60 cards vs. 90 cards

Lately, I have seen a trend here in the Toronto area, in particular my playgroup, that leans towards slim-lining the deck from 90 closer to 60 cards. Is there anyone out there that is noticing the same kind of trend and if so, any suggestions as to why this is occuring now as opposed to before (ie. release of Final Nights)? I remember when Magic: The Gathering was relatively new, and deck size was irrelevant, you just needed power. Then there was the introduction of speed to the game, and all of a sudden you had to have JUST 60 cards in your deck, otherwise you were not going to win. Now I know that MTG has card limits and is an ENTIRELY different game, but are we (locally and globally) seeing a trend towards slimming the deck down to get what you truly want and when you want it? On a side note that we may want to consider in another thread, but closely parallels the slimming thing... Has VTES become somewhat degenerate in deckbuilding? Some decks that I have seen over the last 4-6 months that include only 5-10 different cards and NUMEROUS copies of those cards... these decks seem to be winning! A good example was the !TOR deck I saw at the Canadian Championship with multiple Embraces (20 I think), Art Scam, Palla Grande and Presence Masters. This deck steam rolled it's way through opponents. The "Spiradonas/Arika/anyone who can effectively use a Soul Gem" decks also come to mind. Also, I am seeing more and more of the dreaded Minion Tap/5th combo to the point that no one can do anything productive and 5 players get 1/2 a VP for their time. Now I have been known to use the MT/5th, but I put the blood to good use and I just don't sit on it, waiting for time to expire. Basically I am concerned for the game. I see trends that bother me. I agree people just want to win, but at what cost? oAFLORD aka Thomas Kuster VEKN Prince of Caledon

Howdy! "oaflord" <oaf...@sprint.ca> schrieb im Newsbeitrag news:f4al7.2816$ua.4...@newscontent-01.sprint.ca... > Lately, I have seen a trend here in the Toronto area, in particular my > playgroup, that leans towards slim-lining the deck from 90 closer to 60 > cards. Is there anyone out there that is noticing the same kind of trend > and if so, any suggestions as to why this is occuring now as opposed to > before (ie. release of Final Nights)? Well, if you take a look at the decks packing significally fewer than 90 cards you will notice a trend: Each of these decks is not particularly fast at burning through the library. And if this is the case, slimming the deck greatly enhances your chances of drawing the right card at the right time. On the other hand I have yet to see a dedicated combat deck with less thatn, say, 80 cards and not having troubles with depleting the library too fast. > I remember when Magic: The Gathering was relatively new, and deck size was > irrelevant, you just needed power. Then there was the introduction of speed > to the game, and all of a sudden you had to have JUST 60 cards in your deck, > otherwise you were not going to win. Now I know that MTG has card limits > and is an ENTIRELY different game, but are we (locally and globally) seeing > a trend towards slimming the deck down to get what you truly want and when > you want it? You're on the right track with your assumption. Since M:TG has a card limit of four, it becomes even more important to keep the deck size as close to the minimum as possible which is even more cruical here, since you don't replace cards at such a frantic pace as in V:TES. > On a side note that we may want to consider in another thread, but closely > parallels the slimming thing... Has VTES become somewhat degenerate in > deckbuilding? Some decks that I have seen over the last 4-6 months that > include only 5-10 different cards and NUMEROUS copies of those cards... > these decks seem to be winning! A good example was the !TOR deck I saw at > the Canadian Championship with multiple Embraces (20 I think), Art Scam, > Palla Grande and Presence Masters. This deck steam rolled it's way through > opponents. The "Spiradonas/Arika/anyone who can effectively use a Soul Gem" > decks also come to mind. Also, I am seeing more and more of the dreaded > Minion Tap/5th combo to the point that no one can do anything productive and > 5 players get 1/2 a VP for their time. Now I have been known to use the > MT/5th, but I put the blood to good use and I just don't sit on it, waiting > for time to expire. > > Basically I am concerned for the game. I see trends that bother me. I > agree people just want to win, but at what cost? I think when constructing a deck for tournament play you basically want a deck which performs at a certain consistency level. A tournament deck needs a certain focus and with selecting fewer different cards you greatly increase this consistency level by reducing the amount of randomness. In other words: the fewer cards (and different cards) you choose for your deck, the more consistent it performes no matter what your starting crypt and opening hand is. I can follow your arguments which lead to your concerns, but I can't quite share them. If an abundance of diversity in a deck is replaced by focus then it won't do any harm to the game itself. Since you brought up a comparison to Magic I'm gonna pick it up ;-)... If a Magic player selects a mono-red deck for a tournament he is supposed to kill is enemy within a few turns... but such a dedicated burn deck is easily disrupted as well - and sometimes by a single card. Fortunately, game designers provided a fist full of cards against every deck type out there for V:TES as well, so if a deck type starts to get overly dominant, players and opposing decks will adapt. I would start getting concerned if a single deck starts to win a row of consecutive tournaments *regardless* of any other decks there. And even in this case I'm sure that game designers at White Wolf would come up with new stuff for the bold defenders in the next expansion. Anyone with Embraces for trade? ;-) Vampirically yours, Sascha Prince of Wels

Oaflord wrote: >>Lately, I have seen a trend here in the Toronto area, in particular my playgroup, that leans towards slim-lining the deck from 90 closer to 60 cards. Is there anyone out there that is noticing the same kind of trend and if so, any suggestions as to why this is occuring now as opposed to before (ie. release of Final Nights)?>> There was a lengthy discussion on this very topic (why you would play a deck smaller than 90 cards) just a couple weeks ago. Personally, if I were going to build a 60 card deck in VTES, I'd just take the exact same deck and multiply all the individual cards by 1.5 to make a 90 card deck, but assuming you don't have access to all the cards you need, or you need a particular card combo to come off, a smaller deck is going to be more consistient. >>Now I know that MTG has card limits and is an ENTIRELY different game, but are we (locally and globally) seeing a trend towards slimming the deck down to get what you truly want and when you want it?>> Probably not. Sure, if you only have X of a given card and want to be sure to draw it, having X of that card in a 60 card deck results in a more likely draw occurance than having X in a 90 card deck, but in most cases, I'd simply prefer to have 1.5X of all the given cards in a 90 card deck. Where issues arise is when thereis a card you only have (or want) one of. If you only have 1 of these cards, in a 60 card deck, you are going to draw it more often than in a 90 card deck. But then, if this card is so vital, why not just include 2 in a 90 card deck instead of 1 in a 60? Regardless, there are reasons to play a smaller deck, and reasons to play a larger deck. I don't think that there is an international trend or anything. >>On a side note that we may want to consider in another thread, but closely parallels the slimming thing... Has VTES become somewhat degenerate in deckbuilding? Some decks that I have seen over the last 4-6 months that include only 5-10 different cards and NUMEROUS copies of those cards... these decks seem to be winning!>> That is because if you have a good strategy, you might as well do it as good as you can. There are currently two different general VTES worldviews on deck building--the "focused" deck view and the "toolboxy" deck view. I, for one, vastly prefer the "focused" deck design--do one thing really good, and unless you run into the thing that stops you dead, you are going to be effective--as opposed to the "toolboxy" deck design, where you do a lot of different things and are always ready for any opponent. Neither one is inherrently better than the other (well, I don't actually believe that, but I'll appear egalitarian for this discussion), and both can result in winning (or losing) decks. The main problem with the hyper focused deck is that it has a weakness (and I'm not talking about a specific anti-deck X kind of weakness. I'm talking about a general strategy that just shuts you down. My hyper focused Rush deck is good, sure, but if I run into Gangrel anything, I pretty much am dead from the get go). They all do. And when they are faced with such a weakness, then just lose. If, however, you enter a tournament with a super focused deck that has one vital weakness, but no one happens to be playing any decks that capitalize upon that weakenss, you are going to do really well. This isn't a problem with the focused deck, however, it is just how the game works. >>Also, I am seeing more and more of the dreaded Minion Tap/5th combo to the point that no one can do anything productive and 5 players get 1/2 a VP for their time.>> Intercept their 5th actions, for instance. Or, rush their vampires so they lose all their blood before they are minion tapped. >>Basically I am concerned for the game. I see trends that bother me. I agree people just want to win, but at what cost?>> All of these decks have existed for years and years, and the game hasn't fallen apart. Super focused decks are part of the game design. They are strong, but easily unhinged, and if you unhinge them, they simply lose. Peter D Bakija PD...@aol.com http://www.geocities.com/bakija6 "The Ramones are more important than the Solar System." -Sean Finnerty

