Pure rush decks don't work

The key drawback of a "pure" rush deck (i.e. one with no reaction capability) is that it is a combo deck. If you draw a hand of combat cards but no Bum's Rush, Ambush or Haven Uncovered, you cannot enter combat. If you draw a hand of BR/Ambush/HC and no combat cards, you can enter combat but at a disadvantage. I used a pure rush deck (a Torn Signpost - Immortal Grapple deck constructed by James Hamblin listed at http://www.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?AN=376738853) at my last tournament. The first round I brought Beast out of my crypt. Because Beast does not require a card to enter combat, I swept the table. The other three rounds, Beast stayed in my crypt and I did not earn a single victory point. My combat monsters watched helplessly as my predator's minions snuck past at +1 stealth. A rush deck that relies on BR/Ambush/HC and lacks *any* intercept ability is doomed to failure. -- Eric Topp eric...@interact.net.au

Eric Topp wrote: "The key drawback of a "pure" rush deck (i.e. one with no reaction capability) is that it is a combo deck. If you draw a hand of combat cards but no Bum's Rush, Ambush or Haven Uncovered, you cannot enter combat. If you draw a hand of BR/Ambush/HC and no combat cards, you can enter combat but at a disadvantage." While having to rely on drawing get into combat cards can be a problem, your impression of the Pure Rush deck is simply incorrect. Yes, you need to have a Rush card in your hand to get the deck going, but with the right mix of cards (about 4 Haven/12 Bum's Rush in a 90 card deck), you really shouldn't have any trouble getting into combat when you need to. Sure, occasionally you will get a totally screwy shuffle and never get to pick a Rush card, but this is pretty rare. All you need is a good mix of the appropriate cards, some deck cycling (Barrens/Dreams/Fragment), the knowledge of what and when to discard, and this hypothetical problem will have very little, if any effect on your game. "I used a pure rush deck (a Torn Signpost - Immortal Grapple deck constructed by James Hamblin listed at http://www.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?AN=376738853) at my last tournament. The first round I brought Beast out of my crypt. Because Beast does not require a card to enter combat, I swept the table. The other three rounds, Beast stayed in my crypt and I did not earn a single victory point. My combat monsters watched helplessly as my predator's minions snuck past at +1 stealth." As I have played against James's combat decks many, many times, I can only assume that A) You had completely improbable shuffles or B) You had trouble because you were using a deck that you didn't design, and as such, didn't really know how to play it real well. Pure rush decks do just fine, even without permanent Rush characters like Beast. At Origins, my Rush deck (which has been posted here numerous times and is in the Nosferatu Newsletters) did very well, sweeping one table and getting into the finals, never had any trouble at all getting into combat, and had no permamnent Rush characters whatsoever. Just the appropriate mix of Rush cards and hand cycling ability. "A rush deck that relies on BR/Ambush/HC and lacks *any* intercept ability is doomed to failure." This is completely incorrect. My pure rush decks have done very well in tournaments. James's have done very well in tournaments. Josh Duffin's have done very well in tournaments. I'm sure other folks have as well. Having no intercept just means you need to get into combat with Rush cards. Again, with the appropriate proportion of cards and some deck cycling ability, the Rush deck should, and will do just fine. Why you did poorly with James's deck, I have no idea. Did you change the mix of cards at all? Did you get incredibly bad shuffles and never discard? Did you wait around and try to block rather than pre-emptively Rushing? Did you constantly sit next to Fortitude anti-combat decks? Peter D Bakija PD...@aol.com "If we can focus, keep discipline, and not have quite as many mysterious deaths, Sunnydale is gonna _RULE_!" -Bobby

In article <6vrjek$83r$1...@black.interact.net.au>, Eric Topp <eric...@interact.net.au> wrote: [Example snipped] >A rush deck that relies on BR/Ambush/HC and lacks *any* intercept ability is >doomed to failure. That's a rather broad interpretation of one example. In particular It is much easier to prove that something does work than it is to show that something can't work. What about the people who _have_ won tournaments with just such decks? That doesn't exactly sound like "doomed to failure" to me. Now, considering that the empirical evidence is entirely against you, perhaps you have some more extensive logical argument about exactly _why_ you believe such a deck in general sucks? That I would be interested in hearing -- in particular why do you think an intercept/rush hybrid will do better? -- /\ Jasper Phillips /VVVVVVVVVVVVVV|~"~"~"~"~"~"----------........____ jaz j^^^^^^^^^^^^^\/"~"~"~"~-----------........._____ ~"~--. * http://www.engr.orst.edu/~philljas/ "~"~'--`

