Support
Miscellany
- Strategy and Tactics
- Old News
- Artwork
- Illuminated Secrets
- Fnorder
- Miscellany
- Unofficial INWO pages
- Network Representatives
Drop a line
Liquid Assets: DotW #67
Date: Fri, 02 Apr 1999 09:53:18 -0800
From: Aaron Curtis <curtis@europa.com>
Subject: [INWO] Deck of the Week #67: Liquid Assets
For those of you who might be wondering about Ralph Melton, he has been unable to post to the INWO-list (apparently he's a spammer). He sent this to me, asking me to forward it to the list. Enjoy.
Aaron
Liquid Assets
by Emit Flesti
Illuminati
- Adepts of Hermes
Groups
- Pentagon
- Rosicrucians (x2)
- IRS
- Liquor Companies
- Federal Reserve
- Offshore Banks
- Overman Philo Drommond
- Lawyers
- Stonehenge
Resources
- Hammer of Thor
- Angel's Feather
- Holy Grail
- Ark of the Covenant
Plot Cards
- Interference
- Hat Trick
- Or Kill Me
- Plague of Demons
- Eat the Rich
- I Lied
- Goal: Arise! (x2)
- Exposed
- Tape Runs Out
- Secrets Man Was Not Meant To Know (x2)
- Opportunity Knocks
- March on Washington
- Exorcism
- Oregon Crud
- NWO: Antitrust Legislation (x3)
- Emergency Powers
- Fnord
- Rain of Prairie Squid
- Orgone Grinder
- Martial Law
- Forgery
- Official Divine All-Inclusive Excuse
- Reorganize
- Ketchup is a Vegetable
- Blitzkrieg
- Embezzlement
- Atomic Monster
- Sucked Dry & Cast Aside
- Tax Reform
Beginning
This deck relies on only a few key cards, so your first lead should be the Rosies. You want to get them out ASAP so if they bounce, try leading with your backup copy or save them for your first ATO. If the Rosies aren't happening, bring out the Federal Reserve. This will probably antagonize any Zurich players, which isn't necessarily a bad thing. We'll get to that later.
Anyway, your primary goal to start with is to get Arise! and Antitrust Legislation in your hands from the get-go. As long as you've got these two cards together, you'll be set for anything. Don't be afraid to spend all your tokens on plots, leaving yourself defenseless. If you're lucky, your rivals will discount you as a threat and focus on more important targets. If you're not so lucky, let them pick you apart. You'll show them who gets the last laugh.
If you've got your Rosies in play, ATO the Federal Reserve and concentrate on getting your banks out. Get the I.R.S. out next and start taxing. Remember, the key here is not to come out strong or get a lot of groups in play but to get into your plot deck and get Arise! and Antitrust Legislation in hand.
Midgame
Depending on how things are going, midgame can go two ways. If you're having trouble locating your key plots, lay low and keep quiet. Protect the Rosies at all costs, but if anything else gets attacked, save your tokens for plot draws. Try and keep hold of the I.R.S. but in general let your rivals pick on you until they no longer consider you a threat. Try to play up the suggestion that you're playing a Corporate Masters deck or unmasking as Zurich. If things get out of hand, use the Spear of Longinus/Stonehenge combo to make yourself immune to any attack.
If things are going well and you've got your key cards in hand, thenits time to get a little obnoxious. When you tax someone with the I.R.S., make a big deal about it, and pretend the plot you drew will really help you out, even if it won't. If a rival Zurich player is unhappy about the number of banks you're bringing out, antagonize him into an attack. Use Offshore Banks or the Elders of Zion to reorganize your power structure so one of your groups looks very vulnerable. Laugh maniacally about your invincible power structure and how you can shrug off any attack. Make somebody mad.
Endgame
This part's pretty simple. Once you've antagonized a hapless rival into an attack, sink all your remaining tokens into it so it'll be a success. Now play Antitrust Legislation and reorganize so that all your groups are hanging off the group under attack. Keep some plot cancellers handy to make sure the reorganization works and the attack succeeds. If it's an attack to control, play SD&CA on your group so that your rival doesn't wind up with enough groups to share a victory.
