LA Tournament Results (a.k.a. The Corrupter was sorta right)

We played four V:TES tournaments at a Con in LA over Labor Day weekend. Here's a few highlights. 1. If anyone still doubts the brain of our Steve "don't call me Tom" Bucy (tb...@lainet.com) who has recently made bold statements regarding the necessity of intercept (and other views that go against the flow), you should know that he played in 3 tournaments (each with 25 players) and finished in 1st place 2 times and got a 2nd place finish the other time. He did this with three different decks. I played in two finals: One I got 2nd place behind Steve, and the other, well, see below... I'm sure that you'll doubt the quality of the other players but you shouldn't. 2. Gangrel Infinite Loop decks. There were two. The first one was OK. The guy took out his prey every time. And fast too. But never went farther. Why play a deck that doesn't win? Now the other one added a Toreador or two to play Distractions. His loop never broke. He cycled through at least thirty cards for about 20 points in bleeds before having to stop. I was ousted on the fourth turn of this final. Once stopped it seemed to take 3 or 4 turns to get what he needed to start again. After he ousted me, his new prey back bled him for seven pool and then his grand prey Bum's Rushed and burned the famous vamp. So, I agree that it did require a gang up situation and that is a problem, but on the other hand, who cares? If you play these decks you'll get one victory point and then die. However, I would still love to see No Repeat Actions implemented. 3. Our newsgroups very own Chris Schorb has been following the Weenie Vote Push talks and decided to try out his at the tournament. It was a night tournament so there was only one round and then a final. After the first round Chris was in agreement with The Corrupter (and other) becuase he swept the table in 20 minutes (nobody from my playgroup or other good players were at his table). In the final, Chris didn't even have one Praxis Siezure go. He had a good player near him who intercepted the votes. Anyway, I agree that these decks are a problem if the table environment is a particular way. It seems to me that you are taking a big chance playing this deck. I'd call a WVP a one-trick-pony. (Note: I think Chris won 1st place anyway because time ran out and he had one mroe blood than the other players!) Robert ...................................................................... :The opinions expressed here are strictly my own delusional ramblings: :and do not reflect the opinions of The Walt Disney Company. : : : :Robert Goudie robert...@studio.disney.com: :....................................................................: :cigars * v:tes * car rallies * scotch * sega rally champion * spoon : :....................................................................:

Robert, You start off well and your post is well received but may I point out one thing? You said that you were sure the readers would doubt the quality of the other players and then admonished us that we shouldn't, correctly so. But two paragraphs later, when trying to explain the success of the WVP deck sweeping his table in twenty minutes in the first round, you said "nobody from my playgroup or other good players were at his table." Let's be fair and not doubt the quality of those players either. Perhaps they were simply not prepared for WVP. Other than that, a well delivered report. Thanks for the information. Good luck with the rules questions. Doug Dunaway

DOUGDWISE wrote: > > Robert, > > You start off well and your post is well received but may I point out one > thing? > > You said that you were sure the readers would doubt the quality of the > other players and then admonished us that we shouldn't, correctly so. > > But two paragraphs later, when trying to explain the success of the WVP > deck sweeping his table in twenty minutes in the first round, you said > "nobody from my playgroup or other good players were at his table." Let's > be fair and not doubt the quality of those players either. [CLIP] Hi Doug, My admonishment to not doubt the quality of other players was in reference to Steve Bucy's success at the tournaments. The finals were packed with particularly high quality players and Steve was still dominant. I freely admit that in the prelimary rounds there were many poor players mixed in. Steve no doubt got several easy victory points along the way. There is an identifiable group that has dominated the tournaments at the last 3 conventions. That group consists of 3 players from my playgroup and 3 players from another playgroup. There are also 2 individuals from neither group who make it to the finals often. The table that had the WVP present in a preliminary round did not have any of the 8 players that have consistanly been winners. At least 6 of these eight players subscribe to the view that intercept is a necessary component in almost any winning deck. So my comment was not a generalization but rather a specific attempt to show that the players who have proven their quality with repeated trips to the finals are the same ones who typically make use of intercept. The 1st round table with the WVP present can objectively be shown to have inferior players due to none of those players having made consistant trips to the finals. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <322C5E...@studio.disney.com>, Robert Goudie <Robert...@studio.disney.com> wrote: > >2. Gangrel Infinite Loop decks. There were two. The first one was >OK. The guy took out his prey every time. And fast too. But never >went farther. Why play a deck that doesn't win? Now the other one >added a Toreador or two to play Distractions. His loop never broke. He >cycled through at least thirty cards for about 20 points in bleeds >before having to stop. I was ousted on the fourth turn of this final. >Once stopped it seemed to take 3 or 4 turns to get what he needed to >start again. After he ousted me, his new prey back bled him for seven >pool and then his grand prey Bum's Rushed and burned the famous vamp. >So, I agree that it did require a gang up situation and that is a >problem, but on the other hand, who cares? If you play these decks >you'll get one victory point and then die. However, I would still love >to see No Repeat Actions implemented. I don't understand the decks you are describing. My Gangrel infinite loop deck has never lost, and about 25% of the time it will take out every single other player (7 one time) as soon as I can take an action. At the very least I will oust 2 players on my 3rd or 4th turn. Once I've gained blood that way and I have 4 vamps that can all go berserk w/fame/legendary there is no stopping it anyway. And yes as soon as they see it every player at the table tries to kill me but it has never worked. As far as I can tell it is immune to everything, the only thing that might stop it is a deck with *nothing* but wake ups and intercept. It's too fast for vote or bleed, and SCE stops combat and blocking. And I've barely tried it out with Kiss of Ra [BROKEN], I threw 2 in last time I played the deck and it was amusing. -- ++ "If Alien was my friend, I'd like to be with him when he went to the ++ ++ dentist. When they started drilling, he'd probably go nuts and start ++ ++ eating everybody. That Alien!" ++

