It is time to release this, as the EC is past and I could not have the
chance to play it during day 2.
So
tournament name: Anarch troublemaker
organized and judged by Stone
number of players: 24
in Paris, at Troll2Jeux store
the 13th of December 2008
Final Rank Name (deck) Prelim GWs Prelim VPs Final VPs TPs
1 TTC Master (Madness Network/Reversal of Fortune) 1 5,5 5 150
2 Romain Naïm (War Ghoul) 2 7 0 174
3 Alexandre DERZYPOLSKI (Carna) 1 6 0 132
4 Kamel Senni (Wall ani+Magaji) 1 5 0 138
5 Daniel Mokhtari (!Malk S&B) 1 5 0 132
6 Etienne Faust (Wall ani+Magaji) 1 4,5 168
7 Jean-Baptiste Lynde (Assamite vote) 1 4 150
8 Arnaud Baigts (AAA) 1 3 108
9 Arthur de Lustrac (Pelletier Isharri) 0 3,5 120
10 Jérôme Goyet (Imbued Events) 0 3 126
11 Pascal Bertrand (Ravnos rush weighted stick animalism) 0 2,5 120
12 Christophe Bolognino (weenie dom+DBR) 0 2,5 114
13 David Fleury (Nosfe Prince toolbox) 0 2 114
13 Vincent Ripoll (weenie DBR) 0 2 114
15 Mauricio Toledo (Setite Temptation/bleed) 0 2 84
15 Cédric Goffaux (!Ventrue) 0 2 84
17 Reyda Seddiki (Ravnos Tumninos Sensory) 0 1,5 90
18 Antonio Cobo Cuenca (D'Erlette Nephandus) 0 1 84
19 Quentin Braban-Avenel (Assamite toolbox) 0 0,5 78
20 Tristan Ducousso (Celegun) 0 0 72
21 Melvin Panek (Tzimisce toolbox) 0 0 60
21 Philippe Lang (Nakhthroheb Temptation FSR) 0 0 60
21 Marius Iscru (Carna) 0 0 60
21 Antonin Mérieux (Shambling) 0 0 60
And my decklist:
Deck Name: tu joues , tu joues pas, tu crèves quand même
Created By: TTC
Description: first version of the deck, the crypt can be largely more
efficient and the combo is not locking enough
Crypt: (12 cards, Min: 4, Max: 10, Avg: 1,66)
---------------------------------------------
1 Navar McClaren ani 1 Caitiff
1 Franciscus aus 1 Caitiff
2 Normal obf 2 Malkavian
1 Dollface aus obf 3 Malkavian
1 Ohanna dom 2 Malkavian
1 Watenda obf 3 Malkavian
1 Hasina Kesi pot 1 Caitiff
1 Igo the Hungry pre pro 1 Caitiff
1 Smudge the Ignored 1 Caitiff
1 Antoinette DuChamp cel pre 1 Caitiff
1 Brazil aus 2 Malkavian
Library: (60 cards)
-------------------
Master (37 cards)
7 Parthenon, The
7 Madness Network
1 Metro Underground
1 Powerbase: Montreal
1 Rack, The
7 Brainwash
3 Pentex Subversion
2 Wash
1 Smiling Jack, The Anarch
1 Last Stand
1 Information Highway
1 Perfectionist
4 Dreams of the Sphinx
Action (1 cards)
1 Scrounging
Political Action (18 cards)
12 Reversal of Fortunes
4 Malkavian Justicar
1 Rumors of Gehenna
1 Praxis Seizure: Stockholm
Equipment (3 cards)
2 Sargon Fragment, The
1 Heart of Nizchetus
Event (1 cards)
1 Anthelios, the Red Star
orianice wrote:
> It is time to release this, as the EC is past and I could not have
> the chance to play it during day 2.
>
> So
>
> tournament name: Anarch troublemaker
> organized and judged by Stone
> number of players: 24
> in Paris, at Troll2Jeux store
> the 13th of December 2008
Lasombra,
Maybe one of the qualifiers to get into the TDWA could be
that the deck must be posted within 30 days of the tournament?