Once your groups are gone, Arise! and claim victory.
Date: Fri, 02 Apr 1999 12:44:13 -0600
From: MJ Daniels <doa@umd.umich.edu>
Subject: Re: [INWO] Deck of the Week #67: Liquid Assets
> If things get out of hand, use the Spear of Longinus/Stonehenge combo to
> make yourself immune to any attack.
I may be wrong here, because I learned this only from hearsay, but isn't the Spear of Longinus/Stonehenge combo Illegal? Much the same way you cannot use Gen. Disorder to aid disasters in your own power structure just so they cannot be destroyed? Otherwise, the Spear of Longinus/Stonehenge is perhaps one of the most wicked combos ever.
> If it's an attack to control, play SD&CA on your group so
> that your rival doesn't wind up with enough groups to share a victory.
On a side note, when you use Sucked Dry and Cast Aside to defend yourself in an attack, how is it resolved? On an attack to destroy, does it still count as a destroyed group if the attack is successful? If it is an attack to control, who gets the puppets?
If these were covered before, I apologize, I'm fairly new to the list.
But then they should be quick answers.
Date: Fri, 2 Apr 1999 13:00:04 -0600
From: smcnair@zebra.net (Scott McNair)
Subject: Re: [INWO] Deck of the Week #67: Liquid Assets
MJ Daniels <doa@umd.umich.edu> writes,
> > If things get out of hand, use the Spear of Longinus/Stonehenge combo to
> > make yourself
> > immune to any attack.
>
> I may be wrong here, because I learned this only from hearsay, but isn't
> the Spear of Longinus/Stonehenge combo Illegal? Much the same way you cannot use Gen.
> Disorder to aid disasters in your own power structure just so they cannot be
> destroyed? Otherwise, the Spear of Longinus/Stonehenge is perhaps one of the most wicked
> combos ever.
The Spear of Longinus/Stonehenge combo is indeed illegal -- however, I don't remember hearing anything about GD not being able to aid disasters in your own PS; as far as I knew it was a legal tactic.
Date: Fri, 2 Apr 1999 13:08:26 -0800 (PST)
From: Jevon Heath <jheath@west.net>
Subject: Re: [INWO] Deck of the Week #67: Liquid Assets
> If things are going well and you've got your key cards in hand, then
> its time to get a little obnoxious. When you tax someone with the I.R.S.,
> make a big deal about it, and pretend the plot you drew will really
> help you out, even if it won't. If a rival Zurich player is unhappy
> about the number of banks you're bringing out, antagonize him into an
> attack. Use Offshore Banks or the Elders of Zion to reorganize your
> power structure so one of your groups looks very vulnerable.
Ahem. Elders of Zion? What Elders of Zion?
Sorry for the nitpick.
Date: Fri, 02 Apr 1999 16:38:58 -0500
From: "Rev. Scott McEvoy" <dmz@umd.umich.edu>
Subject: Re: [INWO] Deck of the Week #67: Liquid Assets
On Fri, 2 Apr 1999 13:00:04 -0600, Scott McNair wrote:
>The Spear of Longinus/Stonehenge combo is indeed illegal -- however, I don't remember
>hearing anything about GD not being able to aid disasters in your own PS; as
>far as I knew it was a legal tactic.
It falls under the Spear of Longinus/Stonehenge ruling. You are immune to your own special abilities. It was brought up when Assassins was first sold and decided that you couldn't use his special ability to defend yourself by aiding someone elses attack.
Date: Fri, 02 Apr 1999 15:43:09 -0600
From: MJ Daniels <doa@umd.umich.edu>
Subject: Re: [INWO] Deck of the Week #67: Liquid Assets
(cardlist snipped)
That's 48 cards. Decks should have 45 cards in them.
