I need my VTES fix!!

I need my new VTES fix!! When is the next preview going up? Comments Welcome, Norman S. Brown, Jr. XZealot Archon of the Swamp

XZealot wrote: > > I need my new VTES fix!! > When is the next preview going up? Soon. -- 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/

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:3D32E45C...@white-wolf.com... > XZealot wrote: > > > > I need my new VTES fix!! > > When is the next preview going up? > > Soon. > > -- > LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. I don't know if I can contain myself until then. I am going on a hunger strike until I get my new fix. Comments Welcome, Norman S. Brown, Jr [ quoted text not captured ]

XZealot wrote: > > "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message > news:3D32E45C...@white-wolf.com... > > XZealot wrote: > > > > > > I need my new VTES fix!! > > > When is the next preview going up? > > > > Soon. > > > > -- > > LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. > > I don't know if I can contain myself until then. > I am going on a hunger strike until I get my new fix. Lunch time. -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Mon, 15 Jul 2002 11:03:56 -0400, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: >XZealot wrote: >> >> I need my new VTES fix!! >> When is the next preview going up? > >Soon. This is soon enough I guess..:) New preview is up!! Grtz

LSJ wrote: > > XZealot wrote: > > > > "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message > > news:3D32E45C...@white-wolf.com... > > > XZealot wrote: > > > > > > > > I need my new VTES fix!! > > > > When is the next preview going up? > > > > > > Soon. > > > > > > -- > > > LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. > > > > I don't know if I can contain myself until then. > > I am going on a hunger strike until I get my new fix. > > Lunch time. Oh, shit! It's 8:30 AM here in Phoenix, the new preview is up, and I haven't had lunch yet! Fred

"Pepijn Kok" <ka...@xs4all.nl> wrote in message news:3d32e90d...@newzilla.xs4all.nl... [ quoted text not captured ] WOOO HOOO!!! As anticipated, Patagia now incorporates flight for the Nossies!!!

Now, here's a nice Voting Nosferatu !! But from the ones we heard of (the previews + Vitel, + some spoilers), the new vamps seem huge !! Especially the 9 / 10 caps : maybe they don't have more (?) discipline points than before, but they seem more useful, and have more superior disciplines. It is a good thing IMHO, in the sense that when you pay 9 or 10 for a vamp he should be worth it ! But I hope it won't create a new form of unbalancing towards the new vampires (Sabbat included, maybe)... Yours from the rainy south, Orpheus

> As anticipated, Patagia now incorporates flight for the Nossies!!! Lending even more credence to the "rumors" going around about the changed card text. Sucks alot that 5th (and the others) got hamstrung like that... Sorrow --- "This is my costume. I'm a homicidal maniac. They look just like everyone else." -- Wednesday Addams

On Mon, 15 Jul 2002 10:32:44 -0500, "Jon Stahler" <sta...@ilir.uiuc.edu> wrote: >WOOO HOOO!!! > >As anticipated, Patagia now incorporates flight for the Nossies!!! I like it as well..:) Must see it work in a deck though....:) I do like the nossie.. damn... okay, still a 9 cap primogen, but pro ANI OBF POT PRE and a killer special to the princes... I like this guy..:) > >

Orpheus wrote: :: Now, here's a nice Voting Nosferatu !! :: :: But from the ones we heard of (the previews + Vitel, + some :: spoilers), the new vamps seem huge !! Especially the 9 / 10 caps : :: maybe they don't have more (?) discipline points than before, but :: they seem more useful, and have more superior disciplines. I'm sure the Baali will love Ellison !! reyda

"XZealot" <x_ze...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message news:<giBY8.72629$JU3.27...@e3500-atl1.usenetserver.com>... [ quoted text not captured ] *Snicker* Nosie smashings just got funnier....And hark!! a Primogen that doesn't suck!! Like it.

In message <3d331b87$0$25032$79c1...@nan-newsreader-01.noos.net>, "reyda" <true_...@hotmail.com> mumbled something about: [ quoted text not captured ] Ellison is on a par with Sheldon -- access to the Traditions, 3 votes, and AUS/for easily balance out with to anti-2nd-Tradition, 3 conditional votes, and PRE/pro. Ellison's a slightly better voter -- Sheldon is more versatile. -- "There's no gray. There's just white that's got grubby." -- T.P.

> Ellison is on a par with Sheldon -- access to the Traditions, Access to the Traditions how? He's a primogen. > 3 votes, The other 2 being made up from the Prince he's forcing to vote his way? Sorrow --- "I am Jack's inflamed sense of rejection." - Narrator

In message <uj6s9cr...@corp.supernews.com>, "Sorrow" <jcb...@yahoo.com> mumbled something about: >> Ellison is on a par with Sheldon -- access to the Traditions, > >Access to the Traditions how? He's a primogen. Access to the Traditions for SHELDON, of course. The first three apply to sheldon, the second three apply to Ellison. And yes, the "3 conditional" are assuming that a Prince is on the table to be forced. [ quoted text not captured ]

"reyda" <true_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<3d331b87$0$25032$79c1...@nan-newsreader-01.noos.net>... > Orpheus wrote: > :: Now, here's a nice Voting Nosferatu !! > :: > :: But from the ones we heard of (the previews + Vitel, + some > :: spoilers), the new vamps seem huge !! Especially the 9 / 10 caps : > :: maybe they don't have more (?) discipline points than before, but > :: they seem more useful, and have more superior disciplines. The discipline spreads seem...more usable? Definatly very sweet so far. The Cam have in the past felt less usefull to me because their disciplines seem to (out side of their in clan ) be kind of clumsy. I guess what they lacked in continuity they made up for in numbers. Don't get me wrong, I definatly use Cam decks, but they rarely work as well or are nearly as tight as a nasty Sabbat deck. (Imho) Now...can't wait to unleash these beasts. The first thing I thought when I saw him was "I wish Wynn and Basilla were usable with this guy." Pc.

"reyda" <true_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<3d331b87$0$25032$79c1...@nan-newsreader-01.noos.net>... > Orpheus wrote: > :: Now, here's a nice Voting Nosferatu !! > :: > :: But from the ones we heard of (the previews + Vitel, + some > :: spoilers), the new vamps seem huge !! Especially the 9 / 10 caps : > :: maybe they don't have more (?) discipline points than before, but > :: they seem more useful, and have more superior disciplines. The discipline spreads seem...more usable? Definatly very sweet so [ quoted text not captured ]

Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<61t6juou9f6rrjt9h...@4ax.com>... > In message <uj6s9cr...@corp.supernews.com>, > "Sorrow" <jcb...@yahoo.com> mumbled something about: > > >> Ellison is on a par with Sheldon -- access to the Traditions, > > > >Access to the Traditions how? He's a primogen. > > Access to the Traditions for SHELDON, of course. > > The first three apply to sheldon, the second three apply to Ellison. > And yes, the "3 conditional" are assuming that a Prince is on the table > to be forced. Note that Ellison 'swings' votes... +2 for you, -2 for the opposition... I like him. LOTS. Tobias Deventer

"Sorrow" <jcb...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<y%BY8.370$7t.3...@newshog.newsread.com>... > > As anticipated, Patagia now incorporates flight for the Nossies!!! > > Lending even more credence to the "rumors" going around about the > changed card text. Yes. Noticed that too. > Sucks alot that 5th (and the others) got hamstrung like that... Nope. I played an 'old skool' princes deck at the (defunct) Tilburg Tournament last weekend, and 5th - MT slows down games too much, IMHO. Tobias Deventer

ka...@xs4all.nl (Pepijn Kok) wrote in message news:<3d32efd5...@newzilla.xs4all.nl>... [ quoted text not captured ] I'm with ya on that one... hope he doesn't get it in his head to take over Deventer... ;) Tobias Deventer

Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<61t6juou9f6rrjt9h...@4ax.com>... > In message <uj6s9cr...@corp.supernews.com>, > "Sorrow" <jcb...@yahoo.com> mumbled something about: > > >> Ellison is on a par with Sheldon -- access to the Traditions, > > > >Access to the Traditions how? He's a primogen. > > Access to the Traditions for SHELDON, of course. > > The first three apply to sheldon, the second three apply to Ellison. > And yes, the "3 conditional" are assuming that a Prince is on the table > to be forced. ... and that prince hasn't played BO or awe, or better, has a Legendary vampire played on him :-) What you don't mention is Sheldon's acces to bounce cards.

"Sorrow" <jcb...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<y%BY8.370$7t.3...@newshog.newsread.com>... > > As anticipated, Patagia now incorporates flight for the Nossies!!! > > Lending even more credence to the "rumors" going around about the > changed card text. > Sucks alot that 5th (and the others) got hamstrung like that... Yep it certainly does (assuming that will be the case :o) I think a lot of the changes may eventually lead to quicker games and less timeouts so maybe not as cack as all that though?? What does puzzle me is the shift toward mid-cap and weenies that this change alone will cause. Hamstringing such a key card, whilst understandable, *will* have significant ripples throughout the game. On another card topic, I like the new 'empowering' of Archon. A few nasty decks possible with the now uncommon Freak Drive (Basila death multi-rush sandwiches anyone ?), again subtle shifts toward combat (Concealed Weapon, Archon, 5th slapping) as we saw in Sabbat War. Then again, a lot IS being changed at once and I agree with many that the game won't be the same. It only remains to be seen whether it will still be a game that delights and stimulates the same ? Hmmmmmm. Oh... and don't quit just yet Sorrow, wait and see after the dust settles. I wanna play more games with you man :o) Rob

"rob treasure" <rob.tr...@btinternet.com> wrote: > On another card topic, I like the new 'empowering' of Archon. A few > nasty decks possible with the now uncommon Freak Drive (Basila death > multi-rush sandwiches anyone ?), again subtle shifts toward combat > (Concealed Weapon, Archon, 5th slapping) as we saw in Sabbat War. Do you think that Freak Drive will now include a clause limiting a vampire to 1 freak drive/per turn? I have often wondered if that was a possibility. Course if it was limited, it should cost nothing to be in line with domain of evernight. -- Aaron The Nosferatu Stuff

"Tobias" <tobiasop...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:8aa6db00.02071...@posting.google.com... [ quoted text not captured ] Note that it says during a referendum. This means he can use his power during bloodhunts. That is huge! Here come that Pot/For Nossie Marching Army of Amarath. [ quoted text not captured ]

"The Nosferatu Stuff" <roans...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:ah122o$p1826$1...@ID-125246.news.dfncis.de... [ quoted text not captured ] What would be the point? Isn't that why we have the NRA rule? In my opinion, Freak Drive is essentially balanced at 1 blood and no restriction. NRA exists to balance it (and Majesty and so on and so forth). Josh won't you take me to freaky town

"rob treasure" <rob.tr...@btinternet.com> wrote in message news:a0c24b2e.02071...@posting.google.com... [re alleged 5th tradition change] > What does puzzle me is the shift toward mid-cap and weenies that this > change alone will cause. Hamstringing such a key card, whilst > understandable, *will* have significant ripples throughout the game. I think they're aware of that. What they plan to fix/avoid it, I don't know, but hopefully something. I'm sure you've noticed that there are no Caitiff in CE; looks to me like there will at least be very little *help* for weenies. > On another card topic, I like the new 'empowering' of Archon. A few > nasty decks possible with the now uncommon Freak Drive (Basila death > multi-rush sandwiches anyone ?), again subtle shifts toward combat > (Concealed Weapon, Archon, 5th slapping) as we saw in Sabbat War. I kind of strongly suspect that Archon will only be multi-rushable until Camarilla Edition hits the scene. ie, I'd expect it to be reprinted with the text "put this card on that vampire" (which would make it subject to NRA restrictions). I'd think the same thing will probably happen for any other "lingering effect" vote cards, but who knows. Sabbat Priest didn't get such text in its Sabbat War reprinting. Then, even if it doesn't, it'd require you to first pass a Prince/Justicar vote and only then try to abuse Freaky Archon rush. Somewhat complicated. But certainly interesting. :-) Josh you can't fire me, i quit!

