GenCon2k4 super-brief overview

2004 was the year of the Canadians! Friday's last chance qualifier had 90 players, with 13 new people becoming qualified on the day. The final was over in less than 45 minutes with Remy Auclair of Quebec winning the event. Saturday's North American Continental Championship ended up with 60+ players, exact numbers to be provided later. Christian Chenard won with a modified version of his Toreador Antitribu Embrace/Palla Grande deck from 2 years ago. Hughes Bertrand and Stephane Lavrut also made it to the finals, to make it possible to have the last 30 minutes of the event transpire only in French. They held off for the spectators, and the game continued in English. Congratulations to Remy and Christian!

"The Lasombra" <TheLa...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:gh7ii0pdt6oeb9p05...@4ax.com... > 2004 was the year of the Canadians! > > Friday's last chance qualifier had 90 players, with 13 new people > becoming qualified on the day. The final was over in less than 45 > minutes with Remy Auclair of Quebec winning the event. The thirteen new qualifiers at the last-chance NA qualifier were: Remy Auclair Robert Goudie Jeff Thompson Wayne Chin Serge Lachapelle Aaron Steele Xavier Gracia Gaset Radd Kulseth Jeff Turner Patrick Keane Charles Collins Kevin Aldrich Sean Sanderson The five finalists (including three previously-qualified players) were: Remy Auclair, Dave Pennington, Scott Gomes, Robert Goudie, and Stefan Ferenci > Saturday's North American Continental Championship ended up with 60+ > players, exact numbers to be provided later. We had 72 players in the Championship. > Christian Chenard won > with a modified version of his Toreador Antitribu Embrace/Palla Grande > deck from 2 years ago. Hughes Bertrand and Stephane Lavrut also made > it to the finals, to make it possible to have the last 30 minutes of > the event transpire only in French. They held off for the spectators, > and the game continued in English. The other finalists were Peter Charnley (who was the top seed going into the finals with 2GW and 9VP) and Todd Holland (who was the seeded fifth with 2GW, 6VP, and 144 TP, just edging out Andreas Nusser who had 2GW, 6VP, and 132 TP). I have deck lists for the five finalists, which I will post when I have transcribed them. The other three VTES events White Wolf ran at Gen*Con Indy this year were: The Thursday evening Rapid Thought (non-Sanctioned) tournament, which attracted 24 players (making two 12-player tournaments). The Shadow Twin tournament that ran parallel to the Championship for the non-qualified players, which attracted 19 players. Ankur Gupta won that tournament with a game win in every round including the final. And the Sunday morning (8am!) draft tournament which hosted 33 very sleepy players. Matt Morgan won that one (although I don't have the stats for that one handy at the moment). Thanks for all the players who showed up. And thanks to Gen*Con for providing excellent tournament space for us for the extended weekend. -- 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

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:2oua6cF...@uni-berlin.de... > The Shadow Twin tournament that ran parallel to the Championship for the > non-qualified players, which attracted 19 players. Ankur Gupta won that > tournament with a game win in every round including the final. > Way to go, Ankar, breaking the 'Three GW Curse'... DaveZ Atom Weaver

"David Zopf" <david...@snet.net> wrote in message news:e2oWc.5824$Y94....@newssvr33.news.prodigy.com... [ quoted text not captured ] And Ankur has just sent me his decklist (along with a plethora of commentary, which I've included at the end). Deck Name : Kamut Krisp Author : Ankur Gupta Crypt (12 vampires) Capacity min: 2 max: 8 average: 5.5 ------------------------------------------------------------ 3x Ingram Frizer 6 AUS OBF ani pot !Nosferatu:3 2x Teresita, The Godm 7 ANI OBF POT for !Nosferatu:3 2x Piotr Andreikov 2 aus Tzimisce:3 1x Tarbaby Jack 8 ANI OBF POT dom ser !Nosferatu:3 1x Kazimir Savostin 7 AUS VIC ani pot Tzimisce:3 1x Quira, The Bitch Q 6 AUS OBF obt tha !Malkavian:2 1x Colonel, The 5 AUS cel dem obf !Malkavian:3 1x Roger Farnsworth 4 OBF aus !Malkavian:3 Library (90 cards) ------------------------------------------------------------ Action (18) 9x Bloodwork 9x Reunion Kamut Action Modifier (10) 4x Art of Memory, The 6x Cloak the Gathering Action Modifier/Combat (7) 7x Swallowed by the Night Ally (6) 6x Marijava Thuggee Combat (8) 2x Aura Reading 1x Stunt Cycle 5x Thrown Sewer Lid Event (1) 1x Unmasking, The Master (15) 1x Admonitions, The 4x Blood Doll 3x Corporal Reservoir 1x Information Highway 1x Information Network 1x Kaymakli Nightmares 1x Nosferatu Kingdom 1x Remover 1x Watchtower: Four Ride Forth 1x Weeping Stone Reaction (25) 6x Ministry 5x Spirit's Touch 6x Telepathic Misdirection 8x Wake with Evening's Freshness Crafted with : Anarch Revolt Deck Builder. [Begin Ankur's comments] The deck name is from an unusually terrifying cereal of the same name. A version of this deck was in the Nosferatu Antitribu newsletter from March 2004. Peter Bajika and I must share a brain, as he independently and simultaneously posted another very similar version of this deck in the Nosferatu newsletter in the same month. (This is probably bad, since it means I'm vulnerable to employing the Bajika Gambit. . . .) The deck is essentially a strong mix of intercept deterrent combat and bleeding at stealth. The mid/end game is strongly affected by the presence of the Thuggees, who exist to torpor key minions with low blood (which will be the case in the mid/end game). All of a sudden, the hit for three with the lid is extremely relevant for any deck without prevention. The deck truly locks into high gear with a Sabbat prey. A Sabbat predator isn't bad either. Here are some comments on deck construction: Of the vampires in the crypt I least like Tarbaby Jack, as his special isn't of great use to me. I have considered doubling up (or tripling up) on virtually every vampire in the crypt aside from Piotr and Ingram, but ultimately made no change in order to minimize bad crypt draw. . . . . Probably the best choice to replace him is another Kazimir, though Mariano Pomposo and Soldat aren't horrible choices either (but you lose the use of the Nosferatu Kingdom and the Information Network for these swaps). Usually, everyone thinks Ingram is the best vampire in the crypt, but they just happen to all be wrong. Piotr consistently gains about 16-20 pool for the deck before he bites it. He is the hoss of all that is good and holy, but not worth three copies. You may notice that Peter and I share the same crypt. I originally had Korah in place of Quira, but once I saw his version of the deck, I decided that Peter made good sense on the choice and switched. I tried to make it an 80 card deck, but in most games, I do a good job of using most of the deck, so 90 cards seems to be the lesser of two evils -- I'd rather flow cards slightly more poorly than not have cards to flow. (Though, incidentally, this logic only works if you're decking yourself quite often.) Kaymakli Nightmares and Info Highway were included to handle a problem that I often seemed to face with this deck: too much free pool in my uncontrolled region. I wanted to access that pool faster with these cards. If I happen to draw an early Kaymakli (instead of the late draw I'm hoping for), it can really slow down other decks and increases the value of the less enabled vampires in the crypt -- Piotr, Roger, and the Colonel. Remover is the most golden card ever. It effectively serves as stealth for the Thuggees without using the precious little stealth I have, as well as forcing my prey to use wakes. Weeping Stone was the best decision I made among the masters. Not sure about the Nosferatu Kingdom, though it's probably solid math to keep it. I often have to fish to see my second Nosferatu Antitribu, but then again, I fish quite often anyway. I guess it makes good use of the extra Ingrams. I'd like to fit in an extra Corporeal Reservoir if possible. I considered Perfectionist, but this is a deck that not only doesn't necessarily need it, but really *really* doesn't want it. I don't want to give anyone any incentive to block/deflect anything I do. It's critical that they take the small bleeds and let the small bloat through. Momentum's Edge, on the other hand, *is* a card that would go quite well in this deck. Perhaps it is the swap for Nosferatu Kingdom. Dunno, though, since if the deck has ousted, it's probably doing just fine, but if it's not, you can still gain pool from Nosferatu Kingdom. I have exactly one Stunt Cycle in the deck, primarily as anti-Ivory Bow tech. Never saw the dratted thing all day, and I really really wanted it the final -- it would have saved me a trip to torpor. Probably not worth a second copy, though, as I'd rather have dependable damage most of the time. Aura Reading saved my butt at both levels in many games. Art of Memory is the best card in the whole freaking deck. I ousted several times only as a result of this card. It's stealth, combat, or actions -- whatever you need most -- that you decide *after* you draw into your replacements and see how the attempted action played out. Hell, you can even slap them on a bleed for one. They probably won't even attempt to block, because they figure you have stealth in your hand that you'll just take back and use on the next action. An outstanding card. I toyed with adding more, but they might be wasted slots. (Jamming on them is unlikely as you can cycle them on anything.) I basically want one in my hand, and I pre-emptively use it before my hand turns into utter crap and needs to be flushed with Aura Reading/Admonitions. Incidentally, the timing of getting back Admonitions around the table synchs up well with the Arts. I royally screwed up the use of the Admonitions in the final, though. (Sorry Will!) I struggled a lot with the choice of intercept. Six Ministries is usually about one too many, but I always want to have one in my hand; six Misdirections irritates me, as I feel all sleazy and gooey when I bounce. But it's there nonetheless. Ideally, I'd almost like another Spirit's Touch for the maneuver, but I can't imagine what I'd drop for it. Ministry isn't a good trade, since any chump can use it (today, Chump = Teresita or Tarbaby), and is a whole lot of intercept at once. I forgot to swap out two Wakes for two Forced Awakenings, which I think would have helped me out a couple of times. Also, I really wanted more stealth in the deck for those situations when I'm bleeding a non-Sabbat prey. Adding another Cloak and another Swallowed (or maybe two Swalloweds to also address the Spirit's Touch problem) would satisfy me, I think. Dunno what I would/could drop for it. Maybe one Kamut for one Swallowed to start with, but then the deck would be less capable of bloating mindlessly and being named after a cereal. ;) Another interesting solution to my lack of stealth was suggested by R. Brian Smith and I think might just work if done well -- Derange your prey to make them Sabbat. I have enough Malk Antis in the crypt to support such an idea, and it's probably worth it to slot in 2-3 Deranges in total. The trick is just to find a small enough target, since Derange only works on younger vampires. (Ironically enough, this might justify swapping back to Korah.) Even if you can't use it on your immediate prey, if someone is deranged down the line, it'll be good for you in the end. It has the side benefits of: a) introducing a (D) action that might be directed at you to block, b) either forcing them to have wakes or burning blood off of vampires (which give the Thuggees more tasty targets), and c) eliminating dangerous votes from the table. [End Ankur's comments] [ quoted text not captured ]

