Through the Looking Glass
“I don't think..." then you shouldn't talk, said the Hatter.”― Lewis Carroll, Alice in Wonderland, 1865.
I've been thinking a lot about V:tES lately. I've had to. Three or four months ago, I broke down most of my assembled decks. Designing that many new, competitive decks is a long and difficult process, but one that was overdue.
I haven't been blogging about things I'm exploring with these new decks, at least until now. It didn't help that my last post was lost to an errant keystroke and Blogspot's stupid autosave "feature."
But I know pounding keys for the blog makes me think about V:tES in fresh ways and the effort is always worthwhile. Remember that I said that.....it will turn out to be prophetic.
I won't turn Inferior Babble into a vehicle for deck design/critique. It's always been more philosophical than case-specific or practical. I don't want to change that. But sometimes the best way to describe something is by example. You're going to see some very rough, experimental designs as we explore concepts together.
Just a side note here: all my decks are designed with absolutely no prospective net-decking. The design process ends up taking twisty, turning, torturous paths to decks that often possess a unique flavor. It's this creative process that I find most intriguing. Usually, the toughest part is finding an inspiration that can be turned into a competitive deck.
This time, I started with a pure heart and noble intentions. Huzzah! I wanted to commemorate the release of V:EKN's latest set by working with Danse Macabre. Silly me. The best thing about the card is the artwork. Every time I read the text, I'm stuck by how it piles insult on injury.
 |
| Danse Macabre, Original Pencil Artwork, Heather Kreiter, 2006 From the auhtor's private collection |
Master.
- Ummm. Is using an MPA for a prospective, inferior Freak Drive really my best option?
- That's one small step away from saying "choose a member of the high school marching band". It should include a parenthetical "without Fortitude."
- Of the 498 Sabbat vampires, more than half can access better options for multi-action, leaving maybe 220 crypt cards that merit using Danse.
- OK. Now we tape a "KICK ME" sign on that young band member's back and push him into the school hallway. Do you really think Carlton won't be attempting to block his path?
- Right. Even when everything does go right, some bully is still stealing this poor pimply-faced geek's lunch money.
Despite all those drawbacks, there is a certain opportunistic feel to Danse Macabre. Maybe it can be well used by
- small minions racing to complete actions before blockers arrive,
- steathly Malkavian Antitribu or Kiasyd accessing additional actions, or
- any minion generating an unexpected surge of offense at a key juncture
Of those options, I felt that the first was an most elegant and unique use of Danse Macabre. The last point creates some synergy with that approach, if those small minions can manage successful first actions and have blood to spend.
The next step was to find something important for 2-3 capacity minions to do in their first turn.
- Bleed, then use the Edge to pass a Legacy of Pander or a Crusade.
- Recruit a retainer, then employ a War Ghoul.
Legacy of Pander decks usually have 2 minions in play from their first turn, so they can already get the Edge and vote. After that first acting turn, voting Pander aren't likely to have any worthwhile second action. Finally, Danse is useless for the 1-capacity parts of the crypt. Scratch one concept.
If there were a Sabbat small-to-mid cap [pre] crypt planning to Crusade, vote, cap and bleed, then Danse could fit. My gut feeling is that MPAs would limit the scale of exploitation. Designs like that might work better with Change of Target than with Danse Macabre and use Toreador Antitribu for vote push. Wait, isn't there a solid deck like that already?
That leaves War Ghouls. Since War Ghouls tend to directly address potential blockers though rush combat, such a deck might have find ways to create successful actions and get late game mileage from Danse Macabre. It seems to be a viable foundation for the deck.
The Six Million Dollar Deck.
“We can rebuild him. We have the technology.
We can make him better than he was.
Better...stronger...faster.”
-- Oscar Goldman from "The Six Million Dollar Man", ABC Televsion, 1974.
(author's note: Sorry, I couldn't find an Alice quotation for this.....)
There's already a solid archetype capable of producing 2nd turn War Ghouls. It doesn't focus on speed, there's a limit to how many copies of Jake that deck can include before risking self-contestation. Using Danse with some retainers offers a second path to the same objective, without colliding Master cards. The resulting deck CAN focus on speed more than the prototypical version. It may not be as robust, but opens options for a hyper-aggressive player like me.
So I set out to create a deck that poops out a War Ghoul on the second turn in 75% of its games.
