Steve Wampler wrote:



: Have you actually played this deck, or just created it in theory?

Theory.  I don't know anyone in Ann Arbor who plays, so MJL tourneys are
currently my only outlet. ;-)

: I have had extensize experience (and extensive success, just ask any
: number of really bitter people... Peter... Eric...) with this deck,
: which is the basis for these suggestions which, as you note, seem poor
: in theory.  I have never once been in a situation where GM would have
: made any signifigant difference.  I was always too busy playing other
: master cards for it to have been worth while to put one or two pool onto
: vamps to keep them from hunting.

I bow to your experience.  That is, in all honesty, why I post so much
stuff to the NG: theory can only take me so far, and the NG regulars have
so much more experience than I do that I tend to get a lot of very solid 
advice.

Does your crypt use fewer 1-caps?  The crypt I had in mind was 6 1-caps 
(3 sets of dupes), 3 unique 2-caps, a 3-cap and 2 4-caps (the 3/4 caps all
have PRE), which means that the little guys would only be able to bleed
with LM once before needing to reload.  Then again, LM is vastly outnumbered
by SC....hrm.  OK, I see what you're saying about GM. :-)

: As for IH, yes it is wonderful and yes if your prey goes first and you
: draw it in your opening hand you will likely sweep the table, but the
: costs must be weighed against this unlikely situation.  IHs beyond the
: first will be even harder to cycle than your other masters because you
: won't be able to play them; you'll have to discard which is a very slow
: way to cycle your hand, and in a deck where you will likely go through
: seven or more cards a turn anyway they will quickly clog up your hand. 
: Think about this: which starting hand would you prefer with this deck, 7
: IHs or 7 SCs?

Point taken. :-)  It would, then, be worth putting in one or two IHs, just for
the cackle-and-rub-your-hands-together-gleefully situation of drawing one on the 
first turn?  (If this has already been said, I apologize; I have a fairly poor 
memory.)

: Decks of this nature are effective because of their single-mindedness. 
: Play a SC, draw another, play it, rinse, repeat, win.  The opportunity
: cost of every non-SC card in the deck is another SC, which is the card
: that actually makes you win.

Which takes me back to master cards: how important, in your experience, is
PRE to this type of deck?  How significant is the +1 pool from the SCs and LMs?
Is 6 Misdirections in 90 in enough?  Perhaps more importantly, how does a 
weenie deck keep up its momentum after it has brought out its initial 4 vamps?
Effective Management?  Something else?  (I ask out of genuine curiosity, not to 
make any particular point.)

Lastly, since you mentioned having had extensive playing experience with a pre
bleed deck, would you mind critiquing mine (in its current incarnation)?

[ Crypt ]

2x Angela Decker--1 pre
2x Antoinette DuChamp--1 pre
2x Igo - The Hungry--1 pre
1x Delilah Easton--2 pre
1x Frederick the Weak--2 pre
1x Vasilis, The Traitor of Don Cruez--2 pre
1x Gideon Fontaine--3 PRE
1x Marianna Gilbert--4 PRE
1x Violette Prentiss--4 PRE

12 vampires (average 1.92, worst 13)

[ Library ]

7x Presence
6x Misdirection
5x Information Highway
2x Gird Minions

30x Social Charm
12x Legal Manipulations

10x Majesty

14x Aire of Elation

4x Delaying Tactics

90 cards (20 master, 42 action, 10 combat, 14 action modifier, 4 reaction)

Assuming there is a reliable way to maintain momentum without IH (or EM), I'd
make the master selection: 8x Presence, 7x Misdirection; I'm still mulling
over the S:CE, but I'll probably cut it down to 8 and add another couple of 
Aires.  With fewer masters, what is most important to add to the deck?

And as always, thanks in advance. 

apathy=