Something came up at a tournament last night which I would definitely
like a ruling on, as it would have a very strong and game-changing
effect.
Methuselah A has Lucita in play; she is a 7 cap that has a built-in
ability that younger Sabbat vampires get -1 intercept when attempting
to block her.
Lucita bleeds Methuselah B (who was me) for 4 bleed; I play deflection
and send the bleed to my prey, Methuselah C, who has three Tzimisce in
play: Rose (5 cap), Corine (6 cap) and Meshenka (8 cap), Meshenka was
untapped, the other two were tapped.
Methuselah C declares that Corine will play Forced Awakening and
attempt to block the bleed. We then realise that Corine is a younger
Sabbat vampire compared to Lucita and will need to generate extra
intercept to be able to block the bleed, or have to wake another
vampire, and have Corine burn a blood for failing to block after
playing Forced Awakening.
At this point, the judge (watching the game) declares that Methuselah A
should have specifically declared Lucita's built-in ability when
announcing the bleed, i.e. instead of saying "Lucita is bleeding and
playing Conditioning so it's four 4 bleed", should have said
"Lucita is bleeding and playing conditioning so it's four bleed and
also any younger Sabbat vampires attempting to block Lucita will have
-1 intercept against this action if they attempt to block". The judge
ruled that since we all should have been informed of this built-in
ability of Lucita when the action was announced, Methuselah C can
therefore "rewind" and take back the Forced Awakening into his hand
and decide to block with someone else.
We all thought this was complete and utter nonsense; Methuselah A
announced Lucita's special when she came into play, and we all
actually discussed it for a while when she hit the table, e.g. I was
playing Sabbat and I mentioned that I was unhappy about this ability
and that it might cause me problems. We were all experienced players
who knew all the cards on the table (it was a tournament final).
Anyway, when the judge made that ruling, we all agreed (even Methuselah
C) that it is the responsibility of players to know the cards on the
table, especially if they have been discussed during play and everyone
is aware of them and what they do. Obviously if you are bleeding
someone with Governing or Threats or whatever you have to tell them,
you can't just say "I'm bleeding you" and hope they don't
notice you put a Threats in your ash heap, but surely you don't have
to announce every special and built-in ability that might affect
blocking decisions? For example I had Lazverinus out; do I have to
announce that he has +2 strength every time he takes an action, in case
that changes people's blocking decisions and they need to be aware of
it?? That strikes me as complete rubbish and would slow every single
game down to a crawl; by that logic, would I also have to announce I
have a Mob Connections in play that can provide me with a press if
someone decides to block?? Or I can draw cards with a Dreams of the
Sphinx if I get into combat and want to cycle into prevent?? We just
decided to keep on playing; I think Methuselah C generated additional
intercept and blocked the bounced bleed.
I would like a clear statement of exactly what players must and must
not declare when they are announcing an action. Thankyou.
Dasein wrote:
> We all thought this was complete and utter nonsense; Methuselah A
> announced Lucita's special when she came into play, and we all
> actually discussed it for a while when she hit the table, e.g. I was
> playing Sabbat and I mentioned that I was unhappy about this ability
> and that it might cause me problems. We were all experienced players
> who knew all the cards on the table (it was a tournament final).
On one hand, it is kind of wonky to rule that someone could
retroactively change their actions based on forgetting what someone's
special ability was. On the other hand, it is also wonky to be all like
"Haha! My opponent forget that the vampire I played 45 minutes ago has
a special ability that is written really small and impossible to read
from across the table, and wouldn't even have to think about till the
vampire got directed to him!"
It seems likely that the thing to do is when Lucita gets Deflected,
that someone somewhere at the table should point out that younger
Sabbat vampires get -1 intercept when trying to block. And if no one
does, when the new target of the bleed says "I'm going to force and try
and block with this here younger Sabbat vampire", someone should again
say "Probably not a good idea. Younger Sabbat vampires get -1 intercept
when trying to block her. Force someone else awake."
-Peter
pd...@lightlink.com wrote:
>
> It seems likely that the thing to do is when Lucita gets Deflected,
> that someone somewhere at the table should point out that younger
> Sabbat vampires get -1 intercept when trying to block. And if no one
> does, when the new target of the bleed says "I'm going to force and try
> and block with this here younger Sabbat vampire", someone should again
> say "Probably not a good idea. Younger Sabbat vampires get -1 intercept
> when trying to block her. Force someone else awake."
>
Exactly. I suppose, by playing very strict rules, you can say, "well,
it's not my fault you don't know Lucita's text by heart - you just
wasted that Forced Awakening." But in friendly play, it's commonplace
to say, "oh, crap, I didn't know she had that ability, obviously if I'd
known that, I would have Awoken someone else. Is it okay if I do
that?" and everyone else says, "sure, no problem." Granted, a
tournament doesn't always follow the tenants of friendly play, but I
would be inclined to allow my prey to take that one back if he wished.
Afterall, it's pretty impossible to remember all of the fine print on
every card, especially vampires. And there has to be some sort of line
of good faith, even when playing to win, as in a tournament.
> Exactly. I suppose, by playing very strict rules, you can say, "well,
> it's not my fault you don't know Lucita's text by heart - you just
> wasted that Forced Awakening." But in friendly play, it's commonplace
> to say, "oh, crap, I didn't know she had that ability, obviously if I'd
> known that, I would have Awoken someone else. Is it okay if I do
> that?" and everyone else says, "sure, no problem." Granted, a
> tournament doesn't always follow the tenants of friendly play, but I
> would be inclined to allow my prey to take that one back if he wished.
> Afterall, it's pretty impossible to remember all of the fine print on
> every card, especially vampires. And there has to be some sort of line
> of good faith, even when playing to win, as in a tournament.
oh in friendly / social games, absolutely, we'd all let someone take
back the wake if they wanted to. But this is not a social game, this is
a tournament final. I don't know about you, but if I'm in a tournament
final (or any tournament game), I don't let people "take back" cards if
they decide to change their mind about a blocking declaration. If you
Force awake, you've played the card. You can block or react. You don't
block, you burn a blood. That's it.
If you're not sure what a vampire's abilities are, you can always ask.
Anyway the discussion isn't really about "good faith", I'm trying to
get a specific ruling for tournament games on what must and what must
not be declared when announcing an action. Even the guy who played the
wake didn't think he should take it back.
Look at it this way; say it's my turn and I tap my Laz and say "I'm
bleeding you!". Then I see a powerbase montreal across the table and go
"oh no wait, I'm not bleeding, I'm going to go steal that powerbase!".
Would you let someone do that in a friendly game? probably. A
tournament final? No way! It's YOUR job to remember the cards on the
table and what they do. If someone plays P:Montreal, they should tell
the table (even if they are all experienced players) what the card does
and that it can be stolen. I always announce that Lazverinus is an
Archbishop and has +2 strength, even though everybody in a tournament
final already knows who he is. But from that point on, surely the onus
is on other players to be aware of what cards are out and what they do?
Rather than the controller of the card to announce every single thing?
If you forget Laz has +2 strength and super potence after you've said
you'll block him, tough t1tties, you're getting hurt. Do I have to tell
people all his disciplines as well? What if someone said "I forget he
had potence and protean, I don't want to be punched for 5 agg, um, I
want to let the bleed through after all!" Same thing. Fine print on a
card, little squares and diamonds on a card, I don't see the
difference. Learn the cards. If you're not sure, go over and look at
someone's cards. You're allowed to do that. If someone's bleeding you,
look at who they are if you're not sure. If you are sure, then go and
block. If things go pear-shaped after you attempt to block, that's your
problem. That's the way I see it.
Again, in our friendly weekly thursday night 'get together play cards
and have a couple of beers' games, of course we'd let someone wake with
someone else. I personally know of some people who wouldn't.. my
friends and I would. But in a tournament finals table, a played card is
played, end of story.
Dasein wrote:
> Look at it this way; say it's my turn and I tap my Laz and say "I'm
> bleeding you!". Then I see a powerbase montreal across the table and go
> "oh no wait, I'm not bleeding, I'm going to go steal that powerbase!".
> Would you let someone do that in a friendly game? probably. A
> tournament final?
Depending on the rapidity of those words, I'd let them do it in a
tournament final. They're basically thinking out loud at that point.
Until they play a card or give another player a chance to do so, they
haven't really declared anything.
That said, Lucita's ability is always on and is implicit whenever she
takes an action. I don't get to rewind to action declaration if I
Governbleed with Gratiano and you AI him, You don't get to rewind to
Block Declaration if you Wake a Vampire with -1 Intercept against
Lucita.
--
- Gregory Stuart Pettigrew
"Dasein" <dasei...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:1156212051.9...@74g2000cwt.googlegroups.com...
[ quoted text not captured ]
What problems does it cause you? Surely not as much of a problem as
it causes someone to remember every ability of every vampire in the
game, even if it was announced at some point (which could 45 minutes
ago or more, as Peter points out). It's very simple: Lucita bleeds;
at any given point she's bleeding for a specific amount at a specific
level of stealth. Certainly you agree that the owner of Lucita should
announce that? If that amount or level of stealth is variable,
then it makes sense to state the conditions as well. Frankly, I can't
see where this is a problem.
Does it merit the remedy the judge enforced? Not necessarily at any
given time. But if people seem reluctant to announce pertinent
information at critical moments, giving their oponents some leeway
to remedy a brain fart not entirely of their own making is one way
to give them incentive to remember in the future. Making the game
state apparent is everybody's responsibility, not just the guy on the
other side of the table who can't see the vampire and, for expediency's
sake, is often just assuming that an announced bleed is a very
straightforward thing.
> Anyway, when the judge made that ruling, we all agreed (even Methuselah
> C) that it is the responsibility of players to know the cards on the
> table,
To some extent, that's true. However, viewing it only that way is
oversimplified and not entirely practicable. Again, memorizing the
card text on all the vampires your cross table opponents are using
is too much to expect. On the other hand, it's certainly
not asking too much to expect the acting player to keep his
activities apparent. In this case, I'd probably agree with what
the judge did (as far as I can tell, without having been there or
knowing the history of the tournament or players).
> Obviously if you are bleeding
> someone with Governing or Threats or whatever you have to tell them,
> you can't just say "I'm bleeding you" and hope they don't
> notice you put a Threats in your ash heap, but surely you don't have
> to announce every special and built-in ability that might affect
> blocking decisions?
Absolutely!!! Why not? You are the acting player. You MUST announce
the card you're using, any options or decisions you've made about it -
including whether you're playing it at inferior or superior (many people
forget this!), and yes: exactly what it does. Now, if it's something
like Threats, you can probably be forgiven if you don't say, "It
increases my bleed by two" every time you play it at superior. But,
on the other hand, if someone can make a credible case that they were
misled for lack of knowledge of what Threats does, you might be subject
to something like this. When in doubt, you should be announcing. At
the very least, I expect a bleeding methuselah to announce who's
bleeding, how much the bleed is currently for, and what it's stealth
currently is. And anything else out of the ordinary about it.
> For example I had Lazverinus out; do I have to
> announce that he has +2 strength every time he takes an action,
No. But you have to announce he has +2 strength every time he makes a
hand strike or any other kind of strength-dependent strike. And if
it's Basilia, you have to announce that her hand strike is aggravated.
> That strikes me as complete rubbish and would slow every single
> game down to a crawl;
There's a difference between pertinent information and minutia. You're
trying to present minutia in order to advance a false dichotomy. Lucita's
special is obviously pertinent to someone trying to decide whether to wake
and block her with a younger vampire.
> by that logic, would I also have to announce I
> have a Mob Connections in play that can provide me with a press if
> someone decides to block??
No.
> Or I can draw cards with a Dreams of the
> Sphinx if I get into combat and want to cycle into prevent??
No.
> I would like a clear statement of exactly what players must and must
> not declare when they are announcing an action. Thankyou.
Whatever's directly pertinent to the activity you're undertaking at
any given moment.
Fred
"Dasein" <dasei...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:1156217082.1...@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
>> Exactly. I suppose, by playing very strict rules, you can say, "well,
>> it's not my fault you don't know Lucita's text by heart - you just
>> wasted that Forced Awakening." But in friendly play, it's commonplace
>> to say, "oh, crap, I didn't know she had that ability, obviously if I'd
>> known that, I would have Awoken someone else. Is it okay if I do
>> that?" and everyone else says, "sure, no problem." Granted, a
>> tournament doesn't always follow the tenants of friendly play, but I
>> would be inclined to allow my prey to take that one back if he wished.
...
> oh in friendly / social games, absolutely, we'd all let someone take
> back the wake if they wanted to. But this is not a social game, this is
> a tournament final. I don't know about you, but if I'm in a tournament
> final (or any tournament game), I don't let people "take back" cards if
> they decide to change their mind about a blocking declaration.
Careful! There are also rules about maintaining a clear, well-known
game state for all participants. That means that no players can
deliberately occlude the game state from being known by other players.
And while "taking back" an action or declared play of card or something
of the like isn't legal, if the judge rules that players had a different
understanding of the game state at the moment something was declared,
he can and (depending on the situation perhaps) should rewind the game
state to the moment it happened, make the true game state clear to all,
and allow decisions to be made over. This is what happened in the
example you gave at the start of the thread.
> Look at it this way; say it's my turn and I tap my Laz and say "I'm
> bleeding you!". Then I see a powerbase montreal across the table and go
> "oh no wait, I'm not bleeding, I'm going to go steal that powerbase!".
> Would you let someone do that in a friendly game? probably. A
> tournament final? No way!
Sure. That's not legal and you _couldn't_ allow it even if you wanted
to. On the other hand, if the Powerbase: Montreal was sitting underneath
its controllers box of pool counters, you could appeal to the judge that
its controller was obscuring the game state from you and that the game
should be rewound to the moment you made the decision about bleeding.
The judge could respond to that in a lot of different ways, including
by agreeing with your proposed remedy.
> It's YOUR job to remember the cards on the table and what they do.
It's everybody's job to see that the state of the game is clear to
all players. If Powerbase: Montreal was clearly announced when played
and sitting out in the open where it should be (and future movements
of its control likewise clearly announced when they occurred), then
players have little recourse. That's not always the case, however.
In Los Angeles, I was playing a game where someone put a Millicent
Smith into play. It was late at night and I'll admit, I forgot about
her and acted during a turn when she was _supposed_ to be in my
area. However, my prey, on his previous turn, had done a terrible
job moving her and sort of half-heartedly moved her to a position
arguably still nearer to his cards than to my own. If you want to
look at it your way, I should have been responsible for knowing
exactly what turns she'd be in my area and never mind where the card
was actually sitting. That's assinine, though, because it gives other
players an incentive to deliberately mishandle cards like Millicent
Smith. In this case, I didn't believe my prey had done it deliberately;
I suspect he was as tired as I was. Still, the location of Millicent
is an important reminder of her presense and if she's not moved
properly, in all practicality the acting player may suffer for that
reason even though her placement wasn't his doing. That's wrong.
The bottom line is, game state information needs to be consistently
understood and agreed on by _all_ players. Therefore, all players
have equal responsibility for the maintanence of that understanding
and agreement.
Fred
> What problems does it cause you? Surely not as much of a problem as
> it causes someone to remember every ability of every vampire in the
> game, even if it was announced at some point (which could 45 minutes
> ago or more, as Peter points out). It's very simple: Lucita bleeds;
> at any given point she's bleeding for a specific amount at a specific
> level of stealth. Certainly you agree that the owner of Lucita should
> announce that?
Yes, and they did.
> to give them incentive to remember in the future. Making the game
> state apparent is everybody's responsibility, not just the guy on the
> other side of the table who can't see the vampire and, for expediency's
> sake, is often just assuming that an announced bleed is a very
> straightforward thing.
Why assume? Why not *read the card*? If someone is bleeding me with a
vampire, and I'm not entirely confident I know what that vampire is and
what it can do, I will look at the card. If I don't look at the card,
I'm basically saying "I have in my opinion sufficient knowledge of the
game state to make a blocking decision". If you don't have sufficient
knowledge, look around at some cards until you do. Then block. If you
choose not to read the cards on the table before making a blocking
decision, that's YOUR problem. I don't see why you can ask a judge or
players to give you a second chance because you couldn't be bothered
seeing what a vampire could do before you decided to block it.
> To some extent, that's true. However, viewing it only that way is
> oversimplified and not entirely practicable. Again, memorizing the
> card text on all the vampires your cross table opponents are using
> is too much to expect.
Sure. That's why you can..... *read the card*. Why is that so
difficult? Player C doesn't need to know what all of Player A's
vampires can do all of the time; he's probably busy worrying about
Players A and D. But if one of A's vampires gets flicked his way, then
he might want to brush up and remind himself of what Player A has out
and what they are up to.
> > Obviously if you are bleeding
> > someone with Governing or Threats or whatever you have to tell them,
> > you can't just say "I'm bleeding you" and hope they don't
> > notice you put a Threats in your ash heap, but surely you don't have
> > to announce every special and built-in ability that might affect
> > blocking decisions?
>
> Absolutely!!! Why not? You are the acting player. You MUST announce
> the card you're using, any options or decisions you've made about it -
> including whether you're playing it at inferior or superior (many people
> forget this!), and yes: exactly what it does.
Ok say player A had bled with Amelia the blood red tears. Bleed gets
flicked to player C. Player C and A get into combat, keep it pretty
friendly, then player C realises he is going to burn a blood at end of
combat as a result of Amelia's special. That is a built-in ability of
Amelia that could influence blocking decisions, e.g. player C might
have decided not to block as a result of burning that extra blood.