Kevin M., Prince of Las Vegas
"Know your enemy and know yourself; in one-thousand battles
you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, *The Art of War*
"Contentment...Complacency...Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier
Please visit VTESville daily! http://vtesville.myminicity.com/
Please buy my cards! http://shop.ebay.com/kjmergen/m.html
On Nov 19, 8:23 am, orianice <coincoinmas...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> It is time to release this, as the EC is past and I could not have the
> chance to play it during day 2.
Why do you need to "release" this? Were you guarding the deck design
in some attempt to keep it secret or something? Does that actually
help?
People have been playing versions of this kind of deck for 15 years.
-Peter
[ quoted text not captured ]
Probably because he wants his tournament win recorded for the twda and
hall of fame. Why wouldn't he want that. I for one would have liked
the Danes (Nikolai) to have reported my Danish ECQ winner many years
ago. Would have been in the hall of fame if they did. Would have been
good ego times.
Yes, keeping your deck concept a secret helps. Atleast from people
outside your closest playgroup. Especially when it's a highly focused
trick deck.
Don't you read Orian's blog? :)
//Alex
[ quoted text not captured ]
And also because, on his case, he is a high level player with lots of
exposure. He (and his piers) know who the top players are and how to
prepare. Funny thing is... the small surprises vtes brings once and a
while.
I would keep my deck a secret too.
Tiago
On Nov 20, 5:35 pm, _angst_ <a...@student.chalmers.se> wrote:
> Probably because he wants his tournament win recorded for the twda and
> hall of fame. Why wouldn't he want that. I for one would have liked
> the Danes (Nikolai) to have reported my Danish ECQ winner many years
> ago. Would have been in the hall of fame if they did. Would have been
> good ego times.
I think you misunderstood my point. He apparently kept the deck hidden
from the TWDA (and world?) for a year or so, only waiting till now
(after the EC?) to "release" it. As if doing so would somehow keep the
hidden tech advantage or something.
> Yes, keeping your deck concept a secret helps. At least from people> outside your closest playgroup. Especially when it's a highly focused
> trick deck.
How does that help? What is to say that deck is ever going to be
played again? And if the deck is played again, once someone sees a
weenie Malkavian call Reversal of Fortunes with a Madness Network, the
jig is up. Anyone who cares to pay attention goes "Oh, It is one of
those Madness Network/Reversal of Fortunes lock down decks. I made one
of those in 1996..."
> Don't you read Orian's blog? :)
Apparently not.
-Peter
On Nov 21, 4:10 am, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote:
> On Nov 20, 5:35 pm, _angst_ <a...@student.chalmers.se> wrote:
>
> > Probably because he wants his tournament win recorded for the twda and
> > hall of fame. Why wouldn't he want that. I for one would have liked
> > the Danes (Nikolai) to have reported my Danish ECQ winner many years
> > ago. Would have been in the hall of fame if they did. Would have been
> > good ego times.
>
> I think you misunderstood my point. He apparently kept the deck hidden
> from the TWDA (and world?) for a year or so, only waiting till now
> (after the EC?) to "release" it. As if doing so would somehow keep the
> hidden tech advantage or something.
>
Seems I did :) But yes, keeping your decklist secret from the general
public is a good thing.
> > Yes, keeping your deck concept a secret helps. At least from people
> > outside your closest playgroup. Especially when it's a highly focused
> > trick deck.
>
> How does that help? What is to say that deck is ever going to be
> played again? And if the deck is played again, once someone sees a
> weenie Malkavian call Reversal of Fortunes with a Madness Network, the
> jig is up. Anyone who cares to pay attention goes "Oh, It is one of
> those Madness Network/Reversal of Fortunes lock down decks. I made one
> of those in 1996..."
>
It's not a matter of the concept of the deck, or well it is if it's a
completely new tech. It's mostly about the actual decklist. If I had
seen Orian's decklist for this deck in the past and then see him play
it when I face him at the EC I will have a good chance of knowing
which cards he play. I can thus make qualified guesses from the cards
he's played during the game on which cards he still has in his library
adn thus which cards he might have on his hand. This will give Orian
an disadvantage and why would he want that
> > Don't you read Orian's blog? :)
>
> Apparently not.