Peter D Bakija <pd...@aol.comANTISPAM> wrote in message news:20010904171059...@mb-cl.aol.com... > That is because if you have a good strategy, you might as well do it as good as > you can. There are currently two different general VTES worldviews on deck > building--the "focused" deck view and the "toolboxy" deck view. I, for one, > vastly prefer the "focused" deck design--do one thing really good, and unless > you run into the thing that stops you dead, you are going to be effective--as > opposed to the "toolboxy" deck design, where you do a lot of different things > and are always ready for any opponent. Neither one is inherrently better than > the other (well, I don't actually believe that, but I'll appear egalitarian for > this discussion), and both can result in winning (or losing) decks. No need to appear egalitarian for us, I am interested in people's opinions in regards to toolbox vs. focus as well. I thought this might be an offshoot of this query. > The main problem with the hyper focused deck is that it has a weakness (and I'm > not talking about a specific anti-deck X kind of weakness. I'm talking about a > general strategy that just shuts you down. My hyper focused Rush deck is good, > sure, but if I run into Gangrel anything, I pretty much am dead from the get > go). They all do. And when they are faced with such a weakness, then just lose. > If, however, you enter a tournament with a super focused deck that has one > vital weakness, but no one happens to be playing any decks that capitalize upon > that weakenss, you are going to do really well. This isn't a problem with the > focused deck, however, it is just how the game works. I concur that focussed decks do have a weakness, as do the self-titled degenerate decks that I have mentioned, but if a deck has enough of a focus, can a person really expect a toolbox deck or a general strategy to shut it down? Perhaps, there is only one, maybe two focussed anti-decks to the degenerate deck and I can hope that no one plays it? > All of these decks have existed for years and years, and the game hasn't fallen > apart. Super focused decks are part of the game design. They are strong, but > easily unhinged, and if you unhinge them, they simply lose. Thanks for your comments Peter, I do see things in a slightly different light! [ quoted text not captured ]

Sascha Neumayr <sascha....@gmx.net> wrote in message news:3b95408f$0$26756$6e36...@newsreader02.highway.telekom.at... > Well, if you take a look at the decks packing significally fewer than 90 > cards you will notice a trend: Each of these decks is not particularly fast > at burning through the library. And if this is the case, slimming the deck > greatly enhances your chances of drawing the right card at the right time. > > On the other hand I have yet to see a dedicated combat deck with less thatn, > say, 80 cards and not having troubles with depleting the library too fast. I will have to agree with this comment, obviously there are certain deck styles that call for larger deck sizes, such as rush. > You're on the right track with your assumption. Since M:TG has a card limit > of four, it becomes even more important to keep the deck size as close to > the minimum as possible which is even more cruical here, since you don't > replace cards at such a frantic pace as in V:TES. This comment leads me to think of permanents (an M:TG term, I know) but can I believe that more permanents can slim a deck? > Anyone with Embraces for trade? ;-) I've got a couple... ;-) [ quoted text not captured ]

"oaflord" <oaf...@sprint.ca> wrote in message news:zkcl7.2826$ua.4...@newscontent-01.sprint.ca... [snip Peter] > No need to appear egalitarian for us, I am interested in people's opinions > in regards to toolbox vs. focus as well. I thought this might be an offshoot of this query. Well, I know Peter is one of the True Believers in Focus, and I'm heavily weighted towards focus myself, but there is definitely an advantage (always prepared!) in playing a toolbox deck. That being said, I'd rather take my chances with a focused deck. I guess the main problem occurs when someone plays a focused, common deck. Sure, they bleed really well, but how common is Deflection as a bleed defense? It's much easier to focus in slightly off-kilter decks. Such as a Rush deck. Fortitude, Obedience (ltos of it) or agg damage will really kill a mono-pot (or nearly so) deck, but very little else will. > I concur that focussed decks do have a weakness, as do the self-titled > degenerate decks that I have mentioned, but if a deck has enough of a focus, > can a person really expect a toolbox deck or a general strategy to shut it Yeah, it can be done. For example, take a potence rush deck (Peter's industry-standard Nosferatu Hate You will do) vs. a Ventrue toolbox deck as its prey. The rush deck can rush and hit stuff. The Ventrue toolbox deck will be able to prevent some damage, deflect a few of the bleeds if necessary, send some vote damage back to its predator, maybe have a little intercept vs. hunts/rescues and probably use a couple of 5ths. None of these alone is going to shut the rush deck down, but in the right combination (having enough fortitude/obedience to shut down rush isn't too hard), it can definitely happen. > down? Perhaps, there is only one, maybe two focussed anti-decks to the > degenerate deck and I can hope that no one plays it? I'm not sure what you're getting at here. In general, focused decks are not KO'ed by a specific *other* deck. Rather, they are killed by running into a specific strategy that the opposing deck (full of its strange other-ness) employs, such as intercept, or fortitude for combat defense. Lots of tournament decks don't include any combat defense (other than S:CE), and so fall prey to IG rush. Substitute (me for him...your coke for gin) fortitude for S:CE, and you haven't lost much against other non-combat decks (except perhaps the Majesty untap), but against real combat decks, you've gained a lot. Xian

In message <zkcl7.2826$ua.4...@newscontent-01.sprint.ca>, oaflord <oaf...@sprint.ca> writes >No need to appear egalitarian for us, I am interested in people's opinions >in regards to toolbox vs. focus as well. Search google. There have been many discussions on this matter, which should give you a baseline to work from. -- James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D Close your eyes so you don't feel them EBD690ECD7A1F They don't need to see you cry B457CA213D7E6 I can't promise I will heal you, but if you want to I will try 68C3695D623D5D