Would you let him take back the blocking decision? I certainly
wouldn't. Again, I'm not saying all players need to perfectly
memorise every aspect of every card at every single stage of the game.
I'm saying that if someone is bleeding you, then yes they have to
announce the amount of bleed and stealth. But built-in abilities of
vampires that may or may not affect blocking decisions... I think
Laz's +2 strength is an ability that definitely affects blocking
decisions (I've certainly seen people refuse to block him because of
his combat potential). So why do I not have to announce that when I'm
bleeding, but am apparently meant to remind people that younger sabbat
vampires get -1 intercept? Both would affect people's blocking
decisions. Now what about disciplines? "Oh I didn't know Laz had
protean, I'm relying on Soak for my combat defense, um sorry, I
wouldn't have blocked him, let's take all this back". Complete
rubbish. If you don't know what a card does, READ IT. If you don't
know what a vampire who's bleeding you can do, LOOK AT THE CARD.
> No. But you have to announce he has +2 strength every time he makes a
> hand strike or any other kind of strength-dependent strike. And if
> it's Basilia, you have to announce that her hand strike is aggravated.
I think Laz's +2 strength and disciplines are much scarier and much
more likely to influence blocking decisions than Lucita's ability. Why
don't I have to announce it? My prey didn't block Laz once all game,
mainly because of his combat potentail (and ability to play Kiss of Ra
at superior, as a result of his having superior fortitude). Why don't I
have to announce these? What if Laz got flicked to my grandprey and he
blocked and then started howling in protest when I shrugged and said
"sorry I'm punching you for three"?
> There's a difference between pertinent information and minutia. You're
> trying to present minutia in order to advance a false dichotomy. Lucita's
> special is obviously pertinent to someone trying to decide whether to wake
> and block her with a younger vampire.
Again, let's go back to Laz; his +2 strenght is not minutia at all,
especially on a flicked bleed, since it makes it much harder for us
cross-table buddies to keep it friendly and just slap each other for
one. Tell someone on two blood who just got binned by blocking a
flicked Laz that his +2 strength is "not pertinent". It's
extremely pertinent. But you believe it doesn't have to be announced
on a bleed action. Why not?
> > by that logic, would I also have to announce I
> > have a Mob Connections in play that can provide me with a press if
> > someone decides to block??
>
> No.
Why not? I can see it definitely affecting blocking decisions (e.g.
someone is relying on a skin of steel to get them out of combat
trouble). Or have you decided it is "minutia" instead of "pertinent"?
Who's the judge of that? The judge, I suppose...
> > I would like a clear statement of exactly what players must and must
> > not declare when they are announcing an action. Thankyou.
>
> Whatever's directly pertinent to the activity you're undertaking at any given moment.
Look, it's in the interests of both players A and C to make the other
aware of her special. If neither do it (i.e. if player A doesn't
mention it and player C can't be bothered reading the card), I think
it's a bit rich to be crying foul and demanding to change your mind at
that stage.
> Careful! There are also rules about maintaining a clear, well-known
> game state for all participants. That means that no players can
> deliberately occlude the game state from being known by other players.
While I don't agree on the other point, I do agree on this point. (It
wasn't relevant to the game I described, as nothing was occluded or
obscured from anybody, all cards in play were visible and clearly
arranged).
Yes if someone buries their powerbase under their box of pool or
whatever then obviously you can call a judge and ask for a rewind
(possibly quite a big one, depending on the game).
If I ever cannot see a player's pool, library or ash heap, I will
inform them, along the lines of "excuse me, can you move that soft
drink can, I can't see your pool counters at the moment". I did that
once during the tournament. Simple.
that example with the millicent smith is a bit trickier...
but the example I was discussing didn't involve cards that were
obscured or hidden or moved behind or under objects or where they were
not clearly arranged such that people couldn't obviously tell which
methuselah controlled them.
"Dasein" <dasei...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:1156225590....@74g2000cwt.googlegroups.com...
>> What problems does it cause you? Surely not as much of a problem as
>> it causes someone to remember every ability of every vampire in the
>> game, even if it was announced at some point (which could 45 minutes
>> ago or more, as Peter points out). It's very simple: Lucita bleeds;
>> at any given point she's bleeding for a specific amount at a specific
>> level of stealth. Certainly you agree that the owner of Lucita should
>> announce that?>
> Yes, and they did.
Well, not fully, apparently.
>> to give them incentive to remember in the future. Making the game
>> state apparent is everybody's responsibility, not just the guy on the
>> other side of the table who can't see the vampire and, for expediency's
>> sake, is often just assuming that an announced bleed is a very
>> straightforward thing.>
> Why assume? Why not *read the card*?
Why read the card? Why not *announce*? It's impractical to read
every permanent on the table during every action and every combat
and every play of a card. Why do you insist on making the play of
the game much more difficult than it needs to be?
> If someone is bleeding me with a
> vampire, and I'm not entirely confident I know what that vampire is and
> what it can do, I will look at the card. If I don't look at the card,
> I'm basically saying "I have in my opinion sufficient knowledge of the
> game state to make a blocking decision".
I can see you're in love with that particular philosophy and it has
a certain allure. But it's neither necessary nor a good way to play
a game with thousands of different cards.
Look, it's very simple: whoever is acting and initiating something
needs to be forthcoming with all pertinent information. That way,
you avoid situations where some crucial detail that's practically
very difficult for one or more of the other players to stay abreast
of becomes a turning point.
>> To some extent, that's true. However, viewing it only that way is
>> oversimplified and not entirely practicable. Again, memorizing the
>> card text on all the vampires your cross table opponents are using
>> is too much to expect.>
> Sure. That's why you can..... *read the card*.
On every single play?
> Why is that so difficult?
Because the details of card text on the thousands of cards in this
game are endless and go in and out of relevance constantly.
What I want to know is, why is it so difficult to expect the person
playing a bleed to announce the relavant details of the bleed as he
does it?
