Usa Forum - TWDA HNC Budapest - rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad

Martin Tibor Major

11/14/2010 3:09:00 PM

Event: Hungarian National Championship Round Budapest
Date: 13.11.2010
Number of players: 38

Deck Name: mINIMAL sTYLE
Created By: Martin "Mephistopeheles" Major

Description:
Fast and aggressive rush combat. Make 1st vp asap and decide who to
stay 1 on 1 with. Follow the basic combat doctrine to backrush first
and than play without a predator.

Crypt: (12 cards, Min: 8, Max: 32, Avg: 4,5)
--------------------------------------------
1 Beetleman obf ANI 4 Nosferatu
1 Bobby Lemon ANI pro 4 Gangrel
1 Bothwell ani for 3 Gangrel
1 Clarissa Steinburgen ani obf 3 Nosferatu
1 Lisa Noble ani 1 Caitiff
1 Mouse ani 2 Nosferatu
4 Nana Buruku ANI POT PRE 8 Guruhi
1 Stick ANI 3 Nosferatu
Antitribu
1 Zip ani 2 Ravnos

Library: (76 cards)
-------------------
Master (21 cards)
3 Animalism
9 Ashur Tablets
2 Blood Doll
2 Fame
1 Fear of Mekhet
1 Frontal Assault
1 Pentex Subversion
1 Powerbase: Montreal
1 Wider View

/could need more copies of Animalism skill card. Fear of Mekhet was a
metagame choice and burned a Legendary Unmada. Wider View never showed
up when needed. Frontal Assault is pure gold!/

Action (13 cards)
13 Deep Song

/just the right number/

Reaction (8 cards)
2 Cats` Guidance
1 Delaying Tactics
3 On the Qui Vive
2 Sense the Savage Way

/my version is really not about blocking. Random intercept is good to
keep people guessing and blocking deflected bleeds/

Combat (33 cards)
10 Aid from Bats
2 Canine Horde
10 Carrion Crows
4 Target Vitals
5 Taste of Vitae
2 Terror Frenzy

/very solid combat package, Target Vitals and Terror Frenzy are
extremly
useful/

Event (1 cards)
1 Dragonbound

/discarded when drawn to early and taken back into hand after a
comleted
Ashur Cycle in the midgame. Awesome bonus to your ousting power/

26 Answers

Martin Tibor Major

11/14/2010 3:11:00 PM

On 14 Nov., 16:08, Martin Tibor Major <major.martin.ti...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Event: Hungarian National Championship Round Budapest
> Date: 13.11.2010
> Number of players: 38
>
> Deck Name: mINIMAL sTYLE
> Created By: Martin "Mephistopeheles" Major
>
> Description:
> Fast and aggressive rush combat. Make 1st vp asap and decide who to
> stay 1 on 1 with. Follow the basic combat doctrine to backrush first
> and than play without a predator.
>
> Crypt: (12 cards, Min: 8, Max: 32, Avg: 4,5)
> --------------------------------------------
> 1 Beetleman obf ANI 4 Nosferatu
> 1 Bobby Lemon ANI pro 4 Gangrel
> 1 Bothwell ani for 3 Gangrel
> 1 Clarissa Steinburgen ani obf 3 Nosferatu
> 1 Lisa Noble ani 1 Caitiff
> 1 Mouse ani 2 Nosferatu
> 4 Nana Buruku ANI POT PRE 8 Guruhi
> 1 Stick ANI 3 Nosferatu
> Antitribu
> 1 Zip ani 2 Ravnos
>
> Library: (76 cards)
> -------------------
> Master (21 cards)
> 3 Animalism
> 9 Ashur Tablets
> 2 Blood Doll
> 2 Fame
> 1 Fear of Mekhet
> 1 Frontal Assault
> 1 Pentex Subversion
> 1 Powerbase: Montreal
> 1 Wider View
>
> /could need more copies of Animalism skill card. Fear of Mekhet was a
> metagame choice and burned a Legendary Unmada. Wider View never showed
> up when needed. Frontal Assault is pure gold!/
>
> Action (13 cards)
> 13 Deep Song
>
> /just the right number/
>
> Reaction (8 cards)
> 2 Cats` Guidance
> 1 Delaying Tactics
> 3 On the Qui Vive
> 2 Sense the Savage Way
>
> /my version is really not about blocking. Random intercept is good to
> keep people guessing and blocking deflected bleeds/
>
> Combat (33 cards)
> 10 Aid from Bats
> 2 Canine Horde
> 10 Carrion Crows
> 4 Target Vitals
> 5 Taste of Vitae
> 2 Terror Frenzy
>
> /very solid combat package, Target Vitals and Terror Frenzy are
> extremly
> useful/
>
> Event (1 cards)
> 1 Dragonbound
>
> /discarded when drawn to early and taken back into hand after a
> comleted
> Ashur Cycle in the midgame. Awesome bonus to your ousting power/

Sorry for typos. You can read my tournament report on: http://hunfragment.bl...

Peter D Bakija

11/14/2010 3:46:00 PM

In article
<501ce3b5-2eb5-4a2a-8148-0a0a33277c26@k13g2000vbq.googlegroups.com>,
Martin Tibor Major <major.martin.tibor@gmail.com> wrote:
> Fast and aggressive rush combat. Make 1st vp asap and decide who to
> stay 1 on 1 with. Follow the basic combat doctrine to backrush first
> and than play without a predator.

Heh. I don't know if that counts as "basic combat doctrine" or basic
"make someone else win" doctrine, but clearly, once and a while it
works. A lot of time, however, it makes someone else win. The backrush
first and play without a predator thing.

> /could need more copies of Animalism skill card. Fear of Mekhet was a
> metagame choice and burned a Legendary Unmada. Wider View never showed
> up when needed. Frontal Assault is pure gold!/

Usually when I see a Frontal Assault and put it in play, I oust my prey
and then suddenly remember the hard way that my new prey is going to
make me lose 5 pool...

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

"It's too bad she won't live! But then again, who does?"
-Gaff

Martin Tibor Major

11/14/2010 3:56:00 PM

On 14 Nov., 16:46, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote:
> In article
> <501ce3b5-2eb5-4a2a-8148-0a0a33277...@k13g2000vbq.googlegroups.com>,
> Martin Tibor Major <major.martin.ti...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Fast and aggressive rush combat. Make 1st vp asap and decide who to
> > stay 1 on 1 with. Follow the basic combat doctrine to backrush first
> > and than play without a predator.
>
> Heh. I don't know if that counts as "basic combat doctrine" or basic
> "make someone else win" doctrine, but clearly, once and a while it
> works. A lot of time, however, it makes someone else win. The backrush
> first and play without a predator thing.
>
> > /could need more copies of Animalism skill card. Fear of Mekhet was a
> > metagame choice and burned a Legendary Unmada. Wider View never showed
> > up when needed. Frontal Assault is pure gold!/
>
> Usually when I see a Frontal Assault and put it in play, I oust my prey
> and then suddenly remember the hard way that my new prey is going to
> make me lose 5 pool...
>
> Peter D Bakija
> p...@lightlink.comhttp://www.lightlink.com/pdb6...
>
> "It's too bad she won't live! But then again, who does?"
> -Gaff

I have now won 5 tournaments and played like 2-3 finals with combat
based decks. So I would say this works. As always, a doctrine doesn't
substitutes thinking. And by the way: what I see most often is people
not rushing backwards because their predator says "oh I didn't do
anything against you and I promise I don't bleed you next turn." What
happens is this: by the time they realize that they should rush
backwards it's far to late and they loose the game 3-4 turns after the
quoted sentence. V:TES is long term planing.

Peter D Bakija

11/14/2010 4:21:00 PM

In article
<7569a3cc-96e4-4091-a219-8a077637b95d@g2g2000vbe.googlegroups.com>,
Martin Tibor Major <major.martin.tibor@gmail.com> wrote:
> I have now won 5 tournaments and played like 2-3 finals with combat
> based decks. So I would say this works.

Clearly, it can work. As it did. And does. Especially if you are in a
good seat and surrounded by folks without much combat. But a lot of the
time, just demolishing your predator means that your grand predator gets
a free ride, and then you have to demolish your new predator, which
takes a lot of time and effort and just hands out VPs to folks who
aren't you.

Killing your first prey quickly, and then just going backwards as needed
works pretty well, as if you have that 1VP already, handing out VPs by
going backwards doesn't really matter if you end up as the last guy at
the table. But going backwards as a primary plan will often, ahem,
backfire.

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

"It's too bad she won't live! But then again, who does?"
-Gaff

Martin Tibor Major

11/14/2010 4:27:00 PM

On 14 Nov., 17:21, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote:
> In article
> <7569a3cc-96e4-4091-a219-8a077637b...@g2g2000vbe.googlegroups.com>,
> Martin Tibor Major <major.martin.ti...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I have now won 5 tournaments and played like 2-3 finals with combat
> > based decks. So I would say this works.
>
> Clearly, it can work. As it did. And does. Especially if you are in a
> good seat and surrounded by folks without much combat. But a lot of the
> time, just demolishing your predator means that your grand predator gets
> a free ride, and then you have to demolish your new predator, which
> takes a lot of time and effort and just hands out VPs to folks who
> aren't you.
>
> Killing your first prey quickly, and then just going backwards as needed
> works pretty well, as if you have that 1VP already, handing out VPs by
> going backwards doesn't really matter if you end up as the last guy at
> the table. But going backwards as a primary plan will often, ahem,
> backfire.
>
> Peter D Bakija
> p...@lightlink.comhttp://www.lightlink.com/pdb6...
>
> "It's too bad she won't live! But then again, who does?"
> -Gaff

I never said you should demolish your predator! Back rush doesn't
equal back oust! You don't have to torporize, though sometimes you
should. You don't have to kill every vampire behind you, but it is
important to leave only that much behind you what you still can
handle. Like of example Owain shows up. You don't want Owain to govern
down twice. Torporize him. Since he can bring out smaller vamps with
dom from his pool you predator will be able to stay alive and defend.
If you don't torporize him and he plays his governs you will suddenly
face 3-4 vampires with dom. On the other hand, if your predators first
vampire is lets say Nadima and he has a stealth bleed or whatever
aggressive predator than you can leave him alone.

Peter D Bakija

11/14/2010 4:38:00 PM

In article
<5c1869e9-28de-481d-a304-1d5e9d7e299c@h21g2000vbh.googlegroups.com>,
Martin Tibor Major <major.martin.tibor@gmail.com> wrote:
> I never said you should demolish your predator! Back rush doesn't
> equal back oust!

Well, actually, you did:

"Follow the basic combat doctrine to backrush first and than play
without a predator."

Backrush first and then play without a predator implies, ya know,
backrushing first, and then playing without a predator. 'Cause you have
demolished them.

>You don't have to torporize, though sometimes you
> should. You don't have to kill every vampire behind you, but it is
> important to leave only that much behind you what you still can
> handle.

Sure. Which is different than "backrush first and then play without a
predator", which is the comment you made that I was responding to.

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

"It's too bad she won't live! But then again, who does?"
-Gaff

suoli

11/14/2010 4:49:00 PM

On 14 marras, 18:21, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote:
> In article
> <7569a3cc-96e4-4091-a219-8a077637b...@g2g2000vbe.googlegroups.com>,
> Martin Tibor Major <major.martin.ti...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I have now won 5 tournaments and played like 2-3 finals with combat
> > based decks. So I would say this works.
>
> Clearly, it can work. As it did. And does. Especially if you are in a
> good seat and surrounded by folks without much combat. But a lot of the
> time, just demolishing your predator means that your grand predator gets
> a free ride, and then you have to demolish your new predator, which
> takes a lot of time and effort and just hands out VPs to folks who
> aren't you.

If it takes time and effort there's a fundamental flaw in the deck.
Either you have sufficient pool defense or you have a rush/combat plan
that can cripple any given player's ready region in one turn, every
turn.

