Sign-in / Sign-up
Your question

[KMW Spoiler] NSA Trio

Tags:
  • Games
  • Burner
  • Video Games
Last response: in PC Gaming
Anonymous
February 11, 2005 11:39:59 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

Government.

During the first combat between an acting vampire and a blocking vampire
each turn, neither combatant may end combat as a strike in the first
round. A Methuselah may use a discard phase action to burn this card if
his or her minions attempted no actions in the current turn.

* * *

Derek Rawlings

More about : kmw spoiler nsa trio

Anonymous
February 11, 2005 11:40:00 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 20:39:59 GMT, Derek Rawlings
<dmrawlings@telus.net> wrote:

>Government.
>During the first combat between an acting vampire and a blocking vampire
>each turn, neither combatant may end combat as a strike in the first
>round. A Methuselah may use a discard phase action to burn this card if
>his or her minions attempted no actions in the current turn.
>Derek Rawlings

One more card to hit more than US$ 20 on eBay.

It'll take a while - maybe two or three expansions after KMW - but
it's inevitable.

best,

Fabio "Sooner" Macedo
V:TES National Coordinator for Brazil
-----------------------------------------------------
now a "luminary", whatever it means:
http://www.thelasombra.com/WhosWho/fabiomacedo.htm
Anonymous
February 11, 2005 11:40:00 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

It looks to me like a useful strategy would be to combine this with a
lot of blood denial to force opposing minions to hunt, thereby
preventing it from being burned. Other possibilities include weird
stuff like Lunatic Reaction. It looks like it could be quite good for
fighty intercept decks. Tremere with Cryptic Mission, AUS intercept,
and THA combat could fit all those criteria quite nicely, though
there's still the problem with incoming damage....
Related resources
Can't find your answer ? Ask !
Anonymous
February 11, 2005 11:40:00 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

Peter D Bakija wrote:
> Eh. I dunno. It isn't so useful for Rush decks (as they need to block
you),
> and while it'll be handy for intercept wall decks, they are already
much
> less worried about S:CE ...

Should be useful for bruise decks, though. It makes blocking them a
more unpleasant prospect. If bounced and blocked by its grandprey, the
bruise deck could play Change of Target (or Red Herring I suppose) to
save NSA Trio's effect for the next action, since NSA Trio specifies
the first *combat* with a blocking minion. It would mix well with a
deck that makes others take mandatory actions, such as a blood denial
deck, or punishes them for not taking actions, such as a deck with
Sabbat Threat.

Not as game-shaping an event as Dragonbound, but useful. I wonder if
all the Government events will be discard related.
Anonymous
February 11, 2005 11:40:00 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

Emmit Svenson wrote:

> Should be useful for bruise decks, though. It makes blocking them a
> more unpleasant prospect. If bounced and blocked by its grandprey,
the
> bruise deck could play Change of Target (or Red Herring I suppose) to
> save NSA Trio's effect for the next action, since NSA Trio specifies
> the first *combat* with a blocking minion.

Hm, Tremere or !Tremere bruise decks could get mileage out of it with
slave Gargoyles, too - "okay, you bounce my big bleed, he gets to fight
the Gargoyle Slave. Doesn't count for NSA Trio. Next THA bleeder
coming, wanna block this?" Etc.

-John Flournoy
Anonymous
February 11, 2005 11:40:00 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

Frederick Scott wrote:
> "John Flournoy" <carneggy@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1108161958.283770.177840@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> > Hm, Tremere or !Tremere bruise decks could get mileage out of it
with
> > slave Gargoyles, too - "okay, you bounce my big bleed, he gets to
fight
> > the Gargoyle Slave. Doesn't count for NSA Trio. Next THA bleeder
> > coming, wanna block this?" Etc.
>
> No - I wanna bounce it again.

Ooh, hope you were using Auspex, cause this one has Perfect Clarity..
okay, perhaps not. Still, that sort of Bruise+Bleed deck pretty much
figures you can't keep drawing into bounce forever..

> Fred

-John Flournoy
Anonymous
February 11, 2005 11:40:01 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

"Fabio "Sooner"" <fabio_sooner@NOSPAMterra.com.br> wrote in message news:vo7q01dgreg98hb475c6mhopq9janb8c44@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 20:39:59 GMT, Derek Rawlings
> <dmrawlings@telus.net> wrote:
>
>>Government.
>>During the first combat between an acting vampire and a blocking vampire
>>each turn, neither combatant may end combat as a strike in the first
>>round. A Methuselah may use a discard phase action to burn this card if
>>his or her minions attempted no actions in the current turn.
>
> One more card to hit more than US$ 20 on eBay.
>
> It'll take a while - maybe two or three expansions after KMW - but
> it's inevitable.

Eh? It's not that helpful, really. I suppose if I had a combat deck
that hated S:CE and didn't have access to Immortal Grapple, I might
throw one or two of these babies in. But I'd hardly throw out the
Psyche!s.

1. It's an event, thus can only be played once per game.

2. It's only good for pinning down one vampire per turn.

3. Any deck relying on S:CE for combat defense will likely give up
a turn to get rid of it the instant it sees you play it - unless
it _really_ needs to act that turn. (And a rush deck playing it
during its discard will never get a chance to take advantage of it
at all.) Thus, it will moderately harm the S:CE deck but may not
help the combat deck who played it at all, unless it was the former's
prey.

You never know what players will wind up concluding (I still don't
see what's the attraction of Powerbase: Montreal) but $20? I
really don't think so. Probably not even double digits.

Fred
Anonymous
February 11, 2005 11:40:01 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

Fabio "Sooner" wrote:

> One more card to hit more than US$ 20 on eBay.

Eh. I dunno. It isn't so useful for Rush decks (as they need to block you),
and while it'll be handy for intercept wall decks, they are already much
less worried about S:CE ('cause they strike second, and their ability to
kill minions with impunity is much less important than Rush decks), and so
they aren't going to need it so much.

It strikes me as mostly useful to disuade blocking Rush actions so as to
ensure the manuver from the Bum's Rush (which doesn't help so much if
someone is going to S:CE, but at least there is some synergy...)


Peter D Bakija
pdb6@lightlink.com
http://www.lightlink.com/pdb6

"How does this end?"
"In fire."
Emperor Turhan and Kosh
Anonymous
February 11, 2005 11:40:01 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

"John Flournoy" <carneggy@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1108161958.283770.177840@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> Hm, Tremere or !Tremere bruise decks could get mileage out of it with
> slave Gargoyles, too - "okay, you bounce my big bleed, he gets to fight
> the Gargoyle Slave. Doesn't count for NSA Trio. Next THA bleeder
> coming, wanna block this?" Etc.

No - I wanna bounce it again.

Fred
Anonymous
February 11, 2005 11:40:01 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

Emmit Svenson wrote:

> Should be useful for bruise decks, though. It makes blocking them a
> more unpleasant prospect.

I mean, yeah, I guess, but:

A) Bruise and Bleed decks are deeply flawed from the get go, and this one
event is not going to make them any better.

B) A B+B deck that can't deal with S:CE with more proactive measures
(Immortal Grapple, Psyche, or Thoughts Betrayed) that this event is going to
be even more flawed than mentioned in (A) above.

It certainly isn't going to hurt a B+B deck, but all it will do is further
encourage your prey to not block you, so your hand gets even more and more
clogged with combat you can't play while you get deflected all over the
table.


Peter D Bakija
pdb6@lightlink.com
http://www.lightlink.com/pdb6

"How does this end?"
"In fire."
Emperor Turhan and Kosh
Anonymous
February 12, 2005 2:47:21 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 14:17:48 -0700, "Frederick Scott"
<nospam@no.spam.dot.com> wrote:

>
>"Fabio "Sooner"" <fabio_sooner@NOSPAMterra.com.br> wrote in message news:vo7q01dgreg98hb475c6mhopq9janb8c44@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 20:39:59 GMT, Derek Rawlings
>> <dmrawlings@telus.net> wrote:
>>
>>>Government.
>>>During the first combat between an acting vampire and a blocking vampire
>>>each turn, neither combatant may end combat as a strike in the first
>>>round. A Methuselah may use a discard phase action to burn this card if
>>>his or her minions attempted no actions in the current turn.
>>
>> One more card to hit more than US$ 20 on eBay.
>>
>> It'll take a while - maybe two or three expansions after KMW - but
>> it's inevitable.

[snip a handful of well-thought arguments I wasn't able to reach
myself]

>You never know what players will wind up concluding (I still don't
>see what's the attraction of Powerbase: Montreal) but $20? I
>really don't think so. Probably not even double digits.
>Fred

I was going more on that angle - some players raving on yet another
anti-combat ends tech and giving way more value than it deserves -
than actually praising it.

Myself, I don't see the attraction of most of the double-digit valued
Rares.

best,

Fabio "Sooner" Macedo
V:TES National Coordinator for Brazil
-----------------------------------------------------
now a "luminary", whatever it means:
http://www.thelasombra.com/WhosWho/fabiomacedo.htm
Anonymous
February 12, 2005 5:50:15 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

Peter D Bakija wrote:
> It certainly isn't going to hurt a B+B deck, but all it will do is
further
> encourage your prey to not block you, so your hand gets even more and
more
> clogged with combat you can't play while you get deflected all over
the
> table.
>
Unless you mix some rush with your bleeds, which seems like a
reasonable plan to me, and something that B+B decks should be doing
already, IMO.
Anonymous
February 12, 2005 12:04:35 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

> Yes. These days, there are a couple vampires with Dominate, Potence,
and
> inherrent Rush (Taco Bell and Ignatzio), who, if you build a deck
around
> them, will completely aleviate these problems. But historically, this
hasn't
> been the case ('cause Taco Bell and Ignatzio are very new, relative
to the
> rest of the game), so when someone refers to "Bruise and Bleed", they
tend
> to be thinking in terms of "Bruise and Bleed" as it has historically
> been--i.e. bad. Build a deck with a lot of bleed, a lot of combat,
and 5
> Ignaztio Giovannis, and you aren't playing a deck that historically
is a
> "bruise and bleed" deck.

Pretty true. Tremere Bruise and Bleed also now has Oliver Thrace, who
can cycle one of those combat cards for +1 Bleed. Also, Jeremy MacNeil
(Adv) can be mixed with Taco, so that you have two guys with inherent
rush and presence/potence/celerity, which can reduce/eliminate your
need to include rush cards in that deck. Which may not be a
"historical" Bruise'n'Bleed, but I don't think there's a more
appropriate name for the deck type.

John
Anonymous
February 12, 2005 2:04:11 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

Orpheus wrote:

> I built an Ignazio Giovanni B'n'B which will probably get posted some time.
> The only rush was his included, other main minion was Piterzoon, so I guess
> it qualifies as a B'n'B.

Well, except that it doesn't rely on getting blocked to get into combat.
'Cause you have a minion who has built in Rush.

See, if you are building a deck around Ignazio Giovani, who can inherrently
Rush, you have no trouble getting into combat. So your hand never jams with
combat.

Having a vampire that can enter combat with your prey on a regular basis
tends to aleviate many of the problems with Bruise and Bleed decks--namely
that unless someone blocks you, you end up with a hand full of combat cards
that you can't use. If you have someone, like, say, Ignazio Giovanni, who
comes with a built in Rush action, this ceases to be a problem.

Bruise and Bleed decks, historically, don't use Ignazio Giovanni. They try
and bleed their prey, and if their prey blocks them, they beat them up.
Which results in you having a hand ful of combat when you want bleed or a
hand full of bleed when you want combat.

Using Ignazio Giovanni certainly helps this situation out. And as such,
isn't really the archtypical "Bruise and Bleed" deck archetype that I'm
talking about.


Peter D Bakija
pdb6@lightlink.com
http://www.lightlink.com/pdb6

"How does this end?"
"In fire."
Emperor Turhan and Kosh
Anonymous
February 12, 2005 2:16:17 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

Kevin Walsh wrote:

> Unless you mix some rush with your bleeds, which seems like a
> reasonable plan to me, and something that B+B decks should be doing
> already, IMO.

Depends on how much Rush you mix in.

If you mix in 3 or 4 Bum's Rushes, say, you are gambling on having one at
the right time to save yourself from horrible hand jam and allwing yourself
to Rush minions that need to die. If you mix in 8-10, you aren't so much a
Bruise and Bleed deck as you are a Rush deck.

Historically, the Bruise and Bleed deck (B+B) has been typified by having a
bleed discipline (Presence or Dominate) backed by a combat discipline
(Potence or Thaumaturgy). It intends on bleeding for substantial amounts per
action (let's say 3, from Legal or Govern or Conditioning or something), and
if it gets blocked, it has theoretically enough combat to mess up the
blocker, to disuade people from blocking.

If you have enough combat, however, to reliably torporize folks, you are
going to get hand jammed something fierce if no one ever blocks you--you go
to bleed for 3 a couple times, you succeed in bleeding or you get bounced,
and then you spend the next few turns bleeding for one per action with 2 or
3 minions hoping someone blocks you while you wildly discard to find the
next bleed action.

You can mix in Bum's Rushes to the deck, hoping to be able to proactively
Rush to avoid this, but if you don't have enough of them, they become a
total prayer angle (i.e. the same thing happens as above, but you are
discarding wildly hoping to find a Rush or a bleed action). If you have
enough of them (8+), then you have limited room for bleed angles, and the
Rush becomes your whole strategy (and if the combat doesn't work, you die,
'cause you can't bleed fast enough, 'cause instead of 8 Governs you have 8
Bum's Rushes). The middle ground is very hard to find.

Yes. These days, there are a couple vampires with Dominate, Potence, and
inherrent Rush (Taco Bell and Ignatzio), who, if you build a deck around
them, will completely aleviate these problems. But historically, this hasn't
been the case ('cause Taco Bell and Ignatzio are very new, relative to the
rest of the game), so when someone refers to "Bruise and Bleed", they tend
to be thinking in terms of "Bruise and Bleed" as it has historically
been--i.e. bad. Build a deck with a lot of bleed, a lot of combat, and 5
Ignaztio Giovannis, and you aren't playing a deck that historically is a
"bruise and bleed" deck.


Peter D Bakija
pdb6@lightlink.com
http://www.lightlink.com/pdb6

"How does this end?"
"In fire."
Emperor Turhan and Kosh
February 12, 2005 2:56:30 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

"Kevin Walsh" <hjalkar@redbrick.dcu.ie> a écrit dans le message de news:
1108205415.937163.146660@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> Peter D Bakija wrote:
> > It certainly isn't going to hurt a B+B deck, but all it will do is
> further
> > encourage your prey to not block you, so your hand gets even more and
> more
> > clogged with combat you can't play while you get deflected all over
> the
> > table.
> >
> Unless you mix some rush with your bleeds, which seems like a
> reasonable plan to me, and something that B+B decks should be doing
> already, IMO.

Not to mention some cycling ability. Dreams, Barrens, Gear Up, Carlotta /
Sargon (in my Krassimir version, twice tournie finalist), all these and more
can do the trick.
-------------
Orpheus, necrobruiser
Anonymous
February 12, 2005 5:09:28 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

Peter D Bakija wrote:

> If you mix in 3 or 4 Bum's Rushes, say, you are gambling on having
> one at the right time to save yourself from horrible hand jam and
> allwing yourself to Rush minions that need to die. If you mix in
> 8-10, you aren't so much a Bruise and Bleed deck as you are a Rush
> deck.

I don't think slapping on these terms with such a broad brush is useful.
Very few decks have so few as 8 - 10 actions. I would say 20 is a more
realistic benchmark (perhaps with buff mods like Conditioning counting
towards an "action"). So, what is a deck that has 10 rush cards and 10
bleed cards? If I had to constrain myself to only choosing between
"rush" and "B&B", I would call that bruise and bleed.

But really, my main point is that we may be more hindered by trying to
pigeonhole lots of decks into a few easily managed categories when, in
reality, it is a much more fine-grained, sliding scale.

--

David Cherryholmes
david.cherryholmes@gmail.com

"OK. So be it. It's not my view, but whatever makes you
happy, right? I'm all about making you happy, Dave. :-)"

-- LSJ, V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc.
February 13, 2005 3:06:20 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

> Using Ignazio Giovanni certainly helps this situation out. And as such,
> isn't really the archtypical "Bruise and Bleed" deck archetype that I'm
> talking about.
>
> Peter D Bakija

I understand.

I guess my experience doesn't invalidate your PoV : my other good B'n'B deck
used Carlotta, Krassimir fetching the Sargon, and as such I could get back
bleed, stealth, the few rushes, whatever I needed in that toolboxy pack.

So my conclusion would be : good BnB is possible, but only with ways to get
the right cards when you need them, or, as I said previously, to cycle a lot
if needed !

Deadly Yours,

Orpheus
Anonymous
February 13, 2005 12:28:41 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

On 11 Feb 2005 15:08:45 -0800, John Flournoy <carneggy@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> Frederick Scott wrote:
>> "John Flournoy" <carneggy@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:1108161958.283770.177840@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>> > Hm, Tremere or !Tremere bruise decks could get mileage out of it
> with
>> > slave Gargoyles, too - "okay, you bounce my big bleed, he gets to
> fight
>> > the Gargoyle Slave. Doesn't count for NSA Trio. Next THA bleeder
>> > coming, wanna block this?" Etc.
>>
>> No - I wanna bounce it again.
>
> Ooh, hope you were using Auspex, cause this one has Perfect Clarity..
> okay, perhaps not. Still, that sort of Bruise+Bleed deck pretty much
> figures you can't keep drawing into bounce forever..