Oaflord wrote: >>No need to appear egalitarian for us, I am interested in people's opinions in regards to toolbox vs. focus as well. I thought this might be an offshoot of this query.>> Yeah, ok, the cat is out. I don't really like toolbox decks. I have nothing against them, and have seen good ones, but I generally prefer to use a deck that is really good at one thing than a deck that is not so good at a lot of stuff. But then most of my decks use only one discipline anyways, so that only makes sense. >>I concur that focussed decks do have a weakness, as do the self-titled degenerate decks that I have mentioned, but if a deck has enough of a focus, can a person really expect a toolbox deck or a general strategy to shut it down?>> Sure. Depends on what the focused deck does and how solid the toolbox deck is. My Rush deck, for instance, which is hyper focused, is often foiled simply because my prey has a few good combat defense cards (Obediance or Flesh of Marble, say) at the right time. They don't even have to have a lot of them, just have them at the right time. The toolbox deck's advantage is that it is ready for anything, and if it can draw the right defenses at the right time, it is going to do well. >>Perhaps, there is only one, maybe two focussed anti-decks to the degenerate deck and I can hope that no one plays it?>> Nah--it isn't about that. This isn't a situation like that Necropotence deal in Magic in, what, 1995 or something (when all the good decks were either Necropotence decks or specifically anti-necropotence decks). It is about general strategies being useful against hyper focused ones--they just need to be the right strategies. Again, using my Rush deck as an example (my Rush deck is as hyper focused as they come--it does nothing but kill. No untap. No intercept. No vote defense. Limited pool management. Limited bleed bonus. Just Rush/IG.), it is a good deck that can be very sucessful, but it is easily foiled by: -Manuver based defenses. -Heavy fortitude. -Heavy obediance. -Anything Gangrel. -Decks that hit back. -Long ranged combat. -Weenie horde decks. That is seven different strategies right off the top of my head that make my deck much less effective, if not completely shut down. Why my deck works is because I am capitalizing upon the general lack of combat defense (other than Majesty) that you see in tournament play. If people played more combat defense (or offense), for instance, my deck would be much less effective. Super focused decks are all about playing the odds. [ quoted text not captured ]

>No need to appear egalitarian for us, I am interested in people's opinions >in regards to toolbox vs. focus as well. >I thought this might be an offshoot of this query. Beyond whether a deck is toolbox or focused, there's also the environment it will play in. In general, I would expect a toolbox deck to do poorly in a heavily focused environment. And, I would expect a focused deck to do poorly in a heavily toolboxed environment. To an extent, it's because of the balance between threats and answers, but putting that aside, I'd still expect these based on psychology. An environment weighted one way or the other is likely to appreciate decks of its ilk. In other words, you want to avoid playing a deck that people hate because they may consciously or unconsciously try to screw it. >I concur that focussed decks do have a weakness, as do the self-titled >degenerate decks that I have mentioned, but if a deck has enough of a focus, >can a person really expect a toolbox deck or a general strategy to shut it >down? Perhaps, there is only one, maybe two focussed anti-decks to the >degenerate deck and I can hope that no one plays it? Results will tend to indicate whether there's a problem with a particular deck type, though heavily metagaming against a particular deck will reduce its VPs without reducing its metagame impact.

[ quoted text not captured ] Hey Oaf, when's the next big thing in Toronto? Maybe you should come down for our tournament at the end of the month? Anyway... A trend I have seen...well at least with my own decks that have been doing well lately, is that it is very easy to be diversified now, making toolbox more viable. Basically I'll put it like this, Zillah's Valley has made using big giant vampires easy enough to actually make them go in my decks. I now have no issues whipping out two 10 cap vampires and giving the weenie players the evil eye. Simply because of their broad discipline spreads, I have included tons of different things, using 4 or 5 disciplines for some spectacular results(see my chimistry/celerity/anamilism deck, or auspex/celerity/dominate/obfuscate/thamaturgy) For the first time ever I have tripled or quadrupled up on vampires in my crypt. I know just one of these big baddies can bleed for 3 at +4 stealth, untap call a vote to damage my prey, then on defense untap and trash 3 little annoying vampires on my prey's turn. Toolbox is tough, you just need to have a strong stomach. Enough to bring out 20+ pool worth of vampires and their toys. But it does work. Aaron.

Hi there Just wated to hear if my play group is the only one playing with tower decks, we have a 4CL and still I have a deck with between 400 and 500 cards. Basically alot of decks there is played is a clan, all the vampiers of that clan, all the cards fitting into that clan, based on the clan and their disiplins, and we are having alot of fun with it. I NEVER understood why there is a card MAX in the Rules, well not a rule we are using I guess /Jesper "Sascha Neumayr" <sascha....@gmx.net> skrev i en meddelelse news:3b95408f$0$26756$6e36...@newsreader02.highway.telekom.at... [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <3b968ce8$0$594$ba62...@nntp02.dk.telia.net>, Jesper Bøje <26984...@mail1.stofanet.dk> writes >Just wated to hear if my play group is the only one playing with tower >decks, we have a 4CL and still I have a deck with between 400 and 500 cards. In general, a deck this size would be uncompetitive in a standard environment because you can't ever have any certainty of what you're going to draw. You can't make combat attacks knowing you'll be able to back them up. You can't make a bleed knowing you'll be able to back it up with stealth. etc. The standard is also no limits, which significantly changes the environment again. >Basically alot of decks there is played is a clan, all the vampiers of that >clan, all the cards fitting into that clan, based on the clan and their >disiplins, and we are having alot of fun with it. That's cool - it's just a very, very different environment. >I NEVER understood why >there is a card MAX in the Rules, well not a rule we are using I guess Because the game doesn't have a card limit otherwise. With a card limit, the trade-offs come between putting more cards in and maximising the probability of getting the cards you want. Frex: You have 60 cards in your deck. 6 of them (let's say a 6CL) are Deflections. The overall proportion is 10%. If you then move the deck up to 120 cards, the proportion is 5% - much less likely to draw one. With a deck limit, but no individual card limit, the decisions come based instead on what you include. You can include some of everything or a lot of one thing, or somewhere in between. So you can make a deck with a huge capacity for *something* - whatever that might be is your choice. Think of it as the difference between going on holiday with one suitcase only, which you can put whatever you want in. On the other hand, you can take as many suitcases as you want but only X swim-suits or X t- shirts etc. [ quoted text not captured ]

"oaflord" <oaf...@sprint.ca> wrote in message news:<f4al7.2816$ua.4...@newscontent-01.sprint.ca>... > Lately, I have seen a trend here in the Toronto area, in particular my > playgroup, that leans towards slim-lining the deck from 90 closer to 60 > cards. Is there anyone out there that is noticing the same kind of trend > and if so, any suggestions as to why this is occuring now as opposed to > before (ie. release of Final Nights)? Really? your memory and/or eyes might be better than mine but AFAIK or could tell everyone has been playing 80-90 card decks in TO, except your Soul Gem deck i think. Because you maintain a 7 hand size in VTES, and running out of your library is bad, the ONLY reason i can see to making a 60-card deck is if you want X card to come up Y times, but you have very few of X, so you reduce the deck size to increase the chance. And you can't even do it for a combat deck. > > Has VTES become somewhat degenerate in > deckbuilding? Some decks that I have seen over the last 4-6 months that > include only 5-10 different cards and NUMEROUS copies of those cards... > these decks seem to be winning! > Basically I am concerned for the game. I see trends that bother me. I > agree people just want to win, but at what cost? My feeling as i touched somewhat upon in that 'Enlightenment' thread, is that tournie decks and deckbuilding (for me at least) or totally diff than playing for fun. I make my tournie decks a little more boring, straightforward, 'effective' i hope, focussed, and hope my anti-strategy doesn't sit beside me. It's the best way to win IMHO.

