Vote Pushing, etc.

In article <313E09...@studio.disney.com>, Robert Goudie <robert...@studio.disney.com> wrote: > I mentioned these two points in the VTES-L list on the subject of vote > pushing: Hello again. :) > People oppossed to vote pushing often assume that after a vote is > completed the vote pusher will refill his hand back up to seven fresh new > vote cards. Actually, no. That is not my assumption, but the problem is that even if the vote fails (due to others pushing votes), the vote push deck will almost certainly be able to pass the next, because there percentage is higher (given that no one else is playing vote push). A vote push(VP) deck has ~75% vote cards. A typical vote(V) deck will have ~35% vote cards. A typical non-voting(NV) deck will have ~1% vote cards. Pretend the first vote fails. Everyone pushes. The VP deck will regain 5 votes. The V deck will have likely pushed twice and regained 1 vote. The NV deck will have pushed all votes, and likely regained none. At this point, The VP will only need to push once to win the vote. With the Praxis Seizures the VP deck will have, it will soon only push votes to get the damaging votes in hand. >Most vote decks will have 20-25% master cards which cannot > be quickly cycled through. After each vote there is often a residual > master (or other non-vote) card that sneaks into your hand. This is quite true. But, it is also insignificant. By the time the Master cards start "clogging" the hand, it is usually after a few votes. Theoretical Example: Master after Turn Master Votes 1 1 6 (Call none) 2 0 7 (Call 1, push 6), 5 (Call 1, push 4), 4 (Discard) 3 1 (w/ D) 6 (Call 1, push 5), 4 (Call 1, push 3), 3 4 2 (w/ D) 5 ... Note the _slow_ increase. Also realize that after the first or second turn, the number of vote pushes will decrease as everyone else runs out and your seizures get passed. Eventually Master clog ends, even with weenie vote push (where 7 or more votes can be passed in turn 4) >I have a > low-mid. capacity Nosf. political deck (I got tired of all my politics > being intercepted.) that works well. I came in 2nd. place at a > convention in Los Angeles a couble of weeks ago. 2 times my hand got 5 > master cards in it. Even after a "Deal with the Devil" (I had to put > the "Deals" in because the hand jam really has been a problem.) I > replaced my eight (Elder Library) cards with a hand full of Praxis > Siezures. My next vote was, of course, quite successful but then I > replaced those and began collecting residual master cards again. > The other common drawback to this deck is the running out of Library > cards. If no one else has any titles or votes you're OK. But decks with > IC members and other high-capacity vampires were quite common at the > convention (and in my regular group). That means your deck is not working like a typical WVP. If you are playing low-mid Nossies (2 to 6, I imagine), you are runnning about 3 to 4 times _slower_ than a WVP. The WVP will eat alive anyone trying to get out a Inner Circle member. That's 11 pool (down to 19) and 3 to 4 turns. Turn 1) 3 Vamps average Turn 2) 1 to 2 Seizures, total of 3 votes. (1.5 damaging votes ~7 pool) Turn 3) 0 to 1 Seizures, total of 4 votes (3.5 damaging votes ~10 pool) Turn 4) 0 to 1 Seizures, total of 5 votes (4.5 damaging votes ~21 pool) At this point, there will be roughly 2.5 Princes (5 votes). If the IC member is out in turn three, 1 vote or bleed will kill. Let's send one vampire to torpor a turn. That's ~6 less damaging votes by turn 4. Still doing 20 pool to your prey. >I run out of library at least > half of the time I play this deck. I ran out at the tournament and ended > up in second place. The guy who won (a guy from my playgroup and my > original Grandprey) did 3 Second Traditions + Eagles sight to wreck a few > key votes. Anyone in my playgoup is free to vote push and it has never > been a problem for us. Just my $0.02. Everyone may be free to vote push, but only the vote decks get the benefit. I played in another playgroup and they played 4CL/No GT. I happened to have a deck that was nearly 4 CL (6 Majesties), and they let me play it. I decimated them. Why? ALL my votes passed. They pushed occasionally, but since they were not playing vote decks, they weren't able to keep up. If I pushed away useless votes (at the time), I had a high probability of getting a useful one. If they pushed a vote, they almost never would redraw one. By the time they got a prince or two out (four player game), I had already gotten two and used a seizure. At this point, pushing became an excercise in card cycling and augmenting Voter Captivation. Vote pushing doesn't lead to a balanced