Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Deck - Weenie Ranged Potence

Last response: in Video Games
Share
March 14, 2005 10:05:41 PM

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

Comments?

Deck Name: Gate!
Created By: J
Description: Weenie Potence with Thrown Gate and Traps

Crypt: (12 cards, Min: 6, Max: 15, Avg: 2.66)
---------------------------------------------
1 Uriah Winter for pot 1 Caitiff
1 Hasina Kesi pot 1 Caitiff
1 Paul DiCarlo pot 2 Giovanni
1 Lupo pot 2 Brujah
1 KoKo pot 2 Nosferatu
1 Tommy ani pot 3 Nosferatu
Antitribu
1 Tom for pot san 3 Blood Brother
1 Raziya Samater ani pot 3 Brujah
1 Mario Giovanni nec pot 3 Giovanni
1 Hugo pre vic POT 4 Brujah
Antitribu
1 Hector Sosa pre POT 4 Brujah
1 Agatha obf POT 4 Nosferatu
Antitribu

Library: (75 cards)
-------------------
Master (10 cards)
4 Potence
2 Blood Doll
2 Fame
2 Haven Uncovered

Action (16 cards)
9 Bum`s Rush
6 Computer Hacking
1 Rampage

Combat (45 cards)
8 Trap
5 Fake Out
8 Increased Strength
20 Thrown Gate
2 Mighty Grapple
2 Stunt Cycle

Equipment (4 cards)
3 IR Goggles
1 Hand of Conrad

--> J
Anonymous
March 14, 2005 11:35:58 PM

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

Just a note that Hector Sosa is not Antitribu
March 14, 2005 11:39:05 PM

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

> Just a note that Hector Sosa is not Antitribu

I never said he was.

--> J
Related resources
Anonymous
March 15, 2005 10:46:47 AM

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

J wrote:
>Library: (75 cards)

There is no reason in the world for this deck to be only 75 cards. I'd
likely add:

2 more Haven Uncovered
1 Dreams of the Sphinx or something to cycle cards
3 more Fake Out
5 Thrown Sewer Lids
4 Taste of Vitae

That can only help.

-Peter
Anonymous
March 15, 2005 11:43:30 AM

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

David Cherryholmes wrote:
> pdb6@lightlink.com wrote:
>
> > There is no reason in the world for this deck to be only 75 cards.
I'd
> > likely add:
>
> If he played it a few times at 90 and found he routinely had 15 or so

> cards left in his library, that'd be a reason, right?
>
A combat deck that can't get through all of its cards? Preposterous!
8) If you end up with 15 cards extra, just add in 15 Increased
Strengths...
Anonymous
March 15, 2005 12:52:15 PM

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

J wrote:
> 1 Uriah Winter for pot 1 Caitiff
1 Hasina Kesi pot 1 Caitiff
1 Paul DiCarlo pot 2 Giovanni
1 Lupo pot 2 Brujah
1 KoKo pot 2 Nosferatu
1 Tommy ani pot 3 Nosferatu
Antitribu
1 Tom for pot san 3 Blood Brother

1 Raziya Samater ani pot 3 Brujah
1 Mario Giovanni nec pot 3 Giovanni
1 Hugo pre vic POT 4 Brujah
Antitribu
1 Hector Sosa pre POT 4 Brujah
1 Agatha obf POT 4 Nosferatu
>Antitribu

Looking specifically at the deck, I'd totally add at least 1 Jimmy Dunn
(newly available in the 10th anniversary set 2). And possibly a Chas
Giovanni. Swap out 2 of the 3 pointers for these two guys.


>Library: (75 cards)

Again, make this deck 90 cards. It uses a lot of cards, and even if you
just upped the percentages of the cards you already have in the deck by
20%, the deck will have a longer shelf life and not suffer at all from
having the extra cards. Ignore Cherryholmes. He's just being contrary
:-)


>Master (10 cards)
4 Potence
2 Blood Doll
2 Fame
> 2 Haven Uncovered

As mentioned elsewhere, go up to 90 cards. In doing so, you could fit
in a couple more masters--maybe 2 more Haven Uncovered and a card
cycler.


>Action (16 cards)
9 Bum`s Rush
6 Computer Hacking
> 1 Rampage

Not bad at all. At 90 cards, I might consider a couple more Rush
actions--maybe one of those "only little Sabbat guys who fill up if
they win the fight" actions, and maybe another Rush or something.

>Combat (45 cards)
8 Trap
5 Fake Out
8 Increased Strength
20 Thrown Gate
2 Mighty Grapple
> 2 Stunt Cycle

Also not bad, but by going up to 90 cards, you can add in some Tastes
(which are always good), some Sewer Lids and a few more Fake Outs. And
when all else fails, more Incresed Strengths, which just flow like
water in this sort of deck.

>Equipment (4 cards)
3 IR Goggles
> 1 Hand of Conrad

Not bad, but I'd probably be inclined to replace most of the IR Goggles
with Fake Outs (maybe leave in one just in case), as even with all the
little vampires, you still don't generally want to wast actions
equipping.

Hand of Conrad is always funny, and certainly worth having if you put
Jimmy Dunn in the deck, to ensure Jimmy Dunn superiority.

-Peter
Anonymous
March 15, 2005 1:25:49 PM

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

pdb6@lightlink.com wrote:
> J wrote:
> >Library: (75 cards)
>
> There is no reason in the world for this deck to be only 75 cards.

Yeah, I'm with you there. Without getting into the "always vs. never"
debates, *this deck* really should be at 90 cards.

> I'd
> likely add:
>
> 2 more Haven Uncovered

Frankly, I'd opt for more rush action cards. Weenie rush decks take
lots of rush actions. Also, unlike the Immortal Grapple short range
versions of weenie potence rush decks, you're going to be thwarted by
S:CE and so your combats are on average probably not going to be as
successful as your cousin short-range potence decks.

-Robert
Anonymous
March 15, 2005 2:18:34 PM

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

pdb6@lightlink.com wrote:

> There is no reason in the world for this deck to be only 75 cards. I'd
> likely add:

If he played it a few times at 90 and found he routinely had 15 or so
cards left in his library, that'd be a reason, right?

--

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
March 15, 2005 5:24:52 PM

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

Robert Goudie wrote:

> Yeah, I'm with you there. Without getting into the "always vs. never"
> debates, *this deck* really should be at 90 cards.

Why? Are you just asserting that it will run out of cards? Have you
tried to play a weenie deck with 75? Honest question.

> Frankly, I'd opt for more rush action cards. Weenie rush decks take
> lots of rush actions. Also, unlike the Immortal Grapple short range
> versions of weenie potence rush decks, you're going to be thwarted by
> S:CE and so your combats are on average probably not going to be as
> successful as your cousin short-range potence decks.

He has the same intrinsic answer to S:CE that any weenie combat deck
will have: iterate them into the pavement. He also has far less of a
need for Taste of Vitae because he'll be at long range most of the time,
meaning most of the time he won't be taking any damage. And I have
experienced, on an almost weekly basis, the effectiveness of 6 or so
minions all bleeding forward for 1 (yes, no hacks), when those minions
have a pretty fair shot at torporing blockers (not saying this deck
necessarily does, just addressing the "not enough rush" idea in general).

--

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.
March 15, 2005 7:49:31 PM

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

Ok, all comments taken onboard. The reason for 75 cards is I like it,
and I thought I had the % worked out ok. Taking it up to 90 cards
makes the % screwed up a bit, but meh!, how does this one pan out?
Better? Will it flow ok? I'm not so sure that I'll get it to work as
well - ideas on how to make those numbers work?

Deck Name: Son of Gate!
Created By: J
Description: Weenie Potence with Thrown Gate Traps

Crypt: (12 cards, Min: 6, Max: 15, Avg: 2.66)
---------------------------------------------
1 Uriah Winter for pot 1 Caitiff
1 Hasina Kesi pot 1 Caitiff
1 Paul DiCarlo pot 2 Giovanni
1 Lupo pot 2 Brujah
1 KoKo pot 2 Nosferatu
1 Tommy ani pot 3 Nosferatu
Antitribu
1 Tom for pot san 3 Blood Brother
1 Raziya Samater ani pot 3 Brujah
1 Mario Giovanni nec pot 3 Giovanni
1 Hugo pre vic POT 4 Brujah
Antitribu
1 Hector Sosa pre POT 4 Brujah
1 Agatha obf POT 4 Nosferatu
Antitribu

Library: (90 cards)
-------------------
Master (14 cards)
5 Potence
3 Blood Doll
1 Fame
1 Dreams of the Sphinx
4 Haven Uncovered

Action (18 cards)
6 Bum`s Rush
3 Ambush
2 Harass
5 Computer Hacking
1 Rampage
1 Legal Manipulations

Combat (56 cards)
9 Trap
8 Fake Out
9 Increased Strength
21 Thrown Gate
3 Mighty Grapple
2 Stunt Cycle
1 Chiram's Hold
3 Taste of Vitae

Equipment (2 cards)
1 IR Goggles
1 Hand of Conrad

--> J
Anonymous
March 15, 2005 8:14:58 PM

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

David Cherryholmes wrote:

> OK, replace "a few" with "a lot". There's definite advantages to having
> 75 cards vs. 90, especially if you are chaining two, three, or even four
> cards together. Definite advantages.

