rock paper scissors and non interactive game play

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

Hi. just was alerted to this post on an AEG forum... check it out:

http://www.meatpatrol.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=580

How does this post apply to VTES? Does it apply to VTES?

I mean in a way, it seems this poster is right... VTES (thogh she was
referring to L5R...) seems to be more about WHAT you're playing at a
table (and where you're sitting) rather than HOW well you're playing
what you have!

Or not... just thoughts randomly passing through my brain that I'm
sharing for the world at large...

Comments? Flames? Huhs?
21 answers Last reply
More about rock paper scissors interactive game play
  1. Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

    IMHO, VTES does a pretty good job of avoiding these issues. Essentially
    you are there to kill your prey and avoid being killed in the process.
    There are four traditional methods of doing this: bleeding, voting,
    combat, or wall. Now all of the clans are not able to do each of the
    four effectively, but they are all able to interact on all four of
    these facets to a certain extent. In addition, VTES is an extremely
    easy game to mix and match on, such that if you want a vote/combat
    deck, you can easeily make it in a variety of different ways using a
    variety of different vamps and clans. You deck can be as focused or
    diffuse as you wish: I have one weenie dominate deck that does little
    but bleed, while I have another Gangrel Royalty deck that bleeds at
    stealth, Parity Shift Votes you, drops the occasional wolf claws on
    you, or just Form of Mist/Earth Meld/Boucnes its way to victory.

    Therefore, IMHO, VTES does not degenerate into Rock/Paper/Scissors at
    all and a player of any given strategy is allowed to make sublte
    changes to his deck composition to make adjustments to the metagame he
    is facing without fundamentally changing his deck around.
  2. Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

    Preston wrote:
    > IMHO, VTES does a pretty good job of avoiding these issues.
    Essentially
    > you are there to kill your prey and avoid being killed in the
    process.
    > There are four traditional methods of doing this: bleeding, voting,
    > combat, or wall. Now all of the clans are not able to do each of the
    > four effectively, but they are all able to interact on all four of
    > these facets to a certain extent. In addition, VTES is an extremely
    > easy game to mix and match on, such that if you want a vote/combat
    > deck, you can easeily make it in a variety of different ways using a
    > variety of different vamps and clans. You deck can be as focused or
    > diffuse as you wish: I have one weenie dominate deck that does little
    > but bleed, while I have another Gangrel Royalty deck that bleeds at
    > stealth, Parity Shift Votes you, drops the occasional wolf claws on
    > you, or just Form of Mist/Earth Meld/Boucnes its way to victory.
    >
    > Therefore, IMHO, VTES does not degenerate into Rock/Paper/Scissors at
    > all and a player of any given strategy is allowed to make sublte
    > changes to his deck composition to make adjustments to the metagame
    he
    > is facing without fundamentally changing his deck around.


    There is, however, Harbingers deck grinding, which can be very
    difficult to defend against and almost guarantees that its prey will
    not win the game. Rock, paper nor scissors will help you out in this
    situation. You've got to use all your resources to try and oust your
    prey(s) as fast as you can or go upstream and oust them (maiming isn't
    good enough if they still have Slaughterhouses in play). Either way,
    your chances of winning the table are significantly lowered no matter
    how good a deck you have and/or how well you play it.


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

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    Hash: SHA1

    Screaming Vermillian wrote:
    | Hi. just was alerted to this post on an AEG forum... check it out:
    |
    | http://www.meatpatrol.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=580
    |
    | How does this post apply to VTES? Does it apply to VTES?
    |
    | I mean in a way, it seems this poster is right... VTES (thogh she was
    | referring to L5R...) seems to be more about WHAT you're playing at a
    | table (and where you're sitting) rather than HOW well you're playing
    | what you have!

    Not true. I did not intend to play in the Lafayette qualifier, and I
    played a 76-card deck randomly thrown together with a crypt from another
    deck, and I finished 6th out of 20.

    I picked a "strong" archetype, weenie OBF -- but with some twists and of
    course a non-optimal crypt and library. My seating was near the worst
    possible each round:

    Round 1: Predator OBF/AUS/dom, turn 2 Ozmo comes out, turn 3 Ozmo gets
    a Secure Haven and a Pulse. Gilbert is next and gets his Pulse on his
    first action as well. I almost oust my first prey anyway, but on the
    free turn I was expecting to have my grandpredator's stealth bleed
    chokes and can't bleed for 6 even though he has 5 standing on the table.
    ~ I get bled for 12 and ousted; if I get my free turn, I have 18 pool and
    an easy sweep set up.

    Round 2: Prey is ANI Raven Spy wall, with some Black Hand and location
    toys. I get him anyway after a long, long time, as well as my next
    prey. No GW though, pesky predator.

    Round 3: Prey is Ahrimanes wall, the eventual tourney winner. I
    eventually get him and my next prey 5 minutes before timeout to pick up
    the GW with 2.5 VP.

