Revisiting Alastors

This beast had awesome result in my old playgroup so I wanted to develop a more advanced version of it. Basically the deck is Celerity-gun deck with support fortitude and prince/justicar cards. The deck plays table and rushes and torporises everything. You get no friends playing this deck. It's a lonely existence being an Alastor. CRYPT 5 Jaroslav Pascek 3 Madame Guil 2 Mark Decker 2 Pug Jackson (not sure about the crypt requirements are pretty strict, there aren't many Pasceks around) MASTERS 1 Trophy: Revered 1 Trophy: Diablerie (not sure about this, counter intuitive with alastor) 2 Trophy: Hunting ground 2 Trophy: Domain 1 DI 1 Sudden reversal 1 Archon investigation 2 Vessel 1 Archetype card (haven't decided yet, perfectionist/depravity/monster) 2 Fame 1 Tension in the ranks (not sure if 2 tensions is better than 2 fames) 1 Fortitude ACTIONS 5 Big Game POLITICAL ACTIONS 5 Alastor 4 Trumped-up charges 5 Anathema 5 Parity shift ACTION MODIFIERS/REACTIONS 6 Forced march 4 Scalpel tongue 8 2nd tradition COMBAT 12 Psyche! (this is just silly op with assault rifle and alastor) 4 Pursuit 4 Superior mettle 6 Taste of vitae 2 Disguised weapon (just for Jaroslav) EQUIPMENT 4 Assault rifle Baron of Riihimäki

Do you often run out of cards playing this? If not, slim it down to 76. "My strategy? Luck is my strategy, of course."

> Ashur wrote: > Do you often run out of cards playing this? If not, slim it down to 76. > Because... Prince of Dallas Toreador Grand Ball: Dallas August 13, 2022

> ruiza97 wrote: > > > Ashur wrote: > > Do you often run out of cards playing this? If not, slim it down to 76. > > > Because... > Consistancy. While I dislike slimming down combat decks, this one isn't a dedicated combat deck the way let's say a count Germain multirush or Eknidu multi Rush is. You specifically pursue a combo with a few trophies out, then anathema on something red list, then alastor rush to empty and scoop a trophy. Combos like thin decks. I'm just not crazy about combos with this many pieces, regardless of deck size..... But if it works regularly, that's the size you want. Edit: adv Xavier gets an untap and is justicar. Villeins would help you live to see the combo.

The deck does nothing without a gun, and any deck with access to +1 intercept can pretty much shut you down. With Pascek as your main vampire, I would base the deck on Disguised weapon and Parity Shift to get your pool back. If you really want Alastor, I would rather base the deck on Madam Guil and Grand Bal to make the action unblockable.

> ruiza97 wrote: > > > Ashur wrote: > > Do you often run out of cards playing this? If not, slim it down to 76. > > > Because... > Because it helps you draw the cards you want to draw. But of course, if you tend to deck yourself out of the game it´s not good. But people seldom do that, and yet they build 90 card decks all the time. No idea why. "My strategy? Luck is my strategy, of course."

> Ashur wrote: > Because it helps you draw the cards you want to draw. But of course, if you tend to deck yourself out of the game it´s not good. But people seldom do that, and yet they build 90 card decks all the time. No idea why. > I've been wondering about the Brazilian meta as it seems that vast majority of tournament winning decks from there seem to be 90 card decks. Or few cards below. It would be interesting to hear do all the players there play with such decks. (One would assume that a "properly" thinned down deck, a Swedish style one if you will, would wreck havoc in that kind of environment) Finnish Politics!

> Lönkka wrote: > > > Ashur wrote: > > Because it helps you draw the cards you want to draw. But of course, if you tend to deck yourself out of the game it´s not good. But people seldom do that, and yet they build 90 card decks all the time. No idea why. > > > I've been wondering about the Brazilian meta as it seems that vast majority of tournament winning decks from there seem to be 90 card decks. Or few cards below. > > It would be interesting to hear do all the players there play with such decks. > (One would assume that a "properly" thinned down deck, a Swedish style one if you will, would wreck havoc in that kind of environment) > It could, but the Brazilian meta seems to be possessing variables that other metas do not: I see large player count often in the tournament reports. I see a diverse style splattering of decks I don't have details on the decks that didn't win. So, it's easy to see twd reports and deduce "that shit would get WRECKED in ("Finnish politics" meta, Texas meta, Newark OH meta)" but in practice, nothing is a garuntee. A streamlined deck is never not more efficient than it's clunky counterpart, so it would be interesting to see someone in such a meta lean that direction and either make a dent in deck building theory or keep running out of cards and go back to bigger decks.