Ankur wrote: > The deck name is from an unusually terrifying cereal of the same name. A > version of this deck was in the Nosferatu Antitribu > newsletter from March 2004. Peter Bajika and I must share a brain, as he > independently and simultaneously posted another very > similar version of this deck in the Nosferatu newsletter in the same month. Heh heh. I was reading this deck, and I was like "Hey! That is my deck!" and then got to the comments and laughed. Sadly, we can't be sharing that much of a brain, as where you got 4 game wins in a row with this deck, and won a tournament, I usually, well, get killed. I guess it is just the environment. Or that you are a Black Hand genius... 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

"Peter D Bakija" <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote in message news:BD4FCBF2.19009%pd...@lightlink.com... > Ankur wrote: > > > The deck name is from an unusually terrifying cereal of the same name. A > > version of this deck was in the Nosferatu Antitribu > > newsletter from March 2004. Peter Bajika and I must share a brain, as he > > independently and simultaneously posted another very > > similar version of this deck in the Nosferatu newsletter in the same month. > > Heh heh. I was reading this deck, and I was like "Hey! That is my deck!" and > then got to the comments and laughed. > > Sadly, we can't be sharing that much of a brain, as where you got 4 game > wins in a row with this deck, and won a tournament, I usually, well, get > killed. I guess it is just the environment. Or that you are a Black Hand > genius... > Wow. That has to be about the earliest attempted use of the 'I'm a helpless furry animal' tactic. No one has even sat down at the table with you yet, Peter ;-) 'Sides. We all know you're a Vorpal Bunny. DaveZ Atom Weaver

David Zopf wrote: > Wow. That has to be about the earliest attempted use of the 'I'm a helpless > furry animal' tactic. No one has even sat down at the table with you yet, > Peter ;-) Heh heh. No, really--my deck of the exact same type as Ankur's generally just sucks. I can't imagine it winning a tournament, let alone, more than one game in a row. [ quoted text not captured ]

> Sadly, we can't be sharing that much of a brain, as where you got 4 game > wins in a row with this deck, and won a tournament, I usually, well, get > killed. I guess it is just the environment. Or that you are a Black Hand > genius... I was inclined to think it was a "metagame success" also, but the deck did quite well in my local metagame as well as in a few tournaments around the area. It's been to two final tables out of three tourney appearances (aside from the Shadow Twin), though it wasn't able to grab a win at either. If we were to look at my deck strictly as a delta difference from yours, I think the key changes are the loss of some stealth (which I do miss sometimes), more arts and fewer bleeds/kamuts, and a different master set. Probably about 10ish cards changed in general -- which can make a big difference. I think my long-winded commentary includes some justification for cards which I've included. Actually, looking at the difference between our decklists again, DAMN we really share the same brain. Maybe it's the way we play the decks? I tend to bleed until I get consistent intercepting ability, especially when I can play unmasking. At that point, the deck turns into a block deck. I'll also behave a certain way depending on what's in my hand (intercept or pool gain or bleed). So nah, I'm not a genius . . . unless you really want me to be. (As it turns out, this also means that you are a genius by association.) However, if you were to communicate your thoughts on my geniusness to my advisor, I'd appreciate that a lot more. I suppose I'm also a table-talking whore, but this is largely Granpappy Cherryholmes's fault. :) Great story about being shushed during a tourney on turn 2 from table-talking . . . by players at another table. sigh. Ankur

Ankur Gupta wrote: > If we were to look at my deck strictly as a delta difference from yours, <singsong voice> Some-one's been writ-ing too many ma-th pap-ers! </singsong voice> > I suppose I'm also a table-talking whore, but this is largely Granpappy > Cherryholmes's fault. :) This would seem to imply that I *am* a tabletalking whore. I'm really much more of a table *slurring* whore, and one with your best interests at heart. Really. [1] Love you long time, David [1] No, not you Josh. You are still my archnemisis.

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote > I have deck lists for the five finalists, which I will post when I have > transcribed them. Here is Christian Chenard's Championship-winning deck: Deck: Second Chance to Embrace Creator: Christian Chenard Crypt: 2x Carter 2x Nicholas Chang 1x Lolita 1x Remilliard, Devout Crusader 1x Sabrina 3x Jost Werner 1x Greta Kircher 1x Jessica (advanced) Library: 6x Life in the City 5x Tribute to the Master 4x Sunset Strip, Hollywood 4x Foundation Exhibit 5x Palla Grand 2x Direct Intervention 2x The Parthenon 2x Creepshow Casino 2x Anarch Troublemaker 2x Pentex Subversion 1x Hungry Coyote 1x Giant's Blood 1x Dreams of the Sphinx 1x The Coven 1x Fetish Club Hunting Ground 1x Jake Washington 1x Heidlberg Castle, Germany 1x Communal Haven: Cathedral 13x The Embrace 8x Thin-Blooded Seer 4x Art Scam 5x Consanguinous Boon 2x Dramatic Upheaval 6x Stealth Ritus 4x Change of Target 6x Dodge [ quoted text not captured ]

vte...@white-wolf.com (LSJ) wrote in message news:<eb4eb7f8.04083...@posting.google.com>... > "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote > > I have deck lists for the five finalists, which I will post when I have > > transcribed them. > > Here is Christian Chenard's Championship-winning deck: > > Deck: Second Chance to Embrace > Creator: Christian Chenard > deck snipped thanks LSJ! much appreciated jds

If you create an Embrace, and then use Heidlberg Castle, Germany to put blood on it before the next action, must the Embrace still hunt by card text, or is that simply reminder text? Christian, how often did you use the Thin-Blooded Seers to look at library cards? Also, didn't you end up jammed on master cards quite a bit? Looks like a fun deck to play! Ira

On 31 Aug 2004 13:30:28 -0700, ira...@yahoo.com (Ira) wrote: >If you create an Embrace, and then use Heidlberg Castle, Germany to >put blood on it before the next action, must the Embrace still hunt by >card text, or is that simply reminder text? It must still hunt, by card text. It is not reminder text. If it somehow becomes untapped after hunting, it may take any other actions available to a vampire with 1 blood and no disciplines. >Christian, how often did you use the Thin-Blooded Seers to look at >library cards? Never did, in the finals at least. >Also, didn't you end up jammed on master cards quite a bit? No clue. Carpe noctem. Lasombra http://www.TheLasombra.com

vte...@white-wolf.com (LSJ) wrote in message news:<eb4eb7f8.04083...@posting.google.com>... > "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote > > I have deck lists for the five finalists, which I will post when I have > > transcribed them. > > Here is Christian Chenard's Championship-winning deck: > > Deck: Second Chance to Embrace > Creator: Christian Chenard (deck snipped) wow; crazy, crazy deck. No wakes, no flick, no intercept, no blood dolls or minion taps. Also interesting to see some generally scorned cards like Stealth Ritus in there too... I guess the idea behind the deck is that seven bleeds for two is a lot harder for your prey to deal with than two bleeds of seven, irregardless of stealth... There are decks that can play two deflections a turn, but I don't know of any that can play seven. good stuff, thanks for the decklisting. Props to the creator and player.