If you say so. I'm totally not buying it, but you are certainly welcome to
believe what makes you happy. I accept that in certain examples of
probabilities of drawing X that 75 cards might look better than 90, but as
going up to 90 mostly means simply adding more of the cards you want in your
hand anyway, I'm simply not seeing the math as being particularly important.

>I can imagine lots of ways that
> he wouldn't run out of cards, too. Like, people get afraid to block
> him, or run out of blockers because he's torpored them all. I mean, I
> can see the advantages of being at 90, too. But this is another one of
> those "always/never" things that I'm just going to disagree with.

Ok. I can see him not running out of cards at 75 cards just as much as I can
see him not running out of cards at 90 cards. But as the disadvantages of
running out of cards are huge compared to not running out of cards (i.e. you
are *much* better off ending a game with cards left over than you are
running out before the game is done), and this sort of deck can run out of
cards quickly, *and* the disadvantages of going up to 90 are protracted, at
best--heck, I'll continually maintain that if you took that exact same deck
at 75 cards and made it 82 by adding 2 more Haven Uncovereds and 5 Taste of
Vitaes, it would be a billion times better--I'd continue to say "there is no
reason in the world to be at 75 cards with this sort of deck." None. Well,
ok, if he does not have access to the needed cards to make it 90 cards.
Yeah, then, ok, the deck is better at 75 cards instead of making it 90 by
adding, like, 15 Gird Minions. But assuming reasonable card availablity, it
should be 90 cards.

> Sure it will, just not in a way that you think is important. But unless
> you've whipped out your can of Stat-Be-Gone, the cost is real.

The cost is completely insignificant compared to the power of making the
deck better by addingmore of the cards it needs and reducing the very
realistic chance of running out of cards.

> I'm kinda of being snarky, but I stand behind my point.

As I'd expect :-)


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

"How does this end?"
"In fire."
Emperor Turhan and Kosh
Anonymous
March 15, 2005 8:18:25 PM

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

Robert Goudie wrote:

> Yeah, I'm with you there. Without getting into the "always vs. never"
> debates, *this deck* really should be at 90 cards.

Agreed.

> Frankly, I'd opt for more rush action cards.

I'd certainly add a few more, but with so many small minions and no way to
circumvent S:CE, I'd figure that having more Havens means more strength
through pack hunting--uncover someone's Haven and attack. If they Majesty?
Attack again. And Again. Until they go down.

> Weenie rush decks take
> lots of rush actions. Also, unlike the Immortal Grapple short range
> versions of weenie potence rush decks, you're going to be thwarted by
> S:CE and so your combats are on average probably not going to be as
> successful as your cousin short-range potence decks.

Exactly why I'd increase the number of Haven Uncovereds--I mean, yeah,
again, I'd also add more Rush actions (and maybe turn a few into Harasses
for the Press), but the permanent (well, for the turn anyway) Haven lets you
rush the same guy 4 or 5 times if you really need to.


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

"How does this end?"
"In fire."
Emperor Turhan and Kosh
Anonymous
March 15, 2005 8:25:16 PM

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

David Cherryholmes wrote:

> Why? Are you just asserting that it will run out of cards? Have you
> tried to play a weenie deck with 75? Honest question.

It might run out of cards. And the disadvantages of going up to 90 are far
smaller than the disadvantages of running out of cards.

I'd rather end a game with 20 cards left over 50 times before I'd want to
run out of cards before the game ends, given the choice. And as the
differences in drawing probabilities of a 90 card deck compared to a 75 card
deck, esepcially when you are beffing the deck up with simply more of the
cards you want to draw anyway, are almost insignificant, I'd rather be at
90.

I accept that there are decks that don't use a lot of cards and have almost
zero chance of running out of cards, that'll do just fine, if not be just
better, at 80 or 70 cards, as opposed to 90. But the deck presented has a
very realistic chance of running out of cards over the course of the game,
even at 90 cards. Playing it at 75 is just asking for trouble.

> He has the same intrinsic answer to S:CE that any weenie combat deck
> will have: iterate them into the pavement. He also has far less of a
> need for Taste of Vitae because he'll be at long range most of the time,
> meaning most of the time he won't be taking any damage.

But the Taste of Vitae does something very important even if you aren't
seeing any ranged combat--it keeps you from needing to hunt to fill up the
Blood Dolls. A single taste, in the best situations, saves you 2 or 3 hunt
actions and hands you 2 or 3 free pool. In the worst situations, it means
you might not end up empty and forced to hunt after a Carrion Crows or a
Magnum.


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

"How does this end?"
"In fire."
Emperor Turhan and Kosh
Anonymous
March 15, 2005 8:26:29 PM

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

Preston wrote:

> Just a note that Hector Sosa is not Antitribu

You are just being confused by weird line wraping. The "Antitribu" above
Hector Sosa belongs to the end of the line of the vampire above him.


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

"How does this end?"
"In fire."
Emperor Turhan and Kosh
Anonymous
March 15, 2005 10:11:10 PM

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

David Cherryholmes wrote:
> Robert Goudie wrote:
>
> > Yeah, I'm with you there. Without getting into the "always vs.
never"
> > debates, *this deck* really should be at 90 cards.
>
> Why? Are you just asserting that it will run out of cards? Have you

> tried to play a weenie deck with 75? Honest question.

No, I haven't tried to play any similar weenie decks like this with
only 75 cards. However, I've repeatedly run out of cards with similar
90 card decks.

-Robert
Anonymous
March 15, 2005 10:17:25 PM

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

I like the 1 Chiram's Hold. Adds flavor, I hope I don't reveal myself
to be a total scrub, but I think with 8 Fake Outs, 3 Ambushes, and 6
Bums Rushs, the deck should have a maneuver to spare, and with al those
presses, 1-2 Well-Aimed Cars might not be too bad. I would also be a
fan of replacing all of the Traps with Mighty Grapples: they are more
flexible (i,.e you can add more during the press phase if you get into
a press war, and can be used as a strike in a pinch) and do you really
need combat to go more than a couple of rounds anyway. If you include 2
Well Aimed cars they will have a press if you get them off anyway.

I don't like the 5 Computer Hackings. It's almost like, why bother. I
think the deck would be better served by taking out the Computer
Hackings and adding two bleed retainers, 1-2 additional Fames, and a
Humanitas so that you can Torpor a famed minon, rescue him at stealth,
and torpor him again for 6 total bleed (7 including the pool lose at
the start of the turn).
March 15, 2005 10:53:16 PM

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

> Pretty much the same crypt (if not the exact same crypt?).

It is. :) 

Not at all bad,
> but still, if you can get ahold of Jimmy Dunn, I'd put him in in a
second.

I don't have Jimmy.

> Chas is kind of a toss up in a deck withouut Deflections, but Jimmy
is a
> total no-brainer.

I don't like Chas unless I'm playing Dominate, and then he's just a
blocker/flicker/blood doll. I hate his disad.

> to get these days. Oh, wait. Uriah Winter. Yeah, he wants to not be
there.

Yes she does. She's crying out to be there. "Let me be in a deck",
that's what she said to me.

> Even with the weenie angle, you aren't going to have a lot of pool,
and
> Uriah is going to defect. A lot.

But it's funny. :)  And it might NOT happen.


> > Library: (90 cards)
> > -------------------
> > Master (14 cards)
> > 5 Potence
> > 3 Blood Doll
> > 1 Fame
> > 1 Dreams of the Sphinx
> > 4 Haven Uncovered
>
> I'd be inclined to drop one of the Potence master for either the
second Fame
> back, or maybe just drop down to 13 masters--13/90 is closer to 10/75
than
> 14/90 is.

I really want POT, to the point that I considered going up to a 5 cap
limit. A 1/2 str gate really doesn't stack up against a 2/4 str gate.

> > Action (18 cards)
> > 6 Bum`s Rush
> > 3 Ambush
> > 2 Harass
> > 5 Computer Hacking
> > 1 Rampage
> > 1 Legal Manipulations
>
> The Legal is funny, but when I looked at your crypt, you only have 2
> vampires with pre, which is too gambley for my money.

Yes and no. I SHOULD get one of them out in the game.

> with more Harass than Ambush--Harass is less conditional (attack a
vampire
> with less than 4 blood *or* any tapped minion as opposed to only any
tapped
> minion) and Harass gives you the press you often will want more than
the
> manuver.

True, and I'm often heard saying how much Harass is superior to Ambush.
:( 

> > Combat (56 cards)
> > 9 Trap
> > 8 Fake Out
> > 9 Increased Strength
> > 21 Thrown Gate
> > 3 Mighty Grapple
> > 2 Stunt Cycle
> > 1 Chiram's Hold
> > 3 Taste of Vitae
>
> Not bad. I always kinda want to like Chiram's Hold (or, like, any of
the
> Hold cards), but thy usually seem difficult to pull off and really
get use
> out of--in this instance, you may have missed that Chiram's requires
you to
> put it on an opponent's acting minion

Whoops - yes I did. :(  That was going to be sooo useful as well.

(i.e. you need to block someone to
> play it), and you probably aren't going to block much. Other than
that,
> pretty reasonable. I might be inclined to use Lids instead of Stunt
Cycles,
> myself--yeah, Cycles allow you to prevent damage, but if you really
need to
> prevent the damage at long range, you are probably hosed anyway, and
the
> pressess off the Lids will often pay off. Maybe turn, like, 2 Cycle,
1 Trap,
> and 1 Gate into 4 Lids?