game. The only time a WVP deck will be hindered is if someone else is playing vote push politics or someone gets Justine with a Sports Bike. Rush comes out to slowly, who cares if they are intercepted, and its quicker than S&B. Regular politics can't compete. In a role-playing sense, how does it work? Do the Caitiff just shout really loudly to get their way despite the fact that princes may oppose them? The Methuselah may manipulate Camarilla politics, but if all it is doing is manipulating puny, untitled Caitiff, how much influence can it have? Vote pushing, in short, leads to a broken, nonsensical game. "I can send and receive e-mail even over the Internet"-aol commercial @#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$ # Adrian Sullivan sull...@cslab.uwlax.edu Spoutingly yours 8^) # $ GAT/CS/O/WS R+++* tv&--- b++(+++)&+ t X++&-- 5->? e+*>++++ PS+&-+ @ # PE&++&- C(+++)$ UX+>+++$ N++(+) K+>++++ w---$>? M++$ r(+) y*+? 3.1# @#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$

Robert Goudie <robert...@studio.disney.com> writes: >I mentioned these two points in the VTES-L list on the subject of vote >pushing: >People oppossed to vote pushing often assume that after a vote is >completed the vote pusher will refill his hand back up to seven fresh new >vote cards. Most vote decks will have 20-25% master cards which cannot >be quickly cycled through. That's too many masters for most decks. It means you should only be playing 4-5 non-masters per turn, including actions, modifiers, and reactions. Even for a non-pushing vote deck that's too few, e.g. Vote card #1 (intercepted) + 2 Fortitude cards + Vote card #2 + Bewitching Oration + Deflection as a reaction (6 cards total) is a pretty minimal turn for a Ventrue vote deck. That would indicate 15% Masters as a goal. In any case, with vote pushing you can freely put even fewer masters into your deck - if you don't have a master, keep pushing till you draw one. >I came in 2nd. place at a >convention in Los Angeles a couble of weeks ago. 2 times my hand got 5 >master cards in it. Even after a "Deal with the Devil" (I had to put >the "Deals" in because the hand jam really has been a problem.) I >replaced my eight (Elder Library) cards with a hand full of Praxis >Siezures. My next vote was, of course, quite successful but then I >replaced those and began collecting residual master cards again. You definitely have too many masters. Throw out 1/2 your masters, at random, and you deck will improve. >The other common drawback to this deck is the running out of Library >cards. If no one else has any titles or votes you're OK. But decks with >IC members and other high-capacity vampires were quite common at the >convention (and in my regular group). I run out of library at least >half of the time I play this deck. I ran out at the tournament and ended >up in second place. The guy who won (a guy from my playgroup and my >original Grandprey) did 3 Second Traditions + Eagles sight to wreck a few >key votes. If you have enough Praxis Seizures (and not too many masters) you shouldn't have a problem . However, if vote decks are common, weenie voters don't do too well as they have too much opposition (both titles and counter-pushing). Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com)

The Corrupter <sull...@cslab.uwlax.edu> wrote: >In article <313E09...@studio.disney.com>, Robert Goudie ><robert...@studio.disney.com> wrote: >> I mentioned these two points in the VTES-L list on the subject of vote >> pushing: > >Hello again. :) Yep.. and I'm probaly going to echo this post on the mail list to (assuming my mail server wakes up...). After playing my 1st ture 10%CL WVP deck last night, I'm going to have to comment. >> People oppossed to vote pushing often assume that after a vote is >> completed the vote pusher will refill his hand back up to seven fresh >new >> vote cards. >Actually, no. That is not my assumption, but the problem is that even if >the vote fails (due to others pushing votes), the vote push deck will >almost certainly be able to pass the next, because there percentage is >higher (given that no one else is playing vote push). >A vote push(VP) deck has ~75% vote cards. A typical vote(V) deck will >have ~35% vote cards. A typical non-voting(NV) deck will have ~1% vote >cards. My deck last night was up around 80% I think, which was part of the problem. I didn't have quite enough defense, so I might tweak it a little now that I know what to do with it. I also picked a _bad_ night to play it. I guessed that one player would not play the same deck he played 2 weeks ago (Ventrue/Gangrel sneaky VP with about 50% votes I would guess) and another player at the