An odd concept, given how you want to fight with your Tremere and
not your Gargoyles... ;) 

--
Bye,

Daneel
Anonymous
February 13, 2005 12:46:10 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

On Sat, 12 Feb 2005 11:04:11 -0500, Peter D Bakija <pdb6@lightlink.com>
wrote:

> Bruise and Bleed decks, historically, don't use Ignazio Giovanni. They
> try
> and bleed their prey, and if their prey blocks them, they beat them up.
> Which results in you having a hand ful of combat when you want bleed or a
> hand full of bleed when you want combat.
>
> Using Ignazio Giovanni certainly helps this situation out. And as such,
> isn't really the archtypical "Bruise and Bleed" deck archetype that I'm
> talking about.

This narrows down B&B considerably. It's kind of like saying you cannot
use bleed cards for a Rush deck, because you'll end up clogged one way
or another. Sure, B&B has a weakness (prey can choose between pool and
vampire punishment), but it also has a strength (being able to compact
the deck and pack more bleed). Dunno if it's flawed, especially if you
look at all the combat cards you packed to back your strategy up a bit
and include a handful of rush cards for them to use (to go upstream or
take out a pesky bouncer if necessary), ensuring you don't really clog
on combat, and maybe making the choice that much harder for your prey.

--
Bye,

Daneel
Anonymous
February 13, 2005 1:21:16 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

hmmpfh ..


permanent's is the key ]: .. saint words .. I'm currently using
old bru B&B and I'm using there 6 Govern's and 3 Cond. .. for hand
jam: 3 haven uncov. and 3 Archon's ( I know I lack the votes but I'm
dealing my archons-anathemas to pass }: .. ( i.e. I'll never use my
archoned V to enter combat with you etc. ;)  or I will kill "X" vamp
if you would secure my archon - old tricks ;)  ) .. and it works ]:
combat cards are about : 43-48 cards and the Theo is the KING :) 

.. + consider Legendary Vampire which is my favourite card for B&B
even If I have 3-4 V above 6 cap. .. some Tension to make sure they
will think twice or even 1x Fame ..
Anonymous
February 13, 2005 1:25:52 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

Orpheus wrote:

> So my conclusion would be : good BnB is possible, but only with ways to get
> the right cards when you need them, or, as I said previously, to cycle a lot
> if needed !

Oh, I agree. There certainly are decks that have combat and bleed and
whatever that do just fine. And certainly a deck with, like, a bunch of
Ignazio's is likely to do very well (put in a bunch of combat, a bunch of
freak drives, a bunch of Threats, and go to town--I've been angling on one
of those myself, but I haven't taken apart my other deck with Freak Drives
yet :-) using similar concepts.

What this is all about, apparently, is me using a term that was coined to
mean one thing historically (bleeding, getting blocked, and beating folks
up), but due to changes in technology, such decks have likely evolved into
something else.

So we just need a new term.


Peter D Bakija
pdb6@lightlink.com
http://www.lightlink.com/pdb6

"How does this end?"
"In fire."
Emperor Turhan and Kosh
Anonymous
February 13, 2005 3:23:48 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

>Pretty true. Tremere Bruise and Bleed also now has Oliver Thrace, who
>can cycle one of those combat cards for +1 Bleed. Also, Jeremy MacNeil
>(Adv) can be mixed with Taco, so that you have two guys with inherent
>rush and presence/potence/celerity, which can reduce/eliminate your
>need to include rush cards in that deck. Which may not be a
>"historical" Bruise'n'Bleed, but I don't think there's a more
>appropriate name for the deck type.
>John

Or one can just think that Bruise 'n Bleed has changed and now has
some support. The same happens to Setite combat. I've seen a few years
ago a wild try (before the advent of Typhonic Beast) with Setites,
Bang Nahks and Mark of Damnation. Surely it was pretty sketchy and
card-intensive until Typhonic came out (and now its *just* still too
card-intensive ;) 

One guy has built a deck - I've ran accross it yesterday - around Taco
Bell, Jeremy McNeil, Beast and a few weenie Brujah packing plenty of
Iron Glares and no rush card at all (of course, he uses Presence skill
cards to "upgrade" Taco). Don't know the crypt numbers precisely, but
I've seen him influencing out all three plenty of times, including
yesterday, and it was a pain in the ass to deal with. I've managed to
win the table with !Tremere anarchs just because we were almost out of
time for another game and he went crazy through his prey until the two
decked out with many combats per turn, which left me room to prepare
and oust both in a row. Otherwise, when he has playing seriously, he
went with all three and no amount of Diversion could save Ian
Forrestal after the third rush.

best,

Fabio "Sooner" Macedo
V:TES National Coordinator for Brazil
-----------------------------------------------------
now a "luminary", whatever it means:
http://www.thelasombra.com/WhosWho/fabiomacedo.htm
February 13, 2005 3:40:32 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

> This narrows down B&B considerably. It's kind of like saying you cannot
> use bleed cards for a Rush deck, because you'll end up clogged one way
> or another. Sure, B&B has a weakness (prey can choose between pool and
> vampire punishment), but it also has a strength (being able to compact
> the deck and pack more bleed). Dunno if it's flawed, especially if you
> look at all the combat cards you packed to back your strategy up a bit
> and include a handful of rush cards for them to use (to go upstream or
> take out a pesky bouncer if necessary), ensuring you don't really clog
> on combat, and maybe making the choice that much harder for your prey.

Another requisite is : maximum efficiency for a minimum of card. To that
extent, I'v eloved the use of Pot / For, because 2-3 cards can put most
opponents into torpor. It also does both offense and defense against other
combat. Dominate is also very polyvalent, as it includes some stealth, some
pool gain...
--
Orpheus

--------------------------------
"Zane, Zane, Zane / Lalala Fashion Bip Bip / Oh ! By Jingo"

David Bowie, greatest rock lyricist of all times
Anonymous
February 13, 2005 5:52:29 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

Well, maybe B&B decks weren't especially good... but what about Heart
of the City? It's quite easy to build a Rush/Bleed deck based on
CEL/pot/PRE, and you really need just 3-4 Hearts of the City to get
really good bleed. The core deck may still remain Rush, but it will be
able to play B&B when it has no Rush cards. What do you think about it?
Personally, I'm a great fan of the Heart... it will make my deck based
on Miller Delmardigan much better. Prior to this card I couldn't use
Miller's superior Presence.

Ector
Anonymous
February 13, 2005 11:21:22 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

Ector wrote:

> Well, maybe B&B decks weren't especially good... but what about Heart
> of the City?

It is a good card, but I'm not seeing it as being really that much more
useful than, like, Laptops/JS Simmons--you still have to spend the action to
equip, and then you have a target for PTO/deflection/Sensory
Deprivation/whatever. I mean, it is likely if you have an otherwise solid
combat deck with reliably PRE by accident, and you sideline in a few, it
isn't going to hurt, but I'm not seeing them making a huge difference
overall.


Peter D Bakija
pdb6@lightlink.com
http://www.lightlink.com/pdb6

"How does this end?"
"In fire."
Emperor Turhan and Kosh
Anonymous
February 14, 2005 1:01:10 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

In message <379au7F59jl1lU1@individual.net>, David Cherryholmes
<david.cherryholmes@duke.edu> writes:
>Reasoning from first principles. Like, I have 10 get-into-combat
>actions, 10 prey-loses-three-pool actions, 10 reactions, and 30 combat
>cards. What do I assess the odds of me jamming and/or not having the
>right stuff in hand to be?

I'd be more concerned about the 10 "prey-loses-three-pool actions"
myself. For a deck which has a 40 strong combat contingent, I'd be far
more inclined to include at least some action modifiers for that purpose
- Conditioning, say. (Assuming that the "lose three pool" action is
Govern the Unaligned.)

Unless you want the superior of Govern (which is good), I'd be much
happier with the uncertainty of "Does he have a Conditioning?" -
especially if you stack it with a Govern, if you mix and match, unless
you're scared of AI.


That's a personal preference for B&B decks, though. Even with rush
actions on some vampires, you're probably going to find yourself without
the right action at the right time for other vampires. Using bleeds for
1 and swinging either way (hitting out with the combat, or dumping the
Conditioning, or whichever bleed modifier you prefer) strikes me as a
generally better option.

The use of Computer Hacking in cel/pot decks strikes me as making the
best of a poor selection available.

--
James Coupe "Why do so many talented people turn out to be sexual
PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D deviants? Why can't they just be normal like me and
EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 look at internet pictures of men's cocks all day?"
13D7E668C3695D623D5D -- www.livejournal.com/users/scarletdemon/
February 14, 2005 3:30:00 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

"James Coupe" <james@zephyr.org.uk> a écrit dans le message

> I'd be more concerned about the 10 "prey-loses-three-pool actions"
> myself. For a deck which has a 40 strong combat contingent, I'd be far
> more inclined to include at least some action modifiers for that purpose
> - Conditioning, say. (Assuming that the "lose three pool" action is
> Govern the Unaligned.)
>
> Unless you want the superior of Govern (which is good), I'd be much
> happier with the uncertainty of "Does he have a Conditioning?" -
> especially if you stack it with a Govern, if you mix and match, unless
> you're scared of AI.

My personal preference goes to the contrary : not only does Govern at sup
offer more possibilities, but if you're afraid of not being able to cycle by
beating your prey's minions to pulp, a sure bleed for 3 is better ; you
could do the same by announcing your Conditionning before, but you'd spend
blood for naught.

