TWD - From here to hell - Gothenburg, November 2009

TWD - From here to hell - Gothenburg, November 2009 On another note I have a TWD to report now that the EC has been played. Event name: From here to hell - Gothenburg, November 2009 Date: 2009-11-07 Location: Gothenburg, Sweden Number of players: 15 Winner: Henrik Ericsson Finals: Henrik Ericsson (pre weenie) -> Stefan Karlsson (g4-5 lawfirm) -> Erik Torstensson (AAA) -> Alex Ek (!tor embrace toolbox) -> Adam Esbjörnsson (!ventrue + mathias + sticks) -> Henrik was first seed into the finals with 2 gw and 7 vp. He swept the finals in about 75 minutes adding 1 gw and 5 vps to his scoresheet. TWD: Deck Name : Pre Author : Erik Torstensson Description : Played by Henrik Ericsson Crypt [12 vampires] Capacity min: 1 max: 5 average: 3.25 ------------------------------------------------------------ 1x Shasa Abu Badr 5 PRE cel for Ishtarri:4 1x Antoinette Dubois 4 PRE for mel Daughter :4 1x Bethany Ray 4 PRE aus Toreador:5 1x Loonar 4 PRE cel !Toreador:4 1x Lumumba 4 PRE ani Guruhi:4 1x Marla Kenyon 4 PRE ser Follower :4 1x Reginald Moore 4 PRE primogen Brujah:4 1x Reverend Adams 3 PRE aus Caitiff:4 1x Aimee Laroux 2 for pre Daughter :4 1x Honest Abe 2 pre Brujah:5 1x Jayne Jonestown 2 PRE !Brujah:4 1x Dirk 1 pre Caitiff:4 Library [72 cards] ------------------------------------------------------------ Action [36] 3x Dream World 7x Enchant Kindred 7x Entrancement 7x Intimidation 6x Mind Numb 6x Public Trust Action Modifier [11] 7x Aire of Elation 2x Daring the Dawn 2x Leverage Combat [8] 8x Majesty Event [1] 1x The Bitter and Sweet Story Master [16] 2x Anarch Troublemaker 1x Coven, The 2x Dreams of the Sphinx 3x Effective Management 1x Giant's Blood 1x Information Highway 2x Life in the City 2x Misdirection 2x Pentex(TM) Subversion Regards Alex Ek Swedish NC

On Nov 21, 9:34 pm, "Nikolaj \"Lord of the Betrayers\" Wendt" [ quoted text not captured ] It was harsh being bled for Ω times :( //Alex

[ quoted text not captured ] This should ofcourse be "being bled for ∞". Stupid keyboard hates me :(

On Nov 21, 11:04 am, _angst_ <a...@student.chalmers.se> wrote: > TWD - From here to hell - Gothenburg, November 2009 > > On another note I have a TWD to report now that the EC has been > played. Are you saying you kept it secret so as to not see it at the EC?

On Nov 22, 10:38 am, Wilsoros <davewilso...@gmail.com> wrote: > Are you saying you kept it secret so as to not see it at the EC? That seems to be a common plan that is becoming clear (see: the Anarch troublemaker - Paris, the 13th of December 2008 thread); folks seem to feel it is both reasonable and advantageous to keep their winning deck designs hidden from the public view, so they will delay submitting them to the TWDA until after a point when they feel it is no longer necessary to keep their proprietary deck designs secret. Or at least that is what I'm getting out of this. -Peter

[ quoted text not captured ] I don't understand why the tournament organizers enable this. Now I can see one reason to agree with Kevin's idea that the TWD's should only be counted if posted within 30 days of the events. best - chris

[ quoted text not captured ] This was posted withing 30 days of the events.