table was playing what I would call oportunity voting (Toreador with about 10% votes to try and get an archon). And those two were my pred (Vent/Gangrel) and grandpred. Was not a fun night. In fact, looking around the table, I would say several people were disapointed in the game. And of course, to top it all off, my combat based prey got 3 haven uncovereds (hello mr 2 capacity prince, my vamp's gonna put you in torpor not once but twice). And despite the fact that there is _no_ way the game could have been worse for me, I still should have gotten a victory point (RTFC next time...). >Pretend the first vote fails. Everyone pushes. The VP deck will regain >5 votes. The V deck will have likely pushed twice and regained 1 vote. >The NV deck will have pushed all votes, and likely regained none. At >this point, The VP will only need to push once to win the vote. With the >Praxis Seizures the VP deck will have, it will soon only push votes to >get the damaging votes in hand. I would say this holds in general, but last night was a little different. I think I'll see, b/c I'm probably going to play the WVP deck again (in an attempt to prove that VP is broken and that our group should limit it some how). However, I'm porbably going to do it at a table of 5 instead of 6, since that lessens the chance of having the one type of deck that can stop it at the table (another VP). >>Most vote decks will have 20-25% master cards which cannot >> be quickly cycled through. After each vote there is often a residual >> master (or other non-vote) card that sneaks into your hand. I was runing 20% master, which may be a little high, and I only experienced minor hand jam. The rumors help a lot... have 2 master actions was very good for my deck. >This is quite true. But, it is also insignificant. By the time the >Master cards start "clogging" the hand, it is usually after a few votes. >Theoretical Example: > Master after > Turn Master Votes > 1 1 6 (Call none) > 2 0 7 (Call 1, push 6), 5 (Call 1, push 4), 4 (Discard) > 3 1 (w/ D) 6 (Call 1, push 5), 4 (Call 1, push 3), 3 > 4 2 (w/ D) 5 ... >Note the _slow_ increase. Also realize that after the first or second >turn, the number of vote pushes will decrease as everyone else runs out >and your seizures get passed. Eventually Master clog ends, even with >weenie vote push (where 7 or more votes can be passed in turn 4) Unless your princes are in torp, and you have to push with everything you've got to pass any vote... all game. I went about 80-90% through my deck, and after the game I think I was able to get at most 5 agressive votes passed the whole time... and had a total of 3 left in my library. I was pushing with everything I had to try to pass votes, and that often ment using agressive votes. >>I have a >> low-mid. capacity Nosf. political deck (I got tired of all my politics >> being intercepted.) that works well. I came in 2nd. place at a >> convention in Los Angeles a couble of weeks ago. 2 times my hand got 5 >> master cards in it. Even after a "Deal with the Devil" (I had to put >> the "Deals" in because the hand jam really has been a problem.) I >> replaced my eight (Elder Library) cards with a hand full of Praxis >> Siezures. My next vote was, of course, quite successful but then I >> replaced those and began collecting residual master cards again. > >> The other common drawback to this deck is the running out of Library >> cards. If no one else has any titles or votes you're OK. But decks >with >> IC members and other high-capacity vampires were quite common at the >> convention (and in my regular group). >That means your deck is not working like a typical WVP. If you are >playing low-mid Nossies (2 to 6, I imagine), you are runnning about 3 to >4 times _slower_ than a WVP. The WVP will eat alive anyone trying to get >out a Inner Circle member. That's 11 pool (down to 19) and 3 to 4 turns. > Turn 1) 3 Vamps average > Turn 2) 1 to 2 Seizures, total of 3 votes. (1.5 damaging votes ~7 pool) > Turn 3) 0 to 1 Seizures, total of 4 votes (3.5 damaging votes ~10 pool) > Turn 4) 0 to 1 Seizures, total of 5 votes (4.5 damaging votes ~21 pool) >At this point, there will be roughly 2.5 Princes (5 votes). If the IC >member is out in turn three, 1 vote or bleed will kill. I went 1st last night... and with my whole one transfer put out Smudge. Next turn, I bleed to get the edge (which I held about 3 turns) and because I had no "good" aggressive votes. Next turn 2 Praxis, and a Reversal of Fortune (just for the heck of it, a mistake I see now.. made the game amusing though). Then prince # one gets havened and into torpor. I had to fight the torpor battle all game. Not fun at all. Anyway... like