>Date: Fri, 02 Apr 1999 17:18:28 -0500
From: "Rev. Scott McEvoy" <dmz@umd.umich.edu>
Subject: Re: [INWO] Deck of the Week #67: Liquid Assets
On Fri, 02 Apr 1999 09:53:18 -0800, Aaron Curtis wrote:
>
> This part's pretty simple. Once you've antagonized a hapless rival
> into an attack, sink all your remaining tokens into it so it'll be a
> success. Now play Antitrust Legislation and reorganize so that all
> your groups are hanging off the group under attack. Keep some plot
> cancellers handy to make sure the reorganization works and the attack
> succeeds.
Antitrust, two plot cancellers, SD&CA, and your goal. That fills your hand on any given turn that someone might attack to destroy one of your groups. If you really need the attack to succeed, why not have a Bribery in your hand? Plus, if you play Antitrust, then start aiding the attack, most players will see what is going on and defend the group until you have no tokens, then pick apart your power structure leaving you with one group, and no chance to win.
Rain of the Prarie Squid allows you to discard groups out of you hand and draw the same number as you discarded, but considering that you have only 14 group cards, of which 4 are resources, you'll start with your lead group, your starting six, and one on your first draw, that only leaves 6 groups left. That doesn't leave a whole lot of uses for the RotPS. Fnord! makes an opponent re-roll a successful roll, but if you want their attack on you to succeed, why have it? With 3 Antitrust Legislations in the deck, why do you need a Reorganize in the deck?
I don't want to sound like I'm trying to tear down the deck, but it could use some fine tuning.
Date: Fri, 2 Apr 1999 14:26:46 -0800 (PST)
From: Jevon Heath <jheath@west.net>
Subject: Re: [INWO] Deck of the Week #67: Liquid Assets
Angel's Feather
Why? There are no Peaceful groups in the deck.
Date: Sat, 3 Apr 1999 09:53:22 +1000 (EET)
From: barnett@agsm.unsw.edu.au
Subject: Re: [INWO] Deck of the Week #67: Liquid Assets
So far we've had:
- - too many cards in deck
- - a reference to a card that isn't there
- - a resource that seems useless
- - an card combination that has been ruled not to work
I think that's enough to ask - could we get this fixed and reposted?
Glen
Date: Fri, 2 Apr 1999 19:10:18 EST
From: DarrinBrig@aol.com
Subject: Re: [INWO] Deck of the Week #67: Liquid Assets
In a message dated 4/2/99 5:19:57 PM Eastern Standard Time, dmz@umd.umich.edu writes:
> I don't want to sound like I'm trying to tear down the deck, but it could
> use some fine tuning.
Some of the writeup is a little bogus, but the core trick is sound.
Umm . . . I think Steve Hatherley came up with the Antitrust/Arise trick.
Could definately use some work, though.
Kinda odd, though, I would have thought Ralph would have caught most of that.
Even so, this isn't really the quality we're used to seeing with DotW winners.
Really, after all these months this is the best deck Ralph has gotten?
Seems pretty odd to me, doncha think?
Date: Fri, 02 Apr 1999 20:10:35 -0600
From: MJ Daniels <doa@umd.umich.edu>
Subject: Re: [INWO] Deck of the Week #67: Liquid Assets
Jevon Heath <jheath@west.net> wrote:
> > * Angel's Feather
>> Why? There are no Peaceful groups in the deck.
barnett@agsm.unsw.edu.au wrote:
> So far we've had:
> - too many cards in deck
> - a reference to a card that isn't there
> - a resource that seems useless
> - an card combination that has been ruled not to work
> I think that's enough to ask - could we get this fixed and reposted?
> Glen
DarrinBrig@aol.com wrote:
> Kinda odd, though, I would have thought Ralph would have caught most of that.
> Even so, this isn't really the quality we're used to seeing with DotW winners.
> Really, after all these months this is the best deck Ralph has gotten?
> Seems pretty odd to me, doncha think?
I'm laughing so hard now, my eyes are starting to tear up. Aaron, did ralph send you this deck, by any chance, Yesterday (April 1, 1999)?
MJ Daniels,
Nice boy,
Just a little slow.