On Nov 22, 11:59 am, henrik <www.hen...@gmail.com> wrote: > This was posted withing 30 days of the events. Well, yes. But other ones recently posted were not (see: waiting a year to post a TWDA in the name of keeping one's "secret deck tech" secret). I'm not making a judgement one way or the other on this practice, except to think that it is monumentally silly (i.e. I don't necessarily think that the TWDA should either encourage or discourage this particular activity), as keeping one's clever secret deck tech secret provides incredibly limited (if any) advantage. To wit, the deck in this thread (a completely reasonable, effective, and solid weenie PRE bleed deck) has nothing in it remotely surprising or unforseen. I have built this deck. Lots of people have built this deck. It is a good deck. But what is being accomplished by sandbagging it from the TWDA until the EC is over? Putting it in the TWDA doesn't mean that it is being played again at the EC or anywhere else. Or if it is played again, that it will be the same deck. Putting it in the TWDA doesn't give anyone any particular advantage when sitting down next to it. I could make educated guesses about the deck as soon as it brings out minions ("Hmm. A disparate bunch of weenie PRE minions. They will bleed a lot. With the occasional Aire. And Majesty when blocked. And tap folks with Misdirection and Anarch Trouble Maker..."). If I have memorized the deck list, and then sit down next to it, the memorized deck list is just as likely to be a disadvantage as an advantage (i.e. when facing it, I take actions based on it having exactly 2 Pentex Subversions and zero DIs, I'm just as likely to discover to my detriment that this time, it has 3 Pentex Subversions and 2 DIs as not). -Peter

On Nov 22, 5:54 pm, librarian <aucti...@superfuncards.com> wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] Why would I not respect the wish of the winner if he asks me to wait to publish it until after a certain event? I demand TW-decklists for all my tournaments with 10 or more participants but I see no reason not to respect a simple wish from the winner (or author). Regards Alex

[ quoted text not captured ] If the deck had been posted just before the EC, people would have gotten it ino their minds. People would be more likely to be prepared for it than if not, since they just read about it sweeping a finale table. Someone might think "Oh, that's scary. I'll put an extra Aranthebes into my deck for the EC.". Things like that happen. It's not really about hiding the concept of the deck. It's about not throwing it in people's faces when it's going to be played at a huge tournament next week. Like you say, it probably doesn't make a huge difference though. I'd say that knowing is better than not knowing. Even if I can't know for sure what's in the deck I'm playing against, I can know what was in the deck one week ago. And that can be used as an advantage even if there's some uncertainty about whether there are 2 or 3 Misdirections in the deck.

On Nov 22, 7:05 pm, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] No, it's obvious that you and several others don't see why knowing another players decklists would be an advantage. Personally I find it very strange that you don't see why this would be an advantage. It's not a matter of knowing the exact decklist (well, in some cases it is) but it helps you get the upper hand in tight games against top players. If you can't see the advantage in this. Then fair enough, we'll agree to disagree. I don't have the energy or will to write an article about this ATM. I do however think it's a good thing that you don't want to change the TWDA into something that would very much limit the freedom of choice of tournament winners and deck builders. And I've heard freedom is a good thing :) Regards Alex

On Nov 22, 1:26 pm, henrik <www.hen...@gmail.com> wrote: > If the deck had been posted just before the EC, people would have > gotten it ino their minds. If people are going to the EC, weenie PRE bleed is *already* in their minds. No one is going to be surprised when such a deck shows up. > It's about not throwing it in people's faces when it's going to be played at a huge > tournament next week. But no one has any idea whether or not it is going to be played at the huge tournament next week. If it wins this week, maybe it will be played next week, maybe not. Maybe people will look at it, become concerned, adjust all their decks accordingly, and then no one shows up playing that deck, and all the recently added "anti-Weenie PRE bleed" tech becomes wasted and possibly a hinderance. Putting the deck in the public eye is just as likely to be advantageous as not. > I'd say that knowing is better than not knowing. Sure, but knowing what? Knowing that someone made a weenie PRE deck (which is just a convenient example--I'm in no way trying to slag on you for making or playing said deck. It is a good one.) and can sweep tables with it? Ok, but we already know that. People win with that kind of deck all the time. It is a good kind of deck. And the new slew of 2-4 caps with PRE make it kind of awesome. But if I were going to the EC, I'd expect to run into such a deck (or at least not be remotely surprised when I did) whether one recently hit the TWDA or not. > Even if I can't know > for sure what's in the deck I'm playing against, I can know what was > in the deck one week ago. And that can be used as an advantage even if > there's some uncertainty about whether there are 2 or 3 Misdirections > in the deck. But that advantage is just as likely a disadvantage--assuming things based on what you think the deck has in it (and really, who is memorizing deck lists anyway?) from last week is just as likely to shoot you in the foot as not. Again, I'm not like, thinking anyone is a bad person for sandbagging decks from the TWDA. Ya know, whatever works for you. It just strikes me, on an absolute level, as kind of silly. This is not a game where, really, there are "current killer decks" that one needs to be concerned about when going to a tournament. As there is sooo much variation, but it is all on similar themes--weenie bleed, S+B, weenie vote, various wall decks, whatever. Yeah, someone might show up with the super effective Shambling Hordes speed kill deck that they won with last week. But they just as well might not. We know such decks exist and can either be able to deal with that or not, regardless of whether or not it won a tournament a couple weeks ago. -Peter

_angst_ wrote: > No, it's obvious that you and several others don't see why knowing > another players decklists would be an advantage. Again, it's not that you know that player's deck list. It's that you know *a* deck list. Huge difference.