Dear Jonnie, your deck sounds awesome. Please post it for us here on the bbs. Then we will probably be much more impressed than if we just have your word for its capabilities. Chick...@aol.com 3930 Cody Road Sherman Oaks, CA 91403 day 714-558-9444 eve 818-784-8476

Robert Goudie wrote: > 2. Gangrel Infinite Loop decks. OK, I'm new at this game. Can you please explain the idea behind this deck? What do you mean by "infinite loop?" I'm assuming that you are not referring to recycling your library, as I haven't seen many cards that let you retrieve cards from your ash heap. Is this "infinite loop" duplicatable in other decks, or is it specific to Gangrels? Thanks for your input! Ray Babbitt RBab...@Novell.COM Standard Disclaimer

In article <50l2sv$b...@gozer.inri.com>, Johnny Tullner <j...@inri.com> wrote: [Gangrel Infinite Loop described, snipped] >I don't understand the decks you are describing. My Gangrel infinite >loop deck has never lost, and about 25% of the time it will take out >every single other player (7 one time) as soon as I can take an action. > >At the very least I will oust 2 players on my 3rd or 4th turn. Once >I've gained blood that way and I have 4 vamps that can all go >berserk w/fame/legendary there is no stopping it anyway. >As far as I can tell it is immune to everything, the only thing that >might stop it is a deck with *nothing* but wake ups and intercept. >It's too fast for vote or bleed, and SCE stops combat and blocking. Does nobody try to block the Rapid Healings? Note that when a Rapid Healing is blocked, there is no combat, but rather the opportunity for diablerie (& I'm sure the table would be more than happy to vote it down). Can't Form of Mist or Earth Meld in that case, and you have a max of +4 stealth (+1 inherent/+2 Earth Control/+1 Backways). A decent Ravnos Ani/Chi intercept Apparition/Trap/Drawing out the Beast combat deck should hose you just fine -- can't even Kiss the Fortitudinous Ravnos. Rapid Healing has always been the hole in Gangrel Infinite Loop -- mind you, since it's only really addressable by a deck with Intercept and Fortitude (namely Ravnos or Intercept Gangrel, or some really twisted Ventrue variant), it's still degenerate as all get-out (and fully addressed by SPTR). Block the Rapid Healings when the vamp doesn't have enough blood to pull off a Kiss, and you don't even need Fortitude. +5 intercept -- challenging, but feasible. gomi -- 'spend a day and a half dead and the lettuce runs amok.' -babs woods