In message <818c06e0.02071...@posting.google.com>, Sacha <paul...@hotmail.com> writes: >The discipline spreads seem...more usable? Definatly very sweet so >far. Sheldon is really rather good, to be honest. ANI OBF AUS POT for is quite good. Do a sift through the old vampires. ani/pot/for turns up on a number of Nosferatu (with varying levels, of course), including Sheldon and two Nosferatu princes. A Nosferatu law firm deck, with Fifth Tradition and Minion Tap works well with having access to stealth (obf, also on all of the aforementioned Nosferatu) in the form of Forgotten Labyrinth. Even with a potentially weakened Fifth Tradition, it's still not bad at all for getting out the bigger vampires, who can work *very* well at shutting down votes. Since it's only the *title* they need for Fourth Tradition or Fifth Tradition, not the votes, pro-actively going out with them isn't really necessary, though a couple of fun votes can be held for nastiness value. And fortitude/ani/pot provides the ability to kick some ass with them - strikes, anti-S:CE, environmental damage, damage prevention, Restoration. The AUS certainly isn't bad, even if you can think of better things to do with it in specific decks. Something along the lines of a tweaked: http://www.thelasombra.com/decks/np.htm is a solid deck. -- James Coupe PGP 0x5D623D5D I am woman. Here, me raw. EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 13D7E668C3695D623D5D

In message <gmUY8.77997$JU3.31...@e3500-atl1.usenetserver.com>, XZealot <x_ze...@bellsouth.net> writes: >Note that it says during a referendum. This means he can use his power >during bloodhunts. That is huge! Here come that Pot/For Nossie Marching >Army of Amarath. Hugest in Camarilla Edition games, or limited draft, mostly. There are a lot of decks out there that still don't use Princes. Weenie Legacy of Pander can still be viable - 6 to 8 votes from your weenies isn't bad at all. Independent Free States Rants decks don't die - though a few may be including a useful cross-over prince. As some have pointed out, Ellison (not a prince) might be a useful cross-over vamp. The Ventrue lose out slightly, but they've gained with Creepshow Casino and the Daughters of Cacophony combo reasonably well with them. I'd also point out that - similarly - Gustav Mallenhous was going to be a huge, broken, end-of-the-world (I paraphrase - and exaggerate) boost for the Ventrue Antitribu, but I've rarely seen him played, let alone used. (This may be specific. I'd be interested if other people are having problems with him.) It will *probably* curtail a little [1/2] Brujah activity (and some of [2/3], if [3] Brujahs fit with the EuroBrujah, Theo Bell etc.) - which I don't see as being entirely problematic - the versatility of the current [1/2] Brujah is rather high. They can bleed, they can bleed at stealth (Carthage Remembered), they can vote, they can hit out in combat well. Oh, and the EuroBrujah can bounce. Pretty versatile. Only, to my mind, the Lasombra can match this versatility - and they're slightly screwed in a number of ways, relatively - not as good combat support, limited vote push, large titles etc. Of course, the Lasombra aren't screwed by Ellison, unless they choose to combo with Marcus Vitel - which may be good for the right deck. [ quoted text not captured ]

James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote in message news:<GN0FsyZFw$M9E...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk>... > In message <818c06e0.02071...@posting.google.com>, Sacha > <paul...@hotmail.com> writes: > >The discipline spreads seem...more usable? Definatly very sweet so > >far. > > Sheldon is really rather good, to be honest. ANI OBF AUS POT for is > quite good. Yes, you are correct Sheldon and many other origional Vtes vamps are very good. I don't dispute this an any way (my personal fav is Anvil) however, my point is that Sabbat Vamps seem to have (more often )or post Sabbat vamps tend to have more relevent skill splits. Ie: out of clan Disciplines like presence and protean are rare and mostly irrelevent until Sabbat and Bloodlines came around. I supose it's a little hard to state my case as one person's idea of a relevent discapline split would be folly in another person's eye. But hopefully you get the idea. The general idea I would be getting at would be like Dom and Obf make a really excellent discp set, or Pot/ Cel, where as Pres and Protean is extremly rare and would be very clumsey to make a crypt out of (prev to Bloodlines)effectivley. Chi/ Ser ? Haven't seen this work yet. While I understand that there are vamps that have these discepline sets, making a crypt out of them would prove to be challanging at best, tragic at worst. The difference is that the four new vamps I have access to from the CamEd appear to have interesting new sets that appear to meld well together. Not necessarily dramatically better, but an apperent marked improvement. IMHO > > > Something along the lines of a tweaked: > > http://www.thelasombra.com/decks/np.htm It's really interesting to see a reference to the " new Thoughts Betrayed" I feel all nostalgic now... Thank you. Btw: The deck looks pretty solid, I used one very simular to it just after Ancient hearts came out many years ago...This was when Tomb was still bent 90 degrees. I feel old now ; P Pc.

James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote in message news:<Lmk2muMA...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk>... > In message <gmUY8.77997$JU3.31...@e3500-atl1.usenetserver.com>, > XZealot <x_ze...@bellsouth.net> writes: > >Note that it says during a referendum. This means he can use his power > >during bloodhunts. That is huge! Here come that Pot/For Nossie Marching > >Army of Amarath. > > Hugest in Camarilla Edition games, or limited draft, mostly. > True. What I also like, is that when people see a nossie vote deck hit the table, they will probably NOT influence out their prince, if they can avoid it. Ha! Decks afraid of the Nossie blackmail! Tobias Deventer

>> Do you think that Freak Drive will now include a clause limiting a vampire >> to 1 freak drive/per turn? >> I have often wondered if that was a possibility. Course if it was >limited, >> it should cost nothing to be in line with domain of evernight. Maybe because Domain of Evernight requires the superior version of an extremely scarce discipline (Temporis), while Freak Drive just requires some degree of Fortitude? Thus it would be difficult for lots of vampires to be abusing Domain (since only three can normally play it at superior), while a whole lot of vampires can do Freak Drive tricks? >What would be the point? Isn't that why we have the NRA rule? > >In my opinion, Freak Drive is essentially balanced at 1 blood >and no restriction. NRA exists to balance it (and Majesty and >so on and so forth). With the exception of Archon shenanigans that we all managed to overlook, I do agree that the *old* NRA balanced Freak Drive. But I'm really not sure about the new one, since it feels like it opens the door on all sorts of untap abuses. And I'm still annoyed on how it will be nearly impossible to stop a (rescue other from torpor) action. Ramiel rescues Anson from torpor. You blocked? I majesty untap and try again. You block again? I majesty untap and try again. Out of intercept/untap? Too bad. Same thing with Camille rescuing Angus but she Freak Drives after every block. Only Animalism intercept (with Cat's Guidance and some of the newer BL cards) might have *any* chance of stopping the eventual rescue action. Sounds really cheesy to me... Halcyan 2 who really hates cheese! (mozzarella on pizza is like the only type I can actually eat...).

>I think they're aware of that. What they plan to fix/avoid it, >I don't know, but hopefully something. I'm sure you've noticed >that there are no Caitiff in CE; looks to me like there will at >least be very little *help* for weenies. Which could just mean that some of the Caitiffs will appear in the starters like how some of the Pander appeared in the SW starters (maybe Magdelena in the Tremere starter?). Alternatively, maybe White Wolf decided that just like with the Gangrel, it might be better suited to simply delay the Caitiff and move them to the Anarch set? Halcyan 2

In message <818c06e0.02071...@posting.google.com>, Sacha <paul...@hotmail.com> writes: >Yes, you are correct Sheldon and many other origional Vtes vamps are >very good. I don't dispute this an any way (my personal fav is Anvil) >however, my point is that Sabbat Vamps seem to have (more often )or >post Sabbat vamps tend to have more relevent skill splits. Ie: out of >clan Disciplines like presence and protean are rare and mostly >irrelevent until Sabbat and Bloodlines came around. > >I supose it's a little hard to state my case as one person's idea of a >relevent discapline split would be folly in another person's eye. But >hopefully you get the idea. It would be interesting to see you bring up a couple of vampires from the Sabbat with a paragraph of explanation why you think they're relevant, and a couple of vampires from wherever where you think they're less relevant. It's also worth bearing in mind that being able to bring in an out of clan discipline, if it comes up a few times (like Nosferatus with Fortitude or Gangrel with Potence), can open up interesting possibilities. Protean is good for Form of Mist, for instance, or Flesh of Marble. Presence is good for bleed. Dominate (e.g. the EuroBrujah - a deck with a fixation on, say, Anvil, Theo Bell, Donal o' Connor and Constanza Vinti) stands a good chance of being able to defend against bleed decks. I do agree, of course, that some of the vampires who are the only big vampire with their discipline are a bit more difficult to use. [ quoted text not captured ]

Halcyan 2 wrote: > And I'm still annoyed on how it will be nearly impossible to stop a (rescue > other from torpor) action. Ramiel rescues Anson from torpor. You blocked? I > majesty untap and try again. You block again? I majesty untap and try again. > Out of intercept/untap? Too bad. Same thing with Camille rescuing Angus but she > Freak Drives after every block. Only Animalism intercept (with Cat's Guidance > and some of the newer BL cards) might have *any* chance of stopping the > eventual rescue action. Sounds really cheesy to me... Every additional rescue attempt costs a blood and a card from hand (for Majestic/Freaky untap, that is). How is this cheesier than Mirror Image, Shadow Body, or misc. BL S:CE+cont cards? I'd even call it less cheesy than Forgotten Labyrinth (doesn't leave the would-be blocker tapped unless he woke, but doesn't risk combat, either.). -- 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/

Rob Treasure wrote: > What does puzzle me is the shift toward mid-cap and weenies that this > change alone will cause. Hamstringing such a key card, whilst > understandable, *will* have significant ripples throughout the game. Of the 110 tournament-winning decks in the Tournament Winning Deck Archive since July 2001, 16 (15%) used The Fifth Tradition. Of the 40 tournament-winning decks between July 2000 and June 2001, 10 (25%) used The Fifth Tradition. (holy shit i am bored) While the total number of winning decks using The Fifth Tradition is on the rise, the percentage of winning decks is dropping, suggesting a pre-existing shift away from those sorts of decks. There's also the really cool trend of there being gobs more tournaments. :) Is there a pre-existing shift towards mid-cap and weenie decks? Checking the Tournament Winning Deck Archive, sorted by average capacity: (oh please let the formatting work) July 2000 - June 2001 July 2001 - Current < 3.0 3 (7.5%) 9 (8.2%) 3.0-3.9 5 (12.5%) 13 (11.8%) 4.0-4.9 2 (5%) 15 (13.6%) 5.0-5.9 13 (32.5%) 16 (14.5%) 6.0-6.9 11 (27.5%) 24 (21.8%) 7.0-7.9 3 (7.5%) 20 (18.2%) 8.0+ 3 (7.5) 11 (10%) So, in the past year, we've seen a flattening of the curve, with decreases in the percentages of winning decks in the mid-cap ranges, but increases in the small-cap and large-cap ranges. Given that we've seen a decrease in the percentage of winning decks that use The Fifth Tradition, I think we're seeing that players are finding ways to use the larger-capacity non-Camarilla vampires. As such, I don't get the impression that the rumored change to The Fifth Tradition (and The Second Tradition) will cause a significant shift to smaller vampires. It also makes me wonder if a change to the card is even warranted. For those who care (and because I have the data in front of me), here's the breakdown of winning decks using The Fifth Tradition by nation: July 2001 - Current USA: 9 Canada: 2 UK: 2 Finland: 1 Portugal: 1 Mexico: 1 July 2000 - June 2001 USA: 5 UK: 3 (2 were Rob Treasure) :) Canada: 1 Germany: 1 It looks reasonably spread out to me. *shrug* > On another card topic, I like the new 'empowering' of Archon. A few > nasty decks possible with the now uncommon Freak Drive (Basila death > multi-rush sandwiches anyone ?), again subtle shifts toward combat > (Concealed Weapon, Archon, 5th slapping) as we saw in Sabbat War. Yeah, 'cause there's nothing more fun than something that's completely iterative. *rolls eyes* :) I guess we'll see soon enough whether Archon will be subject to the new NDA rule. > Then again, a lot IS being changed at once and I agree with many that > the game won't be the same. It only remains to be seen whether it will > still be a game that delights and stimulates the same ? Hmmmmmm. The game is already a lot different than it was, pre-White-Wolf, and I've had more fun with it in the past two years than I've ever had. I've been amazed at the variety of successful decks I've seen, and I don't forsee that changing. > Oh... and don't quit just yet Sorrow, wait and see after the dust > settles. I wanna play more games with you man :o) Agreed. :) - Ben Peal, Prince of Boston fu...@mindstorm.com

fu...@optical.mindstorm.com (Ben Peal) wrote in message news:<bf72a12e.02071...@posting.google.com>... > Rob Treasure wrote: > > What does puzzle me is the shift toward mid-cap and weenies that this > > change alone will cause. Hamstringing such a key card, whilst > > understandable, *will* have significant ripples throughout the game. > > Of the 110 tournament-winning decks in the Tournament Winning Deck > Archive since July 2001, 16 (15%) used The Fifth Tradition. Of the > 40 tournament-winning decks between July 2000 and June 2001, 10 (25%) > used The Fifth Tradition. (holy shit i am bored) Two words: FINAL NIGHTS. One more: BLOODLINES Since Final nights was introduced in June 2001, 2 Assamite, 4 Followers of Set, 4 Giovanni, and 1 Ravnos deck have been victorious. Considering Final Nights, only 2 Assamite and 2 Followers of Set decks had ever been victorious, this is significant. None of these decks had Fifth Tradition. While I am not really keen on the Fifth Tradition change myself (would be nice if it could just target only another vampire, instead of acting vamp...I like elegance rather than arbitrariness), I am concerned what the cumulative effect the changes on all the Traditions (and other cards) will have. I'm sure we'll find out quickly. ;) > While the total number of winning decks using The Fifth Tradition is > on the rise, the percentage of winning decks is dropping, suggesting > a pre-existing shift away from those sorts of decks. I would be curious what percentage of Camarilla-based decks used Fifth Tradition. If it got to the point that it was practically necessary to play Princes/Traditions to play Camarilla (not necessarily true, but they are helpful), then perhaps the Camarilla traditions did need a shake-up. Seems to me that White Wolf's development team is methodically working through the VTES universe and fixing things up as they come. It's probably a good thing they worked "backwards" (Cammie, Indie, Indie, Sabbat, Sabbat, Indie, Bloodlines, Cammie) to hit the clans which needed the most help first. > July 2000 - June 2001 July 2001 - Current > > < 3.0 3 (7.5%) 9 (8.2%) > 3.0-3.9 5 (12.5%) 13 (11.8%) > 4.0-4.9 2 (5%) 15 (13.6%) > 5.0-5.9 13 (32.5%) 16 (14.5%) > 6.0-6.9 11 (27.5%) 24 (21.8%) > 7.0-7.9 3 (7.5%) 20 (18.2%) > 8.0+ 3 (7.5) 11 (10%) > > So, in the past year, we've seen a flattening of the curve, with > decreases in the percentages of winning decks in the mid-cap ranges, > but increases in the small-cap and large-cap ranges. I wonder whether this happened simultaneously, or whether the rise in large-cap decks contributed to the rise in small-cap weenie hordes (interesting how that works, isn't it?). > Given that > we've seen a decrease in the percentage of winning decks that use > The Fifth Tradition, I think we're seeing that players are finding > ways to use the larger-capacity non-Camarilla vampires. As such, > I don't get the impression that the rumored change to The Fifth > Tradition (and The Second Tradition) will cause a significant > shift to smaller vampires. It also makes me wonder if a change > to the card is even warranted. We've seen a taste of the new big Camarilla vampires to come and they are VERY POWERFUL compared to existing vampires of approximate capacity. I can see where allowing them to fill to capacity quickly could be construed as giving them an even bigger advantage. I'm more concerned that we'll start seeing lots of combat decks again now that we'll have fresh supplies of Torn Signposts, Immortal Grapples and Freak Drives around (FD will just give people more reasons to play with Fortitude, which naturally goes with certain combat archetypes). Jeff

"Ben Peal" <fu...@optical.mindstorm.com> wrote in message news:bf72a12e.02071...@posting.google.com... [Freaky Archon] > I guess we'll see soon enough whether Archon will be subject to the > new ***NDA*** rule. Interesting slip. :) (*** emphasis mine) Oh yeah, and I finally got that TWD-discipline thing done that I started in January. And then stupid Ben has to go and win with another clan-based deck. Oh wait, I'll just add it in right now. :) Xian

In message <621dd332.02071...@posting.google.com>, Jeff Kuta <jeff...@hotmail.com> writes: >We've seen a taste of the new big Camarilla vampires to come and they >are VERY POWERFUL compared to some >existing vampires of approximate >capacity. There are just some plain bad vampires out there. [ quoted text not captured ]

Xian wrote: > Ben Peal wrote: > [Freaky Archon] > > I guess we'll see soon enough whether Archon will be subject to the > > new ***NDA*** rule. > > Interesting slip. :) *laugh* Whoops. I guess my nerves are still frayed. :) > Oh yeah, and I finally got that TWD-discipline thing done that I started in > January. And then stupid Ben has to go and win with another clan-based deck. > Oh wait, I'll just add it in right now. :) Oddly, Lasombra Jeff hasn't added it to the Tournament Winning Deck Archive, despite adding Lance Shope's, which was posted later. Grrr. End the discrimination against the Roma! ;) [ quoted text not captured ]

"Ben Peal" <fu...@optical.mindstorm.com> wrote in message news:bf72a12e.02071...@posting.google.com... > Xian wrote: > > And then stupid Ben has to go and win with another clan-based deck. > > Oh wait, I'll just add it in right now. :) > > Oddly, Lasombra Jeff hasn't added it to the Tournament Winning Deck > Archive, despite adding Lance Shope's, which was posted later. Grrr. > > End the discrimination against the Roma! Yer talking RADAR X-5000? It was an 8-person tournament, right? TheLasombra only archives decks from tournaments of 10 or more. Not VEKN's standard for sanctioning but it's his archive, so... Of course, the real reason is probably to keep the brother man down. :-) Josh give the poor man a break

James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote in message news:<qS1+7eMG...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk>... > I do agree, of course, that some of the vampires who are the only big > vampire with their discipline are a bit more difficult to use. I've found that you really don't need more than one or two vampires with a certain group of skills to include said skills in your deck. I have a weenie tremere/gargoyle deck that blocks and plays collapse the arches a lot. I've found it had trouble ousting (even with my dominate governs forward). Then I saw Thomas Thorne, my main fellow) has animalism so I included 3 army of rats. And because Hesha Ruhadze is in every deck of my FoS I usually include an army of rats or two also. OOC disc. are easier to use than you think. ~SV

>Yer talking RADAR X-5000? It was an 8-person tournament, right? >TheLasombra only archives decks from tournaments of 10 or more. >Not VEKN's standard for sanctioning but it's his archive, so... > >Of course, the real reason is probably to keep the brother man >down. And, I'm pretty sure the tournament winning Samedi deck from one of our tournaments wasn't added due to some combination of substitute finalists (for those who dropped after the last prelim) and/or the final table timing out with no ousts. I'm sure there are all sorts of tournament winning decks that aren't in the archive, often due to no one mentioning them somewhere The Lasombra sees.

Joshua Duffin > Ben Peal wrote: > > Xian wrote: > > > And then stupid Ben has to go and win with another clan-based deck. > > > Oh wait, I'll just add it in right now. :) > > > > Oddly, Lasombra Jeff hasn't added it to the Tournament Winning Deck > > Archive, despite adding Lance Shope's, which was posted later. Grrr. > > > > End the discrimination against the Roma! > > Yer talking RADAR X-5000? It was an 8-person tournament, right? > TheLasombra only archives decks from tournaments of 10 or more. > Not VEKN's standard for sanctioning but it's his archive, so... You have got to be fucking kidding me. The first time I won with a Ravnos deck, it totally met the qualifications for being in the TWD Archive, but Jeff decided out of the blue that he wasn't going to list Storyline tournament decks. Now I find out that my new Ravnos deck won't be in the archive because the tournament was too small... This is too stupid. Here's a link to the decklist, you bastards: http://www.mindstorm.com/~fudjo/decks/radar_X-5000 Sorry, Xian, but I guess you gotta re-calcucate your discipline stats... Jeff, _all_ sanctioned tournament winners in the archive. They won tournaments. That makes them tournament winners. End of story. [ quoted text not captured ]

"Ben Peal" <fu...@optical.mindstorm.com> wrote in message news:bf72a12e.02071...@posting.google.com... [10-person limit] > You have got to be fucking kidding me. > > The first time I won with a Ravnos deck, it totally met the qualifications > for being in the TWD Archive, but Jeff decided out of the blue that he > wasn't going to list Storyline tournament decks. Hmm. I understand his reasoning on all counts. Not that an 8-person tournament isn't valid, but it makes sense to me. Of course, I'd like to see it changed. :) > Sorry, Xian, but I guess you gotta re-calcucate your discipline stats... Radar-X 5000, cut. The percentages listed were with Radar-X 5000, because I took the listing off the newsgroup/rustwurk (one of the two). Much as I agree with the sentiment that all TWD decks should be in the archive, I'd rather go with something that is going to be consistent, and can be checked for accuracy. > Jeff, _all_ sanctioned tournament winners in the archive. They won > tournaments. That makes them tournament winners. End of story. I would agree with this, but hey, if Jeff doesn't want to update the archive that much, it's up to him. It's got to be something of a pain in the ass. That being said, if you do update it, Jeff, would it be possible to have a [new] tag for the ones that would be retroactively added? :) Xian

In message <f987c6cd.02071...@posting.google.com>, vermillian <vermil...@yahoo.com> writes: >> I do agree, of course, that some of the vampires who are the only big >> vampire with their discipline are a bit more difficult to use. > >I've found that you really don't need more than one or two vampires >with a certain group of skills to include said skills in your deck. I did only say a bit! >I have a weenie tremere/gargoyle deck that blocks and plays collapse >the arches a lot. If you can bring in !Tremere, Spirit Summoning Chamber has potential for fetching Vis. cards that use Thaumaturgy at fallback (since, when in the library, they can be considered to require either discipline, as appropriate). (ELDB has Conscripted Statue down as not having a fallback, but I don't have a copy on hand to double check.) >I've found it had trouble ousting (even with my >dominate governs forward). Then I saw Thomas Thorne, my main fellow) >has animalism so I included 3 army of rats. Ferox has "ani" too, if he figures in your deck. Unfortunately, the Tre and !Tre have little else to offer. You could, however, include an Ani card or two in the deck. Create Gargoyle could make it fun. >And because Hesha Ruhadze is in every deck of my FoS I usually include >an army of rats or two also. Aisha is fun too - a really nice vampire. The lack of Obf is sometimes annoying, unfortunately, but Opium Den can provide cheap Setite stealth anyway. >OOC disc. are easier to use than you think. It depends on doubling up etc. I'd be wary about using them if it was only, say, two copies of a vampire in a twelve vampire crypt. -- James Coupe PGP 0x5D623D5D You don't need to hear it but I'm dried up EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 and sick to death of love. 13D7E668C3695D623D5D

> OOC disc. are easier to use than you think. > > ~SV Certainly you are correct. It is impossible to say that you could not splash in a 4th or fifth out of clan discapline, however in certain cases with the "old school" Cam occationally you will see the older large caps exibit some less useful out of clan skills. Say for example you have several vamps with say Cel Pot , in verying combinations of sup and inf. Each of these vamps may or may not have additional skills that may or may not be usefull as a splash disipline. To be more specific, you are attempting to chose the vamps that will go your new "beat the hell out of em" Bruja deck, and are coming to the final cuts. Given the following list, which would you choose? For this excercise, the theme of the deck would be a focused rush combat deck: You need to considder both defence as well as offence. Donal O'Connor <POT DOM CEL> 8 Taura Vaughn <dom PRES POT CEL> 8 Miranda Sanova <aus obf pot PRES CEL> 8 While there is nothing wrong with any one of these three vamps, unless you are attempting to prove a point, generally Miranda will not often make the cut. In fact in most cases, she would be probubly be passed over for a !Bruja rather than include her. Personally I have never used her in anything other than in Bruja political decks...and then not that often. Certainly you could argue that Miranda has an excellent discipline spread and state that she would fit beautifully when attemptempting to make up for the Bruja's lack of intercept and stealth, however there are definatly not enough Bruja with these skills to make them usefull. I personally wouldn't bother including Behind You's and Enhanced Senses based on this one vamp. Instead you might notice that Both Donol and Taura have dom, infact many other Bruja have dom instead and in addition to traditional pres in clan. Donal has it at sup and Taura at inf. At this point I would cut Taura Could this lead to a theme? Rather than attempting to keep up with those nasty stealth bleed decks, make them usefull to you. Get them to bleed your prey for you. Happy!! Add to this ridiculas bleed and (I could go on and on about the versitillity of dom) you get the point. And suddenly EuroBruja is born. I guess this is a counter point to my own argument as dom is an out of clan discp, however it takes three vamps from Dark Soverighn's to make this deck feasible. Additionally Theo usally gets put in this deck. So perhaps it actually lends some strength and credibillity. You decide. Of course there are a million counters to this as it is easy to include multiple skills and splits over many clans (especially post blood lines) but in my opinion there is a disperity between the origional Vtes and Jyhad sets vamps versus say the Sabbat clans that tend to be more highly focused and efficient. For an example of this we could examine the !Bruja in the same capacity range. This will fall a little short as there is currently only one !Bruja with the matching capacity, but Jacko is nothing short of a killing machine. He works well in just about any pot deck that breaks things and hurts people. A thousand times over I would chose Jacko for the above deck over Miranda. As an aside, how easy is it to build a deck with 12 copies of Lambach or Lasvernius? I've done both and disgusted my friends with them... There are tourney winning decks based on at least Lambach that I've seen on Lasombra's sight. I haven't botherd to search for Lasvernus, but doing this would not be differcult (especially with the up coming multirush concept, I shudder to think about the possibillities that you could do with this beast) perhaps even easy post CamEd. Another terrific example would be say Alyea, she works just as well in a Lasombra deck as !Tremere. The examples go on and on, but the examples of the Cam super characters are a little more lean (imo) even though there are many more Cam vamps than Sabbat. I guess this can be attributed to the fact that they use a different formula for creating the origional Vtes critters and newer vamps, but this is kind of the point. Enough rambling, these are entirely opinion on my part, I would be interested in hearing other's opinions pre and post Cam. This could be truly interesting. Pc.`

On 18 Jul 2002 14:57:32 -0700, fu...@optical.mindstorm.com (Ben Peal) wrote: > Jeff, _all_ sanctioned tournament winners in the archive. They won > tournaments. That makes them tournament winners. End of story. No. You want them archived, you archive them. I archive decks that have won sanctioned tournaments with 10 or more players. You want me to remove some material that you created that is archived on my site, and it is gone. You get no other options on what I archive and what I don't.

In message <818c06e0.02071...@posting.google.com>, Sacha <paul...@hotmail.com> writes: >It is impossible to say that you could not splash in a 4th or fifth >out of clan discapline, however in certain cases with the "old school" >Cam occationally you will see the older large caps exibit some less >useful out of clan skills. The point tended to regard single vampire splashing. (e.g. using Thomas Thorne for his Animalism, when no-one else had it.) The field of using multiple vampires with a common out-of-clan discipline (e.g. the Eurobrujah, Theo Bell etc.) is already well established and well documented. The 'difficulty' that I was noting was, say, looking at the Toreador. Ooh, Francois Villon. Inferior chimerstry. Well, AUS CEL chi obf pot PRE doesn't mesh well with the Ravnos, so a cross-over deck is difficult. But being the only Toreador with Chimerstry, using it in a clan-based deck may prove difficult. -- James Coupe [ quoted text not captured ]

Ben Peal wrote Sent: Wednesday, July 17, 2002 7:56 PM Subject: Re: I need my VTES fix!! > Rob Treasure wrote: > > What does puzzle me is the shift toward mid-cap and weenies that this > > change alone will cause. Hamstringing such a key card, whilst > > understandable, *will* have significant ripples throughout the game. > > Of the 110 tournament-winning decks in the Tournament Winning Deck > Archive since July 2001, 16 (15%) used The Fifth Tradition. Of the > 40 tournament-winning decks between July 2000 and June 2001, 10 (25%) > used The Fifth Tradition. (holy shit i am bored) I see what you mean but I don't usually put a lot of truck in using the winning decks as an overall gauge of what is about at any given time. I find that in general, the winning deck at any given tourney is not indicative of the 'feel' of a tourney. i.e.. a tourney with a lot of sneaky bleed is not *usually* won by a sneak and bleed deck. It follows (in my experience at least!) that the amount / type of other decks at a tourney are a much better measure of the current trends and form. Obviously this is extremely difficult to quantify but have a look at the next tourney you are at, its a pretty interesting observation to make. It really does not take a lot extra of one type to create a feeling of a 'combat tourney' or a 'vote heavy tourney', players will obviously have different opinions of the tourney because of seating, deck type, play styles etc. but in general I reckon you can see a pattern of non-conformist deck type's winning tourneys. Anyway I digress. > While the total number of winning decks using The Fifth Tradition is > on the rise, the percentage of winning decks is dropping, suggesting > a pre-existing shift away from those sorts of decks. Hmmmm. Agreed, again I think this could easily be attributed to players 'trying out' all the new toys as you mention later. I think the shift in the pattern I mentioned might come 6 mths or a year down the line, but players will slowly find / realise that no matter how good the new vamps are they cannot compete with the minion advantage that weenies provide. A bit of a wild statement but simple facts point this out to me - 5th *may* no longer be available as a 'staple' fill-up in a lot of decks that use big vamp powers with multiple actions or cards that grant action rich (and blood intensive) effects such as Force of Will. Minion Tap / 5th will no longer be a viable and competitive option which IMO is one of the main defences that the larger cap decks have when facing overwhelming numbers. Then again, playing devil's advocate to my own ramblings leads me to look at Sabbat and Indies as an opposing case to this argument. The larger vamps of the Sabbat and a lot of the Independents are being used very well without such a powerful instant gain card. Why is this? Thinking back to my own creations, I have always been much more aware of cumulative card costs and the resultant problems in non-camarilla decks simply because of the lack of 5th. At present I think the Camarilla are still *more* powerful (but more importantly have more access to more powerful effects) than the other sects. If the other rumours are to be believed, 2nd Trad., Hostile Takeover, Majesty and ToGP have all had depowering text changes which, whatever your opinion on the new set is *will* change the game. With Sabbat/SW we saw a much better balance of vamps, in that Jyhad/VTES was subject to quite a few miscosted and quite frankly shit high cap vamps. This has slowly led to more decks being created with the 'good value' Sabbat vamps (Prisci, stock 7, 8 caps like Meschenka and Gratiano) and more recently Final Nights and Bloodlines vamps in which all the exciting new ones were nearly all mid to high cap (and quite rightly so). Take the example of a powerful Camarilla archetype 'the Ventrue Law firm' in its various incarnations. The amount of changes that the library of this deck would go through is worrying. *A lot* of increased costs would arise from Majesty, 2nd Trad etc. whilst the potential for blood gain (and subsequently combat survival) would decrease drastically. These 'classic' archetypes become less appealing and less powerful as the space needed to counter these negative effects can only detract from the decks effectiveness. For me, it follows (stay with me :o) that players will find alternatives to try and win tourneys with and these will be lower capacity decks of Camarilla vamps *not* reliant on 5th for blood gain and the same, if not more decks of the Sabbat and Indie mid caps. As an aside, I think we will see an increase in disposable vamp decks of all sorts. I would expect Minion Tap (a few turns of frantic use) and then Golconda to become a much more prevalent (and potent) strategy. > There's also the really cool trend of there being gobs more > tournaments. :) Yep, this is great isn't it ? I'm in a bit of a 'career break' for a few months to recover after George being born but I'm going to hit the tourney scene hard again soon. We have a tourney most weekends over here now which is very cool, all within an hour or twos travel as well. > Is there a pre-existing shift towards mid-cap and weenie decks? > Checking the Tournament Winning Deck Archive, sorted by average > capacity: (oh please let the formatting work) > > July 2000 - June 2001 July 2001 - Current > > < 3.0 3 (7.5%) 9 (8.2%) > 3.0-3.9 5 (12.5%) 13 (11.8%) > 4.0-4.9 2 (5%) 15 (13.6%) > 5.0-5.9 13 (32.5%) 16 (14.5%) > 6.0-6.9 11 (27.5%) 24 (21.8%) > 7.0-7.9 3 (7.5%) 20 (18.2%) > 8.0+ 3 (7.5) 11 (10%) > > So, in the past year, we've seen a flattening of the curve, with > decreases in the percentages of winning decks in the mid-cap ranges, > but increases in the small-cap and large-cap ranges. Given that > we've seen a decrease in the percentage of winning decks that use > The Fifth Tradition, I think we're seeing that players are finding > ways to use the larger-capacity non-Camarilla vampires. As such, > I don't get the impression that the rumored change to The Fifth > Tradition (and The Second Tradition) will cause a significant > shift to smaller vampires. It also makes me wonder if a change > to the card is even warranted. [snip] > > Then again, a lot IS being changed at once and I agree with many that > > the game won't be the same. It only remains to be seen whether it will > > still be a game that delights and stimulates the same ? Hmmmmmm. > > The game is already a lot different than it was, pre-White-Wolf, > and I've had more fun with it in the past two years than I've ever > had. I've been amazed at the variety of successful decks I've > seen, and I don't forsee that changing. True enough, the new cards have been good for the game and putting faith in WW for previous achievement should be a given *but* this is the base set we are discussing. In theory, the first port of call for new players and a renewed source of inspiration and ideas for old players. It needs to be very good. > > Oh... and don't quit just yet Sorrow, wait and see after the dust > > settles. I wanna play more games with you man :o) > > Agreed. :) Would he have to ditch all his Black T-shirts and go with some plait or corduroy if he quit VTES ? :o) Thanks for your comments Ben. Rob

The Lasombra wrote: > You want them archived, you archive them. > I archive decks that have won sanctioned tournaments with 10 or more > players. Incorrect. UBCon April 1997 - 8 players Crusade: Washington DC November 1997 - no info on # of players (2 tables?) Praxis Seizure Toronto March 1998 - 9 players Crusade Ithaca May 1998 - 8 players I'm not bored enough to continue looking beyond GenConUK of 1998. You're right. You can and will do whatever you want with your own site, and I can't say otherwise. However, understand that you've created an extremely useful resource, and that people have used it and will continue to use it as a statistical reference. Not including the smaller tournaments skews that data. I also think it does about as much for players as the V:EKN Ratings, in that they get some recognition and get to see their name in lights. In the interests of promoting the game in "developing" areas, it'd be cool to see the smaller tournaments listed. I'm definitely interested in hosting a comprehensive Tournament Winning Deck archive. Can you provide any info on tounaments you've passed over? I've got a lot of work ahead of me. :) [ quoted text not captured ]

Rob Treasure wrote: > I see what you mean but I don't usually put a lot of truck in using > the winning decks as an overall gauge of what is about at any given > time. I find that in general, the winning deck at any given tourney is > not indicative of the 'feel' of a tourney. i.e.. a tourney with a lot > of sneaky bleed is not *usually* won by a sneak and bleed deck. > > It follows (in my experience at least!) that the amount / type of > other decks at a tourney are a much better measure of the current > trends and form. Obviously this is extremely difficult to quantify but > have a look at the next tourney you are at, its a pretty interesting > observation to make. It really does not take a lot extra of one type > to create a feeling of a 'combat tourney' or a 'vote heavy tourney', > players will obviously have different opinions of the tourney because > of seating, deck type, play styles etc. but in general I reckon you > can see a pattern of non-conformist deck type's winning tourneys. It seems to me that it's a bit of the "chicken and egg" problem. To what extent are the winning decks a factor of the metagame, and to what extent is the metagame a factor of the decks that have previously won? Part of the reason why I focussed on winning decks is that they represent most of the information we have about the kinds of decks that are present at tournaments. The other part of the reason, however, is that they represent what is succeeding at tournaments, which in my mind represents the state of the balance of power in the game. So I do agree that while the trend for winning decks seems to have already shifted slightly away from Prince-based decks, the global metagame trend may very well be different. From what I read and heard of the European Championships last year, the event was apparently overwhelmingly consisting of Prince-based decks, though won by the non-conformist Derange-based deck by Joscha Duell (sp?). On the flip side, I asked Legbiter a while back on the newsgroup about what the state of the UK metagame is, since the winners of UK tournaments have overwhelmingly been Camarilla-based decks. His answer was that there's a considerable amount of non-Camarilla running around in the UK. :) > > While the total number of winning decks using The Fifth Tradition is > > on the rise, the percentage of winning decks is dropping, suggesting > > a pre-existing shift away from those sorts of decks. > > Hmmmm. Agreed, again I think this could easily be attributed to > players 'trying out' all the new toys as you mention later. > I think the shift in the pattern I mentioned might come 6 mths or a > year down the line, but players will slowly find / realise that no matter > how good the new vamps are they cannot compete with the minion advantage > that weenies provide. A bit of a wild statement but simple facts point > this out to me - 5th *may* no longer be available as a 'staple' > fill-up in a lot of decks that use big vamp powers with multiple > actions or cards that grant action rich (and blood intensive) effects > such as Force of Will. Minion Tap / 5th will no longer be a viable and > competitive option which IMO is one of the main defences that the > larger cap decks have when facing overwhelming numbers. > > Then again, playing devil's advocate to my own ramblings leads me to > look at Sabbat and Indies as an opposing case to this argument. The > larger vamps of the Sabbat and a lot of the Independents are being > used very well without such a powerful instant gain card. Why is this? Just look at the cards that help gain a minion-count advantage. Wakes. Untap. Bleed reduction. Bleed bounce. Combine it with pool+transfer gain effects such as Govern/Scouting/Enchant Kindred and Powerbase: Montreal. Many of the decks include some combat in order to whack down some of the moles. The non-Camarilla-based decks are using all of this to successfully defend themselves against weenie hordes and stealth-bleed decks. I also think that these defensive techniques have a lot to do with why the metagame (at least in the US) has shifted more towards combat, in order to try to break through these walls. > Take the example of a powerful Camarilla archetype 'the Ventrue Law > firm' in its various incarnations. Is Derek Ray typing for you? ;) > The amount of changes that the library of this deck would go through > is worrying. *A lot* of increased costs would arise from Majesty, > 2nd Trad etc. whilst the potential for blood gain (and subsequently > combat survival) would decrease drastically. These 'classic' archetypes > become less appealing and less powerful as the space needed to counter > these negative effects can only detract from the decks effectiveness. > For me, it follows (stay with me :o) that players will find alternatives > to try and win tourneys with and these will be lower capacity decks of > Camarilla vamps *not* reliant on 5th for blood gain and the same, if > not more decks of the Sabbat and Indie mid caps. I'm not sure that it follows in that way. We've already seen a well-demonstrated ability to be successful with large, non-Camarilla vampires. Wouldn't it follow that players would attempt to adopt the same techniques used by the large non-Cam decks into their Camarilla decks? Of the "classic" archetypes, which do you see as being changed significantly? The Ventrue Law Firm is one of them, and perhaps Nosferatu Vote 'n Bloat. I don't see the EuroBrujah changing significantly, as they tend to be more Taste-based. Maybe we'll just see more Voter Caps out of the Ventrue. *shrug* > > There's also the really cool trend of there being gobs more > > tournaments. :) > > Yep, this is great isn't it ? I'm in a bit of a 'career break' for a > few months to recover after George being born but I'm going to hit the > tourney scene hard again soon. We have a tourney most weekends over > here now which is very cool, all within an hour or twos travel as > well. Rock on! I can't wait to read the reports! :) And good luck with George! > > > Oh... and don't quit just yet Sorrow, wait and see after the dust > > > settles. I wanna play more games with you man :o) > > > > Agreed. :) > > Would he have to ditch all his Black T-shirts and go with some plait > or corduroy if he quit VTES ? > :o) *shudder* :) > Thanks for your comments Ben. Thanks for yours! :) - Ben Peal, Prince of Boston fu...@mindstorm.com * note that we Americans need bigger, less fuel-efficient double-quotes.

On 19 Jul 2002 10:32:10 -0700, fu...@optical.mindstorm.com (Ben Peal) wrote: > I'm definitely interested in hosting a comprehensive Tournament Winning > Deck archive. Can you provide any info on tounaments you've passed > over? All of the decks posted to this newsgroup since March of 2001 are collected here: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/rgtcjdeckarchive/ Around the same time, I stopped archiving TWD for tournaments with fewer than 10 people. If you keeps the limits as the same as for sanctioning, you will have tournament winning decks for decks that won 4 or 5 player tournaments. This is not a useful piece of information. You have to set a standard somewhere, the somewhere I chose is two full tables. I first constructed the archive by searching Deja News for the following: tournament deck rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad That filters down pretty easily. Some will slip through the cracks. The only way to be a truly comprehensive TWD archive is to require the princes who are submitting their archons to include the TWD with the archon on the notes page. There will never be a truly comprehensive TWD archive until then. Good luck on your quest. Carpe noctem. Lasombra http://www.TheLasombra.com/decks/twd.htm

"Ben Peal" <fu...@optical.mindstorm.com> wrote in message news:bf72a12e.02071...@posting.google.com... [lots of stuff snipped] > Part of the reason why I focussed on winning decks is that they > represent most of the information we have about the kinds of decks > that are present at tournaments. The other part of the reason, > however, is that they represent what is succeeding at tournaments, > which in my mind represents the state of the balance of power in > the game. Slightly incorrect. Those Tournament Winning decks represent what is succeeding at tournaments *in those areas*. Believe me, if most people went up to Michigan, they would almost certainly NOT have enough maneuvers to deal with the local metagame. There are also WAY too many Sudden Reversals being played in the Minneapolis area. :) IMHO, only Origins, GenCon, and DragonCon are "national" enough to merit discussion in this fashion. And that doesn't even touch the USA vs European metagame discussion... > Of the "classic" archetypes, which do you see as being changed > significantly? The Ventrue Law Firm is one of them, and perhaps > Nosferatu Vote 'n Bloat. I don't see the EuroBrujah changing > significantly, as they tend to be more Taste-based. Maybe we'll > just see more Voter Caps out of the Ventrue. *shrug* Granted I don't go to a LOT of events, but I haven't seen a non-stealth 'Ventrue Law Firm'-type deck win anything since Tatu lucked into an entire tournament of no intercept at Origins 2001 and finished in the top 5. > > - Ben Peal, Prince of Boston > fu...@mindstorm.com Kevin M., Prince of Madison, WI (USA) "Know your enemy, and know yourself; in one-thousand battles you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, *The Art of War* "Contentment... Complacency... Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier

"Kevin M." <kjme...@PLEASENOSPAMMEcharter.net> wrote in message news:ujhagbr...@corp.supernews.com... > Slightly incorrect. Those Tournament Winning decks represent what is > succeeding at tournaments *in those areas*. Believe me, if most people went > up to Michigan, they would almost certainly NOT have enough maneuvers to deal > with the local metagame. There are also WAY too many Sudden Reversals being > played in the Minneapolis area. :) That reminds me, Kevin. I have this *really great* deck idea that I need a fistful of Sudden Reversals for. :) Seriously. > IMHO, only Origins, GenCon, and DragonCon are "national" enough to merit > discussion in this fashion. And that doesn't even touch the USA vs European > metagame discussion... Probably quite true. Though I have to admit, the NE Regional with, what, like 40+ players has to be considered. :) > Granted I don't go to a LOT of events, but I haven't seen a non-stealth > 'Ventrue Law Firm'-type deck win anything since Tatu lucked into an entire > tournament of no intercept at Origins 2001 and finished in the top 5. Yeah, you gotta wonder about that. Still, I think it sees a *lot* of play casually, and I know people take them to tournaments. They just don't win with them a lot. If you discount that there were 12 Ventrue decks that have won tournaments so far in 2001 and 2002. Of course, two of them only used Presence, and one of them only used Fortitude, so those probably weren't your classic Law Firms. And another five used other non-clan disciplines (mostly OBF), so they aren't your daddy's Law Firm either. :) Xian now with kung-fu action statistics

