[KMW Spoiler] Black Annis

[Guest]

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

"David Cherryholmes" <david.cherryholmes@duke.edu> wrote in message
news😛ine.LNX.4.58.0502090920180.1383@petsparc.duhs.duke.edu...
> On Tue, 8 Feb 2005, Frederick Scott wrote:
>
>> Perhaps. But if it doesn't engage cards that are actually found in a likely
>> opponent's deck, then chances are it won't be much interaction and hence much
>> fun, either. Most Magic decks can do something about artifacts or else can
>> possibly win fast enough (and in doing so, engage the millstone player's
>> defense) to make for interesting play even if the millstone's opponent didn't
>> specific build his deck to resist being milled. I don't think that can be
>> said of Slaughterhouses. That's a bad thing.
....
> But what I really wanted to reply to was that last bit, about speed. You
> yourself admitted that milling is a slow strategy, and any deck that
> chooses to ignore it and just lean left has a good chance of beating it.
> Not a certainty of outracing it, of course, but a chance. That seems
> sufficient to me.

Pet peeve: viewing a multiplayer game as a two-player game - if the prey
doesn't get ousted by the predator, he's "won". Doesn't work that way.
(This is my objection frequently to rush combat decks as well.) You might
not get ousted by your predator and still be crippled because your library
will STILL get exhausted much faster. And the interactions that take place
over deck-exhaustions will be caused ONLY by the victim desparately trying
to use whatever means he has of attacking to go upstream instead of the
natural direction.

Fred

 

[Guest]

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

Frederick Scott wrote:

> Pet peeve: viewing a multiplayer game as a two-player game - if the
> prey doesn't get ousted by the predator, he's "won". Doesn't work
> that way. (This is my objection frequently to rush combat decks as
> well.) You might not get ousted by your predator and still be
> crippled because your library will STILL get exhausted much faster.
> And the interactions that take place over deck-exhaustions will be
> caused ONLY by the victim desparately trying to use whatever means he
> has of attacking to go upstream instead of the natural direction.

When my predator eagle sights me and torps my minion, I lost something.
When I get bled for 6 and can't
bring out another guy, I lost something. When I get SH'd and lose 20
cards out of my library, I lost something. Arbitrarily declaring that
in this hypothetical game you tried to outrace the deck behind you, got
your first prey but failed to win the table, and then pinning it on the
fact that you have fewer cards is one *thin* counterargument. There are
a gazillion ways that arbitrary predator "X" could have caused you to
burn more or less cards by their deck type. You hit heavy intercept and
don't have much stealth left at the end game. Or you ran into two heavy
combat decks in a row and went through a lot of your Majesties, etc etc
et al.

--

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?)

Kevin M. wrote:

> Colin McGuigan <maguaSPAM@BGONEspeakeasy.net> wrote:
>
>>Are you Canadian?
>
> What does my nationality have to do with anything?

Just want to know if I need to include smilies when talking to you or not.

--Colin McGuigan

 

[flux]

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

Frederick Scott wrote:
> "Colin Goodman" <colin.goodman2@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
> news:OnfOd.1878$Dr.1451@newsfe5-win.ntli.net...
>
>>"Frederick Scott" <nospam@no.spam.dot.com> wrote in message news:OfdOd.5115$ds.3075@okepread07...
>>
>>>Sure. Except there's a couple of problems with just waving your hand
>>>over the broad concept of "resources" and declaring all things equal.
>>>All resources are not equal. Vampire resources allow you to take
>>>actions and defend your other resources. The game is full of things
>>>on which to spend your pool resources. But library resources are almost
>>>painless to lose until you hit a fixed point, only then are they pretty
>>>much fatal to lose. (And there's not much to spend them on; things like
>>>Liquidation are very rare.) And, as I pointed out elsewhere, there's
>>>little interaction around attacking vs. defending them given the cards
>>>printed up so far. If I put out a bunch of Slaughterhouses and you
>>>don't have any Arsons, the total amount of interaction we have is me
>>>tapping my Slaughterhouses and you dancing like a monkey, er, I mean
>>>burning your library cards. You might attack me with everything at your
>>>disposal, but this is all indirect interaction.
>>
>>Quite frankly (and no offence intended here) I say tough. You can't build a deck to compensate for every possible action your
>>opponent/s may come at you with, whether it be deck destruction, S&B, Intercept, or dedicated Agg combat. Its no different than me
>>not having the right cards to combat your nasty flamethrower agg damage combat deck (if you had one). You build your deck and
>>compensate where you think there is a weakness.
>
>
> I think you misunderstand the objection. The point is not that people can't
> build decks to defend it. The point is that there's no interaction, hence
> the play is not much fun. "Tough" ain't an answer to that - unless you're
> taking the role of a Marine drill sargent. (Heh! "NOBODY SAID JYHAD WAS
> SUPPOSED TO BE *FUN*, MAGGOTS! JUST *PLAY* IT!!!")