> Ashur wrote: > Because it helps you draw the cards you want to draw. But of course, if you tend to deck yourself out of the game it´s not good. But people seldom do that, and yet they build 90 card decks all the time. No idea why. > In a game where there is a limit to how many copies of a single card you can put in a deck, the advice "play with as small deck as possible to maximize your chance of drawing your key cards" is indeed true. For example Magic the gathering, where it is extremely rare to see a tournament deck go over the legal minimum of 60 cards. In VTES however, there is no such limit, therefore having a larger deck does not automatically mean your chances of drawing your 'key' cards would be smaller; You just need to increase the number of said key cards to maintain the ratio of 'key cards' vs 'other cards'. Statistically you are not forced to keep your deck as small as possible in VTES, as long as you make the necessary adjustments in deck building. It might even increase your chances of drawing the key cards depending on how many copies you run. What I'm saying here is: its not automatically bad to run a larger deck. I have found its really difficult to keep the deck small because you are often forced to cut some versatility off the deck. edit: As an example, I have been perfectly happy with my Unnamed deck, which Ashur got to see in action on the final round of Ropecon tourney, and which runs the maximum of 90 cards (and is not a combat deck btw). I designed the deck to have a strong flow of cards and basically play minimum of 2 cards every turn regardless what the other players are doing (greater curse + sense the sin). Having stealth in the bleed card means I don't need to run as many actual stealth cards and thus suffer from "clots of stealth cards" in my hand when stealth is not necessary. Of course, I'm not really that experienced player with only couple years of active play. ps. Now if only I could master the art of "not appearing as a table threat"... Smoking craters tell no tales. —Tex talks Battletech

I feel combos and stealth bleed need slimmer decks. In regards to this alastor deck, 60 is bad since it's both a combo and combat. I've ran 90 card combat decks with ashur tablets and actually needed the tablets to keep drawing combat. Not every game, but it's happened. Walls and combat like not running out of cards. Stealth bleed wants to not choke on stealth but always have it, so low is good. All depends on the deck. My ghoulet satyr and Henry Taylor "infinite Earth meld" deck is a roughly 80 card wall and works well as such. I like 88 for most blocky combat, because those last 2 cards end up being junk I don't need most of the time anyway. But size goes by deck, and lower count tends to help combos and hurt other things.

> ReverendRevolver wrote: > It could, but the Brazilian meta seems to be possessing variables that other metas do not: > I see large player count often in the tournament reports. > Sometimes they have large number of players (like 30 or so) but, off head, quite often the reports are for a dozen or so people... Finnish Politics!

> Bloodartist wrote: > > > Ashur wrote: > > Because it helps you draw the cards you want to draw. But of course, if you tend to deck yourself out of the game it´s not good. But people seldom do that, and yet they build 90 card decks all the time. No idea why. > > > In a game where there is a limit to how many copies of a single card you can put in a deck, the advice "play with as small deck as possible to maximize your chance of drawing your key cards" is indeed true. For example Magic the gathering, where it is extremely rare to see a tournament deck go over the legal minimum of 60 cards. > > In VTES however, there is no such limit, therefore having a larger deck does not automatically mean your chances of drawing your 'key' cards would be smaller; You just need to increase the number of said key cards to maintain the ratio of 'key cards' vs 'other cards'. > It is not about ratios, it is about card flow. The bigger the deck, the more likely it is to jam. Let us say your deck is 50% black cards and 50% white cards. You need both, that's why they are in the deck. The probability to jam on your starting hand (i.e. 100% white or 100% black) is 1.05% with a 60 card deck but jumps to 1.2% with a 90 card deck. Of course, those numbers are small because this is a toy example. They increase when the deck has more moving parts and one wants to avoid jamming over a whole game, not just in the starting hand.

> Non-existant user wrote: > It is not about ratios, it is about card flow. The bigger the deck, the more likely it is to jam. Let us say your deck is 50% black cards and 50% white cards. You need both, that's why they are in the deck. The probability to jam on your starting hand (i.e. 100% white or 100% black) is 1.05% with a 60 card deck but jumps to 1.2% with a 90 card deck. Of course, those numbers are small because this is a toy example. They increase when the deck has more moving parts and one wants to avoid jamming over a whole game, not just in the starting hand. > I think you are simplifying this too much. I did talk about card flow in my own post and think it is extremely important. However, card flow is affected by not only the card ratios, but also the card types. If you have a large number of cards that require a certain condition to be met before they can be played (for example stealth cards) then you are very likely to suffer hand jams where you have those cards in your hand and can't actually play them. I have found that it is very important to have a large number of action cards in large decks, because you can always attempt to do the action regardless of table situation to 'cycle your hand'. Doing so might enable your other cards if opponents attempt to block, so hand cycles even more. To use my unnamed deck as an example again, it is a stealth bleed deck, but only runs about 11 actual stealth cards (well, not counting large pile of instantaneous transformation). This is because it has a large pile of +1 stealth bleed actions (greater curse). Because bleed action has the stealth, I don't need to waste my stealth cards when every willy nilly caitiff attempts to block, thus I can run fewer actual stealth. My opponents have to have intercept to block my default bleed. My stealth cards also mostly also do something else, for example swallowed by the night gives me maneuver to use unnamed R aggro, spying missions are protection against bounce, etc. There is also number of other actions in the deck (unleash hells fury, infernal servitor, veneficti, kaymakli fragment etc) to also do, preferably in conjunction with untapping with I.T. and bleeding during the same turn. As a whole, the deck rolls like a well-oiled machine despite being 90 cards. Much of the card flow can be contributed to the fact that its designed to pretty much play minimum 2-3 cards every turn regardless of what the opponents are doing: Bleed with greater curse, use sense the sin for +2 bleed, untap with instantaneous transformation or use it for stealth. Three cards cycled every turn (even more if I play enkil cog ). I think making the cards of the deck playable regardless of what opponents are doing is very important for large decks. Easiest way to accomplish this is to run lot of actions and have a plan what happens when opponents attempt to block imo. I guess not every deck can do this. (It's also a reason why I am not fond of playing wall decks; those decks are designed to jam) Statistically the probabilities of hand jam occurring vs you having the required cards is of course affected by card ratios. This is what some people call "skill in deckbuilding". Smoking craters tell no tales. —Tex talks Battletech