>> > surely you don't have
>> > to announce every special and built-in ability that might affect
>> > blocking decisions?
>>
>> Absolutely!!! Why not? You are the acting player. You MUST announce
>> the card you're using, any options or decisions you've made about it -
>> including whether you're playing it at inferior or superior (many people
>> forget this!), and yes: exactly what it does.>
> Ok say player A had bled with Amelia the blood red tears. Bleed gets
> flicked to player C. Player C and A get into combat, keep it pretty
> friendly, then player C realises he is going to burn a blood at end of
> combat as a result of Amelia's special. That is a built-in ability of
> Amelia that could influence blocking decisions, e.g. player C might
> have decided not to block as a result of burning that extra blood.
> Would you let him take back the blocking decision?
Nope. Amelia's card text doesn't have anything to do with the success
of the block.
>> No. But you have to announce he has +2 strength every time he makes a
>> hand strike or any other kind of strength-dependent strike. And if
>> it's Basilia, you have to announce that her hand strike is aggravated.>
> I think Laz's +2 strength and disciplines are much scarier and much
> more likely to influence blocking decisions than Lucita's ability. Why
> don't I have to announce it?
What you're engaging in is called a "slippery slope" argument: "If we
let a little kid get away with shoplifting, the next thing you know
he'll be murdering his parents in their beds!" Blocking leads to
combat; it's reasonable to expect a player to have worked out whether
he wants to get into combat or not before he tries to block. All I'm
saying is that the acting player needs to announce the relevant information
he knows is pertinent to an action as he acts. If it's a bleed, how
much is size of the bleed at that point during the action and for how
much stealth and a conditional on stealth is part of stealth. He doesn't
have to announce every detail on the card, such as combat statistics,
disciplines, and so forth. Just current size of bleed and current amount
of stealth.
> Look, it's in the interests of both players A and C to make the other
> aware of her special. If neither do it (i.e. if player A doesn't
> mention it and player C can't be bothered reading the card), I think
> it's a bit rich to be crying foul and demanding to change your mind at
> that stage.
That's a philosophy of "gaming by mistake". If players make a mistake
of their own accord, so be it. But the problem with your philosophy
is that it rewards players who deliberately obfuscate information. (See
my example about Millicent Smith elsewhere in the thread.) When you
start rewarding that, players start engaging in it as much as/to the
degree they can. It's a really poor philosophy.
Fred
"Dasein" <dasei...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1156228556.4...@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
> Yes if someone buries their powerbase under their box of pool or
> whatever then obviously you can call a judge and ask for a rewind
> (possibly quite a big one, depending on the game).
> If I ever cannot see a player's pool, library or ash heap, I will
> inform them, along the lines of "excuse me, can you move that soft
> drink can, I can't see your pool counters at the moment". I did that
> once during the tournament. Simple.
>
> that example with the millicent smith is a bit trickier...
>
> but the example I was discussing didn't involve cards that were
> obscured or hidden or moved behind or under objects or where they were
> not clearly arranged such that people couldn't obviously tell which
> methuselah controlled them.
No. It was an incompletely announced bleed. To be sure, the person
being bled should have asked for the relevant details (if he hadn't).
My point is that it's the acting player's responsibility, as well
as the blocking player's, to make sure that he has that information.
If the judge believed the acting player had been rather sloppy in
his announcements (or even "deliberately sloppy"), he might have
been justified in rewinding the game.
Fred
> > Why assume? Why not *read the card*?
>
> Why read the card? Why not *announce*? It's impractical to read
> every permanent on the table during every action and every combat
> and every play of a card. Why do you insist on making the play of
> the game much more difficult than it needs to be?
I'm not insisting on making anything difficult. I'm asserting that it
is reasonable to expect players to either know what a card does if they
are specifically interacting with it (e.g. blocking it). If they are
not confident in their game knowledge, they can read the card. I don't
think that's difficult at all. I do it a lot.
- "Hey sorry man I'm being flicked to you".
- "Bummer. What's this guy do?" [peers over at card] "oh ok, he's got
no +1 strength or anything... and just a bleed for 1 right? ok I'll
block".
> I can see you're in love with that particular philosophy and it has
> a certain allure. But it's neither necessary nor a good way to play
> a game with thousands of different cards.
it's not something I'm "in love with", it seems to me to be a sensible
way of playing the game.
And I certainly don't think your philosophy, which rewards lazy play
and making mistakes, is a good way of playing the game.
> Look, it's very simple: whoever is acting and initiating something
> needs to be forthcoming with all pertinent information.
Again, we're back at "pertinent information", which you are defining as
"amount of bleed and amount of stealth on that bleed and/or amount of
positive or negative intercept that may or may not be applied if a
block attempt on that bleed is made". I would say that many other
things are pertinent information when making block decisions.
> Because the details of card text on the thousands of cards in this game are endless
Not at all.
> and go in and out of relevance constantly.
Not at all. Some cards get errata'ed, and that's a pain. But in
terms of within a given game, cards become relevant when they are
directed at you. As long as player A is bleeding player B, those
vampire's disciplines and specials are largely irrelevant to player C
(he might start paying more attention if player B is down to three pool
of course). But if a bleed gets flicked to him, then that vampire's
abilities and disciplines are relevant. As I've said before and you
seem to be ignoring, you don't need to know every detail of every
card at every stage of every action taken in the game. Whether your
crosstable buddy has one or two counters on his fatuus mastery and what
he can use them for is not really relevant. I couldn't remember
exactly what that card did and I didn't care because it didn't
affect me in any way shape or form at all. But when he becomes your
prey and is blocking, that's when you might want to start paying some
more attention to the cards on a table.
> What I want to know is, why is it so difficult to expect the person
> playing a bleed to announce the relavant details of the bleed as he does it?
He announced the amount of bleed. Does he have to announce the amount
of stealth, e.g. zero? Surely not. I think he announced the immediately
relevant information about the action.
> Nope. Amelia's card text doesn't have anything to do with the success of the block.
It has everything to do with the result of the block. Are you telling
me your blocking decisions are never made with any consideration to
what would happen to you if you are blocked? So blocking Lazverinus
with a Sabbat Priest and Depravity is the same to you as blocking
Smudge the Ignored who's been disarmed? Surely not, that's utterly
preposterous. Results of blocking (i.e. combat, or also
post-blocking-but-pre-combat nastiness like Croc Tongue / Kiss of Ra)
are of very high importance in making blocking decisions. This is
self-evident.
> What you're engaging in is called a "slippery slope" argument:
No sh1t sherlock.
> he'll be murdering his parents in their beds!" Blocking leads to
> combat; it's reasonable to expect a player to have worked out whether
> he wants to get into combat or not before he tries to block.
But it's not reasonable to expect a player to have worked out whether
he is or is not capable of blocking the action? Why? Where is the
difference?
Blocking decisions are made on these main considerations: Am I able to
block? What happens if I don't block? And thirdly, what happens to my
blocking minion once I *do* block?
You seem to think that players have to provide all details about the
first two, but none at all about the last. Why?
And yes it is a slippery slope argument; I don't want to be in a
tournament and be halfway through a combat and have some person cry
foul when he finds out that my guy can burn a blood for a press when in
combat against a younger titled camarilla vampire or whatever, and
immediately demand we rewind combat because he doesn't want to be
binned. If you don't know what my cards do, read them. I read my
opponents cards. If I don't and/or I forget or fail to care what they
do, that's my problem.
> saying is that the acting player needs to announce the relevant information
> he knows is pertinent to an action as he acts. If it's a bleed, how
> much is size of the bleed at that point during the action and for how
> much stealth and a conditional on stealth is part of stealth. He doesn't
> have to announce every detail on the card, such as combat statistics,
> disciplines, and so forth.
What about things that happen as a result of block attempts, such as
Camarilla Exemplerary, Sabbat Priest or Aching Beuaty? How slippery is
this slope going to be then eh? Or what about the fact that someone
cross-table has a Watch Commander?
> That's a philosophy of "gaming by mistake".
So is yours, but the other way around.
> If players make a mistake
> of their own accord, so be it. But the problem with your philosophy
> is that it rewards players who deliberately obfuscate information.
The problem with your philosophy is that it rewards players who don't
pay attention to what's going on and make poor decisions. For example,
earlier in the tournament, my predator (who had the edge) attempted to
call a KRC. I wasn't really paying attention and did my vote
calculations not including the fact that he could burn the edge (as in,
I didn't notice he had the edge). I decided not to attempt to block
the vote, as I was confident I could vote it down, and wanted to save
my Misdirection for another less rainy day. He burnt the edge for the
vote and I lost pool to the KRC. I failed to pay sufficient attention
to the game state and lost pool as a result. Do you think I should have
been able to say "hey I didn't notice he had the edge, this sucks,
I want to block the vote! Let's rewind!". Of course not. That would
reward people not paying attention to the game. But then doesn't THIS
philosophy also reward people obfuscating game objects such as pool
counters or edges? Maybe, no more so than mine. The edge wasn't
obscured, I just wasn't paying enough attention; that's a deficit
in skill and I was punished for it. I think the same applies to this
situation.
Postscript: Interestingly enough, ALL players on the table (including
the one getting bled by Lucita) agreed that he should not be able to
take back the wake... for what that's worth. Also, this vampire's
had been specifically discussed by players for a minute or two when she
came out, which was not very long at all before the bleed action
happened. But I'm guessing you'd see that as "not pertinent"?
Dasein wrote:
>
> I would like a clear statement of exactly what players must and must
> not declare when they are announcing an action. Thankyou.>From the rulebook:
6.2.1. Announce the Action
Announce the action and tap the acting minion (only ready untapped
minions can take actions). Any card required for the action is played
(face up) at this time. All details of the action are declared when the
action is announced, including the target(s), the cost, the effects,
etc.
EXCEPTION: Any decisions to be made for a referendum are not declared
until the action succeeds (see The Political Action, sec. 6.3.1).
The example given in the rulebook is this:
During Sarah's minion phase, she decides that one of her untapped
minions, Krid, will take an action to bleed her prey, Alexis. Sarah
taps Krid and says, "Krid attempts to bleed Alexis for 1 pool."
After resolving that action (successful or not), Sarah decides that
another of her untapped minions, Pug, will recruit an ally, the Loyal
Street Gang, from her hand. She taps Pug and plays the Loyal Street
Gang, declaring "Pug attempts to recruit the Loyal Street Gang at +1
stealth, costing me one pool." (The pool isn't paid until the action
succeeds.)
Regards,
Hardy Range
Hardy Range wrote:
All details of the action are declared when the
> action is announced, including the target(s), the cost, the effects,
> etc.
>
I know Hardy wants to be short and myterious with his answers like LSJ.
;-)
But the point of the rules is, you have to declare everything that is
relevant for the action (including specials that are relevant for
blocking), so the ruling of the judge was correct.
And about the argument, the game will be slowed. What will happen if
someone has to ask every time, what are the specials, what stealth does
he have, are there any restriction to block. The game is more fast, if
everyone declares all his cards at the moment of play (or relevance).
Frank
>>There's a difference between pertinent information and minutia. You're
>>trying to present minutia in order to advance a false dichotomy. Lucita's
>>special is obviously pertinent to someone trying to decide whether to wake
>>and block her with a younger vampire.>
>
> Again, let's go back to Laz; his +2 strenght is not minutia at all,
> especially on a flicked bleed, since it makes it much harder for us
> cross-table buddies to keep it friendly and just slap each other for
> one. Tell someone on two blood who just got binned by blocking a
> flicked Laz that his +2 strength is "not pertinent". It's
> extremely pertinent. But you believe it doesn't have to be announced
> on a bleed action. Why not?
>
Well. normally this is not really a problem. If i bleed with Laz and it
gets deflected i always annouce that he has +2 strength. The health of
my allys minions can be as important to me as it is to him.
Same goes for the pool - i.e. if i get deflected with Lucita it makes
sense to share information with my ally. Wether it be "let the bleed
pass and i get the edge and you prey gets a little love from the vote
that it will allow me to pass" or (if he is low on pool) "you may want
to block with an older vampire that doesn't have -1 intercept".
However, on those rare occassions where you want to kill your "ally"
(for whatever reason) i agree with Dasein that it really is HIS decision
to block and anything he is not confident about knowing, he can ask of
course and shame to the guy who doesn't let Lucita's OR Laz' specials be
known if asked "what can that guy do?"
Frede
Dasein wrote:
> I would like a clear statement of exactly what players must and must
> not declare when they are announcing an action.
The player must announce everything that needs to be announced. What
exactly needs to be announced is primarily a function of the
environment --- the players. If one of the players doesn't realize that
Lucita's ability affects younger vampire's intercept, then that ability
needs to be announced. If someone doesn't know that Faceless Night will
leave them tapped if they fail to block, then that fact needs to be
announced.
When in doubt, announce. If there's an oversight, rewind and/or correct
as appropriate.
I've brought this up before, with the result that some players felt
inclined to teach me that this is a Bad Idea (tm) by announcing
everything (the minion's strength, even though it was the default; the
lack of a title, &c.). Killing the game with tedium, as it were. But,
of course, that's not how things are to be done, either. If one has to
get silly to avoid doing one's part to ensure that the game flows
smoothly, one should probably seek another game.
Dasein wrote:
> I'm not insisting on making anything difficult. I'm asserting that it
> is reasonable to expect players to either know what a card does if they
> are specifically interacting with it (e.g. blocking it). If they are
> not confident in their game knowledge, they can read the card.
Sure. But at a certain level, having everyone at the table be
responsible to make sure everyone has all the pertinent information
makes everything work better. Yeah, the new target of Lucita's bleed
could pick up Lucita's card from across the table to read the tiny
little print, or someone involved in the game could just say "younger
sabbat vampires get -1 intercept blocking her", as it is pertinent. In
the situation presented, why didn't the person who controlled Lucita
point this out, as it was probably in his best interest to do so (ya
know, to avoid bleeding his grand prey)? Assuming he forgot, someone
probably remembered, and probably should have said something, in the
name of "the game works better when everyone has all the pertinent
information, and it is stupid to gain an advantage from someone
forgetting something incredibly obvious".
I mean, like, yeah, as the person Deflecting Lucita to your prey, it is
in your best interest to not point this out (so as to make it more
likely that your prey gets bled). But it is also something that is
obvious--everyone should know that Lucita has this ability (as there is
no legal mechanism to conceal it), and the only reasons that someone
might not realize that she does have this ability is that:
A) Lucita entered play 45 minutes ago and no one has mentioned it
since.
B) Someone never mentioned it in the first place.
C) Lucita's card is far enough across the table that picking her up to
read is impractical and kind of a pain in the ass, that could be
circumvented simply by having someone point it out when necessary.
So that your prey forgot this was not the result of clever play on
anyone's part--it is result of just the realities of playing a game
with lots of little text on little cards spread around a table where
the game state changes often over a long period of time. As a result, I
suspect that most folks expectation is that (even in the finals of a
tournament) everyone will share responsibility for making sure everyone
is aware of all the pertinent portions of the state of the game.
Whenever Lucita bleeds, she bleeds and younger Sabbat vampires get -1
intercept when trying to block. That is implicit in her action, just
like going to equip with a gun is automatically at +1 stealth. And you
might not announce the +1 stealth part every time you equip, but it is
always an implicit part of the action (just like Lucita giving younger
sabbat vampires -1 intercept). Technically, you should announce the +1
stealth on the equip, but usually that doesn't happen, with the
assumption being that either everyone already knows it is at +1
stealth, or that if someone doesn't automatically know that, it will
get pointed out if it becomes important (i.e. someone tries to block
with no intercept available).
So I guess I'd assume that, in terms of what is specifically required
to announce during an action, it is incumbent upon the acting player to
make sure everyone at the table knows all pertinent information (like
that younger sabbat vampires have -1 intercept when trying to block
Lucita), and if someone takes an action based on the lack of this
information, they probably should be able to adjust their action based
on having the pertinent information.
> And I certainly don't think your philosophy, which rewards lazy play
> and making mistakes, is a good way of playing the game.
It isn't really a situation of "rewarding lazy play and making
mistakes". When Lucita goes to bleed, there are multiple people who are
responsible for making sure that everyone has all the pertinent
information, and if all of them fail to make sure all the pertinent
information is known, not all the pertinent information is known, which
leads to decisisons being made based on a lack of information that
should be obvious to everyone.
> Again, we're back at "pertinent information", which you are defining as
> "amount of bleed and amount of stealth on that bleed and/or amount of
> positive or negative intercept that may or may not be applied if a
> block attempt on that bleed is made". I would say that many other
> things are pertinent information when making block decisions.
You are correct. And that should be pointed out too. If someone decides
to block my Amelia The Blood Red Tears, I'll point out that she burns a
point of blood at the end of combat too. 'Cause Amelia's special
ability is obvious, public information that everyone at the table
should know is there, so they could all pick up her card and read her
every 2 minutes, or I could make sure to point it out whenever it
becomes important, like whenever anyone is deciding to get into combat
with her.
> He announced the amount of bleed. Does he have to announce the amount
> of stealth, e.g. zero? Surely not. I think he announced the immediately
> relevant information about the action.
You do have to announce the amount of stealth. If I go to bleed you
with Dominate Kine, I don't just say "I'm bleeding you for 2." and when
someone tries to block, then pull out "Oh! It is also at +1 stealth!",
as that is obvious information that everyone knows when I play Dominate
Kine. Everyone at the table *should* know what Lucita's special ability
is, as again, it is obvious public information, and everyone could read
her every two minutes to avoid forgetting, or make a chart with notes,
just in case, or just assume that everyone at the table will be
responsible for pointing out pertinent information when it becomes
pertinent.