Date: Fri, 2 Apr 1999 19:50:54 -0800 (PST)
From: Jevon Heath <jheath@west.net>
Subject: Re: [INWO] Deck of the Week #67: Liquid Assets
> I'm laughing so hard now, my eyes are starting to tear up. Aaron, did ralph
>send you this deck, by any chance, Yesterday (April 1, 1999)?
Indeed. I caught it too, after I realized there were so many things wrong with it. Did anyone else notice the name the deck was submitted under?
Date: Sat, 03 Apr 1999 09:34:22 -0800
From: Aaron Curtis <curtis@europa.com>
Subject: Re: [INWO] Deck of the Week #67: Liquid Assets
barnett@agsm.unsw.edu.au wrote:
> So far we've had:
>
> - too many cards in deck
> - a reference to a card that isn't there
> - a resource that seems useless
> - an card combination that has been ruled not to work
Aw, c'mon! You can do better than that! At least read down to the bottom.
Aaron
Date: Sat, 03 Apr 1999 11:13:03 -0700
From: Robert Dubisch <robadub@k-online.com>
Subject: Re: [INWO] Deck of the Week #67: Liquid Assets
Aaron Curtis wrote:
> barnett@agsm.unsw.edu.au wrote:
> >
> > So far we've had:
> >
> > - too many cards in deck
> > - a reference to a card that isn't there
> > - a resource that seems useless
> > - an card combination that has been ruled not to work
>
> Aw, c'mon! You can do better than that! At least read down to the
> bottom.
>
> Aaron
What I want to know is: Was this your idea or Ralph's?
Date: Sun, 4 Apr 1999 07:12:58 +1000 (EET)
From: barnett@agsm.unsw.edu.au
Subject: Re: [INWO] Deck of the Week #67: Liquid Assets
Aaron wrote:
> barnett@agsm.unsw.edu.au wrote:
> >
> > So far we've had:
> >
> > - too many cards in deck
> > - a reference to a card that isn't there
> > - a resource that seems useless
> > - an card combination that has been ruled not to work
>
> Aw, c'mon! You can do better than that! At least read down to the
> bottom.
Not that I like to point out how stupid I am or anything, but the funny thing was that I already knew Ralph had it in mind to post a deck like this . . .
What's *worse* is I that even made suggestions for it.
I'd like to pretend I was just playing along, but, no, it actually fooled me.
So everyone that got caught by it, rest assured that there's someone out there even more foolish. :)
Glen
(Of course, by the time it got here it was already April 3 in Australia. Not having seen it by April 2 -- April 1 your time -- I thought he'd abandoned the idea . . . not that it's really much of an excuse.)
Date: Mon, 5 Apr 1999 18:41:03 EDT
From: DarrinBrig@aol.com
Subject: Fessing Up (was Re: [INWO] Deck of the Week #67: Liquid Assets)
In a message dated 4/5/99 1:16:02 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
leons1701@hotmail.com writes:
> Personally, I think last years CoSG Dirty Tricks was much better, not
> to mention that it actually inspired a spoof of a card that didn't
> exist. That's got to be hard to beat.
Yes, I'll agree with you there. In fact, I'm still stinging from getting hooked on that one . . . I had those dirty tricks posted on my web site before I realized it was a prank. I was so ashamed, I vowed to get even, and swore that next year . . .
Well, actually, no . . . not exactly. I came up with the idea about a month ago while I was digging through the digests looking for Dirty Trick submissions. Then I put it off for about 30 days, until the night of May 31st, I banged out a quick deck and sent it off to Ralph. It was sort of a rush job, so yeah, it may not measure up to previous incidents.
Incidentally, for newer readers or those of you just beginning to recuperate from the Easter sugar high, the cards in the deck spell out "APRIL FOOLS HAHA I HOPE I GET SOMEONE FROM FORKBEAST". I knew very few people would recognize Emit Flesti (very obscure Wim Wenders/Willem Defoe reference), but I was surprised that no one fingered me, though . . . Forkbeast, in case you were wondering, was my alias for Ralph's SubGenius PBEM game. And NOBODY caught this one, either:
Message from DarrinBrig@aol.com:
> S ome of the writeup is a little bogus, but the core trick is sound.