Dasein wrote: > wow; crazy, crazy deck. No wakes, no flick, no intercept, no blood > dolls or minion taps. Yeah, I'm kind of in the dark as to how the deck works. I mean, clearly, it does. But it looks like it has an awful lot of holes in it that are the types of holes that are exploited by many tournament strategies. Anyone have a description of how the winning deck operates and how its games went? I mean, on the surface, it looks like it gets lots and lots of little vampires that bleed for 2 with Palla Grande. But it doesn't have much stealth (so it might run into problems with intercept), it doesn't have much combat defense (so Rush decks might eat it), it doesn't have much bleed defense (same with S+B), and it has a lot of masters that likely get jammed in your hand. Clearly, though, it won. And likely had to win a bunch to get into the finals. So maybe I'm missing a vital part of the strategy? [ quoted text not captured ]

Peter D Bakija wrote: > Clearly, though, it won. And likely had to win a bunch to get into the > finals. So maybe I'm missing a vital part of the strategy? Weenies are broken, how about that? -- David Cherryholmes

"Peter D Bakija" <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote in message news:BD5B47C9.19332%pd...@lightlink.com... > Anyone have a description of how the winning deck operates and how its games > went? > > I mean, on the surface, it looks like it gets lots and lots of little > vampires that bleed for 2 with Palla Grande. But it doesn't have much > stealth (so it might run into problems with intercept), it doesn't have much > combat defense (so Rush decks might eat it), it doesn't have much bleed > defense (same with S+B), and it has a lot of masters that likely get jammed > in your hand. > > Clearly, though, it won. And likely had to win a bunch to get into the > finals. So maybe I'm missing a vital part of the strategy? Well I was nuked by the deck in one of the preliminary rounds (not that it says much). I think it was Saturday and not Friday, but I'm not certain. Christian was my predator. Table: !Malk Stealth bleed -> David Tatu (deck not easily described) -> ->Christian -> John (me) -> !Nos rush deck I ended up with a VP for outsing the !nos, Christian got the other 4. Deck starts with Jost (+1 stealth all actions) Grabbing embraces is then a 2 stealth action Consang boon is then a 2 stealth action. He used the stealth ritus for three stealth with Jost or two stealth with another. The weenies did nothing but create other weenies. All key actions were conducted by non embraces, non-thin blooded seers. Sunset strip meant all his vampires hunted at 2 stealth. Foundation exhibit gave him all the votes he needed. The table I was at had rabid !malks cross table from this deck, bleeding Mr Tatu heavily (who was contesting The Beast cross table) and it looked like David was going to fold quickly. Christian pretty much stated he was going to bloat like a madman to survive the oncoming !malks. (and he did bloat but the malks failed to come thru) I liked the idea of a no pressure predator, knew I would pay for it later, but hoped to pick up a VP or two before that happened. So we let him pass a Consang Boon or two, and get a few more weenies. The !Nos were popping the malks slowly, the malks were pressing forward, David was walling up, Christian was bloating. I ousted the !Nos with a Fame yo-yo and was close to ousting the !malks but then Christian pulled off a three stealth dramatic upheaval to sit in front of the !malks. (it was more complicated than that, first he tried to oust through me after pentexing one of the malks, when he realized he could not do it in a single turn, he then removed the pentex, then drew into the Upheaval to move in front of the malks.) At this point Christian had something like 10+ minions and a whole lotta pool. Simple attrition handed him the game. He ousted the !malks, then Mr Tatu, then myself. For the record I was running second traditions with a smattering of transient intercepts (able to reach 3/4 intercept on occasion) and I did manage to catch Jost once or twice but being able to reliably put down two to three stealth made reliable intercept difficult. And those damned change of Targets helped him escape a few more times. Reasons he won IMO: (that game) 1. cross table !malks distracted the table from his threat and shut down his predator. 2. Jost's stealth let him get his essential actions through more often than not 3. Massive bloat If I had gone backwards more could I have stopped him? Unsure. His deck was rolling really nice and I had no idea he was running 40+ master cards based on his card play. To shut him down would have required everything I had and then some help from others on top of it (my minions were large, not enough actions), leaving my predator to run a-muck at will. In hindsight we probably should have let the !malks kill Mr. Tatu quicker (by not interfering with the !malks) so that we could match the stealth bleed against massive bloat. But that did not happened and we hamstrung the !malks before they managed to oust Mr. Tatu. I did not watch any of Christian's other games. -JTP

"Peter D Bakija" <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote in message news:BD5B47C9.19332%pd...@lightlink.com... > Dasein wrote: > > > wow; crazy, crazy deck. No wakes, no flick, no intercept, no > > blood dolls or minion taps. > > Yeah, I'm kind of in the dark as to how the deck works. I mean, > clearly, it does. But it looks like it has an awful lot of holes > in it that are the types of holes that are exploited by many > tournament strategies. My guess is: being weenie covers a LOT of holes in strategy. Aside from the castration of The Embrace, the other reason I gave up on it for the most part was in tournaments, you run into too many people with copious amounts of intercept who will generally spend it every time they see an Embrace. Since Embrace is undirected, you frequently find yourself frustrated by whatever your prey lets through, your predator won't. I never tried Embrace/Obfuscate, Embrace/Protean, or Embrace/Obtenebration strategies which in retrospect, would have worked better than the stuff I came up with. Anyway, be that as it may, this deck seems to cover the same issue using Creepshow Casino (I tried this as well - helps, but by itself doesn't fix the problem), Stealth Ritus, and Jost Werner's inherent stealth. The Embraces lose their discipline card but the use of Palla Grande makes them 2 bleeders, which is *much* more effective when you choose to go over the top. The use of Foundation Exhibit makes them all voters, at least for a turn. For situations where merely having lots of vampires of (for instance) a given clan, The Embrace is still a useful card. Without trying to build or use this deck, I make the following comments, which I admit may miss some details about it for lack of study: * Dunno why he's using so many Thin-Blooded Seers. They're cheaper but clanless and thus would not appear to ever be 2-bleeders or voters. I suppose the one advantage is that an Embrace can create a TBS but not another Embrace. * Damn that's a lot of masters. 35, not counting the Trifles. This deck needs more than 2 The Parenthenons and more card cyclers than the one Dreams. In general, I disagree with ever using less than five The Parthenons - if you're going to use it at all. * With the voting gadgets this deck uses, a copy or two of Rumors of Gehenna might be considered as an alternative to an equal number of Parthenons. * Seems to be a lot of bloat. Maybe a good thing. I never put enough pool gain in my decks and often suffer for it. * Of all the masters, this one screams for a copy of Dia de los Muertos yet it's not there. * Five Palla Grandes seems unnecessary. Three might well be sufficient but certainly four, at most. * Pentex Subversion and Anarch Trouble Maker seems like "nice" but not necessary masters. Might be one place to trim masters, were I building the deck. Even the Hunting Ground, much though I like them, isn't what I'd call a critical card in this deck. > I mean, on the surface, it looks like it gets lots and lots of > little vampires that bleed for 2 with Palla Grande. But it > doesn't have much stealth (so it might run into problems with > intercept), You don't use stealth to bleed with numbers like this. You "go over the top" - bleedbleedbleedbleedbleedbleedbleed (ad naseum, you get the picture). You run your prey out of untapped vampires and Wakes and you still have 6 vampires left - bleed for 12... > it doesn't have much combat defense (so Rush decks might eat it), If you can get enough vampires out before the rushers start coming (here's where the extra transfer from Dreams which you and David were screaming about actually does come in handy), you block stealthless rushes with Embraces and Thin-Blooded Seers. They wind up getting eaten but soon enough, the rusher runs out of rush cards, not really having the opportunity to play that many combat cards in one round of combat. (David's weeny, short-chain combat stuff probably would eat this deck alive, though. Sometimes you just lose.) > it doesn't have much bleed defense (same with S+B), *cough* *cough* BLOAT *cough* *cough* LOTS OF BLOAT!... Fred

Frederick Scott wrote: > If you can get enough vampires out before the rushers start coming > (here's where the extra transfer from Dreams which you and David > were screaming about actually does come in handy), Hey, now.... there was no screaming. It was very polite. > you block > stealthless rushes with Embraces and Thin-Blooded Seers. They > wind up getting eaten but soon enough, the rusher runs out of > rush cards, not really having the opportunity to play that many > combat cards in one round of combat. (David's weeny, short-chain > combat stuff probably would eat this deck alive, though. Sometimes > you just lose.) I don't know what you mean by "weenie" in the short chain combat description. It tends to work better around large vampires with specials, although this isn't strictly required. And hey, while we're speaking of short chain combat, here's a good example of it: Oliver Thrace and Blood Fury. You will mow through fortitude and stifle s:ce, with one card. Yeah, there's a lot that doesn't cover, such as going toe-to-toe with a combat god, but an essential element of SCC is that you pick a few things, hose those, and let the rest ride. Use all that space you've got left for other things. -- David Cherryholmes

John P. wrote: > Reasons he won IMO: (that game) > 1. cross table !malks distracted the table from his threat and shut down his > predator. > 2. Jost's stealth let him get his essential actions through more often than > not > 3. Massive bloat Interesting. I was clearly missing the Foundation Exhibit angle--I was confused as to how he passed his Con Boons, forgetting what Foundation Exhibit did when I was looking over the deck. Ok then. -Votes are covered. He can pass the Con Boon and the Dramatic Upheavals as necessary. -Stealth still strikes me as an issue--yeah, he has reliable +2 stealth and occasionally +3 stealth. Was there no reliable intercept anywhere? -Rush combat is still gonna eat the deck alive--Jost Werner gets killed with impunity as soon as he hits the table, I'd gander. But still, ok, with the Foundation Exhibit/Palla Grande/Sunset Strip angle working, yeah, I can see the deck doing pretty well. But still, a few serious holes. [ quoted text not captured ]

David Cherryholmes wrote: > Weenies are broken, how about that? Well, sure, but weenie decks that look much more obviously good don't win all the time. This deck is clearly a serious weeine threat with more support than I had originally thought (Foundation Exhibit/Sunset Strip make the deck pretty solid). But still, with the 40 masters and the total of 6 dodges as combat defense, I'm still seeing a lot of room for utter failure. But then, I can also see how it could do quite well, in the right seat. [ quoted text not captured ]

