Gideon's Bible - San Diego Sheriff

published Oct 16, 2016 | | |
Card draw simulator
Odds: 0% – 0% – 0% – 0% more
Derived from
None. Self-made deck here.
Inspiration for
None yet

jordan caldwell 118

Pushed my chips all in and managed to win the whole San Diego pot with this seedy little stack of 52. Special thanks to Glen Smallman for hosting this wonderful and intimate 5-player round robin tournament to close out the Southern California Sheriff season.

Now if you have ever traveled the continental United States, you might notice a special little book that seems to turn up in just about every little mom-n'-pop and chain hotel betwixt the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans - Gideon's Bible. What if, just what if, sitting in broad daylight, that minuscule manuscript, which is in fact a single book, contained within it mystical powers, perhaps describing the mysterious rings of the Blood Moon Rising, and if the reader could decipher the layers of meaning to the words, what may be unlocked was wild beyond darkest dreams - Power unchecked by the Laws of Celestial Mechanics!

Or in Doomtown terms: Cheatin' and gettin' away with it...

Well it turns out that Maria Kingsford and Antheia Pansofia were able to do just that - decode the De Annulos Mysteriis - and unleash it's power on Gomorra. Running with a pack of simple hustlers and petty thieves pushing a Protection Racket on the business end of The Gambler's Gun, these ladies in partnership with their consultant Harry Highbinder have plans for townsfolk which can be simply summarized as: "If they won't sell, Burn 'Em Out!"

This deck works by swarming the field with low cost draw dudes backed by big studs using guerrilla tactics (Bowie Knife and Unprepared) to capitalize on the home ability. Your opponent finds themselves between a rock and a hard place. Something like: "Should I play a deed to kickstart both mine and my enemy's economy, or should I withhold playing a deed to stifle my own economy in hopes of stifling their's too?" Since the deck starts 0 upkeep (which can be changed if your informant Rico Rodegain relays treacherous intel), the latter option will likely work to your favor. If your opponent chooses the former option, they have a sunk cost which this deck can leverage using Sloane's superior numbers and the help of Jacqueline Isham for cheap muscle. Then, as Allie Hensman puts on the early squeeze, you are free to develop your own economy relatively uninhibited.

It's important to note that the draw structure, being "skittles" (I believe this is a European term? - 16/16/stuff), greatly improves the contributions of backup shooter draw dudes - there is an early incentive to go "all in" and use your entire draw bonus to sift through the dudes you will eventually play and into a relevant hand rank. It also enables your lowdown Bottom Dealin' ways. And/or, with a little set up (using Henry Moran and J.W. Byrne, P. I.), or if you are just plain old feelin' lucky, you can strap up with your prized firearms and dive face first into a scuffle secure in knowing you can con your way through - perhaps flipping your easy Full House over the top of their hard-earned Four of a Kind. This strategy can be a legitimate bid for turf, or a way to bait a cheating resolution out of your opponent's play hand before pulling a switch.

So if you are looking for a cheap thrill, or just one last dance with lady luck, I recommend sleight-of-handin' this deck into your friendly neighborhood play group, or better yet, bushwackin' your local organized tournament with the dirty tricks detailed therein. Did I mention that it feels good to be bad?

8 comments
Oct 16, 2016 thesmallman

This title doesn't make sense. It makes me hate this deck. You probably didn't really win this event, there's no quality control on this website. Jordan Caldwell was only an okay character in classic.

Also, thanks for coming down and sleeping on my couch.

For the viewers at home, he said I must put a question about the mechanics if I was going to poke fun of his deck: "Do you even Gambler's Gun, bro?"

Oct 16, 2016 jordan caldwell

Yes.

It came up when I was playing Chris a couple of times, who was using Shi Long Peng to attach the likes of Lay On Hands and Shield of Faith and Consecration while sending Benjamin Washington and Xiaodan Li to cause a ruckus backed by the teachings of Longwei Fu and the luxury of 108 Worldly Desires. This matchup was neck and neck both times we played during the round robin and again in the finals.

In the first (or second?) game, it came up when I spied an awesome opening hand using Rico - it was something like a Coachwhip, two shootout Miracles, and a Deed he could afford, so I responded by dropping The Gambler's Gun on Jacqueline Isham, and it won me the shootout (targeting Allie Hensman) by one rank. The following lowball, I lost Jacky to the Coachwhip! he played on me, booting and promptly discarding her.

A few turns later, I strapped up Lawrence Blackwood with one to try and commit a hostile takeover of his Maza Gang Hideout solo, hoping to rely on the gun to see me through the shootout so I could get my Protection Racket going. That plot failed, but not due to a mishap with the gun - he did however have to commit a few more resources to the fight than if I would have gone in unarmed.

At the late stage of the game, after several skirmishes with heavy losses on both sides and all cheating' resolutions spent, it was again the difference in the final showdown, securing me the win by I think a single rank.

That said, I did never get to saddle Jack O'Hara with a pair of 'em throughout the whole tournament, which was a goal I was hoping to accomplish...

...

As for the name, perhaps it's a little silly, but I will contend that overall, with a few exceptions here and there, many players miss the opportunity to utilize the rich story of the game to give their decks names. But, to each their own!

Thanks for commenting on the mechanics Glen! Hopefully see you at the Berkeley Sheriff on October 29th. With a deck that has a name perhaps?

Oct 18, 2016 Prodigy

Man, Gamblers Gun with a 16/16 draw structure makes me reeaaallly nervous. Extremely high probability of cheatin hands, both in lowball and shootouts. I suppose it only goes on 100% expendible dudes? Or is the idea "who cares, let's truly gamble" with a high risk/high reward theme?

Oct 19, 2016 jordan caldwell

Good question!

I think there are about three situations where you would want to attach it to a dude. But before going into those situations, I'd like to share the safeguards that minimize the risks.

First, there are four guns total, and they are part of the decks structure, and as the economy of the deck allows you to pretty much play your whole hand on a given turn, the decision to play the gun or not rarely conflicts with being able to maximize your sundown redraw. In practice, I am as likely to play it as discard it after weighing the risk on a given turn. And I know if I discard it now, chances of drawing another one are pretty good later.

Second, I already talked about the cards that help to mitigate the risk - Henry Moran and J.W. Byrne, P. I. - but add to that The Joker's Smile for keeping your jokers cycling, as well as a lack of a third value (the spades are mostly unmatched).

Third, there is a little bit of a way to play "hot potato" after using it to remove the risk from more valuable dudes. After a shootout (if you survive!) there is always the option to run home, and if you park a lesser dude there ahead of time, you can always toss a spent gun to that dude. Similarly, you can maintain control of a deed and commit the Tradin' action there, or with Harry Highbinder in play you can do so in the town square. You can also trade a gun to a dude who already has a weapon (like a Bowie Knife or even another gun) and consequently discard it as dudes are only allowed to carry one weapon at a time.

Fourth, there are five different cheap stud dudes who can hold it (Jacqueline Isham, Jimmy "The Saint", Angélica Espinosa, Barton Everest, and Ramiro Mendoza), and since the deck can create new studs as well (again using Bowie Knife), having a stud present in every fight despite the risks is pretty assurable.

Fifth, and here you get the deck's namesake, you can attach the gun to your cheapest draw dude, then use De Annulos Mysteriis to go on a suicide mission to cleanse your opponent of cheatin' cards, freeing up your other dudes to cheat with impunity to maintain your board position.

In short, I feel that with a little care, the benefits tend to far outweighs the risks of the gun in this deck. Not to mention the 21 dudes.

So, knowing the the risks are manageable, I generally see this card put to good use in three situations. One is on a lesser draw dude to go on a suicide mission (whether to attack other draw dudes or to use Gideon's Bible to destroy cheating' actions). Two is when you have your safeguards in place and you have degenerated the 16/16 down a little and want a little boost. Three is in the final showdown where the winner of the shooter is the winner of the game and sticking around for tomorrow's lowball is unlikely.

Honestly, I built this deck the day before the tournament (but have before tried to get The Gambler's Gun to "work") and had your same concerns but thought I'd give it a whirl - it works out much better in practice than it looks on paper.

Cheers!

Oct 19, 2016 Prodigy

Thanks for the explanation. I've had a lot of experience with cards like Gamblers Gun and Putting The Pieces Together, so I understand very well that if you take the right precautions, it can be very much worth it.

For those looking to give this deck (or a similar one) a try, keep the advice above well in mind! This is not a deck where you can just go on auto-pilot and play everything you can...

Oct 20, 2016 jordan caldwell

I'd like to add that I think giving The Gambler's Gun a shot is a whole lot easier than trying to get to Putting The Pieces Together...

Nov 09, 2016 PaxCecilia

How does the win condition for this deck look? Shaving off the opponents influence while you gain CP through Protection Racket?

The reason I ask is because it seems like you could fit a similar frame build onto other factions reasonably well. For example 4th Ring might have a cool Full Moon Brotherhood + Abomination build with this. Low cost abominations running around issuing call outs, if they fail you can Buried Treasure (on 10s) into 4th Ring recursion tricks. Plus I think there's something shenanigans to be had with Ambrose Douglas letting you use your home on two dudes (or one for twice the profit?). Only thing I'd be worried about is the lack of CP generated from the Home, you'd need to supplement with more CP generation.

Nov 18, 2016 jordan caldwell

What's novel about the win condition is not the means, but the pace: this deck autocatalyzes with the drop of a single deed from either side.

To answer your question: (1) Defending Allie, (2) Occupying their deeds, (3) Union Casino, and yes, (4) Hunter's Protections. In addition to playing your own deeds.

While I agree the structure could be quickly adapted to another home, the reason I think it sits best in this home is it's sheer economics. Exceeding even the mighty Den of Thieves and without the "cheatin' every lowball" drawback (which can be exploited), soon as a deed hits the table, this deck takes off. Which, aided by the ubiquitous Rico Rodegain, is the reason it can play the home-leverageable 0 upkeep card and still maintain early survivability.

Unprepared and Bowie Knife are a killer combination for several reasons. One is they are both excellent cards independently. Two is they have direct synergy. Three is their surprise factor can completely turnabout the odds of a shootout. Four is the shadow they cast over the board from out of play (either just played, or scouted from lowball/discard). I would be hard-pressed to trade either out for these reasons.

I think that a Full Moon Brotherhood recursion deck would be possible, but outside of the Racket home and without the Sloane dudes, would be unable to exercise the early board pressure that makes your opponent scramble, and be vulnerable for a longer period of time due to increased inertia, but perhaps have a solid end game when the down payment put towards recursion begins to pay dividends.

Perhaps It's not what you know, ...It's who you know?