Eric Topp wrote: > > The key drawback of a "pure" rush deck (i.e. one with no reaction > capability) is that it is a combo deck. If you draw a hand of combat cards > but no Bum's Rush, Ambush or Haven Uncovered, you cannot enter combat. If > you draw a hand of BR/Ambush/HC and no combat cards, you can enter combat > but at a disadvantage. This "critical hand jam" does happen occasionally, but it can be helped: by discarding _every_ turn, by playing any master cards available, and by making sure you have enough get-into-combat cards. With 16/90 (12 Bum's Rush, 4 Haven Uncovered), it's rather unlikely that you'll get none of these cards in, say, your first 9 cards, assuming you discard on the first two turns: 74 * 73 * 72 * 71 * 70 * 69 * 68 * 67 * 66 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- = 0.15649 90 89 88 87 86 85 84 83 82 So 85% of the time you'll have a rush card in your opening hand, or after a couple of discards. Once you get into combat, you'll cycle cards like mad, and life will be good. I mean, you should never really have a hand devoid of combat cards, since a good rush combat deck should have three things: good combat cards, get-into-combat cards, and useful masters. What to do the 15% of the time you don't get a rush card? The best you can; play as many cards as you can. Put potence masters on your opponent's vampires if you have to get something out of your hand. This situation is tough, and I have lost games due to it (when I had a fast predator), but that doesn't make the deck any less viable. Everyone gets hand jammed every once and a while. There's no need to make sweeping generalizations about the general effectiveness of the entire strategy. If you find you need to put more rush cards in the deck to prevent this sort of thing from happening, go right ahead. > I used a pure rush deck (a Torn Signpost - Immortal Grapple deck constructed > by James Hamblin listed at http://www.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?AN=376738853) > at my last tournament. I'm sort of perplexed at your description of the deck as a "Torn Signpost / Immortal Grapple deck". It seems possible to me that your description of having "no combat cards" meant that you had no IG or no TS in your hand. But the combat can be effective without those cards. Not everyone uses S:CE, and it's likely that either your predator or your prey is either playing a deck without it, or at the very least has a weak vampire without the right discipline. So, no IG? No problem. Having no Torn Signpost is not even a problem at all! That's what the _other_ cards are for! You know, Blur, Undead Strength, Pushing the Limit, Fists of Death... need I go on? Doomed to failure? Hardly. James -- James Hamblin ham...@math.wisc.edu "Oh, there you are. Out of donuts, are we?" -- Fraser Official Jyhad/V:tES FAQ Maintainer http://www.math.wisc.edu/~hamblin/faq.html

In article <6vsd2b$505$1...@news.NERO.NET>, phil...@tx.ENGR.ORST.EDU (Jasper Phillips) wrote: > In article <6vrjek$83r$1...@black.interact.net.au>, > Eric Topp <eric...@interact.net.au> wrote: > > [Example snipped] > > >A rush deck that relies on BR/Ambush/HC and lacks *any* intercept ability is > >doomed to failure. > > That's a rather broad interpretation of one example. In particular It > is much easier to prove that something does work than it is to show > that something can't work. What about the people who _have_ won > tournaments with just such decks? That doesn't exactly sound like > "doomed to failure" to me. > > Now, considering that the empirical evidence is entirely against you, Is the empirical evidence really entirely against him? I can only recall one tournament-WINNING combat deck in the last year or so.... James Hamblin's [i think] !brujah rush deck. Moreover [correct me if i am wrong!] that tournament was a rather special one, with a small number of participants, and a large number of combat decks in it. Getting into the final is one thing ... realistically, that often just requires one run of reasonable luck at one of the pre-final tables. Winning is something else altogether. > perhaps you have some more extensive logical argument about exactly _why_ > you believe such a deck in general sucks? That I would be interested > in hearing -- in particular why do you think an intercept/rush hybrid > will do better? O so tempting ... but no, let Eric have first crack at answering this. You guys all know what i would say anyway ..... > -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own