Frederick Scott wrote: (pretty much a lot of stuff I am agreeing with now upon further examination) > You don't use stealth to bleed with numbers like this. You > "go over the top" - bleedbleedbleedbleedbleedbleedbleed (ad > naseum, you get the picture). You run your prey out of untapped > vampires and Wakes and you still have 6 vampires left - bleed > for 12... It's not the stealth bleeds I'm worried about--it is the "make embraces" actions. Ok. You got Jost. +1. You get out a Creep Show. +1. You get a +3 stealth action to make a kid as your first action with a 6 point vampire. A lot of decks can stop +3 stealth with their own 6 point vampire. Like, an intercept wall predator *or* prey strikes me as just ending this deck. Or, ya know, a Rush deck too (kill Jost before he takes an action. What is he gonna do? Dodge?) > If you can get enough vampires out before the rushers start coming > (here's where the extra transfer from Dreams which you and David > were screaming about actually does come in handy), you block > stealthless rushes with Embraces and Thin-Blooded Seers. They > wind up getting eaten but soon enough, the rusher runs out of > rush cards, not really having the opportunity to play that many > combat cards in one round of combat. (David's weeny, short-chain > combat stuff probably would eat this deck alive, though. Sometimes > you just lose.) Yeah, I suppose. If you can get a chain of kids to block, they you can stop the madness before it starts. But if Jost, say, is whacked before he does anything, this deck isn't going anywhere soon. > *cough* *cough* BLOAT *cough* *cough* LOTS OF BLOAT!... Well, in theory. But 5 Tribute and 5 Con Ag isn't really *that* much bloat. My Nosferatu Breeders deck (3rd/Con Boon) has stealth, Deflections, *and* 12 Con Boons. And sometimes *still* it gets whacked before it gets going. [ quoted text not captured ]

Peter D Bakija wrote: > Well, sure, but weenie decks that look much more obviously good don't win > all the time. This deck is clearly a serious weeine threat with more support > than I had originally thought (Foundation Exhibit/Sunset Strip make the deck > pretty solid). But still, with the 40 masters and the total of 6 dodges as > combat defense, I'm still seeing a lot of room for utter failure. But then, > I can also see how it could do quite well, in the right seat. I agree that any decent rush deck would have squished this thing out of the gate. Too bad no one plays rush decks in tournaments. -- David Cherryholmes

David Cherryholmes wrote: > I agree that any decent rush deck would have squished this thing out of > the gate. Too bad no one plays rush decks in tournaments. Ya know, ya'd think so, but at the Friday tournament at Origins (25 people?) like half the field was rush decks, including me. The finals was something like: -Count Germain rush -!Ventrue not so much rush -POT/dom rush -Beast rush -!Nos animalism not really rush Oddly enough, the !Nos deck won... If I were at the Nationals? I'd so have been playing a rush deck. Man. What has all my hard work gone to if no one is playing rush in big tournaments anymore? [ quoted text not captured ]

Hey Peter, > Yeah, I'm kind of in the dark as to how the deck works. I mean, clearly, it > does. But it looks like it has an awful lot of holes in it that are the > types of holes that are exploited by many tournament strategies. That's funny - when I looked at the deck, I thought to myself, "Wow, it has very few holes and not much can defend against it." I hope that Christian will comment himself. Here are my thoughts: > But it doesn't have much stealth Huh? It has *permanent* stealth! All the vamps are hunting at +2 stealth, and that's the main blood gain. A 1-cap hunting at +2 stealth will generally go unblocked IMO, especially when you take that action 5 times per turn, and Jost hasn't acted yet. Jost and Jessica vote at +4 stealth with Creepshow and the Ritus. I think this deck does a great job of taking advantage of permanents. Also, since hunting is the main pool gain, you can use Heidelberg and the Communal Haven to swap blood around as necessary. Let the weenies hunt, and Jost can call those important votes or make more babies. A deck that has lots of untaps AND a minion with permanent intercept AND permanent combat could hurt this deck a lot, but then there's always Pentex. > it doesn't have much combat defense (so Rush decks might eat it), Rush decks are somewhat rare in tournaments, and torporing a 1-cap minion per rush isn't so horrendous. With Hungry Coyote, Life in the City, Giant's Blood, Hunting Ground, Coven, Jake Washington, Heidelberg, and Communal Haven, this deck has fast recovery if minions do go to torpor. > it doesn't have much bleed defense (same with S+B) It has fine bleed defense! The defense is: gain more pool than anyone can possibly bleed. The Tributes, the Con Boons, Art Scams, and the low minion cost will keep this deck alive. Also, if your predator is a bleed deck, there's a decent chance it doesn't have +2 intercept for multiple actions, and in that case the table will be likely to support your bloat actions. > it has a lot of masters that likely get jammed in your hand. Parthenon and Dreams help. 7 trifles. A good number of those masters can be safely discarded at the end of your turn once you already have the permanent in play. Also, you don't need many non-master cards in your hand for this deck to work; generally you just hunt or bleed, maybe Jost calls 1 vote or makes a baby. > So maybe I'm missing a vital part of the strategy? Another really strong thing about this deck is that it can build up fairly inconspicuously, better than other weenie decks. You don't have 4 minions on the 2nd turn, with people screaming "KILL THE WEENIES!" It's a slightly slower process that's less offensive than standard weenies. Also, people must try a lot harder to mess with you, even if they want to; permanent stealth is solid! Most of the time you'll just be hunting and taking pool gaining actions; the table generally doesn't care too much about that, and instead only your predator will hate it (but what else is new?) Then, when you're ready, this deck is very effective at lunging and being unstoppable. It will be difficult for the table to gang up on you at the right moment - too soon and your predator has an easy win; too late and you're unstoppable. From my experience, it's unlikely that the table will turn against you if the vast majority of your actions are hunting and pool gain. Making babies may cause some hate, but even then you're not going forward very hard, until it's time to lunge. Finally, a lot of the power of this deck comes from the Master cards, and people generally don't have much defense against Master cards - i.e. Sudden Reversal. For all the important Masters, this deck has multiple copies even if one or two do get Suddened. I would love to build this deck and play it, but it has... 49 rares! I wonder if Anthelios would be good in this deck? Hmm. Now that I think about it, this deck's biggest weaknesses are weenie hosers like Snipe Hunt (who plays with that?), Aranthebes (Jost can still get rid of it, and you can still bleed for 1 with Palla Grande), and one really deadly card: Nightmares Upon Nightmares. My $0.02, Ira

"David Cherryholmes" <david.che...@duke.edu> wrote in message news:2pml58F...@uni-berlin.de... > Frederick Scott wrote: > > you block > > stealthless rushes with Embraces and Thin-Blooded Seers. They > > wind up getting eaten but soon enough, the rusher runs out of > > rush cards, not really having the opportunity to play that many > > combat cards in one round of combat. (David's weeny, short-chain > > combat stuff probably would eat this deck alive, though. > > Sometimes you just lose.) > > I don't know what you mean by "weenie" in the short chain combat > description. It tends to work better around large vampires with > specials, although this isn't strictly required. I thought it was you who was advocating weenie hit-back decks. I was thinking these qualified as short-chain combat - though I suppose there's a difference between "weeny hitback" and "weeny rush". You would require the latter to munch up all the little bleeders this deck would put out. If so, my mistake. (Though lots of weenie interceptors who would be lethal to the weeny stealthless bleeders would make it trickier, albeit not impossible, to go for the oust.) Fred

On Wed, 1 Sep 2004, David Cherryholmes wrote: > I agree that any decent rush deck would have squished this thing out of > the gate. Too bad no one plays rush decks in tournaments. Aaron Steele played a Beast rush deck and did rather well. I think he finished in like 8th place or so. Wes Weston ousted me with a fairly fighty Ahrimanes deck that had quite a few Nose of the Hound and Fame. Stephane Lavrut made the finals with a CEL gun deck that seemed to include quite a few Bum's Rush. There was also a Canadian guy named Mat (can't recall his last name) that ousted me with a pretty nice Shambling Hordes deck. Another Canadian named François (again not good with the last name) was playing a Muaziz + Eye of Hazimel rush deck that seemed promising, but he had to make an unfortunate deal with his prey in order to get the Eye out and that slowed his game to a timeout. So rush was present at the NAC this year. I think it was a pretty strong choice and it's one I kind of wish I'd made (instead of dem/pro bleed). I didn't play in or observe any of Christian's prelim rounds. I caught only the tail end of the finals, but it seemed like the finalists had woven a Byzantine web of deals that ultimately benefited Christian. Maybe someone who saw more of the game (or one of the finalists) can comment. Matt Morgan

Matthew T. Morgan wrote: > So rush was present at the NAC this year. I think it was a pretty strong > choice and it's one I kind of wish I'd made (instead of dem/pro bleed). OK, that's some rush, and I admit that saying "no one plays rush" was kind of silly. But there should be more. Just like it took a while for +1 intercept to become common and trim back the "rude at +1 stealth" decks, I think it will be a while yet before rush becomes common enough. When it does, though, a whole lot of stuff is going to disappear. When was the last time you saw the Law Firm in a serious tournament? > I didn't play in or observe any of Christian's prelim rounds. I caught > only the tail end of the finals, but it seemed like the finalists had > woven a Byzantine web of deals that ultimately benefited Christian. Psychicness in action. -- David Cherryholmes

On Wed, 1 Sep 2004, David Cherryholmes wrote: > Matthew T. Morgan wrote: > > > > So rush was present at the NAC this year. I think it was a pretty strong > > choice and it's one I kind of wish I'd made (instead of dem/pro bleed). > > OK, that's some rush, and I admit that saying "no one plays rush" was > kind of silly. But there should be more. Oh, I got what you were saying and I agree. I just thought I'd list the rush (and related combat) decks I saw. Notably absent (as far as I was able to observe, anyway) was any sort of weenie Potence or really any weenie combat decks. Looked like Stephane was running 4 and 5 caps, so it wasn't quite a weenie deck in my book. > Just like it took a while for > +1 intercept to become common and trim back the "rude at +1 stealth" > decks, I think it will be a while yet before rush becomes common enough. > When it does, though, a whole lot of stuff is going to disappear. > When was the last time you saw the Law Firm in a serious tournament? Right. And my poor !Ventrue deck suffers so. Matt Morgan

