Winning Deck for Event #1 (Was Re: [Report] Gateway ...

The prelims were pretty nasty. I abused the crap out of the Succubus Club. The first table I ended up using it to save myself from dying 3 different times. After paying my predator 1 pool to "borrow" her rats, I had the set up to oust Steve Bucy with a Perfect Clarity/Daring Dawn bleed. This burned Spiro and left me with no minions. I worked a deal with Nat Hammond to help oust my predator. The Succubus Club came in really handy letting me offer Nat and myself unlimited card cycling using Succubus to trade the Elder Library back and forth. I don't remember much from the second round, except that Succubus came in abusively helpful once again by being able to constantly trade Milicent Smith back to myself at the begining of every turn. This time Nat Hammond got to be on the recieving end of that horrible succubus club card. The Final had the following seating order: #1 Brad Ward - Spiridonas Soul Gem/Perfect Clarity/Daring Dawn #2 John Amato - Black Cat, Celerity Equipment !Brujah/Brujah #3 Paul Johnson - ??? #4 Jason Dawson - Anarch Revolt Weenie Dominate/Bleed/Bleed Bouncer #5 ??? - Attention first went to Jason who had the Anarch heavy bleed deflection deck. Paul and Jason’s prey (don’t recall who) really tried to put the hurt on Jason. I was the only one with votes on the table. Jason, seeing his demise offered to help me however he could if I would vote to keep his Anarchs in play while he ousts his prey. My prey (John) was putty in my hands, having neither bleed bounce, intercept nor stealth. Jason’s prey fell first followed by Paul Johnson. I then ousted John Amato and Jason followed through with his deal and rolled over. The game was over in about an hour or less thanks to the Anarch Revolts. Note: The deck is only less than 90 cards because I had limited number of Perfect Clarity. I plan to increase it to 90 as I acquire more. Crypt (18) 18 Spiridonas THA DOM Total Library (69) Masters(20) 2 Arcane Library 1 Dreams of the Sphinx 8 Fortitude 1 Contingency Planning 2 Milicent Smith Vampire Hunter 3 Parthenon 1 Barrens 1 Elder library 1 Succubus Club Minion (60) 12 2nd Tradition 2 Soul Gem of Etrius 4 Blood Tears of Kephryn 5 Perfect Clarity 6 Magic of the Smith 15 Obediance 6 Bonding 6 Daring the Dawn 4 Force of Will

>Crypt (18) >18 Spiridonas THA DOM >Total Library (69) >Masters(20) >2 Arcane Library >1 Dreams of the Sphinx >8 Fortitude >1 Contingency Planning >2 Milicent Smith Vampire Hunter >3 Parthenon >1 Barrens >1 Elder library >1 Succubus Club >Minion (60) >12 2nd Tradition >2 Soul Gem of Etrius >4 Blood Tears of Kephryn I hope that you weren't useing the Blood Tears to prevent the agg. damage from Force of Will and Daring the Dawn. >5 Perfect Clarity >6 Magic of the Smith >15 Obedience [ quoted text not captured ]

>>12 2nd Tradition >>2 Soul Gem of Etrius >>4 Blood Tears of Kephryn > I hope that you weren't useing the Blood Tears to prevent the agg. >damage from Force of Will and Daring the Dawn. Even if he isn't trying to use it to prevent (since he can't), the Blood Tears still help allow an extra +2 bleed. First off, they tap Spiridonas (allowing Force of Will). Now if Spiridonas at nine blood wants to play Force of Will (inf) + Daring the Dawn + Perfect Clarity (and we'll throw in a Bonding too), he can bleed for: 2 (Force of Will) + 1 (Bonding) + 4 (one blood spent on Force, two spent on PC, leaving 6 blood to use for his special) --> only a bleed of 7. But if he had equipped with the Blood Tears before Force of Will'ing, he can burn them after playing the PC, allowing an extra 2 blood --> 2 bleed, meaning a total bleed of 9. Halcyan 2