In article <6vv667$4df$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, <legb...@my-dejanews.com> wrote: > phil...@tx.ENGR.ORST.EDU (Jasper Phillips) wrote: >> Eric Topp <eric...@interact.net.au> wrote: >>>A rush deck that relies on BR/Ambush/HC and lacks *any* intercept ability is >>>doomed to failure. >> >> That's a rather broad interpretation of one example. In particular It ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >> is much easier to prove that something does work than it is to show ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >> that something can't work. What about the people who _have_ won ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >> tournaments with just such decks? That doesn't exactly sound like >> "doomed to failure" to me. >> >> Now, considering that the empirical evidence is entirely against you, >Is the empirical evidence really entirely against him? I can only recall one >tournament-WINNING combat deck in the last year or so.... James Hamblin's [i >think] !brujah rush deck. Moreover [correct me if i am wrong!] that >tournament was a rather special one, with a small number of participants, and >a large number of combat decks in it. Getting into the final is one thing ... >realistically, that often just requires one run of reasonable luck at one of >the pre-final tables. Winning is something else altogether. Yes, it is. There only needs to be _one_ example of something to prove it's existance/viability, while it takes a great deal more to show that something doesn't exist, or isn't viable. This is one of the basic tenets of logic in fact. And all this despite the fact that rush combat from all reports isn't widely played in combat. Also, the deck Eric used to make his point I believe was the same deck with which James won. >> perhaps you have some more extensive logical argument about exactly _why_ >> you believe such a deck in general sucks? That I would be interested >> in hearing -- in particular why do you think an intercept/rush hybrid >> will do better? -- [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <6vv8dd$4s7$1...@news.NERO.NET>, Jasper Phillips <phil...@tx.ENGR.ORST.EDU> wrote: > >And all this despite the fact that rush combat from all reports isn't >widely played in combat. Also, the deck Eric used to make his point I >believe was the same deck with which James won. Oops, that should be "...widely played in _tournaments_" of course. :-/ [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <6vv8dd$4s7$1...@news.NERO.NET>, [ quoted text not captured ] True enough, though i seem to recall you using a rather different line when we were arguing about Rush-Fame decks a while back ... This is one of the basic tenets of > logic in fact. Well, that's an interesting way of thinking about it, but i think rather an esoteric one. Would you argue that because the chat-up line "Hey doll, can i have sex with you?" SOMETIMES works it is a good line? I'd argue that the more traditional flowers/chocolate/vast bank account/scintillating wit/unearthly beauty approach is still basically superior ..... > > And all this despite the fact that rush combat from all reports isn't > widely played in combat [tournament, you meant, and of course i understood that!]. Now that, i think, is the key point. I firmly believe that if more people played rush decks, rush decks would win more often, and not just because there would be more of them .... but because the intrinsic problem of their relatively poor speed would be overcome by the extra pressure of Fearless Vampire Killers. But it's classic prisoner's dilemma territory here, even if my [and i suspect your, James's and Peter's] logic is right. Michael and i are going to test this out next time we play in a tournament together ... we're both going to bring along rush decks, and see if the technique works. Collusion i know, but it's in a worthy information-gathering cause ..... [ quoted text not captured ]

: [tournament, you meant, and of course i understood that!]. Now that, i think, : is the key point. I firmly believe that if more people played rush decks, : rush decks would win more often, and not just because there would be more of : them .... but because the intrinsic problem of their relatively poor speed : would be overcome by the extra pressure of Fearless Vampire Killers. But it's : classic prisoner's dilemma territory here, even if my [and i suspect your, : James's and Peter's] logic is right. Michael and i are going to test this out : next time we play in a tournament together ... we're both going to bring : along rush decks, and see if the technique works. Collusion i know, but it's : in a worthy information-gathering cause ..... Even without collusion, this goes back to the hypothesis that at a game containing two rush decks, there is a much higher probability that one of those two decks will win as opposed to the odds when only one such deck is in the game. The two decks, as long as they are played by people who know how to play a rush deck, will kill the common threats and generally leave each other alone. In my experience, this thesis generally holds true. YMMV. [ quoted text not captured ]

