conversation topics

Its !tremere, but fatties and voting arent linear tupdogs. Well, except for reins of power and ancient influence in Darbys tupdogs, but getting turn 2 that many beads off the table is just sweet.

Anyway, still same comcept. The finals at that tournament seem to have been neat. A Serena the white deck, tupdogs with votes, the winning saulot, you get the idea.

What is an "interesting deck" depends. Rev, I can tell you are into the more creative, not necessarily strong variety. I prefer strong decks more than purely creative ones. Fortunately any deck can inspire other deck ideas. Deck ideas seem to be a common interest for a lot of players.

brandonsantacruz wrote:

What is an "interesting deck" depends. Rev, I can tell you are into the more creative, not necessarily strong variety. I prefer strong decks more than purely creative ones. Fortunately any deck can inspire other deck ideas. Deck ideas seem to be a common interest for a lot of players.

Ive only met one player(local, and hall of famer. Wont name him, but all his twd entries except maybe one are blatant netdecks or easy cheese) who didnt really lile discussing decks.

Yes, id rather play the deck that looks like all it does is stop my predator from winning, then randomely "topdeck" 4 conditioning when my prey taps out than bleed hard turns 4-9 without letting up. I like combat, because its really a subgame that can break other players' ability to win if done right, butcmake a bad player playing with combat never win themsleves if played wrong.

Id rather set up smiling jack to 7 beads and keep playing malkacian pranks to gain crosstables pool than bleed with dominate at stealth (govern, command of the beast, conditioning) for the same pool hit.

I dont dislike strong decks, vignes for example, and stickmen, amd lawfirm..... im a fan of. I just hate the cheesy, noeffortcto play, often onexdirectional decks that are strong.

Im too vain, in many ways. Winning is just part of the point. Style points must be accumulated with vps for victoyry to matter

brandonsantacruz wrote:

What do people want to talk about?

ponies

when I started out, I loved reading players' approaches to strategy, whether it's table diplomacy or deck building. I guess it still interests me. I want VTES philosophy. people play the game differently, but they don't always talk about why.

and I don't mean none of that timmy-johnny-spikey-dickie whatever crap invented by a market analyst. I'm more interested in the common sense players have built up over the years. what bizarre table situations have they been in, and how did they react to it? what cards do players always/never want to use, and why?

maybe not everyone would be into this as they don't want to give away all their psychological secrets just yet.

Haze, I am interested in this, too. I created another thread for it.

ReverendRevolver wrote:

I dont dislike strong decks, vignes for example, and stickmen, amd lawfirm..... im a fan of. I just hate the cheesy, noeffortcto play, often onexdirectional decks that are strong.

What decks are no effort to play? Or, more specifically, what decks are no effort to play when you are playing against competent players who are all trying to win?

Straightforward stealth bleed decks have often been called out for being mindless. If they are so mindless, why don't they win more often? I see stealth bleed played badly all of the time and it costs people victories because the game is often played at the margin ... everyone else is also trying to win.

Some winnie deck that has few meaningful decisions? Say, Presence bleed? Still, so much of the game is outside of one's deck and in the realm of what players are thinking, how to manipulate other players, and what people have in hand at any given time, that there are still important decisions to be made. Game may end up resting on how someone transfers, for instance, when a speed deck is at the table or in a late game situation as to whether another minion is needed. I've certainly hurt or eliminated my chances in endgames by not using pool to decrypt and bring out more dudes, and I see others suffer from that all of the time.

Anyway, as someone who very much embraces the idea that there are boring decks and I have no desire to win with boring decks, whatever those boring decks might be, I get where your philosophy takes you. I just don't understand the idea of looking down on decks because they are straightforward as the play of the game is not remotely straightforward not just due to varying card draws but mostly due to the political aspects that come in from multiplayer play.

In LA recently, Fred Scott was playing an all forward Malk SB deck with Thousand Faces. If I played his deck in the same table situations, I probably would have done many things differently due to differing styles of play. Same if someone else was handed that deck. The variance would be far less than a vote deck being played or a less focused deck, but it would still be variance significant to the end results in the games.

This all feeds into Haze's interest in how different players have different styles, of course.