I just got hammered by an Una deck..you need to see this!

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

I'll just say he took something like 53 actions in ONE turn and went
through his ENTIRE 90 card deck in the same turn. Thank God he got
PTO'ed but not before sending both of my vampires to torpor and
following it up with a bleed of 13....in that SAME single turn. 53
freak drives!
I've been playing this game since it came out and that was the
SICKEST, WRONGEST thing I've ever seen! He swept the table the game he
previously played the deck. I'm not sure but the word "broken" came to
mind when I was getting raped by Una. But hey, thats just me. We'll see
what it continues to do.

Open for your opinions!

Here it is:
Creator-Dennis Lien from L.A.

Crypt: (12 cards, Min: 36, Max: 36, Avg: 9)
-------------------------------------------
12 Una dem ANI FOR PRE PRO 9 Gangrel
Antitribu

Library: (90 cards)
-------------------
Action (12 cards)
1 Big Game
1 Bum`s Rush
1 Harass
1 Ambush
1 Blessing of Chaos
1 Ablative Skin
1 Shadow of the Beast
1 Fire Dance
1 Eternal Vigilance
1 Clan Impersonation
1 Heart of the City
1 Tier of Souls

Action Modifier (56 cards)
****56 Freak Drive*****

Political Action (1 cards)
1 Sabbat Inquisitor

Retainer (10 cards)
1 Ghoul Retainer
1 Murder of Crows
1 Owl Companion
1 Jackie Therman
1 Raptor
1 Raven Spy
1 Mr. Winthrop
1 Robert Carter
1 Tasha Morgan
1 J. S. Simmons, Esq.

Equipment (11 cards)
1 Hawg
1 Leather Jacket
1 Ivory Bow
1 Sire`s Index Finger
1 Flak Jacket
1 IR Goggles
1 Erebus Mask
1 Seal of Veddartha
1 Eye of Hazimel
1 Laptop Computer
1 Inveraray, Scotland


***JediMike***
55 answers Last reply
More about hammered deck this
  1. Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

    Clever! But each Freak Drive costs one blood, so how does Una play more
    than 9 in one turn?

    I also notice there's no combat at all, and all of these actions are at
    +1 stealth. Block just a few of them, and where does that leave Una?

    The word "broken" doesn't come to mind. I'm not even certain how this
    deck is meant to work.
  2. Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

    bjornstein@yahoo.com wrote:
    > Clever! But each Freak Drive costs one blood, so how does Una play more
    > than 9 in one turn?

    Read Una's special.

    > I also notice there's no combat at all, and all of these actions are at
    > +1 stealth. Block just a few of them, and where does that leave Una?
    >
    > The word "broken" doesn't come to mind. I'm not even certain how this
    > deck is meant to work.

    If there is not a blocker in place when Una starts her turn, she will
    go through her *entire deck* that turn. Of course, one well-placed
    Direct Intervention might delay her as well.

    She'll bleed for a helluva lot...

    Heart of the City: +2
    Tier of Souls (maybe): +1
    Sabbat Inquisitor (maybe): +1
    Robert Carter: +2
    Tasha Morgan: +1
    J.S. Simmons, Esq.: +1
    Seal of Veddartha: +1
    Eye of Hazimel: +1
    Laptop Computer: +1

    So that's guaranteed bleeds of 10, maybe 12 *every action*. And if she
    tools up Inverary, even more!

    Archon Investigation would ruin her day, but she'd probably clean the
    table by then.

    As good as this is, I bet it could be improved ever so slightly.

    1x Giant's Blood (for the turn after Una goes nuclear)
    1x Writ of Acceptance (cheaper anti-PTO tech than Clan Imp)
    1x Aaron's Feeding Razor (she's hunting anyway to cycle Freaks, right?)
    1x Starshell Grenade Launcher (just in case the Bow gets contested)

    That ought to do it. ;)

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

    Doh! I do know Una's special, and I still had to ask. I see it now.

    But still. If there is not a blocker in place when she starts shopping,
    well, why isn't there? And when she bleeds (as CthuluKitty says), what
    if your prey bounces? Or plays Archon Investigation? Or even blocks?
    Sure would you not block a bleed for 10+, even if she has the Ivory
    Bow? Or if your prey has Protected Resources?

    Not that it isn't a very nice and clever trick, and it would probably
    come as a nasty surprise, but "broken"? I can think of dozens of ways
    that it can fail.
  4. Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

    I had two blockers and she got around them both and sent them to
    torpor. You can only block so many thing even if your dedicated
    intercept.

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

    Janne Hägglund wrote:
    > jeffkuta@pacbell.net writes:
    >
    > > Which blocker? The one she rushed into the ground with one of her two
    > > unrestricted enter combat actions? Oh, *that* blocker.
    >
    > Two? Are you counting Eternal Vigilance, or am I missing something?
    > I only found Eye of Hazimel and a bunch of non-permanent rush cards.

    I was actually counting Bum's Rush and Big Game, both of which ought to
    be in your hand along with Harass and Ambush after Una goes off. Didn't
    even think about the Eye's perma-rush.

    > > surviving three or more rounds of Ivory Bow goodness in combat with all
    > > those maneuvers. Hell, she ought to keep that Clan Impersonation and go
    > > Gangrel then get a Dog Pack just to deal with S:CE (and PTO).
    >
    > Going Independent will not help her against PTO. A Writ of Acceptance
    > would, but that would destroy her ultra-useful Eternal Vigilance. And she
    > can get around S:CE simply by using Freak Drives... :-P

    Oh right. Gangrel gone Indie. I suppose you really ought to just risk
    it and stay Sabbat for the EV. DI is probably sufficient for anti-vote
    tech. Interestingly, if she is getting the Erebus Mask anyway (ack, I
    was confusing this with Changeling Skin Mask)....

    Well now, since she's gone Harbingers and has +1 stealth, I can see now
    how bounce might be fairly effective.

    I was thinking she could get a Changeling Skin Mask and you could pack
    1x Confusion of the Eye as well just in case of PTO accidents (if you
    really expected to face two PTOs in a single game).

    > How about adding one Direct Intervention, just for PTO?

    Or several DIs. ;)

    > > Personally I think that Una ought to have 3 weenie support
    > > vampires/chump blockers in the crypt. The odds of seeing one of them
    > > are pretty darn good, and you're guaranteed of seeing Una herself.
    >
    > Agreed. Or more than three. That Pentex Subversion sure can ruin your
    > whole game...

    Maybe 1x DI and 1x Sudden Reversal? ;) You'd still have several Rushes
    available, a couple Freaks and room for Masters.