> Bloodartist wrote: > > > Non-existant user wrote: > > I have found that it is very important to have a large number of action cards in large decks, because you can always attempt to do the action regardless of table situation to 'cycle your hand'. Doing so might enable your other cards if opponents attempt to block, so hand cycles even more. > > > This doesn't work if you don't have some combat cards and you know your opponent will likely block you and send you to torpor. > Another case where action cards can jam your hand is when it's not your turn and someone either comes to bleed you (no wake) or enter combat with you (no combat cards). > Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

I've seen this discussion countless times, and it IS just a matter of mathematics. A deck should always be slimmed down to the number of cards you need for most games. Regardless of deck. Period. The thicker deck creates a larger ratio of unwanted combinations. In your scenario, you create more combinations where you don't draw enough of a card type by not slimming the deck. A matter of consistency. Overkill is highly underrated. You know, like in computor games and such.

Well we can all agree to disagree. I just look at my own experiences with the decks I play. My most successful and fun-to-play decks tend to be based on above principles. Part of it might be that I favor proactive gameplans - just sitting fiddling my thumbs is not my kind of playstyle. When I started VTES, I was frustrated with deckbuilding because I always seemed to have the wrong cards in my hand. Once I figured out the above principles, I have had much better success (in terms of victory points) with my decks. > agzocgud wrote: > I've seen this discussion countless times, and it IS just a matter of mathematics. A deck should always be slimmed down to the number of cards you need for most games. Regardless of deck. Period. > Yes, it is a matter of mathematics. However your statement is in fact not true. I might go through the complete math at some point if I feel like it. You think that number of cards increases the number of 'unwanted permutations'. While true, you forget that the TOTAL number of permutations goes up as well. Thus the probability of unwanted permutations is not increased the way you seem to think it would be. IF VTES would have a limit to the number of a single card in a deck, it would be simple and having as small deck as possible would always be optimal. But like I pointed out above, it doesn't. This changes the math considerably. VTES is the ONLY cardgame I know where card limit doesn't exist, thus you may be confused with the deckbuilding discussions from other games. Note: I never said that deck needs to be 90 cards. I just said that it isn't a hindrance if you build it right. Having a thicker deck means you can have more one-use cards to use for beating the whole table, rather than running out of cards and thus having no tools in the late game. Smoking craters tell no tales. —Tex talks Battletech

> Ankha wrote: > This doesn't work if you don't have some combat cards and you know your opponent will likely block you and send you to torpor. > As I said in my earlier post, you need to have a plan for that eventuality. In fact, you should build your deck around those two choices. I do an action, if I'm blocked I do A, if I'm not blocked I do B. So far, out of my decks that use these principles I've had most success with two: Unnamed stealth bleed and Matasuntha rush combat. Both have definite plans when somebody attempts to block (Unnamed plays stealth, combat ends, or aggro damage - Matasuntha wants to get into combat so...) > Another case where action cards can jam your hand is when it's not your turn and someone either comes to bleed you (no wake) or enter combat with you (no combat cards). > Yes, defense is important to have. Its a strategic choice how much you should have. However I've noticed that its next to impossible to defend against every eventuality. The principle "kill the opponent before they can kill you" is a valid one in most 1v1 card games. My Unnamed deck simply can't have much in the way of intercept, therefore my main defense is simply bloating like a motherf*cker. If I'm rushed there are maneuvers(which couple as stealth) and combat ends. Also notice that defense can be one thing that clots your hand if your predator doesn't actually do anything.. Finding the right amounts of cards is definitely difficult. My decks have been long in the making (my unnamed over a year) while I make iterative improvements. Now however I'm happy with them and they basically never suffer from hand jams. Smoking craters tell no tales. —Tex talks Battletech