Also, my working B'n'B / toolboxy decks needed only 24/32 combat cards to be
efficient (of course, this was in the "old days", as now everyone packs
either combat or more combat defense). That leaves plenty of room for much
more bleed, meaning both Governs and modifiers (Bondings giving a stealth
option when necessary...).
-------------
Orpheus
Anonymous
February 14, 2005 1:12:30 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

James Coupe wrote:

> I'd be more concerned about the 10 "prey-loses-three-pool actions"
> myself. For a deck which has a 40 strong combat contingent, I'd be
> far more inclined to include at least some action modifiers for that
> purpose - Conditioning, say. (Assuming that the "lose three pool"
> action is Govern the Unaligned.)

No, I'd lean more towards the bleed modifiers than actions as well. I
mentioned upthread that I'd count Conditioning as an "action".

And really, the 30/10/10/10 split was just thrown out there as a very
simplistic skeleton to get the conversation going. 60 minion cards is
kind of light for a fleshed out deck (unless you are building even
leaner than 80, which is of course doable).

--

David Cherryholmes
david.cherryholmes@gmail.com

"OK. So be it. It's not my view, but whatever makes you
happy, right? I'm all about making you happy, Dave. :-)"

-- LSJ, V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc.
Anonymous
February 14, 2005 5:11:02 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

David Cherryholmes wrote:
> Action Modifier [14]
> 2x Cloak the Gathering
> 10x Freak Drive
> 2x Spying Mission

Are the 2x Spying Missions really worth it? If Fatima's Hacks get
bounced, is saving your grand-prey 2 pool gonna make that much of a
difference? Wouldn't Mask of 1000 Faces perhaps be better so you can
continue the beatings even more severely? I can see the logic, but the
card only applies to Fatima and figure there must be something more
worthwhile for the other nerds.

> Action Modifier/Combat [6]
> 6x Swallowed by the Night
>
> Combat [22]
> 3x Acrobatics
> 4x Infernal Pursuit
> 8x Psyche!
> 3x Skin of Steel
> 4x Taste of Vitae
>
> Equipment [10]
> 6x Assault Rifle
> 1x Flamethrower
> 1x Ivory Bow
> 1x Sire's Index Finger
> 1x Writ of Acceptance

Your only maneuvers are SbtN. Have you run into problems if you pull a
Bow or Flamethrower first, or do you go all out Assault Rifle in
certain environments?

Perhaps I'll tweak my Fatima deck. It's getting stale. :) 

Jeff
Anonymous
February 14, 2005 6:40:33 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

David Cherryholmes wrote:

> But we're not talking about decks where combat is a main strategy.
> We're talking about B&B decks, where it's a *part* of a strategy. And
> just to be clear, I don't think every combat deck needs to be short
> chain combat. It's just one way of going about things that has some
> advantages and some trade-offs.

Yes, but as combat in this game tends to work, you are generally (for my
money at least) much better off with either significant, consistient combat
('cause inconsistient combat generally gets you killed in the long run) or
very little combat offense (combat defense is a whole other thing, but it is
much less card intensive to be good at combat defense than it is at combat
offense). "Light combat" or something, has never struck me as particularly
worth using. It is slipshod and random, just gets in the way of your other
main strategy, and is generally totally foiled by far fewer combat defense
cards.

> For mono-potence, sure. I realize you made a rep with weenie potence,
> and that you write the Nos newsletter, but there's a world of combat
> outside of floating it off that one discipline. I mean, I'm not trying
> to insult you and I imagine you build lots of different types of decks,
> but your counterarguments seem to consistently presume that we're trying
> to do this with just potence.

You are getting too hung up on specifics. I was using Potence as an example
as it is easy to type and easy to understand, and likely the most efficient
example. Feel free to replace my examples with:

-Flash/Blood Sweat/Blur/Taste of Death

or

-Apportation/Theft/Press/Walk

or whatever, keeping in mind that both of the above examples are less
effective than simply using IG/TS/US and completely foiled by dodge/S:CE.

> Again, just to chuck out some examples: prevent/disarm, maneuver+theft,
> torn/blur, AR+psyche, trapparition, etc.

Sure, but these are very easily foiled by simple, common defenses (the first
by pretty much any combat defense other than standing still and hitting for
1; the second by dodge/S:CE and even if it isn't foiled, it doesn't do that
much; third by manuvers and S:CE, the 4th is pretty solid as offense goes,
but requires a huge amount of infrastructure to actually get to work; the
last falls to S:CE), and aren't going to do much in the long run but cost
you card slots. Unless the combat is actually successful (i.e. torps someone
reliably), I'm yet to be convinced that it is really worth even trying,
because:

-It is foiled, generally, by fewer, more efficient combat defense cards.

-It is trumped by more effective combat.

Half measure combat is often worse than no combat at all. I mean, I know you
are a big proponent of this sort of thing. But I'm yet to be convinced,
through play or discussion, that it is actually a good plan.

> Right, that's what a sufficient minimum for a B&B deck should be.
> Always make them pay something for stepping in front, with the potential
> to explode in spectacular violence. Your prey doesn't know what's in
> your hand. He has to think "Is this [some value greater than 3 pool]
> minion worth stopping a bleed that is 3 or less?"

Which is good in theory, but I don't think it so much works in practice. The
potential to make them pay for blocking and occasionally really whack
someone, in reality, tends to translate into "allow them to cycle their
combat defense cards regularly, and once a game send someone to torpor".

> Those aren't -- IMO shouldn't be -- the benchmarks. Those decks are
> problems with the game, not something to be emulated. I mean, yeah,
> winning is winning and all that, but "is it as good as bleeding for 6 at
> 3 stealth" type of comparisons just don't seem useful to me.

Sure. I know not every deck can be a weenie dominate deck, or whatever. But
I'm not even talking about decks like that--I have lots and lots of decks.
And most of them have very little combat offense in them. And while most of
them are moderately useful, few of them are up to the speed of weenie
dominate or something. The average seems to be about 8-10 combat offense
cards as kind of a fringe "punish them if they block me sometimes" combat
angle (like, say, Chiropterian/Breah in a Vic/Pre deck; Disguised guns in an
Obf deck; Claws in a weenie Pro bleed deck; Dawn Ops in an all Fortitude
weenie bleed deck; maybe twice that number in Movements and Thefts in a
Cryptic Mission deck). Other decks have no combat offense at all (although
reliable defense is all over the place in the forms of Majesty or Gemini's
Mirror or Skin of Steel or whatever, but combat defense is much more card
efficient than offense). The decks that want to actually kill folks are
filled with combat. I have almost no (if not exactly zero) decks of the type
you suggest--and it isn't to say I haven't tried such decks, but they tend,
in my experience, to not work so well. More so than other decks that don't
work so well.

> I haven't looked back at the deck (although I did read it when I read
> the newsletter), but you're constructing a straw man

Just an example. Specifics again.

>We aren't talking about
> 16 slots. We're talking about 30+, and you must grant that this is
> going to translate into a difference of performance.

It is. Likely a worse performance, from my experience, as you (i.e. the
deck) are excelling at half measure--enough combat to gunk up your hand at
the wrong time, not enough to reliably kill anyone but enough to make your
prey happy that he put in 10 Majesties.


Peter D Bakija
pdb6@lightlink.com
http://www.lightlink.com/pdb6

"How does this end?"
"In fire."
Emperor Turhan and Kosh
Anonymous
February 14, 2005 9:07:44 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

David Cherryholmes <david.cherryholmes@duke.edu> wrote:
> Deck Name : Fathack
> Author :
> Description :
>
> Crypt [12 vampires] Capacity min: 1 max: 8 average: 4.17

If *this* is what ARDB come up with, it should be changed to something
*useful*, like:

Crypt [12 vampires] Capacity min: 4 max: 32 average: 3.33

The currect incarnation is like, I mean, ya, I know my smallest guy's
capacity and my biggest guy's capacity, thanks a lot ARDB, sheesh. :) 


Kevin M., Prince of Henderson, NV (USA)
"Know your enemy, and know yourself; in one-thousand battles
you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, *The Art of War*
"Contentment... Complacency... Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier
Anonymous
February 15, 2005 10:50:19 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

jeffkuta@pacbell.net wrote:

> Are the 2x Spying Missions really worth it? If Fatima's Hacks get
> bounced, is saving your grand-prey 2 pool gonna make that much of a
> difference?

IME, yes. First and foremost, it's a stealth card. I'm familiar with
the "just playing a hack is better" critique of SM, but in this deck it
has its uses. Fatima bleeding for one is extremely unlikely to be
blocked, and landing the SM after that helps set up for a lunge down
the road. Bounce isn't really a concern, but we've all seen a bazillion
games that hinged on one or two pool, so I wouldn't call it entirely
useless, either. Further, landing it on my grandprey can help a lot
when I'm going for the second VP. In truth, there used to be 4 in
there; I forget what they got removed to make space for.