I think you miss the point (assuming I understand it correctly): there are ways to
interact with those alternative strategies, the problem only exists because the strategies
are not common enough for people to include such defenses. You can use Arson to try to get
rid of SH, forcing your predator to attempt to block. That's interaction. You can rush and
send to torpor his HoS so he can't play the SH. Is that so much different from rushing a
vote deck's titled minions?

Imagine only 1 in 100 decks used rush combat: nobody would ever include combat defense, so
a combat deck would not interact with other strategies, even if there are a thousand ways
to do so available. That's essentially what happens with SH now.

So what we need is more reason to include cards that allow us to develop interaction with
those strategies.



Flux

 

[Guest]

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

"Flux" <flux@netc.pt> wrote in message
news:36uau7F54sfdqU1@individual.net...
> Frederick Scott wrote:
>> "Colin Goodman" <colin.goodman2@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
>> news:OnfOd.1878$Dr.1451@newsfe5-win.ntli.net...
>>>Quite frankly (and no offence intended here) I say tough. You can't
>>>build a deck to compensate for every possible action your opponent/s
>>>may come at you with, whether it be deck destruction, S&B, Intercept,
>>>or dedicated Agg combat. Its no different than me not having the right
>>>cards to combat your nasty flamethrower agg damage combat deck (if
>>>you had one). You build your deck and compensate where you think
>>>there is a weakness.
>>
>> I think you misunderstand the objection. The point is not that people can't
>> build decks to defend it. The point is that there's no interaction, hence
>> the play is not much fun. "Tough" ain't an answer to that - unless you're
>> taking the role of a Marine drill sargent. (Heh! "NOBODY SAID JYHAD WAS
>> SUPPOSED TO BE *FUN*, MAGGOTS! JUST *PLAY* IT!!!")
>
> I think you miss the point (assuming I understand it correctly): there are
> ways to interact with those alternative strategies, the problem only exists
> because the strategies are not common enough for people to include such
> defenses. You can use Arson to try to get rid of SH, forcing your predator
> to attempt to block. That's interaction.

Sure. The point is that they're not common to use. It's not much different
saying there's no defense against card X - and hence there's no interaction
when card X is used - and there's only a very small number of things usable
against card X which aren't normally used much. Either way, I don't care.
There will be little interaction and that's what's important.

My response above was intended to point out that I'm not objecting to
library destruction because it will cause unprepared opponents to lose. I'm
objecting to it because as it's pursued, there won't be much interaction
going on. If the two results tend to coincide, I don't care about that,
either

> So what we need is more reason to include cards that allow us to develop
> interaction with those strategies.

Well, yea. I just think that would take more effort than it's worth.

Fred

 

[Guest]

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

"David Cherryholmes" <david.cherryholmes@duke.edu> wrote in message
news:36uo5dF56id4oU1@individual.net...
> When my predator eagle sights me and torps my minion, I lost something.
> When I get bled for 6 and can't
> bring out another guy, I lost something. When I get SH'd and lose 20
> cards out of my library, I lost something. Arbitrarily declaring that
> in this hypothetical game you tried to outrace the deck behind you, got
> your first prey but failed to win the table, and then pinning it on the
> fact that you have fewer cards is one *thin* counterargument. There are
> a gazillion ways that arbitrary predator "X" could have caused you to
> burn more or less cards by their deck type. You hit heavy intercept and
> don't have much stealth left at the end game. Or you ran into two heavy
> combat decks in a row and went through a lot of your Majesties, etc etc
> et al.

You're trying to compare a guy tapping 3 or 4 Slaughterhouses a turn with
a predator that forces you to burn through your stealth faster?

Fred

 

[Guest]

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

"Frederick Scott" <nospam@no.spam.dot.com> wrote in message
news:USgOd.5132$ds.2489@okepread07...


> I think you misunderstand the objection. The point is not that people
> can't
> build decks to defend it. The point is that there's no interaction, hence
> the play is not much fun. "Tough" ain't an answer to that - unless you're
> taking the role of a Marine drill sargent. (Heh! "NOBODY SAID JYHAD WAS
> SUPPOSED TO BE *FUN*, MAGGOTS! JUST *PLAY* IT!!!")
>

This whole interaction thing just seems like an excuse to me. I don't think
it needs to apply to everything in the game. Sometimes change is good, and
curve ball can enhance the game.
You want a game thats not fun, two words, Intecept decks! But thats a debate
for another time.

Interaction. I don't understand why this is considered so important. I'd
guess that approximately 90-95% of cards and strategy are covered under
this, so why is it a problem when (as an example) deck destruction pops up?