In article <322C5E...@studio.disney.com> <50l2sv$b...@gozer.inri.com>, j...@inri.com (Johnny Tullner) wrote: > I don't understand the decks you are describing. My Gangrel infinite > loop deck has never lost, and about 25% of the time it will take out > every single other player (7 one time) as soon as I can take an action. > At the very least I will oust 2 players on my 3rd or 4th turn. Once > I've gained blood that way and I have 4 vamps that can all go > berserk w/fame/legendary there is no stopping it anyway. > And yes as soon as they see it every player at the table tries to > kill me but it has never worked. > As far as I can tell it is immune to everything, the only thing that > might stop it is a deck with *nothing* but wake ups and intercept. > It's too fast for vote or bleed, and SCE stops combat and blocking. > And I've barely tried it out with Kiss of Ra [BROKEN], I threw 2 in > last time I played the deck and it was amusing. A couple of questions before I say anything about your Gangrel infinite loop deck: 1.) What kind of environment do you play in (Golden Tenants, 4 card limit, DCI, or no limit)? 2.) Do you play with fame as it was errated (fame is considered unique)? 3.) Do the people you play with use intercept? I have never seen a Gangrel infinite loop win so many games. Something must be different in you environment. Steve -don't call me Tom- Bucy ----------------------------------------------------------------------- This article was posted to Usenet via the Posting Service at Deja News: http://www.dejanews.com/ [Search, Post, and Read Usenet News!]

[ quoted text not captured ] Hi Ray, The Gangrel Infinite Loop is done with a Gangrel (usually) who does an action (probably bleed) and then after it is tapped it does a Force of Will. The force of will sends the vampire to torpor after it bleeds. If Fame is on the Vampire, the prey loses three pool. Next the vampire does a Movement of the Slow Body which allows them to untap while in torpor and at superior they also gain a blood. Finally the Gangrel does a Rapid Healing which allows them to leave torpor at +1 Stealth and at superior they gain a blood. At this point the circle is complete. The Gangrel again does a bleed action and is tapped, etc. etc. Robert Goudie

Robert e-mailed me to ask me for my input, and I can't help but refuse... :) On Tue, 3 Sep 1996, Robert Goudie wrote: > We played four V:TES tournaments at a Con in LA over Labor Day weekend. > Here's a few highlights. > 1. If anyone still doubts the brain of our Steve "don't call me Tom" > Bucy (tb...@lainet.com) who has recently made bold statements regarding > the necessity of intercept (and other views that go against the flow), ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > you should know that he played in 3 tournaments (each with 25 players) > and finished in 1st place 2 times and got a 2nd place finish the other > time. He did this with three different decks. I played in two finals: > One I got 2nd place behind Steve, and the other, well, see below... I'm > sure that you'll doubt the quality of the other players but you > shouldn't. :) I find the underlined statement above quitefunny. In the tournaments I have been in, one of the consistent players _never_ had any intercept in his decks, yet got 1st in one, and 2nd or 3rd in the rest. I have come to the conclusion, along with Curt Adams, I believe, that intercept or its lack in a deck will be more valuable depending on the regional uses of stealth. In area where NL or NL/GT have propogated, tight stealthless rush would make intercept less valuable, while in other areas with a CL background, the opposite is true (less 0 Stealth attacks). Since the area will continue to build decks with these principles in mind, you will see the above examples (my friend and Bucy) being wildly disparate. > 2. Gangrel Infinite Loop decks. There were two. The first one was > OK. The guy took out his prey every time. And fast too. But never > went farther. Why play a deck that doesn't win? In a tournament setting, a true statement. > Now the other one > added a Toreador or two to play Distractions. His loop never broke. He > cycled through at least thirty cards for about 20 points in bleeds > before having to stop. I was ousted on the fourth turn of this final. > Once stopped it seemed to take 3 or 4 turns to get what he needed to > start again. After he ousted me, his new prey back bled him for seven > pool and then his grand prey Bum's Rushed and burned the famous vamp. > So, I agree that it did require a gang up situation and that is a > problem, but on the other hand, who cares? If you play these decks > you'll get one victory point and then die. However, I would still love > to see No Repeat Actions implemented. I guess I care. One of my goals is for an environment where any particular deck can be made, and it will not require a gang-up situation. Very few decks can win against a gang-bang attack. The problem I have with this situation is that while gang-bangs should happen to any particular deck that looks like it might run away with the game, if an environment propogates a deck type where this situation is constant or near-constant, that environment is broken. In DCI, repeat actions are still a problem, and even if one occasionally falters (see Gangrel deck above), the fact is that in DCI their faltering is the exception and not the rule. > 3. Our newsgroups very own Chris Schorb has been following the Weenie > Vote Push talks and decided to try out his at the tournament. It was a > night tournament so there was only one round and then a final. After > the first round Chris was in agreement with The Corrupter (and other) > becuase he swept the table in 20 minutes (nobody from my playgroup or > other good players were at his table). In the final, Chris didn't even > have one Praxis Siezure go. He had a good player near him who > intercepted the votes. Particular situations do not prove a rule. Try the deck again and again in different seating arrangements, against different players, etc.. In my own testing, (roughly 20 games against multiple different opponents) except against decks where intercept was the focus of its first prey, it won ~93% of the games (14 out of 15). In the games with an interceptor prey, it won 40% of the games (2 out of 5), still higher than the average of 20%. > Anyway, I agree that these decks are a problem > if the table environment is a particular way. It seems to me that you > are taking a big chance playing this deck. I'd call a WVP a > one-trick-pony. (Note: I think Chris won 1st place anyway because time > ran out and he had one mroe blood than the other players!) I'd call a WVP deck a OTP as well, but in an environment without good vote pushing restrictions of some kind, the risk is minimal. You get hurt by an intercepter prey, but still win more often than a typical deck. [Reply-to:sull...@cslab.uwlax.edu] @ The Corrupter - Adrian Lee Sullivan @ GAT/CS/WS R+++* r(+)>++ # Gamer Coffee-Addict Scripter Author # C(+++)$ USX+$ N++ e+* @#$ Comments ? sull...@cslab.uwlax.edu $#@ tv(+)> X++ b++(+++) @#$ <http://cslab.uwlax.edu/~sulli_al/jyhad> $#@ PS+&-+ PE&-&++ z*+?