I said it was a _very_ bad game for the deck. >Let's send one vampire to torpor a turn. >That's ~6 less damaging votes by turn 4. Still doing 20 pool to your prey. Depends on other things, but if you don't have to push much, you can probably get away with losing one of you princes to torpor. [ quoted text not captured ] >I decimated them. >Why? [ quoted text not captured ] Despite the fact that I did not get a victory point last night, re-enforced in my mind was the fact that WVP is abusive and it does not make sense in a role playing way. If the Ventrue/Gangrel vote deck had not been at the table (he got a prince, primogen, and ventrue HQ), I think I would have gotten atleast 2 victory points easily. Heck... if my prey hadn't sent both my princes to torpor or if I had been slightly more intelligent I would have gotten one. >Vote pushing, in short, leads to a broken, nonsensical game. And boring... and unenjoyable. -CT -- Charles T. Schwope | Every man is a spark in the darkness. By the aka CT | time he is noticed, he is gone forever, a sch...@infrared.csc.ti.com | retinal afterimage that fades, and is obscured c-sc...@ti.com | by newer, brighter lights.

matt...@utdallas.edu wrote: >Charles T. Schwope (c-sc...@ti.com) wrote: >> I also picked a _bad_ night to play it. I guessed that one player >> would not play the same deck he played 2 weeks ago (Ventrue/Gangrel >> sneaky VP with about 50% votes I would guess) and another player at >> the table was playing what I would call oportunity voting (Toreador >> with about 10% votes to try and get an archon). >Well, it was actually 20%...5 titles, 8 archon/camarilla exp. and 5 misc. Picky picky... still too low for me to really worry about you pushing against me. You should have at most 2 vote cards in hand when I call a vote... I'll have 4-6. Although you did a couple times (I believe) throw votes on when other people had pushed against me. >> And those two were my >> pred (Vent/Gangrel) and grandpred. Was not a fun night. In fact, >> looking around the table, I would say several people were disapointed >> in the game. ><shrug> I think part of that is because 4 of the 6 people there were >playing with gangrels, and my predador spent the whole game getting >knocked into torpor over and over by his predator (which left me open to >develop my game). That was part of it. Plus the fact that 3 players' turns (the 3 decks with votes) were taking time, while 3 players turns weren't. Seeing myself, you, and Mike (the other vote deck) play during vote actions while they didn't... its just boring. >> And of course, to top it all off, my combat based prey >> got 3 haven uncovereds (hello mr 2 capacity prince, my vamp's gonna >> put you in torpor not once but twice). And despite the fact that >> there is _no_ way the game could have been worse for me, I still >> should have gotten a victory point (RTFC next time...). >Except that you might not have been able to pass that vote if you'd been >ousting your prey instead of hurting me (his predator at the time). ><shrug> Well... I don't believe anyone voted for me... though my grandprey may have abstained his 4 votes. But I believe at that time I had 2 princes and a Justicar in play, so I had as many votes on table as everyone else combined. Then I should have been able to out push the 2-4 votes that people could have had. >> I would say this holds in general, but last night was a little >> different. I think I'll see, b/c I'm probably going to play the WVP >> deck again (in an attempt to prove that VP is broken and that our >> group should limit it some how). However, I'm porbably going to do it >> at a table of 5 instead of 6, since that lessens the chance of having >> the one type of deck that can stop it at the table (another VP). >Umm... <joy> :) Can't wait until you pull it out again. <chuckle> Well... it will have to be a while. I _know_ that people will start packing anti-vote deck cards. I don't want to play the deck again... but feel its something that has to be done, sorta like the equiptment/stealth deck I'm going to have to put together to "use " the other house rule have that I disagree with. >> I went 1st last night... and with my whole one transfer put out >> Smudge. Next turn, I bleed to get the edge (which I held about 3 >> turns) and because I had no "good" aggressive votes. Next turn 2 >> Praxis, and a Reversal of Fortune (just for the heck of it, a mistake >> I see now.. made the game amusing though). >Just curious, why did you think it was a mistake? Correction on my part... I had an agressive vote...KRC, but wanted to play a cons. ag, which I didn't have. Or I could have played another Praxis, which