It's an arbitrary goal, but one that drove several decisions in design. The resulting deck, named Blintzkreig (it leaves its opponents flat as a pancake), is provided for reference.
| Deck Name: | Rebooted Blintzkreig |
| Created by: | Darby Keeney |
| Crypt [12 vampires, average capacity: 3.41667] | |||||
| 1x | Ana Rita Montana | VIC aus dom obf | 5 | Tzimisce:3 | |
| 1x | Elizabeth Westcott | AUS ani cel vic | 5 | Tzimisce:3 | |
| 1x | Rose, The | PRE VIC aus | 5 | Tzimisce:3 | |
| 2x | Lolita Houston | VIC aus | 4 | Tzimisce:2 | |
| 1x | Terrence | ani aus vic | 4 | Tzimisce:2 | |
| 2x | Wendy Wade | ani aus | 3 | Tzimisce:2 | |
| 2x | Horatio | vic | 2 | Tzimisce:2 | |
| 2x | Piotr Andreikov | aus | 2 | Tzimisce:3 | |
| Library [60 cards] | |
| Master [20] | |
| 1x | Carver's Meat Packing and Storage |
| 1x | Charisma |
| 5x | Danse Macabre |
| 3x | Dreams of the Sphinx |
| 1x | Fame |
| 6x | Jake Washington (Hunter) |
| 1x | Mob Connections |
| 1x | Parthenon, The |
| 1x | Tribute to the Master |
| Action Modifier [2] | |
| 2x | Changeling |
| Action Modifier/Combat [2] | |
| 2x | Plasmic Form |
| Ally [14] | |
| 1x | Gregory Winter |
| 2x | Vagabond Mystic |
| 11x | War Ghoul |
| Equipment [1] | |
| 1x | Codex of the Edenic Groundskeepers |
| Event [4] | |
| 1x | Anthelios, The Red Star |
| 1x | Dragonbound |
| 1x | Unmasking, The |
| 1x | Veil of Darkness |
| Retainer [7] | |
| 3x | Ghoul Escort |
| 1x | J. S. Simmons, Esq. |
| 2x | Jackie Therman |
| 1x | Tasha Morgan |
| Combat [10] | |
| 4x | Pulled Fangs |
| 6x | Trap |
| Crafted with: Anarch Revolt Deck Builder [Wed Dec 12 09:31:17 2012] | |
Including 5 Danses provided some interesting options.
- Another path to a War Ghoul (Recruit, untap, employ). The result roughly parallels running 11 copies of Jake Washington.
- Another card flow option for "The Perfect Storm" of TWO 2nd turn War Ghouls (Jake doesn't need to recruit/employ in the second option).
- The Codex can be used twice per turn ("A" bleed, "B" equip, "B" untap, "B" bleed), creating an on-demand offensive surge. Late-game Jakes provide blood to maintain the process across multiple turns.
I don't want to get into too much math, but I spent some time with a spreadsheet and crunched some numbers. OK, it was a LOT of time and a LOT of numbers...have you ever started something only to wonder if it were worth the effort? I think I just became the poster child for that syndrome. But once started, I had to finish.
- The crypt fails to provide minions that can be influenced into play from every Seat 1 (no 1 caps) and 14% of Seat 2.
- The library misses a 2nd turn War Ghoul combination in 23% of games.
- All these probabilities exclude the effect of Dreams of the Sphinx, to be discussed later.
Look back at those last paragraphs. I want (no, NEED!!!) an immediate War Ghoul in 75% of games, but in some I won't even decrypt a minion that can be influenced up.
MUST NOT FOLLOW THE FRIGGING BUNNY
"I almost wish I hadn't gone down the rabbit-hole--and yet--and yet--...”- Lewis Carroll, Alice in Wonderland, 1865
This is where I started to fall down the rabbit hole. Yup, everything in this post before now was just a preface.
I thought I was just building a commemorative deck and hit a decrypting and acceleration issue. What I found was a convoluted mash-up of deck design interacting with tournament population, idealized deck selection and seating.
What the Hell?
Some preface is probably necessary here. These days, my local playgroup is largely inactive. Tournaments of 8, 9 and 12 are commonplace. Looking at the TWDA, we don't seem to be unique. Unfortunate, but true.
I expect those numbers to be important. Each tournament of those sizes will have some 4 player tables. In 8 and 12 player tournaments, it's ONLY 4 player games until the finals. As a player who wants to win, I need to reach the finals. I might even consider the differences between 4 and 5 player games when selecting a deck to play for just that reason.
“It is better to be feared than loved.”
― Lewis Carroll, Alice in Wonderland, 1865
Maxim: In 4 player games, aggressive decks should plan to "shape" the table.
When a grandprey's deck trumps yours in a heads-up end-game, plans change immediately
If I can suppress my predator, I can make more offensive choices or recover from a mistake. Partnering with my grandpredator helps suppress my predator.
In a 4 player game, my grandpredator IS my grandprey. If we both adopt this thinking (and are equally effective), we mutually benefit from our combined strength in exactly the same ways. We "shape" the table to our advantages. We can even both work left-facing instead of right-facing and the result is the same, that table shaped the way we want.
This War Ghoul deck is the thing I would usually consider able to shape a 4 player table.
- It's fast, but can decelerate to address the inevitable "table threat" propaganda.
- It acts both forward and backward, shaping a table without external assistance.
- Combat becomes more impactful with fewer players at the table and further gains in strength as the table shrinks.
