The Anthelios polemic

Some time ago, I said on this newsgroup that IMO the trouble with the game was that few masters got played, and that new ones kept coming out. Implying that a given type of deck would always go round and round on the same old masters and never get to even risk playing less obvious ones, when you have Blood Dolls, Directs, Sudden, Dreams... to put in your deck most of the time Also, there was the problem of playing fatties. If you want them out fast enough, you need to include quite a few Info Highway and such. But if you get them in mid to endgame, they are mostly shit. Then came Anthelios. So, isn't it great ? Could be. But now we get on another trouble card : Anarch Revolt. If it were Unique (my long-time proposed "fix"), there would be no problem at all : without it, I don't see how a deck can win nearly solely with Masters. But things being what they are, these already very powerful decks become even more so. Not to mention that recursion, which we know can be very useful, was until now limited to the Necromancy discipline (or related minions / object), and depending on its versions cost an action (except if you became Anarch, which has a high opportunity cost) at 0 or +1 stealth, and a blood. Giving access to it to just anyone, although in a limited version (Masters, gotta have one in hand, costs a master slot) lowers the value of that discipline / Clan I love. So, what should we really think of Anthelios, already on top of many people's Hate List ? And shouldn't we fix some Masters rather than Anthelios ? ----------------- Orpheus "We can never know of what we are the seeds Until we flower." Lilith

"Orpheus" <orpheus....@DEADSPAM.free.fr> wrote in message news:414b2c69$0$29466$636a...@news.free.fr... > Could be. But now we get on another trouble card : Anarch Revolt. > If it were Unique (my long-time proposed "fix"), there would be no > problem at all : Except that a unique Anarch Revolt is still wallpaper and basically obselesced by Antedulvian Awakened, Anthelios or not. Fred

> > Could be. But now we get on another trouble card : Anarch Revolt. > > If it were Unique (my long-time proposed "fix"), there would be no > > problem at all : > > Except that a unique Anarch Revolt is still wallpaper and basically > obselesced by Antedulvian Awakened, Anthelios or not. > > Fred I beg to differ. I usually put a few AR / AA in most bleed decks, it makes for the surprise killing. I still would. I'd just have to include, say, one or two of each. They have the same uses but are removed differently from the table. If anything, that would de-wallpaperize AA a little. And I believe we'd still see lots of AR on the tables. Just one at a time... ;-) [ quoted text not captured ]

"Orpheus" <orpheus....@DEADSPAM.free.fr> wrote in message news:414b2c69$0$29466$636a...@news.free.fr... > Could be. But now we get on another trouble card : Anarch Revolt. If it were > Unique (my long-time proposed "fix"), there would be no problem at all : That was yours? The first mention I can find of it is [Emiliano 21-JUN-2001]: http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=HYuY6.68408%24Rq1.612856%40news.infostrada.it -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. V:TES homepage: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/ Though effective, appear to be ineffective -- Sun Tzu

"Orpheus" <orpheus....@DEADSPAM.free.fr> wrote in message news:414b3bfe$0$29444$636a...@news.free.fr... > > > Could be. But now we get on another trouble card : Anarch > > > Revolt. If it were Unique (my long-time proposed "fix"), > > > there would be no problem at all : > > > > Except that a unique Anarch Revolt is still wallpaper and > > basically obselesced by Antedulvian Awakened, Anthelios or not. > > I beg to differ. > > I usually put a few AR / AA in most bleed decks, it makes for the > surprise killing. That purpose is a waste of master space, AFAIK. Once in a blue moon you might get the critical extra pool, but most of the time it will just sit in your hand and take up space if you save it for the right moment or be totally useless (whether played or discarded) if you don't. > If anything, that would de-wallpaperize AA a little. Antedulvian Awakening is hardly wallpaper right now. You just can't use more than a relatively small number in your deck. If you think it's wallpaper now, then it's only logical to concede that unique Anarch Revolt would only be useful for wiping your butt. The good and useful thing about Anarch Revolt is that you can stack them. If you can't stack them, then AR and AA only differ by what it takes to remove one or the other. And "any successful vote" is obviously about a zillion times more lenient than burning a vampire of capacity greater than three. How could you even compare the two? Fred

> > > > Could be. But now we get on another trouble card : Anarch > > > > Revolt. If it were Unique (my long-time proposed "fix"), > > > > there would be no problem at all : > > > > > > Except that a unique Anarch Revolt is still wallpaper and > > > basically obselesced by Antedulvian Awakened, Anthelios or not. > > > > I beg to differ. > > > > I usually put a few AR / AA in most bleed decks, it makes for the > > surprise killing. > > That purpose is a waste of master space, AFAIK. Once in a blue moon > you might get the critical extra pool, but most of the time it will > just sit in your hand and take up space if you save it for the right > moment or be totally useless (whether played or discarded) if you > don't. LOL. Really ? Well, then let em tell U that I've known many blue moons. And just think how many times you've seen a prey survive by just one pool ? Not to mention that usually he'll loose it more than one turn... I've seen both cases (AR kills and prey survives for one) several times in this month alone. > > If anything, that would de-wallpaperize AA a little. > > Antedulvian Awakening is hardly wallpaper right now. You just > can't use more than a relatively small number in your deck. > If you think it's wallpaper now, then it's only logical to concede > that unique Anarch Revolt would only be useful for wiping your > butt. > > The good and useful thing about Anarch Revolt is that you can > stack them. Well, it is good enough for me !! Also, don't forget that if you play it in the "killing" turn, your prey will loose the pool no matter what, and THEN call a referendum. AA might be better in long term (because people will hesitate more to burn it) but if you're about to die you'll prefer losing a minion. > If you can't stack them, then AR and AA only differ > by what it takes to remove one or the other. It is still a big difference, as shown above. But then, if you think that cards that are nearly-the-same-but-not-quite shouldn't exist, you'd remove many cards from the game !! Furthermore, having two different Unique cards offers the possibility to put them both in game, which is very different from putting only one, wouldn't you agree ? > And "any successful > vote" is obviously about a zillion times more lenient than burning a > vampire of capacity greater than three. How could you even compare > the two? As seen above : time window is a great factor. Also, having the vote lock might prevent the burning of AR, while burning a vamp, say, in torpor at 0 blood (don't tell me you've never seen it !) will have a cost of zero. Also, last but not least, you can never be sure that one of your allies won't have to burn it first. So, in a word as in a thousand : they would still both be useful. As opposed to : abused and ruining many interesting games (if anyone has doubts about this, read the complaints of many, many players in this fine place where we dwell right now...). To Laughing Sycophant Johnson ;-) > > Could be. But now we get on another trouble card : Anarch Revolt. If it > were > > Unique (my long-time proposed "fix"), there would be no problem at all : > > That was yours? > The first mention I can find of it is [Emiliano 21-JUN-2001]: LOL. I never said I was the first !! Nor the only one. Just that it has been my opinion for a while now. What an archivist. This guy astonishes me. Well, all these reminders of Anarch discussions of times foregone are fine, but what about Anthelios ? ------------------- [ quoted text not captured ]

> So, in a word as in a thousand : they would still both be useful. > > As opposed to : abused and ruining many interesting games (if anyone has > doubts about this, read the complaints of many, many players in this fine > place where we dwell right now...). I must confess that I am leaning towards considering multiple MPAs to be the destructive force, not the non-Uniqueness of AR. I *would* consider hosing multiple MPA decks, because normal means of hosing do not work against them (SRing one Master Card means they will likely play another copy of the same card; Arsoning the Parthenon simply makes them play another out of like six). However, any card that would hose multiple MPAs would probably be hosable (by DR, DI, EP), and as such its existance would only mean that multiple MPA decks simply pack more hosers that can hose their hosers. ;) Honestly a good solution would be a fairly general crypt card that would prevent all methuselahs from gaining any additional Master Phase actions. Like this: Balambér, the Harbinger Nosferatu Capacity 5 OBF dom pot Camarilla Primogen: While Balambér is ready, no methuselah may gain any additional Master Phase actions (in addition to or instead of the one normally allowed each master phase). X) -- Bye, Daneel

"Orpheus" <orpheus....@DEADSPAM.free.fr> wrote in message news:414b6bc6$0$29453$636a...@news.free.fr... > > > > > Could be. But now we get on another trouble card : Anarch > > > > > Revolt. If it were Unique (my long-time proposed "fix"), > > > > > there would be no problem at all : > > > > > > > > Except that a unique Anarch Revolt is still wallpaper and > > > > basically obselesced by Antedulvian Awakened, Anthelios or > > > > not. > > > > > > I beg to differ. > > > > > > I usually put a few AR / AA in most bleed decks, it makes for > > > the surprise killing. > > > > That purpose is a waste of master space, AFAIK. Once in a blue > > moon you might get the critical extra pool, but most of the time > > it will just sit in your hand and take up space if you save it > > for the right moment or be totally useless (whether played or > > discarded) if you don't. > > LOL. Really ? Well, then let em tell U that I've known many blue > moons. And just think how many times you've seen a prey survive by > just one pool ? You mean, AND was able to predict it before I started my minion phase? Not very often at all, actually. If you can't predict that it will be useful, then it will often be wasted. It's not likely to last on the table more than one turn unless: 1) you DON'T want it to last - in which case your opponents may permit it; or 2) you have vote lock - in which case you have much better ways to oust your prey. In general, it may true that Anarch Revolt is a good way to get that last pool if you've got him down to where you just need to take care of one more pool. But the opportunity cost of playing the card for ONLY that purpose is too high. Like I said, most of the time you'll draw it when you don't need it for that and there's a world of OTHER master cards that are going to be more useful. It may be that you are prepared to play such a poor card. But that wouldn't alter the fact that it would *still* be a poor card. > Not to mention that usually he'll loose it more than one turn... You mean your opponents will leave it on the table when only you'll gain from it? That would be stupid. If your opponents are being silly, that doesn't make the card good. > I've seen both cases (AR kills and prey survives for one) several > times in this month alone. Can't help that. I can't say what mitigating information may exist just from your reports. > > > If anything, that would de-wallpaperize AA a little. > > > > Antedulvian Awakening is hardly wallpaper right now. You just > > can't use more than a relatively small number in your deck. > > If you think it's wallpaper now, then it's only logical to > > concede that unique Anarch Revolt would only be useful for > > wiping your butt. > > Well, it is good enough for me !! Also, don't forget that if you > play it in the "killing" turn, your prey will loose the pool no > matter what, and THEN call a referendum. AA might be better in > long term (because people will hesitate more to burn it) but if > you're about to die you'll prefer losing a minion. I don't care! The difference between the two is *STILL* so stacked torwards Antedulivian that you can't compare the two! Besides, if someone *only* loses a minion instead of dying outright, they're likely to be dead anyway. I don't disagree that that's a slight advantage for Anarch Revolt. I just think it's so ridiculously small that it's not worth talking about. I don't think you can just make Anarch Revolt unique and call it a night. If you want to make it unique, you have to give it something back to balance it out. I would propose instead of making it unique, add the following text: "Votes to remove the Anarch Revolt begin with two extra votes lodged against removing it. Anarch Revolt cannot be played if two Anarch Revolts are already in play." Instead of making it unique, limit it to two copies. And give it something back by making harder to remove than just a guy with the edge or a vote card or something. > Furthermore, having two different Unique cards offers the > possibility to put them both in game, which is very different > from putting only one, wouldn't you agree ? Nope. It's stupid to have two cards that do the same thing in a game and have one just be plain BETTER than the other - even if they're unique. It means that people tend to prefer the one to the other and throw copies of the good one in first instead of considering the alternative costs and benefits of each. At the very least, the good one should be the more common one, if nothing else (like Bewitching Oration is common and Awe is rare). The best choice is just to make them of comparable power. I'd play the Anarch Revolt I proposed. Wouldn't touch yours with fish wrapping paper. Fred

> > So, in a word as in a thousand : they would still both be useful. > > > > As opposed to : abused and ruining many interesting games (if anyone has > > doubts about this, read the complaints of many, many players in this fine > > place where we dwell right now...). > > I must confess that I am leaning towards considering multiple MPAs to be > the destructive force, not the non-Uniqueness of AR. I *would* consider > hosing multiple MPA decks, because normal means of hosing do not work > against them (SRing one Master Card means they will likely play another > copy of the same card; Arsoning the Parthenon simply makes them play > another out of like six). However, any card that would hose multiple MPAs > would probably be hosable (by DR, DI, EP), and as such its existance would > only mean that multiple MPA decks simply pack more hosers that can hose > their hosers. ;) > > Honestly a good solution would be a fairly general crypt card that would > prevent all methuselahs from gaining any additional Master Phase actions. > Like this: > > Balambér, the Harbinger Nice idea. Why not an event, like Blood Trade, but saying from this point on that no Methuselah can have more than one Master Phase Action ? Would sort of counter Anthelios / Parthenon / Anson... I like the idea. Orpheus

(sorry about the wrapping-up ; if anyone cared to tell me again how to avoid it in Outlook...) >> And just think how many times you've seen a prey survive by > > just one pool ? > > You mean, AND was able to predict it before I started my minion > phase? Not very often at all, actually. If you can't predict > that it will be useful, then it will often be wasted. It's not > likely to last on the table more than one turn unless: 1) you > DON'T want it to last - in which case your opponents may permit > it; Or you manipulate them. Or maybe they'll think they have better things to do for a while. The goal of AA or AR may mostly be to lower the general pool, which for an offensive deck will mostly mean better opportunities to sweep. or 2) you have vote lock - in which case you have much better > ways to oust your prey. Disagreed. It will help. Less pool means easier kill. In a deck which can switch places, even the "it lowers my allies too much" part isn't an X factor. > In general, it may true that Anarch Revolt is a good way to get > that last pool if you've got him down to where you just need to > take care of one more pool. But the opportunity cost of playing > the card for ONLY that purpose is too high. Like I said, most > of the time you'll draw it when you don't need it for that and > there's a world of OTHER master cards that are going to be more > useful. It is your opinion, and you will play accordingly. My opinion and experience differ. > It may be that you are prepared to play such a poor card. But > that wouldn't alter the fact that it would *still* be a poor card. So I would be a poor player, making poor choices ? Nothing allows you to say such a thing. Nor that it is a poor card. You made no valid point on that. And if I left to anyone the ability to judge my play, it would be to the people who played with me, or to the guys who make the rankings. > > Not to mention that usually he'll loose it more than one turn... > > You mean your opponents will leave it on the table when only you'll > gain from it? That would be stupid. :-) Or that you manipulate them. If your opponents are being > silly, that doesn't make the card good. It could make you a good player. Or they could think they have something to gain too. You're reducing a very complex situation to a simple one where everything is black and white. VTES is nothing but shades of grey. >> Also, don't forget that if you > > play it in the "killing" turn, your prey will loose the pool no > > matter what, and THEN call a referendum. AA might be better in > > long term (because people will hesitate more to burn it) but if > > you're about to die you'll prefer losing a minion. > > I don't care! The difference between the two is *STILL* so stacked > torwards Antedulivian that you can't compare the two! Besides, if > someone *only* loses a minion instead of dying outright, they're > likely to be dead anyway. Or to make a kill with the minions left ! Once more, you decrete that there is only one possibility, when Jyhad is so full of them !! > I don't disagree that that's a slight advantage for Anarch Revolt. > I just think it's so ridiculously small that it's not worth talking > about. I don't think you can just make Anarch Revolt unique and > call it a night. If you want to make it unique, you have to give > it something back to balance it out. I would propose instead of > making it unique, add the following text: > > "Votes to remove the Anarch Revolt begin with two extra votes > lodged against removing it. Anarch Revolt cannot be played if > two Anarch Revolts are already in play." Now you're speaking ! This is a good idea. I agree that it would lower its use in Master decks, and still make it an interesting card. > Instead of making it unique, limit it to two copies. And give it > something back by making harder to remove than just a guy with > the edge or a vote card or something. I don't think that would be necessary. Especially if you can put two in game : one gets taken out, you play another one (what with recursion and all...). > > Furthermore, having two different Unique cards offers the > > possibility to put them both in game, which is very different > > from putting only one, wouldn't you agree ? > > Nope. It's stupid to have two cards that do the same thing in > a game and have one just be plain BETTER than the other - even > if they're unique. It means that people tend to prefer the one > to the other and throw copies of the good one in first instead > of considering the alternative costs and benefits of each. At > the very least, the good one should be the more common one, if > nothing else (like Bewitching Oration is common and Awe is rare). > The best choice is just to make them of comparable power. I'd > play the Anarch Revolt I proposed. Wouldn't touch yours with > fish wrapping paper. I wouldn't touch fish wrapping paper. Stinks and sticks to the fingers. I still think Unique would be better than nothing. But I like your idea of "no more than two on the table". Could also be : "each methuselah cannot put more than one Anarch Revolt in play"... I prefer it when discussions go towards a more constructive side. --------------------- Orpheus

Daneel wrote: > Honestly a good solution would be a fairly general crypt card that > would prevent all methuselahs from gaining any additional Master Phase > actions. Like this: That would make trifles rather less trifilic. Honestly. -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. Links to V:TES news, rules, cards, utilities, and tournament calendar: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/

On Sat, 18 Sep 2004 11:08:06 GMT, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > Daneel wrote: >> Honestly a good solution would be a fairly general crypt card that >> would prevent all methuselahs from gaining any additional Master Phase >> actions. Like this: > > That would make trifles rather less trifilic. Honestly. Yes, I am aware. If that is not intended, the Trifle mechanic could be exlicitly made exempt (or, if more multiple-MPA hosers are considered, the wording of the Trifle mechanic could be altered to get around such MPA limiting). -- Bye, Daneel

>> Balambér, the Harbinger > > Nice idea. > > Why not an event, like Blood Trade, but saying from this point on that no > Methuselah can have more than one Master Phase Action ? Would sort of > counter Anthelios / Parthenon / Anson... I like the idea. That was my original call; but then I realized that Events are far too easily countered if one wishes to do so (only one per game, Emergency Preparations is readily available, etc.). In my opinion additional Master Phase actions should only be granted by a single Event card and really nothing else. So if you want to hose MPA decks, just include an Emergency Preparations or three, and you will have a good chance of stopping it. Depends on metagame; when master decks were common in our group, I would have gladly included a few cards to hose multiple MPAs. -- Bye, Daneel

LSJ wrote: > Daneel wrote: > >> Honestly a good solution would be a fairly general crypt card that >> would prevent all methuselahs from gaining any additional Master >> Phase actions. Like this: > > > That would make trifles rather less trifilic. Honestly. Yes, it would. Personally, I don't see the play of trifles to be a significant enough part of the game to hold up what might (*might*) be an otherwise good idea. If Anarchs grow strong enough to warrant it, such a trifle-hosing card (I like the idea of an Event better) would be a good option to counterblance the archetype, without hosing it completely. -- David Cherryholmes

Another idea, which I think has been mentionned (or should have : Anarch Revolt Cost : X pool, where X is the number of Anarch Revolt in play. All the decks that exist right now would still be possible, but some would certainly be less worrysome. [ quoted text not captured ]

"Orpheus" <orphe...@DEADSPAM.free.fr> wrote in message news:<414cc60d$0$21767$626a...@news.free.fr>... > Another idea, which I think has been mentionned (or should have : > > Anarch Revolt > Cost : X pool, where X is the number of Anarch Revolt in play. > > All the decks that exist right now would still be possible, but some would > certainly be less worrysome. I disagree. "Mr Abuse" has Info Highway, Partheon, three AR in play and two vamps; Anneke and Anson. He plays Minion Tap and Golconda on Anneke - gains 20 pool. He then pays 3 pool to put out a fourth AR. He then influences out a new Anneke (He had prepared one with 4 pool). Repeat every other or third turn or so. AR needs some other type of errata than the one you mention (not sure what). And certainly no Anthelios the Red Star to strenghten the strategy.