"Xian" <xi...@waste.org> wrote in message news:<ahab7b$r0hri$1...@ID-123937.news.dfncis.de>... > "Kevin M." <kjme...@PLEASENOSPAMMEcharter.net> wrote in message > news:ujhagbr...@corp.supernews.com... > > Slightly incorrect. Those Tournament Winning decks represent what is > > succeeding at tournaments *in those areas*. Believe me, if most people went > > up to Michigan, they would almost certainly NOT have enough maneuvers to deal > > with the local metagame. There are also WAY too many Sudden Reversals being > > played in the Minneapolis area. :) I've gotta disagree slightly here. A good deck idea is a good deck idea where ever its played. Some huge meta game differences aside (like the SR fest that is our frozen waste land to the north... when are you guys organizing something again?) I think that a deck that is well designed can make do anywhere. Who cares about manuvers when you've got Fortitude for example. > That reminds me, Kevin. I have this *really great* deck idea that I need a > fistful of Sudden Reversals for. :) > > Seriously. Don't do it kevin, its a trick. > > IMHO, only Origins, GenCon, and DragonCon are "national" enough to merit > > discussion in this fashion. And that doesn't even touch the USA vs European > > metagame discussion... > > Probably quite true. Though I have to admit, the NE Regional with, what, like > 40+ players has to be considered. :) I think the very existance of a winning deck archive and tournement reports makes smaller regional tournements somewhat national in character. We all steal ideas from each other. Except Rehlow, but he's nuts. > > Granted I don't go to a LOT of events, but I haven't seen a non-stealth > > 'Ventrue Law Firm'-type deck win anything since Tatu lucked into an entire > > tournament of no intercept at Origins 2001 and finished in the top 5. > > Yeah, you gotta wonder about that. Still, I think it sees a *lot* of play > casually, and I know people take them to tournaments. They just don't win with > them a lot. Yep, I've seen them out there, they just have problems taking successful actions. <sigh>. That and their legendary Nash being eaten. a little intercept doesn't much harm them, but the deck type took a beating from the tzimitze starter. Hence the shift from American jurisprudence (Nash, Crowley and Bridges) for the Queens of Sleaze. > If you discount that there were 12 Ventrue decks that have won tournaments so > far in 2001 and 2002. Of course, two of them only used Presence, and one of > them only used Fortitude, so those probably weren't your classic Law Firms. And > another five used other non-clan disciplines (mostly OBF), so they aren't your > daddy's Law Firm either. slightly OT, mmm... Vitel... <drool> And the Queens of sleaze make a friend. Cameron

>Every additional rescue attempt costs a blood and a card from hand (for >Majestic/Freaky untap, that is). Yes, but those cards are fairly easy to cycle and are extremely useful anyway. From what I've seen, lots of decks don't mind packing in plenty of Majesty/Freak Drives. >How is this cheesier than Mirror Image, Shadow Body, or misc. BL S:CE+cont >cards? Because unless you draw additional stealth, a single Wake or Forced Awakening will shut you down. Vampire A takes an action, Vampire B wakes and blocks. If Vampire A continues the action with Shadow Body or Mirror Image, Vampire B can just block again (without needing to play any additional cards). Vampire A can keep playing "S:CE, action continues" but Vampire B can keep blocking without additional cards. (We can assume for the moment that Vamp A had already used the card for stealth and Vamp B has a Sport Bike, if you're wondering why Vamp A doesn't just use the Shadow Body for stealth...). But with repeated Majesty/Freak Drive, each time you get blocked, you tap the blocker (or use up the Wake) and then do another action. Unless you're playing with Animalism and Cat's Guidance, it's going to be virtually impossible for the other Methusaleh to untap enough times to prevent the action from going through. >I'd even call it less cheesy than Forgotten Labyrinth (doesn't leave >the would-be blocker tapped unless he woke, but doesn't risk combat, >either.). Huh? All this "doesn't leave would-be blocker tapped" makes be think you're referring to Faceless Night? Halcyan 2

Cameron wrote: > "Xian" <xi...@waste.org> wrote in message news:<ahab7b$r0hri$1...@ID-123937.news.dfncis.de>... > >>"Kevin M." <kjme...@PLEASENOSPAMMEcharter.net> wrote in message >>news:ujhagbr...@corp.supernews.com... >> >>>Slightly incorrect. Those Tournament Winning decks represent what is >>>succeeding at tournaments *in those areas*. Believe me, if most people went >>>up to Michigan, they would almost certainly NOT have enough maneuvers to deal >>>with the local metagame. There are also WAY too many Sudden Reversals being >>>played in the Minneapolis area. :) >> > > I've gotta disagree slightly here. A good deck idea is a good deck > idea where ever its played. Some huge meta game differences aside > (like the SR fest that is our frozen waste land to the north... when > are you guys organizing something again?) I think that a deck that is > well designed can make do anywhere. Who cares about manuvers when > you've got Fortitude for example. The Assamites do. A few maneuvers can save you where no amount of Fortitude will. A deck that is well designed can have huge differences in performance depending on the current metagame. For example, I'm sure you know or heard of a few players who always play the same deck, with varying success. I can mention one case of someone who has been playing the same deck (exactly) on tournaments for years now, and has both won and made 0 VPs, depending on the current metagame. Likewise, I've made the finals on many tournaments with decks that couldn't last 5 min on casual tables, and vice-versa. The 90 card limit means you can't have a deck that does everything well, so you'll always be subject to the effects of the metagame. If you toolbox you can become more metagame-independent, but you'll be more subject to luck-of-the-draw. Flux

"Halcyan 2" <halc...@aol.com> wrote in message news:20020720235300...@mb-fy.aol.com... > LSJ wrote: > >I'd even call it less cheesy than Forgotten Labyrinth (doesn't leave > >the would-be blocker tapped unless he woke, but doesn't risk combat, > >either.). > > Huh? All this "doesn't leave would-be blocker tapped" makes be think you're > referring to Faceless Night? No, I believe this is what he was saying... Majesty = "more cheesy" because: - blocking vampire is tapped due to, well, blocking - blocking vampire escapes "free" from combat (I'm reading into it a little here, but without strong combat, Majesty generally equals a "get out of jail free" card) Forgotten Labyrinth = "less cheesy" because: - unsuccessfully blocking vampire is not tapped - there is no combat in the first place Xian tapped

Flux <fl...@netc.pt> wrote in message news:<3D3A8A66...@netc.pt>... > Cameron wrote: > > "Xian" <xi...@waste.org> wrote in message news:<ahab7b$r0hri$1...@ID-123937.news.dfncis.de>... > > > >>"Kevin M." <kjme...@PLEASENOSPAMMEcharter.net> wrote in message > >>news:ujhagbr...@corp.supernews.com... > >> > >>>Slightly incorrect. Those Tournament Winning decks represent what is > >>>succeeding at tournaments *in those areas*. Believe me, if most people went > >>>up to Michigan, they would almost certainly NOT have enough maneuvers to deal > >>>with the local metagame. There are also WAY too many Sudden Reversals being > >>>played in the Minneapolis area. :) > >> > > > > I've gotta disagree slightly here. A good deck idea is a good deck > > idea where ever its played. Some huge meta game differences aside > > (like the SR fest that is our frozen waste land to the north... when > > are you guys organizing something again?) I think that a deck that is > > well designed can make do anywhere. Who cares about manuvers when > > you've got Fortitude for example. > > The Assamites do. A few maneuvers can save you where no amount of > Fortitude will. What, go *TO* long range against the assamites? just to avoid a vascular explosion. Long range is the last place I want to be. But that was just an example. In all reality, a deck should have some type of combat defence, which can vary depending on local playstyles, but will usually try to avoid the major types of combat equally well. Certianly a single player always playing Assamites, say (Hi Dave!) will skew defence into a direction, but it shouldn't mean that a deck starts packing Treaty of Tyre Enforced at tournements. That's just silly. (IMHO) > A deck that is well designed can have huge differences in performance > depending on the current metagame. For example, I'm sure you know or > heard of a few players who always play the same deck, with varying success. > I can mention one case of someone who has been playing the same deck > (exactly) on tournaments for years now, and has both won and made 0 VPs, > depending on the current metagame. > Likewise, I've made the finals on many tournaments with decks that > couldn't last 5 min on casual tables, and vice-versa. In my experiance, a good deck, played by a good player, will usually perform at a tournement nearly independent of *local* considerations. What I'm trying to argue is that the local metagames for tournement play follow the so called national meta game to some extent, and vice-versa. Mainly because stuff is posted here and elsewhere. Turbo Baron is an example. When Rehlow first played it in Madison it did ok in our weekly games, and got to the finals of the first tournement to went to. Instead of simply staying in Madison however, it's spread to other groups and into other tournements. (causeing some irate response like all good decks should.) Rehlow hasn't played elsewhere (until last week) but his ideas have gone as far away as England. So there would appear to me to be a case to be made for local tournements reflecting national trends. > The 90 card limit means you can't have a deck that does everything well, > so you'll always be subject to the effects of the metagame. If you > toolbox you can become more metagame-independent, but you'll be more > subject to luck-of-the-draw. To sum up my slightly disjoint post, I agree that a meta game exists, I just think that it is more national then Kevin in this case makes it out to be. Cameron

In message <a1e26d99.02072...@posting.google.com>, Cameron <orcao...@hotmail.com> writes: >> The Assamites do. A few maneuvers can save you where no amount of >> Fortitude will. > >What, go *TO* long range against the assamites? just to avoid a >vascular explosion. Watch the deck. If the deck is trying to maneuver to long, your maneuvers should cause significant problems (hopefully). If the deck is trying to stay close, maneuver to long. A deck combining significant amounts of both (so that both are available during any given combat, rather than focusing on close range with some long, or focusing on long with some close) is likely to have problems of its own, making sure it can use the right ones at the right time. Not insurmountable, but lack of focus in combat (rather than focus *on* combat, which can be an asset) is difficult. [ quoted text not captured ]

The Lasombra wrote: > All of the decks posted to this newsgroup since March of 2001 are > collected here: > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/rgtcjdeckarchive/ Rockin'. Thanks. > Around the same time, I stopped archiving TWD for tournaments with > fewer than 10 people. If you keeps the limits as the same as for > sanctioning, you will have tournament winning decks for decks that won > 4 or 5 player tournaments. This is not a useful piece of information. In your opinion. Others have voiced a preference for having all tournament-winning decks archived. Perhaps that information is useful to them. > You have to set a standard somewhere, the somewhere I chose is two > full tables. _I_ don't set _your_ standard, as you've already indicated. ;) > The only way to be a truly comprehensive TWD archive is to require the > princes who are submitting their archons to include the TWD with the > archon on the notes page. > > There will never be a truly comprehensive TWD archive until then. *nod* > Good luck on your quest. To dream...the impossible dream... [ quoted text not captured ]

"Halcyan 2" <halc...@aol.com> wrote in message news:20020720235300...@mb-fy.aol.com... [LSJ wrote] > >Every additional rescue attempt costs a blood and a card from hand (for > >Majestic/Freaky untap, that is). > > Yes, but those cards are fairly easy to cycle and are extremely useful anyway. > From what I've seen, lots of decks don't mind packing in plenty of > Majesty/Freak Drives. But it costs a blood every time, which isn't insignificant as a cost for "beating" blockers-of-rescues. There are only a few disciplines that even have the possibility of beating rescue-blockers this way. I don't think it'll be that much of an issue. Most of them don't/won't pack enough Majesty/Freak Drive/etc (because NRA does/will limit the actions they'd *really* like to repeat) to pull this off that much, either. A rescue-blocking deck is pretty likely to have more Wake/Forced/whatever than its opponent's acting-minion untaps. > >How is this cheesier than Mirror Image, Shadow Body, or misc. BL S:CE+cont > >cards? > > Because unless you draw additional stealth, a single Wake or Forced > Awakening will shut you down. Vampire A takes an action, Vampire B > wakes and blocks. If Vampire A continues the action with Shadow Body > or Mirror Image, Vampire B can just block again (without needing to > play any additional cards). Vampire A can keep playing "S:CE, action > continues" but Vampire B can keep blocking without additional cards. But "S:CE, action continues" is even better than Majesty/Freak against a blocker who *wasn't* using Wake/Forced. Six of one, half a dozen of the other. > >I'd even call it less cheesy than Forgotten Labyrinth (doesn't leave > >the would-be blocker tapped unless he woke, but doesn't risk combat, > >either.). > > Huh? All this "doesn't leave would-be blocker tapped" makes be think you're > referring to Faceless Night? No, Forgotten Labyrinth, because playing that instead of Majesty would just make the (rescue) action succeed in the first place (and the Wake would be wasted if there were one involved). Josh labyrinth? what labyrinth?

