Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (
More info?)
Peter D Bakija wrote:
> The "always" part. What you seem to be having an issue with here is that I
> said "it will *always* be better to have 90 cards than 75 card with this
> deck". You seem to take issue with the idea that I leave zero room at all
> for situations where 75 cards will be better. Which, of course, I actually
> am leaving open. But as the situations where 75 cards would be better, in my
> mind, consists of, like, 1% of situations, I'm saying "always". 'Cause it is
> a hyberbolic exageration to make a point.
OK then. I have my doubts that 1% is an accurate assessment. I don't
expect us to come to agreement on this, but at least we can be clear
about what it is that we are disagreeing over.
> If I opened this discussion with "This deck is going to be much better in
> *most* situations with 90 cards instead of 75...", I suspect we would be
> having a different conversation.
Don't kid yourself.
> From playing decks like this a lot. With 90 cards, they run out. A lot. Have
> I played them at 75? No. 'Cause when I play them at 90, they regularly run
> out of cards. Right now I'm playing a deck that is remarkably similar (lots
> of weenie pot vampires, lots of Haven Uncovered, lots of Gates, etc) at 90
> cards, and it regularly runs out of cards before it gets its first VP, let
> alone by the end of the game. Is it a really good deck? No, 'cause it often
> runs out of cards before it even gets a single VP. But it is an ok deck. And
> remarakbly similar.
OK then, if you are saying that actually happens a lot, then I consider
that to be a strong argument. I still see what I see, which is weenie
decks ending the game with a lot of cards left in their library, but
I'll pay more attention to it in the future.
> Decks like this take 4-5 actions per turn. A successful Rush action plays,
> what, 6-7 cards at a swoop (Rush, Trap, Increased, Gate, [extra
> manuver/press], Taste, Gate, etc). Unsuccessful ones play 3-4 cards (Rush,
> Trap, Increased, Gate, oops--they Majesty. Try again). Yeah, late in the
> game, you don't need as many cards as if you are doing well, you don't need
> to Rush anymore. But if you even need, like, to do this 10 times over the
> course of the game, that is 60-70 cards. Add in 13 or so Masters and some
> necessary discard, and you are running out of cards. Easily.
I liked the numbers in his first deck. He had 11 rush actions, 22
ranged strikes, and enough increased strength such that assuming two
strikes per combat doesn't seem far off. You're including extra
maneuvers and presses in the combo, which you must be doing to get it up
to 6 or 7, seems inaccurate. Maybe you'll need them sometimes, but far
from every time. Maybe 11 rushes seems too low to you, but he's more
likely to draw them on time. Also, I run quite a bit of bruise and
bleed where my rushes are in the 8 - 12 range and it feels like a
sufficient number. Bleeding forward with 4+ guys who can bruise and
rushing backwards as needed, as the original deck seemed perfectly
capable of doing, is a valid strategy. So's planning to generate a
combat with every minion action, but that's a different deck (and what
you were pushing him more towards).
> Well, it also has, like, 11 Rush cards and 4 Haven Uncovereds, but ya know,
> whatever.
9 Rushes and 2 Havens, actually. 15 vs 11 seems significant enough to
warrant correcting.
> I'm not arguing that there aren't negative effects. I have repeatedly said
> that the negative effects are insignificant. Not that they aren't there.
OK, then we are left with my saying "it is too significant" and you
saying "nu-uh". We should probably drop it (feel free to reply if you
like, though).
> You might be (as you have a tendancy to take a specific argument and
> extrapolate it to cover all generalities in the middle of the discussion
> when no one else is...), but I'm not.
Yeah, I do have a tendency to do that. It's because I'm more interested
in getting at general truths than patching up this or that deck. Each
deck is a particular instance of a larger class of deck, and that's
usually where I've got my eye.
> I talking about this deck right here.
> Ok. I'm extrapolating to "weenie pot Rush decks without Immortal Grapple
> anti S:CE tech", but that is a pretty minimal extrapolation.
Or weenie fortitude, or weenie guns, or 1 cap lucky blow-pulled fangs,
or even weenie obfuscate, which may run bleed action and several stealth
modifiers per minion. If the # of cards are in the 3 - 5 range per
action, as most actions in most weenie decks will be, there isn't a
difference in card demand or flow.
> No they aren't. Certainly not this high card flow. I have plenty of
> successful Weenie decks that use 1-2 cards per action. This deck, and
> similar decks use, like, 6 cards per action. Big, big difference.
Give me some examples of this. One to two cards per action? Including
the action itself (like you did with J's deck)? And you have plenty of
them?
And as I pointed out above, your estimate of 6 cards per action is off.
I was wondering where I'd tuck this in, and here looks like as good a
time as any: I don't think he really needs Tastes. Not that they
wouldn't be nice, and sometimes handy, but his need for pool gain is
minimal. He's playing weenies and he isn't spending much, nor is he
forced to over commit his pool early, nor are his minions likely to take
damage like a close range deck's would. More pool is always nice, but a
Taste or a Blood Doll when what you want is a strike or a press can be a
problem, and one his original deck is not likely to contend with.
> Decks that do the same damn thing are decks that do the same damn thing. And
> decks that do the same damn thing want to play at 90 cards. Decks that don't
> do the same damn thing don't necessarily want to play at 90 cards.
I meant the same thing in the sense of playing 3 - 5 cards per action,
including the action. Anyway, there are certainly some weenie decks
that don't, but I'd say most do. When you provide me with some of your
plentiful examples, I'll be happy to recant that.
> He didn't do what I would have done. So don't use what he did as fuel
> against my argument, as it isn't that relevant. He also could have just
> added 15 Gird Minions. That wouldn't be particularly valid either. What he
> did do isn't that far off from what I suggested, and probably isn't going to
> work badly at all. But it isn't what I would have done.
OK, fair enough.
> Well, no. It is also having more of what he needs. Even at 75 cards, with 20
> Gates, you can run out before you run out of cards. At 90 cards with, say,
> 24 Gates, or whatever, you run out less often. Even if you don't run out of
> cards. And at 90 cards you have more room for freely flowing cards that
> increase the effectiveness of the deck overall without taking out anything
> important (if we took the original 75 card deck and simply added 4 Taste and
> 1 Dreams, the deck *still* would be better).
I'd probably agree with that. Of course, that's just an 80 card deck.
You think it would be better still at 90.
--
David Cherryholmes
david.cherryholmes@gmail.com
"OK. So be it. It's not my view, but whatever makes you
happy, right? I'm all about making you happy, Dave.
🙂"
-- LSJ, V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram