everybody hates me...

hi ! in our playgroup i'm not considered as a poor player, i think i won the respect of others very early, but i noticed other people try to avoid to play with me (we are often more than 20 players so it is an easy task). Every one, even friends, fear that i'll try to break their strategy. i know this is only a game but when you know someone, predator or prey, has a winning strategy, why not screw him when you have the opportunity ? it may sound no "fun" at all, but if you know someone, by doing something insignificant right now, will certainly screw you in two or three turns, why not screw him first ? to have the pleasure of watching his deck cycling and applause when the combo shows up ? yesterday, early in the game, my predator influences out Tatiana romanov (toreador prince, +1 bleed). I influenced out the !Tremere Priscus on my turn. When his turn came, my predator played minin tap on Tatiana, gaining 5 Pool. then he tried to 5th tradition. Everyone know what it means, because we knew what type of deck he was playing : the super boring Minion Tap+ 5th trad + Anson, mixed with Toreador Grand Ball, Camarila segregation and a lot of Aching beauty and Change of target. So, when he tried to 5th tradition, i just stopped him. At this point, he could have played a change of target but didn't. so when we entered combat, I played Weather control, thoughts betrayed, press, then amaranth. At this point, he lost a vampire that only costed him 2 pool. I don't think this action negated all his chances, he only had a slower start. Playing a Toreador deck (you know, the guys with an small Eye on all the cards), he wasn't able to block his own predator's Jost for all the game. He suicided himself by stacking Aching beauty on his anson, and i never blocked him, only reduced his bleed. A lot of my dominate bleeds were bounced at him, and everytime he put the blame on me. but why was he unable to stop or bounce the bleed anyway ? when he was ousted, the only thing he and my prey said was "why did you burned his vampire in the first place ? it's your fault. " so, i admit didn't wanted to face a predator with 40 Pool and IC & Justicars monsters out with multiple Aching beauty on them. and i think i was right because i won this game after all. Is it unsportsmanship to try to avoid greater danger by removing small threats immediatly ? Why everyone moans when i intercept their 5th tradition anyway ? tell me if i'm a dull, reverse play king maker, or if i was right, because everyone here thinks i suck. if you are also hated by other players, please tell me your story. reyda

>===== Original Message From "Reyda" <re...@noos.fr> ===== [ quoted text not captured ] It must be your personal charm. :-) Tactically who could object to the killing of a + bleed predator minion? Personally I don't let predators with dom/DOM or AUS live any longer than I can help it. Well, to be frank, I don't let predator minions of any type live very long. >so, i admit didn't wanted to face a predator with 40 Pool and IC & Justicars >monsters out with multiple Aching beauty on them. and i think i was right >because i won this game after all. > >Is it unsportsmanship to try to avoid greater danger by removing small >threats immediatly ? Why everyone moans when i intercept their 5th tradition >anyway ? > >tell me if i'm a dull, reverse play king maker, or if i was right, because >everyone here thinks i suck. > Perhaps your group would be happier with the RPG. The card game is about rather vicious competition, not cooperation. >if you are also hated by other players, please tell me your story. > If you don't play decks people hate, you're not really trying. Tom ------------------------------------------------------------ Get your FREE web-based e-mail and newsgroup access at: http://MailAndNews.com Create a new mailbox, or access your existing IMAP4 or POP3 mailbox from anywhere with just a web browser. ------------------------------------------------------------

Reyda wrote: > yesterday, early in the game, [I burned my predator's Tatiana trying to get the > Minion Tap - 5th Tradition loop going. The eventually ousted controller > says:] "why did you burned his vampire in the first place ? it's your fault. " > > so, i admit didn't wanted to face a predator with 40 Pool and IC & Justicars > monsters out with multiple Aching beauty on them. and i think i was right > because i won this game after all. > > Is it unsportsmanship to try to avoid greater danger by removing small > threats immediatly ? Why everyone moans when i intercept their 5th tradition > anyway ? > > tell me if i'm a dull, reverse play king maker, or if i was right, because > everyone here thinks i suck. You can't be called a "king maker" if you win the game. Burning your predator's vampires and otherwise reducing her ability to oust you is to be expected - not dull. The "problem" there is knowing when to stop so that your grand predator doesn't have an easy time ousting your predator (leaving you with a stronger new predator - worse for you). If you won, it sounds like you did fine. -- 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/

I dont know... Seems like there could be other considerations here, like is this a group that plays "for fun", or a group that plays rough. And even in vampire you can find both kind of groups. If this is a group where people are trying to try out new decks, play around with things, and generally have a good time. As opposed to a group who is trying to tweak their killer decks and generally beat each other bloody (is this the geek version of the Fight Club?). If your playgroup is mainly of the former type, and you are the latter.... I could see how no-one might be happy there. -vanda

Actually no, you did nothing wrong in recognizing a deck type and stopping/delaying a key component of that deck from working properly. Some decks have several "links" to be truly effective and if any one of those links are severed then the deck falls apart until the link can be reestablished. What your predator did (from what you have written) tried to overcome a bad starting situation and never really recovered. I know that being in a position like that is never fun, but it does happen in the game. I can relate to your predator as I was slammed by Legbiter in the final of a tournament last year with his Temptation of the Greater Power deck. I never owned a minion in the entire game for more than 1 turn without losing it. I then ended up as a road block between my prey's intercept capability and Legbiter's deck. I eventually took myself out just to be off the table as I wasn't able to do anything anyway (not enough pool and large minions). As for having people not wanting to sit next to you, I can absolutely relate. Peter Bakija recently posted a really good article for people wanting to start getting the hang of playing combat decks. I have been conducting this type of play style for a long time and earned a nickname as people found out sitting behind me was more dangerous than sitting in front of me. This didn't mean I didn't bleed my prey, but it did mean that I did target key minions belonging to my predator and/or grand predator (in some cases) to slow their forward momentum and give me the time to accomplish my goal of ousting my prey and carrying on forward. Though I have tempered this play strategy down since coming to Europe, I still consider it an essential part of play based upon the deck I am playing. I have also seen this style of play a lot in the UK. I think it follows the thought pattern of covering one's bases before you head off on the offensive. Rob Treasure, Legbiter, Matt Green and others have provided very practical lessons on how work this play style down to a refined art. They also have some of the most infuriating decks I have had the pleasure to play against in one location. Rob Treasure is in IMO probably one of the best deck recognition players around. As to how long it takes him to make an evaluation of the what each player is playing and develop an order of battle to help him is something only he can answer. If the people in your group are upset due to your growth in deck recognition then I would suggest they need to realize that if you play the same of thing over and over and over again, then someone somewhere is going to stop it cold and give you a miserable time some evening. The only way they can overcome this is to make something completely different and broaden their play with decks they normally don't play. Example: I use to absolutely hate political decks because of their capability to screw the table in some manner or another. The result of this was my occasional smacking down of one of their minions into torpor to try and keep them in check. Since that time I have started playing Political decks to help myself gain a better understanding of the decks (strengths and weaknesses) So now whenever I face one on the table I have a better grasp of what must be down to counter some or all of the deck's capabilities and what to watch out for with trying to counter. Try not to worry about it. If anything, you may be the catalyst within your group that will cause other players to vary their decks and play styles. Michael Eichler Prince of Ramstein ----- Posted via NewsOne.Net: Free (anonymous) Usenet News via the Web ----- http://newsone.net/ -- Free reading and anonymous posting to 60,000+ groups NewsOne.Net prohibits users from posting spam. If this or other posts made through NewsOne.Net violate posting guidelines, email ab...@newsone.net

Reyda wrote: > > yesterday, early in the game, my predator influences out Tatiana romanov > (toreador prince, +1 bleed). I influenced out the !Tremere Priscus on my > turn. When his turn came, my predator played minin tap on Tatiana, gaining 5 > Pool. then he tried to 5th tradition. Everyone know what it means, because > we knew what type of deck he was playing : the super boring Minion Tap+ 5th > trad + Anson, mixed with Toreador Grand Ball, Camarila segregation and a lot > of Aching beauty and Change of target. So, when he tried to 5th tradition, i > just stopped him. At this point, he could have played a change of target but > didn't. so when we entered combat, I played Weather control, thoughts > betrayed, press, then amaranth. At this point, he lost a vampire that only > costed him 2 pool. I don't think this action negated all his chances, he > only had a slower start. Playing a Toreador deck (you know, the guys with an > small Eye on all the cards), he wasn't able to block his own predator's Jost > for all the game. He suicided himself by stacking Aching beauty on his > anson, and i never blocked him, only reduced his bleed. A lot of my dominate > bleeds were bounced at him, and everytime he put the blame on me. but why > was he unable to stop or bounce the bleed anyway ? when he was ousted, the > only thing he and my prey said was "why did you burned his vampire in the > first place ? it's your fault. " > > so, i admit didn't wanted to face a predator with 40 Pool and IC & Justicars > monsters out with multiple Aching beauty on them. and i think i was right > because i won this game after all. That sounds like the correct answer to me. How would your predator and prey have answered the question? > Is it unsportsmanship to try to avoid greater danger by removing small > threats immediatly ? I wouldn't call Tatiana Romanov a "small threat". However, no, it is not unsporting to do things that damage your predator and prey - not even if you're wildly successful. In some instances, if you leave your predator too wide open to his or her predator, it may be a mistake. But it's not unsporting. > Why everyone moans when i intercept their 5th tradition anyway ? Because they want their 5th tradition to be successful and they perceive that moaning about it will result in you're doing it less often in the future - somehow. That was not a hard question. > tell me if i'm a dull, reverse play king maker, or if i was right, because > everyone here thinks i suck. Nope. I've seen this before from time to time. Sometimes predators or prey get so frustrated about how effective one of their two main opponents is doing against them that they forget hopes of winning and just go berserk against that player. For that matter, most multiplayer games have elements of different people seeing different tactics and even strategy as being "wrong" in some way and get into kind of immature reactions about it. Myself, I get frustrated by total "wall" reaction decks that allow one's predator to do absolutely nothing, no matter how their deck is built, and frequently let their prey have free rein. Or at least let their prey have free rein if he's doing directed actions against their grandprey. Usually, that kind of deck is its own eventual punishment as the prey often proceeds to sweep the table. I don't have to do anything. If I were you, I'd keep on intercepting those 5th Traditions. If you have the chance to burn your predator's minions, ask your grandpredator in front of the whole table whether you should or not - make the discussion very open. Then, if your predator and prey want to claim that it's not a good idea to do it, they can argue with your grandpredator, too - not just you. If the whole table tells you not to do it, yield to diplomacy even if you're pretty sure your right. Sometimes, you have to play within a very silly metagame and learn its particular rules and means for winning. Usually, if the group applies the same rules to other players as they do to you, you can find an easier way to win the game. Fred

"Reyda" <re...@noos.fr> a écrit dans le message news: 970a0l$2so3$1...@news6.isdnet.net... [ quoted text not captured ] reyda il y a l'art et la maničre l'art étais bon, mais la maničre probalement pas -- Sylvain :o)

"Reyda" <re...@noos.fr> a écrit dans le message news: 970a0l$2so3$1...@news6.isdnet.net... [ quoted text not captured ]

"Reyda" <re...@noos.fr> a écrit dans le message news: 970a0l$2so3$1...@news6.isdnet.net... > hi ! > in our playgroup i'm not considered as a poor player, i think i won the > respect of others very early, but i noticed other people try to avoid to > play with me (we are often more than 20 players so it is an easy task [Skip] [ quoted text not captured ]

"Reyda" <re...@noos.fr> a écrit dans le message news: 970a0l$2so3$1...@news6.isdnet.net... > hi ! > in our playgroup i'm not considered as a poor player, i think i won the > respect of others very early, but i noticed other people try to avoid to > play with me (we are often more than 20 players so it is an easy [ quoted text not captured ]

"Tom Kassel" <TomK...@MailAndNews.com> wrote in message news:3AA5...@MailAndNews.com... [snip Reyda stuff] > If you don't play decks people hate, you're not really trying. > > Tom I love this quote, since I have several decks that are "hated" in our playgroup. Come to think of it, nearly everyone in our playgroup has at least one deck that is hated by everyone else, so I guess we are an OK playgroup, then. :) Kevin J. Mergen, Prince of Madison, WI (remove NOSPAM for direct reply) "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

>Is it unsportsmanship to try to avoid greater danger by removing small Not at all. It may be unsportsmanlike (if not warranted) to hand your predator a pacifier, but if you can get VPs by ousting a non-prey, then go for it. >threats immediatly ? Why everyone moans when i intercept their 5th tradition >anyway ? What makes them think they should get away with it? Nix that pool gain! If a deck is threatening your VP(s), put a stick in its spokes, and oust it if necessary. torporizing big vamps, calling Ancilla Empowerment against weenies, rushing/stealing cross table, etc.

I've recently found some of the new players in our local game are ganging up on me (though oddly not the other veteran)... They seem to think this is a rational way to deal not with any specific deck of mine, but to neutralize my decks in general. While I am flattered by the attention, I do find it makes the game lop-sided. I do not win an inordinate amount of games (well... not with the present metagame dynamic) so I am not sure if this is really a valid tactic or not. It is all quite freindly, mind you, and I am not being a sore loser by mentioning this. I do however think that this situation is similar in some ways to what Reyda is experiencing. The strangest thing is that I am often NOT the one that is the biggest threat in any given game. The other Jyhad-veteran (who I am sure is quite happy to see all the attention focused on me) uses this time to set up for a gradual sweep of the table. This has happened in enough recent games that it is starting to concern me. Vampires will rush my vampires when there are other targets that are obviously of more tactical benefit to the attacking Methuselah. Bleeds will be deflected to me regardless of my position at the table or my amount of pool. Votes will be used to damage me or affect my minions even from across the table. I can't seem to make clear to these players that the object of the game is to oust you prey(s) and ultimately gain the most victory points. The object of the game is not 'Gang up on Wes'. If I mention this, I invariably seem like a whiner. Generally, I really like the predator-prey dynamic of Jyhad. Sure it does make sense to occasonally turn around and hurt your predator, but that does not change the predator-prey relationship so much as it gives the prey a chance to defend against a strong predator. In my local game, the predator-prey dynamic may as well not exist. Ironically, I think a way to try to halt this process may be to keep track of VPs in a more formal way. If all the players can look at a sheet and say 'Gee... Wes isn't as much of a threat as we thought. Maybe we should focus on the other guy (or try to win for ourselves)'. Of course, another unavoidable factor in these local games is that I own more cards than all of them combined. I have been giving away a LOT of my cards to the new players so they will have more to work with. Mostly vampires, commons and uncommons of course but I think it is helping. I'll give them cards (and advice) based on what kind of deck they are trying to build. Any other suggestions would be greatly appreciated. Cheers, WES

>===== Original Message From "Reyda" <re...@noos.fr> ===== >hi ! >in our playgroup i'm not considered as a poor player, i think i won the >respect of others very early, but i noticed other people try to avoid to >play with me (we are often more than 20 players so it is an easy task). [ quoted text not captured ] >Is it unsportsmanship to try to avoid greater danger by removing small >threats immediatly ? Why everyone moans when i intercept their 5th tradition >anyway ? > >tell me if i'm a dull, reverse play king maker, or if i was right, because >everyone here thinks i suck. If you won, you did the right thing. The only game i actually won at Watford last Saturday i did so by going cross-table with a ToGP. In detail the reasons why i did this are different to the ones that influenced you, but overall the aim was the same - stop the guy who was going to win from doing so, so that i could win instead. > >if you are also hated by other players, please tell me your story. As Machiavelli so movingly put it, it is better to be feared than loved. > >reyda [ quoted text not captured ]

wes wrote: (Description snipped about how players seem to gang up on poster.) > I can't seem to make clear to these players that the object of the game is > to oust you prey(s) and ultimately gain the most victory points. The object > of the game is not 'Gang up on Wes'. If I mention this, I invariably seem > like a whiner. ... > Any other suggestions would be greatly appreciated. So, whine! What's wrong? You too proud to win by begging other players to leave you alone? Napoleon had that problem. He wound up sheep herding in the South Atlantic. It's a multiplayer game. If anyone does anything that damages your table position, make sure the whole table hears you yell, "OUCH!" Mumble about how you might as well give in now...or maybe you'll wait a turn or two before transferring yourself out. Some of the best multiplayer gamers I know live by creative whining. Also, creative discord-sowing, creative confusion-spreading, and creative guilt-inducement. If you can make them dread the self-pity that will inevitably follow each assault, the assaults will thin out. It's like free power! Use it! Don't just sit there and take it like a man. Bow down and grovel! "Never whine." is a great principle for life. It sucks for playing diplomacy-oriented games. Fred

In article <3AA3...@mailandnews.com>, James McClellan <legb...@MailAndNews.com> wrote: >If you won, you did the right thing. The only game i actually won at Watford >last Saturday i did so by going cross-table with a ToGP. In detail the >reasons >why i did this are different to the ones that influenced you, but overall >the >aim was the same - stop the guy who was going to win from doing so, so that >i >could win instead. Yep. This is the reason I DI'd my prey's Foreshadowing Destruction -- it would have ousted my grandprey, and then I wouldn't have swept the table as I did. That was the first time I'd ever played DI, and I still feel kind of dirty about it. First time I played Archon Investigation, too -- on Cornelius Ottavio, who had a Pulse of the Canaille and an active special ability for an inherent bleed of 5. Eww. Of course, that was in the 3 games I played before the tournament, where i swept one 4-player table, got 1VP in another, and 3VP in a third (for some reason, it was all 4-player tables at DunDraCon this year). At the actualy tourney, of course, I extended my 0VP tourney streak to 2, which is why the deck got renamed 'cockteaser.' Lousy Tremere. Xian, you can have 'em back. gomi -- Individually, I love you all with affection unspeakable; but, collectively, I look upon you with a disgust that amounts to absolute detestation. - Gilbert and Sullivan, 'Pirates of Penzance'

"Gomi no Sensei" <go...@best.com> wrote in message news:973u7m$hl9$1...@nntp1.ba.best.com... > Lousy Tremere. Xian, you can have 'em back. What was the deck? :) Don't tell me you played an intercept deck. And anyway, I'm still at I think...1VP in 1 V:EKN tourney total with them. Anyway...on the original subject of the article (sorta), Wes wrote: "I can't seem to make clear to these players that the object of the game is to oust you prey(s) and ultimately gain the most victory points. The object of the game is not 'Gang up on Wes'. If I mention this, I invariably seem like a whiner." I feel your pain. Most games I'm in, as soon as we sit down, everyone looks at me, and says, "oh good, I'm not his prey," or something like that. Except for my prey, obviously. At a six-player game, I've had half of the table gang up against me, and my predator didn't because he couldn't (I had put him on the defensive right away), and my grand-predator (I'm looking at you Mark) didn't, because he didn't have to. The way I deal with this, is that when one of the players that ganged up on me whines about someone else doing as well or sweeping or whatever, I point out to them that maybe that whole mess wouldn't have happened, and we might have had a more balanced game if you hadn't been so focused on screwing me. You think? Admittedly this is more suited to my temperament than someone that is a little more volatile or easily frustrated than I am. But I think that if the people you are playing with have much sense at all, this will work in the long run. I could be wrong, though... Xian

"Xian" <xi...@waste.org> wrote [ quoted text not captured ] I don't have a problem being focused on if I AM the strongest deck at the table. With good players I expect that. These players are doing it regardless of my strength in any given game, which I think you'll all have to admit is not always tactically sound. Their reasoning is that it is fun to oust me... again, this is all quite good-natured. Apparently, it is less fun to oust someone else; that is the part that makes little sense to me. I think ultimately that it comes down to them not having a full understanding of the table dynamics of Jyhad. Since I am the one that taught them the game, I can only blame myself for this. Also, I think it is hard for some players (newbies or veterans) to get over the concept that the last-man-standing is not necessarily the winner... and possibly also that coming in second is not always bad. The way they see it is 'King of the Hill' and for some reason they see me as the guy that starts on the hill. I am not the most volatile player, and I don't start reaming the players for their actions or anything. If anything, I will try to calmly explain to them at some time AFTER the game is over, but invariably this makes no difference when the next game is played. Of course, these are the same players that want to ban my !Brujah deck because it is 'too effective' (I have not played it by choice for three weeks to avoid this kind of talk). It's strange really... 6 months ago I would have killed to be able to have people to play the game with. Now we have a respectably sized group (mostly newbies) and they're all pulling weird shit like this. I think that one thing I need to do is somehow set up an environment where they are forced to recognize the predator-prey realtionship. I've just constructed a weenie vote deck, which is not only faster than anything they've seen so far, but also uses cards that manipulate the table dynamic to its own benefit. Take 'Political Flux' for example... if I play this card, stating that the next Meth to oust gets 12 pool instead of 6, I think the benefits of ousting your prey might become a bit more obvious (god I hope so). Any other suggestions beside 'whine more' would be greatly appreciated :) Cheers, WES

>===== Original Message From "wes" <gh...@mnsi.net> ===== >I think that one thing I need to do is somehow set up an environment where >they are forced to recognize the predator-prey realtionship. I've just >constructed a weenie vote deck, which is not only faster than anything >they've seen so far, but also uses cards that manipulate the table dynamic >to its own benefit. Take 'Political Flux' for example... if I play this >card, stating that the next Meth to oust gets 12 pool instead of 6, I think >the benefits of ousting your prey might become a bit more obvious (god I >hope so). > >Any other suggestions beside 'whine more' would be greatly appreciated :) > I'd suggest a different tack altogether. Try divide and rule. Why not choose a player with a complementary deck and seating position and suggest a table split? Happily offer 3VP to someone for 2VP to yourself (they're unlikely to get them all anyway). As long as people are interested in maximizing their VP rather than just beating on Wes, you should be able to make these deals attractive. You need to play the sort of deck which can reach out in all directions - rush or politics are most effective. This also gives you a good way to educate newbies on tactics. At present, with everyone beating on you, any tactical advice you offer will be viewed dubiously. When you have an ally at the table, it's more likely to be recognized as sound and unbiased. Tom [ quoted text not captured ]