> I disagree. > > "Mr Abuse" has Info Highway, Partheon, three AR in play and two vamps; > Anneke and Anson. He plays Minion Tap and Golconda on Anneke - gains > 20 pool. Well "gains 20 pool" is not the correct way to put it. Mr. Abuse has allready paid 10 pool to influence out Anneke so he gains 10 pool. And he has paid 2 for the Parthenon and 8 for Anson. So he has allready invested 20 pool. > He then pays 3 pool to put out a fourth AR. He then > influences out a new Anneke (He had prepared one with 4 pool). Repeat > every other or third turn or so. OK, he has allready spend 24 pool including the 4 pool on the new Anneke. And he has spent 3 pool for AR Nr. 2 and 3 bringing the total to 27 pool. With the new AR he has spent 30 pool, just to do 3 and afterwards 4 damage a round. I don´t know if you have ever played an (almost) all masters deck but the bloat isn´t that strong as it always seems and paying pool for the AR will certainly make the deck fail. By "recycling" Anson you gain 4-5 pool average per round. That´s probably enough to put out some AR, but if you have to pay 5-6 pool to lay down the AR´s it simply won´t work. > AR needs some other type of errata than the one you mention (not sure > what). And certainly no Anthelios the Red Star to strenghten the > strategy. AR doesn´t need ANY type of errata. It is a strong card just like many others but it is in no way broken. Check the statistics for tournament winning decks including AR / all masters. I just can´t stand the ever recurring discussion. We have been through this about 34 times. How many are to come? -- johannes walch

as...@hotmail.com (Henrik Klippstr?m) wrote in message news:<5a3b0aea.0409...@posting.google.com>... [ quoted text not captured ] How about make it unique ? Still worth to have more than one in deck, since it can be voted away. Bobby_Doc

as...@hotmail.com (Henrik Klippstr?m) wrote in message news:<5a3b0aea.0409...@posting.google.com>... > "Orpheus" <orphe...@DEADSPAM.free.fr> wrote in message news:<414cc60d$0$21767$626a...@news.free.fr>... > > Another idea, which I think has been mentionned (or should have : > > > > Anarch Revolt > > Cost : X pool, where X is the number of Anarch Revolt in play. > > > > All the decks that exist right now would still be possible, but some would > > certainly be less worrysome. > > I disagree. > > "Mr Abuse" has Info Highway, Partheon, three AR in play and two vamps; > Anneke and Anson. He plays Minion Tap and Golconda on Anneke - gains > 20 pool. He then pays 3 pool to put out a fourth AR. He then > influences out a new Anneke (He had prepared one with 4 pool). Repeat > every other or third turn or so. > I think you went to the same math classes as Emile :-) influencing out Anneke: cost 10 put 4 on a new Anneke: 4 lose 3 to the 3 AR in play: 3 pay 3 to put the 4rth AR in play: 3 MT + golconda Anneke: -20 new Anneke: another 6 pool total cost: 26 total gained: 20 ....

"Bobby_Doc" <robert_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:87708033.04092...@posting.google.com... > How about make it unique ? > Still worth to have more than one in deck, since it can be voted away. ...Not really an interesting option, given the existence of Antediluvian Awakening. Other suggestions: Or make it cost a pool. ...Doesn't really address the "problem" deck. Or make it cost X pool, where X is the number of Anarch Revolts already in play. Or make it not stack pool loss (just stack the number of referendums required to be rid of the effect), like Army of Rats. Or make it "Do Not Replace While In Play". Or make it only hose Meths who don't control a ready Anarch. Or make it require a ready Anarch (an extra ready Anarch per each -- so you'd need two ready Anarchs in order to play a second one and so on). [ quoted text not captured ]

> > > Anarch Revolt > > > Cost : X pool, where X is the number of Anarch Revolt in play. > > > All the decks that exist right now would still be possible, but some would > > > certainly be less worrysome. > > > > I disagree. > > I agree with disagreeing > > "Mr Abuse" has Info Highway, Partheon, three AR in play and two vamps; > > Anneke and Anson. He plays Minion Tap and Golconda on Anneke - gains > > 20 pool. He then pays 3 pool to put out a fourth AR. He then > > influences out a new Anneke (He had prepared one with 4 pool). Repeat > > every other or third turn or so. > > > I think you went to the same math classes as Emile :-) > > influencing out Anneke: cost 10 > put 4 on a new Anneke: 4 > lose 3 to the 3 AR in play: 3 > pay 3 to put the 4rth AR in play: 3 > MT + golconda Anneke: -20 > new Anneke: another 6 pool > total cost: 26 > total gained: 20 > .... Jeez J-person, You should stop taking those pills: -8 for influencing out Anson -2 for Parthenon And BTW: I SOOOOO TOTALLY agree with Johannes on this one (sorry Orpheus): AR doesn't need any fixing, is not overpowered and this discussoin keeps making me wonder who all those people are that still don't understand how to play against an AR deck.. I'm almost tempted to invite all those AR haters over to my place and ask them to bring this terribly abusive deck to the table. anyways, that won't work, but still.. greetz Jo

On Mon, 20 Sep 2004 08:56:20 -0400, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > "Bobby_Doc" <robert_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:87708033.04092...@posting.google.com... >> How about make it unique ? >> Still worth to have more than one in deck, since it can be voted away. > > ...Not really an interesting option, given the existence of Antediluvian > Awakening. > > Other suggestions: > > Or make it cost a pool. > > ...Doesn't really address the "problem" deck. > > Or make it cost X pool, where X is the number of Anarch Revolts already > in > play. > Or make it not stack pool loss (just stack the number of referendums > required to be rid of the effect), like Army of Rats. > Or make it "Do Not Replace While In Play". > Or make it only hose Meths who don't control a ready Anarch. > Or make it require a ready Anarch (an extra ready Anarch per each -- so > you'd need two ready Anarchs in order to play a second one and so on). Interesting suggestions... I do not see much merit in most of them (except maybe for the stackable or the non-replace options). The problem in my opinion is not AR, but multiple MPAs. In no other deck is AR a real problem (sure, they put one out, and you vote them away ASAP). If they also have vote lock, then they are backing AR with an otherwise powerful winning strategy. -- Bye, Daneel

"Johannes Walch" <johanne...@vekn.de> wrote in message news:<cim2ju$s8$1...@stu1id2.ip.tesion.net>... > > I disagree. > > > > "Mr Abuse" has Info Highway, Partheon, three AR in play and two vamps; > > Anneke and Anson. He plays Minion Tap and Golconda on Anneke - gains > > 20 pool. > > Well "gains 20 pool" is not the correct way to put it. > Mr. Abuse has allready paid 10 pool to influence out Anneke so he gains 10 > pool. > And he has paid 2 for the Parthenon and 8 for Anson. So he has allready > invested 20 pool. Yes, ok. Off course. > > He then pays 3 pool to put out a fourth AR. He then > > influences out a new Anneke (He had prepared one with 4 pool). Repeat > > every other or third turn or so. > > OK, he has allready spend 24 pool including the 4 pool on the new Anneke. > And he has spent 3 pool for AR Nr. 2 and 3 bringing the total to 27 pool. > With the new AR he has spent 30 pool, just to do 3 and afterwards 4 damage a > round. > > I don´t know if you have ever played an (almost) all masters deck but the > bloat isn´t that strong as it always seems and paying pool for the AR will > certainly make the deck fail. By "recycling" Anson you gain 4-5 pool average > per round. > That´s probably enough to put out some AR, but if you have to pay 5-6 pool > to lay down the AR´s it simply won´t work. Yes, and while he is gaining 4-5 pool each round, the other players loose 4-5 pool each round AND beat each other with rushes, votes and bleeds (or they are forced to join against the AR-player). > > AR needs some other type of errata than the one you mention (not sure > > what). And certainly no Anthelios the Red Star to strenghten the > > strategy. > > AR doesn´t need ANY type of errata. It is a strong card just like many > others but it is in no way broken. > Check the statistics for tournament winning decks including AR / all > masters. > I just can´t stand the ever recurring discussion. We have been through this > about 34 times. How many are to come? I guess this discussion will turn up every once in a while, as long as players (espe. new players) think AR is a wierd card. My tip to you is to don´t read (and reply) to threads you don´t care about/don´t like. Just a tip.

> I guess this discussion will turn up every once in a while, as long as > players (espe. new players) think AR is a wierd card. My tip to you is > to don愒 read (and reply) to threads you don愒 care about/don愒 like. > Just a tip. It愀 not the useless threads that bother me it愀 the faint possibility that LSJ might listen to them. One day. Try to avoid that because I like Anarch Revolt. And I do that by showing that *not* all people in the world think AR is broken. -- johannes walch

"Orpheus" <orphe...@DEADSPAM.free.fr> wrote in message news:<414cc60d$0$21767$626a...@news.free.fr>... > Another idea, which I think has been mentionned (or should have : > > Anarch Revolt > Cost : X pool, where X is the number of Anarch Revolt in play. > > All the decks that exist right now would still be possible, but some would > certainly be less worrysome. Anarch Revolt is not broken. I have yet to see a arguement that tells me that it is. It speeds up games. It is a speed deck's friend. Masterdecks are the least worrisome form of AR deck. There are better decks that use AR. Weenie Vote being on of them. The defence against a AR deck is for the prey of the AR deck to call votes to get rid of the ARs. The prey still dies, but the AR deck loses. AR is easily counterable. The only way that an AR deck get's 2 vps is that the table lets them. AR's power lies in the fact that people are greedy. Sometimes a sacrifice play is required. That is the nature of this game. Until people recognise that, they cannot determine brokenness. Comments Welcome, Norman S. Brown, Jr XZealot Archon of the Swamp

"XZealot" <X_Ze...@cox-internet.com> wrote in message news:607fd93.04092...@posting.google.com... [ quoted text not captured ] But it's simply not acceptable for one player to have to "sacrifice" himself to keep a card (or deck or whatever) from being "broken". If a player is automatically "sacrificed" by some particular card or combination, that is (IMO) a "broken" situation. Yeah, there are a number of decktypes that people can make which are likely to cause such situations. None of them are cool. None of them should exist. It's not fun or balanced for them to be in the game. Josh easily counterable?

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:2r827tF...@uni-berlin.de... > "Bobby_Doc" <robert_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:87708033.04092...@posting.google.com... > > How about make it unique ? > > Still worth to have more than one in deck, since it can be voted away. > > > ...Not really an interesting option, given the existence of Antediluvian > Awakening. Um, maybe it's not "interesting" from an exciting-card-design perspective, but it would IMO be a pretty reasonable method of balancing the card. Anarch Revolt and Antediluvian Awakening would be no more identical than Wake with Evening's Freshness and Forced Awakening are. (And a number of other nearly-parallel cards, for that matter.) > Other suggestions: > > Or make it cost a pool. > > ...Doesn't really address the "problem" deck. I agree. > Or make it cost X pool, where X is the number of Anarch Revolts already in > play. This is better than "costs 1" but IMO still not enough to truly balance the card. > Or make it not stack pool loss (just stack the number of referendums > required to be rid of the effect), like Army of Rats. I think this would be very reasonable. There's no good reason for Anarch Revolt to be so much stronger than Army of Rats (a card that requires a discipline and a successful action to put into play) or Path of Lilith (a unique master that requires meeting a significant condition (torporizing a vampire with a non-Camarilla vampire) to get a non-stackable Anarch Revolt-like effect, which can be burned as an action). > Or make it "Do Not Replace While In Play". This seems like it might be a significant balancing factor in some cases, but would be subject to workaround via Visit from the Capuchin (easy enough to integrate into master-heavy decks). > Or make it only hose Meths who don't control a ready Anarch. Cute and thematic. Might wallpaper Anarch Revolt even more than making it Unique, though, since at the cost of an action and 2 blood, everyone at the table could most likely become immune to the Revolts. > Or make it require a ready Anarch (an extra ready Anarch per each -- so > you'd need two ready Anarchs in order to play a second one and so on). Also cute and thematic, I think this might have potential. The only major drawback I see is how much text/rules change it would add to the card. The fact that Anson can't easily be made Anarch helps here, as does the requirement of having multiple vampires in play for multiple Anarch Revolts. Josh revolt crusader

"Joshua Duffin" <duff...@bls.gov> wrote in message news:2r8dvkF...@uni-berlin.de... > "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message > > Or make it only hose Meths who don't control a ready Anarch. > Cute and thematic. Might wallpaper Anarch Revolt even more than making > it Unique, though, since at the cost of an action and 2 blood, everyone > at the table could most likely become immune to the Revolts. Heh. Until the two-blood-depleted token anarch gets torped at an opportune time, eh? Or until someone takes advantage of the little revolutionary (Cam Seg, Fiendish Tongue, Liberty Club, etc.) Just because it'd no longer be a mono-card combo or master-only-friendly doesn't mean it'd be wallpapered. This might actually strengthen it, as it might give the controller more control. > > Or make it require a ready Anarch (an extra ready Anarch per each -- > so > > you'd need two ready Anarchs in order to play a second one and so on). > > Also cute and thematic, I think this might have potential. The only > major drawback I see is how much text/rules change it would add to the > card. The fact that Anson can't easily be made Anarch helps here, as > does the requirement of having multiple vampires in play for multiple > Anarch Revolts. Doesn't seem to be any more or less than costs X where X is number in play, in terms of volume of text. Hadn't heard that complaint leveled at that version (until now, maybe).

"Orpheus" <orphe...@DEADSPAM.free.fr> wrote in message news:414c0d5e$0$30383$636a...@news.free.fr... > (sorry about the wrapping-up ; if anyone cared to tell me again > how to avoid it in Outlook...) Myself, I just EDIT the posts so they don't look insane. People actually read your posts more often if they're more legible. (Of course, the downside of that is that people actually READ your posts more if they're more legible. DOH! ;-) ) > >> And just think how many times you've seen a prey survive by > >> just one pool ? > > > > You mean, AND was able to predict it before I started my minion > > phase? Not very often at all, actually. If you can't predict > > that it will be useful, then it will often be wasted. It's not > > likely to last on the table more than one turn unless: 1) you > > DON'T want it to last - in which case your opponents may permit > > it; > > Or you manipulate them. Or maybe they'll think they have better > things to do for a while. Huh?!? There's very little that's "better" to do in a game than stop someone else from getting an oust. Except, of course, getting your own oust. But if someone else's prey's oust is imminent and the one you're working on isn't, usually you work on stopping the other guy. Especially if you're his prey or predator. I don't think you can usually "manipulate" such things. > The goal of AA or AR may mostly be to lower the general pool, > which for an offensive deck will mostly mean better > opportunities to sweep. One pool. Point is, there's much *better* master cards to be using to strengthen your chances of getting an oust. > or 2) you have vote lock - in which case you have much better > > ways to oust your prey. > > Disagreed. It will help. Less pool means easier kill. Less by one. You're throwing reasons at an argument. There's much more to evaluating cards than just saying such and such a card could conceivably help you in a certain situation. The question is, how often and how much? > > It may be that you are prepared to play such a poor card. But > > that wouldn't alter the fact that it would *still* be a poor > > card. > > So I would be a poor player, making poor choices ? Nothing allows > you to say such a thing. Nor that it is a poor card. You made no > valid point on that. Sure I have: the card costs your prey ONE pool. Then your opponents sweep it off the table. Sure, if you choose to include it in all your decks you will probably find opportunity to use it for the purpose of getting the last pool and ousting. My point is that this proves nothing. You may have gotten to that point by playing much stronger cards and only needed a weak card to finish your prey off. Had you used a BETTER master card, you have gotten the oust sooner and never needed the Anarch Revolt to finish your prey at all. Point is, the reasons you give for saying a unique Anarch Revolt would be useful don't prove anything because they're based on anecdotes that omit a bunch of important information. On the other hand, my reasons for feeling the card is poor is based on sound logic: that the card can almost always be removed by your opponents any time they want to remove. And when will they want to remove it? Any time YOU DON'T WANT THEM TO REMOVE IT! Except for that ONE pool, that seems totally useless to me. The only reason the card is used at all is because it has strength when combined with cards that grant extra MPAs. You throw the ARs out faster than your opponents can manage to remove them, especially if you support it with things like Delaying Tactics. Against competant opponents and reasonably balanced luck, Anarch Revolt decks usually fail anyway. Against INcompetant opponents - I don't care. > And if I left to anyone the ability to judge my play, it would be > to the people who played with me, or to the guys who make the > rankings. Sure. But in the absense of the ability to judge your play, no one else can judge the strength of your anecdotes, either. > > > Not to mention that usually he'll loose it more than one > > > turn... > > > > You mean your opponents will leave it on the table when only > > you'll gain from it? That would be stupid. > > :-) Or that you manipulate them. Gee, you sure make that sound easy. Tell you what, if you can "manipulate" your opponents so easily, why don't you just "manipulate" them into ousting themselves (in correct order, of course). I see no need for silly Anarch Revolts. > > I don't think you can just make Anarch Revolt unique and > > call it a night. If you want to make it unique, you have to give > > it something back to balance it out. I would propose instead of > > making it unique, add the following text: > > > > "Votes to remove the Anarch Revolt begin with two extra votes > > lodged against removing it. Anarch Revolt cannot be played if > > two Anarch Revolts are already in play." > > Now you're speaking ! This is a good idea. I agree that it would > lower its use in Master decks, and still make it an interesting > card. The point is to address the specific complaint without having unintended side effects. Few people feel Anarch Revolt is actually overpowered. Most feel the issue is that it's too simple and brainless and eridicates much of the work that the other three or four players put into constructing their decks. Anarch Revolt decks often fail to win but cause the outcome of the game to be basically random. So the goal is NOT to make Anarch Revolt weaker. It's to change the focus of it so it can be used for something else besides overrunning the table with pool loss. > > Instead of making it unique, limit it to two copies. And give it > > something back by making harder to remove than just a guy with > > the edge or a vote card or something. > > I don't think that would be necessary. Especially if you can put > two in game : one gets taken out, you play another one (what with > recursion and all...). I think that misses the point. Being able to put out two does at least give it one advantage over Antedulian Awakening. But it's still just making Anarch Revolt purely weaker than it is now, and I don't think there's any need for that. However you feel about it being useful for getting a prey's last pool I don't think many people are going to bother playing it for that reason alone. It needs to have a shot at staying on the table and the two votes at least give it a bit more of a fighting chance. (Granted, we're not arguing about a whole lot of difference here.) > I still think Unique would be better than nothing. But I like your > idea of "no more than two on the table". Could also be : "each > methuselah cannot put more than one Anarch Revolt in play"... I don't think that's as good as the limit of two over the whole table. Players have to build decks that can't make assumptions about what other players will do. So if a player wants to have Anarch Revolts out, he's got to assume he's the only player who will play them. If you view it like that, "Each Methuselah cannot put more than one Anarch Revolt in play" is hardly any different than making Anarch Revolt unique. > I prefer it when discussions go towards a more constructive side. I wasn't trying to be unconstructive. When we started, I stated my general objection to your idea. My counterproposal was just a more concrete means of stating the same thing: don't just weaken Anarch Revolt. Modify it, remove the property you dislike, and give it something back to compensate so you don't just leave it as wallpaper. Fred