All that seems to make sense. Here's the rub.
Compared with people at 5 player tables, those at 4 player tables are
20% more likely to have 1, 2, or 3 transfers
and 38% less likley to have 4 transfers.
See the problem yet?
- The Danse Macabre deck relies on a first turn minion to create a second turn War Ghoul.
- It fails to get that minion from every Seat 1 and 14% of Seats 2.
- It's more likely be in Seat 1 or Seat 2 when playing 4 player games.
Aha. This deck is strategically well suited for 4 player games, but mechanically fails more often in that setting. Zoiks!
“Well, I never heard it before, but it sounds uncommon nonsense.”
― Lewis Carroll, Alice in Wonderland, 1865
For something so simple, it's humbling that I hadn't explicitly thought about table size impacting speed in this way before writing this blog. I always hated going first, but I hadn't thought about how much more it happens in 4 player games.
Extending the logic a bit, capacities of 1, 5 and 9 are 100% predictable, they will always be available in turns 1, 2 and 3 at any size table. Capacities of 4 and 8 are those most frequently turn-deferred with decreased table size.
Ever hear a person say "I was going to play a deck with an 8-cap star vampire, but I shouldn't now.....it's a 12 player tournament and I can't give up the early turns." They would be mathematically correct in that statement, at least if speed were an overriding concern.
In practical terms (and for most decks), this effect is largely lost in the noise created by other variables. Archetype interactions, different degrees of deck optimization, player skill, and the random nature of card-drawing obscure most early-turn problems with influence speed. Despite a lack of concrete evidence to provide, I still suspect there's something real here.
Certainly, for this particular deck and it's arbitrary 75% Go-Go-Ghoul Plan, the effect is real and will continue to impact design decisions.
Speaking of which.....
Accelerated influence gives the deck a means to address it's current shortcoming. Of the available options, Dreams of the Sphinx is the best - it solves more than just one problem.
- The crypt needs only 1 additional influence to get rolling (the exact amount a Dreams can produce.)
- That influence is needed only in the first turn from Seats 1 and 2.
- There isn't much risk.
- Contestation is unlikley when only 1 player has an opportunity to play Dreams before my critical first use.
- An early Dreams can also improve upon the current 78% success rate for library draws leading to a War Ghoul.
- A late Dreams can dump excess War Ghouls and cycle for the Codex.
“Which way you ought to go depends on where you want to get to...”
― Lewis Carroll, Alice in Wonderland, 1865
With that decision being made, the obvious question becomes "How many Dreams?" The convention wisdom is "As many as you can stuff in the deck." I've never liked that answer, it isn't elegant or entirely correct (despite working, cause Dreams is THAT good).
Having fallen this far down the rabbit hole, I decided to free-fall completely and do more math, starting with the crypt.
In each case, I felt it important to NOT just focus on the Seat 1 shortfalls. If I were to do that, I would end up grossly over-weighting the needs to address a problem that doesn't exist in the majority of games. So in each evaluation following, I use a normal distribution for seat positions.
This graph shows how well Dreams can address not getting that first turn minion for this deck. Three copies of Dreams achieves a tolerable failure rate (1 game every other tournament) for 5 player tables, but a whopping 5 copies is needed when table size drops to 4 players.
So, do I start with 3 copies of Dreams (increase to 5 for smaller tournaments) or run 4-5 copies (and never change the deck)?
Just looking at the crypt can't provide a clear answer, so I looked at the library for additional clues. Quantifying the card-drawing effect of Dreams becomes convoluted in a hurry. There are a lot of variables (is it needed for influence, is it needed for cards, is it drawn in the initial 7, is it drawn as a replacement). This is why few people try to model Library performance beyond "is it in my opening 7 cards."
The model I built has simplifications that introduce minor errors (from infrequent occurences), but the results are still about right. Seat 1 or 2 uses for influence are properly considered.
- Three copies of Dreams increases the library's ability to produce 2nd turn Ghouls from 77% to ~85%.
- Adding 2 more copies of Dreams nets another 3.2% gain (~88% overall probability of success). Most of the time, Dreams aren't even needed to make the library work, so modest benefits from increasing Dreams isn't surprising.
In the end, it still comes down to a gut check. Since the library benefits little from additional copies of Dreams, I stuck at 3. The crypt and library come together properly about 71% of the time with that design, close to the 75% initial target. With only 3 Dreams for card flow, I am believe another Codex will be necessary.
“Do you think I've gone round the bend?"
"I'm afraid so. You're mad, bonkers, completely off your head. But I'll tell you a secret. All the best people are.”
― Lewis Carroll, Alice in Wonderland, 1865
So yes, I went completely overboard with that last part. I've convinced myself that V:tES is best not subjected to mathematical evaluation on this scale. But I did learn something about why some decks hate 4 player tables and I now have an interesting (and fast) War Ghoul deck. Not a bad more-than-one-day's work.
Cheers.
D.