On Thu, 22 Feb 2001 18:34:30 -0600, Xian wrote: >> I can't seem to make clear to these players that the object of the game >> is to oust you prey(s) and ultimately gain the most victory points. The >> object of the game is not 'Gang up on Wes'. If I mention this, I >> invariably seem like a whiner." > >I feel your pain. Most games I'm in, as soon as we sit down, everyone looks >at me, and says, "oh good, I'm not his prey," or something like that. Except >for my prey, obviously. At a six-player game, I've had half of the table gang >up against me I really wanted to play Doomtown but, after Tom gave me a game of that, I played a couple of games of VTES at the club last night. I swept the first game and folk whined about my broken deck. Trying to be sociable, I switch to a different deck and _everyone_ comes across table at me with votes, war ghouls, whatever. I felt like just picking up my cards and leaving but instead tried to suffer this gang-bang without complaint. It'll be a while before I'm prepared to play VTES again though. I watched the final of the booster draft at OrcCon. This was dominated by factionalism - LA versus San Diego. The players seemed fairly good-natured about this but this seemed to be blatant collusion and, as someone from a different city, I was glad that I wasn't playing. Garfield tried to design VTES to be free of the Survivor-style popularity contest that afflicts some multi-player games. It seems clear that he failed. Tom has now perfected his upstreaming tactics to the point that he can win a tournament with them and so the attack-to-the-left mechanic is destroyed. An overtly strong deck is a liability and so deck construction is of little account. The game's mainly about collusion, currying favour and jedi mind-tricks. It is effectively an expensive version of Lunch Money, right? "You're doing too well so I'll poke you in the eye, humiliate your pathetic block and stomp you too". "Waaaaahh..." Andrew

"Tom Kassel" <TomK...@MailAndNews.com> > I'd suggest a different tack altogether. Try divide and rule. Why >not choose a player with a complementary deck and seating >position and suggest a table split? Happily offer 3VP to someone >for 2VP to yourself (they're unlikely to get them all anyway). As >long as people are interested in maximizing their VP rather than just >beating on Wes, you should be able to make these deals attractive. >You need to play the sort of deck which can reach out in all >directions - rush or politics are most effective. This also gives you >a good way to educate newbies on tactics. At present, with >everyone beating on you, >any tactical advice you offer will be viewed dubiously. When you >have an ally at the table, it's more likely to be recognized as sound >and unbiased. > > Tom Thanks for the advice. The weenie vote deck I just made has some toolboxy votes to encourage that kind of thing actually. It's mostly damaging votes, but even KRC can be used to help an ally by assigning a point of damage to his/her prey. The problem is that the concept of VPs does not seem to be sticking in their heads. As I mentioned, being 'last-man-standing' is more important to them. I think also that destroying vampires is also high on their priority, though again, not in a way that tries to WIN. For example, tapping all of your vampires to go after ONE of mine when you have NO way of waking to defend the one pool you have left. *shudders* See what I mean? I wouldn't say that my advice to the newbies is being discounted really. They recognize my skill; that's essentially WHY they are attacking me after all. They have taken some of my advice on tactics... unfortunately this often makes them more aggressive in their attacks on me! I'm going to start recommending 'Twisting the Knife' as a great card... see if they'll bite. I am however confident this will improve eventually... I was mentioning it more in keeping solidarity with Reyda. The players have already vastly improved in terms of tactics over what they were when they started. I wouldn't say that their decks are ever much of a surprise, but their ability to recognize what to do and when to do it has improved tenfold. Their decks are also starting to look a lot more cohesive and the bizarre combinations (6 discipline/3 clans/vote, bleed AND combat emphasis) have started to disappear in favour of more focussed and capable ones. It's always interesting how the different meta-games are in different parts of the world. Some areas seem more competitive, some more relaxed, some seem to offer more original deck designs or at least seem willing to take chances. I rather like this aspect of the game really. I like that I can cross the river into Detroit and meet up with some players that play by totally different rules (or used to?). I can play a Jyhad Online game where it is VERY obvious how different people approach the game in vastly different ways (Setite decks are popular!). Cheers, WES

<snip> > >I really wanted to play Doomtown but, after Tom gave me a game of >that, I played a couple of games of VTES at the club last night. I >swept the first game and folk whined about my broken deck. Well done. What's the deck, out of interest? No, don't answer that - bring it to a tourney and let's see it in action! Trying to >be sociable, I switch to a different deck and _everyone_ comes across >table at me with votes, war ghouls, whatever. I felt like just >picking up my cards and leaving but instead tried to suffer this >gang-bang without complaint. It'll be a while before I'm prepared to >play VTES again though. In that situation, complain like a bugger would be my advice. Oust yourself in favour of your predator. Retaliate in any and every possible way against people who come at you irrationally cross-table. > >I watched the final of the booster draft at OrcCon. This was >dominated by factionalism - LA versus San Diego. The players seemed >fairly good-natured about this but this seemed to be blatant collusion >and, as someone from a different city, I was glad that I wasn't >playing. If this is true, then for once i actually agree with you - this is a Bad Thing™. > >Garfield tried to design VTES to be free of the Survivor-style >popularity contest that afflicts some multi-player games. It seems >clear that he failed. No he didn't. The ineluctable fact is that you win by ousting the people to your left. The person who does that most effectively wins. One of the tactics you can use along this route is to exploit other peoples' failure to grasp the essentials of jyhad table dynamics, as Rob explains in his most recent Ventrue NL. Tom has now perfected his upstreaming tactics >to the point that he can win a tournament with them and so the >attack-to-the-left mechanic is destroyed. Actually as Tom explains in his deck-commentary althought that was his plan he didn't actually implement it at all. He won by a combination of astute tactics and effective diplomacy. For example, in the very first game he was my prey and was getting roundly kicked by his prey while i was being kicked not quite so roundly but still pretty badly by my predator. So we cut a deal to switch places, his part of the bargain being to be my gimp while i gathered up 3VP, mine being to oust myself thereafter to give him 2. This worked a treat, and a second similar deal in the third game ALMOST worked but unfortunately for me my prey ousted my grand-prey. The deal still worked just fine for Tom. An overtly strong deck is a >liability LOOKING too strong IS a liability. and so deck construction is of little account. No, the trick is to look weak but actually to be strong. The game's >mainly about collusion, currying favour and jedi mind-tricks. Diplomacy, deal-making and intimidation are certainly aspects of the great game. Good, i say. It is >effectively an expensive version of Lunch Money, right? "You're doing >too well so I'll poke you in the eye, humiliate your pathetic block >and stomp you too". "Waaaaahh..." Lunch money - EXCELLENT game. But it really does suffer from the hit-the-strong guy/gal mechanic. So does the otherwise-excellent Shadowfist - i think your criticisms could much more fairly be levelled at those games, but i still wouldn't agree with your strictures because these are all Good Games. Indeed the only game i've played that is actually SPOILED by the sort of stuff we're talking about is Serenissima. > >Andrew [ quoted text not captured ]

"Andrew S. Davidson" <a...@csi.com> > I really wanted to play Doomtown but, after Tom gave me a game of > that, I played a couple of games of VTES at the club last night. I > swept the first game and folk whined about my broken deck. Trying to > be sociable, I switch to a different deck and _everyone_ comes across > table at me with votes, war ghouls, whatever. I felt like just > picking up my cards and leaving but instead tried to suffer this > gang-bang without complaint. It'll be a while before I'm prepared to > play VTES again though. A certain degree of gang-banging is part of the game itself though... It's why wise players often try to appear NOT to be in a winning position. A player who happily sweeps through two preys in a row in as many turns should EXPECT retaliation... immediately. In fact, if they don't get beat on, I question the ability of the OTHER players. Also, certain types of decks (not 'broken' necessarily) require a bit of cross-table maintenance once in a while. Malkavian S+B decks should occasionally be stomped just so they don't sweep the table at their leisure. However, they should not be destroyed so much as 'kept in check'. However, gang-banging on someone because they won the last game with a different deck is an illogical and in my mind unsportsmanlike (here we go again) thing to do. It might be logical in a tournament setting to keep someone out of the finals, or to keep yourself in... though I don't think I'd consider that route myself. Each game should remain a separate entity from every other game... and ultimately, every deck should stand on its own merits. I wonder how these types of players would react towards a DIFFERENT player playing with the same deck you won with in the previous round? Would they gang-bang the player with that deck or you? > I watched the final of the booster draft at OrcCon. This was > dominated by factionalism - LA versus San Diego. The players seemed > fairly good-natured about this but this seemed to be blatant collusion > and, as someone from a different city, I was glad that I wasn't > playing. > > Garfield tried to design VTES to be free of the Survivor-style > popularity contest that afflicts some multi-player games. It seems > clear that he failed. Tom has now perfected his upstreaming tactics > to the point that he can win a tournament with them and so the > attack-to-the-left mechanic is destroyed. An overtly strong deck is a > liability and so deck construction is of little account. The game's > mainly about collusion, currying favour and jedi mind-tricks. It is > effectively an expensive version of Lunch Money, right? "You're doing > too well so I'll poke you in the eye, humiliate your pathetic block > and stomp you too". "Waaaaahh..." > > Andrew I don't think he failed. I think the predator-prey dynamic works... most of the time. And even when it doesn't there are usually sound reasons/good strategies behind it. As I think Tom mentioned, he did not win that tournament based on his 'upstream' theory. He won based on the unique dynamic of each particular game and bringing a particularly effective rush deck (Please correct me if I am wrong). From the sound of it, there wasn't really sufficient evidence that the strategy (as he detailed it) works, though it may indeed be viable. Collusion is a difficult thing to approach in Jyhad. I think a certain amount of collusion is what makes this game interesting. The 'Machiavellian' nature of the deal-making is appealing to me. What does not appeal to me is collusion that comes from one player intending to lose but doing his/her best to make it harder for others to win. When a player who finds himself in a losing position suddenly decides that instead of trying their best to win they will try to bugger up their predator to make it harder for them to win... that's when collusion in this game becomes ugly. It starts to become a game of revenge and doesn't particularly appeal to me. Attacking your predator for defensive reasons however is perfectly viable... hard to make that distinction sometimes. However, if you are in that position where you can't possibly win, what SHOULD you do? Offering yourself as a sacrificial lamb for your predator may be the same kind of collusion but a reverse-image. This seems to me to be the more 'honourable' option though... admitting defeat to a superior foe, similar to resigning a game of chess. Each game should be self-contained however. Nobody should be punished in Game 2 because they were successful in Game 1. This is why I often like to switch decks between games... not only do you keep your opponents guessing, but everything becomes 'tabula rasa', a blank slate... at least in theory. Cheers, WES

wes <gh...@mnsi.net> wrote in article <97510...@enews2.newsguy.com>... > I don't have a problem being focused on if I AM the strongest deck at the > table. With good players I expect that. These players are doing it > regardless of my strength in any given game, which I think you'll all have > to admit is not always tactically sound. I know I've been experiencing this phenomenon since the Sabbat War reprint. With shiny new cards and renewed interest in the game, there's more interest in playing up to the competitive level. Unfortunately, in my playgroup, I represent the competitive level. As a result, I take a lot of metagame targeting from the other players, much as you describe. I try to encourage the other players to oust me, and if I'm not playing a tourney-level deck, try to demonstrate my innocence/helplessness. This doesn't always work, and is sometimes frustrating, but it helps me determine who wants to build their game to a more effective level and who just want to oust Heslin. > I think ultimately that it comes down to them not having a full > understanding of the table dynamics of Jyhad. I try to offer my players a running commentary on how each deck looks like it will stack up to it's predator, and where the strength at the table lies. I generally don't lie about this, and after one or two examples of "hey, man, I'm playing Tremere-Nosferatu vote, I'm really not the threat here", folks understand I'm not trying to wheel-and-deal them. > Of course, these are the same players that want to ban my !Brujah deck > because it is 'too effective' (I have not played it by choice for three > weeks to avoid this kind of talk). I've recently been asked by some of my players to stop using Majesty. You're not alone. And, I've been sticking to theme decks, fun decks, and intentionally-lower threat decks for about a month now. People still worry about sitting next to me, but less so. Anyone got a good deck design that focuses player attention on the table dynamic? I was thinking Dramatic Upheaval, but that may have the opposite effect (players may think, "If I knock my prey down far enough, the DU deck is just going to come over and take my spot and my VP"). Possibly play with Political Flux and Anarch Revolts, then stonewall your predator. That should encourage at least two of the other players (assuming 4-corner table) to go forward... --good luck, Matt