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:2r827tF...@uni-berlin.de... > "Bobby_Doc" <robert_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:87708033.04092...@posting.google.com... > > How about make it unique ? > > Still worth to have more than one in deck, since it can be voted > > away. > Other suggestions: > > Or make it cost a pool. > > ...Doesn't really address the "problem" deck. > > Or make it cost X pool, where X is the number of Anarch Revolts > already in play. > Or make it not stack pool loss (just stack the number of > referendums required to be rid of the effect), like Army of Rats. > Or make it "Do Not Replace While In Play". > Or make it only hose Meths who don't control a ready Anarch. > Or make it require a ready Anarch (an extra ready Anarch per each - > so you'd need two ready Anarchs in order to play a second one and > so on). I think all of these miss the point. All of these purely weaken a card that most don't seem to feel is too strong in the first place. If you weaken a balanced card, you get a weak card. Period. The other side of the question is that some suggestions people make (none of the above but I sometimes see them posted) don't even address the REAL issue most people who complain seem to have with Anarch Revolt, as I read them: that massed Anarch Revolts is a brainless strategy which can only be dealt with by the entire board ganging up to defeat the strategy - and often the player using it as well - which causes a lot of random things to happen, both in the execution of the strategy and in its frustration. In short, few people win consistently with massed Anarch Revolts. But often they cause the table to collapse randomly which has the effect of obviating the opponents put into forming their own stratigies. So an effective, appropriate solution to the problem is not to just weaken the card and hope it goes away. Not unless you find wallpapering a card an acceptable solution. Nor is it to just "kind of" weaken the card and hope to see it used less often. As I said, that all misses the point. An appropriate solution would be to find a way to stop it from being used en masse as a strategy but give it something back to allow players to find other potential uses for it. Making it unique or otherwise limiting its play does the former but not latter. It would be helpful to imagine what an alternate use for it would be. Orpheus argues that it has use because it's a sure one pool penalty for one's prey and that's good enough to leave it as is, unique. I disagree. I think you have to give it some hope to be useful for something besides that. A simple suggestion would be to imagine players using it to generally reduce the level of pool on the table over time but not use it en masse. One of its strengths in using it en masse was is because the user will put out so many of them, opponents are challenged to remove them all. If you just limit the number played in its current state, it's easy as pie to remove them. Solution: make it harder to remove them as you limit the number in play at any one time. I gave a proposal to Orpheus that sounded reasonable to me but I think there are any number of appropriate choices one could make. Fred

"Joshua Duffin" <duff...@bls.gov> wrote in message news:2r8dvkF...@uni-berlin.de... > > "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message > news:2r827tF...@uni-berlin.de... > > "Bobby_Doc" <robert_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message > > news:87708033.04092...@posting.google.com... > > > How about make it unique ? > > > Still worth to have more than one in deck, since it can be > > > voted away. > > > > ...Not really an interesting option, given the existence of > > Antediluvian Awakening. > > Um, maybe it's not "interesting" from an exciting-card-design > perspective, but it would IMO be a pretty reasonable method of > balancing the card. Anarch Revolt and Antediluvian Awakening > would be no more identical than Wake with Evening's Freshness > and Forced Awakening are. > (And a number of other nearly-parallel cards, for that matter.) In almost all cases you're talking about, though, one card is not just nearly BETTER than the other card. Problem with that is that there's little cost/benefit tradeoff. You throw the AA in first and maybe consider the AR if you want another. (Though AA is so much stronger, I'd probably put two or three copies of it before bothering with an AR.) That's dull in terms of both card design AND deckbuilding! (Actually, IMO, the two go hand in hand.) Fred

"Joshua Duffin" <duff...@bls.gov> wrote in message news:2r8ditF...@uni-berlin.de... (about Anarch Revolt) > > But it's simply not acceptable for one player to have to > "sacrifice" himself to keep a card (or deck or whatever) from > being "broken". If a player is automatically "sacrificed" by > some particular card or combination, that is (IMO) a "broken" > situation. Yea, but this is one of those situations where one has to point at the difference between "broken" as in "unbalanced" - too much gain for too little cost - and other forms of "broken". You're talking about a card that has an undesirable, unfun effect on the game. Not one that's unbalanced. Fix the card by removing its unfun use but don't wallpaper it. Give it another use. Fred

"Frederick Scott" <dont...@mymail.com> wrote in message news:tFG3d.104736$yh.30812@fed1read05... > I think all of these miss the point. All of these purely weaken a > card that most don't seem to feel is too strong in the first place. > If you weaken a balanced card, you get a weak card. Period. If balance is a razor's edge, perhaps. But it is not. cf. the many references to "strong, but not unbalanced" and "weak, but not unbalanced", "top of the power curve", etc. http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3DC97AE1.2159C3F%40removethis.com [ quoted text not captured ]

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:2r8h65F...@uni-berlin.de... > "Joshua Duffin" <duff...@bls.gov> wrote in message > news:2r8dvkF...@uni-berlin.de... > > "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message > > > > Or make it only hose Meths who don't control a ready Anarch. > > > Cute and thematic. Might wallpaper Anarch Revolt even more than making > > it Unique, though, since at the cost of an action and 2 blood, everyone > > at the table could most likely become immune to the Revolts. > > Heh. Until the two-blood-depleted token anarch gets torped at an opportune > time, eh? Or until someone takes advantage of the little revolutionary (Cam > Seg, Fiendish Tongue, Liberty Club, etc.) > > Just because it'd no longer be a mono-card combo or master-only-friendly > doesn't mean it'd be wallpapered. This might actually strengthen it, as it > might give the controller more control. I think it'd be hard for the Anarch Revolt player to improve his control on who the ARs hit this way without seriously altering the approach of Anarch Revolt deck construction (probably in a way that would make the deck overall less Revolting). But as you say, this could certainly be a good thing - the anti-Anarch cards are little used now and it sounds like an interesting potential interaction. > > > Or make it require a ready Anarch (an extra ready Anarch per each -- > > so > > > you'd need two ready Anarchs in order to play a second one and so on). > > > > Also cute and thematic, I think this might have potential. The only > > major drawback I see is how much text/rules change it would add to the > > card. The fact that Anson can't easily be made Anarch helps here, as > > does the requirement of having multiple vampires in play for multiple > > Anarch Revolts. > > Doesn't seem to be any more or less than costs X where X is number in play, > in terms of volume of text. Hadn't heard that complaint leveled at that > version (until now, maybe). Well, it's not a *lot* more text than putting "X" in the lower left and saying "X = the number of Anarch Revolts currently in play", but it would be a little more. I'm thinking here more of the substantial alteration in how the card works - it would go from a no-requirement master card to one requiring Anarchs in play, and in a way that not many other cards do (the only one off the top of my head that requires one X per Y is Marijava Thuggee). To me, "Unique" or "costs X" are less complicated alterations than "requires X ready Anarch vampires". But as you say, this isn't that much of an objection to this possible fix (partly because there are already so many cards with substantially altered card-texts that one more isn't likely to break the camel's back); I do like the idea of it, at first glance. Josh a hapless cloud

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:2r8rrjF...@uni-berlin.de... > "Frederick Scott" <dont...@mymail.com> wrote in message > news:tFG3d.104736$yh.30812@fed1read05... > > I think all of these miss the point. All of these purely weaken > > a card that most don't seem to feel is too strong in the first > > place. If you weaken a balanced card, you get a weak card. > > Period. > > If balance is a razor's edge, perhaps. But it is not. cf. the > many references to "strong, but not unbalanced" and "weak, > but not unbalanced", "top of the power curve", etc. > http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3DC97AE1.2159C3F%40removethis.com Oh, man! Don't make reference that idiot's posts. It just obfuscates the issue! :-P Seriously, I'm not sure exactly which point I made that you're interested in, but based on your text above I take it your point is that you could weaken Anarch Revolt _some_ and fix the problem and still conceivably have a reasonably playable card. In theory, I agree. In this instance, I don't think that's valid because the thing people are complaining about - using it en masse - is exactly the reason it's usable. As I pointed out, its the en masse usage which mitigates its huge weakness: its removability. Otherwise, it wouldn't even make a viable deck as it is. Preventing people from throwing scads of them out makes it far to hard to get any use out of AR at all. Why am I going to play an Anarch Revolt if my opponents can just vote it off the table the instant it becomes uncomfortable? The point of playing a card is to make somebody uncomfortable. If I can only keep it on the table in instances where it fails to do that, screw it. So yea, I still maintain that card balance doesn't have to be perfect. It just seems to me anything worthwhile that addresses the problem is likely to weaken AR too much to leave anything but wallpaper. Unless you deliberately give something back. Fred

> And BTW: I SOOOOO TOTALLY agree with Johannes on this one (sorry > Orpheus): :-) You don't have to be, mon ami : we don't have to think alike, you know ! Lots of people think like me, many think like you, we all have a right to our own opinions, don't we ? > AR doesn't need any fixing, is not overpowered and this > discussoin keeps making me wonder who all those people are that still > don't understand how to play against an AR deck.. The trouble is that most people don't know how to WIN with an AR deck, and just unbalance tables. But then, you'll notice that when there's a good AR deck on the table, you can make it lose but almost always have to make another king by ganging up on him (and someone will benefit from the crime, of course). It is a disruptive card. Which may be worse than broken. And IMHO it is THE card that could make Anthelios overpowered. > I'm almost tempted to invite all those AR haters over to my place and I'll happily come anytime to your place, if you have girls, alcohool and Jyhad... ;-) > ask them to bring this terribly abusive deck to the table. > anyways, that won't work, but still.. Kamel will come. And he'll win, except if everyone gangs up on him. [ quoted text not captured ]

> > How about make it unique ? > > Still worth to have more than one in deck, since it can be voted away. > > > ...Not really an interesting option, given the existence of Antediluvian > Awakening. So now we know two things : - you agree with Frederick on that issue, thinking that AA would be much better, and therefore we have no chance of seeing Unique AR - you are actually considering the possibility of making some changes to the card. Any link with the hundreds of posts complaining about that card ? ;-) > Other suggestions: > > Or make it cost a pool. > > ...Doesn't really address the "problem" deck. Agreed. > Or make it cost X pool, where X is the number of Anarch Revolts already in > play. Suits me. > Or make it not stack pool loss (just stack the number of referendums > required to be rid of the effect), like Army of Rats. Nice. As stated, no reason why a disciplineless Master would be so much more powerful that an Animalism card. > Or make it "Do Not Replace While In Play". Hoses abusive decks but can be countered in Master decks ; not really satisfactory. Also hoses "normal" decks which would include just 1 or 2. Nah, I don't like it. > Or make it only hose Meths who don't control a ready Anarch. Fun !! It just makes it a completely different card. But well, the only decks that would suffer from it indefinitely are the ones full of titles, and therefore will very easily call the votes to bring them down... So I prefer the next idea : > Or make it require a ready Anarch (an extra ready Anarch per each -- so > you'd need two ready Anarchs in order to play a second one and so on). Reaaaaaly nice. Also a completely different card, but it would serve its use : nearly any deck could put one or two in play (at the cost of an action, 2 blood...), but only Anarch decks would really put it to good use. I guess it could still be table-unbalancing, though, in a deck with 3-5 Anarchs... And would Anarch Troublemaker also require an Anarch ? I guess my favorites would be this version, the Army one, and the "costs X pool". We count on you, LSJ ! ;-)) [ quoted text not captured ]

"Orpheus" <orphe...@DEADSPAM.free.fr> schreef in bericht news:414f563e$0$20468$626a...@news.free.fr... > > > ask them to bring this terribly abusive deck to the table. > > anyways, that won't work, but still.. > > Kamel will come. And he'll win, except if everyone gangs up on him. > nah. he won't. In Leuven they all play fast S&b decks, the AR deck doesn't stand a chance.

"wolflord" <jo.her...@sca.com> schreef in bericht news:88f9561d.0409...@posting.google.com... [ quoted text not captured ] I was only counting the swing for this turn. I should have left out the first Anneke :-) > And BTW: I SOOOOO TOTALLY agree with Johannes on this one so do I. I was pointing out that the x cost would almost wallpaper AR.

to "Frederick Scott" : to make a short answer rather than go back through all the repeated stuff : - I got your (and other people's) point that you wish to limit AR's mass effect without wallpaperizing it, now the discussion goes to the various proposals ; LSJ made it clear that Uniqueness wouldn't satisfy him, so that point is moot. - But I still have to tell you : seldom have I seen an AR make only a one pool loss, and I mean even with very good players at the table, or in big tournies. No matter the reasons (mainly, I'd say, 1) players get greedy and try to benefit from it 2) players want it removed but want to convince other players to do it and time passes...) but that is my experience. In yours, it goes right away everytime, really ? - the only time I can manipulate players into ousting themselves without an AR in game is when I succeeded into making them drink lost of necro-pastagas. But inciting the table to leave ARs in game more than one turn usually takes lots less efforts. Often none at all. - And it is really personal as you obviously feel otherwise, but I still feel that a surprise one-pool loss would make it worthy to include 1-2 copies in a deck, if only because of all the times I was "stolen" a prey by one pool. I guess "strong masters" depends on the way you view and play the game... On another matter, I read the old thread LSJ pointed to, and found the "there can be no more of such and such card" part very funny, as since there have been very interesting new Ani intercept, For soaking etc cards... And I failed to see how that sick military's quote was defending your PoV rather than his. Weird anyway how some people will always tell you that they kill you or torture you or beat you or whatever "for your own good". Me, when I bleed my prey, or kill my pred's minions, I KNOW it's for their iwn good, but they usually don't believe me. Wonder why... -- [ quoted text not captured ]

X_Ze...@cox-internet.com (XZealot) wrote in message news:<607fd93.04092...@posting.google.com>... > Anarch Revolt is not broken. I have yet to see a arguement that tells > me that it is. It speeds up games. It is a speed deck's friend. > Masterdecks are the least worrisome form of AR deck. There are better > decks that use AR. Weenie Vote being on of them. > > The defence against a AR deck is for the prey of the AR deck to call > votes to get rid of the ARs. The prey still dies, but the AR deck > loses. AR is easily counterable. The only way that an AR deck get's > 2 vps is that the table lets them. AR's power lies in the fact that > people are greedy. > Noooooo! not again! :) The above is the reaction the table should have on Smiling Jack. AR works differently. best defence against the ARs is LEAVING THEM ON THE TABLE so the AR deck gets the damage itself. => the prey of the AR deck gets only AR damage all the rest of the table get AR damage + what their predator throws at them. The AR deck simply cannot win except against slow decks (eg wall decks) or when they use life boon. and there's always SR for that.

"Orpheus" <orphe...@DEADSPAM.free.fr> wrote in message news:<414cc60d$0$21767$626a...@news.free.fr>... > Another idea, which I think has been mentionned (or should have : > > Anarch Revolt > Cost : X pool, where X is the number of Anarch Revolt in play. > > All the decks that exist right now would still be possible, but some would > certainly be less worrysome. Another fix idea : leave AR alone, change this. Golconda. Choose a vampire with a capacity above 7. Remove that vampire from the game. His or her controller gains pool equal to the vampire's capacity. The controller may cancel this card by burning 2 pool. If this vampire was a prince, he may not be influenced again. Or/and this Parthenon Unique location. The methuselah controlling this location gets 2 master phase actions (instead of 1) during his master phase. So that it doesn't work with Anson Without forgetting this Anthelios Gehenna A Methuselah can skip his master phase to exchange a master card in his or her hand for one in his or her ash heap. AR is a moderately strong card that rarely sees play except in Anson decks. Weakening it is almost equivalent to wallpapering it.

Or make it that only one can be played per turn by a player. (not sure if someone had all ready suggested such..) The main problem I've encountered with Master-only decks, when they work, is that they dump 2 or 3 revolts per turn and tend to accumulate; until pretty much everyone else is swept under the rug. The restriction would solve that particular problem (i.e. kills?/limits the deck type). As an added bonus you would slow down all those pesky weenie-horde decks packing parthenons and umpteen revolts. Just a thought.. //T

> > And BTW: I SOOOOO TOTALLY agree with Johannes on this one (sorry > > Orpheus): > > :-) > > You don't have to be, mon ami : we don't have to think alike, you know ! > Lots of people think like me, many think like you, we all have a right to > our own opinions, don't we ? Highly tempting to say "yes, everybody is entitled to OUR own opinions" :-))) > > > AR doesn't need any fixing, is not overpowered and this > > discussoin keeps making me wonder who all those people are that still > > don't understand how to play against an AR deck.. > > The trouble is that most people don't know how to WIN with an AR deck, Agreed 100% and just unbalance tables. But then, you'll notice that when there's a good AR > deck on the table, you can make it lose but almost always have to make > another king by ganging up on him (and someone will benefit from the crime, > of course). > > It is a disruptive card. Disagree, but still, there are cards which are a lot more disruptive, and force tables into kingmaking a lot more than AR (for example Dramatic upheaval or Kindred Restructure, but nobody's complaining about them are they?) Which may be worse than broken. Now *that* I agree on And IMHO it is THE card that could make Anthelios overpowered. anthelios is only "overpowered" as long as people don't know/realise/learn how to play at a table with one on it. Just like Return to Innocence in the good old days.Once you've realised effective way of not being bothered by it, it looses it's overpoweredness > > > I'm almost tempted to invite all those AR haters over to my place and > > I'll happily come anytime to your place, if you have girls, alcohool and > Jyhad... ;-) Feel free, you're always welcome,but there are no available women left after the previous full moon sacrificing ritual anymore. > > > ask them to bring this terribly abusive deck to the table. > > anyways, that won't work, but still.. > > Kamel will come. And he'll win, except if everyone gangs up on him. He'll probably come if we insist, and he won't win, not as a general rule anyways. Greetz Jo

"Joshua Duffin" <duff...@bls.gov> wrote in message news:<2r8ditF...@uni-berlin.de>... [ quoted text not captured ] I totally agree with this. AND, as I pointed out many times before, there is a difference between a card that is too strong and a card that is broken when in the wrong hands (ie; Bad player with AR deck = disasterous for the "fun-factor" of the game, Good player with AR deck = OK, but maybe too strong.)