    If you didn't want to go the Harbingers/Stealth route, you could always
    toss in a Waste Management Operation to cycle a Freak Drive. Rush via
    Eye, Torpor, Freak, Bleed for 10+ will eventually wear down just about
    anyone.

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

    ***JediMike*** wrote:
    > Action Modifier (56 cards)
    > ****56 Freak Drive*****

    Just because it's appropriate (even though I don't believe it)...

    WE NEED CARD LIMITS!!!! ;)

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

    "***JediMike***" <Jedimike@rebelscum.net> writes:

    > I've been playing this game since it came out and that was the
    > SICKEST, WRONGEST thing I've ever seen! He swept the table the game he
    > previously played the deck. I'm not sure but the word "broken" came to
    > mind when I was getting raped by Una. But hey, thats just me. We'll see
    > what it continues to do.
    >
    > Open for your opinions!


    *Falls down on his knees, in worship of absolute, merciless beauty.*


    --
    hg@ "If you can't offend part of your audience,
    iki.fi there is no point in being an artist at all." -Hakim Bey
  8. Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

    The deck isn't Broken, but i just wish to make the point that even if
    una is blocked 7 times in a turn (i just don't think that the odds of
    drawing more Wakes or Forced Awakenings in a turn is even worthy
    considering) but if she is torporized and manage to have 2 blood (or
    other way) to exit torpor she can exit torpor and hunt 9 times and get
    filled again.
    The point is that it is'nt important that her actions are at 0 stealth,
    if someone block her once, ok, that action wasn't succesfull, untap,
    action, block her twice, ok, untap, if she got beated she hunts, hunts
    hunts to get some blood, and do another action, i don't think that
    after that there's anyone that CAN block her, all are tapped or
    otherwise unable to block, even at 0 stealth.
    And i want to know how does she sweep the table killing it's prey and
    grand prey in one turn if she can only bleed once a turn.
  9. Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

    ***JediMike*** wrote:

    > I've been playing this game since it came out and that was the
    > SICKEST, WRONGEST thing I've ever seen! He swept the table the game he
    > previously played the deck. I'm not sure but the word "broken" came to
    > mind when I was getting raped by Una. But hey, thats just me. We'll see
    > what it continues to do.

    Yeah, I'm not quite sure if this is, like, comedy or not.

    I mean, yeah, she can take 53 actions in one turn. She could potentially
    bleed for a lot, but at zero stealth. She can't survive combat even
    remotely--there is, like, a Murder of Crows, an Ivory Bow, a Leather Jacket,
    and an Ablative Skin? You just let her take the 53 actions, when she comes
    to bleed for 12 you block her with +0 intercept, and either stand around and
    watch her do run out of cards as she can't really hurt you otherwise.

    The real flaw is the lack of combat defense (well, and stealth)--she gets in
    a fight with someone even remotely combaty, and she will end up in torpor
    right quickly, and never get out, as she doesn't have any freinds to rescue
    her.

    Heck--her offensive abilitiy is stopped dead in its tracks by a small
    handfull of Majesties. Or dodges. Or fortitude. Or, well, I'm sure you get
    the point.


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

    "So in conclusion, our business plan is to sell hot,
    easily spilled liquids to naked people."
    -Brittni Meil
  10. Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

    jeffkuta@pacbell.net writes:

    > Which blocker? The one she rushed into the ground with one of her two
    > unrestricted enter combat actions? Oh, *that* blocker.

    Two? Are you counting Eternal Vigilance, or am I missing something?
    I only found Eye of Hazimel and a bunch of non-permanent rush cards.


    > surviving three or more rounds of Ivory Bow goodness in combat with all
    > those maneuvers. Hell, she ought to keep that Clan Impersonation and go
    > Gangrel then get a Dog Pack just to deal with S:CE (and PTO).

    Going Independent will not help her against PTO. A Writ of Acceptance
    would, but that would destroy her ultra-useful Eternal Vigilance. And she
    can get around S:CE simply by using Freak Drives... :-P

    How about adding one Direct Intervention, just for PTO?


    > Personally I think that Una ought to have 3 weenie support
    > vampires/chump blockers in the crypt. The odds of seeing one of them
    > are pretty darn good, and you're guaranteed of seeing Una herself.

    Agreed. Or more than three. That Pentex Subversion sure can ruin your
    whole game...


    --
    hg@ "If you can't offend part of your audience,
    iki.fi there is no point in being an artist at all." -Hakim Bey
  11. Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

    ***JediMike*** a écrit :
    > I'll just say he took something like 53 actions in ONE turn and went
    > through his ENTIRE 90 card deck in the same turn. Thank God he got
    > PTO'ed but not before sending both of my vampires to torpor and
    > following it up with a bleed of 13....in that SAME single turn. 53
    > freak drives!

    I'm not surprised it's a Dennis Deck : I remember his "Great beast tools
    up with the eye of hazimel and wreaks havoc" stuff :D

    A friend in paris tried the same thing a long time ago, and was fairly
    succesful. He also played 7 raptors to prevent other players to harm him
    in combat. He recruted them via Muricia's call and Jack of both sides to
    avoid the NRA, so he could have 3 raptors in a single turn. He also
    added Sargon fragment to bring back all the useful cards if needed.

    The problem is the same with all mono vampire decks: you are highly
    vulnerable to stuff like seduction, unpreventable damage (you have not
    other vamp to protect or rescue the main star), pentex...

    I'm really curious to know what other cards were at that table when
    Dennis did the sweep :)
  12. Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

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

    ***JediMike*** wrote:
    | I'll just say he took something like 53 actions in ONE turn and went
    | through his ENTIRE 90 card deck in the same turn. Thank God he got
    | PTO'ed but not before sending both of my vampires to torpor and
    | following it up with a bleed of 13....in that SAME single turn. 53
    | freak drives!

    Hee! Funny stuff.

    | I've been playing this game since it came out and that was the
    | SICKEST, WRONGEST thing I've ever seen! He swept the table the game he
    | previously played the deck. I'm not sure but the word "broken" came to
    | mind when I was getting raped by Una. But hey, thats just me. We'll see
    | what it continues to do.