legb...@my-dejanews.com wrote: : In article <6vv8dd$4s7$1...@news.NERO.NET>, : phil...@tx.ENGR.ORST.EDU (Jasper Phillips) wrote: : > : > Yes, it is. There only needs to be _one_ example of something to prove : > it's existance/viability, while it takes a great deal more to show that : > something doesn't exist, or isn't viable. : True enough, though i seem to recall you using a rather different line when we : were arguing about Rush-Fame decks a while back ... Heh, heh. Can't speak for Jasper, but I don't believe (at least today) that rush-fame decks aren't *viable*, just that they're not *broken*. : This is one of the basic tenets of : > logic in fact. : Well, that's an interesting way of thinking about it, but i think rather an : esoteric one. Would you argue that because the chat-up line "Hey doll, can i : have sex with you?" SOMETIMES works it is a good line? I'd argue that the more : traditional flowers/chocolate/vast bank account/scintillating wit/unearthly : beauty approach is still basically superior ..... Well I wouldn't say it's a *good* line, but if it works sometimes, it may be a *viable* line. (Of course if it gets you slapped the rest of the time it may not be so viable in practice.) : > And all this despite the fact that rush combat from all reports isn't : > widely played in combat : [tournament, you meant, and of course i understood that!]. Now that, i think, : is the key point. I firmly believe that if more people played rush decks, : rush decks would win more often, and not just because there would be more of : them .... but because the intrinsic problem of their relatively poor speed : would be overcome by the extra pressure of Fearless Vampire Killers. But it's : classic prisoner's dilemma territory here, even if my [and i suspect your, : James's and Peter's] logic is right. Michael and i are going to test this out : next time we play in a tournament together ... we're both going to bring : along rush decks, and see if the technique works. Collusion i know, but it's : in a worthy information-gathering cause ..... Yes, this is definitely an interesting point, and it's one that I think has been proposed before - the hypothesis being 'If there are at least two rush combat decks at the table, one of them will win.' It seems to work out that way in just about all the games I've witnessed. This may be the result of the increased carnage tending to slow down the game such that the relatively slow-ousting combat decks have a better shot at winning. This did tend to happen at Origins. Whenever at least two of me, Peter, and James were at the same table, one of us won the game (I think). Of course, we also knew each other beforehand, which once again raises the specter of collusion, but I don't think it was necessary for us to actually collude - the natural course of action for each of our rush decks simply tilted the game environment in favor of the rush players. Josh what do you mean, banned from the dci?

Eric Topp (eric...@interact.net.au) wrote: : The key drawback of a "pure" rush deck (i.e. one with no reaction : capability) is that it is a combo deck. If you draw a hand of combat cards : but no Bum's Rush, Ambush or Haven Uncovered, you cannot enter combat. If : you draw a hand of BR/Ambush/HC and no combat cards, you can enter combat : but at a disadvantage. : I used a pure rush deck (a Torn Signpost - Immortal Grapple deck constructed : by James Hamblin listed at http://www.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?AN=376738853) : at my last tournament. The first round I brought Beast out of my crypt. : Because Beast does not require a card to enter combat, I swept the table. : The other three rounds, Beast stayed in my crypt and I did not earn a single : victory point. My combat monsters watched helplessly as my predator's : minions snuck past at +1 stealth. : A rush deck that relies on BR/Ambush/HC and lacks *any* intercept ability is : doomed to failure. I see you have come here to stir up trouble. Happy to oblige. ;-) You're right, a pure rush deck is a combo deck. However, to some extent, just about every Jyhad deck is a combo deck. Whether your combo is '+bleed cards and stealth' or 'damaging vote cards and presence vote enhancers' or 'get into combat cards and damaging combat cards', you're still trying to get multiple cards to work together so that your deck can be effective. Many pure rush decks (eg potence/celerity rush combat) typically use larger combos than other deck types (eg stealth bleed or ventrue presence vote) for each successful action. But that doesn't mean they can't work. I (and others) have experienced some tournament success playing pure rush combat, in addition to regular group play. Not drawing a single rush card is a problem I have almost never had. It's far more typical for me to get hand-jammed on *too many* rush cards, because once I get into a combat, it is usually possible to play many ephemeral combat cards, whereas you can only play one rush card per action. I don't know why you had the opposite problem, but I do think it's very feasible to play pure rush decks that rarely (if ever) run into that particular difficulty. In my experience, a primarily-rush combat deck with light intercept added would do even worse against the stealth-bleed predator you describe. This is because light intercept is usually not enough to consistently block a stealth-bleed predator. So, your intercept cards produce no useful effect, you have fewer rush cards available due to playing intercept instead, and your predator is getting to cycle stealth cards because you're trying to block. Now that's what I call a sticky situation. Beast is a wonderful vampire. And a deck built around him may get some utility out of being able to include fewer rush cards in the library, because you can rely on his built-in ability. But a deck that relies on library cards to get into combat *can* also work perfectly well. The key is to put the right number of them in the deck, and it is often a good idea to include some other extra card cycling to help out in crunch situations. Josh hapless defender of the pure rush ideology