    Also note: No Dominate in my deck or other form of bleed bounce.

    Sometimes you are just screwed, but that happens far more rarely than
    people believe. I know people who would've given up as soon as they saw
    Ozmo get the "perfect opening hand" behind them; I hung in there and had
    more than a respectable chance to win that game.

    Most people would just rather not admit that they misplayed their deck
    and made poor decisions and guesses; instead, they'd prefer to blame the
    seating. Fine by me; more VP coming my way.


    - --
    Derek

    insert clever quotation here

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (MingW32)

    iD8DBQFCb+uHtQZlu3o7QpERAg/GAKCefY4epHjzk50UFrVnwOM5JS7NtACfZBtY
    dpvq2t7lyzvL7VTZoU6MQec=
    =wssc
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
  4. Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

    IMHO, most people build decks that are rather slow to develop. This
    suits VTES because typically the first major player to establish
    himself as a threat is at a disadvantage, but it does mean that a fast
    and focused deck will virtually always earn 1 VP before running afoul
    of the table.

    Given that dynamic, I feel that the Harbingers deck grinding which will
    at least caused problems for its pray and may oust it, but is limited
    in who else it can oust does seem a real problem. Sure, its hard to
    defense against and means that if they are your predator you can most
    likely only earn 1VP at most, but that's not nearly as bad as a speed
    deck ousting you entirely.
  5. Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

    "Screaming Vermillian" <vermillian69@yahoo.com> wrote in message
    news:1114621334.175332.158660@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
    > Hi. just was alerted to this post on an AEG forum... check it out:
    >
    > http://www.meatpatrol.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=580
    >
    > How does this post apply to VTES? Does it apply to VTES?
    >
    > I mean in a way, it seems this poster is right... VTES (thogh she was
    > referring to L5R...) seems to be more about WHAT you're playing at a
    > table (and where you're sitting) rather than HOW well you're playing
    > what you have!
    >
    If that were true, then WHO you are playing would be irrelevant. More often
    than not, I find the quesiton of "Who am I Playing" to be the most important
    one. The better you know them, and the game they're choosing to play. The
    consistency of the highest ranked players in maintaining that status is
    another indication that skill (HOW) is at least as important as deck (WHAT).

    See also, Leggie's treatise on making mistakes (the second time in a week
    that artilce is relevant, Leggie!), in the Oct. '04 edition of the !Gangrel
    newsletter.

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

    Derek Ray wrote:
    > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    > Hash: SHA1
    > Not true. I did not intend to play in the Lafayette qualifier, and I
    > played a 76-card deck randomly thrown together with a crypt from
    another
    > deck, and I finished 6th out of 20.

    Congrats, though poopy that that tournament had such a small turn
    out... about a quarter of them were from my home state then, probably!
    :) (OH. IO. poo
    )
    > I picked a "strong" archetype, weenie OBF -- but with some twists and
    of
    > course a non-optimal crypt and library.

    Oddl enough I'd call that a non interactive archetype. I mean, that's
    what OBF does... it doesn't want to interact. Well, ok, most obf
    archetypes don't want to interact.

    > My seating was near the worst
    > possible each round:
    >
    > Round 1: Predator OBF/AUS/dom, turn 2 Ozmo comes out, turn 3 Ozmo
    gets
    > a Secure Haven and a Pulse. Gilbert is next and gets his Pulse on
    his
    > first action as well. I almost oust my first prey anyway, but on the
    > free turn I was expecting to have my grandpredator's stealth bleed
    > chokes and can't bleed for 6 even though he has 5 standing on the
    table.
    > ~ I get bled for 12 and ousted; if I get my free turn, I have 18 pool
    and
    > an easy sweep set up.

    Poop. Did you interact with your pred? Didn't seem like you really
    could. Your rock got papered.

    > Round 2: Prey is ANI Raven Spy wall, with some Black Hand and
    location
    > toys. I get him anyway after a long, long time, as well as my next
    > prey. No GW though, pesky predator.

    There's the answer to resisting non-interaction. Interact with
    reactions.

    > Round 3: Prey is Ahrimanes wall, the eventual tourney winner. I
    > eventually get him and my next prey 5 minutes before timeout to pick
    up
    > the GW with 2.5 VP.

    Wait... didn't Jay Kristoff win that day? That Ahrimines deck was his
    brother, Will, who was the last one ousted at the finals, right?
    NEhow...

    > Also note: No Dominate in my deck or other form of bleed bounce.

    Oh man. Thats why you loose. j/k (or am I?)