    Well, the weaknesses here are that:

    - -- All the actions are at 1 stealth, unless you hit the Clan
    Impersonation before the Erebus Mask. This only matters because it
    makes it very easy to block the key cards.
    - -- The only ousting action the deck can take is "I bleed for (a
    gazillion)", and it can only do that once per turn, and it can do that
    at no more than 1 stealth. It can Rush things once it gets the Ivory
    Bow, but the Bow is far from trump combat. It has a lot of maneuvers
    and presses, but ... see below. Despite the card explosion on turn 1,
    it is actually a fairly slow mover, so it runs a big risk of being
    ousted cross-table in some fashion.
    - -- There are only a few "prevent"-like cards: Ablative Skin, Fire
    Dance, Flak Jacket, Leather Jacket. Leather Jacket is one-shot-only.
    All those presses it has become less useful since the +1 strength from
    the Eye isn't as good now.
    - -- If you don't have any of the prevent cards early on, you have a
    significant problem if anyone can block and do damage to you.
    Specifically, block-and-agg people are the deck's primary fear; even
    though it can Freak Drive and rescue itself, there's always the chance
    there are two blockers available, and then it's Munch City. Also, the
    self-rescue will be 2 blood that it can't necessarily afford at that
    point in time.
    - -- Saving your blocks for key actions can cripple the deck. Blocking
    the Ivory Bow, for example, removes the vast majority of Una's combat
    threat; I would have definitely included the Sargon Fragment here, to
    give myself an out in case this happens. I would have used two Day
    Operations as well, JUST in case -- although going to torpor is scary
    for this deck.
    - -- Any deck that can put Una in torpor empty, of course, will stop this
    deck cold (Signpost/Blur, Magnum/Blur).

    There are a lot of hidden strengths, too, though.

    - -- The cardless "hunt" action is not covered under NRA anymore; I assume
    this is how the deck can afford all the cards that cost blood. This is
    also the deck's primary defense against "hit-you-for-lots" combat, and
    why it doesn't need THAT much prevention; it can always cycle Freak
    Drives and hunt itself back up for a few blood. Someone who goes after
    Una while she's on 8 blood and punches her down to 3 is making a big
    mistake.
    - -- While some of the toys cost pool, Una's still only a 9-cap. Plenty
    of spending room, especially when you can Rush backwards if things look
    like big bleeders.
    - -- Blocking individual actions without a clear purpose is largely
    meaningless, as Una simply plows through the toys and moves on. She has
    no need for ALL the bleed retainers, for example -- so being too clever
    and trying to block the +bleeders is simply wasting intercept.
    - -- The only chance of hand jam is being caught without a Freak Drive,
    and the best chance of this is at the start of the game, when the most
    non-Freak Drive cards are in the deck. If no blockers can torporize or
    somehow incapacitate Una, he's almost certain to get his entire deck out
    in a single turn. Actual math works out to less than .01% chance of no
    Freak Drives in his first 10 cards (3 discard phases before Una can
    act)... and yes, that is point oh-one percent, not 1%.

    Seriously? I think this is a damned funny novelty deck,... but I don't
    see it as broken. I think its slow forward motion is its biggest
    weakness, and any deck that has some cross-table capacity is going to be
    able to handle this effectively... although it will certainly disrupt
    things while it's around. Like all the turbo decks, though, hardly a
    guaranteed win... more of an all-or-nothing shot.

    | Action Modifier (56 cards)
    | ****56 Freak Drive*****

    Uh-oh. David Tatu has some competition! :)

    - --
    Derek

    insert clever quotation here

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

    iD8DBQFCvs9AtQZlu3o7QpERAkvlAKDeMwik7aHEo3+i4w5zre3XIUrzEwCgk3X2
    QrPXFNY3a7TlPHwjqDWuhh4=
    =hy8r
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
  13. Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

    I would laugh until I passed out if Una was the unfortunate victim of a
    "The Name Forgotten".

    And who in the hell owns 53 Freak Drives? Aren't there laws against
    that sort of thing?

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

    Peter D Bakija wrote:
    > ***JediMike*** wrote:

    > I mean, yeah, she can take 53 actions in one turn. She could potentially
    > bleed for a lot, but at zero stealth.

    I'm sure you've the Erebus Mask posts by now.

    > The real flaw is the lack of combat defense (well, and stealth)--she gets in
    > a fight with someone even remotely combaty, and she will end up in torpor
    > right quickly, and never get out, as she doesn't have any freinds to rescue
    > her.

    She's doing hands and the ghoul retainer is using the Ivory Bow.

    > Heck--her offensive abilitiy is stopped dead in its tracks by a small
    > handfull of Majesties.

    Blessing of Chaos.

    > Or dodges. Or fortitude. Or, well, I'm sure you get
    > the point.

    As was said elsewhere, this is certainly an "all or nothing"
    proposition. If you've got one of the answers to the deck then it
    dies...otherwise it doesn't. :)

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

    I guess my comments went rather unappreciated by the majority of
    posters in this thread. I guess what I'm getting at is that in order
    to curtail decks like this, people need to adopt a different philosophy
    of the game. Up here in Western Mass, EVERYONE packs cards for
    cross-table manipulation and people are simply prepared to team up
    against tricky decks that threaten to sweep. Yeah, Una's combat
    package is pretty mean IF she gets all her stuff, but who's to say you
    can't block and torporize her on the first action? Lots of decks
    around here could easily do that. Miller Delmardigan comes to mind as
    an apt candidate for the job. Or Omaya. Hell, Blythe Candeleria could
    do it and she's a freakin' 3 capacity vapire. Sure, if everyone at the
    table is playing some trick deck or S&B with the intent of a quick
    sweep then Una wins because she does it faster. That doesn't mean the
    deck is broken. It just means the table isn't prepared for it.

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

    CthuluKitty wrote:
    > I guess my comments went rather unappreciated by the majority of
    > posters in this thread.

    I don't think that's true at all.

    Mainly, if you're not playing intercept-combat, a relatively uncommon
    archetype, *and* don't have the hand to torpor her immediately, Una has
    a very significant chance of going off the first turn she acts. It's
    all about playing the metagame, and I think this deck stands a very
    good chance to do some serious damage in just about *any* environment.

    Sure, it's a one-trick pony, but it is one helluva trick.

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

    Derek Ray <lorimer@yahoo.com> wrote:
    > I'd actually be interested in seeing a non-hyperbolic version of this
    > deck that is more robust on defense and ousting -- perhaps one that
    > doesn't erase its library on turn 3, but can have more consistent
    > forward momentum in a variety of environments.

    For what it's worth, here's an Una deck I've been working on:

    Deck Name: Una Gets Freaky v2.0
    Created By: Kevin J. Mergen
    Description: Obvious Una Fortitude abuse.

    Crypt: (12 cards, Min: 24, Max: 36, Avg: 7.83)
    ----------------------------------------------
    6 Una dem ANI FOR PRE PRO 9 !Gangrel
    4 Antonino ani FOR pre pro 6 Gangrel
    2 Brunhilde ANI FOR pre PRO 8 Gangrel

    Library: (90 cards)
    -------------------
    Master (14 cards)
    3 Blood Doll
    1 Dia de los Muertos
    3 Direct Intervention
    1 Giant`s Blood
    1 Golconda: Inner Peace
    1 Hungry Coyote, The
    1 Secure Haven
    3 Sudden Reversal

    Action (22 cards)
    2 Army of Rats
    2 Charming Lobby
    4 Enchant Kindred
    1 Entrancement
    1 Eternal Vigilance
    4 Kindred Spirits
    3 Legal Manipulations
    2 Mind Numb
    3 Social Charm

    Action Modifier (30 cards)
    5 Awe
    5 Beast Meld
    16 Freak Drive
    4 Voter Captivation

    Political Action (9 cards)
    4 Conservative Agitation
    5 Kine Resources Contested

    Combat (15 cards)
    2 Alpha Glint
    4 Earth Meld
    4 Form of Mist
    5 Skin of Steel


    Kevin M., Prince of Las Vegas
    "Know your enemy, and know yourself; in one-thousand battles
    you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, *The Art of War*
    "Contentment... Complacency... Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier
  18. Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

    Man, my HoS Brinkmanship deck will own this thing, as its pred...

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

    In message <BEE47BA8.20462%pdb6@lightlink.com>, Peter D Bakija
    <pdb6@lightlink.com> writes:
    >I suspect that in the long run, the deck will have a reasonably good chance
    >of getting 1 very quick and unexpected VP, after which, it'll likely get
    >bogged down and/or killed. Once and a while, it might get everything to lock
    >into place and get a table win. But that describes a lot of decks that
    >already exist.

    In a tournament environment, I'd expect to see it do somewhat like the
    Turbo-Arika[0] deck. That is, it can do well (extremely well,
    potentially), but once players know what it's doing, they'll try to get
    you off the table RIGHT NOW if they can't get something out of it (a
    deal, bouncing, or whatever).

    Unlike the Turbo-Arika deck, it will absolutely need multiple turns to
    try to sweep a table. (The Turbo decks sometimes stall based on the
    distribution of cards, of course, but could in theory do it all in one
    turn.)

    The deck interests me a great, great deal, however.


    [0] Any Turbo deck could do, if it can repeat bleed by burning itself
    and replacing itself with another vampire, and so on.

    --
    James Coupe
    PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D YOU ARE IN ERROR.
    EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 NO-ONE IS SCREAMING.
    13D7E668C3695D623D5D THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.
  20. Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

    Screaming Vermillian schrieb:
    > Man, my HoS Brinkmanship deck will own this thing, as its pred...
    >
    > ~SV

    At least one deck you will oust with that Slaughterhouserubbish... ;o)
  21. Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

    CthuluKitty wrote:

    > I don't really feel that this is the case.

    Ok.

    > In the games I play it is
    > very common to see people taking cross table actions to neutralize what
    > they see as the major threat to the table.

    Yeah, see, that is pretty much circumventing or ignoring the predator/prey
    dynamic. And usually it is a dumb idea as it just makes someone else win. If
    you focus on ousting your prey, then you get VPs. If you focus on ousting
    someone else's prey, someone else gets VPs.

    > This isn't circumventing the prey/predator dynamics; it's just understanding
    >them on a more nuanced, long-term basis.

    Umm, ok. Me PTOing someone crosstable is likely just making that guy cross
    the table get ousted by someone who isn't me. At which point I have to PTO
    someone else cross table, who then also gets ousted by someone who isn't me.
    You are much better off just killing your prey. And the game as a whole is
    much better off if you just kill your prey.

    > In a 5 player game, which is the norm, no
    > player is more than 1 oust away from being either your prey or
    > predator, depending on where they sit.

    Correct.

    >So everyone at the table has
    > the potential to become your enemy, and it makes sense to weaken those
    > potential enemies while you still can, even if it means diverting
    > attention from your immediate goals.

    Only if you like making other people win the game. Weakening your non
    immediate opponents usually makes your immediate opponents stronger. When
    your immediate opponents are stronger, you are weaker. And your now stronger
    opponents who are less worried about weaker you go on to kill your weaker
    non immediate opponent, and become even stronger.

    See, if there is a deck that the table that requires the whole table to gang
    up on it to keep it from sweeping with impunity, then there is something
    wrong with the game that needs fixing. In other circumstances, the need to
    mess with folks cross table is generally few and far between.

    > Frequently, you can bargain with
    > your prey and/or predator to make this happen. For example: "Don't
    > bleed for a turn and I'll hit the threat"; or "Let me take this next
    > action unblocked and then I'll hit the threat".

    At which point the game bogs down in people wheeling and dealing to try to
    get people to give them an incentive to take an action that has significant
    (reasonably so) built in disincentive to attempt. Which is a bad idea.

    Yeah. Sometimes a cross table shenanagin seems like a good idea. Most of
    those times it actually isn't. Just kill your prey.


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

    "So in conclusion, our business plan is to sell hot,
    easily spilled liquids to naked people."
    -Brittni Meil
  22. Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

    "***JediMike***" <Jedimike@rebelscum.net> schreef in bericht
    news:1119760053.587312.202990@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...

    >
    > Action Modifier (56 cards)
    > ****56 Freak Drive*****
    >
    Just when I gave up on trying to use victim of habit. :)
  23. Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

    Just a note to add here, since Jeroen is defending my position on this
    fairly adequately: my play group does not play with time limits. The
    nearest place to play in tournaments is over 2 hours drive away, and
    I've only gone once with one other player. Our experience with time
    limits there only confirmed our distaste for them, as we saw game after
    game time out because of what looked like intentionally slow, or at
    least unexcusably slow play. The game is drastically different without
    the time limit, and not just shorter. When there's no pressure to get
    multiple ousts ASAP it is much more reasonable to spend time improving
    your own position via permanents and bloating, and weakening the
    position of other players who appear to present a threat. It's also
    worth noting that at that one tournament I played, the closest I came
    to a GW was achieved by back-ousting my CEL guns predator with a
    Kindred Spirits. Not exactly going xtable, but still contrary to the
    pred/prey dynamics as many here are defining them, and perfectly
    defensable in that situation. I understand that 90% of the time it's
    better to focus on ousting your own prey, but that other 10% is still a
    relevant and important part of play. If it weren't, cards like Eagle's
    Sight wouldn't exist, and Anneke would not nearly as popular as she is,
    just to name a few examples.

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

    "Peter D Bakija" <pdb6@lightlink.com> schreef in bericht
    news:BEE57091.20493%pdb6@lightlink.com...
    > CthuluKitty wrote:
    >
    >> I don't really feel that this is the case.
    >
    > Ok.
    >
    >> In the games I play it is
    >> very common to see people taking cross table actions to neutralize what
    >> they see as the major threat to the table.
    >
    > Yeah, see, that is pretty much circumventing or ignoring the predator/prey
    > dynamic. And usually it is a dumb idea as it just makes someone else win.
    > If
    > you focus on ousting your prey, then you get VPs. If you focus on ousting
    > someone else's prey, someone else gets VPs.

    where did you make the jump from "weakening someone cross table who became
    too strong and will in all likelyhood be you next predator" to "oust
    someone/PTO someone cross table"? IMO, there's a difference. a HUGE
    difference. In the first, you slow him down from getting a vp, not give
    someone else a VP. Addionally, it gives you more time to try to get your
    prey.

    >
    > Yeah. Sometimes a cross table shenanagin seems like a good idea. Most of
    > those times it actually isn't. Just kill your prey.
    >
    like you said indeed, most of the time. But sometimes it's just for the
    best.
  25. Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

    Jeroen Rombouts wrote:

    > where did you make the jump from "weakening someone cross table who became
    > too strong and will in all likelyhood be you next predator" to "oust
    > someone/PTO someone cross table"?

    Weakening someone xtable is getting him ousted by someone who isn't you. If
    I Rush/KRC/Parity Shift/PTO/whatever someone across the table, I am making
    someone who is not my immediate foe weak. Which makes someone who is is my
    immediate foe stronger--I make my grand prey lose 4 pool to a ConAg, that
    makes my prey's job 4 pool easier, which makes my job harder. PTO was just a
    convinient and extreme illustration. But it could have been 3 pool loss to a
    KRC or my torping someone by xtable Rushing. By making someone who isn't my
    prey weaker and consequently making someone who is either my predator or
    prey stronger, I compromise my own position. See, the game has built in
    disincentive to do this. Yet people still don't see that.

    > IMO, there's a difference. a HUGE
    > difference. In the first, you slow him down from getting a vp, not give
    > someone else a VP. Addionally, it gives you more time to try to get your
    > prey.

    How does it give you more time to get your prey to waste actions making it
    easier for someone else to get their prey?

    > like you said indeed, most of the time. But sometimes it's just for the
    > best.

    Sure. Sometimes it is. But that is the vast minority of the time. Sometimes,
    someone will do something crazy and hose someone cross table, and then
    they'll sweep and the crazy cross table shenanagins will turn out to have
    been completely brilliant. But 90% of the time that someone does something
    crazy to hose someone xtable, it just makes someone else win.

    I just like pointing out that it is usually a bed precident to set to try to
    make xtable shenanagins a desirable aspect of the game.


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

    "So in conclusion, our business plan is to sell hot,
    easily spilled liquids to naked people."
    -Brittni Meil
  26. Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

    "Peter D Bakija" <pdb6@lightlink.com> schreef in bericht
    news:BEE591BC.2049F%pdb6@lightlink.com...
    > Jeroen Rombouts wrote:
    >
    >> where did you make the jump from "weakening someone cross table who
    >> became
    >> too strong and will in all likelyhood be you next predator" to "oust
    >> someone/PTO someone cross table"?
    >
    > Weakening someone xtable is getting him ousted by someone who isn't you.

    I thought the topic here was: doing xtable things to neutralise a xtable
    threat. You're not a threat in my book if you're easily ousted.

    >If
    > I Rush/KRC/Parity Shift/PTO/whatever someone across the table, I am making
    > someone who is not my immediate foe weak.

    weakER. if he/she is the threat of the table, in a good position to sweep
    (my definition of a threat).

    >Which makes someone who is is my
    > immediate foe stronger--I make my grand prey lose 4 pool to a ConAg, that
    > makes my prey's job 4 pool easier, which makes my job harder. PTO was just
    > a
    > convinient and extreme illustration. But it could have been 3 pool loss to
    > a
    > KRC or my torping someone by xtable Rushing. By making someone who isn't
    > my
    > prey weaker and consequently making someone who is either my predator or
    > prey stronger, I compromise my own position. See, the game has built in
    > disincentive to do this. Yet people still don't see that.

    OTOH, you could argue: in the case that say, your grand predator is the big
    Threat of the table, slowing him down from getting a vp makes your own
    position better. But I guess were just talking about different things. My
    premises were: there is a BIG threat on the table who is not my
    prey/predator. If the threat is not stopped by his prey or predator, he
    will likely sweep. Provided those two cannot do this, I can maybe help.
    Thus securing my chance at the GW. doesn't happen regularly. I thought
    this was the topic of the discussion.
    >
    >> IMO, there's a difference. a HUGE
    >> difference. In the first, you slow him down from getting a vp, not give
    >> someone else a VP. Addionally, it gives you more time to try to get your
    >> prey.
    >
    > How does it give you more time to get your prey to waste actions making it
    > easier for someone else to get their prey?

    eg if the crosstable person is you grand predator and about to oust your
    predator. every turn he survives is another turn (wich he will mostly spend
    trying to survive, not comming after you) you can go forward without having
    to defend against the Big Threat.
    >
    >> like you said indeed, most of the time. But sometimes it's just for the
    >> best.
    >
    > Sure. Sometimes it is. But that is the vast minority of the time.
    > Sometimes,
    > someone will do something crazy and hose someone cross table, and then
    > they'll sweep and the crazy cross table shenanagins will turn out to have
    > been completely brilliant. But 90% of the time that someone does something
    > crazy to hose someone xtable, it just makes someone else win.
    >
    > I just like pointing out that it is usually a bed precident to set to try
    > to
    > make xtable shenanagins a desirable aspect of the game.

    agreed. And more often than not will result in countertable balancing and
    time outs.
  27. Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

    Peter D Bakija wrote:
    > If you are playing:
    > -Rush combat (kill Una before she takes a single action)
    > -Bleed bounce (send her 1 bleed a turn somewhere else)
    > -Light intercept (block her key action, like, equip with Ivory Bow or Clan
    > Impersonate)
    > -Intercept combat
    > -Protect Thine Own
    > -DI (DI the first Freak Drive)
    >
    > which is a lot of decks, she'll have to get lucky to go off on her first
    > turn.

    And from my experience in Germany i would say, it will be mostly the
    last type that kill the Una deck (the DIs). Normaly every Deck packs 2
    DIs. Some have 3, some have only 1. That is 8 DIs against the Una deck.
    Very reasonable that we have one in the first round or one after
    cycling cards in the second. Every DI will stop one whole turn of that
    deck, and that is deadly for a deck that only has speed to survive.
  28. Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

    CthuluKitty wrote:

    > Our experience with time
    > limits there only confirmed our distaste for them, as we saw game after
    > game time out because of what looked like intentionally slow, or at
    > least unexcusably slow play.

    Yeah--we don't play with time limits either. But if a single game goes
    longer than, like, an hour and a half here, we were all clearly very
    distracted and Sackett kept getting up to go get drinks or something.

    I can't imagine playing in an environment where single games regularly went
    longer than the standard two hours that a tournament time limit affords you.

    > The game is drastically different without the time limit, and not just
    >shorter.

    How long are these games of which you speak?

    > It's also
    > worth noting that at that one tournament I played, the closest I came
    > to a GW was achieved by back-ousting my CEL guns predator with a
    > Kindred Spirits.

    If you have to mess up your predator to win, you mess up your predator to
    win. At least your predator is sitting next to you.

    > Not exactly going xtable, but still contrary to the
    > pred/prey dynamics as many here are defining them, and perfectly
    > defensable in that situation.

    Well, not really contrary to your predator/prey dynamic, as, well, they are
    your predator. I mean, like, I'm not saying it is generally a good idea to
    get your predator ousted, but it is much more likely to be useful to get
    your predator ousted than it is to get some random dude across the table
    ousted.

    > I understand that 90% of the time it's
    > better to focus on ousting your own prey, but that other 10% is still a
    > relevant and important part of play.

    Sure. But that is a vast minority of the time.


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

    "So in conclusion, our business plan is to sell hot,
    easily spilled liquids to naked people."
    -Brittni Meil
  29. Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

    >> How long are these games of which you speak?

    Typically no more than 2 and a half hours. I actually find that no
    time limit can make the game go *faster* at times too, because no one
    has any incentive to slow things down for their 1/2 VP or undeserved
    game win.

    >> I understand that 90% of the time it's
    >> better to focus on ousting your own prey, but that other 10% is still a
    >> relevant and important part of play.

    >>>Sure. But that is a vast minority of the time.

    Returning to the original topic of discussion, I feel that a trick deck
    like the Una one posted going off warrants xtable interference. Sure,
    it's better that it be stopped by its own predator or prey --and
    certainly possible-- but it may be necessary, and intelligent, for
    players to cross the table to keep it from going off. Decks like that
    simply do not have any defense if they are attacked before they pull
    the trick, and are thus exceptionally vulnerable to a well prepared
    table.

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

    Oh. Another thing about playing with no time limit, which should have
    been included in the last message. It's very common in our games for
    players to concede when one player clearly has the game in hand.
    Obviously, this doesn't happen until only 2 or 3 are left at the table,
    but it serves to shorten the game. In 2 hour time limit games, people
    will often keep playing in positions they know they can't win just to
    score the 1/2 VP and possibly prevent an opponent from getting a GW.
    The one tourney I went to I saw a player in a clearly lost position in
    the 1v1 phase of the game repeatedly counting his cards without playing
    anything as the clock ran down, as though somehow he would have a
    number other than 7 in his hand. I mentioned this to other players and
    noone seemed bothered by it, which is weird. In any case, the lack of
    an incentive to draw games out to the time limit, can actually make
    games a lot shorter.

    Wow this thread has gone OT.

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

    >
    > Well, not really contrary to your predator/prey dynamic, as, well, they are
    > your predator. I mean, like, I'm not saying it is generally a good idea to
    > get your predator ousted, but it is much more likely to be useful to get
    > your predator ousted than it is to get some random dude across the table
    > ousted.
    >


    Now why did you put in that little word "random"? Ofcourse that is a
    bad thing,...but what if it is not random,...

    I go crosstable a lot if i think i need to stop someone getting a VP.
    So usually not to oust someone crosstable, but to stop someone from
    ousting crosstable.

    Give someone xtable three KRC-damage and they suddenly have to defend
    against their predator instead of just going full forward. Could very
    well be worth it in my book. I dont want that player ousted,..not at
    all, but perhaps i dont want him ousting either,...

    Sometimes it aint necesary to do the xtable stuff yourself,...just
    hold back a little on your prey, so that he can put some more
    pressure, either by deal or not,...

    Just ousting your prey isnt what this game is about if you ask me.
    Ousting your prey while stopping others from growing too fast. That's
    how i see this game.

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

    CthuluKitty <vtanarchist@riseup.net> wrote:
    > Oh. Another thing about playing with no time limit, which should have
    > been included in the last message. It's very common in our games for
    > players to concede when one player clearly has the game in hand.
    > Obviously, this doesn't happen until only 2 or 3 are left at the
    > table, but it serves to shorten the game. In 2 hour time limit
    > games, people will often keep playing in positions they know they
    > can't win just to score the 1/2 VP and possibly prevent an opponent
    > from getting a GW.

    And the problems with that are...?

    Do you disagree with the philosophy that a player in a losing position is
    allowed to lose any way he wishes?

    > The one tourney I went to I saw a player in a
    > clearly lost position in the 1v1 phase of the game repeatedly
    > counting his cards without playing anything as the clock ran down, as
    > though somehow he would have a number other than 7 in his hand. I
    > mentioned this to other players and noone seemed bothered by it,
    > which is weird.

    And when you mentioned this obvious stalling to the judge, what happened?

    > In any case, the lack of an incentive to draw games
    > out to the time limit, can actually make games a lot shorter.

    I'd like to see some hard data supporting this position, but I'd wager
    that it's your playgroup's lack of playing with 2 hour time limits in
    non-tournament games that has biased you to believe that the longer the
    game is allowed to continue the shorter the final game length will
    actually be.

    > Cthulukitty

    Kevin M., Prince of Las Vegas
    "Know your enemy, and know yourself; in one-thousand battles
    you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, *The Art of War*
    "Contentment... Complacency... Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier
  33. Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

    Joscha wrote:

    > At least one deck you will oust with that Slaughterhouserubbish... ;o)

    If you can get Brinksmanship on the table, it ousts just fine (or at
    least some do).

    --

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

    "CthuluKitty" <vtanarchist@riseup.net> wrote in message
    news:1119985051.343302.72390@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
    >>> How long are these games of which you speak?
    >
    > Typically no more than 2 and a half hours. I actually find that no
    > time limit can make the game go *faster* at times too, because no one
    > has any incentive to slow things down for their 1/2 VP or undeserved
    > game win.
    >
    "undeserved game win" ...interesting concept. How does one get an
    undeserved game win (other than by collusion or other methods of cheating),
    with or without a time limit?

