
depend on all sorts of factors. A toolboxy deck will suffer somewhat
if the cards are played, but then you Wake, because it may not be able
to amass that bleed offence easily again, whereas a one trick pony
deck will just keep on pulling.
--
James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D
EBD690ECD7A1F
What's the meaning when you speak with so much feeling? B457CA213D7E6
Is it over when you're sober? Is it junk? 68C3695D623D5D