On Fri, 23 Feb 2001 10:23:29 +0000, Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> wrote: >On Thu, 22 Feb 2001 18:34:30 -0600, Xian wrote: > >>> I can't seem to make clear to these players that the object of the game >>> is to oust you prey(s) and ultimately gain the most victory points. The >>> object of the game is not 'Gang up on Wes'. If I mention this, I >>> invariably seem like a whiner." >> >>I feel your pain. Most games I'm in, as soon as we sit down, everyone looks >>at me, and says, "oh good, I'm not his prey," or something like that. Except >>for my prey, obviously. At a six-player game, I've had half of the table gang >>up against me > >I really wanted to play Doomtown but, after Tom gave me a game of >that, I played a couple of games of VTES at the club last night. I >swept the first game and folk whined about my broken deck. Trying to Now you know how we all felt when you were going off about combat broken this, combat broken that, etc. Nothing personal, but this happens to all of us at some point in time or other, especially playing with players who aren't TOTAL newbies, but who just haven't a lot of experience with the game. >be sociable, I switch to a different deck and _everyone_ comes across >table at me with votes, war ghouls, whatever. I felt like just >picking up my cards and leaving but instead tried to suffer this >gang-bang without complaint. It'll be a while before I'm prepared to >play VTES again though. Without complaint is probably the wrong way to go; you might want to rapidly begin pointing out that such an action isn't in their advantage, etc. etc. Once their response starts to be "Yeah, well, I just don't want YOU to win" then you have a situation involving that famous "Gamer Mentality" that various people on here have described, and that I particularly despise. Your option is apparently: Not to Play with Gamers. I'd decline to lay the blame at the feet of V:TES here, though. More at the feet of "damned bozos." >I watched the final of the booster draft at OrcCon. This was >dominated by factionalism - LA versus San Diego. The players seemed >fairly good-natured about this but this seemed to be blatant collusion >and, as someone from a different city, I was glad that I wasn't >playing. Hm. Interesting. I don't THINK we have that from Atlanta; at least, I know I personally prefer to NOT sit at a table with the "home team", because they have a much better idea what my deck might or might not contain in it at any given point in time. And I know we have no shyness about bouncing bleeds of five (at 2 stealth) back and forth between us. (plays Deflection)..."get that for me, will you?" >Garfield tried to design VTES to be free of the Survivor-style >popularity contest that afflicts some multi-player games. It seems >clear that he failed. Tom has now perfected his upstreaming tactics >to the point that he can win a tournament with them and so the >attack-to-the-left mechanic is destroyed. An overtly strong deck is a You are building a conclusion here from flawed premises and a single occurrence, though, ...something I KNOW you know better than, but I suppose you just can't resist the attempt. Fact: Tom won a tournament, using a Rush deck. Fact: Tom went backwards or cross-table occasionally. From dhammond's description, in the final, he first killed both predator AND prey while the two vote decks fought over who got to have vote lock, which isn't according to the 'upstreaming lots' plan at ALL. And after you reduce the table to 3 players, you just kill EVERYTHING and snarf up the last set of VPs, which if it's possible to do is certainly a viable strategy. I also don't really see that Tom turned the finals into a popularity contest: it much more looked like "whoever is sitting next to Tom with insufficient Obedience or Fortitude is going to get the stuffing whacked out of their guys." Just because one person won by attacking both right AND left doesn't mean that the "attack to the left" mechanic is "destroyed". Davidson Consulting really blew it on that one; i'd get a fee refund if I were you. =) >liability and so deck construction is of little account. The game's >mainly about collusion, currying favour and jedi mind-tricks. It is I object to the first. However, #3 is very much in the mix. A game about manipulation is bad because...? >effectively an expensive version of Lunch Money, right? "You're doing >too well so I'll poke you in the eye, humiliate your pathetic block >and stomp you too". "Waaaaahh..." These are players who are easily manipulated. It might be worth noting that usually players who do this have been convinced in some fashion. =) -- Derek "...I was just seeing if you'd notice." -- R. Grau

> > "Tom Kassel" <TomK...@MailAndNews.com> >> I'd suggest a different tack altogether. Try divide and rule. Why >not > choose a player with a complementary deck and seating >position and suggest > a table split? Happily offer 3VP to someone >for 2VP to yourself (they're > unlikely to get them all anyway). As >long as people are interested in > maximizing their VP rather than just >beating on Wes, you should be able to > make these deals attractive. >You need to play the sort of deck which can > reach out in all >directions - rush or politics are most effective. This > also gives you >a good way to educate newbies on tactics. At present, with >> everyone beating on you, >> any tactical advice you offer will be viewed dubiously. When you >have an > ally at the table, it's more likely to be recognized as sound >and unbiased. >> >> Tom > > Thanks for the advice. > > The weenie vote deck I just made has some toolboxy votes to encourage that > kind of thing actually. It's mostly damaging votes, but even KRC can be used > to help an ally by assigning a point of damage to his/her prey. > > The problem is that the concept of VPs does not seem to be sticking in their > heads. As I mentioned, being 'last-man-standing' is more important to them. > I think also that destroying vampires is also high on their priority, though > again, not in a way that tries to WIN. For example, tapping all of your > vampires to go after ONE of mine when you have NO way of waking to defend > the one pool you have left. *shudders* See what I mean? Well, if you want people to garner VPs instead of mess around, move to a tournament environment: i.e. offer prizes. It can be little things, but even getting something for 1st, 2nd, 3rd may make people SEE that being the last guy isn't always winning, even if the prize is just a beer or something. I've never seen this in a local playgroup, but I certainly know that in tournaments, people play to WIN. The advantage that you'd have is not playing in rounds, so you wouldn't have the "self-oust to deny player X a VP so they don't get into the finals." Now, people (apparently? I see this in the newsgroup, but never personally) can get vindictive in tournaments, even, and go nuts from a helpless position. So this might not help, since you could still get "Just make sure WES dosen't win!" So I admit it might not be a very good idea. -- Pat Ricochet Soul Jar'rn Fool of Atlanta

Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> writes: > Garfield tried to design VTES to be free of the Survivor-style > popularity contest that afflicts some multi-player games. Not true. Garfield tried to not make the game rely solely on that. The ability to gang up and use diplomacy and table-talk to attack a player *is* necessary. Were Garfield trying to remove that, he could have done so (very easily). -- James Coupe | PGP Key 0x5D623D5D "Definitely a woman" - www.thespark.com/ Standard disclaimers apply to this post. Full written details available upon request. Your statutory rights are not affected.

"Andrew S. Davidson" <a...@csi.com> wrote in message news:A7F29A5CB2EFC37D.76E6CD6C...@lp.airnews.net... > I really wanted to play Doomtown but, after Tom gave me a game of > that, I played a couple of games of VTES at the club last night. I > swept the first game and folk whined about my broken deck. Sucks to be them. > Trying to be sociable, No good deed goes unpunished. > I switch to a different deck and _everyone_ comes across > table at me with votes, war ghouls, whatever. I felt like just > picking up my cards and leaving Do what I and everyone else in my playgroup does when they feel unjustified actions are being taken -- demand an explanation from the acting Meth as to why he is doing the action. Nearly all the time, the Meth can justify his actions, and though some of the rest of us may dislike it, understanding the action helps us relax a bit, and become better players, too. If the Meth can't justify himself, then he hopefully now understands better why he shouldn't take the action. > but instead tried to suffer this gang-bang without complaint. > It'll be a while before I'm prepared to play VTES again though. > > I watched the final of the booster draft at OrcCon. This was > dominated by factionalism - LA versus San Diego. The players seemed > fairly good-natured about this but this seemed to be blatant collusion > and, as someone from a different city, I was glad that I wasn't > playing. If what you say is true, it is too bad that the LA and San Diego players decided to play that way, If that happened to me in a tournament, I would do my best to inform the head judge about the situation, and escalate it up to WW if necessary. > Garfield tried to design VTES to be free of the Survivor-style > popularity contest that afflicts some multi-player games. It seems > clear that he failed. Please explain in detail how you came to that A-MAZINGLY unjustified conclusion. > Tom has now perfected his upstreaming tactics > to the point that he can win a tournament with them 100% of the time? > and so the attack-to-the-left mechanic is destroyed. Please explain in detail how you came to that A-MAZINGLY unjustified conclusion. > An overtly strong deck is a liability Only if the people you are playing with decide to reject the game's premise -- killing your prey -- and act like idiots. In which case, you can either sit down and explain to them how to play the game (hopefully they understand and you don't have to leave) or you too can reject premises and punch them in the shoulder to get their attention; perhaps they will then be willing to act by society's and VTES' premises. > and so deck construction is of little account. The game's > mainly about collusion, currying favour and jedi mind-tricks. It is > effectively an expensive version of Lunch Money, right? "You're doing > too well so I'll poke you in the eye, humiliate your pathetic block > and stomp you too". "Waaaaahh..." <sigh> > > Andrew [ quoted text not captured ]

>clear that he failed. Tom has now perfected his upstreaming tactics >to the point that he can win a tournament with them and so the >attack-to-the-left mechanic is destroyed. An overtly strong deck is a Nothing particular about the game in question, but 'attack to the left' is not an absolute. If an 'upstream' deck can roll the table 'uphill', they get 2 vp, and may tie with someone, or win by a 2-1-1(-1) count. I've been toying around with this idea; the difficulty is in making sure your grandprey gets your grandpredator's VP in a 5-player game. Also note these effective uses of cross-table or backwards actions: -- to keep those VPs available for your impending sweep. -- to slow down/disable a predator, giving you room to move forward. -- to forego a VP (by giving it to someone else), in order to get more VP. -- for combat decks, to fill up an otherwise empty vamp ("I won't put him in torpor, I just want to fill up a bit. Thanks."). That third item leads to the point of the discussion, which deals with table mechanic. I call it 'table skill,' ('strength' is already confusing :-) which I define as the average skill level of the table. Basically, If I average the respective deck capabilities, play capabilities, and game objectives over the players at a given table, group, or tournament, I can generate a hazy bar, of which an individual player can be above (strong) or below (weak). Overly weak or strong players at the table tend to wear a big bullseye on their heads, as they tend to disrupt table balance.