Hmmmm... I dunno, I can see what you're saying, but I also consider the
Cycles there for anti Ivory Bow tech, or opposition Lids etc. In all
honesty, the Cycles were Lids to begin with, but with no defense, I
switched to the cycles.

> > Equipment (2 cards)
> > 1 IR Goggles
> > 1 Hand of Conrad
>
> Very reasonable. But totally get a Jimmy Dunn in there to maximize
the Hand
> tech :-)

I'm also considering an Ivory Bow.... thoughts?

--> J
Anonymous
March 15, 2005 11:23:51 PM

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

I don't like the Ivory Bow in this deck. If you are really concerned
with Ivory Bow defense, throw in a Fractured Armament or two. Correct
me if I'm wrong, but shouldn't it combo with Enhanced Strength so as to
allow you to destroy equipment and, at superior, do 3 damage? You will
still go to torpor from the agg damage, but as a weenie deck you should
be OK with that and they may go to torpor from the damage also.
Anonymous
March 16, 2005 12:16:16 AM

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

J wrote:

> Deck Name: Son of Gate!
> Created By: J
> Description: Weenie Potence with Thrown Gate Traps
>
> Crypt: (12 cards, Min: 6, Max: 15, Avg: 2.66)
> ---------------------------------------------
> 1 Uriah Winter for pot 1 Caitiff
> 1 Hasina Kesi pot 1 Caitiff
> 1 Paul DiCarlo pot 2 Giovanni
> 1 Lupo pot 2 Brujah
> 1 KoKo pot 2 Nosferatu
> 1 Tommy ani pot 3 Nosferatu
> 1 Tom for pot san 3 Blood Brother
> 1 Raziya Samater ani pot 3 Brujah
> 1 Mario Giovanni nec pot 3 Giovanni
> 1 Hugo pre vic POT 4 Brujah
> 1 Hector Sosa pre POT 4 Brujah
> 1 Agatha obf POT 4 Nosferatu

Pretty much the same crypt (if not the exact same crypt?). Not at all bad,
but still, if you can get ahold of Jimmy Dunn, I'd put him in in a second.
Chas is kind of a toss up in a deck withouut Deflections, but Jimmy is a
total no-brainer. Granted, you might not have him, but at least he is easier
to get these days. Oh, wait. Uriah Winter. Yeah, he wants to not be there.
Even with the weenie angle, you aren't going to have a lot of pool, and
Uriah is going to defect. A lot. Possible replacements include Mitchel, the
Head Hunter (possibly difficult to get, as he was only reprinted in, um,
maybe the Lasombra SW starter?) or, ya know, Jimmy Dunn.

> Library: (90 cards)
> -------------------
> Master (14 cards)
> 5 Potence
> 3 Blood Doll
> 1 Fame
> 1 Dreams of the Sphinx
> 4 Haven Uncovered

I'd be inclined to drop one of the Potence master for either the second Fame
back, or maybe just drop down to 13 masters--13/90 is closer to 10/75 than
14/90 is.

> Action (18 cards)
> 6 Bum`s Rush
> 3 Ambush
> 2 Harass
> 5 Computer Hacking
> 1 Rampage
> 1 Legal Manipulations

The Legal is funny, but when I looked at your crypt, you only have 2
vampires with pre, which is too gambley for my money. I'd also probably go
with more Harass than Ambush--Harass is less conditional (attack a vampire
with less than 4 blood *or* any tapped minion as opposed to only any tapped
minion) and Harass gives you the press you often will want more than the
manuver. But 11 Rush in 90 isn't that bad, especially with 6 bleed actions.

> Combat (56 cards)
> 9 Trap
> 8 Fake Out
> 9 Increased Strength
> 21 Thrown Gate
> 3 Mighty Grapple
> 2 Stunt Cycle
> 1 Chiram's Hold
> 3 Taste of Vitae

Not bad. I always kinda want to like Chiram's Hold (or, like, any of the
Hold cards), but thy usually seem difficult to pull off and really get use
out of--in this instance, you may have missed that Chiram's requires you to
put it on an opponent's acting minion (i.e. you need to block someone to
play it), and you probably aren't going to block much. Other than that,
pretty reasonable. I might be inclined to use Lids instead of Stunt Cycles,
myself--yeah, Cycles allow you to prevent damage, but if you really need to
prevent the damage at long range, you are probably hosed anyway, and the
pressess off the Lids will often pay off. Maybe turn, like, 2 Cycle, 1 Trap,
and 1 Gate into 4 Lids?

> Equipment (2 cards)
> 1 IR Goggles
> 1 Hand of Conrad

Very reasonable. But totally get a Jimmy Dunn in there to maximize the Hand
tech :-)


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

"How does this end?"
"In fire."
Emperor Turhan and Kosh
Anonymous
March 16, 2005 2:20:44 AM

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

> Combat (56 cards)
> 9 Trap
> 8 Fake Out
> 9 Increased Strength
> 21 Thrown Gate
> 3 Mighty Grapple
> 2 Stunt Cycle
> 1 Chiram's Hold
> 3 Taste of Vitae

You could replace some of the Gates with KMW's Earthshock; that way,
it'll be an undodgeable strike. Moreover, you could add more Tastes,
maybe up to a total of 4-6 of them.
Anonymous
March 16, 2005 2:58:00 AM

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

David Cherryholmes wrote:

> He has the same intrinsic answer to S:CE that any weenie combat deck
> will have: iterate them into the pavement.

When you have a stealth vote/bleed behind you every strike must count
because with no deflect and no serious pool gain you donĀ“t have the time
to "iterate". Therefore weenie potence uses IG and cel-gun weenie uses
Psyche in abundant numbers.

> He also has far less of a
> need for Taste of Vitae because he'll be at long range most of the time,
> meaning most of the time he won't be taking any damage.

I always thought the Taste of Vitae as a "replenishment" for blood taken
off via Blood Doll. And it is not THAT unlikely to face tremere, guns or
carrions crows ...

--
johannes walch
Anonymous
March 16, 2005 10:30:59 AM

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

Preston <prestonpoulter@hotmail.com> wrote:
: I don't like the 5 Computer Hackings. It's almost like, why bother.

4-6 Computer Hackings are extremely good in a weenie Potence decks
without bleeding power. Definately worth to bother, you'll notice this
after squeezing an oust a few times just because of them - or not when
you only have rush and combat in hand.

//T
Anonymous
March 16, 2005 12:32:33 PM

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

David wrote:
>You seem to be confusing "opinion" with "mathematical fact". It's no
>more up for debate than whether 2 + 2 = 4. What is up for debate is
>whether the decrease in the odds of clumping, which can be the death
of
>a deck, is relatively better or worse than the odds of running out of
>cards, which can be the death of a deck.

Again, I realize that there are instances of combinatorics where the
differences between 75 and 90 look like they'll make a difference. My
point is that, certainly is this deck, the difference is irrelevant.

>This is why your insistence that "no, going 90 is *always* better and
there's no reason to >ever choose 75" just looks uninformed.

See, I think the big problem here is that you have either absolutely
zero tolerance for hyperbole, or a complete inability to understand
hyperbole. But I don't think the latter is the case.

But that being said, in the deck in question, the statement that 90 is
always going to be better that 75, pretty much always, is the result of
nothing *but* information. It just isn't the abstract and mostly
irrelevant information from analysis of cominational math.

>First, your advice for this particular deck wasn't simply adding more
of
>the same cards. But even if it were, you can keep the proportions
>precisely the same. I'm assuming that you do. But you still make
your
>card flow poorer than it would be with fewer cards.

Adding Taste of Vitae is only making the deck work better. And adding
more Haven Uncovered is going to make the deck work better. Well, and
maybe a Dreams, which, also, just makes the deck work better. The rest
of the cards were more of the same. And you are correct that you can't
keep the proportions exactly the same. But you can keep them in a very
close area, and the difference, certainly is a deck with the large
numbers of the same card like this one, is going to be not an issue.

>The reason is that his deck intends to play Trap, and the
>Gate-Gate-Gate, chaining them out for as long as needed to torpor his
>opponent. Card flow is critical. Card flow matters. It may not
matter
>to you as much as those few games that stick out in your mind as the
>ones where you ran out of cards, but that doesn't change the facts.

Adding more Gates and Traps, then, makes the chances of getting more
Gates and Traps increase.

>Realize that my position is far more moderate than yours. I'm willing

>to concede that being at 90 has its advantages. But so does being at
>75.

My position is that, for the deck in question, the advantages of being
at 90 are always going to outweigh the advantages of being at 75. There
might be minor advantages that come from being at 75, in terms of
combinational math, but these advantages are always going to be
outweighed by the advantages of being at 90.

>Your position is completely founded on the following premise:
>"Gagging almost never happens and, when it does, the consequences are
>trivial." I mean, instead of counting on one hand the number of times

>you've run out of cards -- an easy fact to recall -- how about
recalling
>the number of times you didn't win, and how many of those times not
>having the right cards in hand played a significant role? Now, which
>category do you *really* think is larger?

Making the deck larger by adding more of the cards you want in your
hand simply isn't going to have any measurable negative effect on your
ability to draw the cards you want. Especially when you want to draw
the cards that you put more in of. If I was like "Ooh! Put in 15 Gird
Minions!", then, well, yeah, you'd have an argument. But as I'm like
"Put in more Haven Uncovereds, which you want to draw, Traps, which you
want to draw, Gates, which you want to draw, and Tastes, which you
should have in their anyway", I'm not seeing it so much.

>and as far as the running out of cards things go, I'll just (re)state:
I
>see weenie decks all the time, every week. I see them win a lot. I
see
>them win *a lot* with plenty of cards left in their ash heap. Nobody
>has said anything to convince me that running out of cards is a more
>probable obstacle than having a poor hand.

Sure. But you aren't going to have a poor hand any more than you would
at 75 cards. 'Cause the cards you are adding are the cards you want to
draw anyway.

-Peter
Anonymous
March 16, 2005 12:42:07 PM

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

J wrote:
>I don't have Jimmy.

Ahh, but see, you should :-)

>I don't like Chas unless I'm playing Dominate, and then he's just a
>blocker/flicker/blood doll. I hate his disad.

Very reasonable. He is a dicey choice. But sometimes he works out ok.

>Yes she does. She's crying out to be there. "Let me be in a deck",
>that's what she said to me.

Well, you can't really argue with that kinda logic.

>I really want POT, to the point that I considered going up to a 5 cap
>limit. A 1/2 str gate really doesn't stack up against a 2/4 str gate.

True, but if you get a 4th POT vampire in the crypt (i.e. Jimmy...),
you usually have one in play early, the pot vampires can usually do
enough damage also early, and by mid game, even with 4 Potence master,
you'll probably have 2 or 3 POT vampires in play.

>Yes and no. I SHOULD get one of them out in the game.

Well, with only 2 in 12, you regularly won't draw one. But still, it is
only one card, so probably worth the effort.

>True, and I'm often heard saying how much Harass is superior to
Ambush.

Well, if you want the manuver, you are better off with the Ambush. But
as you have Gates and Fake Outs, and maybe even an IR Goggles, the
press is probably going to be better than the manuver, and in either
case, you'll likely get blocked most of the time anyway.



>Hmmmm... I dunno, I can see what you're saying, but I also consider
the
>Cycles there for anti Ivory Bow tech, or opposition Lids etc. In all
>honesty, the Cycles were Lids to begin with, but with no defense, I
>switched to the cycles.

Reasonable. The way I figure it, really, if you need the defense, you
are probably hosed. If they can fling Lids and Carrion Crows and
whatever, you aren't going to do so well in the long run, which is why
I'd sooner use Lids. But I don't think the Cycles are really going to
hurt much, either.

>I'm also considering an Ivory Bow.... thoughts?

Well, you might consider swapping the Bow for the Goggles--having one
in play never hurts, and it certainly could help to contest it when
your prey has one in play.

-Peter
Anonymous
March 16, 2005 12:42:50 PM

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

Weenie decks or weenie combat decks? Gate decks and Aid From Bats
decks in particular tend to go through a lot of cards, especially since
it often takes them 3 cards just to get foiled by 1 S:CE.
Anonymous
March 16, 2005 12:49:15 PM

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

Preston wrote:
> like the 1 Chiram's Hold. Adds flavor,

Keep in mind that Chiram's Hold only works if you block someone. With
zero intercept and zero Wakes, the likelyhood of blocking someone is
very, very low.

>I hope I don't reveal myself to be a total scrub, but I think with 8
Fake Outs, 3 >Ambushes, and 6 Bums Rushs, the deck should have a
maneuver to spare, and with al >those presses, 1-2 Well-Aimed Cars
might not be too bad.

Heh heh. Well Aimed Cards are *always* too bad (Aggghhh! Hyperoble!
Cherryholmes! Get me! Aggghhh! :-)

>I would also be a fan of replacing all of the Traps with Mighty
Grapples: they are more
>flexible (i,.e you can add more during the press phase if you get into
a press war, and >can be used as a strike in a pinch) and do you
really need combat to go more than a >couple of rounds anyway. If you
include 2 Well Aimed cars they will have a press if you >get them off
anyway.

They are certainly more flexible, but the cycleability of the Traps
really are kinda handy--i.e. playing them first means you might draw
into a card you need now, as opposed to holding it and hoping you can
play it later. But still I think a few are probably good in the deck.

>I don't like the 5 Computer Hackings. It's almost like, why bother.

'Cause they help you oust your prey faster, are freely cyclable, and
often double as rush cards. They really work wonders in decks like
this.

-Peter
Anonymous
March 16, 2005 1:20:19 PM

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

Peter D Bakija wrote:

> If you say so. I'm totally not buying it, but you are certainly welcome to
> believe what makes you happy.

You seem to be confusing "opinion" with "mathematical fact". It's no
more up for debate than whether 2 + 2 = 4. What is up for debate is
whether the decrease in the odds of clumping, which can be the death of
a deck, is relatively better or worse than the odds of running out of
cards, which can be the death of a deck. This is why your insistence
that "no, going 90 is *always* better and there's no reason to ever
choose 75" just looks uninformed.

> I accept that in certain examples of
> probabilities of drawing X that 75 cards might look better than 90, but as
> going up to 90 mostly means simply adding more of the cards you want in your
> hand anyway, I'm simply not seeing the math as being particularly important.

First, your advice for this particular deck wasn't simply adding more of
the same cards. But even if it were, you can keep the proportions
precisely the same. I'm assuming that you do. But you still make your
card flow poorer than it would be with fewer cards.

> Ok. I can see him not running out of cards at 75 cards just as much as I can
> see him not running out of cards at 90 cards. But as the disadvantages of
> running out of cards are huge compared to not running out of cards (i.e. you
> are *much* better off ending a game with cards left over than you are
> running out before the game is done), and this sort of deck can run out of
> cards quickly, *and* the disadvantages of going up to 90 are protracted, at
> best--heck, I'll continually maintain that if you took that exact same deck
> at 75 cards and made it 82 by adding 2 more Haven Uncovereds and 5 Taste of
> Vitaes, it would be a billion times better--I'd continue to say "there is no
> reason in the world to be at 75 cards with this sort of deck." None.

The reason is that his deck intends to play Trap, and the
Gate-Gate-Gate, chaining them out for as long as needed to torpor his
opponent. Card flow is critical. Card flow matters. It may not matter
to you as much as those few games that stick out in your mind as the
ones where you ran out of cards, but that doesn't change the facts.

Realize that my position is far more moderate than yours. I'm willing
to concede that being at 90 has its advantages. But so does being at
75. Your position is completely founded on the following premise:
"Gagging almost never happens and, when it does, the consequences are
trivial." I mean, instead of counting on one hand the number of times
you've run out of cards -- an easy fact to recall -- how about recalling
the number of times you didn't win, and how many of those times not
having the right cards in hand played a significant role? Now, which
category do you *really* think is larger?

> The cost is completely insignificant compared to the power of making the
> deck better by addingmore of the cards it needs and reducing the very
> realistic chance of running out of cards.

This is a circular argument, since you are just assuming that adding
cards makes the deck "better". In fact, it makes it better in some ways
but worse in others, making either choice rational.

And as far as the running out of cards things go, I'll just (re)state: I
see weenie decks all the time, every week. I see them win a lot. I see
them win *a lot* with plenty of cards left in their ash heap. Nobody
has said anything to convince me that running out of cards is a more
probable obstacle than having a poor hand.

--

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
March 16, 2005 3:36:34 PM

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

David Cherryholmes wrote:

> And as far as the running out of cards things go, I'll just (re)state: I
> see weenie decks all the time, every week. I see them win a lot. I see
> them win *a lot* with plenty of cards left in their ash heap. Nobody
> has said anything to convince me that running out of cards is a more
> probable obstacle than having a poor hand.

"....cards left in their library", of course.

--

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
March 16, 2005 5:00:43 PM

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

Just for the hell of it, I wanted to explore the Well Aimed Car idea.
So here is a variant of the deck that goes in a very different
direction.
Crypt of 12
2 Tusks 6 Cap Nosferatu w/ OBF pot ani
2 Tusks Advanced Ditto
Agrippina 4 Cap Nosferatu w/OBF pot
Lupo 2 Cap Brujah pot
Koko 2 Cap Nosferatu w/pot
Hasina Kesi 1 Cap w/pot
Paul DiCarlo 2 Cap Giovanni w/pot
Agatha 4 Cap Nosferatu Anti w/POT obf
Duck 3 Cap Nosferatu w/pot obf
Olivia 5 Cap Nosferatu Anti w/POT OBF vic

Library of 90

Master 12
Barrens
Elder Library
Dreams of the Sphinx
3xFame
1xHumanitas
2 Blood Dolls
3 Haven Uncovered

Actions 9
8 Bums Rushs
1 Rampage

Action Modifier 15
8xSpying Mission
2xMask of 1000 Faces
5xHidden Lurker

Combat 47
10 Mighty Grappels
5 Fake Outs
2 Fractured Armament
6 Swallowed by the Night
10 Thrown Gates
5 Thrown Sewer Lids
5 Well Aimed Cars
4 Taste of Vitae

Equipment/Retainers 7
Jackie Therman
J.S. Simmons Esquire
Tasha Morgan
Patagia
2xIR Goggles
Catacombs

Just a thought
Anonymous
March 16, 2005 5:36:15 PM

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

pdb6@lightlink.com wrote:

> See, I think the big problem here is that you have either absolutely
> zero tolerance for hyperbole, or a complete inability to understand
> hyperbole. But I don't think the latter is the case.