Xian wrote: > Kevin Mergen wrote: > > IMHO, only Origins, GenCon, and DragonCon are "national" enough to merit > > discussion in this fashion. And that doesn't even touch the USA vs European > > metagame discussion... > > Probably quite true. Though I have to admit, the NE Regional with, what, like > 40+ players has to be considered. :) 48...Here's hoping we can generate the same turnout next year. To that end, my apartment now has two sleep sofas. :) And don't be dissin' the Europeans...The 2002 French Qualfier in Paris got 42, there's the EuroChampionships, and I'd expect that GenConUK gets solid turnout. [ quoted text not captured ]

"Ben Peal" <fu...@optical.mindstorm.com> wrote in message news:bf72a12e.02072...@posting.google.com... > The Lasombra wrote: > > The only way to be a truly comprehensive TWD archive is to require the > > princes who are submitting their archons to include the TWD with the > > archon on the notes page. > > > > There will never be a truly comprehensive TWD archive until then. > > *nod* A number of L.A. dislike submitting TWDs. I've seen a couple of players lose to their own decks before. They didn't enjoy it much. Me, I don't like to post my TWDs anywhere near GenCon. As a matter of fact, last year, before the GenCon final, I was reading Ben's decklist from the qualifier. :) -Robert

In message <QR1%8.14096$_C2.10...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>, Robert Goudie <rrgo...@earthlink.net> writes: >Me, I don't like to post my TWDs anywhere near GenCon. As a matter of fact, last >year, before the GenCon final, I was reading Ben's decklist from the qualifier. >:) *smirk* Pure evil. At some point, I'll get some time back. University keeps getting in the way during term time (as well as my cards being hard to transport). And outside of term time, the tournaments I'd play in keep getting in the way of other things too, damnit. Actually, does anyone have recommendations of how to store (in a mobile fashion) several thousand cards? I could sift out some of the clans I don't play (Assamites, for instance, I just don't have the knack for) to whittle it down to something usable, say. [ quoted text not captured ]

"Robert Goudie" <rrgo...@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:QR1%8.14096$_C2.1...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net... > > A number of L.A. dislike submitting TWDs. I've seen a couple of > players lose to their own decks before. They didn't enjoy it much. I don't really understand the "my super deck tech is super secret" attitude. To me, it's much more interesting to spread useful knowledge as widely as possible; it's more fun to play when my opponents can learn more from my decks as well as vice versa. I can understand the desire to obtain some competitive advantage by springing surprises on people - and that is also fun to do - but once a deck has won a tournament, it is to my mind time for it to be in the public domain and available to all. That is, if a deck of mine has won a tournament once, that's all it needs to do, from my point of view; if I never play it again in a tournament that's fine, and if other people do, that's fine too. (Plus, I find it flattering if people even try playing my decks in tournaments, let alone beat me with them. :-) > Me, I don't like to post my TWDs anywhere near GenCon. As a matter of > fact, last year, before the GenCon final, I was reading Ben's decklist > from the qualifier. :) Now, I'll certainly admit that I am very reluctant to play any of the decks of mine that have been posted in the past year (due to having won tournaments) at GenCon. And this is largely because I think people would know what to expect from them and that they would be substantially less effective because of it. And yes, this does mean more work for me in coming up with new deck ideas and developing them to a competitive level. But personally, I wouldn't have it any other way: more new decks equals more new fun, and a totally new deck can be a surprise to everybody (except perhaps the people in your local group that you've been testing it against) where a "recycled" one will be familiar to at least some of the people at GenCon (eg the ones you've played it against in earlier tournaments). Josh innovate or stagnate

>> A number of L.A. dislike submitting TWDs. I've seen a couple of >> players lose to their own decks before. They didn't enjoy it much. I find several strange things about this comment. First, it's always possible for someone to build the same deck without copying, so trying to keep decks secret is suspect unless the player base is fairly clueless. Second, how is losing to your own deck any worse than losing to any other deck? >I don't really understand the "my super deck tech is super secret" >attitude. To me, it's much more interesting to spread useful >knowledge as widely as possible; it's more fun to play when my >opponents can learn more from my decks as well as vice versa. Those who generate tech will always have an advantage over those who only use it. Further, those who generate tech can still use an intelligent player base. >I can understand the desire to obtain some competitive advantage >by springing surprises on people - and that is also fun to do - >but once a deck has won a tournament, it is to my mind time for >it to be in the public domain and available to all. That is, if >a deck of mine has won a tournament once, that's all it needs to >do, from my point of view; if I never play it again in a tournament >that's fine, and if other people do, that's fine too. Keeping something under wraps prior to a tournament - 'k. I always found it exceedingly odd, though, that someone would want to keep a deck secret from the general player base after playing it in a tournament given that the people most likely to make use of the knowledge are the people who have already played against the deck and know how it works. >(Plus, I find it flattering if people even try playing my decks >in tournaments, let alone beat me with them. :-) And, beating someone who built your deck is much harder. >> Me, I don't like to post my TWDs anywhere near GenCon. As a matter of >> fact, last year, before the GenCon final, I was reading Ben's decklist >> from the qualifier. :) > >Now, I'll certainly admit that I am very reluctant to play any >of the decks of mine that have been posted in the past year (due >to having won tournaments) at GenCon. And this is largely because >I think people would know what to expect from them and that they >would be substantially less effective because of it. And yes, >this does mean more work for me in coming up with new deck ideas >and developing them to a competitive level. But personally, I >wouldn't have it any other way: more new decks equals more new >fun, and a totally new deck can be a surprise to everybody (except >perhaps the people in your local group that you've been testing >it against) where a "recycled" one will be familiar to at least >some of the people at GenCon (eg the ones you've played it against >in earlier tournaments). But, what you can do as the deck's creator is to modify it such that someone, who thinks they know how to deal with it, doesn't. I don't find this interesting, much rather just build entirely new decks for every tournament, but someone may enjoy the game of messing with people's minds. Also, some of these tournaments are sufficiently far apart that a new expansion will have come in and changed the environment. I'd find it odder to play the same deck year after year at, say, Gen Con than to update the archetype or play something different.

"Joshua Duffin" <jtdu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<ahjn8v$t6pqn$1...@ID-121616.news.dfncis.de>... > I don't really understand the "my super deck tech is super secret" > attitude. To me, it's much more interesting to spread useful > knowledge as widely as possible; it's more fun to play when my > opponents can learn more from my decks as well as vice versa. Too much of the scientist/statistician in you, Josh. (And me.) :) > I can understand the desire to obtain some competitive advantage > by springing surprises on people - and that is also fun to do - > but once a deck has won a tournament, it is to my mind time for > it to be in the public domain and available to all. That is, if People have some sort of proprietary view of their constructions, though. I'm not totally sure why...I love posting a deck and then seeing people try to improve upon it. If they make it better, that's great. Actually, it'd be nice (though I guess I haven't recently been posting my own decks) if the decks in my newsletters got more commentary. I mean, sure not everyone wants to read the newsletters, and I can respect that, but it's not like the decks in there are sent from on high or anything. Heh. Much like when I write a paper, any criticism is good. I worry that people either aren't paying attention, or think it's perfect as is (which scares me more, incidentally). > a deck of mine has won a tournament once, that's all it needs to > do, from my point of view; if I never play it again in a tournament > that's fine, and if other people do, that's fine too. Admittedly, I'd like to put my claim to POT/THA (with the grapple and the flame and the burning and the hurting), but I think that (in addition to claiming deck designs), people like to keep on winning with the same deck, because if they do, then they can claim that the deck is one of the best ever. So since POT/THA isn't *really* mine, I can live without that claim to fame. > (Plus, I find it flattering if people even try playing my decks > in tournaments, let alone beat me with them. :-) Ditto. I think that we are in the minority in this, though. Probably not enough finely-developed senses of irony out there? :) > Now, I'll certainly admit that I am very reluctant to play any > of the decks of mine that have been posted in the past year (due > to having won tournaments) at GenCon. And this is largely because > I think people would know what to expect from them and that they > would be substantially less effective because of it. And yes, Yup. I'll have some of my old decks there, but I'll also have a bunch of new (and really old) ones, so that no one will totally know what to expect. Exciting! Note: I will not be playing "Murmur of the False Will" in the NA Championship. (Or maybe I will, and this is all a big head game...) > this does mean more work for me in coming up with new deck ideas > and developing them to a competitive level. But personally, I > wouldn't have it any other way: more new decks equals more new > fun, and a totally new deck can be a surprise to everybody (except That too. :) Perhaps part of the trouble though, is that for many people, deckbuilding is not a joy, or a (fun) problem to work on, but simply a task that has to be mechanized in order to get something that wins. (I think.) I know lots of people *do* enjoy thinking up new ideas, but I suspect that for many people, building the deck is something that simply allows the game to be played, instead of seeing the process of deck creation as something that modifies how the game takes shape. If that makes sense... Xian analytical

James Coupe wrote: > Robert Goudie wrote: > >Me, I don't like to post my TWDs anywhere near GenCon. As a matter of fact, > >last year, before the GenCon final, I was reading Ben's decklist from the > >qualifier. :) > > *smirk* > > Pure evil. *points at scoreboard* [ quoted text not captured ]

Joshua Duffin wrote: > Robert Goudie wrote: > > A number of L.A. dislike submitting TWDs. I've seen a couple of > > players lose to their own decks before. They didn't enjoy it much. > > I don't really understand the "my super deck tech is super secret" > attitude. To me, it's much more interesting to spread useful > knowledge as widely as possible; it's more fun to play when my > opponents can learn more from my decks as well as vice versa. I totally agree. We should work towards elevating the game rather than holding it back. > I can understand the desire to obtain some competitive advantage > by springing surprises on people - and that is also fun to do - > but once a deck has won a tournament, it is to my mind time for > it to be in the public domain and available to all. That is, if > a deck of mine has won a tournament once, that's all it needs to > do, from my point of view; if I never play it again in a tournament > that's fine, and if other people do, that's fine too. Heh...I'm the same way...Winning a tournament with a deck is like completing a project. Once that project is over, it's time to work on something new. :) > (Plus, I find it flattering if people even try playing my decks > in tournaments, let alone beat me with them. :-) Definitely! :) > > Me, I don't like to post my TWDs anywhere near GenCon. As a matter of > > fact, last year, before the GenCon final, I was reading Ben's decklist > > from the qualifier. :) > > Now, I'll certainly admit that I am very reluctant to play any > of the decks of mine that have been posted in the past year (due > to having won tournaments) at GenCon. And this is largely because > I think people would know what to expect from them and that they > would be substantially less effective because of it. And yes, > this does mean more work for me in coming up with new deck ideas > and developing them to a competitive level. But personally, I > wouldn't have it any other way: more new decks equals more new > fun, and a totally new deck can be a surprise to everybody (except > perhaps the people in your local group that you've been testing > it against) where a "recycled" one will be familiar to at least > some of the people at GenCon (eg the ones you've played it against > in earlier tournaments). I was somewhat concerned about that going into the North American Championships last year, but given the hot streak Short Leash Bleed was on (it was 3 for 3 in previous tournaments), I figured I'd ride that horse until it dropped. It was far and away my best deck at the time and I was very familiar with playing it, and despite the knowledge players would have of it, I felt it gave me my best chance to win. > innovate or stagnate Damn straight! [ quoted text not captured ]

>Actually, it'd be nice (though I guess I haven't recently been posting >my own decks) if the decks in my newsletters got more commentary. I >mean, sure not everyone wants to read the newsletters, and I can >respect that, but it's not like the decks in there are sent from on >high or anything. Heh. Much like when I write a paper, any criticism >is good. I worry that people either aren't paying attention, or think >it's perfect as is (which scares me more, incidentally). My take on the newsletters is that most people read them and that they either find the content interesting or don't but, either way, don't see a real need to comment on most of what's presented. As for criticism, doesn't it always degenerate into pointless flames?