I have a Gio/Harbinger deck that while not focused on deck destruction does
carry a several Slaughterhouses as an assist to weaken my prey. Only in one
game (the deck's first) have I ever managed to deck a player out.
Its a viable game strategy to weaken the opponent enough to allow you do to
what you came for, and bleed him out. The rest of the deck interacts as
usual. Now true, its not a dedicated deck destructor but it still falls
under the debate. Beside some good-natured rolling of eyes, I've never had
anyone complain about this deck or side-strategy at the Cambridge group.

>> My point (and long in coming I think, sorry) is that VTES could stand to
>> do with new means of winning strategy.
>
> Perhaps. But if it doesn't engage cards that are actually found in a
> likely
> opponent's deck, then chances are it won't be much interaction and hence
> much
> fun, either. Most Magic decks can do something about artifacts or else
> can
> possibly win fast enough (and in doing so, engage the millstone player's
> defense) to make for interesting play even if the millstone's opponent
> didn't
> specific build his deck to resist being milled. I don't think that can be
> said of Slaughterhouses. That's a bad thing.
>

Yes, but Magic has more than one way to win so the cards and strategies can
afford to make almost any defence viable in any deck/colour. VTES doesn't,
so its become more tight as expansions progress. With all the odd combo's we
can can now do that make "fun" decks, it doesn't change the fact that we
only have one way to win. I'm just suggesting that perhaps if we got a few
new cards that offered the table alternate victory conditions, this wouldn't
be such a problem IMO.

Also I don't buy the whole: "if it doesn't engage cards that are actually
found in a likely opponent's deck, then chances are it won't be much
interaction and hence much fun." You don't need to be able to combat
everything, and you shouldn't. There is always going to be something that
your deck doesn't react well to.



--
Colin "Eryx" Goodman
Cambridge UK
http://www.geocities.com/eryx_uk/Cambridge_by_night.html

 

[Guest]

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

"Colin Goodman" <colin.goodman2@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:hUmOd.3573$xY1.1577@newsfe1-gui.ntli.net...
> Interaction. I don't understand why this is considered so important. I'd guess that approximately 90-95% of cards and strategy are
> covered under this, so why is it a problem when (as an example) deck destruction pops up?

I'm not sure what you mean by the "90-95% of cards and strategy" thing.
"Are covered"? Covered how?

Anyway, interaction is important so the whole game doesn't just deteriorate
into "Rock, Paper, Siccors" - the outcome hinging on what decks players
bring to the table and there not being much you can do about it, once
begun. Metagame should be somewhat important, but not all important.

> I have a Gio/Harbinger deck that while not focused on deck destruction does carry a several Slaughterhouses as an assist to weaken
> my prey.

They don't actually weaken your prey, though. They don't do a thing to
your prey until he's totally out of library. It's a huge ON/OFF switch,
which is the point I made about not all resources being the same to
attack.

> Only in one game (the deck's first) have I ever managed to deck a player out.
> Its a viable game strategy to weaken the opponent enough to allow you do to what you came for, and bleed him out.

I don't know what you mean by "weaken him until...". If you didn't deck
him, you didn't do a thing to him to weaken him so you could be bleed him
out.

> Beside some good-natured rolling of eyes, I've never had anyone complain about this deck or side-strategy at the Cambridge group.

They're probably rolling their eyes because that strategy isn't actually
doing anything to help you. It just affects the prey at the end of the
game, if he's there that long - and having nothing to do with whether you're
around that long or not.

> Also I don't buy the whole: "if it doesn't engage cards that are actually found in a likely opponent's deck, then chances are it
> won't be much interaction and hence much fun." You don't need to be able to combat everything, and you shouldn't. There is always
> going to be something that your deck doesn't react well to.

Again, it's not about "being able to combat everything". It's about having
_something_ to do at all so the card play is meaningful.

Fred

 

[Guest]

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

Frederick Scott wrote:

> You're trying to compare a guy tapping 3 or 4 Slaughterhouses a turn
> with a predator that forces you to burn through your stealth faster?

Apparently so. Anything to add, to that or any of the other points I've
raised?

And, BTW, as someone who's played SH decks (and won tournaments with
them), getting three or four SH's on the table doesn't happen right
away. I suppose it could, but as with many other strategies, throwing
enough in the deck to make that reliable and quick just cuts too far
into other necessary elements.

--

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?)

"David Cherryholmes" <david.cherryholmes@duke.edu> wrote in message
news:36v5etF559oqiU1@individual.net...
> Frederick Scott wrote:
>
>> You're trying to compare a guy tapping 3 or 4 Slaughterhouses a turn
>> with a predator that forces you to burn through your stealth faster?
>
> Apparently so. Anything to add, to that or any of the other points I've
> raised?

I guess not. To be honest, I don't really understand them very well.
I don't think the various common deck archetypes vary a great deal in
how much library they force you to burn to counter them. The significance
of the comparison above seems apparent to me if not you.

Library exhaustion just doesn't do much until the job is complete.

> And, BTW, as someone who's played SH decks (and won tournaments with
> them), getting three or four SH's on the table doesn't happen right
> away. I suppose it could, but as with many other strategies, throwing
> enough in the deck to make that reliable and quick just cuts too far
> into other necessary elements.