Maybe I don't get it. What part of your statement is hyperbole? I was
taking "90 is always better for this deck" at face value. And I'm
disagreeing with it.

> But that being said, in the deck in question, the statement that 90 is
> always going to be better that 75, pretty much always, is the result of
> nothing *but* information. It just isn't the abstract and mostly
> irrelevant information from analysis of cominational math.

OK then, what is your information? Experience? How can you empirically
verify that you won't run out of cards with a 75 card deck, or that
you'll get better card flow out of a 75 card deck, when you won't try a
75 card deck? Since you obviously can't experience it, then you are
also engaging in abstract reasoning. Unless you want to say that you
have less than 15 cards in your library, at the end of games, which you
won, as a norm. Is that what you are saying?

> Adding Taste of Vitae is only making the deck work better. And adding
> more Haven Uncovered is going to make the deck work better. Well, and
> maybe a Dreams, which, also, just makes the deck work better. The rest
> of the cards were more of the same. And you are correct that you can't
> keep the proportions exactly the same. But you can keep them in a very
> close area, and the difference, certainly is a deck with the large
> numbers of the same card like this one, is going to be not an issue.

Before your suggestions:

Combat (45 cards)
8 Trap
5 Fake Out
8 Increased Strength
20 Thrown Gate
2 Mighty Grapple
2 Stunt Cycle

After your suggestions:

Combat (56 cards)
9 Trap
8 Fake Out
9 Increased Strength
21 Thrown Gate
3 Mighty Grapple
2 Stunt Cycle
1 Chiram's Hold
3 Taste of Vitae

Basically, this deck wants to bleed forward and, if blocked, throw down
a trap and then play a bunch of Thrown Gates. Can we agree on that
much? So, following your advice, he now has 15 extra cards, only one of
which is a Thrown Gate, and only one of which is a Trap. Are you trying
to tell me that his odds of having a Trap have not gone down? That his
odds of not having a Thrown Gate, while stuck in his own Trap, have not
gone down? You have decreased the odds of him having his "combo", while
adding other things. Maybe, overall, those other things are a net plus.
I don't know. But this hand waving away of any negative effects
whatsoever is ridiculous.

> Adding more Gates and Traps, then, makes the chances of getting more
> Gates and Traps increase.

First of all, we are bouncing back and forth between talking about this
deck right here, and all weenie decks. You may want to say "no, I just
mean weenie fighting decks" but really, all weenie decks are high card
flow. You've got bleed, majesty, lucky blows, add'l strikes, concealed
guns, change of targets.... whatever. They all do something with their
library, and they all take 4+ actions per turn. It's the same damn thing.

However, let's say we are just talking about this particular deck. In
fact, he's added *one* of each.

> My position is that, for the deck in question, the advantages of being
> at 90 are always going to outweigh the advantages of being at 75. There
> might be minor advantages that come from being at 75, in terms of
> combinational math, but these advantages are always going to be
> outweighed by the advantages of being at 90.

You say "combinational math", I say "not getting your ass creamed
because you didn't have a Gate". The *only* advantage of being at 90 is
as a warm, fuzzy wooby against the terror of running out of cards.
Which almost never happens. But again, you can go 90 and be even more
sure that it's not going to happen to you. It's not without benefits.
I just can recall *piles* more times that my game collapsed because I
failed to have the right stuff in hand than it did because I ran out of
cards. Oh, and guess what? When he runs out of cards, late in the
game, when everybody's pretty torn up? He's a weenie deck. He has 6
vampires. He probably coasts across the finish line anyway.

> Making the deck larger by adding more of the cards you want in your
> hand simply isn't going to have any measurable negative effect on your
> ability to draw the cards you want.

You keep citing this. It got demolished, since he added one copy of the
two cards that really count. Is your argument based on anything else?
Besides which, as long as card A is required for card B, and card B for
card C, simply upping A, B, and C across the board still makes clumping
(variance) a problem. This is my main point, which you still don't seem
to get.

--

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.
March 16, 2005 6:32:12 PM

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

> Is there any reason that a "weenie potence deck" shouldn't or
wouldn't
> automatically include waste management operation and the !brujah to
make
> it go? Just curious. That would be an argument for the 75 card thing
> versus the 90 card thing.

There is a reason, it's that there are really only 2 viable !Brujah.
Jacob Bragg who is a 3 cap with pot and Hugo who is the 4 cap with POT.
I wouldn't want a 4 cap with lesser, and I've only got 2 Jacobs (and I
can't find either).... :( 

The !Brujah seem to have Celerity as their primary discipline,
especially for smaller vampires (5 cap or less). 4 have CEL, 2 have
POT, 2 have PRE.

So I'd expect them and the WMO to be in weenie guns more than weenie
potence.

--> J
Anonymous
March 16, 2005 7:29:49 PM

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

David Cherryholmes wrote:

> Maybe I don't get it. What part of your statement is hyperbole? I was
> taking "90 is always better for this deck" at face value. And I'm
> disagreeing with it.

The "always" part. What you seem to be having an issue with here is that I
said "it will *always* be better to have 90 cards than 75 card with this
deck". You seem to take issue with the idea that I leave zero room at all
for situations where 75 cards will be better. Which, of course, I actually
am leaving open. But as the situations where 75 cards would be better, in my
mind, consists of, like, 1% of situations, I'm saying "always". 'Cause it is
a hyberbolic exageration to make a point.

If I opened this discussion with "This deck is going to be much better in
*most* situations with 90 cards instead of 75...", I suspect we would be
having a different conversation.

> OK then, what is your information? Experience?

From playing decks like this a lot. With 90 cards, they run out. A lot. Have
I played them at 75? No. 'Cause when I play them at 90, they regularly run
out of cards. Right now I'm playing a deck that is remarkably similar (lots
of weenie pot vampires, lots of Haven Uncovered, lots of Gates, etc) at 90
cards, and it regularly runs out of cards before it gets its first VP, let
alone by the end of the game. Is it a really good deck? No, 'cause it often
runs out of cards before it even gets a single VP. But it is an ok deck. And
remarakbly similar.

Decks like this take 4-5 actions per turn. A successful Rush action plays,
what, 6-7 cards at a swoop (Rush, Trap, Increased, Gate, [extra
manuver/press], Taste, Gate, etc). Unsuccessful ones play 3-4 cards (Rush,
Trap, Increased, Gate, oops--they Majesty. Try again). Yeah, late in the
game, you don't need as many cards as if you are doing well, you don't need
to Rush anymore. But if you even need, like, to do this 10 times over the
course of the game, that is 60-70 cards. Add in 13 or so Masters and some
necessary discard, and you are running out of cards. Easily.

> Before your suggestions:
>
> Combat (45 cards)
> 8 Trap
> 5 Fake Out
> 8 Increased Strength
> 20 Thrown Gate
> 2 Mighty Grapple
> 2 Stunt Cycle
>
> After your suggestions:
>
> Combat (56 cards)
> 9 Trap
> 8 Fake Out
> 9 Increased Strength
> 21 Thrown Gate
> 3 Mighty Grapple
> 2 Stunt Cycle
> 1 Chiram's Hold
> 3 Taste of Vitae
>
> Basically, this deck wants to bleed forward and, if blocked, throw down
> a trap and then play a bunch of Thrown Gates. Can we agree on that
> much?

Well, it also has, like, 11 Rush cards and 4 Haven Uncovereds, but ya know,
whatever.

> So, following your advice, he now has 15 extra cards, only one of
> which is a Thrown Gate, and only one of which is a Trap.

Keep in mind that my original suggestion for 15 added cards was:

2 more Haven Uncovered
1 Dreams of the Sphinx or something to cycle cards
3 more Fake Out
5 Thrown Sewer Lids
4 Taste of Vitae

Which results in 5 extra Presses, making the dilution of Traps mostly
irrelevant. And the dilution of Gates is minimized by the increase in
manuvers and Lids as other strikes.

> Are you trying
> to tell me that his odds of having a Trap have not gone down?

In the deck as presented, yes. But the difference is mostly insignificant.

> But this hand waving away of any negative effects
> whatsoever is ridiculous.

I'm not arguing that there aren't negative effects. I have repeatedly said
that the negative effects are insignificant. Not that they aren't there.

> First of all, we are bouncing back and forth between talking about this
> deck right here, and all weenie decks.

You might be (as you have a tendancy to take a specific argument and
extrapolate it to cover all generalities in the middle of the discussion
when no one else is...), but I'm not. I talking about this deck right here.
Ok. I'm extrapolating to "weenie pot Rush decks without Immortal Grapple
anti S:CE tech", but that is a pretty minimal extrapolation.

> You may want to say "no, I just
> mean weenie fighting decks" but really, all weenie decks are high card
> flow.

No they aren't. Certainly not this high card flow. I have plenty of
successful Weenie decks that use 1-2 cards per action. This deck, and
similar decks use, like, 6 cards per action. Big, big difference.

> You've got bleed, majesty, lucky blows, add'l strikes, concealed
> guns, change of targets.... whatever. They all do something with their
> library, and they all take 4+ actions per turn. It's the same damn thing.