> Killing your first prey quickly, and then just going backwards as needed
> works pretty well, as if you have that 1VP already, handing out VPs by
> going backwards doesn't really matter if you end up as the last guy at
> the table. But going backwards as a primary plan will often, ahem,
> backfire.

Always adjust plans according to the table dynamics. If your
grandpredator is aggressive (but responsible!) your predator won't be
able to put as much pressure on you. If your grandpredator isn't
aggressive he'll make a great new predator.

Martin Tibor Major

11/14/2010 6:29:00 PM

On 14 Nov., 17:48, suoli <suoliruse...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 14 marras, 18:21, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote:
>
> > In article
> > <7569a3cc-96e4-4091-a219-8a077637b...@g2g2000vbe.googlegroups.com>,
> > Martin Tibor Major <major.martin.ti...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > I have now won 5 tournaments and played like 2-3 finals with combat
> > > based decks. So I would say this works.
>
> > Clearly, it can work. As it did. And does. Especially if you are in a
> > good seat and surrounded by folks without much combat. But a lot of the
> > time, just demolishing your predator means that your grand predator gets
> > a free ride, and then you have to demolish your new predator, which
> > takes a lot of time and effort and just hands out VPs to folks who
> > aren't you.
>
> If it takes time and effort there's a fundamental flaw in the deck.
> Either you have sufficient pool defense or you have a rush/combat plan
> that can cripple any given player's ready region in one turn, every
> turn.
>
> > Killing your first prey quickly, and then just going backwards as needed
> > works pretty well, as if you have that 1VP already, handing out VPs by
> > going backwards doesn't really matter if you end up as the last guy at
> > the table. But going backwards as a primary plan will often, ahem,
> > backfire.
>
> Always adjust plans according to the table dynamics. If your
> grandpredator is aggressive (but responsible!) your predator won't be
> able to put as much pressure on you. If your grandpredator isn't
> aggressive he'll make a great new predator.

Agreed.

And Peter: the misunderstanding comes from my bad habit to generalize.
Which I do only in words, not in the actual game. Playing without
predator should = playing without pressure.

Peter D Bakija

11/14/2010 6:47:00 PM

In article
<a6e589d7-7c0b-4ceb-8b48-93b72c8f45d0@o23g2000prh.googlegroups.com>,
Martin Tibor Major <major.martin.tibor@gmail.com> wrote:
> And Peter: the misunderstanding comes from my bad habit to generalize.
> Which I do only in words, not in the actual game.

Well, sure--you wrote something which I responded to. If that wasn't
actually what you meant, then you meant something different.

> Playing without predator should = playing without pressure.

Sure. But when read literally, "playing without a predator" = "playing
without a predator". Which is what I was responding to.

If your actual plan is "kill your prey quickly to get a VP and kill your
predator as needed to stay alive", then I agree, that is a good way to
make this kind of deck work.

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

"It's too bad she won't live! But then again, who does?"
-Gaff

Izaak

11/14/2010 6:54:00 PM

>If it takes time and effort there's a fundamental flaw in the deck.
>Either you have sufficient pool defense or you have a rush/combat plan
>that can cripple any given player's ready region in one turn, every
>turn.

Oh wow.

Can I see a decklist that can cripple any given player's ready region in one
turn? Every turn? Because, ya know, I'm pretty sure I'm limited by the
amount of rush cards I have on hand (or draw into), the amount of minions I
have in play as well as how many presses to end and/or majesty's and/or
hitback my targeted player's minions pack.

There is absolutely no way you can make a deck that can just randomly
cripple whomever's ready region you like. Because if there was, everyone
would be playing it and just cripple everyone else's ready region over the
course of 4 turns and then walk away with 5 VP.

rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad

TWDA HNC Budapest

Martin Tibor Major

Martin Tibor Major

Peter D Bakija

Martin Tibor Major

Peter D Bakija

Martin Tibor Major

Peter D Bakija

suoli

Martin Tibor Major

Peter D Bakija

Izaak

x Login to ForumsZone