>
You should. It's very good and gives you some insight on how a very
competitive vtes player thinks.
Regards
Alex
_angst_ wrote:
> It's not a matter of the concept of the deck, or well it is if it's a
> completely new tech. It's mostly about the actual decklist. If I had
> seen Orian's decklist for this deck in the past and then see him play
> it when I face him at the EC I will have a good chance of knowing
> which cards he play.
What? You'd've memorized all the cards in every deck list Orian had been
associated with, and then been able to pick out the exact one (and be assured
that he had not made any card substitutions since you saw the deck list) from
your memory banks upon seeing a handful of cards he plays out of his deck to
such accuracy that you'd have a measurable advantage over players who just look
at the cards he plays and figure out what the rest of the deck probably looks like?
[ quoted text not captured ]
Yes. Having seen the decklist before an event I would have a slight
advantage over a player who has not seen the decklist. I would
potentially know of any tricks and/or silver bullets. And you will
need every advantage you can get if you want to play to win a
tournament where the best VtES-players compete.
Regards
Alex
On Nov 21, 8:10 am, _angst_ <a...@student.chalmers.se> wrote:
> Seems I did :) But yes, keeping your decklist secret from the general
> public is a good thing.
Yeah, see, I'm not convinced that this is the case. Let's say you come
up with a really clever deck and then win a tournament with it. And
then you put in the TWDA so that all the world can bask in your
cleverness. How is this actually going to help anyone against you?
A) What is to say you ever play that deck again?
B) What is to say if you do play that deck again, it will look exactly
the same?
C) What is to say that even if you are worried about that, you can't
use that to your advantage by assuming that everyone will look at and
memorize your deck and then you specifically change it, just to keep
surprises?
> It's not a matter of the concept of the deck, or well it is if it's a
> completely new tech. It's mostly about the actual decklist.
But the actual decklist isn't a concrete thing. Decks change
constantly. Even good ones. I change my decks pretty much every time I
play them. I can't be certain, but I'd assume that most other people
tend to do the same thing (i.e. constantly tweak decks between uses,
as in the last game, you decided that X wasn't really worth using and
Y would be better). Posting a winning decklist to the TWDA (or
wherever) isn't giving away state secrets. It is providing a snapshot
of a thought process. Next time, the deck is likely to be different
anyway.
And even if it isn't, you can't assume that it isn't. Looking at this
deck, I'm like "Huh. It has zero stealth...", but if I sit down next
to it and assume it doesn't have stealth the next time it is played,
I'm just as likely to be surprised when stealth gets played. 'Cause
that is how this game works.
A decklist isn't the designs to a secret military space shuttle.
Hiding them from history is incredibly unlikely to result in any
benefit. And revealing them to history is incredibly unlikely to
result in any disadvantage. As nothing is saying that any given deck
is the same as the last time it was played.
> I can thus make qualified guesses from the cards
> he's played during the game on which cards he still has in his library
> adn thus which cards he might have on his hand. This will give Orian
> an disadvantage and why would he want that
Or, it gives him an advantage, 'cause he changed his deck and you
painstakingly memorizing his deck makes you think things aren't there
when, in fact, they are. You say "Ooh! I have memorized that deck!
There are no Direct Interventions in it!" and then you take an action,
positive that he can't DI you. And then he DI's you. 'Cause he put
some in the deck this time.
-Peter
On Nov 21, 8:31 am, _angst_ <a...@student.chalmers.se> wrote:
> Yes. Having seen the decklist before an event I would have a slight
> advantage over a player who has not seen the decklist.
Or, conversely, you would have a slight disadvantage over a player who
has not seen the decklist, as they aren't assuming that the deck is
exactly the same as it was last time, where you apparently are.
> I would potentially know of any tricks and/or silver bullets.
Unless they were changed. Or added anew. 'Cause decks change like
that. All the time.
-Peter
_angst_ wrote:
> Yes. Having seen the decklist before an event I would have a slight
> advantage over a player who has not seen the decklist.
Again: it's not "the" decklist. It's "a" decklist. One of many.