Decks that do the same damn thing are decks that do the same damn thing. And
decks that do the same damn thing want to play at 90 cards. Decks that don't
do the same damn thing don't necessarily want to play at 90 cards.

> However, let's say we are just talking about this particular deck. In
> fact, he's added *one* of each.

He didn't do what I would have done. So don't use what he did as fuel
against my argument, as it isn't that relevant. He also could have just
added 15 Gird Minions. That wouldn't be particularly valid either. What he
did do isn't that far off from what I suggested, and probably isn't going to
work badly at all. But it isn't what I would have done.

> You say "combinational math", I say "not getting your ass creamed
> because you didn't have a Gate". The *only* advantage of being at 90 is
> as a warm, fuzzy wooby against the terror of running out of cards.

Well, no. It is also having more of what he needs. Even at 75 cards, with 20
Gates, you can run out before you run out of cards. At 90 cards with, say,
24 Gates, or whatever, you run out less often. Even if you don't run out of
cards. And at 90 cards you have more room for freely flowing cards that
increase the effectiveness of the deck overall without taking out anything
important (if we took the original 75 card deck and simply added 4 Taste and
1 Dreams, the deck *still* would be better).

> You keep citing this. It got demolished, since he added one copy of the
> two cards that really count. Is your argument based on anything else?
> Besides which, as long as card A is required for card B, and card B for
> card C, simply upping A, B, and C across the board still makes clumping
> (variance) a problem. This is my main point, which you still don't seem
> to get.

No no. I understand your point perfectly. I just don't think it is
particularly relevant in this specific situation.

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

"How does this end?"
"In fire."
Emperor Turhan and Kosh
March 16, 2005 8:35:49 PM

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

> I liked the numbers in his first deck. He had 11 rush actions, 22
> ranged strikes, and enough increased strength such that assuming two
> strikes per combat doesn't seem far off.

I'm going to give it a whril at 75 cards tonight, and then rebuild it
for 90 cards to give it a whirl next week.

I'm a fan of 75 card decks. I actually think my deckbuilding has
improved since switching to 75 cards as the standard for all my decks,
and my playing skills have improved as well. It makes you think more
about the numbers, which is all important. I know my 75 card Anneke
Alastor/Anarch Revolt deck won 2 out of 4 games last week, and got 1 VP
in one of the games, and only failed to achieve any VP the first time I
played it.

Saying that, I haven't written off 90 card decks at all, and am in the
process of building a 90 card Mitru multi-rush deck atm. Just need
more Freak Drives - I only own 5 :( 

--> J
Anonymous
March 16, 2005 9:03:38 PM

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

Hey question:

Is there any reason that a "weenie potence deck" shouldn't or wouldn't
automatically include waste management operation and the !brujah to make
it go? Just curious. That would be an argument for the 75 card thing
versus the 90 card thing.

Ankur
Anonymous
March 16, 2005 9:07:41 PM

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

David Cherryholmes wrote:
> Peter D Bakija wrote:
>
> > From playing decks like this a lot. With 90 cards, they run out. A
lot. Have
> > I played them at 75? No. 'Cause when I play them at 90, they
regularly run
> > out of cards. Right now I'm playing a deck that is remarkably
similar (lots
> > of weenie pot vampires, lots of Haven Uncovered, lots of Gates,
etc) at 90
> > cards, and it regularly runs out of cards before it gets its first
VP, let
> > alone by the end of the game. Is it a really good deck? No, 'cause
it often
> > runs out of cards before it even gets a single VP. But it is an ok
deck. And
> > remarakbly similar.
>
> OK then, if you are saying that actually happens a lot, then I
consider
> that to be a strong argument. I still see what I see, which is
weenie
> decks ending the game with a lot of cards left in their library, but
> I'll pay more attention to it in the future.
>
Well, I've been gone from the forums for a while, but I seem to
remember Peter Bakija being the grandmaster of weenie Potence decks.
Regardless of weenie or not, combat decks tend to have more problems
with running out of cards than most other decks. A weenie vote or a
weenie hack deck may often end the game with extra cards in their
library. Weenie rush decks, when they are not ousted early, tend to
run out of cards, even with 90 card libraries. Even with
IG/hands-for-a-lot decks, which are a lot more reliable as far as
torporing opposing minions when they get their combo in hand, combat
decks tend to go through a lot of cards. With Gate/Frisbee/Bat decks,
especially the variety that only hit for 1 damage per card used, you
often run into the problem of burning through 10% of your deck in a
single combat, and sometimes you do that and are still thwarted by
S:CE, dodges, prevention, or presses to end.
March 16, 2005 9:17:45 PM

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

> I don't think there's really a need to "prove" the 90-card version or
> not.

It's not a matter of proving one version or the other, simply a matter
of seeing which works better for me.

> Whatever. This seems like an issue that doesn't have to be
> argued about. Try it and tune to taste...

Exactly what I intend to do.

> I agree with your more generalized comments about 75 card decks,
> by the way. In fact, if I can get away with it, I'll even cut
> down more than that. For a "gadget deck" with many moving parts
> that doesn't need lots of cards, a 60-card deck is almost mandatory.

Yup. I've found that from switching from 90 to 75 I've stopped playing
cards simply for the hell of it. Now, I'll play cards when I think I
need to. There'll probably be quite a few times when I simply strike
hands for 1 with this deck and am happy with that. Or throw a single
gate and be done with it.

I'm also not a fan of discarding unless absolutely important. I'd
rather have the right cards at the right time, all the time.

Of course, again, I've played junk decks before, but always with CEL,
this is going to be a bit different, and so I want to check out both
the 75 and 90 card version and see which feels and responds better.

--> J
Anonymous
March 16, 2005 10:03:52 PM

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

"J" <grail_j@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1111023349.164744.286790@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> I'm going to give it a whril at 75 cards tonight, and then rebuild it
> for 90 cards to give it a whirl next week.

I don't think there's really a need to "prove" the 90-card version or
not. The issue looks to me like it boils down to something real
simple: will the 75 card version run out a great deal of the time -
thus causing you to lose for lack of cards - or does it seem to
do just fine the vast majority of the time. If Peter's right, the
former should be true and you'd better switch to 90. If David's
right, sticking with 75 cards makes sense. (Maybe the answer is
somewhere in the middle and you'll find that raising it to, say,
84 will do without going clear to 90.)

Whatever. This seems like an issue that doesn't have to be
argued about. Try it and tune to taste...

I agree with your more generalized comments about 75 card decks,
by the way. In fact, if I can get away with it, I'll even cut
down more than that. For a "gadget deck" with many moving parts
that doesn't need lots of cards, a 60-card deck is almost mandatory.

Fred
Anonymous
March 16, 2005 10:57:56 PM

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

Peter D Bakija wrote:

> The "always" part. What you seem to be having an issue with here is that I
> said "it will *always* be better to have 90 cards than 75 card with this
> deck". You seem to take issue with the idea that I leave zero room at all
> for situations where 75 cards will be better. Which, of course, I actually
> am leaving open. But as the situations where 75 cards would be better, in my
> mind, consists of, like, 1% of situations, I'm saying "always". 'Cause it is
> a hyberbolic exageration to make a point.

OK then. I have my doubts that 1% is an accurate assessment. I don't
expect us to come to agreement on this, but at least we can be clear
about what it is that we are disagreeing over.

> If I opened this discussion with "This deck is going to be much better in
> *most* situations with 90 cards instead of 75...", I suspect we would be
> having a different conversation.

Don't kid yourself. :) 

> From playing decks like this a lot. With 90 cards, they run out. A lot. Have
> I played them at 75? No. 'Cause when I play them at 90, they regularly run
> out of cards. Right now I'm playing a deck that is remarkably similar (lots
> of weenie pot vampires, lots of Haven Uncovered, lots of Gates, etc) at 90
> cards, and it regularly runs out of cards before it gets its first VP, let
> alone by the end of the game. Is it a really good deck? No, 'cause it often
> runs out of cards before it even gets a single VP. But it is an ok deck. And
> remarakbly similar.

OK then, if you are saying that actually happens a lot, then I consider
that to be a strong argument. I still see what I see, which is weenie
decks ending the game with a lot of cards left in their library, but
I'll pay more attention to it in the future.

> Decks like this take 4-5 actions per turn. A successful Rush action plays,
> what, 6-7 cards at a swoop (Rush, Trap, Increased, Gate, [extra
> manuver/press], Taste, Gate, etc). Unsuccessful ones play 3-4 cards (Rush,
> Trap, Increased, Gate, oops--they Majesty. Try again). Yeah, late in the
> game, you don't need as many cards as if you are doing well, you don't need
> to Rush anymore. But if you even need, like, to do this 10 times over the
> course of the game, that is 60-70 cards. Add in 13 or so Masters and some
> necessary discard, and you are running out of cards. Easily.

I liked the numbers in his first deck. He had 11 rush actions, 22
ranged strikes, and enough increased strength such that assuming two
strikes per combat doesn't seem far off. You're including extra
maneuvers and presses in the combo, which you must be doing to get it up
to 6 or 7, seems inaccurate. Maybe you'll need them sometimes, but far
from every time. Maybe 11 rushes seems too low to you, but he's more
likely to draw them on time. Also, I run quite a bit of bruise and
bleed where my rushes are in the 8 - 12 range and it feels like a
sufficient number. Bleeding forward with 4+ guys who can bruise and
rushing backwards as needed, as the original deck seemed perfectly
capable of doing, is a valid strategy. So's planning to generate a
combat with every minion action, but that's a different deck (and what
you were pushing him more towards).