I would have done if I had know 3 haven uncovereds were coming my way. I went into brain lock, saw that I had the one Reversal of Fortunes that I put in the deck in my hand and said... looks like fun. It wasn't a terrible move, but the KRC would have been much better (though it did slow a prince down from getting into the game, which was a _good_ thing). >> Then prince # one gets >> havened and into torpor. I had to fight the torpor battle all game. >> Not fun at all. Anyway... like I said it was a _very_ bad game for >> the deck. >...and you were still "that" close to running the table with it. If your >pred and grandpred hadn't elected to put out a prince with our first >vampire, you might have been unstoppable. Which is unfotunate. WVP should not work... but it does, to damn well. At the very least, it totally messes up the prey/pred relationships on the table. Actually, what I think doomed me was when my gradprey got out a prince (and probably the ventrue HQ). Without the HQ my prey _never_ would have passed any votes, in particular the conserv. ag. that did 5 to me (a game changing happening). Without that prince (which brought on table votes to 4 for me, 9 for everyone else) I would have been able to pass occasional votes. Heck I think I got one passed after that by convincing you to either abstain or vote for me. All and all, there were about 4 diferent things I could point to that shut me down: the vote deck pred (and his HQ), the 3 haven uncovereds (in consecutive turns), my mistake not to get a 3rd prince, the fact that _everyone's_ princes came up. Remove any one or 2 or them, and I would have been getting some victrory points move likely. >> >Vote pushing, in short, leads to a broken, nonsensical game. >> And boring... and unenjoyable. >Yep. Can't wait until our group decides that unlimited vote pushing is a >"Bad Thing". Maybe we need an out of turn master that affects voters the >way that Archon Investigation (?) affects big bleeders. <chuckle> Bureaucratic Overload may start to show up, which is a minor bother. Or everyone can pack a surprise influence. :) [ quoted text not captured ]

The discussion below is from the game at my house on Monday. Those opinions expressed are not necessary those of the homeowner. In our group, the following decks have won this year: Toreador bleeds (twice) Weenie stealth (twice) Weenie vote Ventrue vote Brujah combat Tremere combat Nosferatu combat! Weenie combat! Malkavian stealth. Until the deck becomes a consistent winner, the argument for vote pushing is weak. I feel that 'the smaller the number of methusalehs, the greater the chance for a vote pushing victory.' -- Dick -- In article <4i6mqi$p...@superb.csc.ti.com>, c-sc...@ti.com says... >matt...@utdallas.edu wrote:> >>Charles T. Schwope (c-sc...@ti.com) wrote: >>I also picked a _bad_ night to play it. I guessed that one player >>would not play the same deck he played 2 weeks ago (Ventrue/Gangrel >>sneaky VP with about 50% votes I would guess) and another player at >> the table was playing what I would call oportunity voting (Toreador >> with about 10% votes to try and get an archon). >> Was not a fun night. In fact, looking around the table, >> I would say several people were disapointed in the game. >> Seeing >myself, you, and Mike (the other vote deck) >> play during vote actions while they didn't... its just boring. > >><shrug> >> >>Umm... <joy> :) Can't wait until you pull it out again. <chuckle> > >>Well... it will have to be a while. I _know_ that people will >> start >packing anti-vote deck cards. I don't want to play the deck >> again...>but feel its something that has to be done. >> Anyway... like I said it was a _very_ bad game for the deck. > WVP should not work... but it does, too damn >well. At the very least, it totally messes up the prey/pred >relationships on the table. > Actually, what I think doomed me was when my gradprey got out a prince >(and probably the ventrue HQ). Without the HQ my prey _never_ would >have passed any votes, in particular the conserv. ag. that did 5 to me >(a game changing happening). Without that prince (which brought on >table votes to 4 for me, 9 for everyone else) I would have been able >to pass occasional votes. Heck I think I got one passed after that by >convincing you to either abstain or vote for me. >All and all, there were about 4 diferent things I could point to that shut me down.............Remove any one or 2 or them, and >I would have been getting some victrory points move likely. >Vote pushing, in short, leads to a broken, nonsensical game. >And boring... and unenjoyable. > "Especially when you lose with a deck that you think should win!"