> Wouldn't Mask of 1000 Faces perhaps be better so you can continue the
> beatings even more severely? I can see the logic, but the card only
> applies to Fatima and figure there must be something more worthwhile
> for the other nerds.

Mask is in there, so I assume you mean "more Mask". Mask is hot, but I
like having the few SM's (again, most times it's just a stealth card).

> Your only maneuvers are SbtN. Have you run into problems if you pull
> a Bow or Flamethrower first, or do you go all out Assault Rifle in
> certain environments?

Not really. I mean, you have to look at the table and make some
decisions. IME a permenant maneuver goes a long way, but clearly the
combat in this deck is not uber. But also clearly, merely uber combat
with one large minion comes with its own problems. I'd rather take my
chances with the odds of my combat not being buff enough than deal with
the absolute certainty of "nyah nyah, I won't play and watch you die".
Basically, I have a high opinion of the plain old Assault Rifle across
large numbers of games.

Oh, and the only reason the flamethrower is even in there is because I
play against weenie fortitude nearly every week. In a tournament I
probably wouldn't bother.

--

David Cherryholmes
david.cherryholmes@gmail.com

"OK. So be it. It's not my view, but whatever makes you
happy, right? I'm all about making you happy, Dave. :-)"

-- LSJ, V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc.
Anonymous
February 15, 2005 11:13:05 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

Peter D Bakija wrote:

> The deck looks very solid, but doesn't at all look like something I'd
> call "Bruise and Bleed". I'd be far more inclined to call it
> "Multirush".

Yeah, I can see your point. But up until recently, the deck was no
Hacks, about 20 rush actions, and even more Freak Drives. That, to me
(semantics again) is "multirush". Multirush gets the job done by
rushing, and little else. Seeing as how it is just as likely to hack as
rush, I figured that put it more in the B&B category. But, ya know,
semantics....

> 10 Freak Drives is good offense.

Oops. Make that 8 FD's and 2 Mask1K's.

> All in all, this is a very good looking deck. But not really the kind
> of Bruise/Bleed deck I'm talking about (again, semantics of what B+B
> means). It only has 22 combat cards (well, 28 with the Swalloweds),
> but it also has 10 equipment cards, 10 Rush cards, and a lot of
> combat intensive support masters. Making it a good deck, really. But
> it has going for it:

Nitpick: some of that equipment isn't a weapon, and most of it is
redundant, to be flushed out by the later play of Infernal Pursuit.

<snip stuff about fatima's ability and assault rifles>

> I'm not, like, saying that this somehow makes this deck out of play
> for discussion or anything. It is a very good looking deck, again,
> but not, like, something that people usually think of when discussing
> B+B decks (again, this is much more of what I would call a multirush
> deck, and it looks like a darn good one).

IME, 8 (or 10) Freak Drives in a 90 card deck doesn't give you a lot of
"multi". You might freak drive some turns, and some turns you might
not. This deck executes much more closely to something like Thetmes +
weenie dominate, where you have steady pressure of nerds bleeding
forward and a big hoss to land surgical strikes.

<snip pot/dom B&B>

> These decks come up *all* the time. And I don't think they are so
> good, for reasons explained at great length by me.

Yeah, your point being "you'll jam", but they still look OK to me. It's
just a possible problem you have to build to account for (hey, feel like
we're back to square one?). Part of what I think is OK about them is
that Dominate is so ridiculously over-the-top strong, as is Disarm, that
you can afford a bit of coughing and sputtering and still be ahead of
the masochists who showed up without it.

> This Fatima deck, however, isn't one of those, any more than, like, a
> Ignazio deck with 10 Freak Drives is one of those either.

No, they are different decks. But I like Daneel's definition of B&B,
and by those criteria I'd say these decks fit.

> You could say that "well, those decks aren't what we are talking
> about", but they are what I'm talking about, and people *still* build
> them all the time. And they aren't so good. Maybe they are newer
> players, or maybe they haven't had much experience with combat decks,
> but they end up playing these decks, and they don't do so well.
> 'Cause they aren't so good. I see tham all the time locally, I see
> them all the time at tournaments, and I see them all the time on the
> internet. So while one could argue certainly that "1996 Tremere
> Bruise and Bleed isn't what these decks are about anymore", from what
> I have seen, they still are.

Maybe if I get some free time I'll crawl around the TWDA and see what
anecdotes I can drag into this. Off the top of my head, the 2002 NAC
was won by one of the most vanilla, old-school Tremere decks you could
imagine, and IIRC he had enough combat in there that made me think "B&B"
(although I suppose you could counter-argue "toolbox", but then we're at
an even sillier level of semantics).

> Yeah, I'd still go with 5 of her. There is simply too much of an
> opportunity for you to accidentally lose a tournament due to a bad
> shuffle :-)

Yeah, well, those 8 Hacks changed everything. Now, depending on my
guesses about the table and my opening hand, I don't even go for Fatima
first. I find it more profitable to get right into the game, get in a
quick hack or two, maybe claim the edge early, and flip out fatima as
the game is ramping up. This does a lot of good things. The early pool
hit on my prey makes ousting down the road much more likely. Pool gain
in this deck has always been poor, so the chance to hang onto the edge
for a turn or two can be a really big deal. And by the time Fatima does
hit the table my prey has probably committed too many resources to
turtle up. Given that I'm not going for her first, that I should be
flowing cards before she hits the table, that I have 3 slots of "see a
new vampire", and the shift in emphasis requiring two or three sidekicks
rather than a token diablerizer, 4 copies seems to be the right fit.
And it's still.... what? An 86% chance of getting her anyway?

> I'd be inclined to have a bit of hand cycling to ditch extra guns
> when they show up.

Infernal Pursuit doubles as a way to ensure getting the gun quickly and
as a means of flushing out extra copies. While more hand cycling is
always good, the permenant nature of the combat mitigates the damage
from occasional clumping.

> I'm playing a similar deck with Stanislava, currently, but it
> requires a lot more infrastructure to get the gun in play (so there
> are Earth Controls and Form of Mists, which double to get Flurry of
> Action bleeds of 3 through) so it is a bit klunkier. But it also has
> more combat (more fortitude for defense, more addtional strikes, more
> tastes). But in either case, I'd never think of it as a Bruise/Bleed
> deck instead of a Multirush deck. Just like yours.

Are you still sure you want to call it multirush?

--

David Cherryholmes
david.cherryholmes@gmail.com

"OK. So be it. It's not my view, but whatever makes you
happy, right? I'm all about making you happy, Dave. :-)"

-- LSJ, V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc.
Anonymous
February 15, 2005 11:25:10 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

On Mon, 14 Feb 2005 17:31:05 -0500, Peter D Bakija <pdb6@lightlink.com>
wrote:

> 12 various vampires with pot/dom, POT/dom, and pot/DOM in the 4-6 point
> range (and probably Chas for POT/DOM too...).
>
> 15 various masters
> 30 some odd Potence cards
> 10 Govern
> 8 Conditioning
> 8 Wake
> 8 Deflection
> 11 various other cards (Rush, conditional combat, reaction, whatever)

Make that 8 Rushes and 3 Tastes or Graverobbings and you're cool. You're
playing Bruise and Bleed, but you have a reasonably reliable option to
cycle combat (or get to notorious no-blockers). I'm a big fan of
including rush cards in bruise decks, because of the aforementioned
benefits. If you don't need them, there's still the turnly DPA to get
rid of them. You can save up on the rush cards if you play vampires
with built-in rush abilities.

--
Bye,

Daneel
Anonymous
February 15, 2005 12:44:51 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

David Cherryholmes wrote:
> Peter D Bakija wrote:
> > Yeah, I'd still go with 5 of her. There is simply too much of an
> > opportunity for you to accidentally lose a tournament due to a bad
> > shuffle :-)
>
> Yeah, well, those 8 Hacks changed everything. Now, depending on my
> guesses about the table and my opening hand, I don't even go for
Fatima
> first. I find it more profitable to get right into the game, get in
a
> quick hack or two, maybe claim the edge early, and flip out fatima as
> the game is ramping up. This does a lot of good things...

Another side benefit might also be contesting Obf weenies. Beat Hackers
with Hackers. ;) 

Jeff
Anonymous
February 15, 2005 12:52:03 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

Daneel wrote:
>Make that 8 Rushes and 3 Tastes or Graverobbings and you're cool.

Yeah, see, I don't think that is the case. Lets say we had a deck of:

12 various vampires with pot/dom, POT/dom, and pot/DOM in the 4-6 point
range (and probably Chas for POT/DOM too...).

14 various masters
8 Immortal Grapple
8 Torn Signpost
8 Undead Strength
4 Sewer Lid
6 Taste
10 Govern
8 Conditioning
8 Wake
8 Deflection
8 Bum's Rush

And what you have is a deck that:

-Can bleed pretty well, but is likely to get jammed up with combat when
you want to bleed more.
-Has half assed combat that will do ok against people who want to stand
there and hit you for 1, but will have trouble against consistient
combat defense or better combat offense.
-Will tend to draw not combat cards when it needs to draw them most (as
over half the deck isn't combat cards).

