Of Decks and Tier Lists

Bloodartist wrote:

Mewcat wrote: Idk about you but if I see 100 decks it's prolly more like 10 decks 90 times and a few kind of different ones. It's not like I see decks all the time and think what a new idea, and almost never in competitive play.

I agree. People exaggerate how many archetypes there actually is. I dont consider a deck with its crypt swapped but library the same a different deck, let alone a different archetype. I can play ventrue lawfirm with g3-4 crypt or as g4-5 crypt. Its still basically the same deck.

note: One reason Ive wanted to get pentex banned was to "unlock" star vampire decks that can be genuinely original and different since they are based on the vampires text box, yet most are brought down by a single pentex.

here you go, about 100 decks, pretty much everything is tier 2 at least, pretty much everything is different here

Bibliodèque

Depends on how granular you want to get. I know for a while I mtg if you changed 4 cards in a 60 card deck people started considering it a whole new thing.

I would say all stealth bleed decks are highly similar and are not much changed if you use presence or dementation to bleed or what stealth you pick.

I generally classify conceptually

1) stealth damage
2) tap out damage, multi act or swarms
3) rush combat
4) intercept walls
5) bloat walls

I may be missing something here but decks generally use various elements from this.

If they enabled mill decks (beyond Slaughterhouse cheese) that could be one archetype.

If Locations weren't so clan-specific, and/or generally cost more pool and/or were more playable, there could be archetypes based around contesting or burning them. Unfortunately, currently, the most pool damage I can hope to do is that someone pays 2 for Parthenon and then I play Rewilding, or someone plays Assault Rifle and I Conceal it. Neither has happened yet.

LivesByProxy wrote: If they enabled mill decks (beyond Slaughterhouse cheese) that could be one archetype.

If Locations weren't so clan-specific, and/or generally cost more pool and/or were more playable, there could be archetypes based around contesting or burning them. Unfortunately, currently, the most pool damage I can hope to do is that someone pays 2 for Parthenon and then I play Rewilding, or someone plays Assault Rifle and I Conceal it. Neither has happened yet.

Mewcat wrote: Depends on how granular you want to get. I know for a while I mtg if you changed 4 cards in a 60 card deck people started considering it a whole new thing.

I would say all stealth bleed decks are highly similar and are not much changed if you use presence or dementation to bleed or what stealth you pick.

I generally classify conceptually

1) stealth damage
2) tap out damage, multi act or swarms
3) rush combat
4) intercept walls
5) bloat walls

I may be missing something here but decks generally use various elements from this.

Well, if you classify decklist with these concepts, it is not a tier list...

To an extent, it would be the same in MtG saying that there is Aggro, Control and Combo... They are concepts but not actual decks...

And really, weenie and nocturn are both bleed stealth decks because well... they bleed... at stealth... but they are really different decks !!
The first do a lot of small bleeds (basically 2 to 4 exceptionally 5) with few stealth (basically 1 or 2 exceptionally 3) and bloat a lot while having few to no defense. It is weak to rush/combat or intercept/combat.
The second do few big bleeds (basically 3 to 6 exceptionally 7) with a lot of stealth (easily 3 and sometimes more than 5) and have a very strong defense with nocturn against combat and with deflection against bleeds. It is weak to voter or heavy bouncer.

And you could find some important differences with other stealth bleed decks such as malk 94, kyasid or the unamed and even midcap with .

Well, you see my point and it stands with rush combat if you choose to go with , /gun or and it is not the same deck if you choose to go for Nana Buruku and a lot of master in your deck...

Good point. We are looking at ranking the decks here, not classifying. Not sure I agree with going so granular as to separate every discipline that does the same thing from another, or even differentiating types of combat.