In article <6vvl0o$jgo$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, legb...@my-dejanews.com writes >Would you argue that because the chat-up line "Hey doll, can i >have sex with you?" SOMETIMES works it is a good line? As noted by the subject line: Subject: Pure rush decks don't work No clarification. No "unless". Nothing. Only "Pure rush decks don't work unless they get a good card draw." No "Pure rush decks don't work if they are alone on a table." No "Pure rush decks are much harder to get to work." The proposition being made by the thread starter would appear to be: "Pure rush decks don't work." All that is being argued is that "Pure rush decks CAN work." The fact that they HAVE worked completely contradicts the subject line. The ideas of working WELL (as with your chat up line which is a perfectly valid chat up line which has worked (or variants there-on)), working repeatedly, working independently of the other decks on the table, not being prone to hand jam, not requiring large (slightly variable but still generally fixed) combos and so forth are different arguments. -- James Coupe (Prince of Mercia, England) Vampire: Elder Kindred Network http://madnessnetwork.hexagon.net

Legbiter wrote: "Is the empirical evidence really entirely against him? I can only recall one tournament-WINNING combat deck in the last year or so.... James Hamblin's [i think] !brujah rush deck. Moreover [correct me if i am wrong!] that tournament was a rather special one, with a small number of participants, and a large number of combat decks in it. Getting into the final is one thing ... realistically, that often just requires one run of reasonable luck at one of the pre-final tables. Winning is something else altogether." The tournament that James's deck won was a 10 player tourney, and the only thing special about it was that there were 3 Rush decks involved (James's, Josh's, mine). Other than that, it was a pretty varied field of decks, including Steve Wampler's killer Weenie Pre bleed deck that won the previous Ithaca tournament. Another 10-12 player tournament that I attended a while before the aforementioned one was won by a pure Rush deck of Josh's. My Marty Lechtansi based Rush deck came in second (it actually had more total VPs than Josh, but came in second to him in the finals). At Origins, my Rush deck stacked up a good pile of VPs and got into the finals (and was killed by seating there, as is the case with all final games). At Origins three years ago, I played a Pot/Ani/Dom Rush deck that did very well, sweeping one table and getting 1 VP in both of the other two games (and ended up getting ousted by the person who won the tourney as I told her how to kill me--she was some wizards employee who was playing with a borrowed deck so we could have 50 players--either she was a complete ringer, or I told her how to kill me...) As these are pretty much the only four tournaments where we (James, Josh, myself) have played good Rush decks, and we did very well in all four of them, I suspect that it means something. Not say that this is defenitive data to the fact that Rush decks are the best decks in the world, but it is evidence that they _can_ win and _do_ win. I maintain my theory that if more people understood how to play Rush decks, more people understood how to design Rush decks, and more people played with Rush decks, they would win more tournaments. I doubt that Josh, James, and I did as well as we did simply on the strength of our genius and good looks alone. There has to be something to this. Rush decks can and do work. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <700dn0$n...@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu>, Joshua Duffin <du...@newton.ruph.cornell.edu> wrote: >legb...@my-dejanews.com wrote: >: In article <6vv8dd$4s7$1...@news.NERO.NET>, >: phil...@tx.ENGR.ORST.EDU (Jasper Phillips) wrote: >: > >: > Yes, it is. There only needs to be _one_ example of something to prove >: > it's existance/viability, while it takes a great deal more to show that >: > something doesn't exist, or isn't viable. > >: True enough, though i seem to recall you using a rather >: different line when we >: were arguing about Rush-Fame decks a while back ... > >Heh, heh. Can't speak for Jasper, but I don't believe (at least today) >that rush-fame decks aren't *viable*, just that they're not *broken*. Actually, I've been pretty much staying out of the rest of this debate since everyone else has been saying what I wanted to say more eloquently than I could. Well, that's not exactly the truth: if I didn't need to get a bunch of work done, I'd probably respond anyway. ;-) Oh wait, I just did... [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <19981013192850...@ng-fd2.aol.com>, [ quoted text not captured ] I wouldn't disagree with any of that, and it's nice that for a change we are all on the same side here in wanting to see more rush. Personally i think, post 7/7, that we may yet see that. For example, Fame can now speed up Rush decks' impact on their prey. Madness Network/Bum's rush/agg dam/Rotschreck is now a possible basis for a Malkavian rush deck [which will even work against FOR as well as S:CE decks]; and if the agg dam is not weapon-based, then this strategy is immune to DoTB too. However, what i would REALLY like to see is a pool-gain card that does for successful combat what Voter Captivation and Legal Manipulation/Kindred spirits do for the voting and bleeding strategies respectively. eg "Spoils of Victory: combat card, playable when an opponent goes to torpor or is burned as a result of combat with this vampire. The vampire playing this card gains blood from the blood bank equal to the number of points of damage it inflicted on its opponent. Up to two of this blood can be diverted to your blood pool." Or else; "Triumph of the Beast: Action. Gain X pool, where X is the number of torpid vampires controlled by your prey." I think if we had cards like that there would be an EXPLOSION of creative rush decks of all different kinds. [ quoted text not captured ]