Peter D Bakija <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote in message news:<BD5B47C9.19332%pd...@lightlink.com>... > Dasein wrote: > > > wow; crazy, crazy deck. No wakes, no flick, no intercept, no blood > > dolls or minion taps. > > Yeah, I'm kind of in the dark as to how the deck works. I mean, clearly, it > does. But it looks like it has an awful lot of holes in it that are the > types of holes that are exploited by many tournament strategies. > > Anyone have a description of how the winning deck operates and how its games > went? > > I mean, on the surface, it looks like it gets lots and lots of little > vampires that bleed for 2 with Palla Grande. But it doesn't have much > stealth (so it might run into problems with intercept), it doesn't have much > combat defense (so Rush decks might eat it), it doesn't have much bleed > defense (same with S+B), and it has a lot of masters that likely get jammed > in your hand. > > Clearly, though, it won. And likely had to win a bunch to get into the > finals. So maybe I'm missing a vital part of the strategy? It reached critical mass with about 14 vampires on the table. XZ

Ira wrote: > Huh? It has *permanent* stealth! I guess I'm thinking primarily about getting the deck started, rather than stealth issues when the deck is already rolling. Yeah, once you have 8 minions, all of whom are hunting at +2 stealth inherrently, intercept isn't going to be much of an issue. But when the deck just gets started, it is likely to get blocked on its first action--even Jost with the Creepshow is only +3 stealth. That is ended by a guy with AUS and 2 intercept cards. And it is very possible that if Jost *is* blocked, he is going to torpor. So my issue with the limited stealth isn't so much one of "how does this deck win when it is already working", but more so "how does this deck get started if it is sitting next to someone with moderately consistient intercept?" Heck. Maybe in the whole tournament, he was never next to someone with AUS and, like, a handfull of Enhanced Senses in their deck. [ quoted text not captured ]

Ira wrote: > Rush decks are somewhat rare in tournaments, and torporing a 1-cap > minion per rush isn't so horrendous. I missed this one the previous time response--again, once the deck is up and running, rush isn't really going to do much, due to Operation Whack-a-Mole. But again, a reasonable rush predator is going to end this deck's trip before it even starts. If I'm playing a rush deck and this deck is my prey, he gets out Jost, and I kill Jost immediately--he never takes an action. Rush isn't an issue, really, once the deck is rolling. But if it is sitting next to rush from the get go, it isn't going to take a successful action, like, ever. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <gDoZc.66565$yh.61018@fed1read05>, "Frederick Scott" <dont...@mymail.com> mumbled something about: >"Peter D Bakija" <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote in message >news:BD5B47C9.19332%pd...@lightlink.com... >> Dasein wrote: >> >> > wow; crazy, crazy deck. No wakes, no flick, no intercept, no >> > blood dolls or minion taps. >> >> Yeah, I'm kind of in the dark as to how the deck works. I mean, >> clearly, it does. But it looks like it has an awful lot of holes >> in it that are the types of holes that are exploited by many >> tournament strategies. > >My guess is: being weenie covers a LOT of holes in strategy. It covers all of them, really. For a Rush deck: who are you going to kill that can't be rescued? You need a +1 stealth rush to do it, because the Thin-Blooded Seers will get in the way all over the place. >Anyway, be that as it may, this deck seems to cover the same >issue using Creepshow Casino (I tried this as well - helps, but >by itself doesn't fix the problem), Stealth Ritus, and Jost >Werner's inherent stealth. The Embraces lose their discipline You forget Sunset Strip. I actually had it in my own deck as well, but SS really makes a huge difference for weenie decks that intend to hunt. >card but the use of Palla Grande makes them 2 bleeders, which is >*much* more effective when you choose to go over the top. The >use of Foundation Exhibit makes them all voters, at least for >a turn. For situations where merely having lots of vampires >of (for instance) a given clan, The Embrace is still a useful card. Especially when you can get back to the Welfare State deck, which is the primary reason the Embrace had to lose its skill card. >Without trying to build or use this deck, I make the following >comments, which I admit may miss some details about it for lack >of study: > >* Dunno why he's using so many Thin-Blooded Seers. They're >cheaper but clanless and thus would not appear to ever be 2-bleeders >or voters. I suppose the one advantage is that an Embrace can >create a TBS but not another Embrace. They are 1-bleeders, though, and that's key. Jost Embraces once, it hunts, next turn he makes an Embrace and the Embrace makes a TBS, they all hunt,... you get the idea. The mistake everyone made? The action to create TBS is at 0 stealth. Nobody blocked the TBS-create actions that I saw, except at my table. >* Damn that's a lot of masters. 35, not counting the Trifles. >This deck needs more than 2 The Parenthenons and more card cyclers >than the one Dreams. In general, I disagree with ever using less >than five The Parthenons - if you're going to use it at all. The deck doesn't need to flow cards -- it can afford to hold them for the right time. He usually was discarding a Master, but it didn't matter; that's what the discard phase is for. All his minion cards are key, so he can hang onto those safely. >* Seems to be a lot of bloat. Maybe a good thing. I never put >enough pool gain in my decks and often suffer for it. If you can't bloat, you have to actively defend. If you have to actively defend, you have a weakness. If you have a weakness, someone will be playing a deck that exploits it. If your weakness is exploited, you're ousted. >* Of all the masters, this one screams for a copy of Dia de los >Muertos yet it's not there. What vote really needs to pass that badly? >* Five Palla Grandes seems unnecessary. Three might well be >sufficient but certainly four, at most. Five is the correct number. Six might be even better. It is mandatory to have a Palla Grande in play or in hand ready to be played at all times, because your opportunities to oust with this deck are going to be somewhat limited. >* Pentex Subversion and Anarch Trouble Maker seems like "nice" >but not necessary masters. Might be one place to trim masters, >were I building the deck. Even the Hunting Ground, much though >I like them, isn't what I'd call a critical card in this deck. Pentex and Troublemaker are mandatory to winning with this deck. I can't imagine playing a weenie deck without them, unless I just WANTED to lose. If you do not have these, your prey simply leaves all his vampires untapped and it takes you forever to get through. Pentex + Troublemaker allow you to remove three blockers. The Hunting Ground is actually useful for those Embraces who are all making Thin-Blooded Seers. Surprisingly. -- Derek a host is a host from coast to coast and no one will talk to a host that's close unless the host that isn't close is busy, hung, or dead

On Wed, 1 Sep 2004, Peter D Bakija wrote: > So my issue with the limited stealth isn't so much one of "how does this > deck win when it is already working", but more so "how does this deck get > started if it is sitting next to someone with moderately consistient > intercept?" Heck. Maybe in the whole tournament, he was never next to > someone with AUS and, like, a handfull of Enhanced Senses in their deck. Again, I didn't see any of Christian's preliminary rounds, so I don't know how those went. The first comment I heard about the finals (while I was playing a pickup game) was "Christian is creating an army of Embraces and nobody seems to have any intercept to stop him." Stephane (playing CEL guns) probably could've killed Christian's minions as soon as they showed themselves, but he was across the table and probably had other plans. Christian never tried to oust Stephane and Stephane came close to ousting Hughes (probably another 10 minutes would've been enough) which would've given him the win. There didn't seem to be any need for Stephane to rush Christian. Indeed, it would've distracted him from his goal of ousting Hughes. But yeah, an aggressive intercept or rush deck could probably have shut down Christian. Looks like he made a good metagame choice. Matt Morgan

In message <BD5BC4AB.19373%pd...@lightlink.com>, Peter D Bakija <pd...@lightlink.com> mumbled something about: >Ira wrote: > >> Rush decks are somewhat rare in tournaments, and torporing a 1-cap >> minion per rush isn't so horrendous. > >I missed this one the previous time response--again, once the deck is up and >running, rush isn't really going to do much, due to Operation Whack-a-Mole. >But again, a reasonable rush predator is going to end this deck's trip >before it even starts. If I'm playing a rush deck and this deck is my prey, >he gets out Jost, and I kill Jost immediately--he never takes an action. And your predator rescues Jost. Now what? You may still get this prey eventually, but it's just going to be very, very hard to get moving forward when you've demonstrated the intent to slay everyone on turn 2. Plus, your grandprey is off like a shot, pausing only to rescue Jost himself every so often to keep the speed bump alive. >Rush isn't an issue, really, once the deck is rolling. But if it is sitting >next to rush from the get go, it isn't going to take a successful action, >like, ever. You know that's not true; that's part of the reason people don't play Rush decks as often, because the cross-table rescue has become such a weapon against them. I am certainly an advocate of combat, and even of Rush combat, but I don't kill my prey's first vampire anymore; that tends to trigger the 'instawall' approach, where they bring no other minions out and beg for cross table rescues. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Wed, 1 Sep 2004, Derek Ray wrote: <snip> > And your predator rescues Jost. Now what? Or bides his time holding a Dramatic Upheaval. Matt Morgan