On Fri, 23 Feb 2001 07:01:20 -0500, James McClellan wrote: >Lunch money - EXCELLENT game. But it really does suffer from the >hit-the-strong guy/gal mechanic. I won the last game of Lunch Money I played, despite being the tall poppy all the way though. Just lucky, I guess. >So does the otherwise-excellent Shadowfist Sometimes playgroups gang-bang a player who can't defend his site structure. But it should be easy to come back from a drubbing. The card set has lots of comeback/underdog cards like Nine Dragon Temple, Pocket Demon, etc. I like Shadowfist especially because it is largely free of coalitions and it's almost impossible to eliminate someone from the game. >Indeed the only game i've played that is actually SPOILED by the sort of >stuff we're talking about is Serenissima. B5, Galactic Empires and L5R are ruined as multi-player games by this sort of thing. Doomtown can be fairly brutal too but you're never actually eliminated from the game. There aren't many other CCG with good multi-player rules. X-Files and Mythos are probably ok but I haven't played them enough to be sure. And I really must give Star Trek another try - I itch to play with Tribbles in the Mirror Universe. Andrew

<<snip>> >Sometimes playgroups gang-bang a player who can't defend his site >structure. I have tis done to me whenever I play my Lasombra bleed deck cause of how good gratiano is at his job... I usually only use 1 or 2 vampires to do it and deflect everything coming at me and they don't like it so he'll get haven uncovered or war partied (since that can't be gotten rid of) and EVERYONE at the table will beat the snot out of him and screw me for the rest of the game Dark Howler

Andrew wrote: >> Tom has now perfected his upstreaming tactics to the point that he can win a tournament with them and so the attack-to-the-left mechanic is destroyed.>> Oh, Andrew. If Tom has, in fact, "perfected" this upstreaming tactic, I still fail to see how the attack to the left mechanic is destroyed. Even if Tom (or anyone) decides to play completely to the right the entire game (which seems highly questionable in any case), he is never going to get more than 2VPs. Only getting 2 VPs a game doesn't necessarily get you into the finals, nor does it necessarily win you the finals (in fact, it is highly likely to *not* win you the finals). There are plenty of *non* combat related decks that are already very good at getting 2VPs every game--dedicated Intercept decks. They don't attack to the left either. Neither of these decks strategies destroy the attack to the left mechannic, as decks that attack to the left effectively get more VPs (anyone who is Tom's prey in the situation you present is pretty much assured a good chance at 3VPs in any game where Tom gets 2, and I fail to see how it is in anyone's best interest to play a strategy that reliably gets an opponent more VPs than you...), thereby giving them a better chance to get into the finals, and better seating when they are inthe finals. Yaa. Tom won a tournament with a Rush deck. That is good. It doesn't happen all that often, and certainly doesn't invalidate the attack to the left mechannic. Speaking as a guy who pretty much exclusively plays Rush decks in tournament play (and better decks than Tom, 'cause I have better cards, 'cause I have been doing it longer), I can assure you that Rush decks do not invalidate the attack to the left mechanic, in any way, shape, or form. Yes, I usually get into the finals with my Rush decks, and occasionally, I win tournaments with them. Just like any other viable deck design. Peter D Bakija PD...@aol.com http://www.geocities.com/bakija6 "Why so many swords?" "I must kill many." -Kikuchiyo

>>Indeed the only game i've played that is actually SPOILED by the sort of >>stuff we're talking about is Serenissima. > >B5, Galactic Empires and L5R are ruined as multi-player games by this >sort of thing. Ganging up on the leader? The whole point of power agenda in B5 is that you don't know who is truly closest to winning. However, the game has evolved away from this original concept, so I could see this comment applying more often now.

On 26 Feb 2001 18:42:07 GMT, pd...@aol.comANTISPAM (Peter D Bakija) wrote: >Andrew wrote: >>> Tom has now perfected his upstreaming tactics to the point that he can win a >tournament with them and so the attack-to-the-left mechanic is destroyed.>> > >Oh, Andrew. If Tom has, in fact, "perfected" this upstreaming tactic, I still >fail to see how the attack to the left mechanic is destroyed. As usual Andrew draws inappropriate conclusions from too little data. For the sake of argument, I'll restate my "upstreaming tactics". When I play a rush deck I will attack my predator as often as required to avoid him bleeding me seriously or bouncing bleeds to me. "As often as required" may be as seldom as not at all if a table splitting deal can be struck with the predator. A rush deck seems to be in a particularly strong position in offering such deals. Note that such a deal offers me the chance at three VP and my colleague just two. At the final (or a friendly one-off game), such deals can't really occur. In this case, "as often as required" means until all the dangerous minions are in torpor. The time available to attend to the prey depends on the interval between this state and the predator being ousted. Hopefully this is long enough to make some serious progress towards ousting him. In any case, if a new predator should appear he must be neutralized. The pure attack to the right all the game concept is only the fallback option if the predators should be ousted in quick succession. Theoretically it's still possible to win in this circumstance so it's not a disaster, but it's far from the intended goal. > Even if Tom (or >anyone) decides to play completely to the right the entire game (which seems >highly questionable in any case), he is never going to get more than 2VPs. Only >getting 2 VPs a game doesn't necessarily get you into the finals, nor does it >necessarily win you the finals (in fact, it is highly likely to *not* win you >the finals). As I said above, I much prefer to deal than attack in preliminary games. In the tournaments that I've attended (and many of the reports that I've seen), numbers ranged around 18-20. With a field this size, two VP per game pretty well assures a place at the final. At the much larger continental tournaments, one might need to sweep at least once to qualify. >There are plenty of *non* combat related decks that are already >very good at getting 2VPs every game--dedicated Intercept decks. They don't >attack to the left either. Neither of these decks strategies destroy the attack >to the left mechannic, as decks that attack to the left effectively get more >VPs (anyone who is Tom's prey in the situation you present is pretty much >assured a good chance at 3VPs in any game where Tom gets 2, A pretty poor chance I would say. My predator should be out long before my prey can reach him. If he did get 3 VP, though, before the game reduced to the two of us, I'd be amazed if he didn't end with 5. 18 pool is a large addition for anyone and this guy just demonstrated that he can oust people quickly. >and I fail to see >how it is in anyone's best interest to play a strategy that reliably gets an >opponent more VPs than you...), I disagree with "reliably" and the tactic isn't meant for preliminary rounds in any case. >thereby giving them a better chance to get into >the finals, and better seating when they are inthe finals. > Just a final point on seating in the final. My prey is the most likely to get a VP "prematurely" (that is, ousting someone other than my predator). Provided he has fewer VP going into the final than I, at 2 VP each I still win. As people who scored more VP than me are likely to seat as far from me as possible, a prey on fewer VP seems a likely circumstance. To the rather limited extent that qualifying VP are a measure of a deck/player's potential, this reduces the chances of my prey grabbing 3 VP. All the above assumes, of course, that no one is playing any of the several combat decks that consistently trump mine. >Yaa. Tom won a tournament with a Rush deck. That is good. It doesn't happen all >that often, and certainly doesn't invalidate the attack to the left mechannic. >Speaking as a guy who pretty much exclusively plays Rush decks in tournament >play (and better decks than Tom, 'cause I have better cards, 'cause I have been >doing it longer), I can assure you that Rush decks do not invalidate the attack >to the left mechanic, in any way, shape, or form. I agree completely. Tom

Tom wrote: >>As usual Andrew draws inappropriate conclusions from too little data. For the sake of argument, I'll restate my "upstreaming tactics". When I play a rush deck I will attack my predator as often as required to avoid him bleeding me seriously or bouncing bleeds to me. "As often as required" may be as seldom as not at all if a table splitting deal can be struck with the predator. A rush deck seems to be in a particularly strong position in offering such deals. Note that such a deal offers me the chance at three VP and my colleague just two.>> That is a very common way to play the Rush deck--table splittng deals are often key to getting anywhere with the Rush deck. Either making a deal with your prey (if he is another Rush deck, or if you feel if taking him out will cost you too much) to split 3/2 with him (you getting the 2 when he rolls over for you after getting the three), or making the oposite deal with your predator, for the 2/3 split. Either is very common, and a good way to go, especially as the Rush deck is perfectly capable of carrying off the threat of "Well, we can fight and *both* lose, or we can work together, and split the table..." And again, this has nothing to do with working backwards and nullifying the attack to the left paradigm. Oh, that Andrew. >>At the final (or a friendly one-off game), such deals can't really occur. In this case, "as often as required" means until all the dangerous minions are in torpor.>> In my book, my predator is pretty much always beaten into uselessness, but then so is my prey. I'll ocasionally leave my predator with a minion, and even allow him to bleed me occasionally, but if he looks at all threatening, he goes under again. >>The time available to attend to the prey depends on the interval between this state and the predator being ousted.>> I'm often a big fan of, after crippling my predator, doing everything it is feasable (without hurting myself) to keep my crippled predator alive--helping him with pool gaining votes, beating up his predator if things are going well for me, etc. He usually appreciates the ability to stay in the game (if even as a toady to his prey), and I like the safety cushion. >>The pure attack to the right all the game concept is only the fallback option if the predators should be ousted in quick succession. Theoretically it's still possible to win in this circumstance so it's not a disaster, but it's far from the intended goal.>> There are only a few circumstances where I'll work only to the right, and most of them revolve around being the predator of another good Rush deck--if we fight, we both lose the game, so I usually try to set up the 3 (for my prey)/2 (for me) VP split. >>As I said above, I much prefer to deal than attack in preliminary games. In the tournaments that I've attended (and many of the reports that I've seen), numbers ranged around 18-20. With a field this size, two VP per game pretty well assures a place at the final. At the much larger continental tournaments, one might need to sweep at least once to qualify.>> 6VPs is usually enough to secure the finals in most 3 preliminary rounds tournaments, but not enough to secure a good seat. Sadly, they guy going in with the most points gets the best seat, and so usually wins, but not always. >>A pretty poor chance I would say. My predator should be out long before my prey can reach him.>> Depends on your initial prey--often just being left alone enables a quick deck to sweep quickly. If you leave your prey alone, he ousts his prey quickly, and moves on to your grand predator. It isn't too unlikely that the VPs end up 2/2/1, sure, but if your prey is a solid, quick deck, he can get 3 without too much difficulty. >>If he did get 3 VP, though, before the game reduced to the two of us, I'd be amazed if he didn't end with 5. 18 pool is a large addition for anyone and this guy just demonstrated that he can oust people quickly.>> But if all of his vampires are dead, he can't hurt you :-) >>I disagree with "reliably" and the tactic isn't meant for preliminary rounds in any case.>> I'd say that it is more likely that the table is split (when you work completely to the right) 2/2/1, but a 3/2 isn't impossible. >>As people who scored more VP than me are likely to seat as far from me as possible, a prey on fewer VP seems a likely circumstance.>> You'd think so, but you'd be surprised what people do. In my last tourney, the leader in to the finals specifically chose to sit right next to my Rush deck, because A) I played with him before and we both knew what our decks could do and B) he knew I was willing to make deals, and stick to them. As a result of putting himself where he was, he won. >>All the above assumes, of course, that no one is playing any of the several combat decks that consistently trump mine.>> That is always the case. Every once and a while, you sit down next to Rock (a Ventrue Obediance deck, a Gangrel Fortitude/Aggro deck) and are just screwed. But when you don't you can do very well. [ quoted text not captured ]