> Well, it also has, like, 11 Rush cards and 4 Haven Uncovereds, but ya know,
> whatever.

9 Rushes and 2 Havens, actually. 15 vs 11 seems significant enough to
warrant correcting.

> I'm not arguing that there aren't negative effects. I have repeatedly said
> that the negative effects are insignificant. Not that they aren't there.

OK, then we are left with my saying "it is too significant" and you
saying "nu-uh". We should probably drop it (feel free to reply if you
like, though).

> You might be (as you have a tendancy to take a specific argument and
> extrapolate it to cover all generalities in the middle of the discussion
> when no one else is...), but I'm not.

Yeah, I do have a tendency to do that. It's because I'm more interested
in getting at general truths than patching up this or that deck. Each
deck is a particular instance of a larger class of deck, and that's
usually where I've got my eye.

> I talking about this deck right here.
> Ok. I'm extrapolating to "weenie pot Rush decks without Immortal Grapple
> anti S:CE tech", but that is a pretty minimal extrapolation.

Or weenie fortitude, or weenie guns, or 1 cap lucky blow-pulled fangs,
or even weenie obfuscate, which may run bleed action and several stealth
modifiers per minion. If the # of cards are in the 3 - 5 range per
action, as most actions in most weenie decks will be, there isn't a
difference in card demand or flow.

> No they aren't. Certainly not this high card flow. I have plenty of
> successful Weenie decks that use 1-2 cards per action. This deck, and
> similar decks use, like, 6 cards per action. Big, big difference.

Give me some examples of this. One to two cards per action? Including
the action itself (like you did with J's deck)? And you have plenty of
them?

And as I pointed out above, your estimate of 6 cards per action is off.
I was wondering where I'd tuck this in, and here looks like as good a
time as any: I don't think he really needs Tastes. Not that they
wouldn't be nice, and sometimes handy, but his need for pool gain is
minimal. He's playing weenies and he isn't spending much, nor is he
forced to over commit his pool early, nor are his minions likely to take
damage like a close range deck's would. More pool is always nice, but a
Taste or a Blood Doll when what you want is a strike or a press can be a
problem, and one his original deck is not likely to contend with.


> Decks that do the same damn thing are decks that do the same damn thing. And
> decks that do the same damn thing want to play at 90 cards. Decks that don't
> do the same damn thing don't necessarily want to play at 90 cards.

I meant the same thing in the sense of playing 3 - 5 cards per action,
including the action. Anyway, there are certainly some weenie decks
that don't, but I'd say most do. When you provide me with some of your
plentiful examples, I'll be happy to recant that.

> He didn't do what I would have done. So don't use what he did as fuel
> against my argument, as it isn't that relevant. He also could have just
> added 15 Gird Minions. That wouldn't be particularly valid either. What he
> did do isn't that far off from what I suggested, and probably isn't going to
> work badly at all. But it isn't what I would have done.

OK, fair enough.

> Well, no. It is also having more of what he needs. Even at 75 cards, with 20
> Gates, you can run out before you run out of cards. At 90 cards with, say,
> 24 Gates, or whatever, you run out less often. Even if you don't run out of
> cards. And at 90 cards you have more room for freely flowing cards that
> increase the effectiveness of the deck overall without taking out anything
> important (if we took the original 75 card deck and simply added 4 Taste and
> 1 Dreams, the deck *still* would be better).

I'd probably agree with that. Of course, that's just an 80 card deck.
You think it would be better still at 90.

--

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
March 17, 2005 12:04:07 AM

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

Ankur Gupta wrote:

> Is there any reason that a "weenie potence deck" shouldn't or wouldn't
> automatically include waste management operation and the !brujah to make
> it go? Just curious. That would be an argument for the 75 card thing
> versus the 90 card thing.

It is certainly a possibility. But unless you have some way to shuffle your
deck (like the Waste Management Operation/Al's Army Apparatus angle), mostly
you are just hoping to run out of cards to get to the good ones you sent to
the bottom. Really, you are probably just better off with the 90. In a 90
card deck, however, having the WMO means you have that many extra cards to
work with.


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

"How does this end?"
"In fire."
Emperor Turhan and Kosh
Anonymous
March 17, 2005 12:27:15 AM

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

David Cherryholmes wrote:

> I liked the numbers in his first deck. He had 11 rush actions, 22
> ranged strikes, and enough increased strength such that assuming two
> strikes per combat doesn't seem far off. You're including extra
> maneuvers and presses in the combo, which you must be doing to get it up
> to 6 or 7, seems inaccurate.

I'm figuring:

1 Rush (1)
1 Trap (2)
1 Increased (3)
1 Gate (4)
1 more Gate (5)

At a bare minimum of a good killing action. Add in an extra manuver or a
press (maybe they have a manuver. Maybe they have a press to end) or a
Taste, and you are at 6. Add in both, and you are at 7.

> 9 Rushes and 2 Havens, actually. 15 vs 11 seems significant enough to
> warrant correcting.

The original 75 card deck had 9 Rush/2 Haven. The 90 card version had 11/4.
I'd sooner go with the 17% (90 card version) over the 15% (75 card version)
myself.

> OK, then we are left with my saying "it is too significant" and you
> saying "nu-uh". We should probably drop it (feel free to reply if you
> like, though).

Nu-uh!

>Yeah, I do have a tendency to do that. It's because I'm more interested
>in getting at general truths than patching up this or that deck. Each
>deck is a particular instance of a larger class of deck, and that's
>usually where I've got my eye.

Sure, and reasonable, but it tends to make actual arguments spin wildly out
of control, as we both end up talking about two essentially different
things. But we already knew that :-)

> Or weenie fortitude, or weenie guns, or 1 cap lucky blow-pulled fangs,
> or even weenie obfuscate, which may run bleed action and several stealth
> modifiers per minion. If the # of cards are in the 3 - 5 range per
> action, as most actions in most weenie decks will be, there isn't a
> difference in card demand or flow.

I dunno--I find, like, weenie fortitude or weenie guns to use fewer cards
per action than weenie pot Gate kinda decks--the weenie fortitude tends to
have a different focus (but then I've never built a weenie fortitude rush
deck) and weenie guns can rely on permanents. But ya know, whatever.

> Give me some examples of this. One to two cards per action? Including
> the action itself (like you did with J's deck)? And you have plenty of
> them?

Sure. I won a tournament with a Cooler/Bloat deck. It uses, like, 1 or 2
cards an action--I equip with a Cooler. Maybe play a stealth card. I bleed
for 1 with a stealth card. I play Night Moves. I Computer Hack with maybe a
stealth card. Not a lot of cards per action--if thereis a lot of intercept
to run out, my first action in a given turn might use 4 cards, and then the
rest will use 1 or 2 each.

I have a pretty effective weenie fortitude deck--lots of pool gain from
Tributes and Taps, lots of bleeding for 1 and Restoration. Actions are,
like, Restore. Bleed for 1, play a few fortitude cards if I'm blocked. Equip
with a Lap Top. Sometimes it'll get in a fight and play 5 or 6 cards in a
stretch, but mostly it plays 1 or 2 cards per action.

Weenie Protean. 2 or 3 cards per action, lots of minions. Computer Hack. If
blocked, play Form of Mist or a stealth card. End of transaction.

A weenie presence/Cloak the Gathering deck. Go bleed with Social Charm. Tusk
or/and Agripina play Cloak. That is pretty much it per action.

All of them *can* play more card per action, but as designed, they play,
like, an average of 2 cards per action. If all goes well, that is all they
do and they do well. Conversely, the Rush deck in question here is designed
to play, like, 5 cards per action. Lots more cards fly.

> And as I pointed out above, your estimate of 6 cards per action is off.

Rush
Trap
Increased
Gate
Gate

That's 5. If you play Taste (not even a stretch, especially if you have
Blood Dolls), that's 6. If you need a second manuver or press, that's 6. If
you use both (not totally uncommon), that is 7.

> I was wondering where I'd tuck this in, and here looks like as good a
> time as any: I don't think he really needs Tastes. Not that they
> wouldn't be nice, and sometimes handy, but his need for pool gain is
> minimal.

Does he *need* Tastes? He could probably live without them. But having 4 or
5 or 6 will only help--they cycle freely, they gain you pool (which even if
he doesn't need the cushion, he can use more vampires, and Blood Doll/Taste
pays for that), and they help out when you face the not uncomon ranged
combat (Carrion Crows/Guns/whatever).

> I'd probably agree with that. Of course, that's just an 80 card deck.
> You think it would be better still at 90.

Sure. Take the exact same 75 card deck. Add 1 Dreams and 4 Tastes. It is an
80 card deck, and better than the 75 card version. Then add 2 Haven
Uncovered, 2 Rush, 3 Fake Out, 3 Lids. You have a 90 card deck that is even
better than the 80 card version.


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

"How does this end?"
"In fire."
Emperor Turhan and Kosh
Anonymous
March 17, 2005 7:40:57 AM

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

Daneel wrote:
>Having 4 tastes and 3 blood dolls is the last thing you want in your
> minion phase when you are being bled by powerbleed.