On Nov 21, 3:24 pm, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote:
> On Nov 21, 8:31 am, _angst_ <a...@student.chalmers.se> wrote:
>
> > Yes. Having seen the decklist before an event I would have a slight
> > advantage over a player who has not seen the decklist.
>
> Or, conversely, you would have a slight disadvantage over a player who
> has not seen the decklist, as they aren't assuming that the deck is
> exactly the same as it was last time, where you apparently are.
>
I don't. I assume it's 99% the same...That was an estimate...
I also can read current gamestate and spot any differences. I will
however know that I might have to play my pentex on one of his malks
cross-table in the early game since I can assume what he's playing and
perhaps my deck can't handle that.
> > I would potentially know of any tricks and/or silver bullets.
>
> Unless they were changed. Or added anew. 'Cause decks change like
> that. All the time.
>
Decks that peak don't change much. With ~60-75 slots in a good deck
you won't be able to change more than 3-4 cards one way or the other
once the deck has reached its full potential.
Regards
Alex
This deck is very good. I have been playing RoF recently and this is
better than mine or any I have seen before. The 2009 version is even
better than this one. Just having seen it I now know what to look for
and what I would need to do if seated with it. It does not matter if a
couple of cards change the basic premise is still the same get
lockdown on turn ~three.
Congrats
Matt
[ quoted text not captured ]
Sure. Again, this deck has existed since 1995. You sit down next to
someone. They bring out a weenie Malkavian. They bring out Madness
Network. They become Malkavian Justicar. All the pieces are in place,
and all these pieces are public knowledge. How does it matter if
someone saw the decklist for a deck that this particular deck may or
may not be? Weenie Malkavians with titles and Madness Network? They
can lock down the table with Reversal of Fortune. We all already know
this. Whether or not a given decklist is in the public domain has no
bearing on knowing this, and whether or not it works. Once they are
set up (weenie Malkavian with title and Madness Network), maybe
they'll call RoF. Maybe the deck does nothing of the sort. There is no
way to know, one way or the other, till it starts happening. Even if
the person playing it won with such a deck earlier in the year and
published the deck to the TWDA.
-Peter
On Nov 21, 10:38 am, _angst_ <a...@student.chalmers.se> wrote:
> I also can read current gamestate and spot any differences. I will
> however know that I might have to play my pentex on one of his malks
> cross-table in the early game since I can assume what he's playing and
> perhaps my deck can't handle that.
Or, you could cross table Pentex one of his Malkavians early in the
game assuming it is the deck you think it is, and you could be
completely wrong, and just end up making someone else win. Decklists
are not universal contracts. Just 'cause Player X won with deck Y and
put up the list on the TWDA, it has no bearing at all on whether or
not they are playing the same deck the next time you see them.
> Decks that peak don't change much. With ~60-75 slots in a good deck
> you won't be able to change more than 3-4 cards one way or the other
> once the deck has reached its full potential.
But you don't know that is the deck that is being played. Even if it
looks the same in the first 3 turns. 'Cause people play different
decks. And even if it *is* the same deck. The exact same deck. Once
enough information hits the table ("Hmm. There is a weenie Malkavian
who just became Justicar and there is a Madness Network in play..."),
it doesn't matter if you have seen the deck list or not. You know what
the deck is capable of doing. And can react accordingly. Burn down the
Madness Network. Keep a DT in hand. Both are reasonably safe actions
to take in this particular instance whether you know what the deck
does or not or you have seen the deck list or not.
My issue here is that I suspect that trying to conceal your clever
deck tech by hiding your deck from the TWDA for a year, and then
"releasing" it after the EC goes by, in the name of trying to protect
trade secrets or something, is teetering on the edge of madness.
-Peter
[ quoted text not captured ]
I may be wrong but I do not think the Madness Network hits the table
until he is ready to go. Your target is one of the Brainwashes on his
prey. The Madness network is just a shiny baubble. He has seven (MN).
Matt
On Nov 21, 12:59 pm, wedge <matt...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I may be wrong but I do not think the Madness Network hits the table
> until he is ready to go. Your target is one of the Brainwashes on his
> prey. The Madness network is just a shiny baubble. He has seven (MN).