> Disagree, but still, there are cards which are a lot more disruptive, > and force tables into kingmaking a lot more than AR (for example > Dramatic upheaval or Kindred Restructure, but nobody's complaining > about them are they?) I do. Complain-complain. > anthelios is only "overpowered" as long as people don't > know/realise/learn how to play at a table with one on it. Just like > Return to Innocence in the good old days.Once you've realised > effective way of not being bothered by it, it looses it's > overpoweredness Yes, young padawan, you should not be bothered by losing your influence in any given segment of Jyhad. Times are eternal, and you will have an opportunity to take vengeance upon your adversaries. You should not be bothered by being ousted every now and then. ;) -- Bye, Daneel

> > Sometimes a sacrifice play is required. That is the nature of this > > game. Until people recognise that, they cannot determine brokenness. > > But it's simply not acceptable for one player to have to "sacrifice" > himself to keep a card (or deck or whatever) from being "broken". If a > player is automatically "sacrificed" by some particular card or > combination, that is (IMO) a "broken" situation. > > Yeah, there are a number of decktypes that people can make which are > likely to cause such situations. None of them are cool. None of them > should exist. It's not fun or balanced for them to be in the game. Wow! I am suprised I haven't heard from you in the past about 1994 Malkavian Stealth and Bleed. Surely from your own example, this is a broken archtype. You either play bounce or you don't block, which is effect is a sacrifice play. You have to take the pool damage and try to outlast your predator. It is a multiplayer game. Sacrifice plays are not only essential but intrinsic to the game. It is part of the game. Comments Welcome, Norman S. Brown, Jr. [ quoted text not captured ]

"Emmanuel Martin" <e...@boursorama.com> wrote in message news:10c2c156.0409...@posting.google.com... [ quoted text not captured ] I don't think this is true at all. Just because the Anson decks are hot right now and may be the best way to (ab)use Anarch Revolt doesn't mean there aren't others. This kind of weenie Dominate/Anarch Revolt thing for example: "Slimed!" crypt (12): 1 Chas Giovanni Tello 4 DOM 2 Ingrid Russo 4 DOM 2 Gloria Giovanni 4 DOM 1 Christine Boscacci 2 dom 1 Mustafa Rahman 2 dom 1 Ohanna 2 dom 1 Samson 2 dom 1 Marciana Giovanni 2 dom 1 Royce 1 dom 1 Brooke 3 dom library (60): 2 Anarch Troublemaker 1 Information Highway 2 Jake Washington 2 Parthenon 4 Dominate 8 Anarch Revolt 1 Life Boon 1 Sudden Reversal 1 Direct Intervention -- 22 6 Conditioning 6 Bonding 5 Seduction 3 The Sleeping Mind -- 20 7 WwEF 8 Deflection 3 Delaying Tactics -- 18 This isn't an unbeatable deck, of course; it may not even be all that amazing winning-wise in 5-player games (though it could probably be tweaked to be stronger there, partly just by expanding the library to 70 or 80 cards). But it is pretty ridiculous in ousting people very quickly a lot of the time and simultaneously disrupting tables. And it's not an Anson deck. While we're on the general topic of overpowered/unfair stuff, I would certainly agree with Jo that Dramatic Upheaval and Kindred Restructure are also pretty absurdly strong effects, and maybe they shouldn't be in the game either. Josh never satisfied (just like my mother)

"wolflord" <jo.her...@sca.com> wrote in message news:88f9561d.0409...@posting.google.com... > anthelios is only "overpowered" as long as people don't > know/realise/learn how to play at a table with one on it. Just like > Return to Innocence in the good old days.Once you've realised > effective way of not being bothered by it, it looses it's > overpoweredness ...?! Not even Return to Innocence was a problem card to you? I guess if you don't mind the game being reduced to X/anti-X tactics, it's true that no card or deck is impossible to counter? Josh complains about dramatic upheaval too

joen...@hotmail.com (Jeroen) wrote in message news:<5f0d2397.04092...@posting.google.com>... [ quoted text not captured ] Incorrect, the prey of the AR deck should spend his actions removing the AR's. There are several reasons for this. 1) you will only take as much damage from the AR's equal to the number he puts into play. Therefore eliminating your predator from creating a critical mass of offense with ARs. 2) You will strip your predator of his offense from the AR's. This leaves him with no teeth if and when he ousts you. This discourages future play of the deck. 3) Leaving the AR's on the table so that you damage your predator is SHEER FOOLISHNESS. You predator built the deck. He certainly built it with enough bloat to withstand his own ARs. ARs are his ousting mechanism. 4) You are trading an action against the future loss of a minimum of 1 pool. This is cheap. Especially when trading that action in reality often is traded against a future loss of 4-5 pool. [ quoted text not captured ]

Tomi T Korkki <Tomi....@Helsinki.Fi> wrote in message news:<ciovic$j93$1...@oravannahka.helsinki.fi>... [ quoted text not captured ] I don't think anything should be changed about the card, but IF something is done about it, this sounds like a reasonable solution to me. I kinda liked the "you get as much damage as #ARs minus #anarchs you control" kinda funny too, and that might work as well W

"Frederick Scott" <dont...@mymail.com> wrote in message news:3JG3d.104737$yh.47318@fed1read05... > "Joshua Duffin" <duff...@bls.gov> wrote in message > news:2r8dvkF...@uni-berlin.de... > > Um, maybe it's not "interesting" from an exciting-card-design > > perspective, but it would IMO be a pretty reasonable method of > > balancing the card. Anarch Revolt and Antediluvian Awakening > > would be no more identical than Wake with Evening's Freshness > > and Forced Awakening are. > > (And a number of other nearly-parallel cards, for that matter.) > > In almost all cases you're talking about, though, one card is not > just nearly BETTER than the other card. Problem with that is that > there's little cost/benefit tradeoff. You throw the AA in first > and maybe consider the AR if you want another. (Though AA is so > much stronger, I'd probably put two or three copies of it before > bothering with an AR.) That's dull in terms of both card design > AND deckbuilding! (Actually, IMO, the two go hand in hand.) To me, sometimes simplicity is enough of a benefit to outweigh the non-idealness of other aspects of a change. "Unique" is such an easy alteration that even if it's not perfect, it's still appealing. Antediluvian Awakening would not IMO be *that* much stronger. That it's impossible to escape Anarch Revolt damage during your untap phase when it would take your last pool is a noticeable advantage of AR relative to AA, in my experience. Anyway, sure, Uniqueness isn't the most interesting of Anarch Revolt fixes. But it'd be an easy fix to remember. And I wouldn't have any real problem with also giving it a vote (or maybe even two votes) against the "burn AR" referendum if it were Unique. (Or just using one of the more "creative" alternatives, for that matter. They're just not as simple.) Josh the copycat class

"XZealot" <X_Ze...@cox-internet.com> wrote in message news:607fd93.04092...@posting.google.com... [ quoted text not captured ] You seem to have shifted your argument to "sacrifice plays" on your own part for your own future benefit, here. I have no problem with *that* kind of sacrifice play. Your previous argument was that sometimes a player has to be *ousted* as a sacrifice play before the rest of the table will be able to handle the deck/card/person who caused the sacrifice-required situation. That's not acceptable (IMO). That should not be either essential or intrinsic to the game. Saying it's a multiplayer game doesn't excuse the existence of those cases: it's not a *team* multiplayer game; "taking one for the team" doesn't make sense when there is no team. Josh not a team player

> This isn't an unbeatable deck, of course; it may not even be all that > amazing winning-wise in 5-player games (though it could probably be > tweaked to be stronger there, partly just by expanding the library to 70 > or 80 cards). But it is pretty ridiculous in ousting people very > quickly a lot of the time and simultaneously disrupting tables. And > it's not an Anson deck. Yes. It does, however, pack Parthenons. I am yet to see a deck that cannot play more than a single AR each turn and which is percieved to be abusively competitive (at least partly) because of the ARs. -- Bye, Daneel

> anthelios is only "overpowered" as long as people don't > know/realise/learn how to play at a table with one on it. Which is ? > > I'll happily come anytime to your place, if you have girls, alcohool and > > Jyhad... ;-) > Feel free, you're always welcome,but there are no available women left > after the previous full moon sacrificing ritual anymore. Ok, so I guess I'll have to wait until you get some new ones... ]:-( Good virgins are just so hard to find... [ quoted text not captured ]

I think it was Wouter Kuyper <Wouter...@yahoo.com>, who once wrote: > I kinda liked the "you get as much damage as #ARs minus #anarchs you > control" kinda funny too, and that might work as well And then let every anarch get a vote against removing the Revolt? :P Rogar

"Joshua Duffin" <duff...@bls.gov> wrote in message news:2ravrkF...@uni-berlin.de... > To me, sometimes simplicity is enough of a benefit to outweigh the > non-idealness of other aspects of a change. "Unique" is such an > easy alteration that even if it's not perfect, it's still > appealing. Yea, I can understand that. I guess when I think about it, my inclination is to try to create something "cooler" with each opportunity to modify the game - even the negative ones. That is, "negative" in the sense that a problem is seen and people are asking for a fix instead of a new card being designed. Essentially, modifying Anarch Revolt is creating a new card. What's good about the opportunity is that unlike purely new cards, we have some previous experience with how it is used and useful it tends to be. It seems a shame to waste such extant knowledge in the name of simplicity. But that's just me and my enthusiasm for tweaking things. Fred

> Another fix idea : leave AR alone, change this. > > Golconda. > Or/and this > > Parthenon > Anthelios > AR is a moderately strong card that rarely sees play except in Anson > decks. Weakening it is almost equivalent to wallpapering it. Well, I find it rather simpler to modify one card than 3. Of course, that is only my conception of simplicity. [ quoted text not captured ]

"Orpheus" <orphe...@DEADSPAM.free.fr> wrote in message news:414fd46f$0$301$626a...@news.free.fr... > to "Frederick Scott" : > - But I still have to tell you : seldom have I seen an AR make only > a one pool loss, and I mean even with very good players at the > table, or in big tournies. No matter the reasons (mainly, I'd say, > 1) players get greedy and try to benefit from it 2) players want > it removed but want to convince other players to do it and time > passes...) but that is my experience. In yours, it goes right away > everytime, really ? I didn't say that. In fact, I see some of the same things. But it isn't that (small numbers of) Anarch Revolts go away immediately. It's that they go away the instant they seem to do anything significant that helps you. (The exception being when you have vote lock. But I would argue that if you have vote lock, there are much more important things you can accomplish with it besides keeping a single AR on the table.) As for opponents being greedy or not cooperating to remove an Anarch Revolt when they should, these are - by definition - incompetant players. Strategies to defeat the incompetant are manafest. This is not a good argument for stating that a card is useful. Give me a card that helps me defeat a table full of competant players who will reliably act in defense of their own interests - even when the form of their interests is somewhat subtle. > On another matter, I read the old thread LSJ pointed to, and ... > And I failed to see how that sick military's quote was defending > your PoV rather than his. It didn't really. Return to Innocence was not fixed; it was removed from the game in order to save the rest of the game. I don't want to go review the whole debate to figure out why I said what I said but that was one of those wandering, unfocused debates resulting from the large number of, er, (IMO) "imaginative" choices my opponent made in pursuit of defending his point of view. It's quite conceivable that one might have been able to truly fix Return to Innocence but the choice that was made was not a bad one on the whole, either. In any event, who cares (at least in the context of the argument Karol was attempting to make)? Fred

On Tue, 21 Sep 2004 11:32:42 -0700, Frederick Scott <dont...@mymail.com> wrote: > "Orpheus" <orphe...@DEADSPAM.free.fr> wrote in message > news:414fd46f$0$301$626a...@news.free.fr... >> to "Frederick Scott" : >> - But I still have to tell you : seldom have I seen an AR make only >> a one pool loss, and I mean even with very good players at the >> table, or in big tournies. No matter the reasons (mainly, I'd say, >> 1) players get greedy and try to benefit from it 2) players want >> it removed but want to convince other players to do it and time >> passes...) but that is my experience. In yours, it goes right away >> everytime, really ? > > I didn't say that. In fact, I see some of the same things. But > it isn't that (small numbers of) Anarch Revolts go away immediately. > It's that they go away the instant they seem to do anything > significant that helps you. This isn't true. The way I have been playing anarch revolts (in stealth bleed decks), they usually last at least half-way around the table. Sometimes 2 or 3 times around the table. I am talking about small amounts of AR, like having 1-2 in your deck. Having one anarch revolt in play helps you (the stealth bleed deck) significantly. A, your prey loses 1-2 pool. B, everyone else at the table loses pool. This cuts down on their buffer pool, pushing people into a defense/oust now strategy. Assuming you do indeed oust your first prey, the table is set up for a quick collapse. As a bonus someone then wastes an action getting rid of it. Then, if you are lucky, you get to play the anarch revolt in situations where you would not have been able to oust your prey at all. Anarch revolts are also helpful in small numbers in blocking decks, like weenie auspex, and larger walls with consistent pressure. Colin Strauss Riggs

Emmanuel Martin wrote: > AR is a moderately strong card that rarely sees play except in Anson > decks. Weakening it is almost equivalent to wallpapering it. Yeah, see, this just is incorrect. Anarch Revolt regularly is played in weenie decks that spends, like, 6 pool on vampires or something. Maybe all caitif and Computer Hackings along with the ARs. Or possibly an all Auspex weenie deck to bounce and reduce bleeds. And then they play 2 ARs a turn until everyone is dead but them. And sometimes it even works. But when it doesn't, it just demolishes the table completely. Anson has nothing to do with this. Neither does, like, what, Golconda or Anthelios. I mean, yeah, Anson decks can and do use Anarch Revolt, but those tend to be the ones that are good and can win games. Which is fine--if an AR deck wins games, it is just fine. The problem with AR is not that it wins games too much. It is that it is wildly random and disruptive most of the time, and tends to ruin the game wherein they are played en masse, and only occasionally do they make you win. Usually, they just make someone random win. Peter D Bakija pd...@lightlink.com http://www.lightlink.com/pdb6 "Mr. President, ask not what your rest home can do for you. Ask what you can do for your rest home." -Elvis

"Joshua Duffin" <duff...@bls.gov> wrote in message news:<2rb068F...@uni-berlin.de>... [ quoted text not captured ] I thought that was the part of my arguement that you were addressing. If I was mistaken then my apologies. It was my arguement that to get rid of an AR heavy deck that the best defense was to spend your actions to remove the ARs. This is a "sacrifice play" in my opinion. You are sacrificing forward momentum to prevent a specific deck type to win, and in turn, not playing into a decks strength. There are several other "sacrifice plays" in the game, all of which are good solid strategy. A few of them are the following 1) Not blocking S&B 2) Calling a vote to get rid of Anarch Revolts as they are played 3) Not influencing out any more minions if you have a rush predator. You are "taking one for the team" but you are also keeping yourself in the game by foiling your predators offensive mechanisms. I think they make good sense, but then again I'm sober too. :) Comments Welcome, Norman S. Brown, Jr [ quoted text not captured ]

X_Ze...@cox-internet.com (XZealot) wrote in message news:<607fd93.04092...@posting.google.com>... > Incorrect, the prey of the AR deck should spend his actions removing > the AR's. There are several reasons for this. This is exactly the kind of attitude I hope to see in my prey when I play an Anarch Revolt deck. Please, use your actions to get rid of those ARs before they damage my grandprey. Anything you can do that will increase the chances of you dying before him is terrific. It also allows me to play any Elder Kindred Networks or Political Backlashes that I decided to put into the deck, assuming I'm playing with vote defense. If you used those actions to bleed, I might be in trouble. > 1) you will only take as much damage from the AR's equal to the number > he puts into play. Therefore eliminating your predator from creating > a critical mass of offense with ARs. However, your prey will take no damage from any of the ARs, and you will take less offensive actions vs. your prey. > 2) You will strip your predator of his offense from the AR's. This > leaves him with no teeth if and when he ousts you. This discourages > future play of the deck. It also strips you of opportunities to take offensive actions and thereby win the game, which may discourage you from using that strategy in future games. > 3) Leaving the AR's on the table so that you damage your predator is > SHEER FOOLISHNESS. You predator built the deck. He certainly built > it with enough bloat to withstand his own ARs. ARs are his ousting > mechanism. Leaving them in to damage your prey, however, is intelligent--sorry, SHEER INTELLIGENCE. Since most master-heavy decks are short on minion power, all you have to do is conserve enough pool to survive the ARs, while your prey has to conserve enough to survive the ARs plus your minion pressure. The ARs can be your ousting mechanism too. > 4) You are trading an action against the future loss of a minimum of 1 > pool. This is cheap. Especially when trading that action in reality > often is traded against a future loss of 4-5 pool. You are trading an action to save your prey a guaranteed loss of one pool. You may also save yourself pool, assuming no one else at the table votes to remove it. Not the best of propositions. Anarch Revolt turns the game into a race. Go forward, fast, and have a Sudden Reversal handy.

"Colin Riggs" <colin...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:opseoycqx7rt49mu@navarroxp... > On Tue, 21 Sep 2004 11:32:42 -0700, Frederick Scott <dont...@mymail.com> > wrote: > > > "Orpheus" <orphe...@DEADSPAM.free.fr> wrote in message > > news:414fd46f$0$301$626a...@news.free.fr... > >> to "Frederick Scott" : > >> - But I still have to tell you : seldom have I seen an AR make > >> only a one pool loss, and I mean even with very good players > >> at the table, or in big tournies. ... > >> In yours, it goes right away everytime, really ? > > > > I didn't say that. In fact, I see some of the same things. But > > it isn't that (small numbers of) Anarch Revolts go away > > immediately. It's that they go away the instant they seem to > > do anything significant that helps you. > > This isn't true. The way I have been playing anarch revolts (in > stealth bleed decks), they usually last at least half-way around > the table. Sometimes 2 or 3 times around the table. I am talking > about small amounts of AR, like having 1-2 in your deck. OK, sure. But I wouldn't call *that* "significant". That's 1-3 pool loss to your prey. Other players, it's not even clear having them lose pool is what you wanted to have happen. And if it gets 'round to you, that's a bad thing (except insofar as it continues on around again). I think my issue with you is what you're thinking is a good worthwhile gain to get out of a master card. The one thing Orpheus has pointed at that's significant is that the first pool your prey loses is absolutely unavoidable, given no Sudden Reversal or simultaneous pool gain in untap phase to cancel it out (e.g. the edge). If you've figured out how munch all your prey's pool but one, the Anarch Revolt being the last one is key. But that's such a narrow gain from a master card, I remain unimpressed. 1-3 pool under normal circumstances just doesn't affect the game that much. Fred

"Emmit Svenson" <emmits...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:75bdf7ed.04092...@posting.google.com... > X_Ze...@cox-internet.com (XZealot) wrote in message news:<607fd93.04092...@posting.google.com>... > > Incorrect, the prey of the AR deck should spend his actions > > removing the AR's. There are several reasons for this. > > This is exactly the kind of attitude I hope to see in my prey when > I play an Anarch Revolt deck. Please, use your actions to get rid > of those ARs before they damage my grandprey. Anything you can do > that will increase the chances of you dying before him is terrific > It also allows me to play any Elder Kindred Networks or Political > Backlashes that I decided to put into the deck, assuming I'm > playing with vote defense. Wow! When I played Anarch Revolt decks, my reaction is *exactly* opposite yours: I hoped and prayed my prey would succumb to the temptation of picturing what his pool loss would look like applied to his prey. And so on and so forth. The best result you could hope for was a table full of opponents who wouldn't lift a finger to stop the Anarch Revolts. Before long, there'd be a half dozen of them or more out. With luck, the rest of the table would start arguing amongst themselves in mutual recrimination about one another's failure to stop the revolt deck. Although it wasn't impossible that my grandprey was going to be the fall before my prey, usually it wouldn't be hard to arrange it the other way around because *I'm* the one holding the Anarch Revolts. If the pool counts out in such a way that suggests I hold up playing them a turn, that's certainly within my power to do. Add a few other tricks (bounce cards, Night Moves to make sure my prey never benefits from the edge, and a couple others) and it's really not a concern. Heavy bleed decks might throw a wrench into it, but if no one fights the Anarch Revolt cards, how many draws at bleed cards is my prey going to get? Who packs _that_ many bleed cards in their decks. And if my prey uses actions to bleed, my grandprey can likewise keep guys untapped to intercept or bounce. As for EKNs and such, interesting tactic but there's all sorts of ways to defeat it assuming the table works together. If the grand prey of the Anarch Revolt deck calls the votes, you won't be playing them. Instead, they'll just jam your hand. > > 3) Leaving the AR's on the table so that you damage your > > predator is SHEER FOOLISHNESS. You predator built the deck. He > > certainly built it with enough bloat to withstand his own ARs. Absolutely sound logic! (Though I used other methods than bloat, myself. Mainly just used weenies and didn't invest much in minions.) Competant players who realized these things was why I stopped messing with ARs. > Leaving them in to damage your prey, however, is intelligent-- > sorry, SHEER INTELLIGENCE. Either you or Norm has to be wrong. My experience says it's you. (Presumedly the reason is that we played different types of AR decks.) Fred

"Emmit Svenson" <emmits...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:75bdf7ed.04092...@posting.google.com... > X_Ze...@cox-internet.com (XZealot) wrote in message news:<607fd93.04092...@posting.google.com>... > > Incorrect, the prey of the AR deck should spend his actions removing > > the AR's. There are several reasons for this. > > This is exactly the kind of attitude I hope to see in my prey when I > play an Anarch Revolt deck. Please, use your actions to get rid of > those ARs before they damage my grandprey. Anything you can do that > will increase the chances of you dying before him is terrific. It also > allows me to play any Elder Kindred Networks or Political Backlashes > that I decided to put into the deck, assuming I'm playing with vote > defense. Elder Kindred Networks must be played before the vote. You should be guaranteed to pass the vote . Political Backlashes are going to hurt, but they will hurt no more than a AR that hangs around for 3 turns. > If you used those actions to bleed, I might be in trouble. > > > 1) you will only take as much damage from the AR's equal to the number > > he puts into play. Therefore eliminating your predator from creating > > a critical mass of offense with ARs. > > However, your prey will take no damage from any of the ARs, and you > will take less offensive actions vs. your prey. Correct, but as I pull your fangs out. I leave you toothless. If you put 18 Anarch Revolts in your deck then if I remove them the turn after you play them then at most I can lose from Anarch Revolts is 18 pool. I am free to go after my prey on my own with my other actions. > > 2) You will strip your predator of his offense from the AR's. This > > leaves him with no teeth if and when he ousts you. This discourages > > future play of the deck. > > It also strips you of opportunities to take offensive actions and > thereby win the game, which may discourage you from using that > strategy in future games. You would be suprised at the amount of support you will gain from the table for saving them from losing pool. Obviously, other players on the table want to avoid taking the AR damage as well. You can turn this into political capital. Often I have an action or two to use after I have gotten rid of the ARs to go after my prey. Also the actions I spend now buy me breathing room in the future. > > 3) Leaving the AR's on the table so that you damage your predator is > > SHEER FOOLISHNESS. You predator built the deck. He certainly built > > it with enough bloat to withstand his own ARs. ARs are his ousting > > mechanism. > > Leaving them in to damage your prey, however, is intelligent--sorry, > SHEER INTELLIGENCE. Since most master-heavy decks are short on minion > power, all you have to do is conserve enough pool to survive the ARs, > while your prey has to conserve enough to survive the ARs plus your > minion pressure. The ARs can be your ousting mechanism too. Unless you have built your deck to withstand losing 5-6 pool a turn then your strategy is folly. That is up to you to decide. I have seen very few decks that can shrug off 5-6 pool damage per turn, and you are guaranteed that the AR deck has built itself to do it. Therefore we know that the well build AR deck has a heavy bloat mechanism. If he isn't taking the AR damage then he is bloating massively. He will last for a long time and be difficult for his predator to kill. This is a good situation. If he isn't taking many actions to oust you , say with an Anson Anarch Revolt deck, then he is a meat shield. This is good for you. > > 4) You are trading an action against the future loss of a minimum of 1 > > pool. This is cheap. Especially when trading that action in reality > > often is traded against a future loss of 4-5 pool. > > You are trading an action to save your prey a guaranteed loss of one > pool. You may also save yourself pool, assuming no one else at the > table votes to remove it. Not the best of propositions. You cannot oust your prey if you are dead. You cannot oust your prey if your predator is playing Life Boons either. You will be cheated. By playing the speed game, you line both yourself and your prey up for the AR deck. > Anarch Revolt turns the game into a race. Go forward, fast, and have a > Sudden Reversal handy. Only a fool races against an Anarch Revolt deck. They are virtually guaranteed to pack Life Boons to foil your strategy. By not dealing with your predator in a timely fashion by removing his ARs as they hit the table, you allow him to create a critical mass of forward momentum. By limiting your pool loss to 1 per Anarch Revolt then you limit your loss as well as turning your predator into a meat shield. Anson by himself is not that scary. [ quoted text not captured ]

"XZealot" <x_ze...@cox-internet.com> wrote in message news:<10l1her...@corp.supernews.com>... > "Emmit Svenson" <emmits...@hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:75bdf7ed.04092...@posting.google.com... > > X_Ze...@cox-internet.com (XZealot) wrote in message > news:<607fd93.04092...@posting.google.com>... > > > If you used those actions to bleed, I might be in trouble. > > > > > 1) you will only take as much damage from the AR's equal to the number > > > he puts into play. Therefore eliminating your predator from creating > > > a critical mass of offense with ARs. > > > > However, your prey will take no damage from any of the ARs, and you > > will take less offensive actions vs. your prey. > > Correct, but as I pull your fangs out. I leave you toothless. If you put > 18 Anarch Revolts in your deck then if I remove them the turn after you play > them then at most I can lose from Anarch Revolts is 18 pool. I am free to go > after my prey on my own with my other actions. but you're prey could have had 18 pool damage AND whatever you can do to him => you gain 6 pool. look below for the life boon comment. > > > > 2) You will strip your predator of his offense from the AR's. This > > > leaves him with no teeth if and when he ousts you. This discourages > > > future play of the deck. > > > > It also strips you of opportunities to take offensive actions and > > thereby win the game, which may discourage you from using that > > strategy in future games. > > You would be suprised at the amount of support you will gain from the table > for saving them from losing pool. Obviously, other players on the table > want to avoid taking the AR damage as well. You can turn this into > political capital. Often I have an action or two to use after I have gotten > rid of the ARs to go after my prey. Also the actions I spend now buy me > breathing room in the future. with breathing room you mean: giving your prey a very good shot at the table and actually making a monster of the AR deck? If you let him bloat, he will win, or at least not lose. > > > > 3) Leaving the AR's on the table so that you damage your predator is > > > SHEER FOOLISHNESS. You predator built the deck. He certainly built > > > it with enough bloat to withstand his own ARs. ARs are his ousting > > > mechanism. > > > > Leaving them in to damage your prey, however, is intelligent--sorry, > > SHEER INTELLIGENCE. Since most master-heavy decks are short on minion > > power, all you have to do is conserve enough pool to survive the ARs, > > while your prey has to conserve enough to survive the ARs plus your > > minion pressure. The ARs can be your ousting mechanism too. > > Unless you have built your deck to withstand losing 5-6 pool a turn then > your strategy is folly. That is up to you to decide. I have seen very few > decks that can shrug off 5-6 pool damage per turn, and you are guaranteed > that the AR deck has built itself to do it. No they're not. the bloat of an AR deck is NOT that good. the AR player cannot put out 5-6 AR's because that will kill him too. He only gains 4 a turn (actually 8 per 2 turns) or maybe 10/2 turns if he uses Anneke. He can only deflect once a turn. So on a lot of tables he becomes the bleed sink. besides, leaving the ARs on the table => the AR deck cannot just toss them on the tabel => less cycling => less deflections, less MT,... > > Therefore we know that the well build AR deck has a heavy bloat mechanism. > If he isn't taking the AR damage then he is bloating massively. He will > last for a long time and be difficult for his predator to kill. This is a > good situation. If he isn't taking many actions to oust you , say with an > Anson Anarch Revolt deck, then he is a meat shield. This is good for you. by that time, the game is already over. and a meat shield with life boons is NOT a good predator. see below: life boon remark > > > > 4) You are trading an action against the future loss of a minimum of 1 > > > pool. This is cheap. Especially when trading that action in reality > > > often is traded against a future loss of 4-5 pool. > > > > You are trading an action to save your prey a guaranteed loss of one > > pool. You may also save yourself pool, assuming no one else at the > > table votes to remove it. Not the best of propositions. > > You cannot oust your prey if you are dead. You cannot oust your prey if > your predator is playing Life Boons either. You will be cheated. By playing > the speed game, you line both yourself and your prey up for the AR deck. No, you don't. by leaving the ARs in play, you get a means to oust your prey OUTSIDE OF YOUR TURN => you can play SR on the life boon. > > > Anarch Revolt turns the game into a race. Go forward, fast, and have a > > Sudden Reversal handy. > > Only a fool races against an Anarch Revolt deck. They are virtually > guaranteed to pack Life Boons to foil your strategy. see above. Fools are those win against an AR deck instead of "taking one for the team"???? Derek has posted a complete guide on how to win a while ago. He too, advocates the race. search for it, i'm too lazy. >By not dealing with > your predator in a timely fashion by removing his ARs as they hit the table, > you allow him to create a critical mass of forward momentum. By limiting > your pool loss to 1 per Anarch Revolt then you limit your loss as well as > turning your predator into a meat shield. > doesn't work, except against weenie AR decks, but those suck anyway. Especially now: vote away an AR and it comes back via Antheolios...

"Joshua Duffin" <duff...@bls.gov> wrote in message news:<2ravaaF...@uni-berlin.de>... [ quoted text not captured ] caution: can of worms: DO NOT OPEN :) I've had this argument numerous times with Jo. it all comes down to a different definition of "broken" or "overpowered". For Jo, it means: if you can defend against it, it is not broken or overpowered. to each his own. :-)

On Tue, 21 Sep 2004 15:33:42 -0700, Frederick Scott <dont...@mymail.com> wrote: > "Colin Riggs" <colin...@yahoo.com> wrote in message >> >> This isn't true. The way I have been playing anarch revolts (in >> stealth bleed decks), they usually last at least half-way around >> the table. Sometimes 2 or 3 times around the table. I am talking >> about small amounts of AR, like having 1-2 in your deck. > > OK, sure. But I wouldn't call *that* "significant". That's 1-3 > pool loss to your prey. Other players, it's not even clear having > them lose pool is what you wanted to have happen. And if it gets > 'round to you, that's a bad thing (except insofar as it continues > on around again). I think my issue with you is what you're thinking > is a good worthwhile gain to get out of a master card. > > The one thing Orpheus has pointed at that's significant is that the > first pool your prey loses is absolutely unavoidable, given no > Sudden Reversal or simultaneous pool gain in untap phase to cancel > it out (e.g. the edge). If you've figured out how munch all your > prey's pool but one, the Anarch Revolt being the last one is key. > But that's such a narrow gain from a master card, I remain > unimpressed. 1-3 pool under normal circumstances just doesn't > affect the game that much. > I guess we know where we disagree. I think a card that does 1-3 pool to my prey is worth it. I also do believe that doing the damage to the rest of the table is good for me, unless someone manages 2 vps in a row. If that doesn't happen, then it reduces the total amount I have to bleed (10 * 4 = 40) by 12. (3 damage * 4 players). For one card, its a good deal. Give it a try and see if you still disagree. Colin Strauss Riggs

Wouter Kuyper wrote: > I don't think anything should be changed about the card, but IF > something is done about it, this sounds like a reasonable solution to > me. > > I kinda liked the "you get as much damage as #ARs minus #anarchs you > control" kinda funny too, and that might work as well I'm fine with the card remaining as is. However, its existence leads to a fair number of abusive uses; especially in decks which aren't that innovative and rather boring to play against to begin with, even without said card. I seem to be in the minority opinion though, locally. The anarch idea.. Play: AR, influence weenie, play: AR, play: Go Anarch!, play: Computer Hacking, yadda.. yadda. With a minimum capacity requirement for the vampires it sounds like a novel concept. (cap > 4 ?) //T

"Frederick Scott" <dont...@mymail.com> schreef in bericht news:yc34d.105101$yh.11463@fed1read05... > > Either you or Norm has to be wrong. My experience says it's you. > (Presumedly the reason is that we played different types of AR > decks.) don't use experience, use logic. The only conclusion you can draw is: unless you're a wall deck, you should use the ARs jui-jutsu style (ie leave them on the table) J

"Colin Riggs" <colin...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:opseqbhuqdrt49mu@navarroxp... > On Tue, 21 Sep 2004 15:33:42 -0700, Frederick Scott > <dont...@mymail.com> wrote: > > > If you've figured out how to munch all your > > prey's pool but one, the Anarch Revolt being the last one is key. > > But that's such a narrow gain from a master card, I remain > > unimpressed. 1-3 pool under normal circumstances just doesn't > > affect the game that much. > > I guess we know where we disagree. I think a card that does 1-3 > pool to my prey is worth it. I also do believe that doing the > damage to the rest of the table is good for me, unless someone > manages 2 vps in a row. If that doesn't happen, then it reduces > the total amount I have to bleed (10 * 4 = 40) by 12. (3 damage * > 4 players). For one card, its a good deal. Give it a try and see > if you still disagree. I've played Anarch Revolt decks before. I have plenty of experience using the card. The big thing that impressed me about it was how easily it went away if your opponents wanted it to go away. That's really bad! And, IMO, much more the key issue here rather than quibbling about how many pool you'll reduce with it overall. Fred

"Jeroen" <joen...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:5f0d2397.04092...@posting.google.com... > caution: can of worms: DO NOT OPEN :) oooh! Watch 'em crawl out...all over your nice dress shirt! :) > I've had this argument numerous times with Jo. it all comes down > to a different definition of "broken" or "overpowered". For Jo, > it means: if you can defend against it, it is not broken or > overpowered. > > to each his own. :-) Well, to each his own opinion, sure. But I think the mass of experience with collectible card games is that *just* showing that a card can be neutralized in some way - who cares what way as long as there's a way - is an insufficient definition of "overpowered". One of the first, most well-known examples of that was the "black summer" in the mid '90's when Necropotence decks dominated the Type II Magic environment. There were decks that could neutralize Necropotence decks but they were extremely specialized because Necropotence in that enviroment was so strong that only an extremely specialized deck could hope to defeat it. Because of this, the effective environment was reduced to about three archetypes plus a few very specialized "gadget decks", if I recall correctly. Refusing to define a card as "overpowered" just because a hose card for it exists or because one can make an "anti-X deck" is ultimately a mistake. You have to have a little bit more sophisticated understanding of games theory to see why, though. Fred

Frederick Scott wrote: > I've played Anarch Revolt decks before. I have plenty of experience > using the card. The big thing that impressed me about it was how > easily it went away if your opponents wanted it to go away. That's > really bad! And, IMO, much more the key issue here rather than > quibbling about how many pool you'll reduce with it overall. You know Fred, I disagree with *just about* every position you take, but I've also talked to you in real life and I appreciate that you are an intelligent person trying to draw logical conclusions. This leaves me assuming that we must have very different play experiences. And I may be reading too much into it, but this all just struck me when I noticed this bit in your post: "The big thing that impressed me about it was how easily it went away if your opponents wanted it to go away." Opponent*s*. With an "s". Yeah, I know every game of Jyhad comes down to one winner and a bunch of losers, but something about the way you said that just made me wonder if a lot of your play experience takes the shape of "pile on Fred"? Do you play against a significant number of newbies? People who aren't newbies anymore, but ones you beat into shape? If so, it might explain the point at which you diverge from many of the rest of us, who are thinking more in terms of a more equalized playing field, one where if someone gets piled on it is simply because of actions he's taken within that game, not because of some default assumption of "we must band together or he'll kill us all." Anyway, just food for thought, David Cherryholmes

"Jeroen Rombouts" <jeroen....@NOSPAMpandora.be> wrote in message news:SJi4d.254295$YH.13...@phobos.telenet-ops.be... [ quoted text not captured ] I have no idea what this means. If you're presenting some hitherto unknown logic, please state it. I've already addressed what I feel the flaws are Emmit's logic. Fred

"David Cherryholmes" <david.che...@duke.edu> wrote in message news:2rdtf7F...@uni-berlin.de... > "The big thing that impressed me about it was how easily it went > away if your opponents wanted it to go away." Opponent*s*. With > an "s". Yeah, I know every game of Jyhad comes down to one winner > and a bunch of losers, but something about the way you said that > just made me wonder if a lot of your play experience takes the > shape of "pile on Fred"? Do you play against a significant number > of newbies? People who aren't newbies anymore, but ones you beat > into shape? I'll confess sometimes I do get inordinately frustrated at the way people in Arizona will suddenly start cross-table attacks if it looks like I've created a good position for myself. But my view of politics is not something that's been formed solely by just playing against relatively inexperienced Arizona players and writing them off as being newbie anamolies. For one thing, some of the players down in Tucson expecially are actually pretty good. And, in any case, there are times I have to admit that much though I hated the cross-table stuff, sometimes I see the guy(s) perpetuating it truly gain from it. Besides, VERY competant players in Los Angeles frequently do the same thing with good effect. Point is, it's not that people are newbies and making a mistake when they choose to frustrate a tactic that's working for you. Quite the opposite, it's often the newbies who dumbly leave an Anarch Revolt on the table even as it, for instance, is totally killing their grandprey which will ultimately make their own goal harder to acheive. In short, forgive me if I suspect the differences in our experience has often to do with the _competent_ player doing what I fear, not the incompetent. And it's the competent players one should think about when considering the value of a card. > If so, it might explain the point at which you diverge from many > of the rest of us, Um, apparently, you may not have noticed this but I think in this case, quite a few people are backing up the assertion: a unique Anarch Revolt is wallpaper. They may not be stopping to take issue with people like Orpheus and Colin who are saying it still has uses but the point of view has been clearly stated. There are times when my opinion diverges from the masses and I take great enjoyment in standing alone. That doesn't mean I habitually do so. No point in posting when a huge multitude I agree with are bashing some other poor soul. So you typically won't here from me at a time like that. But rest assured, my experiences with the game are not _that_ much different than your own and everyone else's. Fred

> > Correct, but as I pull your fangs out. I leave you toothless. If you put > > 18 Anarch Revolts in your deck then if I remove them the turn after you play > > them then at most I can lose from Anarch Revolts is 18 pool. I am free to go > > after my prey on my own with my other actions. > > but you're prey could have had 18 pool damage AND whatever you can do > to him > => you gain 6 pool. look below for the life boon comment. You have to take the damage before your prey does. Letting a AR deck snowball into something that can oust anyone, means it gets to oust you first. > > > > 2) You will strip your predator of his offense from the AR's. This > > > > leaves him with no teeth if and when he ousts you. This discourages > > > > future play of the deck. > > > > > > It also strips you of opportunities to take offensive actions and > > > thereby win the game, which may discourage you from using that > > > strategy in future games. > > > > You would be suprised at the amount of support you will gain from the table > > for saving them from losing pool. Obviously, other players on the table > > want to avoid taking the AR damage as well. You can turn this into > > political capital. Often I have an action or two to use after I have gotten > > rid of the ARs to go after my prey. Also the actions I spend now buy me > > breathing room in the future. > > with breathing room you mean: giving your prey a very good shot at the > table and actually making a monster of the AR deck? If you let him > bloat, he will win, or at least not lose. Hardly, by removing your predator's means of offense and leaving him with his defense, you have managed your predator perfectly. The only monster of an AR deck that exists is the one where the AR's stay around. If you predator is never ousted then your prey can never sweep. On a 5 player table, if your predator is never ousted and your predator can't oust you and your prey can't oust your predator, that means at most your prey can gain 2 VP's which is a far cry from the game itself. > > > > 3) Leaving the AR's on the table so that you damage your predator is > > > > SHEER FOOLISHNESS. You predator built the deck. He certainly built > > > > it with enough bloat to withstand his own ARs. ARs are his ousting > > > > mechanism. > > > > > > Leaving them in to damage your prey, however, is intelligent--sorry, > > > SHEER INTELLIGENCE. Since most master-heavy decks are short on minion > > > power, all you have to do is conserve enough pool to survive the ARs, > > > while your prey has to conserve enough to survive the ARs plus your > > > minion pressure. The ARs can be your ousting mechanism too. > > > > Unless you have built your deck to withstand losing 5-6 pool a turn then > > your strategy is folly. That is up to you to decide. I have seen very few > > decks that can shrug off 5-6 pool damage per turn, and you are guaranteed > > that the AR deck has built itself to do it. > > No they're not. the bloat of an AR deck is NOT that good. the AR > player cannot put out 5-6 AR's because that will kill him too. He only > gains 4 a turn (actually 8 per 2 turns) or maybe 10/2 turns if he uses > Anneke. He can only deflect once a turn. So on a lot of tables he > becomes the bleed sink. Minion Tap-Golconda, Voter Cap, rinse wash repeat. No bloating there. As to deflecting once per turn, have you heard of a card called Wake with Evening's Freshness, perhaps? > besides, leaving the ARs on the table => the AR deck cannot just toss > them on the tabel => less cycling => less deflections, less MT,... ha Ha HA HA HA!!! All the deck wants to do is crap out as many AR's as possible to oust you. There is no restraint. It is built for that one purpose. > > > > Therefore we know that the well build AR deck has a heavy bloat mechanism. > > If he isn't taking the AR damage then he is bloating massively. He will > > last for a long time and be difficult for his predator to kill. This is a > > good situation. If he isn't taking many actions to oust you , say with an > > Anson Anarch Revolt deck, then he is a meat shield. This is good for you. > > by that time, the game is already over. and a meat shield with life > boons is NOT a good predator. see below: life boon remark It isn't over until it is over, but many players make that mistake. > > > > > > 4) You are trading an action against the future loss of a minimum of 1 > > > > pool. This is cheap. Especially when trading that action in reality > > > > often is traded against a future loss of 4-5 pool. > > > > > > You are trading an action to save your prey a guaranteed loss of one > > > pool. You may also save yourself pool, assuming no one else at the > > > table votes to remove it. Not the best of propositions. > > > > You cannot oust your prey if you are dead. You cannot oust your prey if > > your predator is playing Life Boons either. You will be cheated. By playing > > the speed game, you line both yourself and your prey up for the AR deck. > > No, you don't. by leaving the ARs in play, you get a means to oust > your prey OUTSIDE OF YOUR TURN => you can play SR on the life boon. So you are going to hinge your victory chances on the fact that you have not only built your deck to deal with an AR predator but also that you will have the card in hand when it comes around to it. Or maybe you plan on ousting your prey with a 6 card hand. > > > > > Anarch Revolt turns the game into a race. Go forward, fast, and have a > > > Sudden Reversal handy. > > > > Only a fool races against an Anarch Revolt deck. They are virtually > > guaranteed to pack Life Boons to foil your strategy. > > see above. Fools are those win against an AR deck instead of "taking > one for the team"???? Derek has posted a complete guide on how to win > a while ago. He too, advocates the race. search for it, i'm too > lazy. I have seen lots of Derek's posts. Most of them are pretty helpful on how to win. You are going to have to be a little more specific than that. > >By not dealing with > > your predator in a timely fashion by removing his ARs as they hit the table, > > you allow him to create a critical mass of forward momentum. By limiting > > your pool loss to 1 per Anarch Revolt then you limit your loss as well as > > turning your predator into a meat shield. > > > doesn't work, except against weenie AR decks, but those suck anyway. > Especially now: vote away an AR and it comes back via Antheolios... Weenie's are another thing all together but thanks for trying to muddy the water. I do not see Anthelios as being a big help. Granted with Anthelios you are guaranteeing that you can play 1 AR every turn if you have 2 master phases. If you take the actions to get rid of the AR you are avoiding future damage. Anthelos or not, by eliminating AR's the turn that they come into play limits your pool loss to 1 per AR. That is the key to outlasting the AR deck rather than playing to its strengths. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 11:32:39 -0700, Frederick Scott <dont...@mymail.com> wrote: > In short, forgive me if I suspect the differences in our > experience has often to do with the _competent_ player doing what > I fear, not the incompetent. And it's the competent players one > should think about when considering the value of a card. This is so much untrue that I don't see how it could be written down. ;) Why on earth would a sane person limit his analysis to the "competent" opponents? And I'm not even trying to get into that there may be levels and types of competence, or that competence may be utterly subjective. In every given tournament, you will face a number of competent and a number of less than competent players as adversaries. The more competent players you can trust to make fairer judgements, but the amount of allowed resources - 30 pool and 90 cards - are the same regardless of competence. An incompetent player can easily ruin your game, even from cross-table, because guess what, the guy with two predators _loses_. You must create your deck in a way that you assume to have one predator - and try to avoid getting another one, because I hate to say it, but less competent players are here to stay (unless we forbid anyone from entering the game). Only the most subtle of deceptions will fool a clever and experienced player. In fact, in the vast majority of cases the best you can achieve is to make your adversary guess at the exact odds of you having something currently available. The less subtle - and often more important - deception is looking weak to those whose judgement is based more on superficial impression than on iron-clad experience. This is a game about vampires. Vampires may appear to be strong or slender, charming or repulsive, young or old, but their appearance has little to do with their subtle supernatural powers. Such is fate that a similarity exists between the players of this game and the characters it is centered around. -- Bye, Daneel

"Frederick Scott" <dont...@mymail.com> wrote in message news:<yc34d.105101$yh.11463@fed1read05>... > Either you or Norm has to be wrong. My experience says it's you. Actually, I agree with what Norm said in an earlier post: X_Ze...@cox-internet.com (XZealot) wrote in message news:<607fd93.04092...@posting.google.com>... <snip> > The defence against a AR deck is for the prey of the AR deck to call > votes to get rid of the ARs. The prey still dies, but the AR deck > loses.... If the prey of an AR deck is using its actions to call votes to get rid of the ARs, it will die. Making its predator lose may be satisfying to a vengeful, go-backward kind of person, but personally, I find it more satisfying to win. That's why I say going full forward is a better strategy when there's ARs on the table: it's more likely to give you a win. Winning is the best revenge, after all.

"XZealot" <x_ze...@cox-internet.com> wrote in message news:<10l1her...@corp.supernews.com>... > Elder Kindred Networks must be played before the vote. You should be > guaranteed to pass the vote . Political Backlashes are going to hurt, but > they will hurt no more than a AR that hangs around for 3 turns. An AR deck that plans to use EKN to oust its prey or great-grandprey will include active vote defense to make sure the vote fails by a surprising amount. The extra hammering from EKN or PB can be exactly the nudge needed to make the dominoes fall in your favor. > > [if you vote out the ARs] > > ...your prey will take no damage from any of the ARs, and you > > will take less offensive actions vs. your prey. > > Correct, but as I pull your fangs out. I leave you toothless. If you put > 18 Anarch Revolts in your deck then if I remove them the turn after you play > them then at most I can lose from Anarch Revolts is 18 pool. I am free to go > after my prey on my own with my other actions. With your 11 pool of vampires? Go for it. A good AR deck will have stymied some or all of your bloat with Sudden Reversals. Meanwhile, your unpressured prey will be in a terrific position. > You would be suprised at the amount of support you will gain from the table > for saving them from losing pool. I certainly would be surprised if the table said "Oh, you saved me from losing pool to AR...go ahead, win the game." Table support is not quite as nice as actually getting victory points. > Unless you have built your deck to withstand losing 5-6 pool a turn then > your strategy is folly. The question is not whether you can withstand the losses indefinitely. The question is whether you can outlast your prey. > Therefore we know that the well build AR deck has a heavy bloat mechanism. > If he isn't taking the AR damage then he is bloating massively. He will > last for a long time and be difficult for his predator to kill. This is a > good situation. If he isn't taking many actions to oust you , say with an > Anson Anarch Revolt deck, then he is a meat shield. This is good for you. And the reduced pressure from you is great for your prey. This is bad for you. > You cannot oust your prey if you are dead. You cannot oust your prey by removing ARs either. > You cannot oust your prey if > your predator is playing Life Boons either. You definitely have to plan for the Life Boons. The best defense, obviously, is Sudden Reversal, and Anthelios can help you there. Reducing your predator's pool to the point that he can't use it is another possibility, as is forcing your predator to use his OOT master action on another card, such as Sudden Reversing a Minion Tap or whatever. And Le Dinh Tho goes in every deck, right? :) > Only a fool races against an Anarch Revolt deck. They are virtually > guaranteed to pack Life Boons to foil your strategy. By not dealing with > your predator in a timely fashion by removing his ARs as they hit the table, > you allow him to create a critical mass of forward momentum. By limiting > your pool loss to 1 per Anarch Revolt then you limit your loss as well as > turning your predator into a meat shield. I'm willing to concede that if you're utterly unprepared to prevent a Life Boon, winning the race becomes much more difficult.

"Daneel" <dan...@eposta.hu> wrote in message news:opseqxoi...@news.chello.hu... > On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 11:32:39 -0700, Frederick Scott <dont...@mymail.com> > wrote: > > > In short, forgive me if I suspect the differences in our > > experience has often to do with the _competent_ player doing what > > I fear, not the incompetent. And it's the competent players one > > should think about when considering the value of a card. > > This is so much untrue that I don't see how it could be written > down. ;) Pretty much the same way you did...press on keys, spell out words. Since you post, you must know the drill (assuming you haven't trained a monkey to do it for you). And I feel pretty strongly that it's not wrong. > Why on earth would a sane person limit his analysis to the > "competent" opponents? Very simple: because INcompetent opponents are not hard to beat. Also, being incompetent, they tend to defy analysis. One player has a blind spot for one aspect of the game, the other predictably misplays another thing, a third systematically self-ousts in yet a third way. How can we discuss this and why should we bother? Well, I can answer my own question to some extent. Certain types of bad play tend to be very common and often one can devise strategies to take advantage of this. I'm not saying that's a bad idea necessarily. But it's one I don't care about so much because you will always lose the benefit when you start playing against only competent players. And usually, that means at the important times: in the larger, more important tournaments and in the finals of most tournaments that are larger than one or two tables. Fred

"Emmit Svenson" <emmits...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:75bdf7ed.0409...@posting.google.com... [ quoted text not captured ] I hadn't noticed where Norm stated that the countertactic of calling votes to kill the ARs causes the prey to "still die". If there's mitigating context, then I'd say I strongly disagree with both Norm and you in that sense. I was pretty sure Norm was at one point saying that if the prey calls votes that successfully get rid of the ARs, he will likely live AND stop your offense and that's what I agreed with. An AR deck who can't keep any ARs on the table past his prey's turn is dogmeat. Of course, it depends on who the prey is but if he's packing fairly small minions, he will most certainly have leftover actions in which to mount an offense or do some bloating or both. He may have to be kind of diplomatic about his offense if his prey has important votes but timing is everything to an Anarch Revolt deck. If the Anarch Revolt deck doesn't get an oust pretty fast, he's not going to survive _his_ prey for very long. Anyway, my experience with playing my own Anarch Revolt deck is that there's no contest what I wanted my prey to do: full speed ahead and forget about my Anarch Revolts, pleasepleasePLEASE! Fred

"Emmit Svenson" <emmits...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:75bdf7ed.04092...@posting.google.com... > "XZealot" <x_ze...@cox-internet.com> wrote in message news:<10l1her...@corp.supernews.com>... > > Elder Kindred Networks must be played before the vote. You should be > > guaranteed to pass the vote . Political Backlashes are going to hurt, but > > they will hurt no more than a AR that hangs around for 3 turns. > > An AR deck that plans to use EKN to oust its prey or great-grandprey > will include active vote defense to make sure the vote fails by a > surprising amount. The extra hammering from EKN or PB can be exactly > the nudge needed to make the dominoes fall in your favor. I seriously doubt EKN's will be effective unless you are packing Dread Gazes as well. The table should get rid of the AR's if you are willing to spend the action to get rid of them. So if you are playing a Dread Gaze, EKN, and Political Backlash deck then you are playing a Ventrue Political AR deck. That is pretty specialized. It is a good deck. I built one back in 1999-2000 when AR was all the rage. It is also foiled by a great many deck types. > > > [if you vote out the ARs] > > > ...your prey will take no damage from any of the ARs, and you > > > will take less offensive actions vs. your prey. > > > > Correct, but as I pull your fangs out. I leave you toothless. If you put > > 18 Anarch Revolts in your deck then if I remove them the turn after you play > > them then at most I can lose from Anarch Revolts is 18 pool. I am free to go > > after my prey on my own with my other actions. > > With your 11 pool of vampires? Go for it. A good AR deck will have > stymied some or all of your bloat with Sudden Reversals. Meanwhile, > your unpressured prey will be in a terrific position. I can only speculate that I might have some pool gain in my deck as well to alleviate that pool loss that you are inflicting upon me. Also, your deck type encourages me to put my prey in a terrific position. In fact, I am counting on your bloat to not give my prey the game by turning you into a meat shield. > > You would be suprised at the amount of support you will gain from the table > > for saving them from losing pool. > > I certainly would be surprised if the table said "Oh, you saved me > from losing pool to AR...go ahead, win the game." Table support is not > quite as nice as actually getting victory points. Suprisingly enough you will find that by getting rid of the AR's and allowing others to play their decks as they want to will allow you to curry quite a few favors that can be directed at hurting your prey. > > Unless you have built your deck to withstand losing 5-6 pool a turn then > > your strategy is folly. > > The question is not whether you can withstand the losses indefinitely. > The question is whether you can outlast your prey. I can almost guarantee you that I can outlast both my prey and my predator with this strategy. > > Therefore we know that the well build AR deck has a heavy bloat mechanism. > > If he isn't taking the AR damage then he is bloating massively. He will > > last for a long time and be difficult for his predator to kill. This is a > > good situation. If he isn't taking many actions to oust you , say with an > > Anson Anarch Revolt deck, then he is a meat shield. This is good for you. > > And the reduced pressure from you is great for your prey. This is bad > for you. All in due time. Take care of the immediate threat, then deal with your prey when you get the chance. I didn't create this dynamic. My AR predator did. > > You cannot oust your prey if you are dead. > > You cannot oust your prey by removing ARs either. As a matter a fact if I live long enough, I have a pretty good chance at ousting my prey. > > You cannot oust your prey if > > your predator is playing Life Boons either. > > You definitely have to plan for the Life Boons. The best defense, > obviously, is Sudden Reversal, and Anthelios can help you there. > Reducing your predator's pool to the point that he can't use it is > another possibility, as is forcing your predator to use his OOT master > action on another card, such as Sudden Reversing a Minion Tap or > whatever. And Le Dinh Tho goes in every deck, right? :) How Le Dinh Tho impacts this is apparently beyond me. A good vampire but not really relavent to discussion of how to deal with an AR predator. As for forcing your AR predator to do anything is rather beyond the scope of this arguement. > > Only a fool races against an Anarch Revolt deck. They are virtually > > guaranteed to pack Life Boons to foil your strategy. By not dealing with > > your predator in a timely fashion by removing his ARs as they hit the table, > > you allow him to create a critical mass of forward momentum. By limiting > > your pool loss to 1 per Anarch Revolt then you limit your loss as well as > > turning your predator into a meat shield. > > I'm willing to concede that if you're utterly unprepared to prevent a > Life Boon, winning the race becomes much more difficult. That seems to me to be a pretty specialized deck construction that most decks would fall into. -- [ quoted text not captured ]

X_Ze...@cox-internet.com (XZealot) wrote in message news:<607fd93.04092...@posting.google.com>... > > > Correct, but as I pull your fangs out. I leave you toothless. If you put > > > 18 Anarch Revolts in your deck then if I remove them the turn after you play > > > them then at most I can lose from Anarch Revolts is 18 pool. I am free to go > > > after my prey on my own with my other actions. > > > > but you're prey could have had 18 pool damage AND whatever you can do > > to him > > => you gain 6 pool. look below for the life boon comment. > > You have to take the damage before your prey does. Letting a AR deck > snowball into something that can oust anyone, means it gets to oust > you first. you're not planning on doing any damage to your prey? this is the biggest reason why you should leave m in play: you only get the damage from the AR, your prey gets the same damage + what you can throw at him. Who's gonna win this race, do you thing? > > > > > > 2) You will strip your predator of his offense from the AR's. This > > > > > leaves him with no teeth if and when he ousts you. This discourages > > > > > future play of the deck. > > > > > > > > It also strips you of opportunities to take offensive actions and > > > > thereby win the game, which may discourage you from using that > > > > strategy in future games. > > > > > > You would be suprised at the amount of support you will gain from the table > > > for saving them from losing pool. Obviously, other players on the table > > > want to avoid taking the AR damage as well. You can turn this into > > > political capital. Often I have an action or two to use after I have gotten > > > rid of the ARs to go after my prey. Also the actions I spend now buy me > > > breathing room in the future. > > > > with breathing room you mean: giving your prey a very good shot at the > > table and actually making a monster of the AR deck? If you let him > > bloat, he will win, or at least not lose. > > Hardly, by removing your predator's means of offense and leaving him > with his defense, you have managed your predator perfectly. The only > monster of an AR deck that exists is the one where the AR's stay > around. If you predator is never ousted then your prey can never > sweep. On a 5 player table, if your predator is never ousted and your > predator can't oust you and your prey can't oust your predator, that > means at most your prey can gain 2 VP's which is a far cry from the > game itself. On a 5 player table if your prey takes 2 VP and then runs into a meat shield, he is almost guaranteed a 2 or 2.5 VP Game win. You can only oust him, so that means you can go to 1 VP and run into the AR meat shield. which is inoustable before the game ends. > > > > > > 3) Leaving the AR's on the table so that you damage your predator is > > > > > SHEER FOOLISHNESS. You predator built the deck. He certainly built > > > > > it with enough bloat to withstand his own ARs. ARs are his ousting > > > > > mechanism. > > > > > > > > Leaving them in to damage your prey, however, is intelligent--sorry, > > > > SHEER INTELLIGENCE. Since most master-heavy decks are short on minion > > > > power, all you have to do is conserve enough pool to survive the ARs, > > > > while your prey has to conserve enough to survive the ARs plus your > > > > minion pressure. The ARs can be your ousting mechanism too. > > > > > > Unless you have built your deck to withstand losing 5-6 pool a turn then > > > your strategy is folly. That is up to you to decide. I have seen very few > > > decks that can shrug off 5-6 pool damage per turn, and you are guaranteed > > > that the AR deck has built itself to do it. > > > > No they're not. the bloat of an AR deck is NOT that good. the AR > > player cannot put out 5-6 AR's because that will kill him too. He only > > gains 4 a turn (actually 8 per 2 turns) or maybe 10/2 turns if he uses > > Anneke. He can only deflect once a turn. So on a lot of tables he > > becomes the bleed sink. > > Minion Tap-Golconda, Voter Cap, rinse wash repeat. No bloating there. MT-G on Anson gives you a pool gain of 4 every turn, on Anneke it's 5 every turn. You cannot MT-G and voter cap in the same turn. > As to deflecting once per turn, have you heard of a card called Wake > with Evening's Freshness, perhaps? never seen one in an AR deck. 2nd trad, i have seen in such decks. > > > besides, leaving the ARs on the table => the AR deck cannot just toss > > them on the tabel => less cycling => less deflections, less MT,... > > ha Ha HA HA HA!!! All the deck wants to do is crap out as many AR's > as possible to oust you. There is no restraint. It is built for that > one purpose. It can't do that if it takes the damage from the ARs too. > > > > > > > Therefore we know that the well build AR deck has a heavy bloat mechanism. > > > If he isn't taking the AR damage then he is bloating massively. He will > > > last for a long time and be difficult for his predator to kill. This is a > > > good situation. If he isn't taking many actions to oust you , say with an > > > Anson Anarch Revolt deck, then he is a meat shield. This is good for you. > > > > by that time, the game is already over. and a meat shield with life > > boons is NOT a good predator. see below: life boon remark > > It isn't over until it is over, but many players make that mistake. ?????? > > > > > > > > > 4) You are trading an action against the future loss of a minimum of 1 > > > > > pool. This is cheap. Especially when trading that action in reality > > > > > often is traded against a future loss of 4-5 pool. > > > > > > > > You are trading an action to save your prey a guaranteed loss of one > > > > pool. You may also save yourself pool, assuming no one else at the > > > > table votes to remove it. Not the best of propositions. > > > > > > You cannot oust your prey if you are dead. You cannot oust your prey if > > > your predator is playing Life Boons either. You will be cheated. By playing > > > the speed game, you line both yourself and your prey up for the AR deck. > > > > No, you don't. by leaving the ARs in play, you get a means to oust > > your prey OUTSIDE OF YOUR TURN => you can play SR on the life boon. > > So you are going to hinge your victory chances on the fact that you > have not only built your deck to deal with an AR predator but also > that you will have the card in hand when it comes around to it. Or > maybe you plan on ousting your prey with a 6 card hand. Almost every deck I build has SR in it. If the AR deck is playing Anthelios, you're almost guaranteed to have it in you hand when you want. What is the problem of holding on to card in your hand? I regularly play with 5-6 card hands if the other 1-2 are needed in a later stage of the game. > > > > > > > > Anarch Revolt turns the game into a race. Go forward, fast, and have a > > > > Sudden Reversal handy. > > > > > > Only a fool races against an Anarch Revolt deck. They are virtually > > > guaranteed to pack Life Boons to foil your strategy. > > > > see above. Fools are those win against an AR deck instead of "taking > > one for the team"???? Derek has posted a complete guide on how to win > > a while ago. He too, advocates the race. search for it, i'm too > > lazy. > > I have seen lots of Derek's posts. Most of them are pretty helpful on > how to win. You are going to have to be a little more specific than > that. http://groups.google.be/groups?selm=pdu0h0pqf7649ralvusqjumskdlpfmfd7o%404ax.com&output=gplain hope the link works. google for: "Anarch Revolt vs. tournament game play" > > > >By not dealing with > > > your predator in a timely fashion by removing his ARs as they hit the table, > > > you allow him to create a critical mass of forward momentum. By limiting > > > your pool loss to 1 per Anarch Revolt then you limit your loss as well as > > > turning your predator into a meat shield. > > > > > doesn't work, except against weenie AR decks, but those suck anyway. > > Especially now: vote away an AR and it comes back via Antheolios... > > Weenie's are another thing all together but thanks for trying to muddy > the water. that was actually Frederick Scott who started about the weenies... >I do not see Anthelios as being a big help. Granted with > Anthelios you are guaranteeing that you can play 1 AR every turn if > you have 2 master phases. If you take the actions to get rid of the > AR you are avoiding future damage. which everybody at the tabel should be getting. If everyone gets the same damage and your predator doesn't do anything besides that, your prey gets the AR damage AND predator damage first. > > Anthelos or not, by eliminating AR's the turn that they come into play > limits your pool loss to 1 per AR. That is the key to outlasting the > AR deck rather than playing to its strengths. > but now it has an unlimited number of ARs.

"Frederick Scott" <dont...@mymail.com> wrote in message news:<mej4d.106433$yh.22445@fed1read05>... [ quoted text not captured ] see my other post, i don't want to say it twice.

"Joshua Duffin" <duff...@bls.gov> wrote in message news:<2rav5rF...@uni-berlin.de>... > I don't think this is true at all. Just because the Anson decks are hot > right now and may be the best way to (ab)use Anarch Revolt doesn't mean > there aren't others. This kind of weenie Dominate/Anarch Revolt thing > for example: > > snip decklist VERY WEAK DECK. I don't see how such a deck can be seen as disruptive. OK, it is a weenie bleed deck. And so ? I prefer seating with this deck on my right than having to face a palla embrace deck, or a well made !mal S&B. So congratulations, you have shown that AR can be used in offensive decks. OK, but this is precisely the point of AR. However you didn't shwo me how it can be abused. The only abuse I see in Anson decks is that those decks win without taking any action, which is counterintuitive and means that they are immune to many startegies (can't be deflected, intercepted ...). So these decks can use 70% of their cards for defense. > But it is pretty ridiculous in ousting people very > quickly a lot of the time and simultaneously disrupting tables. And > it's not an Anson deck. Your bleed deck doesn't disrupt the table, not more than a rush deck (who wants to play with 0 minions ?) or a wall deck (congratulations predator, you lost). It just puts a reward on offensive play.

Emmanuel Martin wrote: > VERY WEAK DECK. I don't see how such a deck can be seen as disruptive. > OK, it is a weenie bleed deck. And so ? I prefer seating with this > deck on my right than having to face a palla embrace deck, or a well > made !mal S&B. I won't touch what your preferences in predators are, since the other examples you gave are clearly strong decks, too. But IME, it's easy to write off weenie bleed deck as not strong mainly due to their being one of the small handful of decks that will set off the klaxon bells on the table, after which the rest of the table very smoothly coordinates to shut them down. So is it weak in a sense? Yes, I agree, but only in a sense. I would still classify any deck that *needs* the coordinated effort of the whole table against it as broken, in the sense that it breaks the game, ie turns it into the pile-on that the pred-prey-VP mechanic was specifically supposed to deter. > So congratulations, you have shown that AR can be used in offensive > decks. OK, but this is precisely the point of AR. However you didn't > shwo me how it can be abused. It's the pile on. Pile ons are bad. Dealing tables into omelettes is sadly common, but also bad. Yes, there is an inescapable subjective element to the word "bad". > Your bleed deck doesn't disrupt the table, not more than a rush deck > (who wants to play with 0 minions ?) or a wall deck (congratulations > predator, you lost). It just puts a reward on offensive play. Rush decks have been disruptive in the past. They certainly can still be disruptive. But I think the disruptiveness was due more in the past to their slow ousting ability, which lead naturally to needing to balance tables all over the place and backousting predators. Now, in theory, there are enough sources of pool damage that their forward motion could be comparable to other deck types. However, I think they are *still* just as disruptive despite that, since most preys will just choose to sit out the game waiting for their rush predator to die, which in the end is just as disruptive. Bruise-bleed is an answer, but then it's not really a rush deck. Weenie rush still looks good, but I would certainly attribute a "bleed something" in their synopsis. Decks that can fall back on "I bleed you for six with my six nerds" are certainly not lacking in bleed capability. As far as walls go, it depends on who is preying on it. The aforementioned bruise-bleed archetype would probably be tickled to death with a wall prey. I do agree that decks which rely on stealth or, more generally, can't handle getting blocked are hosed. -- David Cherryholmes

"XZealot" <x_ze...@cox-internet.com> wrote in message news:<10l49vv...@corp.supernews.com>... > I seriously doubt EKN's will be effective unless you are packing Dread Gazes > as well. Dread Gaze is a possibility. Pulling Strings and Kindred Manipulation are too. Ventrue Headquarters is likely. Demonstration, Loyalist and Kindred Manipulation are possible. > So if you are playing a Dread Gaze, EKN, and > Political Backlash deck then you are playing a Ventrue Political AR deck. In my experience, EKN and PB don't need to be in the same deck. One or the other is sufficient. PB is what you use in a pure Anson deck. Also, since the deck doesn't have to include political actions, vote push or stealth, it doesn't have to be a political deck at all. > That is pretty specialized. It is a good deck. I built one back in > 1999-2000 when AR was all the rage. It is also foiled by a great many deck > types. AR is apparently all the rage in Europe right now. I think a lot of the current discussion is US players sharing their experience on how a great many deck types can foil AR decks. Anyway, my point is that the strategy you suggest--vote 'em out--is disasterous when faced with an AR deck with vote defense beyond Delaying Tactics. It's not always easy to tell when Anson is ready to slap your vote down and cost you a further 2 pool, either. Remember that the votes must be called early in the game, when few titles are on the table. > I can only speculate that I might have some pool gain in my deck as well to > alleviate that pool loss that you are inflicting upon me. Your pool gain is either from masters, which I can Sudden Reverse, or actions, which are therefore not actions to remove ARs, or more importantly, to hurt your prey. > Also, your deck > type encourages me to put my prey in a terrific position. That's your decision. Other players, faced with the same situation, prefer to try to put their prey out of the game. > Suprisingly enough you will find that by getting rid of the AR's and > allowing others to play their decks as they want to will allow you to curry > quite a few favors that can be directed at hurting your prey. I find that ousting his prey tends to help a AR deck's prey survive the ARs long enough to win the table. > > > Unless you have built your deck to withstand losing 5-6 pool a turn then > > > your strategy is folly. > > > > The question is not whether you can withstand the losses indefinitely. > > The question is whether you can outlast your prey. > > I can almost guarantee you that I can outlast both my prey and my predator > with this strategy. I doubt that. I'd bet on your predator or prey to win in any game where your predator is packing a multiple master phase AR deck. > As a matter a fact if I live long enough, I have a pretty good chance at > ousting my prey. Your prey ends up in a much better situation than you do. Your prey doesn't take AR damage, so his pool is healthier. He won't have to use many resources to protect himself from you, since you're wasting actions on the votes. He can use his resources to go after his prey or build up. The political capital you're imagining doesn't count for much: at a 5-player table, your grandprey and grandpredator will want to help you pressure him, but that's hardly unusual. Finally, there's still the chance of a Life Boon to save him. Or did you oust your predator first? If your meat shield is gone, now you have only one table ally and a predator who can bleed through a bloat machine. > How Le Dinh Tho impacts this is apparently beyond me. A good vampire but > not really relavent to discussion of how to deal with an AR predator. On the turn you plan to oust, use LDT to discard the Life Boon from your predator's hand. Le Dinh Tho does it all. :) > > I'm willing to concede that if you're utterly unprepared to prevent a > > Life Boon, winning the race becomes much more difficult. > > That seems to me to be a pretty specialized deck construction that most > decks would fall into. If you consider putting a number of Sudden Reversals in a deck specialized, then you're right. It doesn't strike me as all that radical a notion.

> > You have to take the damage before your prey does. Letting a AR deck > > snowball into something that can oust anyone, means it gets to oust > > you first. > > you're not planning on doing any damage to your prey? this is the > biggest reason why you should leave m in play: you only get the damage > from the AR, your prey gets the same damage + what you can throw at > him. Who's gonna win this race, do you thing? That is the short sighted answer. Have you built your deck to deal with taking 5-6 pool damage per turn? If you haven't then leaving the AR's on the table kills you. You are also taking the AR damage + whatever your predator can throw at you. You take the AR damage first not your prey. > On a 5 player table if your prey takes 2 VP and then runs into a meat > shield, he is almost guaranteed a 2 or 2.5 VP Game win. You can only > oust him, so that means you can go to 1 VP and run into the AR meat > shield. which is inoustable before the game ends. By the time you have reduced it to a two player game with yourself and the AR meatshield. You are going to get the game win. You have removed his offense. The AR meatshield has also taken damage from 2 or 3 different predators so alot of the work to oust the AR meatshield has already been done for you. > > > No they're not. the bloat of an AR deck is NOT that good. the AR > > > player cannot put out 5-6 AR's because that will kill him too. He only > > > gains 4 a turn (actually 8 per 2 turns) or maybe 10/2 turns if he uses > > > Anneke. He can only deflect once a turn. So on a lot of tables he > > > becomes the bleed sink. > > > > Minion Tap-Golconda, Voter Cap, rinse wash repeat. No bloating there. > > MT-G on Anson gives you a pool gain of 4 every turn, on Anneke it's 5 > every turn. You cannot MT-G and voter cap in the same turn. > > > As to deflecting once per turn, have you heard of a card called Wake > > with Evening's Freshness, perhaps? > > never seen one in an AR deck. 2nd trad, i have seen in such decks. Well, you should look around Wake is probably the most commonly used card in every deck > > > > > besides, leaving the ARs on the table => the AR deck cannot just toss > > > them on the tabel => less cycling => less deflections, less MT,... > > > > ha Ha HA HA HA!!! All the deck wants to do is crap out as many AR's > > as possible to oust you. There is no restraint. It is built for that > > one purpose. > > It can't do that if it takes the damage from the ARs too. Yes it can. It is expecting to and has been built to deal with it. > > > > > > > > > > Therefore we know that the well build AR deck has a heavy bloat mechanism. > > > > If he isn't taking the AR damage then he is bloating massively. He will > > > > last for a long time and be difficult for his predator to kill. This is a > > > > good situation. If he isn't taking many actions to oust you , say with an > > > > Anson Anarch Revolt deck, then he is a meat shield. This is good for you. > > > > > > by that time, the game is already over. and a meat shield with life > > > boons is NOT a good predator. see below: life boon remark > > > > It isn't over until it is over, but many players make that mistake. > > ?????? I can see you are confused. You are saying that by the time you have turned the corner on your predator that the game is over. I am saying it is not. > > So you are going to hinge your victory chances on the fact that you > > have not only built your deck to deal with an AR predator but also > > that you will have the card in hand when it comes around to it. Or > > maybe you plan on ousting your prey with a 6 card hand. > > Almost every deck I build has SR in it. If the AR deck is playing > Anthelios, you're almost guaranteed to have it in you hand when you > want. What is the problem of holding on to card in your hand? I > regularly play with 5-6 card hands if the other 1-2 are needed in a > later stage of the game. How many Suddens? How do you guarantee that you will see Anthelios if it isn't in play? Now we get are getting diverted onto deck construction rather than strategy. > > > > > > > > > > > Anarch Revolt turns the game into a race. Go forward, fast, and have a > > > > > Sudden Reversal handy. > > > > > > > > Only a fool races against an Anarch Revolt deck. They are virtually > > > > guaranteed to pack Life Boons to foil your strategy. > > > > > > see above. Fools are those win against an AR deck instead of "taking > > > one for the team"???? Derek has posted a complete guide on how to win > > > a while ago. He too, advocates the race. search for it, i'm too > > > lazy. > > > > I have seen lots of Derek's posts. Most of them are pretty helpful on > > how to win. You are going to have to be a little more specific than > > that. > > http://groups.google.be/groups?selm=pdu0h0pqf7649ralvusqjumskdlpfmfd7o%404ax.com&output=gplain > > hope the link works. google for: "Anarch Revolt vs. tournament game > play" It is a good article. One that I happen to disagree with. > > > >By not dealing with > > > > your predator in a timely fashion by removing his ARs as they hit the table, > > > > you allow him to create a critical mass of forward momentum. By limiting > > > > your pool loss to 1 per Anarch Revolt then you limit your loss as well as > > > > turning your predator into a meat shield. > > > > > > > doesn't work, except against weenie AR decks, but those suck anyway. > > > Especially now: vote away an AR and it comes back via Antheolios... > >I do not see Anthelios as being a big help. Granted with > > Anthelios you are guaranteeing that you can play 1 AR every turn if > > you have 2 master phases. If you take the actions to get rid of the > > AR you are avoiding future damage. > > which everybody at the tabel should be getting. If everyone gets the > same damage and your predator doesn't do anything besides that, your > prey gets the AR damage AND predator damage first. This is why AR decks are poor strategic choices. One of two things happen either the game gets turned into a race and therefore it is a crapshoot where the AR deck often loses. Or, the prey of the AR deck turns around and gets rid of the AR decks offense in which case it definantly loses. > > > > Anthelos or not, by eliminating AR's the turn that they come into play > > limits your pool loss to 1 per AR. That is the key to outlasting the > > AR deck rather than playing to its strengths. > > > but now it has an unlimited number of ARs. But a limit of 1 per turn can be played if you are using Anthelios which means you only have to get rid of 1 per turn. -- Comments Welcome, Norman S. Brown, Jr. [ quoted text not captured ]

"Emmanuel Martin" <e...@boursorama.com> wrote in message news:10c2c156.04092...@posting.google.com... > "Joshua Duffin" <duff...@bls.gov> wrote in message news:<2rav5rF...@uni-berlin.de>... > > I don't think this is true at all. Just because the Anson decks are hot > > right now and may be the best way to (ab)use Anarch Revolt doesn't mean > > there aren't others. This kind of weenie Dominate/Anarch Revolt thing > > for example: > > > > snip decklist > > VERY WEAK DECK. I don't see how such a deck can be seen as disruptive. > OK, it is a weenie bleed deck. And so ? I prefer seating with this > deck on my right than having to face a palla embrace deck, or a well > made !mal S&B. Weenie bleed decks are often disruptive. (If the table has to band together to kill it, that is disruptive.) The Anarch Revolts make it even more so (and give it a little more oomph toward killing more than one person; the global pool reduction helps the "sputtering out" problem of weenie bleed somewhat). I don't know why you'd rather be bled by this than a Palla Grande Embrace deck or a "regular" stealth-bleed deck. This type of deck will kill you at least as quickly and certainly, unless the table comes to your rescue immediately. > So congratulations, you have shown that AR can be used in offensive > decks. OK, but this is precisely the point of AR. However you didn't > shwo me how it can be abused. My point is that Anarch Revolt is *not* a medium-strong card that's only good in Anson decks. It's a *very* powerful card that can go in a lot of decks. There aren't that many cards that have the ability to cause 5, 10, 15, 20 pool loss all by themselves, you know. This is my counterargument to your claim that weakening Anarch Revolt would be almost equivalent to wallpapering it. It'd still be useful if it were weaker. Just not *as* useful. > The only abuse I see in Anson decks is that those decks win without > taking any action, which is counterintuitive and means that they are > immune to many startegies (can't be deflected, intercepted ...). So > these decks can use 70% of their cards for defense. OK. I'll certainly agree that the Anson Anarch Revolt sorts of decks are the *most* abusive use of Anarch Revolt, for the reason you suggest - that they make an end-run around many of the game's mechanics. But Anarch Revolt is the prime weapon in their arsenal: if they didn't have it as it's currently written, they wouldn't be able to do this. > > But it is pretty ridiculous in ousting people very > > quickly a lot of the time and simultaneously disrupting tables. And > > it's not an Anson deck. > > Your bleed deck doesn't disrupt the table, not more than a rush deck > (who wants to play with 0 minions ?) or a wall deck (congratulations > predator, you lost). It just puts a reward on offensive play. So my suggested bleed/Anarch Revolt deck can't disrupt the table any more than the most disruptive other possibilities do? That's not saying much to excuse it, I think. :-) Josh but now she's a will of her own

"Orpheus" <orphe...@DEADSPAM.free.fr> wrote in message news:<41506fc2$0$277$626a...@news.free.fr>... > > Another fix idea : leave AR alone, change this. > > > > Golconda. > > > Or/and this > > > > Parthenon > > > Anthelios > > > AR is a moderately strong card that rarely sees play except in Anson > > decks. Weakening it is almost equivalent to wallpapering it. > > Well, I find it rather simpler to modify one card than 3. Of course, that is > only my conception of simplicity. Simpler doesn't necesarily mean better. The combo uses 4 cards (AR, Anson, Parthenon, Golconda) with Anthelios as an enhancer. Wo why focusing the attacks on AR, an intersting card that is supposed to create a forward momentum ? For bleed deck, AR can be an alternative to "that bunch of DI, Blood dolls, sudden and Dreams" we keep seeing. Some of the errata I propose (especially the one on Parthenon) try to break the combo without weakening the cards individually outside of the combo. So I will be OK to change AR to something that doesn't tone down its use in bleed decks even by a little bit. Perhaps I could like someting like Anarch revolt. Same text. You cannot put this card in play unless you control more minions than there are anarch revolts already in play. So that a bleed deck can still stack 3 AR on the table while heavily bleeding.

"XZealot" <x_ze...@cox-internet.com> schreef in bericht news:2rg0o7F...@uni-berlin.de... > > > You have to take the damage before your prey does. Letting a AR deck > > > snowball into something that can oust anyone, means it gets to oust > > > you first. > > > > you're not planning on doing any damage to your prey? this is the > > biggest reason why you should leave m in play: you only get the damage > > from the AR, your prey gets the same damage + what you can throw at > > him. Who's gonna win this race, do you thing? > > That is the short sighted answer. Have you built your deck to deal with > taking 5-6 pool damage per turn? again, he cannot affort to have more than 3-4 ARs in play. There is no bloat strong enough to do that. besides that, he wants to control who dies first, and that's just not possible with 5-6 or more ARs on the table. > If you haven't then leaving the AR's on the table kills you. You are also > taking the AR damage + whatever your predator can throw at you. You take > the AR damage first not your prey. Yes, but the AR deck is not doing any other damage. that means: you get AR + 0, the rest gets AR +predator damage.... > > > On a 5 player table if your prey takes 2 VP and then runs into a meat > > shield, he is almost guaranteed a 2 or 2.5 VP Game win. You can only > > oust him, so that means you can go to 1 VP and run into the AR meat > > shield. which is inoustable before the game ends. > > By the time you have reduced it to a two player game with yourself and the > AR meatshield. You are going to get the game win. You have removed his > offense. The AR meatshield has also taken damage from 2 or 3 different > predators so alot of the work to oust the AR meatshield has already been > done for you. what is it, either he bloats like crazy or he doesn't.... > > > > > No they're not. the bloat of an AR deck is NOT that good. the AR > > > > player cannot put out 5-6 AR's because that will kill him too. He only > > > > gains 4 a turn (actually 8 per 2 turns) or maybe 10/2 turns if he uses > > > > Anneke. He can only deflect once a turn. So on a lot of tables he > > > > becomes the bleed sink. > > > > > > Minion Tap-Golconda, Voter Cap, rinse wash repeat. No bloating there. > > > > MT-G on Anson gives you a pool gain of 4 every turn, on Anneke it's 5 > > every turn. You cannot MT-G and voter cap in the same turn. > > > > > As to deflecting once per turn, have you heard of a card called Wake > > > with Evening's Freshness, perhaps? > > > > never seen one in an AR deck. 2nd trad, i have seen in such decks. > > Well, you should look around Wake is probably the most commonly used card in > every deck never seen it in an anson deck. check the TWDA: i don't see any. > > > > > > > > besides, leaving the ARs on the table => the AR deck cannot just toss > > > > them on the tabel => less cycling => less deflections, less MT,... > > > > > > ha Ha HA HA HA!!! All the deck wants to do is crap out as many AR's > > > as possible to oust you. There is no restraint. It is built for that > > > one purpose. > > > > It can't do that if it takes the damage from the ARs too. > > Yes it can. It is expecting to and has been built to deal with it. it CANNOT. show me a mastercard combo that makes it bloat 5-6 a turn (and that's not enough, it 's got a predator too) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Therefore we know that the well build AR deck has a heavy bloat > mechanism. > > > > > If he isn't taking the AR damage then he is bloating massively. He > will > > > > > last for a long time and be difficult for his predator to kill. > This is a > > > > > good situation. If he isn't taking many actions to oust you , say > with an > > > > > Anson Anarch Revolt deck, then he is a meat shield. This is good > for you. > > > > > > > > by that time, the game is already over. and a meat shield with life > > > > boons is NOT a good predator. see below: life boon remark > > > > > > It isn't over until it is over, but many players make that mistake. > > > > ?????? > > I can see you are confused. > > You are saying that by the time you have turned the corner on your predator > that the game is over. > > I am saying it is not. I didn't mean to say that. I'm only saying that 2 hours is not enough to do what you want to do. > > > > So you are going to hinge your victory chances on the fact that you > > > have not only built your deck to deal with an AR predator but also > > > that you will have the card in hand when it comes around to it. Or > > > maybe you plan on ousting your prey with a 6 card hand. > > > > Almost every deck I build has SR in it. If the AR deck is playing > > Anthelios, you're almost guaranteed to have it in you hand when you > > want. What is the problem of holding on to card in your hand? I > > regularly play with 5-6 card hands if the other 1-2 are needed in a > > later stage of the game. > > How many Suddens? How do you guarantee that you will see Anthelios if it > isn't in play? > Now we get are getting diverted onto deck construction rather than strategy. > Not MY anthelios. The AR deck's anthelios. and I normally pack 3-4 SR so I'm bound to see one. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Anarch Revolt turns the game into a race. Go forward, fast, and > have a > > > > > > Sudden Reversal handy. > > > > > > > > > > Only a fool races against an Anarch Revolt deck. They are virtually > > > > > guaranteed to pack Life Boons to foil your strategy. > > > > > > > > see above. Fools are those win against an AR deck instead of "taking > > > > one for the team"???? Derek has posted a complete guide on how to win > > > > a while ago. He too, advocates the race. search for it, i'm too > > > > lazy. > > > > > > I have seen lots of Derek's posts. Most of them are pretty helpful on > > > how to win. You are going to have to be a little more specific than > > > that. > > > > > http://groups.google.be/groups?selm=pdu0h0pqf7649ralvusqjumskdlpfmfd7o%404ax .com&output=gplain > > > > hope the link works. google for: "Anarch Revolt vs. tournament game > > play" > > It is a good article. One that I happen to disagree with. i still can't see the logic. If I play an AR deck and you keep voting them away, you're basically giving me the table. And, yes, I played ARs ALOT. > > > > > >By not dealing with > > > > > your predator in a timely fashion by removing his ARs as they hit > the table, > > > > > you allow him to create a critical mass of forward momentum. By > limiting > > > > > your pool loss to 1 per Anarch Revolt then you limit your loss as > well as > > > > > turning your predator into a meat shield. > > > > > > > > > doesn't work, except against weenie AR decks, but those suck anyway. > > > > Especially now: vote away an AR and it comes back via Antheolios... > > >I do not see Anthelios as being a big help. Granted with > > > Anthelios you are guaranteeing that you can play 1 AR every turn if > > > you have 2 master phases. If you take the actions to get rid of the > > > AR you are avoiding future damage. > > > > which everybody at the tabel should be getting. If everyone gets the > > same damage and your predator doesn't do anything besides that, your > > prey gets the AR damage AND predator damage first. > > This is why AR decks are poor strategic choices. One of two things happen > either the game gets turned into a race and therefore it is a crapshoot > where the AR deck often loses. Or, the prey of the AR deck turns around and > gets rid of the AR decks offense in which case it definantly loses. agree on the first thing. > > > > > > > Anthelos or not, by eliminating AR's the turn that they come into play > > > limits your pool loss to 1 per AR. That is the key to outlasting the > > > AR deck rather than playing to its strengths. > > > > > but now it has an unlimited number of ARs. > > But a limit of 1 per turn can be played if you are using Anthelios which > means you only have to get rid of 1 per turn. > Parthenon.

> The anarch idea.. Play: AR, influence weenie, play: AR, play: Go > Anarch!, play: Computer Hacking, yadda.. yadda. With a minimum capacity > requirement for the vampires it sounds like a novel concept. (cap > 4 ?) Requires a ready Baron ? ;-) ----------------- Orpheus "We can never know of what we are the seeds Until we flower." Lilith

"Jeroen Rombouts" <jeroen....@NOSPAMpandora.be> wrote in message news:ZzF4d.255379$yO.13...@phobos.telenet-ops.be... > > "XZealot" <x_ze...@cox-internet.com> schreef in bericht > news:2rg0o7F...@uni-berlin.de... > > > > You have to take the damage before your prey does. Letting a AR deck > > > > snowball into something that can oust anyone, means it gets to oust > > > > you first. > > > > > > you're not planning on doing any damage to your prey? this is the > > > biggest reason why you should leave m in play: you only get the damage > > > from the AR, your prey gets the same damage + what you can throw at > > > him. Who's gonna win this race, do you thing? > > > > That is the short sighted answer. Have you built your deck to deal with > > taking 5-6 pool damage per turn? > > again, he cannot affort to have more than 3-4 ARs in play. There is no bloat > strong enough to do that. besides that, he wants to control who dies first, > and that's just not possible with 5-6 or more ARs on the table. I imagine since his prey is taking the damage first. He wants as many on the table as possible. Many decks can mitigate 3-4 damage a turn. > > If you haven't then leaving the AR's on the table kills you. You are also > > taking the AR damage + whatever your predator can throw at you. You take > > the AR damage first not your prey. > > Yes, but the AR deck is not doing any other damage. > that means: you get AR + 0, the rest gets AR +predator damage.... Exactly, so if you are only taking 3 per turn which is the maximum that you can take if you get rid of them immediately then you should be able to mitigate that. > > > > > > On a 5 player table if your prey takes 2 VP and then runs into a meat > > > shield, he is almost guaranteed a 2 or 2.5 VP Game win. You can only > > > oust him, so that means you can go to 1 VP and run into the AR meat > > > shield. which is inoustable before the game ends. > > > > By the time you have reduced it to a two player game with yourself and the > > AR meatshield. You are going to get the game win. You have removed his > > offense. The AR meatshield has also taken damage from 2 or 3 different > > predators so alot of the work to oust the AR meatshield has already been > > done for you. > > what is it, either he bloats like crazy or he doesn't.... he bloats like crazy and still has to deal with his predator regardless of which player it is. > > > > > No they're not. the bloat of an AR deck is NOT that good. the AR > > > > > player cannot put out 5-6 AR's because that will kill him too. He > only > > > > > gains 4 a turn (actually 8 per 2 turns) or maybe 10/2 turns if he > uses > > > > > Anneke. He can only deflect once a turn. So on a lot of tables he > > > > > becomes the bleed sink. > > > > > > > > Minion Tap-Golconda, Voter Cap, rinse wash repeat. No bloating there. > > > > > > MT-G on Anson gives you a pool gain of 4 every turn, on Anneke it's 5 > > > every turn. You cannot MT-G and voter cap in the same turn. You are right about MT-G and Voter Cap. One or the other, right, I think that Minion Tap Voter Cap is the better Solution which in the face of no other titles and Bewitching Oration will net you 6 per turn after you Minion Tap Anson for 7 the first time. > > > > As to deflecting once per turn, have you heard of a card called Wake > > > > with Evening's Freshness, perhaps? > > > > > > never seen one in an AR deck. 2nd trad, i have seen in such decks. > > > > Well, you should look around Wake is probably the most commonly used card > in > > every deck > > never seen it in an anson deck. check the TWDA: i don't see any. Then you are blind. How about this one http://www.thelasombra.com/decks/twd.htm#2k4antwerpecq or this one http://www.thelasombra.com/decks/twd.htm#2k3sydneymay or this one http://www.thelasombra.com/decks/twd.htm#2k2umbrage or this one http://www.thelasombra.com/decks/twd.htm#2k2bsphilippines or this one http://www.thelasombra.com/decks/twd.htm#conoroct99 All those decks contain at least 3 Anson and all but 2 contain Anarch Revolts. > > > > > besides, leaving the ARs on the table => the AR deck cannot just > toss > > > > > them on the tabel => less cycling => less deflections, less MT,... > > > > > > > > ha Ha HA HA HA!!! All the deck wants to do is crap out as many AR's > > > > as possible to oust you. There is no restraint. It is built for that > > > > one purpose. > > > > > > It can't do that if it takes the damage from the ARs too. > > > > Yes it can. It is expecting to and has been built to deal with it. > > it CANNOT. show me a mastercard combo that makes it bloat 5-6 a turn (and > that's not enough, it 's got a predator too) Voter Cap+ Minion Tap will gain you 6 per turn, every turn in the face of no other titles. [ quoted text not captured ] Plenty enough time for me. > > > > So you are going to hinge your victory chances on the fact that you > > > > have not only built your deck to deal with an AR predator but also > > > > that you will have the card in hand when it comes around to it. Or > > > > maybe you plan on ousting your prey with a 6 card hand. > > > > > > Almost every deck I build has SR in it. If the AR deck is playing > > > Anthelios, you're almost guaranteed to have it in you hand when you > > > want. What is the problem of holding on to card in your hand? I > > > regularly play with 5-6 card hands if the other 1-2 are needed in a > > > later stage of the game. > > > > How many Suddens? How do you guarantee that you will see Anthelios if it > > isn't in play? > > Now we get are getting diverted onto deck construction rather than > strategy. > > > Not MY anthelios. The AR deck's anthelios. and I normally pack 3-4 SR so > I'm bound to see one. How do you guarantee that the AR Deck is going to play Anthelios then? 3-4 cards out of 90 gives you a reasonable chance to see one about midway through the game barring you getting hand jammed. > http://groups.google.be/groups?selm=pdu0h0pqf7649ralvusqjumskdlpfmfd7o%404ax > .com&output=gplain > > > > > > hope the link works. google for: "Anarch Revolt vs. tournament game > > > play" > > > > It is a good article. One that I happen to disagree with. > > i still can't see the logic. If I play an AR deck and you keep voting them > away, you're basically giving me the table. And, yes, I played ARs ALOT. Hardly, If you can only do 3 points of damage to me per turn, You will never oust me. > > > > > > > > Anthelos or not, by eliminating AR's the turn that they come into play > > > > limits your pool loss to 1 per AR. That is the key to outlasting the > > > > AR deck rather than playing to its strengths. > > > > > > > but now it has an unlimited number of ARs. But it can only play 3 per turn max. If I get rid of them as soon as they go into play then I only take 3 points of damage. I can bloat 3 per turn to stay alive. You will never oust me with an AR deck that no other forward momentum than AR. [ quoted text not captured ]

>But it can only play 3 per turn max. If I get rid of them as soon as they >go into play then I only take 3 points of damage. I can bloat 3 per turn to >stay alive. You will never oust me with an AR deck that no other forward >momentum than AR. For how long. First off, you need three minions in play to get rid of all three each and every turn. And you use up all your minion actions on getting rid of them. Blood Dolls dont a) count and b) run out. Also, you will never oust your own prey, with those odds.

"Otto Koskinen" <O...@vedajabatumppuus.com> wrote in message news:nel7l05dasphrgi59...@4ax.com... [ quoted text not captured ] Nice straw man, but it is not going to happen every turn. I only need three minions to take an action to get rid of the AR's only if he puts three into play. Which means he has three in his hand and in the top 2 cards of his library. This is not going to happen every turn. You need to work on your odds. [ quoted text not captured ]

Orpheus wrote: > Requires a ready Baron ? ;-) Hmm.. insert the steps 'Play: Fee Stake <name>' and 'Play: Freak Drive' before step 'Play: Computer Hacking', for maximum effect. =p On a more serious note. Yup. That would probably work. //T