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

    David Zopf wrote:
    > "Screaming Vermillian" <vermillian69@yahoo.com> wrote in message
    > news:1114621334.175332.158660@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
    > > Hi. just was alerted to this post on an AEG forum... check it out:
    > >
    > > http://www.meatpatrol.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=580
    > >
    > > How does this post apply to VTES? Does it apply to VTES?
    > >
    > > I mean in a way, it seems this poster is right... VTES (thogh she
    was
    > > referring to L5R...) seems to be more about WHAT you're playing at
    a
    > > table (and where you're sitting) rather than HOW well you're
    playing
    > > what you have!
    > >
    > If that were true, then WHO you are playing would be irrelevant.
    More often
    > than not, I find the quesiton of "Who am I Playing" to be the most
    important
    > one. The better you know them, and the game they're choosing to
    play. The
    > consistency of the highest ranked players in maintaining that status
    is
    > another indication that skill (HOW) is at least as important as deck
    (WHAT).
    >
    > See also, Leggie's treatise on making mistakes (the second time in a
    week
    > that artilce is relevant, Leggie!), in the Oct. '04 edition of the
    !Gangrel
    > newsletter.

    Um... hmm... ok... who I'm playing is important. But lets say that's
    fixed. Now its just a matter of what I'm playing. If there's an even
    chance, and we're both playing what the AEG poster refered to as
    military lion something... whatever. Say we're both playing combat or
    something... then now its a matter of HOW WELL I'm playing. But if its
    a set up of archetypes that typically can't beat one another, then its
    just a matter of how many cards I have in my deck that MIGHT be able to
    give me an advantage on that deck type... Like the AEG poster was
    referring to about having different types of cards to confront each
    type of deck... what we call tollboxing... meh...

    ANyhow. OK. I'll read Leggies Oct 04 !gan newsie.

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

    On 27 Apr 2005 13:00:31 -0700, Robert Scythe <roberts@exploretalent.com>
    wrote:

    > There is, however, Harbingers deck grinding, which can be very
    > difficult to defend against and almost guarantees that its prey will
    > not win the game. Rock, paper nor scissors will help you out in this
    > situation. You've got to use all your resources to try and oust your
    > prey(s) as fast as you can or go upstream and oust them (maiming isn't
    > good enough if they still have Slaughterhouses in play). Either way,
    > your chances of winning the table are significantly lowered no matter
    > how good a deck you have and/or how well you play it.

    I've found that when I'm playing a good deck I don't often mind a
    milling predator (that is, one who destroys my library but does
    little else to harm my game).

    If the miller starts with a Slaughterhouse on turn 3 and plays one every
    turn until the 10th, I lose 72 cards in 10 turns. Likely, I will get
    decked around the 9th turn. If I optimize my deck to last 12 rounds
    (with probably some option for a more lengthy endgame in the form of
    permanents or reusable vampire specials), I end up 3 rounds short, but
    with basically no predator (because until I'm decked, my lost cards
    could well be at the bottom of my library). Once I get decked, the tune
    suddenly changes; though I find an inevitable doom and no predator to
    be preferable in many cases. It's a fair trade: my predator gives me a
    free ride at VPs for a period of time, after which he collects my VP
    with an almost inevitable certainty. Much better then getting (D)
    rushed to pieces by a combat deck predator and then getting ousted by an
    opportunistic grand-predator...

    --
    Bye,

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

    On 27 Apr 2005 20:54:00 -0700, "Screaming Vermillian"
    <vermillian69@yahoo.com> wrote:

    >Wait... didn't Jay Kristoff win that day? That Ahrimines deck was his
    >brother, Will, who was the last one ousted at the finals, right?
    >NEhow...

    The South Central Qualifier was in Lafayette, Louisiana. (Chad
    Brinkley)

    The Great Lakes Qualifier was in Lafayette, Indiana. (Jay Kristoff)


    We were hoping to have the South East Qualifier in a Lafayette, but no
    more were available, so we will hold it in Atlanta, Georgia.


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

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    Hash: SHA1

    Screaming Vermillian wrote:
    | Derek Ray wrote:
    |
    |>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    |>Hash: SHA1
    |>Not true. I did not intend to play in the Lafayette qualifier, and I
    |>played a 76-card deck randomly thrown together with a crypt from
    | another deck, and I finished 6th out of 20.
    |
    | Congrats, though poopy that that tournament had such a small turn
    | out... about a quarter of them were from my home state then, probably!

    20 isn't especially small in the land of 70-degree March. It's hard to
    get people to show up when sunshine's around.

    |>I picked a "strong" archetype, weenie OBF -- but with some twists and
    | of course a non-optimal crypt and library.
    |
    | Oddl enough I'd call that a non interactive archetype. I mean, that's
    | what OBF does... it doesn't want to interact. Well, ok, most obf
    | archetypes don't want to interact.

    Correct. Most. This one packed Walking Sticks, some Dodges, and Fake
    Outs. It would have done better to throw out all the Dodges and replace
    them with Lucky Blows, because people tend to get very careless about
    blocking what looks at first glance like stock weenie Obfuscate.

    |>My seating was near the worst
    |>possible each round:
    |>
    |>Round 1: Predator OBF/AUS/dom, turn 2 Ozmo comes out, turn 3 Ozmo
    | gets a Secure Haven and a Pulse. Gilbert is next and gets his Pulse on
    | his
    |>first action as well. I almost oust my first prey anyway, but on the
    |>free turn I was expecting to have my grandpredator's stealth bleed
    |>chokes and can't bleed for 6 even though he has 5 standing on the
    | table.
    |>~ I get bled for 12 and ousted; if I get my free turn, I have 18 pool
    | and an easy sweep set up.
    |
    | Poop. Did you interact with your pred? Didn't seem like you really
    | could. Your rock got papered.

