| From: | Quicksilver <qwksilvr@*****.COM> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: Cermak Blase |
| Date: | Fri, 30 Jan 1998 17:50:44 -0600 |
>One of the players in our group has come up with this combination that I
>think is really a cheesy move but doesn't seem to break any rules.
Quick? Efficient? yes. Cheesy? Maybe. But it can get boring on both sides
of the table.
Just curious, when someone finds and capitalizes on a good idea, why do so
many people (the ones who didn't find it first) immediately put it down?
As one who has been cultivating just this strategy for a tournament deck,
I think I can help you find some of the holes in your friend's plans.
First: Invisiblity only gets one runner through. Everyone else must go
back. A Bounty Hunter can really tear this deck apart, mages don't cost
much to kill :).
Second: Even the best mages can only use two spells per turn, be sure to
put three challenges on the objective. The Rapiers can help him get around
this, but he has to trash them to do so.
Third: If you cannot put three challenges down, don't put any down. One
good muscle on the interception can geek just about any mage with invisiblity.
Fourth: Build a good, quick muscle deck. He may get the first one or two
Cermaks, but your muscle should get through to a Cermak just about as
quick. Seems I've seen a number of people grumble about Muscle/Cermak/Urban
Brawl decks :).
Five: Riots, Drive-bys, Wanteds, and Tempest (the stuff *I* think of as
cheesy <g>). Not pretty, but and they can help. Maybe even an Archie McDeven.
Just keep in mind, it may get worse. Just wait until he's had a chance to
play with it for a while and make it stronger :) It's a strong strategy,
but it has it's weaknesses just like anything else. To build this deck so
it works really well, you pretty much eliminate the possibility of going
against any other objectives.
Hope this helps,
Hg
(who's going to kick himself if this messes up his chance to win tournaments)
Standard Disclaimer: The above are just my opinions. I have been wrong
before. I will be wrong again.