> No need to appear egalitarian for us, I am interested in people's opinions > in regards to toolbox vs. focus as well. > I thought this might be an offshoot of this query. > Since I haven't posted in a bit, I'll get into this one. I believe in a certain degree of focus. If you're gonna build a bleed deck, don't include votes. If you're gonna build a vote deck, don't include rush. That much, I guess, is obvious. However, it's tough to just do one thing. Even the best bleed deck needs either combat, stealth, or some way (such as tapping, seduction, or dawn op) to be unblockable. If they do anything besides bruise and bleed, they'll also need combat defense/avoidance. Essentially, each deck needs to know how it will defend against each other broad achetype of deck. The answer could be nothing, but you at least have to address that. I break this down into 4 areas, 1 of offense (how are you going to get your prey to 0 pool) and 3 of defense. For example, a standard rush deck with have the following plan of action: Offense: rush (forcing him to influence more) and swarm bleed Combat defense: fight back Bleed defense: rush the bleeders Vote defense: intimidation/rush Note that this is all accomplished by the rush action and combat, so you're all set. You can focus entirely on your primary objective. A Lasombra bruise and bleed, on the other hand, might have the following plan: Offense: bleed (intimidation) Combat defense: fight back Bleed defense: wake and deflect (debatable... could be intercept or rush) Vote defense: titles/DOM (again debatable... you could add some rush or DT) A Malkavian S&B might go with: Offense: bleed (stealth) Combat defense: wake and obedience Bleed defense: wake and deflect (could also be telepathic counter) Vote defense: wake and Delaying Tactics Note that this isn't necessarily all there is to a deck, but once you've gotten these four areas taken care of, they should encompass all but about 5 cards out of your deck (some people fill the whole deck this way), with most of the cards being offensive in nature. The last 3 to 5 cards, I use as "prayer cards". These are cards which you won't often need, but which will come in handy against a certain deck. Maybe an Illegal Search and Seizure or a Deal with the Devil, or a Malkavian Dementia (these are all masters, but minion cards work as prayer cards too). The idea is, when you get into one of those situations where you're pretty much screwed, you often get real pissed off if there's nothing in the deck to hope for. If you've got the right card in there somewhere, then you sit and pray for it, hoping that it just might be the next card. If you have enough card cycling, then you throw away everything looking for it and it just might save you. But don't overdo it, or you'll be pitching away Canine Hordes and Letters From Vienna all game.

"Jesper Bøje" <26984...@mail1.stofanet.dk> wrote in message news:3b968ce8$0$594$ba62...@nntp02.dk.telia.net... > Hi there > > Just wated to hear if my play group is the only one playing with tower > decks, we have a 4CL and still I have a deck with between 400 and 500 cards. Quick question...how do you shuffle that beast? Xian

pete...@icqmail.com (PeterM) wrote in message news:<5802b3d0.01090...@posting.google.com>... > Because you maintain a 7 hand size in VTES, and running out of your > library is bad, the ONLY reason i can see to making a 60-card deck is > if you want X card to come up Y times, but you have very few of X, so > you reduce the deck size to increase the chance. And you can't even do > it for a combat deck. > There *is* one other good reason for playing a smaller deck, assuming that you are pretty sure you're not going to run out of cards (i.e. it's a slow deck). If you have a 90 card deck with 9 Golcondas in it, you can expect a Golconda every 10 cards. That's the expectation. I'm a bit rusty on my statistics, but the standard deviation is the amount by which you might expect to deviate from that 10 card interval. Something like 90% of the time, you will not go more than (10 + 2 standard deviations) cards without getting a Golconda. If you make the deck smaller, say a 60 card deck with 6 Golcondas in it, the expectation is still 10 cards per Golconda that you pull, however the standard deviation is smaller. If I remembered more statistics, I'd calculate it for you. Maybe someone else wants to? But the point is that the deck will be more consistent. Both decks will, on average, give you a Golconda every 10 cards, but with the 90 card deck you're more likely to go 15 cards, get one, then go 5 cards and get a second. That said, the vast majority of decks still benefit from playing with the full 90 cards. Only if the deck is extremely slow and doesn't expect to get through the deck even while sitting at a table full of bloat decks should it consider cutting back on quantity in favor of consistency.

> pete...@icqmail.com (PeterM) wrote in message > news:<5802b3d0.01090...@posting.google.com>... > >> Because you maintain a 7 hand size in VTES, and running out of your >> library is bad, the ONLY reason i can see to making a 60-card deck is >> if you want X card to come up Y times, but you have very few of X, so >> you reduce the deck size to increase the chance. And you can't even do >> it for a combat deck. >> > > There *is* one other good reason for playing a smaller deck, assuming > that you are pretty sure you're not going to run out of cards (i.e. > it's a slow deck). If you have a 90 card deck with 9 Golcondas in > it, you can expect a Golconda every 10 cards. That's the expectation. > I'm a bit rusty on my statistics, but the standard deviation is the > amount by which you might expect to deviate from that 10 card > interval. Something like 90% of the time, you will not go more than > (10 + 2 standard deviations) cards without getting a Golconda. If you > make the deck smaller, say a 60 card deck with 6 Golcondas in it, the > expectation is still 10 cards per Golconda that you pull, however the > standard deviation is smaller. > If I remembered more statistics, I'd calculate it for you. Maybe > someone else wants to? But the point is that the deck will be more > consistent. Both decks will, on average, give you a Golconda every 10 > cards, but with the 90 card deck you're more likely to go 15 cards, > get one, then go 5 cards and get a second. I'm damn near close to TAKING a statistics book and learning it all over just to prove this one point. However the time it will take for this one task isn't worth the impact (read: zero) that it will have on people opinions or playstyles. People are pretty bullheaded about it one way or the other. (I'm bullheaded on smaller is better, of course. =) The deviation is one reason; finite discards is another: every copy of a card you need early but only once is a spoken for discard, which in most decks is used for counteracting deviations from the averages. However, I appear to have caught The Evil Q Virus from Dragon*Con, so I'll cut it short; I've repeated myself enough times in enough threads. =) -- Pat Ricochet Soul Jar'rn Fool of Atlanta

"Jesper Bøje" <26984...@mail1.stofanet.dk> wrote in message news:3b968ce8$0$594$ba62...@nntp02.dk.telia.net... > Hi there > > Just wated to hear if my play group is the only one playing with tower > decks, we have a 4CL and still I have a deck with between 400 and 500 cards. > Basically alot of decks there is played is a clan, all the vampiers of that > clan, all the cards fitting into that clan, based on the clan and their > disiplins, and we are having alot of fun with it. I NEVER understood why > there is a card MAX in the Rules, well not a rule we are using I guess > There's no need for a card max rule if you play 4CL. The 90-card maximum is there for NCL players (most of us, I think.) BTW, I like playing toolbox decks, but with those 400card /4CL monstrosities, how do you know what you are going to be drawing?