    I interacted with my predator exactly as much as was appropriate for
    what was obviously a heavy-stealth deck; I NEVER attempted to block, and
    I altered my pool expenditure and gain tactics appropriately.

    Interpreting the performance in this round as "my rock got papered" is
    silly; not many people could have managed to get within 1 pool of a VP
    in front of such a deck, and it took quite a bit of doing to engineer
    it, such as allowing my prey to block me in order to move combat cards
    out of my hand.

    |>Round 2: Prey is ANI Raven Spy wall, with some Black Hand and
    | location
    |>toys. I get him anyway after a long, long time, as well as my next
    |>prey. No GW though, pesky predator.
    |
    | There's the answer to resisting non-interaction. Interact with
    | reactions.

    Sound bites don't really mean much. Is there a point?

    My point remains: It isn't just rock, paper, scissors. This deck is
    "paper" to my "rock", for many people; however, by altering my gameplay
    carefully to attack his untap instead of his intercept, as well as
    allowing myself to interact far more often with his minions than he was
    expecting, I was able to overcome this instance of worst possible
    seating and gain 2VP. This demonstrates quite well that there is, in
    fact, a great deal of play skill involved, as opposed to "where you
    sit". If I had played it in the typical fashion (try to stealth past
    everything), all my minions would have been torporized and I would have
    been ousted early on.

    |>Round 3: Prey is Ahrimanes wall, the eventual tourney winner. I
    |>eventually get him and my next prey 5 minutes before timeout to pick
    | up the GW with 2.5 VP.

    Jeff has already pointed out that this was the Lafayette, LA tournament.

    See above for similar explanation of "it ain't just where you sit".
    This particular Ahrimanes deck equipped with a Raven Spy on turn 2, and
    then Muricia's Called up another one on turn 3 for standing +2
    intercept. With this in front of you, it's not quite as easy as just
    throwing 3 stealth cards out per turn.

    |>Also note: No Dominate in my deck or other form of bleed bounce.
    |
    | Oh man. Thats why you loose. j/k (or am I?)

    It's this sort of single-minded, sound-bite-oriented focus that holds
    you back from properly understanding the game. Trying to include
    Dominate in this deck would not have improved it any; instead, it would
    actually have harmed it since I would've had to increase the crypt size
    and use over-expensive, less-disposable vampires. Properly working out
    the ratios and building this deck, instead of throwing together a bunch
    of someone else's cards 15 minutes before the tourney start, would
    surely have been the difference between 6th place and a seat in the
    finals... where this deck is particularly geared to "getting a good start".

    The Malk deck above, by the way, which is particularly non-interactive
    (Secure Haven, no combat cards that I saw)... didn't make the finals.
    Non-interactive decks look good on paper, but tend to lose with _no_
    hope when they don't get a good seating position. So yes, you can
    CHOOSE to make your game rock, scissors, paper if you like -- but it is
    a weaker style of play, and as such will yield weaker results.

    - --
    Derek

    insert clever quotation here

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (MingW32)

    iD8DBQFCcGcntQZlu3o7QpERAu2fAJ9s/Rj4MGu6YJcfv+OZaLTljT3WbgCg7y3y
    YNZEtY9xMPNYsf7PVevwMy8=
    =0FUA
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
  11. Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

    Screaming Vermillian wrote:
    > I mean in a way, it seems this poster is right... VTES (thogh she was
    > referring to L5R...) seems to be more about WHAT you're playing at a
    > table (and where you're sitting) rather than HOW well you're playing
    > what you have!
    >
    > Or not... just thoughts randomly passing through my brain that I'm
    > sharing for the world at large...
    >
    > Comments? Flames? Huhs?

    On one hand, we all have the same goal in The Eternal Struggle; to
    reduce your prey (well 2 or more of them) to 0 pool. So, we all have
    to interact with each other on that basis. Let us forget about
    Brinksmanship for now, as I don't see such a deck getting more than one
    VP on a regular basis. On the other hand, I am a fan of claiming that
    where you sit can be more important than your deck and your skill. I
    do recognize that this factor can be mitigated by the flexibility of
    your deck and your abiliy to talk the table. I guess I often play
    focused decks that can be victimized by the right kind of trump and
    rarely try to win the table with my voice.
  12. Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

    Screaming Vermillian wrote:
    > Derek Ray wrote:
    > > I picked a "strong" archetype, weenie OBF ....
    >
    > Oddl enough I'd call that a non interactive archetype. I mean, that's
    > what OBF does... it doesn't want to interact. Well, ok, most obf
    > archetypes don't want to interact.

    So an "interactive" deck is one that wants to get into combat? There's
    another name for that kind of deck: a combat deck.

    All well-designed V:tES decks are interactive. They want to interact
    with their prey's pool, or in some cases with their library.

    The folks who are using "non-interactive" as a derogatory term for
    decks they don't like appear to be defining it as "a deck I can't
    figure out how to beat with my current deck".

    When you're seated next to the rock to your scissors, remember that
    sometimes scissors beats rock in this game. Any deck can sputter out
    and fail. Reason out what circumstances are most likely to cause that
    trump deck to fail against you, then play your game to create those
    circumstances. You won't win all the time, but you can certainly better
    your odds.
  13. Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

    In message <2qn0715e1qap4bhpkdk67aubgsdn1mc9a2@4ax.com>, The Lasombra
    <TheLasombra@hotmail.com> writes:
    >We were hoping to have the South East Qualifier in a Lafayette, but no
    >more were available, so we will hold it in Atlanta, Georgia.

    Campaign with your local senators and congressmen to have another
    Lafayette created. Turn V:EKN into a political weapon, and not just a
    vehicle for card games!

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

    "James Coupe" <james@zephyr.org.uk> wrote in message
    news:6x9ks67Z1JcCFwnc@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk...
    > In message <2qn0715e1qap4bhpkdk67aubgsdn1mc9a2@4ax.com>, The Lasombra
    > <TheLasombra@hotmail.com> writes:
    >>We were hoping to have the South East Qualifier in a Lafayette, but no
    >>more were available, so we will hold it in Atlanta, Georgia.
    >
    > Campaign with your local senators and congressmen to have another
    > Lafayette created. Turn V:EKN into a political weapon, and not just a
    > vehicle for card games!

    This is *CULT* game!


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

    DJ Feng Shui wrote:
    > Screaming Vermillian wrote:
    > > I mean in a way, it seems this poster is right... VTES (thogh she
    was
    > > referring to L5R...) seems to be more about WHAT you're playing at
    a
    > > table (and where you're sitting) rather than HOW well you're
    playing
    > > what you have!
    > >
    > > Or not... just thoughts randomly passing through my brain that I'm
    > > sharing for the world at large...
    > >
    > > Comments? Flames? Huhs?
    >
    > On one hand, we all have the same goal in The Eternal Struggle; to
    > reduce your prey (well 2 or more of them) to 0 pool. So, we all have
    > to interact with each other on that basis. Let us forget about
    > Brinksmanship for now, as I don't see such a deck getting more than
    one
    > VP on a regular basis. On the other hand, I am a fan of claiming
    that
    > where you sit can be more important than your deck and your skill.

    Me too. It can be in situations. I wonder wha the percent of situations
    in which this is the case?

    > I
    > do recognize that this factor can be mitigated by the flexibility of
    > your deck and your abiliy to talk the table. I guess I often play
    > focused decks that can be victimized by the right kind of trump and
    > rarely try to win the table with my voice.

    So HOW YOU PLAY also includes HOW YOU BITCH... right. :)
  16. Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

    Emmit Svenson wrote:
    > Screaming Vermillian wrote:
    >>Oddl enough I'd call that a non interactive archetype. I mean, that's
    >>what OBF does... it doesn't want to interact. Well, ok, most obf
    >>archetypes don't want to interact.
    >
    > So an "interactive" deck is one that wants to get into combat? There's
    > another name for that kind of deck: a combat deck.
    >
    > All well-designed V:tES decks are interactive. They want to interact
    > with their prey's pool, or in some cases with their library.
    >
    > The folks who are using "non-interactive" as a derogatory term for
    > decks they don't like appear to be defining it as "a deck I can't
    > figure out how to beat with my current deck".

    I think that perhaps the issue with the originally-cited message
    is one of definitions as well.

    "Good players with good decks should be able to win regardless
    of the opposition" sort of defines what a good player and a good
    deck are, rather than setting some sort of measure for an
    acceptably-developed game.

    e.g., if a toolbox deck is the only type that can *theoretically*
    have a *reasonable* chance of winning regardless of the opposition,
    then the statement above basically makes "good" decks a subset of
    toolbox decks, excluding feast-or-famine (sweep or quickly ousted)
    decks, like some focussed decks which would otherwise be
    considered "good" decks.


    --
    LSJ (vtesrepSPAM@TRAPwhite-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep (remove spam trap to reply)
    Links to V:TES news, rules, cards, utilities, and tournament calendar:
    http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/
  17. Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

    Screaming Vermillian wrote:
    > Me too. It can be in situations. I wonder wha the percent of
    situations
    > in which this is the case?

    Hard to say without data. The lower your skill and worse your deck,
    the more the table seating matters. Also, your voice can change
    things. In addition, you have to consider that nowadays you can't
    change your seating at the table. So, you have to draw conclusions
    from games played from the beginning of 2005. In this era, do you
    count casual or only tournament games?