Derek Ray wrote: > And your predator rescues Jost. Now what? You kill him again. Or he doesn't get rescued, 'cause the guy he brings out to rescue Jost is killed too. > > You may still get this prey eventually, but it's just going to be very, > very hard to get moving forward when you've demonstrated the intent to > slay everyone on turn 2. Plus, your grandprey is off like a shot, > pausing only to rescue Jost himself every so often to keep the speed > bump alive. Sure. But it does work. And even if I don't win, the Jost deck certainly isn't going to win. Which was my point, really. I'm not saying that, like, this deck is going to be a walk over in many situations, but there are cartainly very significant "death seats" for the deck. I'm guessing he wasn't in any of those, meaning he meta-gamed geniusly, and then got kinda lucky. > You know that's not true; that's part of the reason people don't play > Rush decks as often, because the cross-table rescue has become such a > weapon against them. I am certainly an advocate of combat, and even of > Rush combat, but I don't kill my prey's first vampire anymore; that > tends to trigger the 'instawall' approach, where they bring no other > minions out and beg for cross table rescues. Meh. I'm still a big fan of killing my prey's first vampire. And second. And the guy cross table can rescue, and I can threaten to kill him too, and instead convince him to oust his prey. It works just fine. Still. But really, all of this is irrelevant. The point was that a signficant rush deck is likely to shut this deck down from the get go. But then, if there isn't a rush deck adjacent, or enough intercept to stop it from going, then yeah, it is going to do well. Anyone who was in the finals know what the seating precidence was? [ quoted text not captured ]

Ira wrote: > Hey Peter, > > >>Yeah, I'm kind of in the dark as to how the deck works. I mean, clearly, it >>does. But it looks like it has an awful lot of holes in it that are the >>types of holes that are exploited by many tournament strategies. > > > That's funny - when I looked at the deck, I thought to myself, "Wow, > it has very few holes and not much can defend against it." > it is weak angainst fast bleed decks, intercept decks(and you even don´t need much intercept), rush decks > I hope that Christian will comment himself. Here are my thoughts: > > >>But it doesn't have much stealth > > > Huh? It has *permanent* stealth! one stealth one one vamp, thats great in a draft (right matt ;-) ) but not in a constructed tourney that should not be a problem. we all know that a torrie palla grande breeder works, but this version lacks bleed defense, combat defense. and 14 bloat cards in a 90? card deck (i didn´t count them) isn´t that much either. that are a quite few holes. BUT what i really don´t undertstand are the thin blooded seers; that action is at no stealth, every minion of either prey or predator can block it an embrace cannot play stealth ritus when performing that action, so these should easily be blocked. and alwys saying but jost has one build in stealth is kinda stupdi, jost can only perform one action a turn. and if jost is the only vamp that one cannot block then it shouldn´t be that big a problem > All the vamps are hunting at +2 > stealth, and that's the main blood gain. A 1-cap hunting at +2 > stealth will generally go unblocked IMO, especially when you take that > action 5 times per turn, and Jost hasn't acted yet. Jost and Jessica > vote at +4 stealth with Creepshow and the Ritus. I think this deck > does a great job of taking advantage of permanents. > > Also, since hunting is the main pool gain, you can use Heidelberg and > the Communal Haven to swap blood around as necessary. Let the weenies > hunt, and Jost can call those important votes or make more babies. > > A deck that has lots of untaps AND a minion with permanent intercept > AND permanent combat could hurt this deck a lot, but then there's > always Pentex. > 1 vamp with an atonement and an gun or flak jacket or guardian angle is enough to stop this deck > > Another really strong thing about this deck is that it can build up > fairly inconspicuously, better than other weenie decks. the !torrie breeder is a well know, very feared deck typ, no good player should allow this deck to build up and usually if you have a !torrie playing an embrace, the alarm bells start ringing. or at least they should. stefan > My $0.02, > > Ira

On Wed, 01 Sep 2004 20:06:31 -0400, Peter D Bakija <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote: >Anyone who was in the finals know what the seating precidence was? I wasn't in the finals, but I videotaped every move. Christian Chenard - palla grande Peter Charnely - Arika / Queen Ann / Marcus Vitel Hughes Bertrand - Marcus Vitel / Arica / others Stephane Lavrut - Celerity Concealed Weapons Todd Holland - Malkavian Antitribu Kindred Spirts for 4 Todd burst out of the gate with his 4 pool bleeds by every minion on every action. This scared the 2 Ventrue decks that were using the same crypt. They had vote lock, and allowed Christian to pass 2 early Consanguineous Boons. Hughes eventually switched with Stephane. When Christain felt safe from retaliation he tapped his Anarch Troublemaker and ousted Peter. Stephane put all of Todd's Malkavian Antitribu in torpor. Christian made a deal with Stephane to not bleed him until Stephane had a victory point. Hughes two minions eventually took Todd out. Stephane finally cycled to a Fame and started a Fame-Rinse-Repeat on Marcus Vitel. If there had been 5 more minutes in the finals, Stephane would have had his 1 VP and then Christian would have stomped him. Christian could have stomped Stephane out of the game at any point after becoming his predator. Christian is proud to have won the victory with honour. Carpe noctem. Lasombra http://www.TheLasombra.com

Hi everybody, I just wanted to comment on some of the comments I read about Christian's deck... Being in the final I did see his deck close at hand, for the record I'll state that I had no real idea how is deck was changed from 2 years ago but being a somewhat experienced v:tes player I figured out pretty quickly what it did... (DAHHH!) I came in 4th into the final so I didn't get to pick where to sit. I knew enought about Christian to know that I didn't want to be his prey (in fact I wasn't sure I wanted to be anybody's prey in the final :) ) Of course the deck is not perfect! I don't think any deck is ever perfect, you always have a weakness or two even in a toolbox deck. Peter hit it right on, Christian metagamed brilliantly and was somewhat lucky in previous round (as I was). Don't get me wrong though, Christian is a hell of a player, he deserves the credit for his deck selection and how he played it. In the final he would had been dead in the water had he came out like a lion... his prey and I (the next one) were both political decks that could hurt him badly (especially me with 2 ancilla empowerement and 2 Anarchist uprising for example) but he let the Bleed stealth become the "menace" and pleaded for our help with his votes to gain pool. That was the turning point for him I think, he was able to get going and then oust his first prey (who had finished first b4 the final) luckily I got the hell out of there before the horde of minion came my way... Christian then made an alliance with his prey (Stephane Lavrut) they would not hurt each other until they were alone... that left me and my new prey the bleed stealth (sorry I forgot his name) I'm no fool I play combat a lot, when a combat deck has a no predator and it hasn't discarded much since the beginning it means trouble... I had the cards to oust Christian and I think he knew that so he played with that in mind, finishing the game just him and Stephane was great for him, there is no way the 4 fighters would take down the 15+ minions Christian had out bleeding at +1.... I've played that final game at least 20 times in my head and my conclusion is this Christian played his cards the best. I feel no shame finishing second to him. Peter you asked about the seating b4 it was changed, it was Christian (weenie embrace) Todd (I think) Arika political-bleed deck (I think) Me Ventrue Political Obfuscate deck Stephane Celerity combat deck (not sure name) Malk! bleed stealth In conclusion I would say that I saw many great decks at GenCon, but still the determining factor is which other decks you meet in preliminary rounds and good old fashion luck! Hugues Bertrand Montreal "My word is Gold, my Rage Untold!" Peter D Bakija <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote in message news:BD5BDC47.1937C%pd...@lightlink.com... [ quoted text not captured ]

"Matthew T. Morgan" <far...@io.com> wrote in message news:<Pine.LNX.4.44.04090...@hagbard.io.com>... <snip observed rush decks> Aside from those listed already, I encountered Theo/Eurobrujah rush, Assamite rush, and a Garou deck on Saturday. And they were mostly effective. A few more notes from the NAC and NAQ: At least two(!) Legacy of Pander decks played in the NAC. I don't think they were fortunate enough to sit at the same table, however. :) I was embarrassed in the NAQ by a Petra Resonance deck that pulled a 3-1-1 table win. Focus decks were the order of the day at both NAC and NAQ. AFAIK, toolboxes were routed.

The Lasombra wrote: > If there had been 5 more minutes in the finals, Stephane would have > had his 1 VP and then Christian would have stomped him. > > Christian could have stomped Stephane out of the game at any point > after becoming his predator. > > Christian is proud to have won the victory with honour. Interesting. Do you know the standings of the players going into the finals? It looks like the game timed out, and Christian and another player each ended with 1.5 VPs (although he could have ousted Stephane at any moment) and then the tie was broken by virtue of, presumably, pre finals standing. [ quoted text not captured ]

Hugues Bertrand wrote: > Peter hit it right on, Christian metagamed brilliantly and was somewhat > lucky in previous round (as I was). Don't get me wrong though, Christian is > a hell of a player, he deserves the credit for his deck selection and how he > played it. Oh--don't get me wrong here--my questions/discussion of the deck are in no way meant as a slag on Christian. People play decks that look wonky all the time and they win all the time, and I'm confused by those, too. On retrospect (and, yeah, being reminded of what Foundation Exhibit does) the deck looks like it will do very well in the right position, but will get shut down in the wrong seat, and it looked like the final round was the right position. [ quoted text not captured ]

Hugues Bertrand wrote: > Peter you asked about the seating b4 it was changed, it was Christian > (weenie embrace) Todd (I think) Arika political-bleed deck (I think) Me > Ventrue Political Obfuscate deck Stephane Celerity combat deck (not sure > name) Malk! bleed stealth Yeah, see, that is the right position. Arika Political doean't have much intercept or any combat at all and !Malk predator who is being preyed on by a gun deck is defenitely a really good slot for this deck. Did he put himself there? [ quoted text not captured ]