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

    "CthuluKitty" <vtanarchist@riseup.net> wrote in message
    news:1119985363.417586.114920@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
    > Oh. Another thing about playing with no time limit, which should have
    > been included in the last message. It's very common in our games for
    > players to concede when one player clearly has the game in hand.
    > Obviously, this doesn't happen until only 2 or 3 are left at the table,
    > but it serves to shorten the game. In 2 hour time limit games, people
    > will often keep playing in positions they know they can't win just to
    > score the 1/2 VP and possibly prevent an opponent from getting a GW.
    > The one tourney I went to I saw a player in a clearly lost position in
    > the 1v1 phase of the game repeatedly counting his cards without playing
    > anything as the clock ran down, as though somehow he would have a
    > number other than 7 in his hand. I mentioned this to other players and
    > no one seemed bothered by it, which is weird.

    Aye, weird. The judge should have issued a penalty for slow-play...

    > In any case, the lack of
    > an incentive to draw games out to the time limit, can actually make
    > games a lot shorter.
    >
    I think you might be (justifiably) confusing the effect of slow-play (not
    allowed under VEKN rules), with the effect of a time limit. You need better
    (more active)officiating, such that the former is eliminated. In the
    abscence of that, its reasonable to see why one wouldn't like time limits...

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

    If you have 2 VPs in hand and another player would clearly be able to
    score the remaining 3 (or has, say 1 already, and needs only oust you
    in the 1v1, which is the most applicable scenario for this kind of
    complaint) then you win with 2.5 VPs if the game times out. Make
    sense?

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

    Daneel wrote:
    > But isn't determining whether someone is stalling the discretion of the
    > judge?

    Yes. To have a good tournament, you need a good judge.

    > It's not like taking 2:30 minutes with your turn is playing in
    > a sportsmanlike manner, and taking 2:31 is stalling.

    How do you decide whether or not someone is stalling? Why don't you
    trust a judge to make the same decision? Or choose a judge you trust?
  38. Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

    In message <1120073928.879418.170270@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
    CthuluKitty <vtanarchist@riseup.net> writes:
    >If you have 2 VPs in hand and another player would clearly be able to
    >score the remaining 3 (or has, say 1 already, and needs only oust you
    >in the 1v1, which is the most applicable scenario for this kind of
    >complaint) then you win with 2.5 VPs if the game times out.

    If someone is stalling to take advantage of the time limit, then a judge
    can address this with either a Slow Play or a Stalling penalty,
    whichever they feel is most appropriate and/or supportable.

    Repeatedly saying "But people are stalling for the time limit" doesn't
    address a real issue - that can already be penalized. If your judge
    isn't doing so, it's no wonder that time limits cause problems.

    What other rules does he or she ignore? :-(

    > Make
    >sense?

    It would make a lot more sense if you'd quote relevant portions from the
    posts you are following up - like in this post.

    Then it would be quite obvious what you were responding to.

    --
    James Coupe
    PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D YOU ARE IN ERROR.
    EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 NO-ONE IS SCREAMING.
    13D7E668C3695D623D5D THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.
  39. Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

    > Given the whole thread, there are many times I've played in casual
    > games, where a game has been sped up for sake of completion, that
    > could have been legitametly expanded a half hour or more, if playing
    > under time limits. Essentially, it was one player with a substantial
    > pool, but losing 1 (net result) a turn. Couldn't stop it, couldn't
    > kill his opponent. Enough interaction on the table that he could spend
    > 2 minutes at least doing his turn. Under tourney, he would have been
    > quite capable of going to time, even though he was unable to win.


    That's a large part of what I'm saying. You don't have to stall or
    play ridiculously slow to take (what I consider) unfair advantage of
    the time limit. All you have to do is insist on playing out an endgame
    you know you cannot win, but which your opponent does not have time to
    finish. There's nothing a judge can do about this under VEKN rules,
    and there really shouldn't be anyhow as it would get horribly messy.

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

    >>Do you disagree with the philosophy that a player in a losing position is
    allowed to lose any way he wishes?

    Strawman argument. The point is that drawing the game to time is not
    losing; it's often winning from a position where it is completely
    impossible otherwise.

    >>I'd like to see some hard data supporting this position, but I'd wager
    that it's your playgroup's lack of playing with 2 hour time limits in
    non-tournament games that has biased you to believe that the longer the

    game is allowed to continue the shorter the final game length will
    actually be.

    It's not a bias; it's a theoretical proposition, and you've misstated
    it. Obviously, with no time limit, games will frequently (or at least
    sometimes) go longer than 2 hours. What I'm saying is that if there's
    an incentive for players to draw the game out to a full 2 hours, they
    often will, whether by illegitimate or legitimate means. When there is
    no incentive like this, games will often be ended by resignation much
    earlier, so the time limit actually can make games longer. Compiling
    data to determine whether 2 hour TL games a typically shorter or longer
    than no TL games would be close to impossible, and wouldn't really
    address the problem anyhow. The problem as I see it is that the
    current VEKN rules give players a reason to draw things out further
    than necessary, while at the same time weighting the game in favor of
    quick win strategies, like the one that initiated this post, and
    against slower winning strategies that often make for much interesting
    and challenging games.

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

    CthuluKitty wrote:
    > The problem as I see it is that the
    > current VEKN rules give players a reason to draw things out further
    > than necessary, while at the same time weighting the game in favor of
    > quick win strategies, like the one that initiated this post, and
    > against slower winning strategies that often make for much interesting
    > and challenging games.

    The V:EKN rules give 2 hrs as the *minimum* round time. Tournament
    organizers may choose any time limit as long as it is at least 2 hours.

    If you feel a 2 hour time limit overly benefits quick win strategies, I
    suggest you lobby your local players and choose a different time limit
    for your events.

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

    On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 21:06:16 +0100, James Coupe <james@zephyr.org.uk>
    wrote:

    > If someone is stalling to take advantage of the time limit, then a judge
    > can address this with either a Slow Play or a Stalling penalty,
    > whichever they feel is most appropriate and/or supportable.
    >
    > Repeatedly saying "But people are stalling for the time limit" doesn't
    > address a real issue - that can already be penalized. If your judge
    > isn't doing so, it's no wonder that time limits cause problems.

    But isn't determining whether someone is stalling the discretion of the
    judge? It's not like taking 2:30 minutes with your turn is playing in
    a sportsmanlike manner, and taking 2:31 is stalling. So I guess if the
    judge does not see any stalling, there is none occuring. Which kind of
    makes this whole issue a bit too hazy for anything but a far-fetched
    theoretical debate.

    --
    Bye,

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

    In message <1120106445.575958.23670@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
    CthuluKitty <vtanarchist@riseup.net> writes:
    >That's a large part of what I'm saying. You don't have to stall or
    >play ridiculously slow to take (what I consider) unfair advantage of
    >the time limit. All you have to do is insist on playing out an endgame
    >you know you cannot win, but which your opponent does not have time to
    >finish.

    The reverse of this situation is easily found, however - players who
    would prefer the game to go on for a bit longer (because their deck has
    set itself up to be very strong in the long game, for whatever reason -
    a bit of luck in the draw, a few of the choices they were forced to
    make) but who becomes more aggressive because the time limit is 20
    minutes away. With no time limit, they'd often take the less risky
    path.[0]

    I know I've seen that happen.

    I have, for instance, been in a friendly game where two players were
    discussing what they should do. (One of them was a new player who was
    looking over the shoulder of the experienced player, so they were
    discussing it together as a learning thing.) We both had 1 VP on a 4
    player table. To win, I needed to oust him. So they started planning
    what they should, and how they thought I'd act, and what they'd block,
    and which vampires they thought they could torporize, or whatever.
    (That they were going to be trying to do this was obvious from the set-
    up of the table.)

    End result? I sat there. And waited. And waited. I had enough
    attrition on the table that I didn't need to go forward with my vampires
    (thus getting them torporized) and I could generally defend it. So, I
    got an oust and, had it been a tournament, a table win.

    Under a time limit, I'd have been forced to go forward if I wanted the
    TW; the game would have been both shorter and, most probably, much more
    lethal for me.


    [0] Permanents in play can start to do a lot here, if you can sit back
    and wait for attrition.

    --
    James Coupe
    PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D YOU ARE IN ERROR.
    EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 NO-ONE IS SCREAMING.
    13D7E668C3695D623D5D THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.
  44. Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

    In message <1120112764.430492.117550@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
    Robert Goudie <robertg@vtesinla.org> writes:
    >The V:EKN rules give 2 hrs as the *minimum* round time. Tournament
    >organizers may choose any time limit as long as it is at least 2 hours.
    >
    >If you feel a 2 hour time limit overly benefits quick win strategies, I
    >suggest you lobby your local players and choose a different time limit
    >for your events.

    And, it's quite possible to play 2 3 hour games instead of 3 2 hours, if
    that's what suits people.

    --
    James Coupe
    PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D YOU ARE IN ERROR.
    EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 NO-ONE IS SCREAMING.
    13D7E668C3695D623D5D THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.
  45. Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

    x5mofr@gmx.de wrote:
    > Peter D Bakija wrote:
    >>-DI (DI the first Freak Drive)
    >>
    >>which is a lot of decks, she'll have to get lucky to go off on her first
    >>turn.
    >
    >
    > And from my experience in Germany i would say, it will be mostly the
    > last type that kill the Una deck (the DIs). Normaly every Deck packs 2
    > DIs. Some have 3, some have only 1. That is 8 DIs against the Una deck.

    And some pack 5 :-))

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

    On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 01:23:49 +0200, Daneel <daniel@eposta.hu> wrote:

    >On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 21:06:16 +0100, James Coupe <james@zephyr.org.uk>
    >wrote:
    >
    >> If someone is stalling to take advantage of the time limit, then a judge
    >> can address this with either a Slow Play or a Stalling penalty,
    >> whichever they feel is most appropriate and/or supportable.
    >>
    >> Repeatedly saying "But people are stalling for the time limit" doesn't
    >> address a real issue - that can already be penalized. If your judge
    >> isn't doing so, it's no wonder that time limits cause problems.
    >
    >But isn't determining whether someone is stalling the discretion of the
    > judge? It's not like taking 2:30 minutes with your turn is playing in
    > a sportsmanlike manner, and taking 2:31 is stalling. So I guess if the
    > judge does not see any stalling, there is none occuring. Which kind of
    > makes this whole issue a bit too hazy for anything but a far-fetched
    > theoretical debate.

    Given the whole thread, there are many times I've played in casual
    games, where a game has been sped up for sake of completion, that
    could have been legitametly expanded a half hour or more, if playing
    under time limits. Essentially, it was one player with a substantial
    pool, but losing 1 (net result) a turn. Couldn't stop it, couldn't
    kill his opponent. Enough interaction on the table that he could spend
    2 minutes at least doing his turn. Under tourney, he would have been
    quite capable of going to time, even though he was unable to win.

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

    >>... even agg'boo'/rotschreck/amaranth, will vape this madness.

    That's not a legal combo. Rotschreck ends the combat and Amaranth is a
    combat card. You cannot play Amaranth after Rotschreck, which is good
    because it would be a severely broken combo if you could do it, as a
    friend of mind once did before we read the relevant clarifications.
    His deck was built around titled Tzimisce intercepting and diablerizing
    vamps with enough votes to avoid the blood hunt. It wasn't nice to
    play against in the least.

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

    my bad. i swear, there's more confusion and questions about rotschreck
    than any other card. even regular players make their share of mistakes
    on it. but it's good to know that combo doesn't work.


    CthuluKitty wrote:
    >>>... even agg'boo'/rotschreck/amaranth, will vape this madness.
    >
    >
    > That's not a legal combo. Rotschreck ends the combat and Amaranth is a
    > combat card. You cannot play Amaranth after Rotschreck, which is good
    > because it would be a severely broken combo if you could do it, as a
    > friend of mind once did before we read the relevant clarifications.
    > His deck was built around titled Tzimisce intercepting and diablerizing
    > vamps with enough votes to avoid the blood hunt. It wasn't nice to
    > play against in the least.
    >
    > Cthulukitty
    >
  49. Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)

    CthuluKitty <vtanarchist@riseup.net> wrote:
    > If you have 2 VPs in hand and another player would clearly be able to
    > score the remaining 3 (or has, say 1 already, and needs only oust you
    > in the 1v1, which is the most applicable scenario for this kind of
    > complaint) then you win with 2.5 VPs if the game times out. Make
    > sense?

    If the 2VP player walled up and simply stopped every action that his "vs."
    opponent took, in an effort to either a)get the extra 0.5VP to get the
    game win, or b)eventually wreck his opponent to eventually get the 4VP and
    the game win, would you say he is violating the rules? Isn't he
    playing-to-win in both cases?

    > Cthulukitty

    Kevin M., Prince of Las Vegas
    "Know your enemy, and know yourself; in one-thousand battles
    you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, *The Art of War*
    "Contentment... Complacency... Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier
Ask a new question

Read More

Games Video Games