    > So HOW YOU PLAY also includes HOW YOU BITCH... right. :)

    Most definately. The more help you get from other players strengthens
    you while sapping their resources. Overall, that improves your table
    posture.
  18. Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

    On Fri, 29 Apr 2005 08:52:31 -0400, Derek Ray <lorimer@yahoo.com> wrote:

    > | My experience is that Stealth Bleed has a good chance of ousting the
    > first
    > | prey even if it is an Intercept deck. It is heavy bloat or (D) rush
    > and
    > | non-blocking that have a good chance of stopping the stealth bleeder
    > | (even though the latter often sacrafices any forward pressure for this
    > | end). Elder Impersonation and (to a lesser degree) Faceless Night make
    >
    > If I'd had more time to build it, I surely would've included at least
    > four Elder Impersonations instead of zero.

    You managed to oust two blocky decks with no Elder Impersonations? That's
    remarkable and quite uncommon. I consider EI to be the card that can tip
    the scales in the stealth bleeder's favor against an Intercept deck.
    Without it, you need what I would call luck (but which undoubtedly
    contains, in no small part, the attitude which permits one to harvest a
    lucky situation if it indeed comes up).

    --
    Bye,

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

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    Hash: SHA1

    Daneel wrote:
    | On Fri, 29 Apr 2005 08:52:31 -0400, Derek Ray <lorimer@yahoo.com> wrote:
    |
    |> If I'd had more time to build it, I surely would've included at least
    |> four Elder Impersonations instead of zero.
    |
    | You managed to oust two blocky decks with no Elder Impersonations? That's
    | remarkable and quite uncommon. I consider EI to be the card that can tip
    | the scales in the stealth bleeder's favor against an Intercept deck.

    It is the reason offense still wins in the game, which is key to a good
    game. Offense should always beat defense.

    | Without it, you need what I would call luck (but which undoubtedly
    | contains, in no small part, the attitude which permits one to harvest a
    | lucky situation if it indeed comes up).

    I don't agree with "luck", but then I was the one playing it, so I
    wouldn't be inclined to. I prefer to think of it as the ability to
    enumerate one's own advantages, and play in such a fashion as to
    maximize your own advantages while minimizing your prey's.

    In this case (I will use Chad's winning Ahrimanes deck as an example):

    - -- He has Howler, Juanita, and the Siamese. I have weenies, so I have a
    numerical advantage. I need to assert this whenever possible.
    - -- By turn 4, he had two Raven Spies on the Siamese, the KRCG radio, and
    his untap card (speak with spirits) gives him another point of
    intercept. I am at a stealth disadvantage, because I will have to spend
    too many stealth cards for each minion if I try to just be ultra-sneaky.
    - -- He has decent combat (Crows/Strength), but his intercept is not on
    the minion he'd prefer to be fighting with, and The Siamese has little
    ANI. I have Walking Sticks, maneuvers, and dodges. I can potentially
    wear down the Siamese at a critical moment by suiciding a couple guys
    (numerical advantage), and I do not need to be afraid of Carrion Crows
    from his main interceptor. I will need to always stealth past Howler,
    but Howler can only generate 2-3 intercept at most, and doing so forces
    him to match me transient-for-transient, which is an advantage to me
    since my deck is 70% transient stealth.
    - -- My prey is a skilled player, and as such knows that taking no actions
    does not win him the game. If I am patient and do not throw my minions
    into the meat grinder, I will eventually lull him into a false sense of
    security and have a chance.
    - -- I have a Fame on my 2-cap from my predator; this is actually my
    advantage, because my pool gain is far superior to my prey's. I can
    absorb a single dunk and 1 per turn; he cannot.

    The way it played out was that I slowly built up a great number of
    minions via stupid pool gain, and he spent a lot of time pulling blood
    off his guys with Dolls and cautiously poking forward. I rarely bled my
    prey except to take the Edge from him (saying so every time), and he
    tended to send Howler forward with Legal Manipulations a lot while
    leaving the Siamese untapped. Eventually, I built up enough of a
    critical mass, dropped a Dreams for hand size, and threw one of my guys
    in the grinder to tap out the Siamese ("ok, you block.") I dropped my
    two Computer Hacks with superior OBF minions, which drew out his untap
    and allowed me to Faceless Night his guys and bleed with everyone else
    using no cards. After that turn, he was at 6 pool and left all his
    minions untapped every turn. I used Pochtli as my first action of the
    next turn to put my two Hacks back in the deck, and spent some time
    hunting and regaining blood -- the turn after that, I used Dreams again,
    redrew one of my two Hacks, and simply bled with everyone, starting off
    with the Famous vampire, who he correctly didn't block (I'd have let him
    torporize it; one less pool I have to bleed for). I stealthed past
    Howler to force the Siamese to try to block, and then let the block
    succeed to tap him out; after that a Hack and Faceless Night tapped
    Howler, and then I just spent one stealth card per minion to finish off
    the last 4 pool since Juanita didn't have much to say.

    Along with EI, I would have gladly put 3x Anarch Troublemaker in the
    deck, of course. Wish I'd known where in Mike's collection those were.

    - --
    Derek

    insert clever quotation here

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (MingW32)

    iD8DBQFCc5watQZlu3o7QpERAmwIAJ9ZLYBEXMHX+6WtUVefv42oRuEaIwCdH9UI
    7V+FNTUIUaVtO3kX1I+BDFA=
    =Me0r
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
  20. Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

    On Sat, 30 Apr 2005 10:54:18 -0400, Derek Ray <lorimer@yahoo.com> wrote:

    > | Without it, you need what I would call luck (but which undoubtedly
    > | contains, in no small part, the attitude which permits one to harvest
    > a
    > | lucky situation if it indeed comes up).
    >
    > I don't agree with "luck", but then I was the one playing it, so I
    > wouldn't be inclined to. I prefer to think of it as the ability to
    > enumerate one's own advantages, and play in such a fashion as to
    > maximize your own advantages while minimizing your prey's.
    >
    > In this case (I will use Chad's winning Ahrimanes deck as an example):
    >
    > - -- He has Howler, Juanita, and the Siamese. I have weenies, so I have
    > a
    > numerical advantage. I need to assert this whenever possible.
    > - -- By turn 4, he had two Raven Spies on the Siamese, the KRCG radio,
    > and
    > his untap card (speak with spirits) gives him another point of
    > intercept. I am at a stealth disadvantage, because I will have to spend
    > too many stealth cards for each minion if I try to just be ultra-sneaky.
    > - -- He has decent combat (Crows/Strength), but his intercept is not on
    > the minion he'd prefer to be fighting with, and The Siamese has little
    > ANI. I have Walking Sticks, maneuvers, and dodges. I can potentially
    > wear down the Siamese at a critical moment by suiciding a couple guys
    > (numerical advantage), and I do not need to be afraid of Carrion Crows
    > from his main interceptor. I will need to always stealth past Howler,
    > but Howler can only generate 2-3 intercept at most, and doing so forces
    > him to match me transient-for-transient, which is an advantage to me
    > since my deck is 70% transient stealth.
    > - -- My prey is a skilled player, and as such knows that taking no
    > actions
    > does not win him the game. If I am patient and do not throw my minions
    > into the meat grinder, I will eventually lull him into a false sense of
    > security and have a chance.
    > - -- I have a Fame on my 2-cap from my predator; this is actually my
    > advantage, because my pool gain is far superior to my prey's. I can
    > absorb a single dunk and 1 per turn; he cannot.
    >
    > The way it played out was that I slowly built up a great number of
    > minions via stupid pool gain, and he spent a lot of time pulling blood
    > off his guys with Dolls and cautiously poking forward. I rarely bled my
    > prey except to take the Edge from him (saying so every time), and he
    > tended to send Howler forward with Legal Manipulations a lot while
    > leaving the Siamese untapped. Eventually, I built up enough of a
    > critical mass, dropped a Dreams for hand size, and threw one of my guys
    > in the grinder to tap out the Siamese ("ok, you block.") I dropped my
    > two Computer Hacks with superior OBF minions, which drew out his untap
    > and allowed me to Faceless Night his guys and bleed with everyone else
    > using no cards. After that turn, he was at 6 pool and left all his
    > minions untapped every turn. I used Pochtli as my first action of the
    > next turn to put my two Hacks back in the deck, and spent some time
    > hunting and regaining blood -- the turn after that, I used Dreams again,
    > redrew one of my two Hacks, and simply bled with everyone, starting off
    > with the Famous vampire, who he correctly didn't block (I'd have let him
    > torporize it; one less pool I have to bleed for). I stealthed past
    > Howler to force the Siamese to try to block, and then let the block
    > succeed to tap him out; after that a Hack and Faceless Night tapped
    > Howler, and then I just spent one stealth card per minion to finish off
    > the last 4 pool since Juanita didn't have much to say.
    >
    > Along with EI, I would have gladly put 3x Anarch Troublemaker in the
    > deck, of course. Wish I'd known where in Mike's collection those were.

    Well, that was an interesting read. Seems you were playing well.

    However, I consider the following items to be luck:

    - Your prey made the critical mistake of having those spies on the
    +1 bleed - ani Siamese instead of the +1 Strength - Maneuver - ANI
    Howler. You exploited that mistake well; but you needed the mistake.

    - Perhaps related to the previous point, your prey also made the mistake
    of deluding himself regarding your intentions or the game state. When
    he should have methodically kept the number of minions behind him at no
    more than 4 through intercepting your benign actions as well as your
    hostile ones, he instead chose to let you build up your critical mass.
    Being a significantly slower deck than yours, it should have been his
    objective to quench the predatory threat.

    - Having 70% transient stealth and a bunch of weenies means that unless
    you actually wanted to waste 3+ cards on each action (by trying to sneak
    past the 2 permanent Intercept), you were in the green. This is not to
    diminish your decisions and play; it is simply to point out that you
    needed your prey to make some grave mistakes to win.

    In my interpretation, you got lucky to have your prey make those mistakes
    for you. You possibly also got lucky in your draw (you did not mention
    how many Hacks you included, etc.).

    --
    Bye,

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

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    Hash: SHA1

    Daneel wrote:
    | On Sat, 30 Apr 2005 10:54:18 -0400, Derek Ray <lorimer@yahoo.com> wrote:
    |
    |> | Without it, you need what I would call luck (but which undoubtedly
    |> | contains, in no small part, the attitude which permits one to
    |> harvest a
    |> | lucky situation if it indeed comes up).
    |>
    |> I don't agree with "luck", but then I was the one playing it, so I
    |> wouldn't be inclined to. I prefer to think of it as the ability to
    |> enumerate one's own advantages, and play in such a fashion as to
    |> maximize your own advantages while minimizing your prey's.
    |>
    |> In this case (I will use Chad's winning Ahrimanes deck as an example):

    (example snipped, as it should have been)

    | Well, that was an interesting read. Seems you were playing well.
    |
    | However, I consider the following items to be luck:
    |
    | - Your prey made the critical mistake of having those spies on the
    | +1 bleed - ani Siamese instead of the +1 Strength - Maneuver - ANI
    | Howler. You exploited that mistake well; but you needed the mistake.

    He didn't have a choice. I influenced Normal on my first turn, and two
    more minions on my second; he had to go for the minion he could get out
    on turn 2 so that he could start stacking up Spies before he got run
    over. He didn't get Howler until much later. If he hadn't put the
    spies on the Siamese, I'd have ousted him sooner -- the standing +2
    intercept saved him from a quick trip to the showers.

    | - Perhaps related to the previous point, your prey also made the mistake
    | of deluding himself regarding your intentions or the game state. When
    | he should have methodically kept the number of minions behind him at no
    | more than 4 through intercepting your benign actions as well as your

    I didn't take _that_ many benign actions. He did try to block some, and
    I simply burned some stealth to get by. After a couple goes at this, he
    realized I wasn't going to let him block things like hunts, etc., unless
    I had the maneuvers and/or Dodges in hand to save myself. After I got
    some Walking Sticks on guys, he couldn't afford to use the Siamese too
    carelessly, as she was usually around 3 blood. Spending one blood for
    intercept and getting whacked for 2 as well forces your main blocker to
    hunt -- not what you want to happen, and he knew I was quite willing to
    throw some guys in the bin if I had the opportunity to torporize and eat
    the Siamese (with, of course, the Famous Normal). Weenie OBF can always
    rescue itself.

    The Famous vampire I mention below got Famous on turn 4, and never took
    another action again until it was time to use him as offense.
    Understand this was the tourney winner I was playing against. He's not
    stupid; he's just not a mind reader.

    | hostile ones, he instead chose to let you build up your critical mass.
    | Being a significantly slower deck than yours, it should have been his
    | objective to quench the predatory threat.

    Which would've lost him the game just as surely, except he would have
    given himself no chance to win.

    | - Having 70% transient stealth and a bunch of weenies means that unless
    | you actually wanted to waste 3+ cards on each action (by trying to sneak
    | past the 2 permanent Intercept), you were in the green. This is not to

    That's the point. With no Elder Impersonation and a limited number of
    Faceless Night... and a prey using Speak with Spirits to untap, meaning
    that it might take more than one Faceless Night to keep him down... it's
    no guarantee that I won't have to face the 3+ permanent intercept every
    single action. I could not afford to be careless with my minions on
    "hope", or to assume that I was automatically good no matter what -- I
    had to be sure, and had to save the stealth cards to attack his untap,
    since attacking his intercept would have simply lost it for me horribly.

    | diminish your decisions and play; it is simply to point out that you
    | needed your prey to make some grave mistakes to win.

    The typical response of the unskilled player is to blame it all on luck
    of seating, luck of the draw, etc. But understand that Chad's objective
    was not "beat Derek", his objective was "gain VPs". A less skilled
    player might have panicked and walled up to oust me by any means
    necessary; this would simply have given the game to his own prey, who
    was quite merrily going forward during all of this. I repeat: this is
    the player who eventually won the tournament. He's not stupid, but he's
    not a mind reader either. Some of the decisions you are suggesting he
    make require him to know the exact contents of my deck to successfully
    arrive at that conclusion -- patently impossible.

    - --
    Derek

    insert clever quotation here

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (MingW32)

    iD8DBQFCc+QwtQZlu3o7QpERAiwsAJ4mEhwELhNiARpWvEiIwPboMi5SKgCfYicV
    ti+lQA7i4PpLtnxQGfO8zIo=
    =Elxt
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Ask a new question

Read More

Games Video Games