David Cherryholmes <david.che...@duke.edu> wrote in message news:<2pms9jF...@uni-berlin.de>... > Matthew T. Morgan wrote: > > > > So rush was present at the NAC this year. I think it was a pretty strong > > choice and it's one I kind of wish I'd made (instead of dem/pro bleed). > > OK, that's some rush, and I admit that saying "no one plays rush" was > kind of silly. But there should be more. Just like it took a while for > +1 intercept to become common and trim back the "rude at +1 stealth" > decks, I think it will be a while yet before rush becomes common enough. > When it does, though, a whole lot of stuff is going to disappear. > When was the last time you saw the Law Firm in a serious tournament? To add to previous comments, in the NAC Andreas Nusser came in sixth, losing out on the finals by only 12 Tournament Points, playing a War Ghoul deck; another finalist (Hughes Bertrand), who I think came in second, was playing a Ventrue Law Firm-style vote deck. -John Flournoy

[ quoted text not captured ] Hugues (you probably picked up the misspelling from me because I keep giving him an h instead of a u - sorry for that) was playing Marcus and Lucinde. I don't recall him playing stealth, but it's fairly likely he was using the obfuscate and wouldn't have been perturbed much by casual +1 intercept. Of course, since nobody was playing intercept, the old school Emerson, Nash and Crowley deck probably would've done real well in the finals. Matt Morgan

>> Another really strong thing about this deck is that it can build up >> fairly inconspicuously, better than other weenie decks. > > the !torrie breeder is a well know, very feared deck typ, no good >player should allow this deck to build up and usually if you have a >!torrie playing an embrace, the alarm bells start ringing. >or at least they should. Exactly. We continuously get tournament reports where Palla Grande decks do well, so why wouldn't people be fearful of them? And, why wouldn't people worry when someone is getting up around 5 vampires? Two of the three pickup games I played at Gen Con, I was playing a Creation Rites deck that lowballed stealth figuring that, since people seem to completely ignore Palla Grande decks popping out Embraces, that people will probably ignore Harbingers popping out Creation Rites. No, of course not. Both games, I couldn't get a Creation Rites in play until deep into the midgame, often getting blocked by my predators who, apparently, didn't think I should ever go forward. One player said it was obvious to block my key actions. Now, one could argue that there might be less intercept in majors, but with all of the Telepathic Misdirections floating around, any nonstealth-boosted Embrace action should be a Change of Target cycle. Nevermind anyone playing an intercept deck, playing permanent intercept, playing Second Traditions. Not saying that Embrace decks are likely to get crippled on a routine basis, but how do they get away so often with so much minion production?

>Just like it took a while for >+1 intercept to become common and trim back the "rude at +1 stealth" >decks, I think it will be a while yet before rush becomes common enough. > When it does, though, a whole lot of stuff is going to disappear. >When was the last time you saw the Law Firm in a serious tournament? Seems reasonably common nowadays looking at tournament reports posted on the newsgroup. The suggestion is that the metagame shifted back again and that intercept is an unreliable thing. Law Firm becomes a metagame play as it *can* avoid clogging itself up with cards like stealth and, possibly, because it has so much ousting power, it may have a metagame advantage in that people have gotten more used to decks with less ousting power and their defenses can be overloaded more easily.

"Ira" <ira...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:500e74e.04090...@posting.google.com... > Hey Peter, ... > > it doesn't have much combat defense (so Rush decks might eat it), > > Rush decks are somewhat rare in tournaments, and torporing a 1-cap > minion per rush isn't so horrendous. I think he means, torporing the big guys - assuming the rush decks get to them before weenies start to get in the way. > > it has a lot of masters that likely get jammed in your hand. > > Parthenon and Dreams help. 7 trifles. A good number of those > masters can be safely discarded at the end of your turn once you > already have the permanent in play. Yea but there's still 35 non-trifle masters. If you have masters on that order of magnitude and _don't_ draw your Parthenon, you can get extremely hand-jammed. That's why I'm surprised there's only two Parenthenons. One discard/turn usually doesn't overcome that. And Anthelios doesn't do anything to help. If anything, trying to use Anthelios to exchange masters would only aggravate the hand jam problem because you're using MPAs on turns you're not playing any actual masters. ... > I wonder if Anthelios would be good in this deck? Hmm. Now > that I think about it, this deck's biggest weaknesses are weenie > hosers like Snipe Hunt (who plays with that?), Aranthebes (Jost > can still get rid of it, and you can still bleed for 1 with Palla > Grande), and one really deadly card: Nightmares Upon Nightmares. Get rid of all Foundation Exhibits the moment they hit the table and use Domain Challenge or Ancilla Empowerments. Of course, the deck has two Direct Interventions that are used for exactly such things, but drawing them and holding them until the moment the vote card comes out is far from assured. All in all, it looks like a pretty good deck. I'm just a little leery about how master-heavy it is. Fred

"Matthew T. Morgan" <far...@eris.io.com> wrote in message news:<Pine.LNX.4.44.040902...@eris.io.com>... [ quoted text not captured ] Hugues was in fact using some stealth, which was good for him when we were at a table together, because I was certainly playing an awful lot of intercept - he finally ousted me when he was able to throw 6 stealth onto an ousting vote to get past the 4 intercept my minions could generate at that time. (drat!) > Matt Morgan -John Flournoy

Stefan Ferenci <a950n...@unet.s.p.a.m.univie.ac.at> wrote in message news:<41366faa$0$8020$3b21...@usenet.univie.ac.at>... > BUT what > i really don´t undertstand are the thin blooded seers; that action is > at no stealth, every minion of either prey or predator can block it an > embrace cannot play stealth ritus when performing that action, so these > should easily be blocked. I'd bet that most players assume that the Thin-Blooded Seer action is at +1 stealth, as most cards like it are at +1 stealth. And Christian was probably smart enough not to remind his opponents that he was taking a zero-stealth action. -Matt

> Stephane put all of Todd's Malkavian Antitribu in torpor. Why did Stephane do this cross table? Perhaps it was part of a deal? Otherwise, it seems better at that point in the game to torpor his prey's vampires and leave some pressure on Christian (and prevent his prey from getting a VP)? Obviously there are many factors that I'm missing, so I'm wondering if this could be explained in greater detail. Thanks for the game overview, Lasombra! > Christian could have stomped Stephane out of the game at > any point after becoming his predator. Is this really true? If so, why did Christian make the deal? Perhaps it was a safer route. > Christian is proud to have won the victory with honour. Well done! Ira

"Peter D Bakija" <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote in message news:BD5C9A6A.193AE%pd...@lightlink.com... > Hugues Bertrand wrote: > > > Peter hit it right on, Christian metagamed brilliantly and was somewhat > > lucky in previous round (as I was). Don't get me wrong though, Christian is > > a hell of a player, he deserves the credit for his deck selection and how he > > played it. > [clip] I don't think there's any way to get into the finals of a big event without some luck. More often than not, though, the best players put themselves in a position where they can take advantage of good luck and make the best out of those bad luck situations. > retrospect (and, yeah, being reminded of what Foundation Exhibit does) the > deck looks like it will do very well in the right position, but will get > shut down in the wrong seat, and it looked like the final round was the > right position. Isn't that the way for every deck? They all have weaknesses and if the wrong deck sits in the right spot, well, you are sunk! -Robert

> I agree that any decent rush deck would have squished this thing out of > the gate. Too bad no one plays rush decks in tournaments. I played in the NAC this year. Round 1, my prey was playing !Brujah rush and my predator playing !Nos rush Round 2, my prey was playing CEL rush and my predator playing War Ghoul rush I actually thought Embrace would win two years ago, when there was much less intercept in the metagame, but it didn't because there happened to be a whole bunch of intercept in the finals. This year, I was wondering, "Where were all the intercept decks?" I thought intercept would have squished this thing out of existence. Too bad people don't play intercept in the NAC. But people DO play rush in tournaments. -- Brian

"Brian" <firstco...@aol.com> wrote in message news:80bafd85.04090...@posting.google.com... > > I agree that any decent rush deck would have squished this thing out of > > the gate. Too bad no one plays rush decks in tournaments. > > I played in the NAC this year. > > Round 1, my prey was playing !Brujah rush and my predator playing !Nos > rush > Round 2, my prey was playing CEL rush and my predator playing War > Ghoul rush I was sandwiched once between Beast and an Alastor with an Assault Rifle. Another time Derek used an auto rusher to smash me up. > I actually thought Embrace would win two years ago, when there was > much less intercept in the metagame, but it didn't because there > happened to be a whole bunch of intercept in the finals. > > This year, I was wondering, "Where were all the intercept decks?" I > thought intercept would have squished this thing out of existence. > > Too bad people don't play intercept in the NAC. > But people DO play rush in tournaments. Actually, Mike Courtois played a weenie intercept wall that finished 7th - 1/2 VP out of the finals. -Robert

In message <2prettF...@uni-berlin.de>, "Robert Goudie" <rrgo...@earthlink.net> mumbled something about: > >"Brian" <firstco...@aol.com> wrote in message >news:80bafd85.04090...@posting.google.com... >> > I agree that any decent rush deck would have squished this thing out >of >> > the gate. Too bad no one plays rush decks in tournaments. >> >> I played in the NAC this year. >> >> Round 1, my prey was playing !Brujah rush and my predator playing !Nos >> rush >> Round 2, my prey was playing CEL rush and my predator playing War >> Ghoul rush > >I was sandwiched once between Beast and an Alastor with an Assault >Rifle. Another time Derek used an auto rusher to smash me up. Go Salubri Antitribu! =) If I'd only had the stick a little bit earlier... or been able to find the Ironwail in time =( [ quoted text not captured ]