So you'll go and bleed folks for 3-5 per action. If you don't get
bounced, and someone decides to block you at some point, you might be
able to hit them for 3. And you might be able to keep them from playing
Majesty. You might, even sometimes, be able to hit them for 5 if you
get the right cards with the right vampire at the right time. But
overall, you are most likely to be drawing the wrong cards at the wrong
time.

If you went with even less combat--maybe, like, say, take out the Bum's
Rushes and all the other combat cards and put in 10 Thrown Gates and 6
Increased Strengths and that was it, you might have something (use the
rest of the slots for more Dominate or something good like that)--the
combat is a fringe plan that doesn't take up much space, saves you some
damage if you get blocked, and might opportunistically whack someone
occasionally, you might be going somewhere with this deck. But it is
going to have trouble with someone who isn't afraid of blocking you or
has a lot of bounce.

-Peter
Anonymous
February 15, 2005 4:28:45 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

> Pah. 30 combat cards is not enough combat cards. 20 strikes cards are
not
> enough for me. Not if I actually want to torporize folks. But it is
too many
> combat cards if I want to reliably do something other than try and
kill
> people.

I don't want to 'reliably kill people'. I want to oust my prey.

> > And how do you come up with this? I'd figure 30 means you'll have
a few
> > of those in hand at any given time. Will you hit for 5? No,
you'll
> > probably hit for 3 and we've gone over how you think that's not
good
> > enough. But really, I don't see a huge difference between hitting
for 3
> > and hitting for 5. In fact, I'd much rather hit for 3 sixteen
times
> > than hit for 5 8 times. Man, I wish I'd brought that up a long
time
> > ago. If you want killer combat, either add CEL to your POT or
wallow in
> > the weenie filth and iterate them into the pavement.
>
> Hitting for 5 tends to send people to torpor much more often than
hitting
> for 3. Hitting for 3 make someone lose some blood, but stay active.
If I'm
> gonna hit someone, I want them in torpor. Otherwise, I'd much rather
not
> even bother hitting them, 'cause it is much more efficient to just
avoid
> combat all together and be better at other stuff.

Maybe. But if hitting them for three means they can't minion tap or
blood doll off (or maybe they have to *push* with blood dolls), then
hitting for three is kinda like undeflectable bleeding for three, no?
Or if hitting for three means they have to hunt instead of
bleeding/voting next turn, then they have to seriously consider not
blocking, no? And *most* bounce costs blood, so if I "jam up" on
combat, but rush with (possibly merged) Theo, then whack you for three
(four), maybe I've torped you?

Or, if I'm playing Tremere, I force Carna to wake up and cycle my
combat on my predator. Thanks to Aura Reading, I know whether I'm going
to torp him or just cycle, and play accordingly.

I agree with you that relying on rush action cards to cycle out of
combat cards isn't terribly great, but there are plenty of ways to
correct for that.

John
Anonymous
February 15, 2005 5:59:28 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

Peter D Bakija wrote:
> jnewquist@difsol.com wrote:
>
> > I don't want to 'reliably kill people'. I want to oust my prey.
>
> Dude. Really. If you are playing a deck with serious combat, the way
you
> oust your prey is by reliably killing people.

This seems pretty circular. The whole point of Bruise'n'Bleed is trying
to oust without *necessarily* torping people. Because, y'know, I hit
them for 3 (or 2 or 5 or 7) the last time they blocked me, and they
don't have the blood left to survive another hit for 3 if they block
again. Hence, you oust without necessarily killing vamps.

> If you aren't using combat to reliably kill people, it is likely just
> getting in the way of your ability to oust people.

The discussion's been going back and forth between "jamming on combat"
and "not being able to do more than 3 damage per combat". If I've only
got the cards to do 3 damage in the combat, more than likely I've got
some bleed in my hand. If I'm jamming on combat, more than likely I can
reliably torp the guy I jump. There's also the possibility that I have
both in my hand at the same time (the theory on which the B+B deck is
built - you always *threaten* to have both, at least as long as people
can't see your hand). Or, if I use Theo (adv) and Pushing the Limit, I
hit for 5 instead of 3 (7 with the right cards). That's quite a bit
more reliable torping without changing the overall deck strategy, plus
I can merge him and get built-in rush so that I can spend fewer cards
on rush actions and mitigate my tendency to hand-jam? And he hits for
two even if I draw NO combat?

Or Olliver Thrace - you *know* it's at least a bleed of two, even if
I'm jammed on combat, do you chance it going to 6+ with a conditioning
and a THA card? Or do you block, knowing you can't S:CE?

Or Miguel Santo Domingo - every bleed except his threatens to be a
bleed of 2+. Add to a weenie potence deck, replace a few of the rushes
with Hacks (or Legal Manipulations/Enchant Kindred if you have enough
pre), and maybe your 'rush' deck ousts *faster* by bleeding more often
instead of necessarily killing vamps.

John
Anonymous
February 15, 2005 7:44:25 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

jnewquist@difsol.com wrote:

> I don't want to 'reliably kill people'. I want to oust my prey.

Dude. Really. If you are playing a deck with serious combat, the way you
oust your prey is by reliably killing people.

If you aren't using combat to reliably kill people, it is likely just
getting in the way of your ability to oust people.


Peter D Bakija
pdb6@lightlink.com
http://www.lightlink.com/pdb6

"How does this end?"
"In fire."
Emperor Turhan and Kosh
Anonymous
February 15, 2005 8:14:44 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

jnewquist@difsol.com wrote:

> Maybe. But if hitting them for three means they can't minion tap or
> blood doll off (or maybe they have to *push* with blood dolls), then
> hitting for three is kinda like undeflectable bleeding for three, no?
> Or if hitting for three means they have to hunt instead of
> bleeding/voting next turn, then they have to seriously consider not
> blocking, no? And *most* bounce costs blood, so if I "jam up" on
> combat, but rush with (possibly merged) Theo, then whack you for three
> (four), maybe I've torped you?

Yeah, see, here is the deal. Hitting someone for 3 is difficult to actually
do, unless you have a great deal of infrastructure built into your deck to
make it happen. Just, like, saying "Hmm. Most of my vampires have POT. I'll
put in 10 Undead Strength, and hit people for 3 a lot!" (and for
Cherryholmes, we can pretend I said "Hmm. Most of my vampires have THA. I'll
put in 10 Blood Fury, and hit people for 3 a lot!" :-) simply doesn't work.

Combat defense is very common and very card efficient. Like, yeah, there are
some decks that have zero combat defense and they just stand there and hit
you for 1. But more often, there are decks that have, like, 10 Majesty or 10
Swallowed (for stealth or manuver) or some random guns to manuver to long
range, or a bunch of Skin of Steel, or whatever. And generally, unless your
deck is brimming with combat, that handfull of combat defense is going to
foil, I'll call it for lack of a better term, "half assed combat". So you
have a bunch of cards in your deck that are highly conditional to play (you
need to be in combat) and a great deal of the time aren't going to do you
any good. And are going to get in the way of your deck doing the other
things that it wants to do that generally are more condusive to ousting your
prey.

So in the end, really, you are better off just removing them all together,
and making the other aspects of your strategy work better.

Combat that kills folks with impunity works. Like Cherryholmes's Fatima with
an Assault Rifle deck is likely pretty good at killing things--it'll have
trouble against a *really* serious combat opponent with more manuvers and
more dodges and whatever, but against most general defenses (Majesty, Skin
of Steel, manuvering, dodges), the permanent manuver, the 4R damage, and the
Psyches! are gonna likely do the trick. But some deck with, like, 25 Potence
cards to back up a bunch of Presence bleed or something isn't so much, in
the grand scheme of things.

I mean, like, don't get me wrong here. I have no issue with opportunistic
combat angles--like, if you have a lot of intercept and you throw in a bunch
of Aid from bats and Carrion Crows. That is going to be useful. Or you bleed
a lot at not much stealth, and you can sideline in some disguised weapons
that cycle easily and save you from being killed just as often as they
actually hurt someone. Like, 10-15 cards in a deck for opportunistic combat
that you don't really rely on for anything other than detterence and picking
off the weak is certainly viable. But mixing 30+ combat cards into an
otherwise bleedtacular deck is likely gonna just make the whole thing not
work so well.


Peter D Bakija
pdb6@lightlink.com
http://www.lightlink.com/pdb6

"How does this end?"
"In fire."
Emperor Turhan and Kosh
Anonymous
February 15, 2005 10:04:35 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

jnewquist@difsol.com wrote:

> This seems pretty circular. The whole point of Bruise'n'Bleed is trying
> to oust without *necessarily* torping people. Because, y'know, I hit
> them for 3 (or 2 or 5 or 7) the last time they blocked me, and they
> don't have the blood left to survive another hit for 3 if they block
> again. Hence, you oust without necessarily killing vamps.

And I'm saying it doesn't work. There is no circular logic--if you want to
use combat, use combat that kills people. Otherwise, don't bother, as it
isn't likely to do you any good. Bruise and Bleed is trying to oust without
necessarily torping people, correct. So then why even build in the sketchy
combat infrastructure in the first place?