isn't the succubus/library unlimited card cycling combo a good enough reason to ban succubus from tournament play? please, wise leaders of vekn! along with its incredible abuse potential, these kinds of combos that are truly overpowered should point the need to monitor, (and imho, ban) the Club... -spinney sporemage brad ward posted: I abused the crap out of the Succubus Club. The first table I ended up using it to save myself from dying 3 different times. After paying my predator 1 pool to "borrow" her rats, I had the set up to oust Steve Bucy with a Perfect Clarity/Daring Dawn bleed. This burned Spiro and left me with no minions. I worked a deal with Nat Hammond to help oust my predator. The Succubus Club came in really handy letting me offer Nat and myself unlimited card cycling using Succubus to trade the Elder Library back and forth. I don't remember much from the second round, except that Succubus came in abusively helpful once again by being able to constantly trade Milicent Smith back to myself at the begining of every turn. This time Nat Hammond got to be on the recieving end of that horrible succubus club card. == "Jay Kristoff" <j...@columbus.rr.com> wrote in message news:<T9xl7.46097$Iq4.21...@typhoon.columbus.rr.com>... > >Crypt (18) > >18 Spiridonas THA DOM > >Total Library (69) > >Masters(20) > >2 Arcane Library > >1 Dreams of the Sphinx > >8 Fortitude > >1 Contingency Planning > >2 Milicent Smith Vampire Hunter > >3 Parthenon > >1 Barrens > >1 Elder library > >1 Succubus Club > >Minion (60) > >12 2nd Tradition > >2 Soul Gem of Etrius > >4 Blood Tears of Kephryn > I hope that you weren't useing the Blood Tears to prevent the agg. > damage from Force of Will and Daring the Dawn. > looks like it's equip with soul gem/get fortitude skill card, don't try to prevent damage. keep millicent, then if you get blocked leaving torpor, you get a new full spiradonas; but usually just burn him with a combo of his skill emptying him for +bleed and taking enough agg to burn. [ quoted text not captured ]

On 6 Sep 2001 00:00:45 -0700, spinney99 wrote: >isn't the succubus/library unlimited card cycling combo >a good enough reason to ban succubus from tournament play? No. A simple errata would be quite sufficient. But even that is not necessary. Has nobody read the card? "Master: unique location. Methuselahs can give you pool, and you can give them pool. You can trade cards from your hand or in play. These trades can only happen during your untap phase and cannot result in any Methuselah having less than his or her hand size. Any additional terms can be established, but none are enforced by the rules." Trading the Elder Library by itself is not allowed because it would result in the donor having fewer cards in hand than his hand size. He must trade a card along with it and that stops the cycling combo. Andrew

On Thu, 06 Sep 2001 09:00:00 +0100, Andrew S. Davidson wrote: >Trading the Elder Library by itself is not allowed because it would >result in the donor having fewer cards in hand than his hand size. He >must trade a card along with it and that stops the cycling combo. Correction - it's the recipient of the Library who ends up with fewer cards than his hand size. You still can't do it without another card to keep all hands in balance. Andrew

"Jay Kristoff" <j...@columbus.rr.com> wrote in message news:T9xl7.46097$Iq4.21...@typhoon.columbus.rr.com... > >4 Blood Tears of Kephryn > I hope that you weren't useing the Blood Tears to prevent the agg. > damage from Force of Will and Daring the Dawn. No, I wanted Spiro to Burn every time I did FoW or DtD so that I could get a NEW filled up Spiro to bleed next turn. The Blood Tears were in there so that I had somthing to do with the other 5 Magic of the SMith cards. I could just go Smith up a Blood Tears and Benefit a blood out of the whole deal. I Would also be set up to Force of Will Bleed. -Brad Prince of NLV

"Jay Kristoff" <j...@columbus.rr.com> wrote in message news:<T9xl7.46097 > >4 Blood Tears of Kephryn > I hope that you weren't useing the Blood Tears to prevent the agg. > damage from Force of Will and Daring the Dawn. No, The Tears are in there so that I dont clutter my hand up with the other 5 Majic of the SMith. I get to Majic of the smith, get a tears, im now tapped and can force of will and burn the tears for an additional +2 blood. That lets me bleed for more. It's effectively a way to hunt at 3 stealth. -Brad

[ quoted text not captured ] I'm pretty sure that clause of the Succubus Club merely means you're supposed to trade cards in hand on a one-for-one basis, nothing more. In particular, there's no indication that it wants you to take into account the *indirect* implications of trading permanents. Drawing another card for Elder Library (or discarding because one no longer possesses the Elder Library) is just an indirect effect triggered by the change of possession. (Nice try, tho...) Fred

Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> wrote in message news:<8F94F61E5B362C46.EF73A1A0...@lp.airnews.net>... > >Trading the Elder Library by itself is not allowed because it would > >result in the donor having fewer cards in hand than his hand size. He > >must trade a card along with it and that stops the cycling combo. > > Correction - it's the recipient of the Library who ends up with fewer > cards than his hand size. You still can't do it without another card > to keep all hands in balance. I believe the trade is still valid. The trade makes you have a new hand size. When you're hand size changes you must draw or discard to the appropriate size. Otherwise you couldnt use the Succubus at all once you run out of library cards. -Brad

> Note: The deck is only less than 90 cards because I had limited > number of Perfect Clarity. I plan to increase it to 90 as I acquire > more. Didja ever run out of cards? I imagine with the Succubus Club constantly rezoning the Elder Library that you could have plowed through a lot of an 80 card deck, but for the other games? -- Pat Ricochet Soul Jar'rn Fool of Atlanta

Frederick Scott <fre...@netcom.com> wrote in message news:<3B97CB86...@netcom.com>... [ quoted text not captured ] my guess is that any trade of the elder lib or christianus lionel or cassandra must also be accompanied by the trade of cards so that no one violates the letter of the law. (Q. do i trust you to give me back cassandra for that unlimited card-TRADING...) just a guess. and probably very wrong. lost the original thread, about the winning deck at event #1 in LA, but i just want to add, the all-Spirodonas deck that inspired the question is a thing of beauty. i just would never think of doing that:+r (and other mere applause.) -spin =thanks= oh, yeah, like that's the only reason to ban succuclub. doubt i'll play a deck without it until it's banned, if only to contest it. of course, it always seems to end up more valuable than just a contester.

oops sorry for flaming with the Ban It banner. just found the other posts where this has been covered. slow server, slow brain after work;/ the answers there are good answers. and i can look forward to this retractpology hitting about the same time as the goof IN 3-9 hours. peace, spintoy

On Thu, 06 Sep 2001 19:11:18 GMT, Frederick Scott wrote: >I'm pretty sure that clause of the Succubus Club merely means you're >supposed to trade cards in hand on a one-for-one basis, nothing more. >In particular, there's no indication that it wants you to take into >account the *indirect* implications of trading permanents. Drawing >another card for Elder Library (or discarding because one no longer >possesses the Elder Library) is just an indirect effect triggered by >the change of possession. (Nice try, tho...) The change in hand size is a direct effect of the trade - it is immediate and inevitable consequence. In any case, the Succubus Club does not make such fine distinctions - you just made all that up. This is transparent chicanery because you yourself think that using the Club to cycle cards is abusive. You just want to build the card up so that you can knock it down by banning it. It still seems clear that the original designers of the card have got this point covered. The card cycling combo with Elder Library violates both the letter and the spirit of the restriction printed on the Succubus Club. Andrew

On 6 Sep 2001 13:17:00 -0700, Brad Ward wrote: >Otherwise you couldnt use the Succubus at all >once you run out of library cards. This doesn't follow. Again, you just have to read the card which says, "These trades ... cannot result in any Methuselah having less than his or her hand size." If one player is already short of cards then continuing shortness would not be a result of the trade and so further trading would be legal. A player with a full hand would not be able to give the short player cards though, as he would become short too as a result of the trade and this is not allowed. Andrew

[ quoted text not captured ] Good point. So, when trading a card that alters a player's hand size, neither trader can end up needing to draw cards - that is, if you trade away your Elder Library, you have to trade away an extra card from your hand as well. There goes the "infinite" cycling problem. Thanks for pointing that out, Andrew. -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and tournament rules: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/

>So, when trading a card that alters a player's hand size, neither >trader can end up needing to draw cards - that is, if you trade >away your Elder Library, you have to trade away an extra card from >your hand as well. > so if i have a 7 card hand and the person i trade the elder library to has a 5 card hand. i have to give him one of my cards, well then he gets to play with a 91 card deck and that is unfair as well. he is immediately disqualified. : ) If i trade Christianus Lionel to someone, i also have to give them one of my cards. this is ludicrous. when i trade the elder library away, my hand size is reduced. i still meet the requirements of SC. my hand size is now 7 not 8 cause i don't have the library anymore. i do not have less than my hand size because once the library is gone, my hand size is now 7 and i have MORE than my hand size and per the rulebook, i must discard.