"jeroen rombouts" <jeroen....@pandora.be> wrote in message news:p32m7.42023$6x5.8...@afrodite.telenet-ops.be... [ quoted text not captured ] You don't... thats the fun of it! The deck can play differently every single time you play it. Matt (All my decks are 90 card max but I can imagine how fun a big deck game must be.)

>That said, the vast majority of decks still benefit from playing with >the full 90 cards. Only if the deck is extremely slow and doesn't >expect to get through the deck even while sitting at a table full of >bloat decks should it consider cutting back on quantity in favor of >consistency. Last tournament I played in, I played a 75 card stealth bleed deck. Never came close to running out of cards in 3 rounds. Only recently, say, in the last year, have I made attempts to build serious tournament decks. The best decks I've put together in that time have all been less than 90. In part, I believe it has to do with the mentality I'm using when putting the deck together. If the deck can't be larger than, say, 80, I know I can't add fluff or prayer cards. Every card is judged harshly. OTOH, if I allow myself to go up to 90, I let more iffy cards slide. I allow more themes to creep in. There is one group of decks I don't think I can make smaller decks for - vote decks. Too many times I'll be happy with my tight 80 card vote deck and, then, discover I hadn't put any vote cards in yet. And, I doubt I'd go under 90 with a celerity based deck unless I didn't care whether I ran out of cards. But, the vast majority of my tournament decks are going to be under 90, at least as long I approach tournaments as I do now.

> BTW, I like playing toolbox decks, but with those 400card /4CL > monstrosities, how do you know what you are going to be drawing? You dont, and thats the beauty of it. You know what you got, but you cant plan on drawing a certin card. If you are in combat and draw just that combat card you need your lucky. You start to learn to use what you got and get the beast out of it. /Jesper

[ quoted text not captured ] A 1CL would provide even more such beauty. Any particular reason to allow people to pack a whole 4 of each card? And of course, you could extend the beauty even further to a 1CL and 100-card-minimum Crypt as well. -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and tournament rules: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/

> You don't... thats the fun of it! The deck can play differently every single > time you play it. And it is. I my self got a Ravnos deck, one of my freind got a Giovanni deck, we kinda compete to se who get the biggest deck, and love to get a one and one game, and not two ends the same. > Matt (All my decks are 90 card max but I can imagine how fun a big deck game > must be.) /Jesper All my decks are over 150 cards, but I for wouls love to try a 90 no 4cl card game for once ;)

Well LSJ I dont know if its coz you dont like the wway we play, or if its just me that read your posting wrong. The 4 CL could as well have been a 3 CL a 6 CL or something else, it happened to be a 4 CL since we played magic a lot before Jyhad, so it was a natural thing to play a 4 CL. Even when we played magic we tried to get the largest decks. Well you could play a 1 CL and 100 crypt minimum (by the way, I have dreamed about for a long time to make a deck with a crypt with 50-100 diffrent vampires, but thats another thing) But you would probelly end up with a lot of things you couldent use. That you dont do the way we play. Take my Ravnos deck, it may be big, there may only be four of a card, but I do know that any of the card would be eighter a chi,ani,for or pro card or a card that only Ravnos can play or a card that dosent require anything. This also means that I can play most of the times any of the cards and dosent getten stucked with card I cant play. Well to be honest we lie the way we play. We like oure tower decks and like that you never know what you get, just something you can use. The only reason I posted my posting in the first place was to see if we where the only one playing the game like this, and tell the ppl. that this is also a way to play the game. Regards /Jesper "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> skrev i en meddelelse news:3B9FA1EE...@white-wolf.com... [ quoted text not captured ]

"Jesper Bøje" wrote: > > Well > > LSJ I dont know if its coz you dont like the wway we play, or if its just me > that read your posting wrong. The 4 CL could as well have been a 3 CL a 6 CL > or something else, it happened to be a 4 CL since we played magic a lot > before Jyhad, so it was a natural thing to play a 4 CL. Even when we played > magic we tried to get the largest decks. I don't mind the way you (or anyone else) plays. I'm glad you're having fun. You said the beauty was that you never know what you'd be drawing. I responded that that would be more true if you had a 1CL instead of a 4CL. Just trying to examine the basis of your play style. > Well you could play a 1 CL and 100 crypt minimum (by the way, I have dreamed > about for a long time to make a deck with a crypt with 50-100 diffrent > vampires, but thats another thing) But you would probelly end up with a lot > of things you couldent use. Part of the concept of NL is to build decks so that you can use all of the cards. Any CL is stepping away from that. With a 4CL, you'll end up with more cards that are less useful than with NL in a 90-card deck (and moreso in a larger deck). > That you dont do the way we play. Take my Ravnos deck, it may be big, there > may only be four of a card, but I do know that any of the card would be > eighter a chi,ani,for or pro card or a card that only Ravnos can play or a > card that dosent require anything. This also means that I can play most of > the times any of the cards and dosent getten stucked with card I cant play. So predicatbility is a good thing. Cohesiveness is good. I agree. That's why I play the official NL version. If you can get "stuck" with a card you can't play, then, as you say, you can't plan on drawing the right card. But if you are in combat and draw a card you can use, you're lucky. > Well to be honest we lie the way we play. We like oure tower decks and like > that you never know what you get, just something you can use. The only > reason I posted my posting in the first place was to see if we where the > only one playing the game like this, and tell the ppl. that this is also a > way to play the game. In all seriousness: have you tried playing with a common (huge) deck? Maybe draw 12 cards from the common (varied) crypt and choose the four you like to start. Maybe give yourself an extra discard in your master phase or give every draw a double-draw-and-discard-1 type of thing to keep your hand flowing. It seems like something your group may enjoy. Regards, Scott [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <3b9fc0d1$0$4792$ba62...@nntp01.dk.telia.net>, Jesper Bøje <26984...@mail1.stofanet.dk> writes >Well > >LSJ I dont know if its coz you dont like the wway we play You could, at least, post the way we post, however. Replies come under quoted text. >Well you could play a 1 CL and 100 crypt minimum (by the way, I have dreamed >about for a long time to make a deck with a crypt with 50-100 diffrent >vampires, but thats another thing) There's a perfectly reasonable deck designed to use, currently, about 500 cards. (1 of each plus a lot of weenies, or some variant.) This wouldn't work under your rules, however. >That you dont do the way we play. Take my Ravnos deck, it may be big, there >may only be four of a card, but I do know that any of the card would be >eighter a chi,ani,for or pro card or a card that only Ravnos can play or a >card that dosent require anything. You could do this with a 1CL, too. >This also means that I can play most of >the times any of the cards and dosent getten stucked with card I cant play. There are better ways to produce a situation where you can play most of the cards. The Happy Families formula devised by James McClellan allows for such neatly. (I really honestly will get round to re-implementing this, however.) [ quoted text not captured ]