On Fri, 03 Sep 2004 18:19:30 -0400, Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> scrawled: >Go Salubri Antitribu! =) > >If I'd only had the stick a little bit earlier... or been able to find >the Ironwail in time =( you took salubri antitribu to the NAC? that's some mighty fine testicles you've got there. :) how'd it do? what'd it do? give us a decklist! (i hope it didn't use blessing of the name...) salem domain:canberra http://www.geocities.com/salem_christ.geo/vtes.htm (replace "hotmail" with "yahoo" to email)

On 2 Sep 2004 13:19:38 -0700, mon...@hotpop.com (Mongrel Matt Hirsch) scrawled: [ quoted text not captured ] shouldn't you include such information when you announce your action? eg: tapping an embrace and saying 'seer, ritus' might not be quite right. tapping embrace, saying 'embrace attempts a Thin-Blood Seer action at 0 stealth.' (brief pause for DI) 'as the action is announced i play a Stealth Ritus for +1 stealth' or something seems a bit more like ... correct ... play, if you will. especially for the finals of a NAC. [ quoted text not captured ]

Hey Guys, Yeah I played a vote/stealth deck My guess was that there would be intercept, I find that there is enought intercept out there now that a 1 stealth action is no longer safe... I used forgotten labyrinth and some elder impersonation it did the job... In round 3 I actually had to reach 5 stealth to pass a vote... Itreally depends which table you sat at... Remember the final is not always representative of the whole tourney... As Robert Goudie said earlier: LUCK! I also think you have to be smart, if you encounter decks that can be a problem you have to negotiate... I really believe in not brealking deals, this has served me well people trust me I won't lose my name for a card game no matter what at stake... (that's the BRUJAH in me!) My key player was Marcus Vitel Lucinde and Queen Ann were supporting cast since they have inf obf... I saw Combat decks, wall decks, umblockable bleed decks, dominate... I don't think one type of deck was predominent .... the final was 2 vote decks, 1 rush combat, 1 bleed stealth and one embrace deck... Metagaming is key, but luck is a big factor in my opinion.... Hugues Bertrand Matthew T. Morgan <far...@eris.io.com> wrote in message news:Pine.LNX.4.44.040902...@eris.io.com... [ quoted text not captured ]

LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote >> I have deck lists for the five finalists, which I will post when I have >> transcribed them. > Here is Christian Chenard's Championship-winning deck: ... > 8x Thin-Blooded Seer ... Now, I didn't watch the finals at all, so I don't know the answer to this question, which I only just realized when I was sorting and reading some of my cards: It was said that Christian did not use the TBS action. What exactly *did* he use the TBS's for? Just bleeding with Stealth Ritus? They are clanless, by card text, so they can't take advantage of Foundation Exhibit or Consanguineous Boon. (wondering if this particular bit of card text might have been overlooked and incorrectly played all along, or if Christian had an alternate plan)

> Congratulations to Remy and Christian! Thanks a lot. I'm happy I won. I've read everything posted on the thread so far. Fine arguments coming from all sides. Here's what I have to say (warning: long post!). About my deck: (keeping in mind that there's always two sides to a coin) The goods: - It can gets lots of minions out - It can generate lots of pool - It can easily get vote lock to pass referendums - It can bleed lots and oust in one turn - It can generate some decent "permanent" stealth The bads: - It's minions are weak and pretty vulnerable in combat - It doesn't have the blocking capacity that you usually expect from a deck - It's vote lock is only assured on it's own turn - The "oust turn" must be prepared - Intercept and rush do exist. The presence of large quantity of either - Like many deck, it probably won't survive an early 4 on 1 gang up. (if there was such a survivor deck everybody would be playing it) Regarding comments made: - Yes the deck works, for the reasons that others stated so I won't repeat. - Yes, there's a lot of master but considering the Triffles and the fact that you can play 1 master a turn and discard 1, it's not a real problem. The deck works based on "table permanents" not "hand potential". I never felt "master jammed" even when I held 7 masters in my hand (it happened during the NAC Final). - Yes, the deck needs to build a little before it gets going. But it starts building on turn 2 (or 3 at worst) and is usually quite set on turn 4-5. That's better than most decks. - Yes, multirush or wall deck can stop my deck. The problem is that they'll have to commit most or all of their resource trying to stop my deck while some deck other than theirs is making the gamewin. Odds are that at one point they'll cut me some slack to focus on the new menace, when that time comes I just start rebuilding. -Thin Blooded Seer are there for "historical" reason. In my old version of the deck, Embraces at 2 cap (with presence and free Majesty) generated other Embraces in an exponantial way with Hungry Coyote. When all the CE erratas kicked in I was bummed because my best deck had died. Thin Blooded Seer gave a second chance to the "weenie breeding" strategy and I just had to give it a try. I admit Thin Blooded Seer is not as great an action at 0 stealth but my prey will usually let it go saving it's blockers for potential bleeds while my predator will want to block his own pred most of the time. Looking back on it, I would probably remove some of the TBS to include other useful things. About the NAC metagame: I know my logic on this is quite linear. I know it's not the whole thruth but I still think it's mostly true. This thinking was forged by my prior Gencon experiences and led me to play that deck. People go to the NAC to try to win it. To get to the finals, at least 2 solid wins in prelims are needed. It's a "make it big or break it big" environment and you can afford one slip. This means you need to have a deck that goes forward with a potential to quickly oust more than 1 person (before the VPs start splitting on the table). I think my deck meets this criteria. My weaknesses are combat and intercept but rush decks (combat) are slow if they ever do oust many people while wall decks (intercept) usually don't get much more than 2 VPs in a 2 hour game. This means I don't expect to encounter to many of those types of deck at the NAC because people who make winning a priority won't play them (remember that people go to the NAC to try to win it). So even if I do meet a wall or rush deck, there is still a 50% chance that it is sitting cross-table from you (in a 5 player game). So to end up sitting at a position known as the "dead seat" for my deck at the NAC is unlikely. If it happens (and it did in round 3) it represents the one mistake I'm allowed. My super brief analysis of the final: I was lucky to have the rush deck sitting cross-table, to have my prey and grand prey play the same crypt while my predator made himself public enemy #1 before I could. Some people say I played a great game. I just say I played the cards as they came out of the deck. True, I did decide to put those cards there in the first place and didn't make any major mistake. Still, you could say I was lucky to win the NAC and be right. I don't mind, I'm just excited that I'm going to get my face on a card... Well here you have it folks. The comments of the winner. Hope I didn't bore you too much.

Christian Chenard wrote: > Well here you have it folks. The comments of the winner. Hope I didn't > bore you too much. Thanks for the write up--how did the deck do in the 3 preliminary rounds (i.e. how many VPs/Game Wins)? [ quoted text not captured ]

On Sat, 04 Sep 2004 16:48:39 GMT, Jozxyqk <jfeu...@eecs.tufts.edu> scrawled: >LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: >> "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote >>> I have deck lists for the five finalists, which I will post when I have >>> transcribed them. > >> Here is Christian Chenard's Championship-winning deck: > >... >> 8x Thin-Blooded Seer >... > >Now, I didn't watch the finals at all, so I don't know the answer to this >question, which I only just realized when I was sorting and reading some >of my cards: > >It was said that Christian did not use the TBS action. >What exactly *did* he use the TBS's for? Just bleeding with Stealth Ritus? you can always use them to bleed for one, at 0 stealth. say i have 3 TBS and 4 !Toreador. My prey has 2 untapped vampires. i have a palla grande in play. my first action is bleed for 1 with TBS. If you were my prey, what would you do? especially if, say, you only had 10 pool, and no untaps or deflects. i'm guessing the 'mere' bleeds for 1 got through a lot. and would wear people down over many turns. in the above example, if I bleed with all the seers first, and you block them, i then bleed through with the !tor for 2. if you let the seers through, in anticipation of the !tor coming through, i just hold off with the !tor for this turn, and do it all over again next turn. [ quoted text not captured ]

Peter D Bakija wrote > Thanks for the write up--how did the deck do in the 3 preliminary rounds > (i.e. how many VPs/Game Wins)? Prelims results: 2GW 7VP and 144TP (not sure about the TP count). I met Stéphane Lavrut (2nd seed going into the final, finishing 3rd in the NAC) in round 3 where he swept the 4 player table. Final round: I was 3rd seed going in. I finished the final game with 1.5VP (game timing out). I beat Hugues Bertrand due to the prelims standing (he was 4th or 5th. I don't remember)

c_ch...@hotmail.com (Christian Chenard) wrote in message news:<47a2b640.04090...@posting.google.com>... [ quoted text not captured ] Hey Guys This is Todd Holland. Congrats again to Christian Chenard for the win. Had fun. I will be around more to post and see what is going on with Vtes. See ya

"Hugues Bertrand" <hugues....@securenet.net> wrote in message news:chb8e4$1pka$1...@news.securenet.net... > I also think you have to be smart, if you encounter decks that can > be a problem you have to negotiate... Man, if I had to reduce this guy's comments down to the one big challenge that I have in winning large tournaments, this would it: inability to work by decks that are a poor metagame matchup to mine (from my point of view) and underuse of negotiation tactics when that comes up. I think this point is dead on and I see that the people who consistently win competitive tournaments have learned to do this. Fred

> > Congratulations to Remy and Christian! > > Thanks a lot. I'm happy I won. Congratulations from me, too. I enjoyed meeting you guys from Canada, hopefully some of you will manage to show up at Heidelberg so we can repeat our nice "big round table" dinner. If not, chances are I will show up at GenCon05. -- johannes walch