GymNat1 wrote: > > >So, when trading a card that alters a player's hand size, neither > >trader can end up needing to draw cards - that is, if you trade > >away your Elder Library, you have to trade away an extra card from > >your hand as well. > > > > so if i have a 7 card hand and the person i trade the elder library to has a 5 > card hand. i have to give him one of my cards, well then he gets to play with > a 91 card deck and that is unfair as well. he is immediately disqualified. : > ) How do you figure that the card you trade him finds its way into his library? > If i trade Christianus Lionel to someone, i also have to give them one of my > cards. this is ludicrous. This is card text. > when i trade the elder library away, my hand size > is reduced. i still meet the requirements of SC. my hand size is now 7 not 8 > cause i don't have the library anymore. i do not have less than my hand size > because once the library is gone, my hand size is now 7 and i have MORE than my > hand size and per the rulebook, i must discard. Right. *You* don't violate the text of SC. Your trading partner, however, is in violation of the explicit text on Succubus Club, meaning that the trade was illegal, as has been stated already. [ quoted text not captured ]

"Andrew S. Davidson" wrote: > > On Thu, 06 Sep 2001 19:11:18 GMT, Frederick Scott wrote: > > >I'm pretty sure that clause of the Succubus Club merely means you're > >supposed to trade cards in hand on a one-for-one basis, nothing more. > >In particular, there's no indication that it wants you to take into > >account the *indirect* implications of trading permanents. Drawing > >another card for Elder Library (or discarding because one no longer > >possesses the Elder Library) is just an indirect effect triggered by > >the change of possession. (Nice try, tho...) > > The change in hand size is a direct effect of the trade - it is > immediate and inevitable consequence. In any case, the Succubus Club > does not make such fine distinctions - you just made all that up. > This is transparent chicanery because you yourself think that using > the Club to cycle cards is abusive. You just want to build the card > up so that you can knock it down by banning it. No, I actually think it's just silly to go around reading and figuring out the effects of a permanents moving on one's hand size in order to interpret a clause on Succubus Club. And I think there's plenty of reason to ban the SC without Elder Library or Visit From the Capuchin. Fred

LSJ wrote: > > "Andrew S. Davidson" wrote: > > > > On 6 Sep 2001 13:17:00 -0700, Brad Ward wrote: > > > > >Otherwise you couldnt use the Succubus at all > > >once you run out of library cards. > > > > This doesn't follow. Again, you just have to read the card which > > says, "These trades ... cannot result in any Methuselah having less > > than his or her hand size." If one player is already short of cards > > then continuing shortness would not be a result of the trade and so > > further trading would be legal. A player with a full hand would not > > be able to give the short player cards though, as he would become > > short too as a result of the trade and this is not allowed. > > Good point. > > So, when trading a card that alters a player's hand size, neither > trader can end up needing to draw cards - that is, if you trade > away your Elder Library, you have to trade away an extra card from > your hand as well. > > There goes the "infinite" cycling problem. Great. Just remember, when you stick this ruling into the C, R, & E page to note whether it applies when one or both players has run out of library, when Elder Library and Visit from the Cupuchin would no longer affect them. And please never design a card whose hand size effects would vary from player to player in other ways. Fred

Frederick Scott wrote: > LSJ wrote: > > "Andrew S. Davidson" wrote: > > > This doesn't follow. Again, you just have to read the card which > > > says, "These trades ... cannot result in any Methuselah having less > > > than his or her hand size." If one player is already short of cards > > > then continuing shortness would not be a result of the trade and so > > > further trading would be legal. A player with a full hand would not > > > be able to give the short player cards though, as he would become > > > short too as a result of the trade and this is not allowed. > > > > So, when trading a card that alters a player's hand size, neither > > trader can end up needing to draw cards - that is, if you trade > > away your Elder Library, you have to trade away an extra card from > > your hand as well. > > > > There goes the "infinite" cycling problem. > > Great. Just remember, when you stick this ruling into the C, R, & E > page to note whether it applies when one or both players has run out > of library, when Elder Library and Visit from the Cupuchin would no > longer affect them. It's explicit card text. There's not much to clarify there. "These trades ... cannot result in any Methuselah having less than his or her hand size." If a trade results in a Methuselah having less than his or her hand size, then that trade is illegal. That's pretty simple. > And please never design a card whose hand size effects would vary from > player to player in other ways. ? Card text would apply just as clearly then. [ quoted text not captured ]