> Well to be honest we lie the way we play. We like oure tower decks and like > that you never know what you get, just something you can use. The only > reason I posted my posting in the first place was to see if we where the > only one playing the game like this, and tell the ppl. that this is also a > way to play the game. It seems akin to playing chess where the object is to capture all the other pieces, not to checkmate the king. If you find it fun, that's why people play games, sure. But most of us are in it for the strategic aspect, and the rules and cards were designed for a game totally unlike the way you play it. Not unlike "chess to the death," your way of playing does seem more appealing to simpler minds (say, children) than adults wanting to really wrap their brain around the game and plumb it's strategic depths. Also, even in that context, all of us hardcore strategists find it to be endless fun. =) I'd guess that if there's anyone else out there that plays that way, you won't find them on the newsgroup. [ quoted text not captured ]

> > LSJ I dont know if its coz you dont like the wway we play, or if its just me > > that read your posting wrong. The 4 CL could as well have been a 3 CL a 6 CL > > or something else, it happened to be a 4 CL since we played magic a lot > > before Jyhad, so it was a natural thing to play a 4 CL. Even when we played > > magic we tried to get the largest decks. > > I don't mind the way you (or anyone else) plays. I'm glad you're having fun. > > You said the beauty was that you never know what you'd be drawing. > I responded that that would be more true if you had a 1CL instead of a 4CL. Actully no i wont. Coz as iv said I have probelly 4 of all cards I want to use in my ravnos deck. Lets say thats 100 cards, the you say 100*4 to see how many carrds I have in my deck (400 ;)) That means that any given card I would have a 1% of drawing (right). If I on the otherhand had a 1CL that would mean I only had 100 cards in my deck, but still had a 1% of drawing any on card. But this way(the 4cl) even that you have played a certin card you dont know if you are gonna get it agin, but you rarely get all four of a certin card in a singel game, which again means that actully by playing with a 4 cl it is harder predict(sorry im a lousy speller ;)) what you get. > Just trying to examine the basis of your play style. And its all fine by me, now we done it for a 5-6 year period ;) > > Well you could play a 1 CL and 100 crypt minimum (by the way, I have dreamed > > about for a long time to make a deck with a crypt with 50-100 diffrent > > vampires, but thats another thing) But you would probelly end up with a lot > > of things you couldent use. > > Part of the concept of NL is to build decks so that you can use all of the > cards. Any CL is stepping away from that. With a 4CL, you'll end up with > more cards that are less useful than with NL in a 90-card deck (and moreso > in a larger deck). Yes but with a NL and 90 cards decks the decks all of a sudden turns from what we are playing, an getting mean killing decks. We all think that its funny that we have all of those cards in the game that wouldent normally make thier way through. On the other hand all the deck building dosent take so much, the easy way: Choose a clan. Get all the vampires from the clan(E.g. Ventrue) Get 4(or how many you now want) of all dominate, presence, fortitude, ventrue cards Get all the other cards you want in your deck. Start play :) If we dident have a 4 CL we then would ran in to another problem, oure deck size would propely grow 3 or 4 times. > > That you dont do the way we play. Take my Ravnos deck, it may be big, there > > may only be four of a card, but I do know that any of the card would be > > eighter a chi,ani,for or pro card or a card that only Ravnos can play or a > > card that dosent require anything. This also means that I can play most of > > the times any of the cards and dosent getten stucked with card I cant play. > > So predicatbility is a good thing. Cohesiveness is good. I agree. That's why > I play the official NL version. No I wont say predicatbility is a good thing. The fun thing for us is that you dont know what card you get, if its a combat card or an action card. If you have a deck with 80% combat, you would have a pretty good idea that: "Even with this hand I can go into combat, and then I probely will draw at least 4 more combat cards and then I can throw that Vampire into torpor" > > Well to be honest we lie the way we play. We like oure tower decks and like > > that you never know what you get, just something you can use. The only > > reason I posted my posting in the first place was to see if we where the > > only one playing the game like this, and tell the ppl. that this is also a > > way to play the game. > > In all seriousness: have you tried playing with a common (huge) deck? Sorry dosent understand your question here. > Maybe draw 12 cards from the common (varied) crypt and choose the four you like > to start. Maybe give yourself an extra discard in your master phase or > give every draw a double-draw-and-discard-1 type of thing to keep your > hand flowing. It seems like something your group may enjoy. Well the generall flow of cards dosent seems to be a problem. Except if you end up with 5 or 6 master cards, wich sometimes is ment to happen. But I will consider the ideas and take them to my play group :o) /Jesper

In message <3b9fcbcc$0$4795$ba62...@nntp01.dk.telia.net>, Jesper Bøje <26984...@mail1.stofanet.dk> writes >Yes but with a NL and 90 cards decks the decks all of a sudden turns from >what we are playing, an getting mean killing decks. This is an unsupported supposition. Indeed, many players play entirely "fun" decks under such conditions, making it virtually impossible to support that supposition. [ quoted text not captured ]

If you think 4CL is bad, you should try what we play: 6CL No repeat cards (can't use the same type of stealth card for a specific action) 100 card maximum I think 6CL allows me to put my most useful cards in the deck, and be able to repeat the action in the next turn. Also, it's lovely to Consagineous Condemnation 6 times =o) carpe noctem et jugulum Khristoffer Jose Griever of the Hague

In message <9nom0j$c96$1...@scavenger.euro.net>, Khris <griev...@hotmail.com> writes >I think 6CL allows me to put my most useful cards in the deck, and be able >to repeat the action in the next turn. I'm happy for your deck. What do you do about my Setite Corruption deck? [ quoted text not captured ]

"Jesper Bøje" wrote: > > In all seriousness: have you tried playing with a common (huge) deck? > > Sorry dosent understand your question here. A common deck - one library from which all players draw. In it are cards of all types and requiring all disciplines (in roughly equal proportions or adjusted as you like). > > Maybe draw 12 cards from the common (varied) crypt and choose the four you > like > > to start. Maybe give yourself an extra discard in your master phase or > > give every draw a double-draw-and-discard-1 type of thing to keep your > > hand flowing. It seems like something your group may enjoy. > > Well the generall flow of cards dosent seems to be a problem. Except if you > end up with 5 or 6 master cards, wich sometimes is ment to happen. But I > will consider the ideas and take them to my play group :o) The flow would be more of a concern in a common deck game. [ quoted text not captured ]

> >Yes but with a NL and 90 cards decks the decks all of a sudden turns from > >what we are playing, an getting mean killing decks. > > This is an unsupported supposition. Indeed, many players play entirely > "fun" decks under such conditions, making it virtually impossible to > support that supposition. Yes I know that this aint true all the way. But that is what would happen in oure play group. I know the players. I also know that this probely aint true all the way, with all players all over the world, but in my play group it would be. If we all of a sudden ½ of us did play with oure "normal" decks and the other ½ would play with top tuned NL 90 cards deck, the irst half would not stand a chance. I simply wont belive it. /Jesper