On 4 Sep 1996, Johnny Tullner wrote: [Snipped comments about a godlike infinite gangrel bleed deck] I'd love to see your deck. Despite the fact that I doubt the total success story of your deck, and despite other writers doubts about the validity of the deck at all, what you speak of seems like a slightly (and I do mean _only_ slightly) exaggerated version of what I've seen. Post the deck, or submit it to my Jyhad Deck Archive (The Blood Bound Dealer, follow link from URL in .sig). [ quoted text not captured ]

> Ray Babbitt wrote: > > > > Robert Goudie wrote: > > > 2. Gangrel Infinite Loop decks. > > > > OK, I'm new at this game. Can you please explain the idea behind this > > deck? > Hi Ray, > > The Gangrel Infinite Loop is done with a Gangrel (usually) who does an > action (probably bleed) and then after it is tapped it does a Force of > Will. The force of will sends the vampire to torpor after it bleeds. > If Fame is on the Vampire, the prey loses three pool. Next the vampire > does a Movement of the Slow Body which allows them to untap while in > torpor and at superior they also gain a blood. Finally the Gangrel does > a Rapid Healing which allows them to leave torpor at +1 Stealth and at > superior they gain a blood. At this point the circle is complete. The > Gangrel again does a bleed action and is tapped, etc. etc. > > Robert Goudie But, doesn't the vampire tap to play Rapid Healing? While this combination would bring the vampire out of Torpor and be set to go again next turn, if the Rapid Healing forces the playing vampire to tap then the loop ends -- turn over. Or am I incorrect about this? Remember, I'm new at this game and my background is in Magic, so when to tap and when not to is still a little fuzzy to me. (Of course, that's why I like this game -- it's more mind challenging.) [ quoted text not captured ]

That would be true, but Force of Will allows a TAPPED vampire to make a bleed action, thereby starting the whole loop over again. It seems like this little problem would be fixed by using Vampire only cards, as the Jyhad card that makes this little trick work was not reprinted due to too many of these little loops...... Uriel - Tremere antitribbu --

The Corrupter writes: >I have come to the conclusion, along with Curt Adams, I >believe, that intercept or its lack in a deck will be more >valuable depending on the regional uses of stealth. In >area where NL or NL/GT have propogated, tight >stealthless rush would make intercept less valuable, >while in other areas with a CL background, the opposite is >true (less 0 Stealth attacks). Since the area will >continue to build decks with these principles in mind, you >will see the above examples (my friend and Bucy) being >wildly disparate. I've been thinking about this since the original post. IME, the counter to intercept decks is 0 stealth action decks, especially 0 stealth combat decks (rush or B&B). (Although 0 stealth bleed-and-run-away works too) With the original set, any high-intercept deck jams outrageously facing such a thing and will get beaten to a pulp. However, there is one new card which could trash this dynamic, our old friend Thought Betrayed. If that first combat happens under TB from the interceptor, the traditional result (interceptor goes to torpor) is inverted (interceptee goes to torpor). While there are certainly Dominateless intercept combat decks, Tremere intercept combat is the most common one I see, and if you can't handle one of the most common archetypical decks, you're not going to do well. Anyway, I'm wondering if this is the reason some groups don't see rush/B&B combat cutting intercept combat down to size. Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com)

