Deck - Weenie Ranged Potence

[Guest]

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

David Cherryholmes wrote:

> How many instances of weenie potence are in the TWD? That aren't built
> by you or copied from you? Is your sample size worth speaking of?

I dunno. But there are 3 instances of Uriah Winter in the TWD archive
(although 2 of them are the exact same deck played by John Bell both times).
One of them is a weenie pot combat deck. One is something else that I wasn't
quite sure of. In John Bell's deck, he used 2 Uriahs. I'm not quite sure
why, as he didn't have any fortitude in the deck and only 1 Fame. But maybe
it was so he could possibly contest the first one if it defected and he
happened to have the second one in his uncontrolled reigon. In any case, I
can't see how the deck would not have worked better if the two Uriahs became
1 more Hesina Kessi and 1 three pointer with pot. But who knows?

> I've
> offered good reasons why he's a fine choice for decks. I can't help it
> if other people don't understand this.

There is always the possibility that people will come out of the woodwork to
take your advice. But I suspect not.

> Yeah well, I've made my argument. Bored now!

You aren't fooling anyone. You'll be back...


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

"How does this end?"
"In fire."
Emperor Turhan and Kosh

 

[Guest]

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

In message <3a66igF664fn5U1@individual.net>, David Cherryholmes
<david.cherryholmes@duke.edu> writes:
>Oh, and just for the home audience, I was just saying to James that
>weenie decks come with their own form of built-in pool gain. You were
>engaging me, but of course I'm happy to oblige.

I'm not sure how good a form of "pool gain" (i.e. not losing pool) that
really is these days. A lot of work has been put into strengthening the
bigger caps. The weenies used to benefit from both cost efficient and
good skills, whereas these days it's a lot more level, IMO.

But in the instance I'm thinking of, a weenie hoard deck could easily
have a huge chunk of Blood Dolls and Tributes (or whatever suited it
best). Whereas a comparable combative weenie deck will have far fewer,
since it's also using things like Fame and Haven Uncovered. Relative to
another weenie deck with a whole hunk of pool gain, it's at a
potentially significant pool loss.


And relative to a non-weenie deck? Well, yes, it's got a lot less
expenditure on vampires. But in the situation where I was thinking
about, you're playing a directly combative deck. Possibly if you're
going for small-ish Potence with the Lasombra and/or Giovanni, you have
Dominate along with you (though that starts to get expensive capacity
wise) for bounce. But you're out of bounce in a Brujah deck, or a
Nosferatu deck, and another similar Potence-themed decks. And in such a
weenie deck, I don't think you can necessarily *rely* on insta-kill
defence against your predator, unless you get at least a little lucky.
You're going to take some hits to your pool. Of course, it'd be nice if
you didn't and it might work out that way, but planning for it seems
foolhardy. Whereas with a bigger vampire, you may well have access to
more and better abilities - Uriah lacks good maneuvers, for instance.

So, if you get a 4 or 5 cap who can 'guarantee' a kill (in that it's
much more likely than Uriah), or Uriah who can probably do a kill but
you might get hit with a bleed for three beforehand, it's hard to say
that Uriah's direct pool cost has worked out necessarily better for you.
You save on the pool, but lose on the ability to defend it as deeply,
IMO.

Of course, this can become problematic if your transfers are so slow
that you get hit for that 3 bleed before you get your vampire out to
rush anyway, so it's swings and roundabouts to an extent.

--
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/

 

[Guest]

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

James Coupe wrote:

> I'm not sure how good a form of "pool gain" (i.e. not losing pool) that
> really is these days. A lot of work has been put into strengthening the
> bigger caps. The weenies used to benefit from both cost efficient and
> good skills, whereas these days it's a lot more level, IMO.

If you spend 10, and I spend 15 but later gain back 5, what is the
difference? There is a difference, of course. Spending 10 is better.

> But in the instance I'm thinking of, a weenie hoard deck could easily
> have a huge chunk of Blood Dolls and Tributes (or whatever suited it
> best). Whereas a comparable combative weenie deck will have far fewer,
> since it's also using things like Fame and Haven Uncovered. Relative to
> another weenie deck with a whole hunk of pool gain, it's at a
> potentially significant pool loss.

Oh sure, it's not the peak of pool gain or anything. But just by not
spending much you've already successfully achieved 6 - 10 pool's worth
of phantom pool gain. How much are you really going to get out of Blood
Dolls over the course of a game?

> And in such a
> weenie deck, I don't think you can necessarily *rely* on insta-kill
> defence against your predator, unless you get at least a little lucky.

There are no sure things in this game, whatever the aspect you care to
discuss. You have a fair shot at controlling your predator to the point
of backousting him, if that's what you feel you need to do. Beyond
that, you pays your money and takes your chances.

> You're going to take some hits to your pool. Of course, it'd be nice if
> you didn't and it might work out that way, but planning for it seems
> foolhardy. Whereas with a bigger vampire, you may well have access to
> more and better abilities - Uriah lacks good maneuvers, for instance.

I'm not "planning" to not take hits to my pool. I am "observing" that
you simply start out with more left after putting your vampires on the
board.

> So, if you get a 4 or 5 cap who can 'guarantee' a kill (in that it's
> much more likely than Uriah), or Uriah who can probably do a kill but
> you might get hit with a bleed for three beforehand, it's hard to say
> that Uriah's direct pool cost has worked out necessarily better for you.
> You save on the pool, but lose on the ability to defend it as deeply,
> IMO.

Yeah, I don't have any secret love for Uriah, nor do I think he's some
kind of ultimate weapon. I bet in the vast majority of games I can net
more than 1 pool's worth of damage or defense with him, though.


--

David Cherryholmes
david.cherryholmes@gmail.com

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

-- LSJ, V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc.

 

[Guest]

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

My $.02 is that Uriah is pretty stinky in combat focused decks unless
they have already planned on him eventually defecting and can make use
of that. I base this on my experience play testing said decks with him
in it and out of it.

I was wondering, back to the original deck, wouldn't High Ground or
Back Step be a better choice than Fake Out.

 

[Guest]

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

Preston wrote:
> My $.02 is that Uriah is pretty stinky in combat focused decks unless
> they have already planned on him eventually defecting and can make
use
> of that. I base this on my experience play testing said decks with
him
> in it and out of it.
>
> I was wondering, back to the original deck, wouldn't High Ground or
> Back Step be a better choice than Fake Out.

Backstep lets an opposing ranged strike cancel your trap press, and you
can only play 1 high ground each round. It might be worth playing 1-2
high ground anyway, though.

John

 

[Guest]

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

John wrote:
>Backstep lets an opposing ranged strike cancel your trap press, and
you
can only play 1 high ground each round. It might be worth playing 1-2
high ground anyway, though. >

Use of Back Step probably isn't such a good idea, but High Grounds (if
you can get some, as they tend to be difficult to get ahold of) are
going to be pretty solid, as you rarely will need more than 2 manuvers
(1 from HG, 1 from Gate), and sometimes you'll even have access to 3
(due to Bum's Rush). I'd consider going 50-50 with Fake Out and High
Ground.

-Peter

 

[Guest]

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

True on both counts, however, let's look at the situation: you manuever
to long with thrown gate, then manuever to short with something, then
you manuever to long again with Back Step.

Now, if they had something in had that could damage at long range such
as Walk of Flame, Sewer Lid, etc. then they probably would not have
maneuver'd close to begin with. I submit that the probablity of a
minion being able to damage at long range after maneuvering to short
range is almost low enough to be ignored when faced with the very real
utility of being able to replace the card immediately.

 

[Guest]

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

On Mon, 21 Mar 2005, Preston wrote:

> True on both counts, however, let's look at the situation: you manuever
> to long with thrown gate, then manuever to short with something, then
> you manuever to long again with Back Step.
>
> Now, if they had something in had that could damage at long range such
> as Walk of Flame, Sewer Lid, etc. then they probably would not have
> maneuver'd close to begin with. I submit that the probablity of a
> minion being able to damage at long range after maneuvering to short
> range is almost low enough to be ignored when faced with the very real
> utility of being able to replace the card immediately.

If I know I'm fighting a Sewer Lid deck, you'd better believe I'm going to
maneuver close, even if I can strike at range. .44 Magnums are great for
that. They work just fine at close range while Sewer Lid doesn't.

Personally, I wouldn't put Backstep in a combat deck. A few High Ground
mixed with mostly Fake Out is probably best.

Matt Morgan

 

[Guest]

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

Preston wrote:
> True on both counts, however, let's look at the situation: you
manuever
> to long with thrown gate, then manuever to short with something, then
> you manuever to long again with Back Step.
>
> Now, if they had something in had that could damage at long range
such
> as Walk of Flame, Sewer Lid, etc. then they probably would not have
> maneuver'd close to begin with. I submit that the probablity of a
> minion being able to damage at long range after maneuvering to short
> range is almost low enough to be ignored when faced with the very
real
> utility of being able to replace the card immediately.

May be worth it. Still, they get the press if they inflict *any* damage
on you. If they end up outmaneuvering you one round, they get to end
your fun even if they only hit you with hands for 1. Of course, if you
can replace immediately, you may draw another maneuver. Still, I'd be
worried about it enough to go with high ground and fake out instead.

John

 

[Guest]

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

The original poster had a concern about Ivory Bow. After some testing,
I think at least One Anarch Troublemaker would do nicely. Yea, its a
Master Card in a deck where those are golden, but it allows you to
destroy any equipment or tap two of his minions. Either benefit is
pretty significant, and you aren't worried about it working its way
around the table because you really don't have any equipment work
worrying about and your minions are always tapped anyway.

 

[Guest]

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

In message <3a6cqgF68u98aU1@individual.net>, David Cherryholmes
<david.cherryholmes@duke.edu> writes:
>James Coupe wrote:
>
>> I'm not sure how good a form of "pool gain" (i.e. not losing pool) that
>> really is these days. A lot of work has been put into strengthening the
>> bigger caps. The weenies used to benefit from both cost efficient and
>> good skills, whereas these days it's a lot more level, IMO.
>
>If you spend 10, and I spend 15 but later gain back 5, what is the
>difference? There is a difference, of course. Spending 10 is better.

Spending 15 may well (should) garner you a far more healthy defence
mechanism. Spending 10 on a few 1s, 2s and 3s is typically shallow, and
weenie Potence rush decks are about as shallow as it gets. They don't
have the forward momentum of a weenie hoard deck, they don't have the
pool gain of a weenie bloat deck, and they don't have the combat power
of a 'proper' combat deck. For fifteen, I can get a solid set of
vampires and defence mechanisms.

Also, depending on the mechanisms for that pool gain, I may well gain
significantly more over a long game if, for example, I can afford the
slots on a Blood Doll which is extremely flexible. Typically not so
easy in a weenie rush deck, or quite so useful - Blood Doll on Uriah
leads to a mandatory hunt, rather than being able to Taste it back, say.

--
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/

 

[Guest]

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

James Coupe wrote:

> Spending 15 may well (should) garner you a far more healthy defence
> mechanism. Spending 10 on a few 1s, 2s and 3s is typically shallow, and
> weenie Potence rush decks are about as shallow as it gets. They don't
> have the forward momentum of a weenie hoard deck, they don't have the
> pool gain of a weenie bloat deck, and they don't have the combat power
> of a 'proper' combat deck. For fifteen, I can get a solid set of
> vampires and defence mechanisms.

There's not going to be anything like a "proof" that one nebulous deck
is categorically better than another nebulous deck, especially when
we're not even examining them embedded within proper tables. I don't
think either one of us is trying to prove that, but it's my way of
saying I don't care to argue the case any further.

But as far as the weaknesses of weenie potence, I wouldn't discount it
so lightly. Rush, Torn, Grapple, Disarm is the death of many, many
large vampires. And, by the way, I'm not familiar with "weenie bloat
deck" as an archetype. I mean, we playtested the Cooler, and weenie
obfuscate was one of the first, and most obvious, decks to put it to use
extensively. In fact, it's one of our local weenie lovers' "nice decks"
that I still see about every fourth game or so. Beyond that, though, I
don't know of any really common "bloat" decks. When I think weenie I think:

Weenie Potence (grapple of course.... this gate thing is a lark)
Weenie CEL/guns
Weenie Fortitude
Weenie Dominate
Weenie Presence
Weenie Obfuscate

They all seem to have about equal access to the cooler mechanism to me.
You won't catch obfuscate. You don't want to block pot/cel/for, and
you probably want to save your blocks for the bleeds of pre/dom (not to
mention CoT/Majesty). Weenie fortitude could do restoration to such an
extent that tributes get huge, but that's an enormous waste of time
compared to what the deck could be doing, IME.

Oh, and there's weenie auspex. OK, it probably can't get the cooler
that well, but at least it guards its pool better than any other weenie
deck.

> Also, depending on the mechanisms for that pool gain, I may well gain
> significantly more over a long game if, for example, I can afford the
> slots on a Blood Doll which is extremely flexible. Typically not so
> easy in a weenie rush deck, or quite so useful - Blood Doll on Uriah
> leads to a mandatory hunt, rather than being able to Taste it back, say.

Sure the weenie rush deck will consume some slots on Fame and Haven.
But so will any midcap combat deck. Large minion decks have their own
chunk of obligatory masters to help speed them into the game. Etc etc.
In short, I don't think weenie potence is any worse off in the pool
gain department than any other deck. Combine this with its initial tiny
outlay, and it seems to me that it remains ahead of the game.

--

David Cherryholmes
david.cherryholmes@gmail.com

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

-- LSJ, V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc.

 

[Guest]

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

Preston wrote:

> The original poster had a concern about Ivory Bow. After some testing,
> I think at least One Anarch Troublemaker would do nicely.

Certainly can't hurt, but I suspect that a counter Ivory Bow might work
better--Anarch Troublemaker is kind of opprtunity costy (i.e. if there
aren't weapons out, it isn't doing that much good), where your own Ivory Bow
will contest as needed and is still good to have if there aren't any around.


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

"How does this end?"
"In fire."
Emperor Turhan and Kosh

 

[Guest]

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

> Certainly can't hurt, but I suspect that a counter Ivory Bow might
work
> better--Anarch Troublemaker is kind of opprtunity costy (i.e. if
there
> aren't weapons out, it isn't doing that much good), where your own
Ivory Bow
> will contest as needed and is still good to have if there aren't any
around.
>
>

I would only see the Troublemaker as useless if my opponent were
playing a similar deck to myself and had no equipment and always tapped
minions. The ability to destroy any equipment is pretty powerful- you
turn their Tiger Claws into a 3 point bleed basically. I am curious as
to the timing on when you can do this, if they conceal a .44 can you
blow it up before they maneuver, etc. If they play no equipment and
their minions are untapped, the Troublemaker can tap their blockers so
that you can actually get the maneuver off of Bums Rush. The utility
isnt huge in that case, but I don't see a Ivory Bow doing much in a
deck of Increased Strength/ Ranged Potence Strikes.

 

[Guest]

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

On 22 Mar 2005 23:45:59 -0800, "Preston" <prestonpoulter@hotmail.com>
scrawled:

[re: anarch troublemaker]

> I am curious as
>to the timing on when you can do this, if they conceal a .44 can you
>blow it up before they maneuver, etc. If they play no equipment and
>their minions are untapped, the Troublemaker can tap their blockers so
>that you can actually get the maneuver off of Bums Rush.

for answers to your mysterious query, please see latest card text.

it will let you know AT is only usable during your untap phase.

salem
http://www.users.tpg.com.au/adsltqna/VtES/index.htm
(replace "hotmail" with "yahoo" to email)