legb...@my-dejanews.com wrote: : I wouldn't disagree with any of that, and it's nice that for a change we are : all on the same side here in wanting to see more rush. Personally i think, : post 7/7, that we may yet see that. For example, Fame can now speed up Rush : decks' impact on their prey. Madness Network/Bum's rush/agg dam/Rotschreck is : now a possible basis for a Malkavian rush deck [which will even work against : FOR as well as S:CE decks]; and if the agg dam is not weapon-based, then this : strategy is immune to DoTB too. Now that's an interesting idea (the Madness Network one). I'd kinda like to try that sometime... of course, getting Malks agg damage is a little tricky without weapons... The Rotschreck change clearly makes more good combat decks possible - however, most of them will not be rush decks. In fact, they are in a sense 'trump' combat decks, I think. The Rotschreck allows them to beat out 'normal' combat (rush or otherwise) as long as they can produce the agg damage. It seems to me that this is likely to increase the number of viable combat decks, but at least to some extent at the expense of the previously-viable rush decks. (This is something we talked about at Origins a little, with Adrian Sullivan... he felt that the Rotschreck change was good in turning the balance back toward making Tremere and Gangrel intercept-combat playable again, (particularly in conjunction with the Immortal Grapple one-round-only change); I felt that there was no need to weaken IG combat considering that non-combat decks still are easier to play and seem to win tourneys more often...) : However, what i would REALLY like to see is a pool-gain card that does for : successful combat what Voter Captivation and Legal Manipulation/Kindred : spirits do for the voting and bleeding strategies respectively. eg "Spoils of : Victory: combat card, playable when an opponent goes to torpor or is burned : as a result of combat with this vampire. The vampire playing this card gains : blood from the blood bank equal to the number of points of damage it : inflicted on its opponent. Up to two of this blood can be diverted to your : blood pool." Or else; "Triumph of the Beast: Action. Gain X pool, where X is : the number of torpid vampires controlled by your prey." I think if we had : cards like that there would be an EXPLOSION of creative rush decks of all : different kinds. Heh, heh, heh. This card (almost) already exists. It's called Anathema. Yeah, it's a vote card, so clearly it's not going to fit into all combat decks, but it can be Really Good. (I'm not sure now if we ever had it outright banned, but I know we at least had a house rule that it could only be called on a younger vampire for a while, due to people getting tired of having me burn their vampires and gain lots of pool for it...) (back in Ithaca, that was) It's not as widely applicable as Voter Cap and Legal Manips, but then those are both Presence cards (so they aren't universally usable either). Anyhow, I would suspect that making pool-gain that easy for a combat deck would have to be done pretty carefully to avoid imbalance. It's already possible to do something like this via Taste of Vitae and Blood Doll. I do like the idea, but Spoils of Victory might be a little too good - compare to Taste of Vitae which doesn't get you any direct pool gain and is already a very good card. Triumph of the Beast I like more; there's no direct analogue to it, and also it rewards having your prey's vamps in torpor, which works against the otherwise-desirable course of burning them. Josh 'no one calls Groo a mendicant!'