> A common deck - one library from which all players draw. In it are cards of > all types and requiring all disciplines (in roughly equal proportions or > adjusted as you like). No never tried it - but sounds like fun /Jesper

In message <3ba04ad4$0$4789$ba62...@nntp01.dk.telia.net>, Jesper Bøje <26984...@mail1.stofanet.dk> writes >> >Yes but with a NL and 90 cards decks the decks all of a sudden turns from >> >what we are playing, an getting mean killing decks. >> >> This is an unsupported supposition. Indeed, many players play entirely >> "fun" decks under such conditions, making it virtually impossible to >> support that supposition. > >Yes I know that this aint true all the way. But that is what would happen in >oure play group. I know the players. If your players wish to play specific deck types, why stop them? [ quoted text not captured ]

On Wed, 12 Sep 2001, James Coupe wrote: > In message <9nom0j$c96$1...@scavenger.euro.net>, Khris > <griev...@hotmail.com> writes > >I think 6CL allows me to put my most useful cards in the deck, and be able > >to repeat the action in the next turn. > > I'm happy for your deck. > > What do you do about my Setite Corruption deck? beat all your minions into torpor!!! oh, wait....you meant how to build it under 6cl. umm...6 corruptions, 6 venenations, and a whole lotta S&B. O:) i really hate corruption decks. especially Form of Corruption. Instant way to turn your prey into a "let's work backwards and hope for 2vps at the end" deck. mind you, i only hate those decks because i've never had enough corruptions to build one myself..... salem.

James Coupe wrote: > > I'm happy for your deck. > > > > What do you do about my Setite Corruption deck? Well, what do would you do against my Assamite Combat/Intercept deck? It's got loads of stealth, intercept, and combat. Plus enough laptops, retainers to bleed you dry and make your vampires run to their Sires. I too hate corruption decks, which account for me having Direct Intervention whenever my predator plays Venenation. And the best strategy of all, schmam Nefertiti, kill Khaytall, and make sure Tutu the doubly evil one ends up burned instead of back in his owner's library. Khris

In message <9nu8cg$82u$1...@scavenger.euro.net>, Khris <griev...@hotmail.com> writes >James Coupe wrote: > >> > I'm happy for your deck. >> > >> > What do you do about my Setite Corruption deck? > >Well, what do would you do against my Assamite Combat/Intercept deck? I think you spectacularly missed the point. You: "I think 6CL allows me to put my most useful cards in the deck, and be able to repeat the action in the next turn." How will you be allowing me to do similar with my Corruption deck? [ quoted text not captured ]

>James Coupe wrote: > You: "I think 6CL allows me to put my most useful cards in the deck, and > be able to repeat the action in the next turn." > > How will you be allowing me to do similar with my Corruption deck? Sorry about that! Well, I have very little experience with Setite decks, other than being on the giving or receiving end... As for 6CL, 6 Form of Corruptions, 6 Venenations, make Nefertiti the main vampire in your crypt, and make sure lots of guy block you, corrupt them, then combat ends. Personally, I'm finding Presence very handy in combat where my deck isn't really built on combat. A good idea would be a Setite/ Toreador Voting deck, with titled Torries, Khaytall, and Nefertiti (have Nefertiti put corruption counters on everyone, then let the voting begin, using Khaytall as the acting minion, and back him up with the titled Torries. Live long, and decay Khris

In message <9nvcup$61i$1...@scavenger.euro.net>, Khris <griev...@hotmail.com> writes >As for 6CL, 6 Form of Corruptions, 6 Venenations, make Nefertiti the main >vampire in your crypt, and make sure lots of guy block you, corrupt them, >then combat ends. "make sure lots of guys block you" Uhuh. 1) Given you only have six Venenations, six is not "lots". 2) How do you propose I *make* people block me? [ quoted text not captured ]

> 1) Given you only have six Venenations, six is not "lots". > 2) How do you propose I *make* people block me? Bluff, I don't know. Be creative. Setite decks in our games tend to wipe out the entire table with the Corruption/Stealth and Bleed motif.

In message <9o0547$bt2$1...@scavenger.euro.net>, Khris <griev...@hotmail.com> writes >> 1) Given you only have six Venenations, six is not "lots". >> 2) How do you propose I *make* people block me? > >Bluff, I don't know. Be creative. I would rather play a card game than sit and convince people to do things which, once I've done it once, they will see are not necessarily in their interests and can prepare for by selecting their blockers carefully. >Setite decks in our games tend to wipe >out the entire table with the Corruption/Stealth and Bleed motif. Why should I have to mix and match my deck? Note my original question was: "How will you be allowing me to do similar with my Corruption deck?" Corruption/Stealth and Bleed is not a Corruption deck. [ quoted text not captured ]

> Note my original question was: "How will you be allowing me to do > similar with my Corruption deck?" > > Corruption/Stealth and Bleed is not a Corruption deck. Whatever....I was just trying to help.

In message <9o0cu9$2h67$1...@scavenger.euro.net>, Khris <griev...@hotmail.com> writes [ quoted text not captured ] I believed you have missed the point. Your card limit has just killed my deck. Providing me with a different deck does not solve that. It will also kill many other decks. They cannot "put [their] most useful cards in the deck, and be able to repeat the action in the[ir] next turn." Also, if "it's lovely to Consagineous Condemnation 6 times", why limit yourself to only 6? [ quoted text not captured ]

Well, I didn't make up the house rules. I asked why there was a 6CL limit, and was told that it was to prevent abuse of certain cards...to make the game a little more challenging. If you play your deck in our group, you would easily defeat everyone on the table. No fun in that, unless you're totally sadistic and antisocial. I don't think you'd like to come up against a deck that will block every single action you do, kill all your vampires, and bleed you until you're ousted. Granted, that's the whole point of the game, but the 6CL was created to make sure we weren't ripping each other's throats out by the morning. Personally, I'd like to see more of certain cards in my Assamite deck, but I've got to make do with the 6CL, and so far, the deck's doing brilliantly. I'd like your advice on making a good Setite Corruption deck though. Should make all the other players in my group squirm (evil maniacal laugh) They already squirm with the Assamite combat deck, but I'd like to do more than just kill and bleed. Sorry about the previous grumpy postings, but my girlfriend got hurt in the WTC attack, and I was kind of raging. Also, any advice on a Gangrel Antitribu deck?

In message <9o0f84$87j$1...@scavenger.euro.net>, Khris <griev...@hotmail.com> writes >Well, I didn't make up the house rules. I asked why there was a 6CL limit, >and was told that it was to prevent abuse of certain cards... Your players do not understand the game if they believe 6CL prevents "abuse". For example: Under 6CL, all defences for stealth and bleed are reduced in nature. However, Stealth and Bleed has sufficient repeat cards that it can still present an extremely focused deck. Under 6CL, all defences against Strike: Combat Ends are significantly reduced. 18 copies of Presence based Strike: Combat Ends are available. A Tremere deck has fewer ways to advance in combat. A Brujah deck has fewer ways to advance in combat, and so on. In general, the basic functionality cards are repeated a number of times. The cards designed to facilitate advance around them are not (limited to one or two for any given discipline, say, and not repeated across them all). The game was designed with this in mind. There are more available forms of advance than defence, in general (for instance, there are many ways to deal damage in combat, damage limitation is reserved for a few disciplines). A Gangrel deck is *supposed* to be able to go for lots of stealth if the player wants it. A weenie deck is supposed to be able to Computer Hack like there's no tomorrow. That's how the game was designed. If what you players actually mean when they say abuse is "repetitiveness", this is entirely separate. There are many, many threads regarding this in the newsgroup, archived at www.google.com >Also, any advice on a Gangrel Antitribu deck? Which angle do you want to go for? City or Country? [ quoted text not captured ]

> >Also, any advice on a Gangrel Antitribu deck? > > Which angle do you want to go for? City or Country? Not sure, really... What's the main difference between the two?

In message <9o0io5$1ac1$1...@scavenger.euro.net>, Khris <griev...@hotmail.com> writes >> >Also, any advice on a Gangrel Antitribu deck? >> >> Which angle do you want to go for? City or Country? > >Not sure, really... What's the main difference between the two? The disciplines. The City have OBF, CEL, FOR and just about manage to get by now. The Country have ANI, FOR, PRO and can mix and match with a standard Gangrel deck. [ quoted text not captured ]

> >>Not sure, really... What's the main difference between the two? > > >The disciplines. > > The City have OBF, CEL, FOR and just about manage to get by now. > > The Country have ANI, FOR, PRO and can mix and match with a standard > Gangrel deck. Well, I have more Camarilla Gangrel than I do Sabbat, so I'm thinking more along the lines of Country. What would that need to work, and what sort of deck do you think is best?

In message <9o0ld5$255a$1...@scavenger.euro.net>, Khris <griev...@hotmail.com> writes >> The City have OBF, CEL, FOR and just about manage to get by now. Gah, that's OBF, CEL, *PRO* >> The Country have ANI, FOR, PRO and can mix and match with a standard >> Gangrel deck. > >Well, I have more Camarilla Gangrel than I do Sabbat, so I'm thinking more >along the lines of Country. What would that need to work, and what sort of >deck do you think is best? Well, combat always seems a sensible option to pursue. Path of the Feral Heart, Mythic Form, Flesh of Marble, Sideslip, Taste of Vitae and Blur seems a good place to start, with some minor stealth knocking around (Swallowed by the Night gives you a potential maneuver), possibly a Disguised Weapon/Gun combo, if all else fails, and Claws of the Dead/Bone Spur[0]. (The gun is also useful if you find yourself up against S:CE, where you don't have to "waste" combat cards if you don't want to, except to cycle.) Psyche! is also going to be useful, for S:CE "defence". I'd also be tempted to drop in two or three Sacrificial Lamb for blood gain, possibly a couple of Gangrel Conspiracy in case. A few Night Moves for edge stealing and minor bleeds. A Laptop or two, or a Computer Hacking or two will give you some invaluable bleed punch, given you can't guarantee combat so easily. One or two Hidden Lurkers (enough for surprise, insufficient for guarantee) may prove useful in the instance of a cocky Presence combat ends deck. I'd add Changeling Skin Mask - bolsters the weenies or provides some intercept. Of course, my natural instincts are to toolbox[1] slightly. (As a result, I'd add a copy of City Gangrel Connections, probably.) Which probably makes Storage Annex quite useful. All the "usual candidates" are up for grabs - Wake, Blood Doll, Arson and so forth - depending on your play-group. A sport bike and/or an intercept location (KRCG, Rumor Mill, London Evenings Star) is probably useful, too. How you choose to get into combat is up to you, of course. Bum's Rush and/or Haven Uncovered is usually preferred, of course. [0] I have always preferred Claws of the Dead to Wolf Claws because of the maneuver option, rather than the press. If you do your job properly, they don't get to presses. :) However, I have seen Bone Spur used well, to facilitate defence against "Dodge" or minor damage prevention (e.g. Leather Jacket, inferior Fortitude) - which given I've suggested Blur seems sensible. [1] A deck where the focus of your deck is slightly watered down to provide other options. Often considered the opposite of "focus" which does one narrow channel of things *well*, hoping that the speed and efficiency bonus will help, trying to use the flexibility inherent in its actions to scupper other decks (e.g. a rush deck performing a cross- table rush, if it has to; a political deck banishing a vampire cross- table, if it has to) rather than providing specific defence for those actions. [ quoted text not captured ]

Thanks for the advice!! I'll be sure to use your suggestion as a template for a new deck, as I've grown quit sick of playing my Assamite combat, my Lasombra combat, and my Malkavian Voting deck Khris Jose

In message <GTBBpPNF...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk>, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> writes >>> The Country have ANI, FOR, PRO and can mix and match with a standard >>> Gangrel deck. >> >>Well, I have more Camarilla Gangrel than I do Sabbat, so I'm thinking more >>along the lines of Country. What would that need to work, and what sort of >>deck do you think is best? > >Well, combat always seems a sensible option to pursue. And one day, I'll stick my reading head on and learn the difference between City and Country. In terms of Country/Normal , I'd be tempted to add: Haaken Mortensen - he's perfect, because he has the "move a blood to a Gangrel or Gangrel antitribu in your uncontrolled region" thing, along with an ANI/FOR/PRO set of disciplines. Omaya is also excellent - the built in damage prevention is cool, even if you have AUS pro, rather than the (perhaps) more useful PRO aus. Leon and Sadie are obvious candidates if you want to weenify the deck, pick the disciplines as you see fit, obviously. Genevieve is a large, but useful, option to consider. Has 1 vote and also has the potential to cast the three from the Priscus vote (or stall it, maybe). A deck with two or three Haaken, a copy of Omaya, a copy of Raven, a copy of Camille Devereux and a copy of Gitanne St. Clair (ANI FOR PRO Primogen) has the potential for an absolutely fantastic solid base. Lots of solid mid-range discipline power. Weeniefy as appropriate. You can use the !Gangrel to diablerise with Gangrel Conspiracy, as appropriate. Scorpion Sting provides your added damage, with Mythic Form helping, but being quite expensive. Path of the Feral Heart is much, much less useful here, unfortunately - Gangrel Antitribu only. Adding Eco-Terrorists may well work out well, depending on the rest of your crypt. I also like having vote power, so I'd be tempted to add one copy of City Gangrel Connections. (For your Country Gangrel deck, too.) You have the potential for a lot of untap (Freak Drive, Cat's Guidance) and some unblockability when you need it (Dawn Operation, Daring the Dawn, ignore Horrific Countenance :) ). Bleed power can come through well targeted Force of Will. You also have quite a bit of intercept available - Raptor, Raven Spy, Cat's Guidance. Use some for defence - you lack bleed bounce - or rush your predator as necessary to take out his bleeders, if that becomes an issue. [ quoted text not captured ]