Sure. But the Madness Network hits the table at some point. And
someone will have the opportunity to burn it before the deck takes an
out of turn action. Every time. (and in this particular case, all you
need is a single +1 stealth card to burn it). But also neither here
nor there. The deck is a fine (if wonky and really mean) deck. That
isn't the issue. The issue is whether or not hiding a deck list from
public view is actually helpful to your cause or not.
-Peter
[ quoted text not captured ]
I did not say it well. surprise surprise
What I meant. With the number of brainwashes, He can lockdown his
prey, who will be the only one to be able take a turn at some point.
He must be able to burn the madness network on his turn. So even if
Madness Network is in play you should remove a brainwash.
Matt
>
> Sure. But the Madness Network hits the table at some point. And
> someone will have the opportunity to burn it before the deck takes an
> out of turn action. Every time. (and in this particular case, all you
> need is a single +1 stealth card to burn it). But also neither here
> nor there. The deck is a fine (if wonky and really mean) deck. That
> isn't the issue. The issue is whether or not hiding a deck list from
> public view is actually helpful to your cause or not.
>
> -Peter
No, in that case, the issue is "does Orian believe so?"
I personnaly do, I think that if I am sitting next to a :cel: gun of
an European player who follows the TWD, follows the blog, I pull out
franciscus and brazil on T1 and he has already sarah brando out. Now,
I have publicized the decklist, I might remember something like this
somehow and ask "oh, orian, how many cards in your deck?" "erhhh...
60!" "ok I will play haven uncovered on brazil and rush him"
instead of, should the deck not have been publicized "ok, sarah bleeds
for 1
for the reason which I am releasing the decklist, there is probably
an ego question to this, as Alex pointed out, because it is always
good to see your name on the TWD
but moreover my thought goes to the risk of losing trace of my
decklist and I rather publicize it
the Madness Network hits the table at some point. And
> someone will have the opportunity to burn it before the deck takes an
> out of turn action.
should the deck goes as intended, no, nobody should be out to do this
action.
On Nov 22, 6:08 pm, orianice <coincoinmas...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> should the deck goes as intended, no, nobody should be out to do this
> action.
Sure. You Brainwash all your prey's minions, and after a couple times
around the table, no one ever takes a turn again until your prey is
dead. Check. Then what? Someone has minions. And after your first prey
is dead, your next prey gets to take actions.
-Peter
[ quoted text not captured ]
turn one:
parthenon + crypt acc, bring malk plus whatever into play
turn two:
madness network + brainwash
call malk justicar with the non-malk
now you're set to go and to not allow anyone except your prey to do
turns.
this is ofcourse if the deck works perfectly.
but then again, I've never played a deck like this so perhaps I don't
get it.
//Alex
On Nov 22, 6:48 pm, _angst_ <a...@student.chalmers.se> wrote:
> turn one:
> parthenon + crypt acc, bring malk plus whatever into play
>
> turn two:
> madness network + brainwash
> call malk justicar with the non-malk
>
> now you're set to go and to not allow anyone except your prey to do
> turns.
>
> this is ofcourse if the deck works perfectly.
Sure, if it works perfectly. But that is unlikely. More likely is:
T1: Bring out a guy.
T2: Make Malk a Justicar, bring out another guy.
T3: Play Madness Network/RoF until your prey is dead and no one else
gets to move.
But likely, by then, there are other minions in play on the table
somewhere. I mean, yeah, if everything goes perfectly, you just roll
the table. But rarely are things that perfect :-)
-Peter
[ quoted text not captured ]
If the others players have played only two turns or maybe 3, not more,
they will have one or maybe 2 minions out, so You play Pentex
Subversion on that/one of minion/s of your new prey and it's over
again.
[ quoted text not captured ]> again.- Masquer le texte des messages précédents -
>
> - Afficher le texte des messages précédents -
when you are last standing a new prey with a smiling Jack with 6
counters on the table, you don't care about what the new prey does.
Game is almost over for a long time, except if the new prey has
smiling jack to contest, basically