In article <4i9i6h$6...@tilde.csc.ti.com>, d...@dlep1.itg.ti.com (Dick Johnson) wrote: [small snip] >In our group, the following decks have won this year: > Toreador bleeds (twice) > Weenie stealth (twice) > Weenie vote > Ventrue vote > Brujah combat > Tremere combat > Nosferatu combat! > Weenie combat! > Malkavian stealth. > Until the deck becomes a consistent winner, > the argument for vote pushing is weak. I > feel that 'the smaller the number of methusalehs, > the greater the chance for a vote pushing victory.' Do you play with unlimited vote pushing? If so, please post the Weenie Vote Deck to see if it conforms to what we are referring to. Thank you. [ quoted text not captured ]

Funny I have yet to see any of you people post these decks you call "weenie" or whatever, but are always asking others to do like wise, so once again I would like to see this "weenie" vote deck you claim is a "weenie" vote deck. and make it all cards not some cheap generalization of one. Errol T.

matt...@utdallas.edu wrote: >The Corrupter (sull...@cslab.uwlax.edu) wrote: >> In article <4i9i6h$6...@tilde.csc.ti.com>, d...@dlep1.itg.ti.com (Dick >> Johnson) wrote: >> [small snip] >> >In our group, the following decks have won this year: >> > Toreador bleeds (twice) >> > Weenie stealth (twice) >> > Weenie vote >> > Ventrue vote >> > Brujah combat >> > Tremere combat >> > Nosferatu combat! >> > Weenie combat! >> > Malkavian stealth. >> Do you play with unlimited vote pushing? If so, please post the Weenie >> Vote Deck to see if it conforms to what we are referring to. Thank you. >Yep, we play with unlimited vote pushing. I played the weenie vote that >won (above), but it's not a true WVP, mainly because it had vampires from >1 to 4 capacity, and used stealth to call votes, and then pushed to get >them passed (if necessary). I played it twice and won once. I fully agree with this. I never thought that it was WVP, however I think it dies the same death as WVP under golden tenants. >The only time that a true WVP has been played was our last game. AFAIK, >it was about 80% votes, and 20% masters. Had Charles not made a couple >of crucial mistakes (one early, one late) or had the table seating been >slightly different (2 voting decks to his right, 3 haven uncovered to his >left), then he would have gotten at least one VP, if not run the table. >It was only by the slimmest of margins (I feel) that Charles didn't sweep >the table that night. I think its too powerful, you think it is, but we haven't "proved it" to the rest, so we keep the same stuff. The main reason I did it was to prove to _myself_ that WVP is too buff. It is. >As regards to the winning list above, one caveat I feel is that almost >all the players in our group aren't trying to find "the one true deck" >that will win every game they play. It seems that most people try to >build something new each week. That's certainly true for me. If I'd >wanted to, I could have kept playing that weenie stealth voting deck, >trying to improve it more and more, but that gets a little boring--plus >that tends to break the predator/prey relationships in our group when >that happens (in other words, the 2nd time I played the weenie stealth >voting deck, I had cross table bleeds directed at me, etc). Bingo. If I wanted to "win" whatever you want to call the stats thing we're keeping, I would play WVP almost exclusively. I'd have to trade for a couple of Parity Shift (since I've only got 4/5), think up a better way to gain blood, remove a handful of the Domain Challeges, come up with a better way to play defense for those occasions where there's another VP deck at the table. I think I could tune it (rather easily) to the point where it won ~90% of the time