"Ian Lee" <cur...@aol.com> > Ganging up on the leader? The whole point of power agenda in B5 is that you > don't know who is truly closest to winning. However, the game has evolved away > from this original concept, so I could see this comment applying more often > now. I realize that this is a Jyhad newsgroup, but I'm curious what games other people here consider to be worth playing. My friend and I got a bunch of old Shadowfist cards because we kept hearing people raving about them and there were boxes going CHEAP, but it didn't seem that great. Way too unbalanced and as you say, ganging up on the leader. Surprisingly, Mage knight has been a big hit around here. Personally I love it. You can tell the guy that invented it was a fan of Chess (and CCG's for sure). The rules are easy to learn but the strategies are deep and compelling. I think there may be a slight balance problem, but nothing that can't be overcome. How is B5? I have to admit that MOST of the time I am very cautious when looking at a game that is based on a popular franchise. In Jyhad's case, this was less of an issue because the franchise was itself a game, so the shoe fit quite well I think. Since CCG's started coming out I have experimented with quite a few of them, often buying a starter just to see if there were any interesting mechanics to them. Some, like Battletech or Dune, have some great ideas that are poorly implemented. The original, Magic: the Gathering, I can respect for starting the genre, but generally I find it too derivative and frankly, a lot of the people that play it are... not people I want to play with. I've had more enjoyment playing the computer version of it which goes quicker and doesn't whine when it loses. Jyhad always keeps me coming back, with its exceptional balance (the three-pronged table heh), deep strategies, Machiavellian deals and the vampire theme which originally sold me on it. Cheers, WES

>===== Original Message From pd...@aol.comANTISPAM (Peter D Bakija) ===== >6VPs is usually enough to secure the finals in most 3 preliminary rounds >tournaments, but not enough to secure a good seat. Sadly, they guy going in >with the most points gets the best seat, and so usually wins, but not always. > Interesting. Logical enough in so far as VP going into the final is a measure of relative strength of decks and clearly choice of seat is a very large advantage. On the other hand, this player should now look the most dangerous and ought to collect a certain amount of collateral cross-table damage. Looking back over the last three Watford tournaments and the latest London, the leader won twice (Barney and Rob) while second place won twice (Barney and I). >>>A pretty poor chance I would say. My predator should be out long >before my prey can reach him.>> > >Depends on your initial prey--often just being left alone enables a quick deck >to sweep quickly. If you leave your prey alone, he ousts his prey quickly, and >moves on to your grand predator. It isn't too unlikely that the VPs end up >2/2/1, sure, but if your prey is a solid, quick deck, he can get 3 without too >much difficulty. > If the prey is getting too frisky, one can always take a few risks and rush him a bit before predator is completely neutralized. >>>If he did get 3 VP, though, before the game reduced to the two of us, I'd be >amazed if he didn't end with 5. 18 pool is a large addition for anyone and this >guy just demonstrated that he can oust people quickly.>> > >But if all of his vampires are dead, he can't hurt you :-) > Very true, but 18 pool can buy a few vamps. They might keep appearing faster than rush actions. >>>I disagree with "reliably" and the tactic isn't meant for preliminary >rounds in any case.>> > >I'd say that it is more likely that the table is split (when you work >completely to the right) 2/2/1, but a 3/2 isn't impossible. > >>>As people who scored more VP than me are likely to seat as far from me as >possible, a prey on fewer VP seems a likely circumstance.>> > >You'd think so, but you'd be surprised what people do. How true. It's one of the joys of tournaments (or any play outside the normal weekly crowd). I was especially amused by the table reaction once a table splitting deal had been arranged. We had just set up a nice team game of two versus three players and what do the three do? Cooperate and beat us down? Certainly not. They slam into each other, going for quick ousts to deny us, the splitters, our spoils. Tom [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <97faa...@enews3.newsguy.com>, "Andrew 'Wes' Weston" <gh...@mnsi.net> wrote: > > "Ian Lee" <cur...@aol.com> > > Ganging up on the leader? The whole point of power agenda in B5 is > > that > you > > don't know who is truly closest to winning. However, the game has > > evolved > away > > from this original concept, so I could see this comment applying more > often > > now. > > I realize that this is a Jyhad newsgroup, but I'm curious what games > other > people here consider to be worth playing. When I can FIND people to play cards, I enjoy Jyhad, Imajica (based on Cliver Barker's book) and Xxxenophile. Never played M:TG. mdf -- Address provided is a spam trap. To reply, please remove all doubt. ----------------------- "If God thought that nudity was OK, we would have been born naked." -----Anthony E. Smart

>===== Original Message From "Andrew 'Wes' Weston" <gh...@mnsi.net> ===== >"Ian Lee" <cur...@aol.com> >> Ganging up on the leader? The whole point of power agenda in B5 is that >you >> don't know who is truly closest to winning. However, the game has evolved >away >> from this original concept, so I could see this comment applying more >often >> now. > >I realize that this is a Jyhad newsgroup, but I'm curious what games other >people here consider to be worth playing. > >My friend and I got a bunch of old Shadowfist cards because we kept hearing >people raving about them and there were boxes going CHEAP, but it didn't >seem that great. Way too unbalanced and as you say, ganging up on the >leader. > I've played and enjoyed 'Fist since it was published. Note that it is a lousy two player game but excellent multi-player. Also note that ganging up on the leader is poor strategy. If you are attacking his characters, you end up trading characters with him to the benefit of third parties. If you hit his sites, they are easily replaced. Ideally you let him make a winning attempt which exhausts the denial effects on the table so that you can win yourself at the next opportunity. >How is B5? I have to admit that MOST of the time I am very cautious when >looking at a game that is based on a popular franchise. In Jyhad's case, >this was less of an issue because the franchise was itself a game, so the >shoe fit quite well I think. > I played B5 enthusiastically when it appeared but the Finchley crowd got rapidly bored of losing all the time so play petered out. We played some L5R over the years but the multi-player game always seemed unsatisfactory so I eventually sold my cards (apart from the Imperial Clan Swords). LBS was better but competed with Doomtown. I gave up playing both in the end, LBS due to lack of players and Doomtown due to excessive cheese. Wheel of Time isn't bad but lack of players again limits play. It also has an appalling playtest record, with major errata needed on broken cards within weeks of a release. [ quoted text not captured ]

>===== Original Message From "Andrew 'Wes' Weston" <gh...@mnsi.net> ===== >"Ian Lee" <cur...@aol.com> >> Ganging up on the leader? The whole point of power agenda in B5 is that >you >> don't know who is truly closest to winning. However, the game has evolved >away >> from this original concept, so I could see this comment applying more >often >> now. > >I realize that this is a Jyhad newsgroup, but I'm curious what games other >people here consider to be worth playing. > >My friend and I got a bunch of old Shadowfist cards because we kept hearing >people raving about them and there were boxes going CHEAP, but it didn't >seem that great. Way too unbalanced and as you say, ganging up on the >leader. i think it's a really funny game, though - even the two-player version which Tom doesn't like. We also play Rage [both versions, but prefer/have more cards for orginal], Netrunner [TRULY an excellent game, the only real competitor for Jyhad/VTES in my opinion], Warhammer FB, Mordheim, Roborally, bit of social role-playing Magic TG, Vinci [thanks, Scott!], hack-n-slay DnD [sorry, Justin!], chess [specially good fun with WW's Sabbat/Camarilla pieces], Diablo II and VtM which i don't really like because [a] i actually don't like vampires that much and [b] i disagree with the detailed character-building of the storyteller games. i actually like the Go Down Dungeons/Meet Monsters/Kill Them/Steal Their Treasure kind of games better - not that i discount character in RPGs, far from it, it's just that i think the character isn't so much created as emergent from his/her actions and adventures, so is really independent of you in the end. Other games that we've liked but that currently gather dust a bit around our house are On The Edge, Mythos, Arcadia/KIHM, Talisman, Settlers of Catan, Point Blank and Changeling. i ran a Mage campaign for a bit which was quite good fun; needless to say when i run storyteller games they are a lot like DnD but with d10 difficulty checks. i'm less keen on Serenissima which i find to be seriously broken but probably quite easily fixable and i really DON'T like Star Wars [any version], Star Trek or legend of the xxxx yyyy. XXXenophile looks terrific but i don't think i've ever actually played it properly. Pokemon is OK. Mage Knight i quite like but i find the action sequencing to be unintentionally hilarious, as if the warriors have to stop for a breather every now and then. <snip> [ quoted text not captured ]

"Andrew 'Wes' Weston" <gh...@mnsi.net> wrote in message news:97faa...@enews3.newsguy.com... > The original, Magic: the Gathering, I can respect for starting the genre, > but generally I find it too derivative and frankly, a lot of the people that > play it are... not people I want to play with. I've had more enjoyment > playing the computer version of it which goes quicker and doesn't whine when > it loses. Not really disagreeing with you here, but...I'm just curious about how Magic, can be both the progenitor of the whole genre as well as derivative? :) Xian

"wes" <gh...@mnsi.net> wrote in message news:97510...@enews2.newsguy.com... > I don't have a problem being focused on if I AM the strongest deck at the > table. With good players I expect that. These players are doing it > regardless of my strength in any given game, which I think you'll all have > to admit is not always tactically sound. Their reasoning is that it is fun > to oust me... again, this is all quite good-natured. Apparently, it is less > fun to oust someone else; that is the part that makes little sense to me. [Ages late, I realize...] I've had an idea for exactly what deck you should play which should prove immensely hard for any group to gang up on, at least as long as they're newbies, as you indicate, and also assuming they have relatively small collections. > I think that one thing I need to do is somehow set up an environment where > they are forced to recognize the predator-prey realtionship. I've just > constructed a weenie vote deck, which is not only faster than anything > they've seen so far, but also uses cards that manipulate the table dynamic > to its own benefit. Take 'Political Flux' for example... if I play this > card, stating that the next Meth to oust gets 12 pool instead of 6, I think > the benefits of ousting your prey might become a bit more obvious (god I > hope so). I would say that you should go for a Ventrue Law Firm-style deck, but instead of a portion of the damaging votes, put in more defense and some cards like Political Flux. Actually, have about 8 Political Flux in the deck, so that you can set it to 12 whenever you damn well feel like it. Majesty/Skin of Steel for combat defense, Deflection for bleed defense, and innate votes for vote defense. Should be pretty impervious against a bunch of newer players. I'd say go with: 2x Emerson Bridges 2x Sir Walter Nash 2x Timothy Crowley 1x Democritus 1x Arika 1x Ranjan Rishi 1x Wilhelm Waldburg 1x Queen Anne 1x Heather Florent, the Opportunist Various master cards, including a few Minion Taps, Blood Dolls, and Ventrue HQ. @ 32 votes, including 8x Political Flux @ 8 WwEF 8x Deflection 8-16 combat defense cards (Majesty/Skin of Steel) Some bleed stuff 6-8x Bewitching Oration a few Fifth Traditions a few Elder Kindred Networks I would think that should have you pretty well set to survive pretty much anything... Xian

[ quoted text not captured ] Thanks for making this comment. I was beginning to wonder if it was just me and I had somehow misunderstood the meaning of the word, 'derivative'. Fred

"Frederick Scott" <fre...@netcom.com> wrote > > Not really disagreeing with you here, but...I'm just curious about how Magic, > > can be both the progenitor of the whole genre as well as derivative? :) > > Thanks for making this comment. I was beginning to wonder if it was just me > and I had somehow misunderstood the meaning of the word, 'derivative'. > > Fred Relax... Probably the wrong word. What I mean is that while Magic may have been the first CCG, it also quickly became the least original and seems only to 'cannibalize' itself with each new booster. Of course, I don't play the game any more so I may not be fit to judge. Cheers, WES