As always with these sorts of things, I'd have to understand the context
of how you won (apparently multiple) tournaments with a Slaughterhouse
deck. For instance, was it a "Slaughterhouse deck" or (as you seem to
indicate) a deck that was built to win by other means but happens to use
Slaughterhouses for reasons you haven't managed to communicate effectively?
Or for no reason at all. Sometimes I think people win tournaments in spite
of, rather than because of, certain cards they insist on including their
decks. But I don't know without seeing and deciding for myself what
useful (if any) role they would play in causing you to win.

Fred

 

[Guest]

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

Frederick Scott wrote:

> I guess not. To be honest, I don't really understand them very well.
> I don't think the various common deck archetypes vary a great deal
> in how much library they force you to burn to counter them. The
> significance of the comparison above seems apparent to me if not you.
>
>
>
My point is very simple. As you progress around the table you usually
have to burn cards to do so. Some games you burn more, some less.
If a SH deck makes you burn *some* cards, I just don't see how that is
any different than if you burned up comparable amounts of cards punching
your way through active resistance. And just to make it explicit, my
argument rests on two assumptions: 1) you've placed your deck in "floor
it" mode, and 2) the SH deck behind you hasn't built up 3-4
slaughterhouses until around turn 6.

> Library exhaustion just doesn't do much until the job is complete.

I'm not arguing that. I agree with you.

> As always with these sorts of things, I'd have to understand the
> context of how you won (apparently multiple) tournaments with a
> Slaughterhouse deck. For instance, was it a "Slaughterhouse deck" or
> (as you seem to indicate) a deck that was built to win by other
> means but happens to use Slaughterhouses for reasons you haven't
> managed to communicate effectively?

No, it was a SH/Brinksmanship deck that included 10/80 SH's. I just
think you are off base in estimating how fast SH's hit the table (think
"cardflow").

> Or for no reason at all. Sometimes I think people win tournaments in
> spite of, rather than because of, certain cards they insist on
> including their decks. But I don't know without seeing and deciding
> for myself what useful (if any) role they would play in causing you
> to win.

If you want a decklist I can provide one, but I was trying to avoid
having this turn into a discussion about a specific deck.
--

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?)

"David Cherryholmes" <david.cherryholmes@duke.edu> wrote in message news:36v7dgF557co5U1@individual.net...
> Frederick Scott wrote:
>> I guess not. To be honest, I don't really understand them very well.
>> I don't think the various common deck archetypes vary a great deal in how much library they force you to burn to counter them.
>> The significance of the comparison above seems apparent to me if not you.
>
> My point is very simple. As you progress around the table you usually
> have to burn cards to do so. Some games you burn more, some less.
> If a SH deck makes you burn *some* cards, I just don't see how that is
> any different than if you burned up comparable amounts of cards punching
> your way through active resistance.

It's much different in that Slaughterhouses cause you to burn MANY more
cards than just normal reaction to the card play of others. If they
didn't, they'd be entirely pointless. They only do one thing and that
thing doesn't help you very much. So they damn well better do that one
thing well. (And obviously, I think they do.)

>> As always with these sorts of things, I'd have to understand the context of how you won (apparently multiple) tournaments with a
>> Slaughterhouse deck. For instance, was it a "Slaughterhouse deck" or
>> (as you seem to indicate) a deck that was built to win by other means but happens to use Slaughterhouses for reasons you haven't
>> managed to communicate effectively?
>
> No, it was a SH/Brinksmanship deck that included 10/80 SH's. I just
> think you are off base in estimating how fast SH's hit the table (think
> "cardflow").

I haven't explicitly estimated how fast Slaughterhouses hit the table.
Acknowledged, your point that 3 or 4 of them usually take a while to
build up is valid.

>> Or for no reason at all. Sometimes I think people win tournaments in
>> spite of, rather than because of, certain cards they insist on including their decks. But I don't know without seeing and
>> deciding for myself what useful (if any) role they would play in causing you to win.
>
> If you want a decklist I can provide one, but I was trying to avoid
> having this turn into a discussion about a specific deck.

Sure. Besides, it's not just a decklist. Many other factors are very
relevant: how large the tournament was, how you got into the finals,
how you manage to get the result in the final you needed to win the
tournament - which in turn hinges on a lot other details like the types
of decks the other players were playing, the turn order, and especially
the sorts of politics that went on. I'm not saying, Slaughterhouses
must have been pointless. I admit, I find it interesting news that
someone has won more than one tournament using them (or even one). I
just don't know what to make of it. Sometimes it means something,
sometimes circumstances conspire to make it seem more significant than
it really was.

Fred

 

[Guest]

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

"Frederick Scott" <nospam@no.spam.dot.com> wrote in message
news😀DpOd.5449$ds.167@okepread07...
>
> I'm not sure what you mean by the "90-95% of cards and strategy" thing.
> "Are covered"? Covered how?
>

That they support this vaunted interaction of yours. Try to keep up.

> They don't actually weaken your prey, though. They don't do a thing to
> your prey until he's totally out of library. It's a huge ON/OFF switch,
> which is the point I made about not all resources being the same to
> attack.

Doesn't weaken my prey? Its removing his resources, making things easier for
me. If I burn his intercept and wakes (for example) how is that not
weakening my prey? If you mean by pool, then you are correct but it weakens
his resources thus aiding me. if my prey doesn't have the cards to stop me
thats a good thing.

>
>> Only in one game (the deck's first) have I ever managed to deck a player
>> out.
>> Its a viable game strategy to weaken the opponent enough to allow you do
>> to what you came for, and bleed him out.
>
> I don't know what you mean by "weaken him until...". If you didn't deck
> him, you didn't do a thing to him to weaken him so you could be bleed him
> out.

See my above comment. Its resource denial.

>
>> Beside some good-natured rolling of eyes, I've never had anyone complain
>> about this deck or side-strategy at the Cambridge group.
>
> They're probably rolling their eyes because that strategy isn't actually
> doing anything to help you. It just affects the prey at the end of the
> game, if he's there that long - and having nothing to do with whether
> you're
> around that long or not.

So resource denial doesn't affect my prey? Certainly seems to when I play
it.

>
>> Also I don't buy the whole: "if it doesn't engage cards that are actually
>> found in a likely opponent's deck, then chances are it won't be much
>> interaction and hence much fun." You don't need to be able to combat
>> everything, and you shouldn't. There is always going to be something that
>> your deck doesn't react well to.
>
> Again, it's not about "being able to combat everything". It's about
> having
> _something_ to do at all so the card play is meaningful.

See, this is where I get confused, because I don't understand what you mean.
Meaningful?


--
Colin "Eryx" Goodman
Cambridge UK
http://www.geocities.com/eryx_uk/Cambridge_by_night.html

 

[Guest]

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

"Colin Goodman" <colin.goodman2@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:74qOd.3054$Ya.321@newsfe2-win.ntli.net...
> "Frederick Scott" <nospam@no.spam.dot.com> wrote in message
> news😀DpOd.5449$ds.167@okepread07...
(about burning library cards)
>> They don't actually weaken your prey, though. They don't do a thing to
>> your prey until he's totally out of library. It's a huge ON/OFF switch,
>> which is the point I made about not all resources being the same to
>> attack.
>
> Doesn't weaken my prey? Its removing his resources, making things easier for me. If I burn his intercept and wakes (for example)
> how is that not weakening my prey?

Huh?!? How IS it "weakening (your) prey"? Those intercepts and wakes were
in his library, not his hand.

I see what's going on here. People always used to freak out about this with
Millstones in Magic, too. It's confusion over the meaning of moving a card
from one's library to one's graveyard (or ashheap, as the case may be). It
doesn't do a thing right away. The only time it makes a difference is in
the future, when the library is exhausted. If you don't agree with that,
then explain to me what's different between a random card in a player's
library he can't use and a random card in his graveyard he can't use.
You can't. There is NO difference - except in the future when the pile
is totally gone.

>> I don't know what you mean by "weaken him until...". If you didn't deck
>> him, you didn't do a thing to him to weaken him so you could be bleed him
>> out.
>
> See my above comment. Its resource denial.

But it's a resource that denying doesn't result in weakening.

> So resource denial doesn't affect my prey? Certainly seems to when I play it.

Then please explain how?

>>> Also I don't buy the whole: "if it doesn't engage cards that are actually found in a likely opponent's deck, then chances are it
>>> won't be much interaction and hence much fun." You don't need to be able to combat everything, and you shouldn't. There is
>>> always going to be something that your deck doesn't react well to.
>>
>> Again, it's not about "being able to combat everything". It's about having _something_ to do at all so the card play is
>> meaningful.
>
> See, this is where I get confused, because I don't understand what you mean. Meaningful?

"Meaningful" - as in, being able to do something that means something to
attempt to resist the library exhaustion. Attacking is fun. Resisting being
attacked (defending) is fun. Sitting around watching helplessly as your
predator taps a card you can't do anything about is....nothing. Like
sleeping.

Fred

 

[Guest]

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

"Frederick Scott" <nospam@no.spam.dot.com> wrote in message news:ZQsOd.5702$ds.5024@okepread07...
> I see what's going on here. People always used to freak out about this with
> Millstones in Magic, too. It's confusion over the meaning of moving a card
> from one's library to one's graveyard (or ashheap, as the case may be). It
> doesn't do a thing right away. The only time it makes a difference is in
> the future, when the library is exhausted. If you don't agree with that,
> then explain to me what's different between a random card in a player's
> library he can't use and a random card in his graveyard he can't use.
> You can't. There is NO difference - except in the future when the pile
> is totally gone.

Yes. The only time it matters[0] is when it isn't random; that is,
when you first look at the cards on the top of the library and then
selectively apply the deck destruction based on what you see there.
Or when someone else has looked and you want to remove (or at
least decrease) the benefit that knowledge has gained them.

[0] That is, when it is any different than taking X cards from the
bottom of a randomized deck instead of from the top. Note that
deck destruction even in the random sense has an effect on the
effectiveness library-search abilities. So if your prey is
using those (and not the library-and-ash-heap searchers), even
random deck destruction is a form of immediate resource denial.

--
LSJ (vtesrep@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc.
V:TES homepage: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/
Though effective, appear to be ineffective -- Sun Tzu

 

[Guest]

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

"LSJ" <vtesrep@white-wolf.com> wrote in message
news:36v4m2F57bhp5U1@individual.net...
> Note that
> deck destruction even in the random sense has an effect on the
> effectiveness library-search abilities. So if your prey is
> using those (and not the library-and-ash-heap searchers), even
> random deck destruction is a form of immediate resource denial.

Sure. Not necessarily a very effective form - depending on how
much it's being relied on. If somehow the whole deck is based on
a library(only) searcher, then maybe more so but that's too rare
in the metagame (IMO) to matter much.

A few other things, too: cards that allow you to pull stuff out
of graveyards. For these purposes, allowing you to pull stuff out
of your prey's graveyard (e.g. Filchware's Pawn Shop or The
Ericyes Fragment) would be more interesting since you can combo
these with Slaughterhouse to create a strategy based on something
other than just waiting for him to run out of library. For the
most part, though, these kinds of things have not been developed
to the point of creating interesting strategies and counter-
strategies (at least, at the moment). I don't know what the state
of Magic looks like now, but the designers seemed to be in the
process of developing that kind of stuff to a much larger degree
just as I quit playing.

Fred

 

[Guest]

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

"Frederick Scott" <nospam@no.spam.dot.com> wrote in message
news:VupOd.5393$ds.3822@okepread07...
>
>
> Sure. The point is that they're not common to use. It's not much
> different
> saying there's no defense against card X - and hence there's no
> interaction
> when card X is used - and there's only a very small number of things
> usable
> against card X which aren't normally used much. Either way, I don't care.
> There will be little interaction and that's what's important.
>
> My response above was intended to point out that I'm not objecting to
> library destruction because it will cause unprepared opponents to lose.
> I'm
> objecting to it because as it's pursued, there won't be much interaction
> going on. If the two results tend to coincide, I don't care about that,
> either

So let me get this right. Your objection is that because other when the SH
is played, or when you have Arson (or similar) you don't get to react to the
card?

>
>> So what we need is more reason to include cards that allow us to develop
>> interaction with those strategies.
>
> Well, yea. I just think that would take more effort than it's worth.
>

I don't agree. Its worth looking into IMO. Anything that expands the game is
(for the most part) better.

--
Colin "Eryx" Goodman
Cambridge UK
http://www.geocities.com/eryx_uk/Cambridge_by_night.html

 

[Guest]

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

"Colin Goodman" <colin.goodman2@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:h9qOd.3062$Ya.1456@newsfe2-win.ntli.net...
> "Frederick Scott" <nospam@no.spam.dot.com> wrote in message
> news:VupOd.5393$ds.3822@okepread07...
> So let me get this right. Your objection is that because other when the SH
> is played, or when you have Arson (or similar) you don't get to react to the
> card?

(Not my only objection but...)

Yea. There's really only one way to library destruction that works - because
it's so much more effective than any other form in existance. Or at least,
that's my theory, by all means speak up it you disagree. That one method is
entirely based on Slaughterhouse, a location card. The vast majority of location
cards _help_ their owners. They don't just exist to attack one opposing player
in the game like Slaughterhouse. So location-countering cards are basically
toolbox cards, never carried in the numbers it would require to do anything
about a guy pack a half dozen or more Slaughterhouses. So the whole interaction
over the Slaughterhouses is nothing: you tap your SH, I burn my library.
I can ignore it - because you're wrong, tapping Slaughterhouses does zero to
weaken my CURRENT position. Or I can attack backwards in whatever way I can
(rush, politics, even Kindred Spirits bleeds if Malkavian) to cease the
destruction that at some point may utterly kill me and just for being so
stupid as to pursue such a strategy. But whatever I do, it's not based
directly on the Slaughterhouses.

I suppose a better card would have been to make Slaughterhouse a loquipment
card that had to be played on minion and which allowed the minion to be rushed.
THAT would be interaction. (I'd still think library destruction was a silly
strategy to pursue but at least it would certainly be more interesting.)

Fred

 

[Guest]

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

Colin Goodman wrote:
> "Frederick Scott" <nospam@no.spam.dot.com> wrote in message

> > So the whole interaction
> > over the Slaughterhouses is nothing: you tap your SH, I burn my
library.
> > I can ignore it - because you're wrong, tapping Slaughterhouses
does zero
> > to
> > weaken my CURRENT position.
>
> Ok, I'll give you that. It does nothing to weaken the current
situation but
> it does affect future position as you lose access to cards.
> I understand the
> points raised in other posts in this thread that it is possible that
a SH
> deck is assisting my prey by bringing other cards quicker to him, but
I also
> disgaree with that because on the same hand its casting cards aside
as well,
> thus reducing the opportunities my prey has to stop me.

Well the point wasn't to say that SH helps your prey. The point is,
as you note above, that there is an "on the other hand". Its immediate
effect is random. An individual card sent to the ash heap may help or
hurt your prey. Generally speaking, though, you'll be reducing the size
of the library and leaving the proportions of cards the same. When the
proportions aren't affected, the deck functions the same as if you had
not tapped SH.

This whole thing reminds me how they say smoking a cigarette takes 7
minutes off your life. As your smoker friends will surely remind you,
you aren't losing 7 minutes of your life *today* (with all your
youthful vitality). You are instead losing the *last* 7 minutes...the
one's you'd otherwise be spending in the hospital hooked to a machine
or something.

-Robert

 

[Guest]

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

"Frederick Scott" <nospam@no.spam.dot.com> wrote in message
news😛8tOd.5704$ds.2558@okepread07...
>
> Yea. There's really only one way to library destruction that works -
> because
> it's so much more effective than any other form in existance. Or at
> least,
> that's my theory, by all means speak up it you disagree.

I'll agree with that.

> So the whole interaction
> over the Slaughterhouses is nothing: you tap your SH, I burn my library.
> I can ignore it - because you're wrong, tapping Slaughterhouses does zero
> to
> weaken my CURRENT position.

Ok, I'll give you that. It does nothing to weaken the current situation but
it does affect future position as you lose access to cards. I understand the
points raised in other posts in this thread that it is possible that a SH
deck is assisting my prey by bringing other cards quicker to him, but I also
disgaree with that because on the same hand its casting cards aside as well,
thus reducing the opportunities my prey has to stop me.

>
> I suppose a better card would have been to make Slaughterhouse a
> loquipment
> card that had to be played on minion and which allowed the minion to be
> rushed.
> THAT would be interaction. (I'd still think library destruction was a
> silly
> strategy to pursue but at least it would certainly be more interesting.)
>

Actually I think that might have been a nice idea.


Also my apologies Frederick for the tone of my previous post. I was getting
a little frustrated (both with this thread and an unrelated non-VTES one on
another board).

--
Colin "Eryx" Goodman
Cambridge UK
http://www.geocities.com/eryx_uk/Cambridge_by_night.html

 

[Guest]

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

Colin McGuigan <maguaSPAM@BGONEspeakeasy.net> wrote:
> Kevin M. wrote:
>
>> Colin McGuigan <maguaSPAM@BGONEspeakeasy.net> wrote:
>>
>>>Are you Canadian?
>>
>> What does my nationality have to do with anything?
>
> Just want to know if I need to include smilies
> when talking to you or not.

Just use your brain when you're on a newsgroup and you'll be fine.

> --Colin McGuigan

Kevin M., Prince of Henderson, NV (USA)
"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

 

[Guest]

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

Kevin M. wrote:
> Just use your brain when you're on a newsgroup and you'll be fine.

Why break a longstanding tradition?

--Colin McGuigan

 

[Guest]

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

Colin McGuigan <maguaSPAM@BGONEspeakeasy.net> wrote:
> Kevin M. wrote:
>> Just use your brain when you're on a newsgroup and you'll be fine.
>
> Why break a longstanding tradition?

Whoa.

It could have been a flamewar, but we're now brothers, there's so much
love in the room.

Peace out, brother Colin. =)

> --Colin McGuigan

--Brother KevinM

 

[Guest]

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

Frederick Scott wrote:

> Sure. Besides, it's not just a decklist. Many other factors are
> very relevant: how large the tournament was, how you got into the
> finals, how you manage to get the result in the final you needed to
> win the tournament - which in turn hinges on a lot other details like
> the types of decks the other players were playing, the turn order,
> and especially the sorts of politics that went on. I'm not saying,
> Slaughterhouses must have been pointless. I admit, I find it
> interesting news that someone has won more than one tournament using
> them (or even one). I just don't know what to make of it.
> Sometimes it means something, sometimes circumstances conspire to
> make it seem more significant than it really was.

I don't think one tournament win can settle much of anything, for any
deck. As you pointed out, there are just too many factors that go into
who wins *any* tournament with *any* deck. Still, when the dust
settles, a win is a win.

Pasted from The Path of Blood:

Deck Name: Brinksmanship 2.0
Created By: David Cherryholmes
Description: Won DC tournament

Crypt: (12 cards, Min: 22, Max: 32, Avg: 6.83)
----------------------------------------------
4 Bartholomew AUS dom MYT NEC obt 8, Kiasyd:2
3 Egothha AUS FOR NEC obf 7, Harbingers of Skulls:2
3 Gisela Harden aus dem FOR NEC 7, Harbingers of Skulls:2, Priscus
1 Le Dinh Tho aus dom NEC 5, Nagaraja:2
1 Juan Cali aus for 3, Ventrue Antitribu:2

Library: (82 cards)
-------------------
Master (22 cards)
2 Blood Doll
1 Dia de los Muertos
1 Lazarene Inquisitor
2 Minion Tap
1 Parthenon, The
2 Secure Haven
8 Slaughterhouse, The
3 Storage Annex
2 Archon Investigation


Action (4 cards)
2 Revelations
2 Summon Soul

Action Modifier (9 cards)
4 Call of the Hungry Dead
3 Daring the Dawn
2 Telepathic Vote Counting

Political Action (7 cards)
2 Brinksmanship
2 Cardinal Benediction
2 Dramatic Upheaval
1 Peace Treaty

Reaction (22 cards)
2 Eagle's Sight
2 Enhanced Senses
8 Folderol
8 Telepathic Counter
2 Telepathic Misdirection

Combat (16 cards)
8 Rolling with the Punches
8 Spiritual Intervention

Combo (2 cards)
2 Spectral Divination

The deck is not intended to sweep. As with all such decks, other people
not only can get victory points.... you *need* for them to get victory
points, so long as on one gets two. Your prey will probably be one of
those who gets his VP. This is fine, since he probably will not have the
resources to gain two, if he even gets that many.

The deck takes exactly one action that really matters. As a result,
there is room for large amounts of bleed and combat defense. Since so
many slots are available, Telepathic Counter and Folderol stack to make
pretty good bleed defense. Bart is brought out solely for this purpose,
and to sit there and gain you pool. He should be Secure Havened since he
lacks fortitude, but if you don't expect Grapple or Psyche, he can
defend himself tolerably well with the free S:CE. Tap him down to one
regardless; either they beat Spiritual Intervention or they don't, and
whether he has one or four blood probably won't matter.

There are also a disproportionate number of master cards in the deck.
You won't really cycle unless people are bleeding you or rushing you, so
it's important to have a few masters in hand to maintain deck flow.

People tend to freak out when they see Slaughterhouses. I find it works
to explain that of course you are trying to oust them this way, but it
is *slow*, you won't touch their pool, and that's a better deal than
then next guy in line will probably give them. If they don't buy it,
hey, let them rush you. That's what all the comabt defense is there for.
Aggressive voters are a little more of a problem, but you have a good
shot at six table votes, and your bloat to fall back on. Combat decks,
provided they aren't over-the-top trumpy, actually play into your
strategy. Let them pound on your fortitude and grind their deck away.

The challenge with this deck always lies in getting the win under the
time limit. Earlier versions had Autarkis Persecution and Millicent
Smith. These cards play perfectly into your strategy, but they add too
much time to the table. Folderol is an acceptible means of controlling
the oust, and Revelations and Le Din Tho can also be deployed to slow
down other decks that might be positioning for the second VP. Dramatic
Upheaval is also useful in several ways. If you think you can handle it,
jump in front of the aggressive deck and let him help you cycle into
your Slaughterhouses that much more quickly. It's also good to upheaval
with your prey before he gets the oust. Leave him with a little deck, so
your grandpredator doesn't get a free ride from your Brinksmanship; he
won't have enough to oust you, and probably has plenty of pool to serve
as a meatshield.

On the plus side, you don't actually *do* anything on your turns, so
they go very quickly. This adds roughly another 20% to the clock.

Always wait to Slaughter until after your prey has taken his turn. This
lets a whole table cycle expire before he gets slaughtered, and by that
time something else has likely transpired that pisses him off more. Cuts
down on the backstreaming, I've found.

Another trick that bears pointing out: Telepathic Counter plus Folderol
chops bleeds down for three. This creates an incentive to bleed for more
than three. Then you Archon Investigate them.

I assume the basics of the Brinksmanship/Slaughterhouse mechanic needs
no explaining. I've recieved several comments to the effect that the
deck doesn't have as many Slaughterhouses as it should. I think it's
better to trickle them onto the table. Keeps your prey calmer, makes the
aformentioned argument about not being that bad a predator to have
easier to swallow, and lets your prey tear up the table and maybe get
that lone VP. After you've ousted him, you've built up enough that the
next prey, and possibly the one after that, go much more quickly.

That's really about it. Not a turbo, power, crush-your-skull-in kind of
deck, but a refreshing break from the three legs of the triangle. Oh
yeah... play with two Dia's. I had to bum the one and couldn't scrape up
another.


--

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.