with no other VP decks at the table, and ~50% other wise. Also have to learn when to cut my losses, aka cut deals with any other VP decks at the table so as to at least salvage a victory point. >Anyway, I feel that WVP is broken, and would love for our group to play >with the Golden Tenets (one vote card per meth, no repeat actions), but >it's probably going to take a couple more games of WVP for that to >happen. And unless I get really bored, I'm not going to play WVP for a while. Its a crappy strategy, and if someone shows up with one I'll just lose and say we should adopt at least the vote fix Golden Tenant. And play my own WVP the next week. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <4ikqe6$5...@bert.compusmart.ab.ca>, Errol T <etre...@compusmart.ab.ca> wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] I'm surprised you haven't seen one of the three I've posted numerous times. Once again, from the top. :) WVP Crypt in all Environments: Two of Each Caitiff, One of each other 2-Capacity. WVP Library under 4 Card Limit (for those who play it): 4 Misdirection, 4 Anarch Revolt, 4 Information Superhighway, 4 Effective Management, 1 Of Each Praxis Seizure (19 Total), 4 KRC, 4 Sabbat Threat, 4 Parity Shift, 4 Conservative Agitation, 4 Domain Challenge, 4 Ancilla Empowerment, 4 The First Tradition, 4 Regaining the Upper Hand, 4 Consainguineas Condemnation, 4 Dramatic Upheavel, 4 Command of the Harpies. 79 Card Total. WVP Library under Duelist Convocation Tournament Rules (broken though it may be): 6 Ancilla Empowerment, 6 Conservative Agitation, 6 Domain Challenge, 6 KRC, 6 Parity Shift, 6 Sabbat Threat, 6 The First Tradition, 2 Dramatic Upheavel, 2 Command of the Harpies, 2 Consainguineas Condemnation, 2 Information Superhighway, 4 Misdirection, 4 Anarch Revolt, 10 Effective Management, 12 Praxis Seizurs (no duplicates if possible, preference to Information Superhighway, 4 Misdirection, 4 Anarch Revolt, 10 Effective Management, 12 Praxis Seizurs (no duplicates if possible, preference to Dark Sovereigns cards and older vampires that would normally have the title). 80 Card Total. WVP Library under No Card Limits: Library: 20% Effective Management; 15% Praxis Seizures (no duplicates if possible); 60% KRC; 5% Misdirection. Have "fun" with them. The rules (so you can see what happens): 1) Play full vote pushing. 2) No one else play Weenie Vote Push. If they VP, C'est la vie, but no WVP. 3) Don't tell anyone what will happen. Let them find out. Prepare to win 90% of your games. A real "fun" time. ;) [ quoted text not captured ]

This deck is weenie all right not because of degeneracy. I don't think it would be all that hard to beat the crap out of this deck. some of the catiffs have Presence there should be Majesty in this deck then it would be Weenie.

In article <4iv5ae$1...@bert.compusmart.ab.ca>, Errol T <etre...@compusmart.ab.ca> wrote: [Re: to Weenie Vote Push Deck] [ quoted text not captured ] Weenie referring to the Weenies in it. :) BTW, how would you plan to "beat the crap out of this deck" with a typical deck? Inquiring minds want to know. [ quoted text not captured ]

>BTW, how would you plan to "beat the crap out of this deck" with a >typical deck? Inquiring minds want to know. You mean you can't figure it out? Ok, well people put in their decks several haven uncovereds or perhaps also Bums rushes. Now with both predator and prey going for it, Strike:combat ends/untaps will be used up to end combat and (through the concerted effort) at least one little bod will enter torpor even if you're only doing 1 hand damage with everyone. Most decks though have a limited combat capacity and thus it will be slightly easier. Peter "I'll just say my secret magic word..."

In article <4jbvbf$81s...@leeds.ac.uk>, CLA...@leeds.ac.uk (Super Ted) wrote: [I wrote:] [ quoted text not captured ] This is laughable to the WVP deck. As quickly as you are sending them to torpor, new ones are coming out. A good WVP deck uses Infohighway and Effective Management for Masters. Turn "Weenie" Vamp Average 1 3 (Haven Uncovered placed at this time is removed) 2 4 (Haven Uncovered placed at this time on becomes effective) 3 5 4 6 etc... You need to be sending _more_ than one vampire to torpor a turn. Not only that, they have to be the important ones. If you use small vamps, they will have to spend time hunting after combats. If you use larger vamps, you will be near death by the time you get one out. The major problem is, you have to be able to send out _alot_ of minions at the weenie horde, and the weenies just keep coming. As a predator, your back is open. As a prey, your prey works the WVP Decks great-grand prey for it. Things change once you get to "the Game of Three". With only 3 players left, the others will typically work together. But this is tenuous at best. All unblocked votes will pass (with _rare_ exceptions). Only if both decks are combat ready can a chance for survival exist, and even at dropping 2 vamps per turn (starting with turn 3, things look rough. It will take (in a 3 player game) 8 damaging votes fully hitting one player to oust them (average, including a 10 point allocation for vamps influenced). The next player would require about 2.5 damagin votes to be ousted (average, including a 15 point allocation for vamps influenced). Turn 1 3 Vamps 2 1.5 princes, 1.5 damaging votes, 4 vamps 3 2 princes, 3.5 damaging votes, 5 vamps - 2 torped (.8 princes torped) 4 2.5 princes, 2.5 damaging votes, 6 Vamps - 4 torped (1.65 princes torped) 5 3.0 princes, 1.5 damaging votes, prey ousted, 7 Vamps - 5 torped at this point it is over. The WVP is bringing out a vampire a turn and losing one a turn, and still calling enough votes to oust its new prey. I can't figure it out. How would you plan to "beat the crap out of this deck" with a typical deck? Inquiring minds want to know. "I can send and receive e-mail even over the Internet"-aol commercial [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <4jbvbf$81s...@leeds.ac.uk>, Super Ted <CLA...@leeds.ac.uk> wrote: >>BTW, how would you plan to "beat the crap out of this deck" >with a >>typical deck? Inquiring minds want to know. > >You mean you can't figure it out? >Ok, well people put in their decks several haven uncovereds >or perhaps also Bums rushes. Now with both predator and prey >going for it, Strike:combat ends/untaps will be used up to >end combat and (through the concerted effort) at least one >little bod will enter torpor even if you're only doing 1 hand >damage with everyone. Most decks though have a limited >combat capacity and thus it will be slightly easier. If One of his vampires is sent to torpor and/or burned each turn, he'll still win. Beating the crap out of a minion and beating the crap out of a deck are two very different things. These vampires are meant to be expendable. How do you plan to remove the vampires as fast as he brinds them out? -- ----- L. Scott Johnson (lsc...@crl.com) | The opinions expressed are mine Graphics Specialist and V:tES Rulemonger | and subject to card text

In article <4jbvbf$81s...@leeds.ac.uk>, CLA...@leeds.ac.uk (Super Ted) writes: >>BTW, how would you plan to "beat the crap out of this deck" >with a >>typical deck? Inquiring minds want to know. > >You mean you can't figure it out? >Ok, well people put in their decks several haven uncovereds >or perhaps also Bums rushes. Most people don't do anything of the sort. If you're not playing a serious combat deck, rush cards like that are pretty useless. Even many intercept combat decks will be shy on rushes. Further, rush combat is necessarily only a moderately important part of the Jyhad deck mix. If many people play rush, then rush cards aren't very useful, so you're better off pursuing other strategies. >Now with both predator and prey >going for it, Strike:combat ends/untaps will be used up to >end combat and (through the concerted effort) at least one >little bod will enter torpor even if you're only doing 1 hand >damage with everyone. Most decks though have a limited >combat capacity and thus it will be slightly easier. A "solution" to weenie vote push which relies on both predator and prey of the deck playing the same (somewhat uncommon) style AND that they cooperate to to trash the "problem" deck (which requires their other enemies nor be much of a threat) - isn't much of a solution. Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com)