> If you don't know what my cards do, read them. I read my
> opponents cards. If I don't and/or I forget or fail to care what they
> do, that's my problem.
Well, no, it isn't your problem. It is *everyone's* problem. Everyone
is responsible for making sure everyone knows all the obvious pertinent
information. VTES is a game that has very little secret information
(basically, only face down cards on the table ot in your hand) and *a
lot* of obvious, public information, and while I don't think it is
necessary to start every turn to point out everything in play and what
it does, it is kind of a necessity to point out pertinent information
when it becomes pertinent. And I could avoid this by picking every card
that everyone else at the table plays as soon as it hits the table and
then every few minutes afterwords, but that is insane. So getting a
good sense of what is on the table, and then figuring that folks will
point out all pertinent information when it becomes pertinent makes the
game work much better for everyone.
> Postscript: Interestingly enough, ALL players on the table (including
> the one getting bled by Lucita) agreed that he should not be able to
> take back the wake... for what that's worth. Also, this vampire's
> had been specifically discussed by players for a minute or two when she
> came out, which was not very long at all before the bleed action
> happened. But I'm guessing you'd see that as "not pertinent"?
See, but the person playing the wake and trying to block was clearly
doing so due to a lack of pertinent information (i.e. Lucita's
special). That it was discussed 2 minutes earlier is irrelevant, as he
still clearly did not, at that particular moment, have all the
pertinent information needed to make the decision to attempt to block.
Why? Who knows. Why didn't Lucita's controller point this out? Why
didn't someone else at the table point this out? Everyone is
responsible to make sure everyone has all the pertinent information.
The guy trying to block clearly did not.
-Peter
"Dasein" <dasei...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:1156233456.6...@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
>> > Why assume? Why not *read the card*?
>>
>> Why read the card? Why not *announce*? It's impractical to read
>> every permanent on the table during every action and every combat
>> and every play of a card. Why do you insist on making the play of
>> the game much more difficult than it needs to be?>
> I'm not insisting on making anything difficult. I'm asserting that it
> is reasonable to expect players to either know what a card does if they
> are specifically interacting with it (e.g. blocking it).
And I'm asserting 1) it does make it difficult; and 2) it is not a
reasonable expectation.
>> Look, it's very simple: whoever is acting and initiating something
>> needs to be forthcoming with all pertinent information.> Again, we're back at "pertinent information", which you are defining as
> "amount of bleed and amount of stealth on that bleed and/or amount of
> positive or negative intercept that may or may not be applied if a
> block attempt on that bleed is made".
It's a bleed. The point of such information is self-apparent.
> I would say that many other
> things are pertinent information when making block decisions.
Perhaps. But it's a bleed. Size of bleed and amount of current
stealth are automatically pertinent and this is known to the
actor. It is his duty to give them.
>> Because the details of card text on the thousands of cards in
>> this game are endless>
> Not at all.
I have nowhere to go with this. It's as if I've just pointed
out that, "The sky is blue." And someone replied, "Not at all."
Failure to agree on fundamental principals makes debate about
this imposible.
If you're in a game I'm judging and your announcements seem
to lack pertinent information as it did for the situation
you began the thread with, then you might get the same ruling
from me for reasons I've given. Or you might get a caution,
warning, or eventually worse. I really think you could live
with that if you tried.
I understand where you're going with the arguments you've given;
I just think they're wrong. They place too much burden on
players to remember what card text is on every card on the table
at all times. Sometimes, you're right - players just have to look
at the card in question or ask. But when announcing an action or
playing a card or an effect or something, the acting or playing
meth is responsible for giving several fundamental details about
what he's doing in order that all players are in agreement about
the game state.
>> If players make a mistake
>> of their own accord, so be it. But the problem with your philosophy
>> is that it rewards players who deliberately obfuscate information.>
> The problem with your philosophy is that it rewards players who don't
> pay attention to what's going on and make poor decisions.
No, it doesn't. I think you're construing it that way for convenience
in an argument but it's wrong. It is true that a game might get
rewound and allow a player to rethink a decision that he otherwise
might not have but, unless there's new information he shouldn't have
had when he orginally made the decision, that's not actually a reward.
In your original example, I can't see where the guy who made the block
attempt got rewarded other than with the "new" information that he
should have had in the first place. In some cases, players will get
information they shouldn't have had (e.g. a third player attempted to
play a D.I. or something he wouldn't have known about) and that's bad.
And the judge has to take stuff like that into account when he's
considering what to do. But if the acting player doesn't like it,
then he should announce his bleed correctly.
> For example,
> earlier in the tournament, my predator (who had the edge) attempted to
> call a KRC. I wasn't really paying attention and did my vote
> calculations not including the fact that he could burn the edge (as in,
> I didn't notice he had the edge). I decided not to attempt to block
> the vote, as I was confident I could vote it down, and wanted to save
> my Misdirection for another less rainy day. He burnt the edge for the
> vote and I lost pool to the KRC. I failed to pay sufficient attention
> to the game state and lost pool as a result. Do you think I should have
> been able to say "hey I didn't notice he had the edge, this sucks,
> I want to block the vote! Let's rewind!".
Well, no. No one withheld information from you as in the original
example.
> Postscript: Interestingly enough, ALL players on the table (including
> the one getting bled by Lucita) agreed that he should not be able to
> take back the wake... for what that's worth.
Not much. They're not judging the game.
> Also, this vampire's
> had been specifically discussed by players for a minute or two when she
> came out, which was not very long at all before the bleed action
> happened. But I'm guessing you'd see that as "not pertinent"?
Not really. I'm assuming Lucita came out in normal fashion the
previous influence phase or prior; unless people are passing their
turns due to a First Tradition or something, a lot of game had to have
been played in the meantime.
Fred