TWD-Prince of Karlsruhe BDay Bash, Karlsruhe, Germany-23rd Feb.2014

Kiddo wrote:

For example, the last TWD (this one), the one with Saulot as main blocker - is very intriguing to me, but even more interesting is the other posted deck, which ended in the finals with most VPs, but for the life of me I cannot fathom how this deck earns VPs, as it looks like an incoherent mess to me. I really wanted to ask, since the author seems to frequent this forum, but I'm not sure if that kind of discussion is quite acceptable on twd subforum...

I'm bringing this quote here, as it seems way off topic to address it in the other thread.

Actually, I'm not sure why there is so much reluctance to question how decks work. Sure, saying "Deck XYZ looks like a piece of crap to me. [Compliment that arguably insults the player's opponents] You must be a really good player." is not tactful.

Tactful would be more like "Did you ever find that you had votes in hand when you wanted something else?", "Did anyone ever Entrancement away your Nephandi?", or whatever.

As for Erol's deck, which is what I think the question is about. I see vampires with good specials. I see Tupdogs which are broken. I see Govern, KRC, stealth that doubles as combat defense, quality allies, Villein, and bounce. I'm not really seeing why it wouldn't function outside of some environment full of stealth rush. It's just a ton of goodstuff packed into a deck. Sure, that could lead to synergy or flow issues, but that's what x4 Dreams is for.

While it plays too many l33t cards for me, I quite like the many angles the deck has.

Valid.

When Erol first posted this, i almost said "yoir combat package made me lol"

But, metas differ, and i wouldnt mean that insultingly, but seriously, agg, and more agg is amusing.

If someone doesnt understand why 4 horrific countenance is a good idea, maybe they dont get blocked as much as someone with that in a twd. Asking "how" should happen more often. Even terms should get explained.

When i write out a deck that uses indomitabilithy and hidden strength, and alot of them, i call it a PnP deck. If you run +strength, and lots of prevent and press as your combat, its logical. Most players seee pnp, and assume princes and parity shift. I dont. If you run princes even as 2nd trad combat, you should also run parity shift. Its like playing dom and calline the deck dom and deflection and govern. Why say it, you know its good so you will run it? So, you may run a fee prevent n press thimgs, like this twd with saulot or stickmen builds, or alot, suck as the twd from awhile ago with Hardestadt, joseph ogrady, etc. If you run revel and loads of gangrel with animalism and fortitude, and prevent n press, same idea....

Off that tangent, the nephundas dog deck looks ok, but im no fan of either nephundi or tupdogs. The evil mages are ok, just not as good as warghouls, or as fun a deck for the IRL $cost. Tupdogs arent as good as converts for the $value, and also are the opitome of why gargoyles see little love. Tupdogs are broken, so anything printed to help non slaves needs to not help tupdogs, limiting most options, ever if we werent oop. Also, the ideas been done to death.

But this deck is alot different. Zillahs oit top heavy crypt, govern some to midcaps, and do fun stuff. You dont die thanks to villeins and governs early, then tupdogs flippimg.

So, questions: did you often contest dreams?
Any problems getting votes off? Obviously, the winning deck didnt care much, but rest of tourney?
Other comabt a problem, chiefly fortitude?
Why no graverobbing? Safe to assume you plan on putting vamps in the dirt.

Did you ever have issues with updog flow? Or did wider view cope with it(anyone not familiar with seeing these run well/fail, or never playing one ever, the high tupdog crypt volume helps you keep a pair active to do bad thimgs with. Late game, losing one to chameleon or other malarchy, such as amaranth, can be pesky if you are in control but low on pool)

Since I'm the one who brought up the mechanic of this deck in the first place, I'll be more clear on my issues on this deck...

It has quite a bit of Tupdog angle, with 8 of them, but the entire point of them seems to be - they strike for 1-3, can't deal with manouver nor with S:CE. There is also a bit of an political angle, which I get, but there are so many vampires in the crypt without any votes...

There is quite a lot of stealth, but only 4 (6) bleed modifiers, which wouldn't suggest this deck can rely on bleeding to oust, even with Orlando's +1 bleed.

I mean, what I don't actually get is how would the combination of this vote+bleed work with an, in my opinion, ineffective combat facet and still earn 2 GW. But hey, might be the meta...

Kiddo wrote:

Since I'm the one who brought up the mechanic of this deck in the first place, I'll be more clear on my issues on this deck...

It has quite a bit of Tupdog angle, with 8 of them, but the entire point of them seems to be - they strike for 1-3, can't deal with manouver nor with S:CE. There is also a bit of an political angle, which I get, but there are so many vampires in the crypt without any votes...

When I saw that deck, my first thought was: "Brilliant! The Tupdogs are there to boost the crypt size for Paul Cordwood's awesome ability!"

I'd wager those two Raking Talons are there as a bonus surprise, or to make people fear Tupdog rushes, not to lay waste to the whole table.

Kiddo wrote:

It has quite a bit of Tupdog angle, with 8 of them, but the entire point of them seems to be - they strike for 1-3, can't deal with manouver nor with S:CE.

It's not a combat deck. It just has some combat.

There is also a bit of an political angle, which I get, but there are so many vampires in the crypt without any votes...

It's not a vote deck. It just has some voting.

There are only two vampires above capacity one with no votes.

There is quite a lot of stealth, but only 4 (6) bleed modifiers, which wouldn't suggest this deck can rely on bleeding to oust, even with Orlando's +1 bleed.

It's not a bleed deck. It just has some bleed.

Well, that's not true. I play a lot of bleed decks that can't bleed for as much as this deck does. (... But, on the flip side, my decks can hunt for one ...?)

I mean, what I don't actually get is how would the combination of this vote+bleed work with an, in my opinion, ineffective combat facet and still earn 2 GW. But hey, might be the meta...

How is this not just a toolboxy stealth bleed deck with a host of strong cards? Or, if you don't think it's core of stealth bleed is as prominent as I do, just a toolbox, goodstuff deck?

If you can't pass votes, well, maybe Tupdog torps someone and Nephandus eats. If Tupdog can't land Raking Talons, maybe all it does is chump block a rush while you Govern at stealth and get out of combat for free when blocked. As with any other unfocused deck, it has to adapt its versatility to the given table and not just try to power its way through around a narrow strategy.

Narrow strategy decks aren't the only decks that win. So, I'm still unclear on what is so surprising. Does nobody play toolbox decks in your meta?