> U mm . . . I think Steve Hatherley came up with the Antitrust/Arise trick.
> C ould definately use some work, though.
> K inda odd, though, I would have thought Ralph would have caught most of
that.
> E ven so, this isn't really the quality we're used to seeing with DotW
winners.
> R eally, after all these months this is the best deck Ralph has gotten?
> S eems pretty odd to me, doncha think?
I used Steve's Antitrust/Arise trick (which DOES work, as far as I can tell) but most of the writeup is fluff or completely bogus. This trick works with almost any deck, though . . . its a pretty neat two-card instant win combo, though you do have to goad someone into an attack. I threw in the Stonehenge/Spear combo to make people wonder what was up. The SD&CA was an afterthought, I remember rules discussions about what happens in that sort of situation but I have no idea if its legal or not.
Lots of thanks to Ralph and Aaron for posting it for me . . . I wanted Ralph to do it so it looked "authentic" but it looked just as authentic with the added bonus that Aaron is already an accomplished April Fools prankster. Unfortunately I didn't give them enough time to get it out on the 1st, but one day didn't seem to matter too much . . . it was still in the spirit of the holiday.
One last thing though . . . no guesses on Emit Flesti?
Date: Tue, 06 Apr 1999 03:14:07 +0100
From: Sam Kington <sam@illuminated.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Fessing Up (was Re: [INWO] Deck of the Week #67: Liquid Assets)
DarrinBrig@aol.com wrote:
[snip]
> One last thing though . . . no guesses on Emit Flesti?
Time Itself (standard rule for 1st April stuff - look for anagrams of the name used to post). I thought it was just some vaguely relevent name spelled backwards.
(BTW, as Glen mentioned, there *was* a plan amongst the old crowd on this list to pull a similar April Fools joke, in the form of a bad Deck of the Week. I didn't expect it from Darrin, though . . . )
Sam
Date: Tue, 6 Apr 1999 07:10:15 EDT
From: DarrinBrig@aol.com
Subject: Re: Fessing Up (was Re: [INWO] Deck of the Week #67: Liquid Assets)
In a message dated 4/5/99 10:51:55 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
sam@illuminated.co.uk writes:
> (BTW, as Glen mentioned, there *was* a plan amongst the old crowd on
> this list to pull a similar April Fools joke, in the form of a bad Deck
> of the Week. I didn't expect it from Darrin, though . . . )
Hah! You should see some of my other DotW submissions . . .
Date: Tue, 06 Apr 1999 07:51:24 -0700
From: Aaron Curtis <curtis@europa.com>
Subject: Re: [INWO] Deck of the Week #67: Liquid Assets
Now that Darrin has admitted his guilt, here is the list of obvious errors I was able to find in the deck. There may be others.
1. There are too many cards in the deck.
2. Angel's Feather is useless, as there are no Peaceful groups.
3. Eat the Rich and Exposed are useless, as there are no Media groups.
4. Orgone Grinder, a resource, is listed with the plots.
5. It suggests leading with your "backup copy" of the Rosicrucians if the first one bounces - this is illegal.
6. It suggests you dig into your plot deck as much as possible, and to use the I.R.S. to do it. The I.R.S. does not help you draw plots from your own deck, only someone else's.
7. Not only is the Spear of Longinus/Stonehenge trick illegal, the Spear
isn't even in the deck.
8. It mentions the Elders of Zion, which aren't in the deck.
9. In the endgame, it suggests using Sucked Dry and Cast Aside against a rival's attack to control your group, to prevent that rival from winning. If you do this, it will prevent you from playing Arise, as your last group would not have been removed by a rival.
What I didn't notice:
The acrostic "April Fools" in the deck listing. A very good job, Darrin, of creating a perfectly flawed deck that looks close enough to the real thing to get 'em to bite.
Aaron