By that logic, you wouldn't want anything in the deck that aren't
Rushes and strikes. Why not take out *all* the master cards, just to
avoid this possibility? Ooh, and the Computer Hackings and the manuvers
and the equipment?

The deck already has Blood Dolls in it. Maybe, like, 2 out of 13 or 14
cards. You'd actually claim that this is a bad idea because you might
draw them instead of a Rush card? I mean, on a certain level, yeah,
that is true of any card that isn't a Rush or a strike. But on most
levels, this is just a silly assertion.

And 4 Tastes are, somehow, going to gum up the working of the deck? You
are far more likely to jam on Rush cards when you need strikes and be
unable to play them, or strike cards when you need a Rush card, than
you are on the 4 Tastes that play freely if your deck is doing anything
at all.

I mean, like, yeah, in a Rush deck, you want a minimum of masters to
avoid jamming, and the right number of Rush cards to avoid jamming, and
not too many non combat cards to avoid jamming. But your deck isn't
going to fall apart 'cause you have some masters and some Tastes in it.

-Peter
Anonymous
March 17, 2005 10:07:42 AM

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

Is jammin' such a bad thing? Not sure if Bob was a vtes player, but he
said ...

Ooh, yeah! All right!
We're jammin':
I wanna jam it wid you.
We're jammin', jammin',
And I hope you like jammin', too.

Ain't no rules, ain't no vow, we can do it anyhow:
I'n'I will see you through,
'Cos everyday we pay the price with a little sacrifice,
Jammin' till the jam is through.

We're jammin' -
To think that jammin' was a thing of the past;
We're jammin',
And I hope this jam is gonna last.

No bullet can stop us now, we neither beg nor we won't bow;
Neither can be bought nor sold.
We all defend the right; Jah - Jah children must unite:
Your life is worth much more than gold.

We're jammin' (jammin', jammin', jammin')
And we're jammin' in the name of the Lord;
We're jammin' (jammin', jammin', jammin'),
We're jammin' right straight from Yah.
Anonymous
March 17, 2005 12:06:41 PM

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

On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 21:27:15 -0500, Peter D Bakija <pdb6@lightlink.com>
wrote:

> Does he *need* Tastes? He could probably live without them. But having 4
> or
> 5 or 6 will only help--they cycle freely, they gain you pool (which even
> if
> he doesn't need the cushion, he can use more vampires, and Blood
> Doll/Taste
> pays for that), and they help out when you face the not uncomon ranged
> combat (Carrion Crows/Guns/whatever).

Having 4 tastes and 3 blood dolls is the last thing you want in your
minion phase when you are being bled by powerbleed. Or when bleeding
a close range potence deck. Or in any number of other occasions. Tastes
may cycle freely when you can easily get into combat and survive, but
there are times when this isn't currently the case, and they will jam
your hand.

--
Bye,

Daneel
Anonymous
March 17, 2005 12:42:37 PM

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

Robert wrote:
>My experience is that I can do well in big events by doing what
>everyone else is doing--but hopefully better--or I can go against the
>flow.

Either works well. What I keep finding is that I'm doing what everyone
else is doing, just slightly worse :-)

>In a low-combat environment you can build a bleed or vote deck and
just
>not worry about getting rushed. Alternatively, in this kind of
>environment you can also have your way with opponents by playing a
very
>focussed combat deck.

Precisely. My Rush decks tend to do well in environments where everyone
is playing "I can really get VPs!" kinda decks, like stock S+B and
power vote or whatever. When I run into folks who have, like, a dozen
Majesties or dodges as their combat defense, I kill like crazy. What I
heve run into a lot recently, however, is decks with a lot of light
combat hit back kinda stuff, or serious combat offense that would
doubtlessly do much worse in a different environment, but does a real
good job of killing me.

For instance, I have played a weenie POT/dom deck in two big
tournaments over the last year (Origins and NEQ), and in both events, I
ran into rediculous amounts of combat (at Origins, I sat at a table
with Count Germaine/Assault Rifle in, like, 3 games including the
finals, and next to Beast/Taco Bell POT/cel in two of them; at the NEQ,
I sat next to a Eurobrujah POT/CEL deck in two games and a long range
Carrion Crows/Aid from Bats deck in one) that is mostly unthinkable
historically, but currently seems to be the order of the day.
Apparently I was too successful at convincing folks that combat was
viable :-)

>But yeah, my combat experience seems to be the same as yours right
now.

Yeah, it is kind of crazy. Weenie combat does really well in a
traditional tournament environment, where folks play, like, focused
bleed and vote and have limited combat defense, just 'cause it slows
them down and they don't expect so see much combat (and the NAQ that I
won, I didn't see any significant combat all day--maybe a gun here or
there, but I never sat next to anyone who trumped me combat wise. Thus,
I won...); it does really badly when there are a lot of other, beefier
combat decks, or decks with a lot of casual combat (like Carrion
Crows/Bats or a handfull of Magnums and Flashes), but the beefier
combat decks tend to do much worse in a traditional environment. Ahh,
the vagaries of RPS...

-Peter
March 17, 2005 5:59:16 PM

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

Well, I played the 75 card version twice last night. I swept the first
game (Me bleeding Ahrimane Wall, bleeding Archon Trophy Hunters,
bleeding Samedi Wither/Compress Combat).

The second game went downhill when I had Lasombra Powerbleed on my
butt. First vamp he brought out was Potatohead, who immediately got a
Secure Haven. :(  That game had Me bleeding Samedi Wither/Compress
Combat, bleeding Baali bleed/bruise, bleeding Lasombra. It didn't help
that the Baali player played no rush, and so kept bleeding his prey in
a vain attempt at getting into combat. End result, I wore bleeds from
2 players and was ousted quickly.

Both games I had cards to spare. But I'm going to rebuild with a 90
card version and see how it goes next week.

--> J
Anonymous
March 17, 2005 11:19:00 PM

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

If you want weapons in your deck, consider Filchwares Pawn Shop, and
leaving it up to chance.

I quite like replacing a few reliable cards with double-or-nothing
cards, to make an otherwise repetative deck a bit more spicy.
Anonymous
March 18, 2005 5:05:44 AM

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

Haha I cant belive i had to read through 40 odd posts before anyone
comented on Uriah Winter being used in a deck... really has anyone
ever used him ?

Piers
Anonymous
March 18, 2005 8:46:18 AM

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

On 18 Mar 2005 02:05:44 -0800, MonsterGuy@gmail.com (Piers) wrote:

>Haha I cant belive i had to read through 40 odd posts before anyone
>comented on Uriah Winter being used in a deck... really has anyone
>ever used him ?

Yes.

Noal made extensive use of him.

http://www.thelasombra.com/decks/Noal.htm#uriahfinal

http://www.thelasombra.com/decks/Noal.htm#uriah







Carpe noctem.

Lasombra

http://www.TheLasombra.com
Your best online source for information about V:TES.
Now also featuring individual card sales and sales
of booster and starter box displays.
Anonymous
March 18, 2005 10:20:16 AM

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

Morgan wrote:
>Not sure if it's Tournament-worthy, but locally I've seen Uriah used
>in a Fame/dunk deck, for use against decks that can be too difficult
>to be taken down in combat themselves.

That is pretty funny. I don't know if it is necessarily particularly
effective due to the timing issues involved (i.e. you need to have Fame
in hand the turn Uriah defects as there is nothing saying he is going
to stay with your prey that long). But certainly funny.

-Peter
Anonymous
March 18, 2005 10:27:05 AM

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

Preston wrote:
>Master 12
Barrens
Elder Library
Dreams of the Sphinx
3xFame
1xHumanitas
2 Blood Dolls
>3 Haven Uncovered

Reasonable. I'd be inclined to replace the Elder Library with a second
Dreams. But that is me.


>Actions 9
8 Bums Rushs
>1 Rampage

Probably not enough Rush in a deck that really wants to fight with
folks. Kind of industry standard is, like, 12 Rush/4 Haven in a 90 card
deck. Not the absolute best im every situation, but it is a good place
to start, and then if you change the formula, have justification for
it.


>Action Modifier 15
8xSpying Mission
2xMask of 1000 Faces
>5xHidden Lurker

Probably too much Obfuscate--Hidden Lurker only works if you are
blocked, so rarely will work more than once. 8 Spying Mission is some
good bleed tech, but will likely gum up your hand a lot. Maybe go to 6?


>Combat 47
10 Mighty Grappels
5 Fake Outs
2 Fractured Armament
6 Swallowed by the Night
10 Thrown Gates
5 Thrown Sewer Lids
5 Well Aimed Cars
>4 Taste of Vitae

Not bad, but you probably want more strikes--more manuvers and Lids or
Increased and Gate. You'll have trouble with folks who can S:CE. But
that is always the way. And 5 Well Aimed Cars is jusrt asking to fail
(like failing to plan!)--if you want to keep some for grins, I'd go
with 2 (so if you get one early when your hand looks bad, you can ditch
it, and then save up to use the next one for comedy purposes...)

>Equipment/Retainers 7
Jackie Therman
J.S. Simmons Esquire
Tasha Morgan
Patagia
2xIR Goggles
>Catacombs

Probably more stuff to get than you want--the only way this sort of
deck stays alive (due to lack of intercept and untap) is by proactively
killing its predator and then killing its first prey really fast. If
you are spending half your actions getting stuff, you will probably be
dead before you get to use it.

-Peter
!