> The discussion's been going back and forth between "jamming on combat"
> and "not being able to do more than 3 damage per combat".

Because you only have, say, 30 combat cards, you won't do much damage
consistiently, and wne you do do more than 3 damage, it'll get dodged. But
that is still enough cards to get in your way. Especially if you get a
handfull of them where you could potentially really kill someone, but then
you have no way to get into combat.

Yes. There are ways around this. Vampires with built in Rush. Or built in
card cycling. Or whatever. These can certainly help this particular idea
work better, but that doesn't mean that it isn't a sketchy concept from the
get go, and you spend an awful lot of time trying to overcome significant
weaknesses that other deck strategies just don't start out saddled with.


Peter D Bakija
pdb6@lightlink.com
http://www.lightlink.com/pdb6

"How does this end?"
"In fire."
Emperor Turhan and Kosh
Anonymous
February 16, 2005 2:22:10 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 17:14:44 -0500, Peter D Bakija <pdb6@lightlink.com>
wrote:

> Like, 10-15 cards in a deck for opportunistic combat
> that you don't really rely on for anything other than detterence and
> picking
> off the weak is certainly viable. But mixing 30+ combat cards into an
> otherwise bleedtacular deck is likely gonna just make the whole thing not
> work so well.

I think that you are sheding some excellent light on the essence (and
common mistakes) of Bruise and Bleed. The conclusion IMHO is not that
you should not put 30 combat cards in a deck - rather, if you do put
30 combat cards into a deck, you must choose them carefully, keeping
in mind that you are using 30 combat slots, and not 15 or 50. By going
with 30 combat cards you accept that you will most likely get beaten by
a deck that includes 50 combat cards. You can either go against the
tide and try to beat 50-card combat decks with your 30 cards, or accept
your fate and try to make the most of your deck concept. With those 30
combat cards the only thing you want to beat are decks that pack 10
Majesties or 10 Swallowed by the Nights.

A bleed/combat deck is going to have less bleed than a bleed deck and
less combat than a combat deck. But it will have extra versatility if
constructed well.

Now, there are arguments against lighter offensive combat. These arguments
are twofold: on the one hand, most decks put in at least a 10-15 card
combat defence module that can buy them enough time to oust a combat prey
(or withstand a combat predator). By including 15 strikes-for-5 options
in your deck, you give your prey (who has 15 combat defence cards) the
ability to perfectly cycle his 15 combat defence cards. Also, there is
the issue of efficiency (related to the must-play cards like Immortal
Grapple, etc.) - for 1 card you get an undodgeable punch for 1, for 2
cards you get an undodgeable punch for 3, and for 3 cards you get an
undodgeable punch for 5.

Still, I'm saying that in theory B&B can (and should) be designed with
these peculiarities in mind. You mendioned a B&B module of something
like this:

8 Torn Signpost
8 Immortal Grapple
8 Undead Strength
4 Sewer Lid
4 Taste

In this sense, I might be inclined to think that the following module
might be more B&B-ish:

12 Immortal Grapple
8 Undead Strength
8 Fake Out (Flash?)
4 Disarm

Sure, you get far less of a punch, and your hand can clog more easily,
but you are prepared against Swallowed by the Night and Majesty. You
counter the former and prevent the other, possibly clogging you opponent
with it.

Or, going another angle:

4 Immortal Grapple
4 Disarm
2 Decapitate
6 Torn Signpost
10 Undead Strength
4 Sewer Lid
2 Taste

You don't even delude yourself with anything except having a combat
module with 16 strikes-for-threes. But those strikes are persistent,
and have the potential to nuke into a 6-card combo that does an
undodgeable 5 damage, removes opponents hands and head for a net gain
of 2-3 blood.

Another one, using two disciplines:

6 Side Strike
10 Pursuit
8 Immortal Grapple (or Psyche!)
6 Disarm
2 Decapitate

Well, I'm not sure where I'm getting at, but this module even doubles as
light combat defence.

--
Bye,

Daneel
Anonymous
February 16, 2005 2:22:11 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

Daneel wrote:

> A bleed/combat deck is going to have less bleed than a bleed deck and
> less combat than a combat deck. But it will have extra versatility if
> constructed well.

Possibly. But it also has the possibility of just having all the wrong stuff
at the wrong time. Arguably, the same could be said of any "toolboxy" deck
as opposed to "focused" deck, but significant combat chunks in your deck
really have many problems over and above other "toolboxy" strategies (high
opportunity cost, easily foiled by many cards in regular rotation)--a deck
that has some bleed, some intercept, some combat defense, and maybe some
light political angles is far more likely to work than a deck that has some
bleed, some intercept, and 30 combat cards.

> In this sense, I might be inclined to think that the following module
> might be more B&B-ish:
>
> 12 Immortal Grapple
> 8 Undead Strength
> 8 Fake Out (Flash?)
> 4 Disarm

That might be better for such a deck, but still, it is unlikely to result in
you having what you want when you want it--a lot of the time you are getting
into combat, IGing someone, and hitting them for 1. In a general sense, I'd
much rather replace this with:

12 reliable combat defense (Majesty/Skin of Steel/Form of Mist/whatever)
20 more cards that make my main ousting strategy work better

> Sure, you get far less of a punch, and your hand can clog more easily,
> but you are prepared against Swallowed by the Night and Majesty. You
> counter the former and prevent the other, possibly clogging you opponent
> with it.

But see, it isn't really doing you that much good. Even if it does work, and
once and a while you Disarm someone, that is an awful lot of deck space to
hit folks for 2 or 3 once and a while.

See, I guess this Bruise and Bleed discussion is all a really lengthy and
complicated way of me saying that I am simply yet to be convinced that
"medium" combat (i.e. more than 10-15 cards but less than most of the deck)
works in any direction other than against the best interests of most decks.

"Light" combat works fine. Maybe it is a dozen Majesties, or a dozen Thrown
Gates, or 6 each Disguised Weapons and Magnums, or whatever. It often saves
you in a pinch, somtimes helps out a lot in situations against other not
combat intensive opponents, and doesn't take up so much deck space that you
are particularly invested in it working particularly well.

"Heavy" combat also works fine. If your deck is built around really kicking
ass, there are plenty of ways to make this work to your advantage and win
games. You are heavily invested in it working (in the sense of your deck
living or dying), and it often does.

"Medium" combat, however, I don't think is so hot. It takes up enough deck
space to be in the way of other things, but there isn't enough of it to rely
on it working so well. The multi card combos that really make the combat go
are hard to pull off, and individually, the cards tend to just get foiled or
waste space.


Peter D Bakija
pdb6@lightlink.com
http://www.lightlink.com/pdb6

"How does this end?"
"In fire."
Emperor Turhan and Kosh
Anonymous
February 16, 2005 1:53:26 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

On Wed, 16 Feb 2005, Colin Riggs wrote:

> Combat (36 cards)
> 9 Immortal Grapple
> 5 Lapse
> 6 Taste of Vitae
> 9 Torn Signpost
> 7 Undead Strength

<snip>

> Convinced? Thoughts?

What about the Thrown Gate version? That one is more recent. Were you
happy with that switch? Did that involve more cards?

I think one reason for the success of this module is that we don't play
much intercept combat. How many times were you blocked Enchanting down?
Probably zero. We usually let actions like that go, which really does let
you pick your fights. I can recall a couple times when you've had to lay
low for a while due to another combat deck on the table and you not having
everything you need in hand. Still, unless you're being rushed it's not
that much of a problem.

Also, you have a real tendency to deck yourself when playing Nu, so
there's clearly no problem in getting to and cycling the combat. Maybe
you should try that short-chain thing.

Matt Morgan
Anonymous
February 16, 2005 2:11:39 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 19:20:56 -0500, Peter D Bakija <pdb6@lightlink.com>
wrote:

> See, I guess this Bruise and Bleed discussion is all a really lengthy and
> complicated way of me saying that I am simply yet to be convinced that
> "medium" combat (i.e. more than 10-15 cards but less than most of the
> deck)works in any direction other than against the best interests of
> most decks.
>
>

Well, just to bring up an example of a deck with combat that did work
well, this is the combat package for the Nu enchants/Clotho's down
bleed/rush deck that I was playing for awhile. I don't have the most
recent version with me at work, but this one I got off the newsgroup seems
close.

Combat (36 cards)
9 Immortal Grapple
5 Lapse
6 Taste of Vitae
9 Torn Signpost
7 Undead Strength

Unless I ran into tons of fortitude, this deck did pretty well at beating
other decks up. I guess the trumpiness of lapse gave me a leg-up. And the
multi-action ability of Nu allows me to quickly strip the non-combat cards
from my hand in time for me to rush.

>
> "Medium" combat, however, I don't think is so hot. It takes up enough
> deck space to be in the way of other things, but there isn't enough of
> it to rely on it working so well. The multi card combos that really make
> the combat go are hard to pull off, and individually, the cards tend to
> just get foiled or waste space.
>

I think you are assuming people devoting 10-15 cards to combat defense
will foil any deck that does not have 45-50 combat cards. Again, maybe it
was just Nu, but I seemed to have little trouble having 3 combat cards in
hand at a given time with a little pre-combat hand tuning. Sure, 15
Gemini's Mirror would screw me when I don't have a lapse or a manuver from
a rush card, but since in most cases I could choose when the combats
occurred, it wasn't a problem.