LSJ wrote: > > Frederick Scott wrote: > > LSJ wrote: > > > So, when trading a card that alters a player's hand size, neither > > > trader can end up needing to draw cards - that is, if you trade > > > away your Elder Library, you have to trade away an extra card from > > > your hand as well. > > > > > > There goes the "infinite" cycling problem. > > > > Great. Just remember, when you stick this ruling into the C, R, & E > > page to note whether it applies when one or both players has run out > > of library, when Elder Library and Visit from the Cupuchin would no > > longer affect them. > > It's explicit card text. There's not much to clarify there. > > "These trades ... cannot result in any Methuselah having less than his or > her hand size."' Seems to me like there is. A person has 7 cards, gets traded Elder Library, his hand size is now 8. In order to make the trade legal, you're ruling that the recipient of the Elder Library must receive one card from the person donating it in order to get around the prohibition against a trade resulting in a Methuselah having less than his or her hand size. Fine. But what if the player only held 6 cards already due to playing a card when his library was depleted. Must the other player give him card? Two cards? Or no cards? In fact, he already has "less than his or her hand size" due to his library depletion, the Elder Library only aggravated the problem. Perhaps it's simply impossible to donate the Elder Library in this situation. And if the person giving the Elder Library only has 7 cards in his hand, due to playing a card with a depleted library, then donating a card with the library - if he's allowed to do so - will cause him have less than his or her hand size, which is now only seven. Of course, he already had less cards in hand than hand size, but that number was 7 and 8 (respectively) before and is now 6 and 7. What to do? I'm just saying, whatever answer you apparently view as "obvious", please put it in the C, R, & E, because it sure isn't obvious to me. > > And please never design a card whose hand size effects would vary from > > player to player in other ways. > > ? > Card text would apply just as clearly then. So a permanent that, say, increased the size of a Methuselahs hand by the the number of ready Malkavians controlled could be traded to Bob (who has no ready Malkavians) from Sam (who has three) but there's no way Sam could ever give it back to Bob unless some other permanent which had the opposite effect was included in a subsequent deal. When Sam got that permanent back, his hand would contain three cards less than it's size which is illegal by SC card text and Bob can't give him any cards in hand or the deal becomes illegal from _his_ perspective. Is that correct? Fred

Frederick Scott wrote: > LSJ wrote: > > It's explicit card text. There's not much to clarify there. > > > > "These trades ... cannot result in any Methuselah having less than his or > > her hand size."' > > Seems to me like there is. A person has 7 cards, gets traded Elder Library, > his hand size is now 8. In order to make the trade legal, you're ruling that > the recipient of the Elder Library must receive one card from the person > donating it in order to get around the prohibition against a trade resulting > in a Methuselah having less than his or her hand size. Fine. But what if > the player only held 6 cards already due to playing a card when his library > was depleted. Must the other player give him card? Two cards? Or no cards? > In fact, he already has "less than his or her hand size" due to his library > depletion, the Elder Library only aggravated the problem. Perhaps it's > simply impossible to donate the Elder Library in this situation. If the trade results in a Meth having fewer cards..., then it is illegal. If the Meth had fewer cards than his or her hand size before the trade, then the trade is not the thing that resulted in the situation. > And if the person giving the Elder Library only has 7 cards in his hand, due > to playing a card with a depleted library, then donating a card with the > library - if he's allowed to do so - will cause him have less than his or her > hand size, which is now only seven. Of course, he already had less cards in > hand than hand size, but that number was 7 and 8 (respectively) before and is > now 6 and 7. What to do? He already had fewer cards, andthe trade didn't change this. > I'm just saying, whatever answer you apparently view as "obvious", please put > it in the C, R, & E, because it sure isn't obvious to me. OK. > > > And please never design a card whose hand size effects would vary from > > > player to player in other ways. > > > > ? > > Card text would apply just as clearly then. > > So a permanent that, say, increased the size of a Methuselahs hand by the > the number of ready Malkavians controlled could be traded to Bob (who has > no ready Malkavians) from Sam (who has three) but there's no way Sam could > ever give it back to Bob unless some other permanent which had the opposite > effect was included in a subsequent deal. When Sam got that permanent back, > his hand would contain three cards less than it's size which is illegal by > SC card text and Bob can't give him any cards in hand or the deal becomes > illegal from _his_ perspective. Is that correct? Yes. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Mon, 10 Sep 2001, LSJ wrote: > > If the trade results in a Meth having fewer cards..., then it is illegal. > If the Meth had fewer cards than his or her hand size before the trade, then > the trade is not the thing that resulted in the situation. so, if i was on 6 cards because i had run out of library, i could trade some or all of my cards away, and not need to get any in return, because i was already below my full handsize? salem.