In message <20020723174832...@mb-mc.aol.com>, Curevei <cur...@aol.commetal> writes: >As for criticism, doesn't it always degenerate into pointless flames? Of course not. Only a complete moron would think that. Insert random punctuation here. [ quoted text not captured ]

Joshua Duffin wrote: > > (Plus, I find it flattering if people even try playing my decks > in tournaments, let alone beat me with them. :-) Good you should say that. I played your "Hutzie & the Beast" deck at "Tortured Confession: Phoenix". It won a game, putting me in the finals (10 players). Unfortunately, Daniel Poppe was playing a weeny vote thingy that's virtually unbeatable without intercept, and there was hardly any intercept at all in the finals. Fred

On Tue, 23 Jul 2002 09:55:42 -0400, "Joshua Duffin" <jtdu...@yahoo.com> wrote: > >"Robert Goudie" <rrgo...@earthlink.net> wrote in message >news:QR1%8.14096$_C2.1...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net... >> >> A number of L.A. dislike submitting TWDs. I've seen a couple of >> players lose to their own decks before. They didn't enjoy it much. > >I don't really understand the "my super deck tech is super secret" >attitude. To me, it's much more interesting to spread useful >knowledge as widely as possible; it's more fun to play when my >opponents can learn more from my decks as well as vice versa. > >(Plus, I find it flattering if people even try playing my decks >in tournaments, let alone beat me with them. :-) > heh. I am actually on a kick of trying to play other people's decks for a change. Two reasons for that - one, because all my deck ideas for a while had been weird stunt decks that weren't really top shelf (see THA/SER weenies); and two, because trying to play (and tweak) someone else's deck teaches me to see the game through someone else's eyes. Dunno what I'll be playing come GenCon, but only 2 of the contenders are "purely mine" as in not influenced by someone else's deck or iterations of one of the "classics." I have been having fun with a mutation of "Never Smile At A Crocodile" lately, Josh. 7 VP in 2 games so far! Other stolen decks in my current rotation: Martin Cubberly's "Suhailah Dares The Darkness" (does really well or never gets rolling - people haven't learned to attack the Heart yet) A Tzimisce deck which is part Heikki Poso, part Kevin Mergen, and part Josh Duffin. I _never_ play the Fiends, but it's been fun. Rob Treasure's "The Turd" - debuting this week, now that Dax has lent me the cards for it. We will see if I can figure out how to make the Toolmaster's style work for me. I should probably build Xian's THA/FOR "...Morning Sun" just to mess with him. Mark Woodhouse Prince of Minneapolis (brought to you by Xerox)

"Ben Peal" <fu...@optical.mindstorm.com> wrote in message news:bf72a12e.02072...@posting.google.com... > James Coupe wrote: > > Robert Goudie wrote: > > >Me, I don't like to post my TWDs anywhere near GenCon. As a matter of fact, > > >last year, before the GenCon final, I was reading Ben's decklist from the > > >qualifier. :) > > > > *smirk* > > > > Pure evil. > > *points at scoreboard* Exactly. While I was reading his decklist, Ben was supposing that I would play the weenie potence that I had played one night earlier. He was right and also had fore-knowledge. I wasn't intending to play weenie potence last year. I finally decided at about 5:00 AM on Saturday. If I had been planning on playing it, maybe people wouldn't have seen it on Saturday and maybe Ben wouldn't have chosen to sit as my grandprey. -Robert

"Ben Peal" <fu...@optical.mindstorm.com> wrote in message news:bf72a12e.02072...@posting.google.com... > Heh...I'm the same way...Winning a tournament with a deck is like > completing a project. Once that project is over, it's time to > work on something new. :) I used to retire my decks after each win--as did a lot of locals. Eventually, winning a tournament isn't much more meaningful than winning a home game. If you view the *project* as something bigger than a local tournament (maybe winning at GenCon or dominating your local scene for an extended perior of time), then immediate and full disclosure of your deck contents doesn't help finish the project. > I was somewhat concerned about that going into the North American > Championships last year, but given the hot streak Short Leash > Bleed was on (it was 3 for 3 in previous tournaments), I figured > I'd ride that horse until it dropped. It was far and away my best > deck at the time and I was very familiar with playing it, and > despite the knowledge players would have of it, I felt it gave me > my best chance to win. Right. I had to assume that most players were playing the same decks they qualified with. -Robert

"Joshua Duffin" <jtdu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:ahjn8v$t6pqn$1...@ID-121616.news.dfncis.de... > > "Robert Goudie" <rrgo...@earthlink.net> wrote in message > news:QR1%8.14096$_C2.1...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net... > > > > A number of L.A. dislike submitting TWDs. I've seen a couple of > > players lose to their own decks before. They didn't enjoy it much. > > I don't really understand the "my super deck tech is super secret" > attitude. I only know 1 guy like that. It always kinda bugged me. > To me, it's much more interesting to spread useful > knowledge as widely as possible; it's more fun to play when my > opponents can learn more from my decks as well as vice versa. Sure (though I reserve the right to delay the release of the info for a time). > But personally, I > wouldn't have it any other way: more new decks equals more new > fun, and a totally new deck can be a surprise to everybody (except > perhaps the people in your local group that you've been testing > it against) With roughly 10 locals playing in the championships, surprising my local group is as important as surprising everyone else. > where a "recycled" one will be familiar to at least > some of the people at GenCon (eg the ones you've played it against > in earlier tournaments). Yes, quite the quandry isn't it. :) -Robert

"W. Mark Woodhouse" <shan...@tcinternet.net> wrote in message news:3d3e4fc8....@news.tcinternet.net... > I have been having fun with a mutation of "Never Smile At A Crocodile" > lately, Josh. 7 VP in 2 games so far! What's interesting is that we haven't played a game *since* you've started cribbing other people's decks. I want to see these babies in action! :) > I should probably build Xian's THA/FOR "...Morning Sun" just to mess > with him. :P Watch me laugh as you run out of blood and I never block you. :) (Though building it with Scouting Mission/Threats helps. Also, at this point, I might include a few MotS and some Laptops, for added annoyance.) Xian

"W. Mark Woodhouse" <shan...@tcinternet.net> wrote in message news:3d3e4fc8....@news.tcinternet.net... > > heh. I am actually on a kick of trying to play other people's decks > for a change. I like doing that too. Recent ones have been Legbiter's version of the Baron combo-deck (bad-shuffle-died a bunch of times before it finally managed to work; now seems to work fairly often, but I don't know if I like it that much, it's not entirely my style) and that "Shock Troops with Protean" idea that Lawrence Miles played in a British tournament a little while ago (never worked at all for me, not sure why but the "0 stealth hunt" as well as the slowness (for me) of even getting some Troops out seemed pretty problematic). > I have been having fun with a mutation of "Never Smile At A Crocodile" > lately, Josh. 7 VP in 2 games so far! Woohoo! I am indeed flattered. :-) I really enjoyed playing that deck. It had enough stuff going on that I never got bored with it (at least, yet) or felt like it was totally screwed by seating. Josh has about a dozen "contenders" for gencon, hardly any of which are at all tested yet

"Frederick Scott" <freds64_at_...@removethis.com> wrote in message news:3D3E3132...@removethis.com... > Joshua Duffin wrote: > > > > (Plus, I find it flattering if people even try playing my decks > > in tournaments, let alone beat me with them. :-) > > Good you should say that. I played your "Hutzie & the Beast" deck > at "Tortured Confession: Phoenix". It won a game, putting me in the > finals (10 players). I'm totally flattered! I like that deck a lot. It needs... something. But I'm not sure what. Any ideas? > Unfortunately, Daniel Poppe was playing a weeny vote thingy that's > virtually unbeatable without intercept, and there was hardly any > intercept at all in the finals. Hmf. You couldn't just kick all his guys till they went away with the Great Beast? :-) Actually that version does have... issues... with heavy opposing S:CE. Or even Dodge, probably. Somewhat tricky to remedy while maintaining the things that make it work in other areas. Josh and show us your beastly paws

Joshua Duffin wrote: > > "Frederick Scott" <freds64_at_...@removethis.com> wrote in message > news:3D3E3132...@removethis.com... > > Joshua Duffin wrote: > > > > > > (Plus, I find it flattering if people even try playing my decks > > > in tournaments, let alone beat me with them. :-) > > > > Good you should say that. I played your "Hutzie & the Beast" deck > > at "Tortured Confession: Phoenix". It won a game, putting me in the > > finals (10 players). > > I'm totally flattered! I like that deck a lot. It needs... > something. But I'm not sure what. Any ideas? Not yet. By the looks of it, I worry about it running up against various aggravated damage things but at strength, and with various reasonable ways to get the Beast back if he should get diablerized, perhaps it's not as much of a problem as I'd think. > > Unfortunately, Daniel Poppe was playing a weeny vote thingy that's > > virtually unbeatable without intercept, and there was hardly any > > intercept at all in the finals. > > Hmf. You couldn't just kick all his guys till they went away > with the Great Beast? :-) Not enough time to whack that many moles, I'm afraid. And they kept reproducing. (Daniel thinks up good things to do with Embraced, I must say.) > Actually that version does have... > issues... with heavy opposing S:CE. Or even Dodge, probably. > Somewhat tricky to remedy while maintaining the things that make > it work in other areas. It wasn't the S:CE, though he had some of that to protect his princes (original and manufactured). Most it was just numbers. Fred

"Frederick Scott" <freds64_at_...@removethis.com> wrote in message news:3D45CD6F...@removethis.com... [ideas?] > Not yet. By the looks of it, I worry about it running up against > various aggravated damage things but at strength, and with various > reasonable ways to get the Beast back if he should get diablerized, > perhaps it's not as much of a problem as I'd think. Yeah, it's at least hypothetically pretty easy to replace a lost Beast by Calling a fresh one (as long as Huitzi has a skill card). Likewise it doesn't matter much if Huitzi gets diablerized, as long as he has a skill card to make sure the Soul Gem will work for him. What *can* be bad is getting stuck in torpor unable to get out - if nobody diablerizes you, there may be no way to get fresh vampires to do stuff with. But with Blood Dolls (I forget if the decklist I posted had them or not?) that can usually be avoided too. > Not enough time to whack that many moles, I'm afraid. And they kept > reproducing. (Daniel thinks up good things to do with Embraced, I > must say.) Yeah, one rush a turn is probably not enough against serious weenies. Ah well. Glad you enjoyed it anyway. :-) Josh CEL/FOR/DAI latest attempt... up to 80 cards, not sure if it's better or not...