Convinced? Thoughts?

Colin Strauss Riggs
Anonymous
February 16, 2005 2:33:35 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 19:20:56 -0500, Peter D Bakija <pdb6@lightlink.com>
wrote:

> "Light" combat works fine. Maybe it is a dozen Majesties, or a dozen
> Thrown
> Gates, or 6 each Disguised Weapons and Magnums, or whatever. It often
> saves
> you in a pinch, somtimes helps out a lot in situations against other not
> combat intensive opponents, and doesn't take up so much deck space that
> you
> are particularly invested in it working particularly well.

Note that each of these options is extremely efficient.

Concealed Magnum gives a manoeuvre and a strike for 2 pool, technically
for the rest of the game.

Majesty can negate 2-3 cards the opponent could have played.

> "Heavy" combat also works fine. If your deck is built around really
> kicking
> ass, there are plenty of ways to make this work to your advantage and win
> games. You are heavily invested in it working (in the sense of your deck
> living or dying), and it often does.

Heavy combat can afford to include and rely on cost-effective transients.

> "Medium" combat, however, I don't think is so hot. It takes up enough
> deck
> space to be in the way of other things, but there isn't enough of it to
> rely
> on it working so well. The multi card combos that really make the combat
> go
> are hard to pull off, and individually, the cards tend to just get
> foiled or
> waste space.

Okay, I'm not giving up. ;)  How about this one:

CEL POT PRE

2 Leather Jacket
1 Taste of Vitae
6 Disarm
6 Weighted Walking Stick
3 Side Strike
6 Pursuit
3 Majesty
3 Psyche!
2 Stunt Cycle

Or this one:

ANI OBF POT

5 Carrion Crows
6 Swallowed by the Night
5 Disguised Weapon
5 Improvised Flamethrower
3 Stunt Cycle
3 Hidden Lurker
2 Disarm
2 Decapitate
1 Taste of Vitae

--
Bye,

Daneel
Anonymous
February 16, 2005 3:37:57 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 10:53:26 -0600, Matthew T. Morgan <farquar@io.com>
wrote:

> On Wed, 16 Feb 2005, Colin Riggs wrote:
>
>> Combat (36 cards)
>> 9 Immortal Grapple
>> 5 Lapse
>> 6 Taste of Vitae
>> 9 Torn Signpost
>> 7 Undead Strength
>
> <snip>
>
>> Convinced? Thoughts?
>
> What about the Thrown Gate version? That one is more recent. Were you
> happy with that switch? Did that involve more cards?

Same number of cards, but I am not very happy with the switch. Unless I
get the Eye of Hazimel the combat doesn't seem good enough, 3 cards for 4
damage even though you don't need to worry about Manuvers, just isn't as
effective as 3 cards for 5 damage with a press. Also, this version of the
deck is incredibly bad, as instead of trying to enchant Sela, I'm trying
to enchant up all the other trujah, paying 13 for Krassmir, while
impressive, ain't a winning strat.

>
> I think one reason for the success of this module is that we don't play
> much intercept combat. How many times were you blocked Enchanting down?
> Probably zero. We usually let actions like that go, which really does
> let you pick your fights. I can recall a couple times when you've had
> to lay low for a while due to another combat deck on the table and you
> not having everything you need in hand. Still, unless you're being
> rushed it's not that much of a problem.

Yeah, laying low is part of the strategy, and you can get caught with your
pants down. Although that mostly seems to be a blood issue then a
out-trumped by combat issue. And it does lose against manuvers in any
non-lapse combat.
>
> Also, you have a real tendency to deck yourself when playing Nu, so
> there's clearly no problem in getting to and cycling the combat. Maybe
> you should try that short-chain thing.
>

I sort of have Peter's take on the short chain. If you are going to rush
people and have combat as a main strategy, it should be effective enough
to put them down. Some SCC can do that, and the Short chain can be built
with extra little chains to multiply damage (like AR and Pysche!, being
SCC, with an add-on of pursuit.) But for a lot of decks (apportation,
theft) there are too many ways around getting put into torpor.


Colin Strauss Riggs
Anonymous
February 16, 2005 11:50:11 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

On 16 Feb 2005 07:44:24 -0800, <pdb6@lightlink.com> wrote:

>> 2 Leather Jacket
>> 1 Taste of Vitae
>> 6 Disarm
>> 6 Weighted Walking Stick
>> 3 Side Strike
>> 6 Pursuit
>> 3 Majesty
>> 3 Psyche!
>> 2 Stunt Cycle
>
> Not horrible, but I'd really be using the deck to do it's other
> angle--this is a very combo happy chunk of cards that might result in
> you getting Gin once and a while and whacking someone, but a lot of the
> time, these cards'll be getting in your way of doing other things.

I haven't really played a deck with this module (I was playing a medium
combat !Brujah with medium success on a tournament some time ago).
Still, the point is, you can use most of the stuff as combat defence
or to casually hit folks and discourage blocking, or you can beat them
up if necessary. If you disarm your prey's vampire, he may be reluctant
to block your remaining actions... If your prey uses medium vampires,
and all 6 of your disarms connect, you probably have those six rounds
to go about your business unpunished. In this context the remaining 26
cards can be quite versatile, as they only need to support your 6 disarms.

I'm beginning to see that the key to medium combat is finding cards that
are: (1) versatile, (2) easy to cycle and (3) pack a punch on their own
or as part of a short combo. Effectiveness and efficiency need to be
balanced, meaning you'll probably be less efficient than the light combat
deck, and less effective than the heavy combat deck, but you'll hopefully
turn your versatility into an asset.

> Again, I'd be much more inclined to drop to 2 disciplines (Cel/Pre) and
> turn that into, like, 8 Flash/8 Majesty (or something like that,
> depending on what you think you'll run into) and 16 other main strategy
> cards.

Which seems like a good idea... unless your main strategy is conditional
or easy to pursue with fewer cards, and you want some extra punch. OR,
your main strategy can actually gain from you being able to rip some
arms off occasionally. Especially if people think you're light combat or
heavy combat (and you can get the upper hand at the end game, if nothing
else).

--
Bye,

Daneel
Anonymous
February 17, 2005 10:54:53 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

Peter D Bakija wrote:

> Not *for* more. Just more. You use your Govern, and bleed for 3. You
> use your other Govern, play Conditioning, and get bounced. Then you
> have a handfull of combat cards, no way to get into combat, and no
> more bleed in your hand. So you go bleed for 1 and discard.

That's how it *can* go. Representing it as how it necessarily *will* go
is just seeing what you want to see.

> Pah. 30 combat cards is not enough combat cards. 20 strikes cards are
> not enough for me. Not if I actually want to torporize folks. But it
> is too many combat cards if I want to reliably do something other
> than try and kill people.

This ignores all the arguments against needing to immediately torpor
everyone you fight (in a B&B deck). I'm catching up from posts over the
weekend, but I've yet to see you even address this, beyond stating "yes
you do too need to torpor them."

> Hitting for 5 tends to send people to torpor much more often than
> hitting for 3. Hitting for 3 make someone lose some blood, but stay
> active. If I'm gonna hit someone, I want them in torpor.

And I feel disappointed about bleeding for 3 when I what I really want
is to bleed for 20. The point isn't "could it possibly be better?" The
question is "is it good enough to win?" Clearly you've decided that it
can't, but that's not an argument, it's a position.

> Otherwise, I'd much rather not even bother hitting them, 'cause it is
> much more efficient to just avoid combat all together and be better
> at other stuff.

This is just as true of your weenie potence deck, or any combat deck you
care
to present. Combat is always a worse strategy than bleeding and voting
(as it should be). This is what I was getting at when I made the point
about comparing B&B to bleeding for six at three stealth. It's not
whether you're building the best of all possible decks (that's Kindred
Spirits). It's whether you can take a deck to a tournament and have a
chance at winning. Or maybe whether this deck will get you a win 20% of
the time.

> Uhh, yeah. Ok. The two quotes out of that thread that kind of hit the
> nail on the head:

<snip quotes>

No, those were the two quotes that supported what you wanted to see. In
fact, they were in reply to the last of several decks to be posted in
the thread. Look at the first deck posted, which most of the discussion
is centered around. Also look for any poster that says anything to the
effect that "these types of decks never work." You won't find any. You
also won't find any in this thread, although being the lone nut
supporting a position is the last thing I would say guarantees you are
wrong.

> The defense rests.

Get back up, 'cause you aren't anywhere near done yet (unless, you know,
you just want to be).

--

David Cherryholmes
david.cherryholmes@gmail.com

"OK. So be it. It's not my view, but whatever makes you
happy, right? I'm all about making you happy, Dave. :-)"

-- LSJ, V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc.
      • 1 / 2
      • 2
      • Newest