Andrew 'Wes' Weston <gh...@mnsi.net> wrote in message news:97g95...@enews2.newsguy.com... > I'm REALLY curious how you play XXXenophile wrong... no, don't answer that > heh. > > Cheers, > WES Wes, If you don't follow the instructions properly, you play wrong... ;) Plus, the remove one article of clothing bit can make for some angry gamers at a tournament... It is a fun game if you play with the right people. oAFLORD aka Thomas Kuster VEKN Prince of Caledon

oaflord wrote: > > Andrew 'Wes' Weston <gh...@mnsi.net> wrote in message > news:97g95...@enews2.newsguy.com... > > > I'm REALLY curious how you play XXXenophile wrong... no, don't answer that > > heh. > > If you don't follow the instructions properly, you play wrong... ;) > > Plus, the remove one article of clothing bit can make for some angry gamers > at a tournament... It is a fun game if you play with the right people. I'm trying to figure out why such gamers would be "angry". Embarrassed, perhaps. Or in the case of the other gamers in the presence of those who remove their clothing, possibly disgusted, uncomfortable, titillated, self-righteous, or just plain surprised. But I wouldn't expect to find angry on the list. Anyway, the company line on the Exhibitionist cards is that the instructions force one to remove an article of clothing. They do not preclude one from putting it back on. You could pop a whole passel full of Exhibitionist cards on a single play and not show the world any more skin than what was hiding under your bandana. Fred

Frederick Scott <fre...@netcom.com> wrote in message news:3A9D7D88...@netcom.com... [ quoted text not captured ] Now that's not in spirit... just don't tell my wife... By the way, where can I get company information??? I am too lazy to look things up myself. oAFLORD

In article <Xgil6.2686$m82.3...@news.uswest.net>, Xian <xi...@waste.org> wrote: >What was the deck? :) Don't tell me you played an intercept deck. No, I didn't have that much crack lying around. Here's the deck, which I'll have you know carries Ian Lee's official "it sucks" Seal of Approval. Until Ian Lee says "god, this deck blows" it ain't official, kids! Deck: "Stone's Mourning" (later renamed to 'cocktease') CRYPT 1x Ulugh Beg 10 Tre AUS cel DOM for pot THA Yusticar 2x Cardano 9 Tre ani aus cel DOM FOR THA Prince of Bawston 1x Bindusara 9 Ven AUS DOM FOR PRE tha +1 bleed 1x 'Uncle' Ian Forestal 8 !Tre AUS DOM THA * 2x Muaziz 7 Tre aus dom for THA +1 stealth no bloodhunts 1x Iliana 7 Gan DOM FOR PRO tha 2x Marlene 6 !Ven AUS dem DOM for tha 2x Vincent Day 5 !Ven aus dom for pot tha Top-heavy, I know, but that's what you get when you go looking for AUS/dom/FOR/tha. LIBRARY Archon Investigation Direct Intervention Sudden Reversal Anarch Troublemaker 2x Blood Doll Giant's Blood Secure Haven 2x Fortitude Auspex 9xSkin of Night 9xWeather Control 9xDawn Operation 2xPulse of the Canaille 2xRutor's Hand 5xGovern the Unaligned 1xKine Dominance 4xRestoration 3xSkin of Steel 1xRolling with the Punches 5xIndomitability 1xUndead Persistence 1xResilience 2xDelaying Tactics 3xDeflection 2xWake with Evening's Freshness This one is 70 cards, because it was designed in the middle of that "smaller decks work better" thread and I wanted to check it out. It swept one 4player table, got 1 VP in another 4player, and got 3VP in a third 4player. It then got 0VP over 2 games at the tournament. Shittagoddam. Small-deck observation: When they clump, they clump like a mofo. gomi -- Individually, I love you all with affection unspeakable; but, collectively, I look upon you with a disgust that amounts to absolute detestation. - Gilbert and Sullivan, 'Pirates of Penzance'

>Here's the deck, which >I'll have you know carries Ian Lee's official "it sucks" Seal of Approval. >Until Ian Lee says "god, this deck blows" it ain't official, kids! Sure, give away that I'm actually highly opinionated. Let's see. I took over for a turn in one game and had a hand consisting of entirely damage prevention. That none of the vamps you had in play could play any of the 7 fortitude cards at superior when the crypt is full of high caps would have discouraged me quite a bit. And, it's just a Dawn Op, Weather Control, Skin of Night deck. So, *if* I block, I'm screwed. Feel the excitement. Course, it's still 3x better than 60% of the decks I play. [ quoted text not captured ] I believe someone here said "every deck is better with Freak Drives". I'd lose a bunch of the damage prevention. Or, switch it out for Unflinchings and Thefts. Also, the blood management is weak. And, lacking intercept when it's easy to come by is a great way to let your predator and prey do horrible things. Finally, without Pulse, your bleed is weak. What does this deck do?

In article <20010301141443...@ng-ba1.aol.com>, Ian Lee <cur...@aol.com> wrote: >Let's see. I took over for a turn in one game and had a hand consisting of >entirely damage prevention. That none of the vamps you had in play could play >any of the 7 fortitude cards at superior when the crypt is full of high caps >would have discouraged me quite a bit. True, your experience with the deck was poor. >And, it's just a Dawn Op, Weather Control, Skin of Night deck. So, *if* I >block, I'm screwed. Feel the excitement. The notion being that if you don't block, you're also screwed. >Course, it's still 3x better than 60% of the decks I play. I'm still amazed that you not only won the tournament, but also ousted The Notorious Bryan Downie, who was using the deck that utterly destroyed the field last year. >I believe someone here said "every deck is better with Freak Drives". I'd lose >a bunch of the damage prevention. Or, switch it out for Unflinchings and >Thefts. Freak Drives are an excellent notion. I sussed the tourney metagame wrong -- I was expecting at least one Tzi Anicombat intercept monster, and a slightly higher combat presence than usual. There was some combat, true, but that wasn't what was fux0ring me. >Also, the blood management is weak. Granted. It's a 2, 3 tops, minion deck, though. Cardano+Muaziz is 16 pool, about average expenditure. >And, lacking intercept when it's >easy to come by is a great way to let your predator and prey do horrible >things. Finally, without Pulse, your bleed is weak. What does this deck do? I don't believe in intercept outside of dedicated intercept decks. You wind up holding that only copy of Enhanced Senses for turns and turns, waiting for an action it's worth using on. And when it happens, it's a 0-stealth rush action and you can't use the card anyway. There's Pulses and a ton of Governs -- did you see those? It's supposed to be traditional bruise-bleed -- come in with a Pulse or Govern, either bleed for 3 or waste a vampire. The trouble I ran into is the typical poke-for-1-agg problem -- full vampires leave torpor very easily. This is actually a good argument for intercept, come to think of it. But my cheesy combo takes up so much room i can't pack effective combat outside the cheesy combo, which is on my turn only. Bah. I should try that dom/pot/cel TB pitch deck again. [ quoted text not captured ]

>There's Pulses and a ton of Governs -- did you see those? It's supposed >to be traditional bruise-bleed -- come in with a Pulse or Govern, either >bleed for 3 or waste a vampire. There's 5 Governs and 2 Pulses. I would have played those (mainly for blood management) plus another 5 Conditionings, maybe a Foreshadowing, and 4+ Bondings. There's little threat value to being bled once a turn for 3. Bleed bounce, TC both would remove most of the threat of your deck. Even when you get through, there's no guarantee that it will be decisive. If you don't have a Pulse or don't play a Govern, you are bleeding for one, which is certainly not going to hurt.

"Gomi no Sensei" <go...@best.com> wrote in message news:97khli$buf$1...@nntp1.ba.best.com... > Deck: "Stone's Mourning" (later renamed to 'cocktease') Nice name, though. I still have the problem where I can't come up with cool deck names like you can. And when I come up with one, I still have to get Chris Berger to remind me what the line from my favorite band's song *actually* is. Did you even look at my version before designing this? :) > CRYPT > > 1x Ulugh Beg 10 Tre AUS cel DOM for pot THA Yusticar > 2x Cardano 9 Tre ani aus cel DOM FOR THA Prince of Bawston > 1x Bindusara 9 Ven AUS DOM FOR PRE tha +1 bleed > 1x 'Uncle' Ian Forestal 8 !Tre AUS DOM THA * > 2x Muaziz 7 Tre aus dom for THA +1 stealth no bloodhunts > 1x Iliana 7 Gan DOM FOR PRO tha > 2x Marlene 6 !Ven AUS dem DOM for tha > 2x Vincent Day 5 !Ven aus dom for pot tha FOR is necessary, and I don't know about the AUS angle. Also, I'm becoming less enthralled with Muaziz...that +1 stealth means you don't get blocked a lot. I haven't played this in a while, but my recommendation is to go with: 2x Cardano 3x Iliana 2x Marlene and one of all the rest... I think the only thing Muaziz is really really good for in this deck is diablerizing everyone that you send to take a dirt nap. > Top-heavy, I know, but that's what you get when you go looking for > AUS/dom/FOR/tha. Lose the AUS. You're only using it for the Pulses anyway. > LIBRARY > > Archon Investigation > Direct Intervention > Sudden Reversal Eh. I won't worry about using the Investigation, and I don't play with the others regularly, but I realize that they're personal taste thingys. > Anarch Troublemaker ? What's that for? > 2x Blood Doll More Blood Dolls. Like 4. > Giant's Blood Eh. If you want. > Secure Haven Maybe. I wouldn't worry about being rushed too much. > 2x Fortitude > Auspex Lose the Auspex. What you really need is Arcane Library. Maybe two. > 9xSkin of Night > 9xWeather Control > 9xDawn Operation Drop it to 6 or 7 each, except for 10 Weather Control. In a 90-card deck. > 2xPulse of the Canaille Uses too much blood. Replace with more GtU. > 2xRutor's Hand > 5xGovern the Unaligned Also. More Threats. My last deck was Scouting Mission/Threats to help out with losing blood fast, but I think GtU might be okay. More bleed means more iron. > 1xKine Dominance > 4xRestoration Good. Could maybe add a couple more, or a 5th Tradition or two. > 3xSkin of Steel > 1xRolling with the Punches > 5xIndomitability > 1xUndead Persistence > 1xResilience Less prevention, and make it all Skin of Steel/Rolling with the Punches. > 2xDelaying Tactics > 3xDeflection > 2xWake with Evening's Freshness A couple more each, say 3 DT, 5-6 Deflection, 4 WwEF. > This one is 70 cards, because it was designed in the middle of that "smaller > decks work better" thread and I wanted to check it out. It swept one 4player Shouldn't you have checked it out with a tried and true deck? :P > table, got 1 VP in another 4player, and got 3VP in a third 4player. It > then got 0VP over 2 games at the tournament. Shittagoddam. Yeah, I got 1VP in 2 games with a similar deck in the fall. I was expecting my local metagame to *not* have evolved in the previous month or two, and that people would still block me after the first time around. Wonder of wonders, they had actually learned. Not that we have lots of bad players, it's just that they have a lot of bad habits from years of insular play. The mentality of *needing* to block any bleed still hasn't fully worn off. But I think my deck helped. Xian

