wumpus
8/22/2010 9:28:00 PM
Howdy Ian,
On Aug 21, 7:09 pm, Curevei <Cure...@aol.com> wrote:
> On Aug 18, 4:20 pm, wumpus <wump...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > Howdy,
>
> > I thought I'd post this one for comment after the discussion of
> > trophies in the Cannibal Thirst thread. I've been trying to make pot
> > + VIC rush work forever, with extremely limited success. While the
> > crypt options have widened, it's still a pretty marginal - though
> > entertaining - concept.
>
> Why is it entertaining? Other than being different, how are you
> gaining anything over just Potence or just Vicissitude?
Hitting for medium amounts of aggravated damage is, perhaps
surprisingly to those who have not tried it, highly entertaining. Or
at least it is to me. Moreso than I expected. It's even more
entertaining when people haven't seen the deck before and are trying
to figure out what your minions have in common, and what exactly is
going on.
> Not quite rhetorical questions, but what I'm getting at is that
> there's no clear answer for how to make your deck more the way you
> want it until it's clearer to understand what the deck's existence
> depends upon.
You figured it out later in your post: Immortal Grapple + VIC.
> The obvious answer on the deck if all that mattered was putting
> together a better rush deck would be to eliminate one of your two
> combat disciplines.
Taking out pot would certainly make for a better (more standard)
intercept combat deck. I find relying on Telepathic Tracking for anti-
S:CE to be marginal, at best, though, so I wouldn't try to rush using
AUS/VIC. (As I wouldn't try to make a rush deck that can't cope with
S:CE.)
Taking out the VIC would completely transform the deck, and, yes, make
for a more standard rush deck, though I'm generally loathe to try to
run rush just with pot weenies. I've been trying various pot/POT + X
combinations, and they generally appeal to me far more than straight
pot.
> > Adds: Amaranth? Asanbonsam? Edge of the World? Elephant?
> > Founders? Kduva? Path? Perpetual Care? Preternatural Strength?
> > Rampage? Rotschreck? Taste? Trinket? Tension? Well-Marked? Wider
> > View?
>
> I'm perfectly willing to do something different for no other reason
> than to do something different. But, I try to find a comparative
> advantage in what I'm doing (regardless as to the overall
> effectiveness). What does mixing Pot and Vic do that couldn't be done
> without mixing them?
>
> The only reason I see for this deck playing Potence is Immortal
> Grapple,
Got it in one!
> which is unnecessary as you could play straight Tzimisce and
> run Telepathic Tracking instead.
I don't find TT to be a good substitute for IG: It costs a blood,
only hoses the first S:CE, doesn't prevent nasty weapons or other
strikes, and is generally less necessary in a deck full of AUS
anyway. If I can wake and block you repeatedly, I find it much, much
less important to hose S:CE.
< Because Potence offers next to
> nothing outside of "I hit you more" and Vicissitude can already
> annihilate minions, especially with some help from Carrion Crows,
> having Potence be the "helper" means discipline irrelevancy.
Immortal Grapple is not 'next to nothing'. And you left out Disarm
(though so did I). Previous builds of this deck (G2/3) had no access
to intercept or ANI, so they used more POT - Torn Signpost, Undead
Strength (they were built before Slam), Rampage. Those decks could
often generate rather large agg strikes; unfortunately, they had no
real defense other than backrush, and so tended to die horrible deaths
after making smoking craters of themselves and one or more neighbors.
This deck only uses Grapple out of POT, and yet, that is plenty of
justification for Potence, IMO.
> So, my
> approach to such a deck would be to start with Potence and use
> Vicissitude as the helper discipline as Vic has things that, in
> theory, make a deck better - stealth, bleed, combat ends.
<snip completely different approach to pot/vic>
It might be interesting to try to play up the Laibon angle some more
(potentially at the expense of Trophies), as you suggest. Right now
I'm getting pretty good mileage out of PB: Luanda and No Secrets. Of
course, they're some of the best Laibon cards, so I may already be at
the point of diminishing returns? A second Luanda certainly wouldn't
hurt. Maybe some Founders as Wedge suggested, or some of the
permableed Laibon options?
I'm pretty happy with the combat and very happy to finally have some
defensive options - I'm really just looking for more forward pressure
at this point. If I could stuff in a bunch more Changelings, that'd
be great, but I just don't have the room. So that's where I am. It
may just be a bridge too far for this deck to move from entertaining
to effective - I can accept that. (Heck, I still have the BH AUS/pot/
VIC version to build and try some time.) I like trying to find 'new'
decks, and this combination has provided plenty of interest/challenge
along those lines.
Thanks,
Alex