Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (
More info?)
Peter D Bakija wrote:
> The deck looks very solid, but doesn't at all look like something I'd
> call "Bruise and Bleed". I'd be far more inclined to call it
> "Multirush".
Yeah, I can see your point. But up until recently, the deck was no
Hacks, about 20 rush actions, and even more Freak Drives. That, to me
(semantics again) is "multirush". Multirush gets the job done by
rushing, and little else. Seeing as how it is just as likely to hack as
rush, I figured that put it more in the B&B category. But, ya know,
semantics....
> 10 Freak Drives is good offense.
Oops. Make that 8 FD's and 2 Mask1K's.
> All in all, this is a very good looking deck. But not really the kind
> of Bruise/Bleed deck I'm talking about (again, semantics of what B+B
> means). It only has 22 combat cards (well, 28 with the Swalloweds),
> but it also has 10 equipment cards, 10 Rush cards, and a lot of
> combat intensive support masters. Making it a good deck, really. But
> it has going for it:
Nitpick: some of that equipment isn't a weapon, and most of it is
redundant, to be flushed out by the later play of Infernal Pursuit.
<snip stuff about fatima's ability and assault rifles>
> I'm not, like, saying that this somehow makes this deck out of play
> for discussion or anything. It is a very good looking deck, again,
> but not, like, something that people usually think of when discussing
> B+B decks (again, this is much more of what I would call a multirush
> deck, and it looks like a darn good one).
IME, 8 (or 10) Freak Drives in a 90 card deck doesn't give you a lot of
"multi". You might freak drive some turns, and some turns you might
not. This deck executes much more closely to something like Thetmes +
weenie dominate, where you have steady pressure of nerds bleeding
forward and a big hoss to land surgical strikes.
<snip pot/dom B&B>
> These decks come up *all* the time. And I don't think they are so
> good, for reasons explained at great length by me.
Yeah, your point being "you'll jam", but they still look OK to me. It's
just a possible problem you have to build to account for (hey, feel like
we're back to square one?). Part of what I think is OK about them is
that Dominate is so ridiculously over-the-top strong, as is Disarm, that
you can afford a bit of coughing and sputtering and still be ahead of
the masochists who showed up without it.
> This Fatima deck, however, isn't one of those, any more than, like, a
> Ignazio deck with 10 Freak Drives is one of those either.
No, they are different decks. But I like Daneel's definition of B&B,
and by those criteria I'd say these decks fit.
> You could say that "well, those decks aren't what we are talking
> about", but they are what I'm talking about, and people *still* build
> them all the time. And they aren't so good. Maybe they are newer
> players, or maybe they haven't had much experience with combat decks,
> but they end up playing these decks, and they don't do so well.
> 'Cause they aren't so good. I see tham all the time locally, I see
> them all the time at tournaments, and I see them all the time on the
> internet. So while one could argue certainly that "1996 Tremere
> Bruise and Bleed isn't what these decks are about anymore", from what
> I have seen, they still are.
Maybe if I get some free time I'll crawl around the TWDA and see what
anecdotes I can drag into this. Off the top of my head, the 2002 NAC
was won by one of the most vanilla, old-school Tremere decks you could
imagine, and IIRC he had enough combat in there that made me think "B&B"
(although I suppose you could counter-argue "toolbox", but then we're at
an even sillier level of semantics).
> Yeah, I'd still go with 5 of her. There is simply too much of an
> opportunity for you to accidentally lose a tournament due to a bad
> shuffle
🙂
Yeah, well, those 8 Hacks changed everything. Now, depending on my
guesses about the table and my opening hand, I don't even go for Fatima
first. I find it more profitable to get right into the game, get in a
quick hack or two, maybe claim the edge early, and flip out fatima as
the game is ramping up. This does a lot of good things. The early pool
hit on my prey makes ousting down the road much more likely. Pool gain
in this deck has always been poor, so the chance to hang onto the edge
for a turn or two can be a really big deal. And by the time Fatima does
hit the table my prey has probably committed too many resources to
turtle up. Given that I'm not going for her first, that I should be
flowing cards before she hits the table, that I have 3 slots of "see a
new vampire", and the shift in emphasis requiring two or three sidekicks
rather than a token diablerizer, 4 copies seems to be the right fit.
And it's still.... what? An 86% chance of getting her anyway?
> I'd be inclined to have a bit of hand cycling to ditch extra guns
> when they show up.
Infernal Pursuit doubles as a way to ensure getting the gun quickly and
as a means of flushing out extra copies. While more hand cycling is
always good, the permenant nature of the combat mitigates the damage
from occasional clumping.
> I'm playing a similar deck with Stanislava, currently, but it
> requires a lot more infrastructure to get the gun in play (so there
> are Earth Controls and Form of Mists, which double to get Flurry of
> Action bleeds of 3 through) so it is a bit klunkier. But it also has
> more combat (more fortitude for defense, more addtional strikes, more
> tastes). But in either case, I'd never think of it as a Bruise/Bleed
> deck instead of a Multirush deck. Just like yours.
Are you still sure you want to call it multirush?
--
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