In article <702gia$i...@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu>, Joshua Duffin <du...@newton.ruph.cornell.edu> writes >Now that's an interesting idea (the Madness Network one). I'd kinda like >to try that sometime... of course, getting Malks agg damage is a little >tricky without weapons... Zebulon and Gregr exist for claws and all things Protean. Slap a clan impersonation on Daliyah and you wouldn't know the difference..... Also, Chandler Hungerford. Rely more heavily on the first two vamps, of course. The deck might work well using the protean for a little stealth, too, since you would need something for the vampires who can't rush during the Madness Network, so they can be equipping or bleeding, say. Also, for the other vamps, an Ivory Bow or a Sengir Dagger (of course, these are obvious). A Clan-Impersonated Femur too, perhaps. With half a dozen CIs flying round the deck, it shouldn't be so difficult to get out, if a little slow. Wooden Stake would be okay if you can afford the cards for the extra damage. Flame thrower would be too expensive *sigh* White Phosphorus Grenade would be a nice, if somewhat temporary, supplement. LSJ, would an interrupted due to a Rotschreck white phosphorus grenade get burned? [ quoted text not captured ]

James Coupe <ve...@obeah.demon.co.uk> wrote: > LSJ, would an interrupted-due-to-a-Rotschreck white phosphorus grenade > get burned? No (unless it was a Horrid Reality thing or somesuch :-) The grenade burns itself only during strike resolution. -- L. Scott Johnson (vte...@wizards.com) VTES Net.Rep for Wizards of the Coast. Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and DCI (tournament) rules: http://www.wizards.com/VTES/VTES_Rules.html [ quoted text not captured ]

On Wed, 14 Oct 1998 17:41:50 +0100, James Coupe <ve...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote: >Also, for the other vamps, an Ivory Bow or a Sengir Dagger (of course, >these are obvious). A Clan-Impersonated Femur too, perhaps. With half >a dozen CIs flying round the deck, it shouldn't be so difficult to get >out, if a little slow. Wooden Stake would be okay if you can afford the >cards for the extra damage. Flame thrower would be too expensive *sigh* >White Phosphorus Grenade would be a nice, if somewhat temporary, >supplement. One Auspex weenie. One Flamethrower. Lots of Fast Reaction cards. =) then again, that's based on intercept combat, not Rush combat. Hmm. Hidden Lurker then, since Malks have Obf weenies too. But if you do that you don't even need R0tschreck. completely out of thread, I'm going to play it a couple more times and then post the Muddles deck I played last night in our group; it torporized something like 10 vampires on its way to victory. It also had no business doing quite THAT well, so i'm gonna test it out a little more first.. =) but i retract prior statements i might've made in favor of this: "Muddles kicks ass, at 2 pool." =) this was with current rules, so s:dodge and s:ce both beat him. -- Derek (replying by email? correct the spelling on my domain. :)

In article <DemzfQAO...@obeah.demon.co.uk>, James Coupe <ve...@obeah.demon.co.uk> wrote: > In article <702gia$i...@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu>, Joshua Duffin > <du...@newton.ruph.cornell.edu> writes > >Now that's an interesting idea (the Madness Network one). I'd kinda like > >to try that sometime... of course, getting Malks agg damage is a little > >tricky without weapons... > > Zebulon and Gregr exist for claws and all things Protean. > > Slap a clan impersonation on Daliyah and you wouldn't know the > difference..... Also, Chandler Hungerford. Rely more heavily on the > first two vamps, of course. The deck might work well using the protean > for a little stealth, too, since you would need something for the > vampires who can't rush during the Madness Network, so they can be > equipping or bleeding, say. Oooh! Ooh! How about Clan Impersonation on Etrius? Sure, he's huge, but doesn't he have (yep, he does, just checked on Mike B.'s mirror...) AUS DOM OBF pro (plus THA of course...). That's it, no more rambling... Xian "You are not Rufferto..." "you can just ignore it....and let hand jam sort them out." -Jasper Phillips [ quoted text not captured ]