On Wed, 4 Sep 1996, Ray Babbitt wrote: > Robert Goudie wrote: > > 2. Gangrel Infinite Loop decks. > OK, I'm new at this game. Can you please explain the idea behind this > deck? What do you mean by "infinite loop?" I'm assuming that you are > not referring to recycling your library, as I haven't seen many cards > that let you retrieve cards from your ash heap. Is this "infinite loop" > duplicatable in other decks, or is it specific to Gangrels? This deck does not exactly "recycle" cards from the ashheap. The Infinite Loop is actually more finite than infinite, but goes as follows: Gangrel: Act (somehow) + Force of Will + Movement of the Slow Body + Rapid Healing (end result, a tapped vampire, able to start the loop again with Force of Will) Act (somehow) + Freak Drive + act + Freak Drive + ... + Refill blood (via Hospitality, Restoration, Aaron's Feeding Razor) + Freak Drive (end result, an untapped vampire able to start the loop again) Ventrue: As the 2nd Gangrel example Slight Variations: Use Majesty to untap from blocked actions. Use Voter Captivation to refill. Toreador often do the same as a combination Ventrue/Gangrel S:CE effect. In any case, in more plain English, an Infinite Loop deck is one that sets up a situation that can be repeated again and again in the same turn, resulting in near infinite actions (only limited by the size of the deck). Most people (though not all) consider this degenerate. The DCI uses a restricted list to stop this problem (putting a 6 card cap on cards capable of causing untaps offensively, and on massive blood refill (Hospitality)). This "solution", however, doesn't address several problems and creates some new ones (another thread). Another solution (part of what is called the Golden Tenets, the most widely used house rules along with Card Limits) puts a limit on actions: No action may be repeated more than once per minion per turn. It has been argued that this solution also hamstrings some deck creation (notably tap-out decks using S:CE) but this has been shown to be unfounded. [ quoted text not captured ]

The reason the results of the L.A. tournament where so disparate was not because I had intercept in all my decks. In fact one of the winning decks (a political deck) had virtually no intercept in it. The reason I excelled was the growing lack of intercept in others decks since the DCI rules have been used. All of my decks had two common elements: lots of stealth, and lots of combat defense (S:CE, elysium, obedience). Almost everyone was relying on deflection (or nothing at all) for protection from S/B. With me bleeding 3 or 4 times a turn at 2 or 3, plus my deflections, they seemed to run out of deflections quickly. Once out of deflections I would bleed them out of the game by playing just +1 stealth on every bleed (including return to innocence). Most of the time it was shockingly easy. On the other hand, one of my decks held off one of the nastiest S/B decks I have ever seen for many turns with a combination of 2nd traditions, cats guidance, and deflections. He had swept his way to the final, and was quite surprised to see me block his first bleed for 6 at +3 stealth. Without the 12 intercept cards in that deck I would have been out of defections and dead very soon. There where quite a few rush decks around but they couldn't do enough damage to win consistently with all the end combat (even TB) stuff around. An excellent Assimite deck had a major effect on one of the final round games but he failed to get a victory point. Lots of people where using Tremere (or Malks) with Talbot's chainsaw, Rutor's hand, and sometimes Hiedleberg castle. Nothing like Talbot's chainsaw coming at you three times a turn! But even these guys couldn't take out enough vamps to win (though one finished third). All the Brujah, Gangrel, and Ravnos rush decks never even made it to the finals. In short, the presence of intercept (at least in two of my decks) set me apart from most of the other players, but it was really the overall lack of intercept in L. A. that enabled me to do so well. [ quoted text not captured ]

Congrats on the success of your tournaments! -- >>> Shawn F. Carnes Game Designer and Developer, Wizards of the Coast, Inc WotC NetRep for rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad ************************************************************* "Which one of you claims to be the craziest? Which one the biggest loony? Who runs these card games? Who's the bull goose loony here?" --McMurphy, "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest"