Den of Fiends starter deck revealed

Bloodartist wrote:

I disagree with both of these. Since smiling jack hits EVERYone at the table, everyone at the table thus has incentive to remove it.

Lol, easier said than done.

Usually when it hits the table it becomes a gas pedal. I have bargained to let my cross table allies kill it (because my prey was able to bloat before I could stop him) and I didn't want my cross table to die. Of course when I play that deck I generally get 3 vp. It takes a while to ramp up. That said, the ONLY reason that I have ever not gotten a game win with the deck is because of a time out when my first Smiling Jack got Sudden and I didn't draw another one until late. In general, if Smiling Jack is on the table... the game is going to be over at the latest in about 5 turns (each).

Even the owner may get ousted by it if they happen to get bled a lot, thus they may have to remove it themselves.

That deck bled out? lol. I have been killed before, but not by a bleed (or really any D action, for that matter)

You may end up having to defend it against the whole table.

Yep and I usually do. My record for a single game was 32 vampires burned for trying to remove Jack.

Smiling jack is not reliable in the slightest.

My 90% win rate with the card says different.

Fame is by far the card that is easiest to make work as intended, as long as you have reliable rushes.

The finals of the last tournament I played, my grand predator played Fame on his predator and rushed backwards (trying to back oust). He successfully dropped the vampire into torpor and then died to his own Fame two turns later but not before I used the damage from his Fame to oust my prey.

In two other games in that exact same tournament, I had Fame put on one my vampires. Guess what happened? Nothing... Multiple rushes were attempted but none them successful.

Sorry, your statement above and my experience says it is the exact opposite. People block rush actions targeting a vampire with Fame, but with Jack... they come to me (and usually get dumped into torpor or burned)

The deck should have had army of rats instead

If wall, then use army of rats in addition to Jack.

which hits only prey and thus is more reliable, although has weaker effect.

The biggest negative for Army of Rats is that it requires an action and for Tzimisce that isn't trivial. Still if you are going to run Jack, you should probably be using Rats.

jblacey wrote:

Lol, easier said than done.

Since I know nothing of your local meta, and I don't think I've played against you in lackey, I cannot really comment about your success with smiling jack. Seems like your experiences are very much opposite to mine, though.

From logical standpoint, what you say seems somewhat exaggerated. There are numerous ways to make even the most established wall be unable to block: From seduction to block fails to pentex to daring the dawn to beast meld to just high stealth. Claiming to block and handle the entire table are some big words. My own claim was simply that planning to do exactly that is not a good plan. There are easier methods to victory that don't involve antagonizing the table (I admit I'm bad at that personally though).

Lets just say that your mileage may vary.

Bloodartist wrote:

From logical standpoint, what you say seems somewhat exaggerated. There are numerous ways to make even the most established wall be unable to block: From seduction to block fails to pentex to daring the dawn to beast meld to just high stealth. Claiming to block and handle the entire table are some big words.

Reasonable. Part of it is my local meta is heavy combat with light intercept, dom weenies, or combo. I have lost Jack to block fails, but it isn't common. The decks that use block fails usually want to use it on their combo or a bleed, not Jack. In fact, I don't like to play my Jack too much lately because he is probably too slow (3 vps is usually the max on the game win).

My own claim was simply that planning to do exactly that is not a good plan. There are easier methods to victory that don't involve antagonizing the table (I admit I'm bad at that personally though).

Lets just say that your mileage may vary.

Jack fits into a very specific kind of deck. A deck where the goal is to abuse all the toys that can be targetted by a action. He is a win condition. That said, I always advocate multiple win conditions in every deck.

jblacey wrote:

In fact, I don't like to play my Jack too much lately because he is probably too slow (3 vps is usually the max on the game win).

??? 3 VPs is all you need.

kschaefer wrote:

jblacey wrote:

In fact, I don't like to play my Jack too much lately because he is probably too slow (3 vps is usually the max on the game win).

??? 3 VPs is all you need.

If you needed more than that, most walls and second trad combat decks wouldn't have been relevant all this time; many decks play out in a way to set up, not die, then eat the table once 1 or 2 ousts happen.

I still can't pass judgment on this precon being the worst because I need to see it played (like when HttB came out...) against the others.
It is sad that the main Sabbat clans got the less cheesy/ victory prone decks.

It is sad that the main Sabbat clans got the less cheesy/ victory prone decks.

I do agree. I'm not sure if they would add to cheese, but I find it weird that neither boast allies. Tzimisce are known for Abams-- Ambs-- the ghouls, and their War Ghouls. Lasombra would've loved some Nocturn action there (since the precons do boast Unmasking to boot). I know the Tzims aren't an ally deck, but those allies are soooo good.