"Gomi no Sensei" <go...@best.com> wrote in message news:97khli$buf$1...@nntp1.ba.best.com... Also, Ian was right. Freak Drives make this deck much better. Bleed; get blocked. --> Dawn Op/Skin of Night/Weather Control Freak Diablerie; get blocked. --> Dawn Op/Skin of Night/Weather Control [Freak] [Hunt] [Freak] [ad infinitum] Have another vamp diablerize. Now if only I had more than 4 Freaks or so...damn. Xian

In article <fJBn6.3268$434.4...@news.uswest.net>, Xian <xi...@waste.org> wrote: >"Gomi no Sensei" <go...@best.com> wrote in message >news:97khli$buf$1...@nntp1.ba.best.com... >Did you even look at my version before designing this? :) Naah. I just hadn't done a SoN/WC/DO deck in a while. >FOR is necessary, and I don't know about the AUS angle. Also, I'm becoming >less enthralled with Muaziz...that +1 stealth means you don't get blocked a >lot. I haven't played this in a while, but my recommendation is to go with: Is FOR necessary, though? If they don't block, you do get the tasty bleed through. Whomping is just delivering on the threat -- not blocking is what you're really after. >I think the only thing Muaziz is really really good for in this deck is >diablerizing everyone that you send to take a dirt nap. Yeap. Too often, though I needed her for other duties and couldn't spare her for munching the fallen. Problem with the heavy crypt -- can't easily afford a third minion. >> Top-heavy, I know, but that's what you get when you go looking for >> AUS/dom/FOR/tha. > >Lose the AUS. You're only using it for the Pulses anyway. Yeah. It was an artifact of the little deck -- I shifted to permanents, since I was thinking I'd get decked a lot and wanted some permanent threat lying around. >Eh. I won't worry about using the Investigation, and I don't play with the >others regularly, but I realize that they're personal taste thingys. Those three only went in because it was going for a tournament. I ordinarily eschew them. I felt bad, Archoning the Pulsed Cornelius, but inherent 5 bleed (I had Uncle Ian out) was just too icky to contemplate. >> Anarch Troublemaker >? What's that for? Casual intercept. There's lots of important +1 stealth actions; I want my Pulses and Hands and Restorations to go off. The bleeds can be blocked. >> 2x Blood Doll >More Blood Dolls. Like 4. Yeah. >> Giant's Blood > >Eh. If you want. If the Pulses and Hands go, this will go too. >> Secure Haven > >Maybe. I wouldn't worry about being rushed too much. I was a little rush-paranoid when I made this deck, and Pulse makes people into targets. >> 2x Fortitude >> Auspex > >Lose the Auspex. What you really need is Arcane Library. Maybe two. Thinking back, Pulsed Muaziz is what won me a lot of those victory points. In which case I might as well have gone straight to stealthbleed and avoid all this complicated foofaraw. Or make a Jost/Rebekka Pulse/Legal Manipulation cheesefest (but I don't think I have 6 of each). >> 9xSkin of Night >> 9xWeather Control >> 9xDawn Operation >Drop it to 6 or 7 each, except for 10 Weather Control. In a 90-card deck. Really? I was having a hard time drawing into the combo as it was. >> 2xPulse of the Canaille > >Uses too much blood. Replace with more GtU. See above comments. >> 2xRutor's Hand >> 5xGovern the Unaligned >Also. More Threats. My last deck was Scouting Mission/Threats to help out >with losing blood fast, but I think GtU might be okay. More bleed means more >iron. Heh. You'll have to get up earlier in the morning than that to catch me out on a Simpsons reference. For bruise-bleed, I prefer action cards over action mods to get the threat nice and out in the open. Although I could always play the mod before block time, anyhow. >> 1xKine Dominance >> 4xRestoration >Good. Could maybe add a couple more, or a 5th Tradition or two. Hm. I usually avoid Traditions unless I'm Real Sure of getting an opening P/J, and 3/12 isn't sure enough for me. Typically, decks of mine that include Traditions are either all or almost-all (like 9/12) P/J crypts. >> 3xSkin of Steel >> 1xRolling with the Punches >> 5xIndomitability >> 1xUndead Persistence >> 1xResilience >Less prevention, and make it all Skin of Steel/Rolling with the Punches. That's a good way to get monkeyfucked by Carrion Crows and retainer damage, which I was expecting to see. Also, I got shagged by a Carrion Crow/multiple presses deck on JOL recently, which accounts for the 5 Indos. SoS/RwtP don't provide presses, and the Nos will Crow, then Grapple, which comes with its own press, so one SoS means you're down 3 blood (1 for SoS, 2 for Crows) and going into another round of damage. Yurg. >Shouldn't you have checked it out with a tried and true deck? :P And control my variables? Bah. [ quoted text not captured ]

"Gomi no Sensei" <go...@best.com> wrote in message news:97mrfb$1vg$1...@nntp1.ba.best.com... > Is FOR necessary, though? If they don't block, you do get the tasty bleed > through. Whomping is just delivering on the threat -- not blocking is > what you're really after. Hmm. Maybe, maybe not. Good point. I'll think about it. > >> 9xSkin of Night > >> 9xWeather Control > >> 9xDawn Operation > > >Drop it to 6 or 7 each, except for 10 Weather Control. In a 90-card deck. > > Really? I was having a hard time drawing into the combo as it was. Once people see it, though, you'll hardly ever be blocked again. You'll probably pick one set up within the first few actions, and then you won't need it for most of the rest of the game. I hand-jammed on it all the time at 10/10/12 in a 90-card deck. > Heh. You'll have to get up earlier in the morning than that to catch me out > on a Simpsons reference. For bruise-bleed, I prefer action cards over action I liked the Devil's Advocate one the other day. I was going to continue it, but that was about the only thing interesting I had to say on that post. > mods to get the threat nice and out in the open. Although I could always > play the mod before block time, anyhow. Yeah. That's what I've been doing with my newest Tremere deck. And I have to say, GtU +Threats/Conditioning, while it makes you a target for AI...it ousts people *much* more quickly. > Hm. I usually avoid Traditions unless I'm Real Sure of getting an opening > P/J, and 3/12 isn't sure enough for me. Typically, decks of mine that include > Traditions are either all or almost-all (like 9/12) P/J crypts. Agreed. I think I had 1 5th to 5 Restorations...2x Cardano + 1x Ulugh Beg made it seem like the odds were okay... > >Less prevention, and make it all Skin of Steel/Rolling with the Punches. > > That's a good way to get monkeyfucked by Carrion Crows and retainer damage, > which I was expecting to see. Also, I got shagged by a Carrion Crow/multiple Understood. However, you hardly ever see it in rush form. And if they're doing the blocking, Dawn Op/WC should take care of them before you get to damage resolution. > >Shouldn't you have checked it out with a tried and true deck? :P > > And control my variables? Bah. Of course, how silly of me. Xian sax-a-ma-phone...

On Thu, 1 Mar 2001 18:14:09 -0600, "Xian" <xi...@waste.org> wrote: >FOR is necessary, and I don't know about the AUS angle. Also, I'm becoming >less enthralled with Muaziz...that +1 stealth means you don't get blocked a >lot. I haven't played this in a while, but my recommendation is to go with: Muaziz means that you get bounced for 5 at +1 stealth a lot. It certainly makes it easier to jedi-mind-trick your predator into modifying his bleed; just shrug and say "+1 stealth, right? OK" whenever Muaziz takes an action, and then Deflect as necessary. >2x Cardano >3x Iliana >2x Marlene >and one of all the rest... > >I think the only thing Muaziz is really really good for in this deck is >diablerizing everyone that you send to take a dirt nap. Agg to the left! Agg to the right! Amaranth! Amaranth! Amaranth! YEAH! ...sorry >> Anarch Troublemaker > >? What's that for? Those pigfuckers who leave bleed bouncers and/or blockers untapped as sacrificial "fine, burn me" lambs to avoid being ousted. =) >> 9xSkin of Night >> 9xWeather Control >> 9xDawn Operation > >Drop it to 6 or 7 each, except for 10 Weather Control. In a 90-card deck. Yeah. Nobody will block you after you fry the first one, so you'll jam up FAST. >Yeah, I got 1VP in 2 games with a similar deck in the fall. I was expecting >my local metagame to *not* have evolved in the previous month or two, and that >people would still block me after the first time around. Wonder of wonders, >they had actually learned. Not that we have lots of bad players, it's just >that they have a lot of bad habits from years of insular play. The mentality >of *needing* to block any bleed still hasn't fully worn off. But I think my >deck helped. Yep. I find that a lot with newer players; they tend to feel compelled to block bleeds, especially if it's the third bleed of 1 in a row and you obviously intend to do nothing but bleed for 1 unless you find bleed cards, in which case you'll bleed for 3. I don't know WHY this is; perhaps habit? Who knows =) -- Derek "Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge." - C. Darwin, 1871

"Derek Ray" <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:sndu9t4cif5mdubsp...@4ax.com... > On Thu, 1 Mar 2001 18:14:09 -0600, "Xian" <xi...@waste.org> wrote: > > >FOR is necessary, and I don't know about the AUS angle. Also, I'm becoming > >less enthralled with Muaziz...that +1 stealth means you don't get blocked a > >lot. I haven't played this in a while, but my recommendation is to go with: > > Muaziz means that you get bounced for 5 at +1 stealth a lot. Exactly. > >> Anarch Troublemaker > > > >? What's that for? > > Those pigfuckers who leave bleed bouncers and/or blockers untapped as > sacrificial "fine, burn me" lambs to avoid being ousted. =) Heh. Bastards. > Yep. I find that a lot with newer players; they tend to feel > compelled to block bleeds, especially if it's the third bleed of 1 in > a row and you obviously intend to do nothing but bleed for 1 unless > you find bleed cards, in which case you'll bleed for 3. > > I don't know WHY this is; perhaps habit? Who knows =) Definitely habit. In my case, at least half of the people I play with *used* to play under 4CL. In that environment, it has seemed to me that any bleed is likely to be blocked, because you're not sure that you're going to come up with any pool gain. This being the case, a bleed for 3 or 4 was almost certain to be blocked (or deflected) in the old environment. Unfortunately, I decided to play a Dawn Op/Weather Control deck *just* as they realized that not everything needs to be blocked. Poor judgement of the metagame, I'll chalk it up to. Then again, that tournament was completely crazy, from my end of things. Why the Malk player across the table Conditioned the GtU that was deflected to me, I'll never really understand. Xian

Now this explains a few things in _our_ play group now doesn't it... I guess we wouldn't make good Napoleons... Daniel-Tig Frederick Scott wrote: > So, whine! What's wrong? You too proud to win by begging other players > to leave you alone? Napoleon had that problem. He wound up sheep herding > in the South Atlantic. > > It's a multiplayer game. If anyone does anything that damages your table > position, make sure the whole table hears you yell, "OUCH!" Mumble about > how you might as well give in now...or maybe you'll wait a turn or two before > transferring yourself out. Some of the best multiplayer gamers I know live by > creative whining. Also, creative discord-sowing, creative confusion-spreading, > and creative guilt-inducement. If you can make them dread the self-pity that > will inevitably follow each assault, the assaults will thin out. It's like > free power! Use it!

[ quoted text not captured ] Well, actually, my experience goes back to Minneapolis, Minnesota. The early to mid 1980s. The Little Soldier Shoppe on Sunday afternoons. A cloud of cigarette smoke hung in the air (no ventalation/lax smoking laws). Moans of the losing filled the air....it was a different time... Fred