On Nov 22, 1:30 pm, _angst_ <a...@student.chalmers.se> wrote: > No, it's obvious that you and several others don't see why knowing > another players decklists would be an advantage. No, no. I see why someone might imagine that it provides an advantage. But it really doesn't. > Personally I find it > very strange that you don't see why this would be an advantage. It's > not a matter of knowing the exact decklist (well, in some cases it is) > but it helps you get the upper hand in tight games against top > players. Maybe it might. But it is *incredibly* unlikely to actually help you get the upper hand in such a situation. And just as likely to hinder you in such a situation: A) You need to have a solid memory of what was in said deck. B) You need to be playing against said deck. C) Said deck needs to not have changed. Looking at the deck in this here thread (which again, to be clear, is a very good, yet pretty standard deck. There is nothing remotely surprising in it. Well, ok, I'm surprised that it doesn't have DI in it. But I wouldn't assume it didn't even if I saw this deck list this week and then played against it next week...), if I read the decklist last week and then was going to the EC next week, what is that going to do? I say "Huh. A good player won a tournament with a weenie PRE deck. Maybe they'll play that deck at the EC? Oh, wait. Someone already was probably going to be playing such a deck as the EC." If I sit down next to it, I say "Huh. Henrik is playing that weenie PRE deck he won with last week. I wonder if it changed at all..." and have to assume it changed, as it is just as likely to have changed as not. And making assumptions based on it *not* having changed is as likely to hose me as not. And once the deck is being played, what advantage is going to be gained by having read some version of it from last week? I won't be surprised when he plays Anarch Trouble Maker or Majesty? I wasn't going to be surprised by that anyway. I won't be surprised when he plays Life in the City when I thought he had to hunt? Again, not surprising. > If you can't see the advantage in this. Then fair enough, we'll agree > to disagree. I don't have the energy or will to write an article about > this ATM. Well, I look forward to such an article. It will be fun to refute :-) > I do however think it's a good thing that you don't want to change the > TWDA into something that would very much limit the freedom of choice > of tournament winners and deck builders. And I've heard freedom is a > good thing :) As noted, ya know, whatever works for you. It is just a silly practice to engage in. -Peter

[ quoted text not captured ] Come to Origins, where winning decklists are made public, whether you want them to be made public or not. Oh, and no stupid decklists. ;) Kevin M., Prince of Las Vegas "Know your enemy and know yourself; in one-thousand battles you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, *The Art of War* "Contentment...Complacency...Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier Please visit VTESville daily! http://vtesville.myminicity.com/ Please buy my cards! http://shop.ebay.com/kjmergen/m.html

henrik wrote: > If the deck had been posted just before the EC, THE DECK WAS FROM A YEAR AGO!!! IT WOULDN'T HAVE BEEN IN PEOPLE'S MINDS IF IT HAD BEEN POSTED A YEAR AGO WHEN THE TOURNAMENT HAPPENED!!! OMFG!!!

On Nov 22, 4:16 pm, "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote: > THE DECK WAS FROM A YEAR AGO!!! (The deck in this thread that Dave Wilson was asking about was from a tournament at the start of this November) -Peter

Peter D Bakija wrote: > "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote: >> THE DECK WAS FROM A YEAR AGO!!! > > (The deck in this thread that Dave Wilson was asking about > was from a tournament at the start of this November) damn not paying attention to the threads, because they aren't worth paying attention to in the first place ;)

[ quoted text not captured ] Ultimately, it sounds like (not actually) collusion between tournament organizer and player. Especially if said organizer feels like it actually gives an advantage to everyone else. So now the organizer knows the deck, but everyone else doesn't. So the organizer is using their privileged position as organizer to have an advantage over other players. Just doesn't sound very cool. Another point - why help someone who is already shown to be good? Why not support the rest of the players who might need the (alleged) advantage? The main reason I'm looking askance at this is that it looks like insider trading, or cronyism, or at the very least, non-egalitarian. And to address the idea from another point of view - seems like the best thing to do is to play this deck, win right before EC, let the result be posted. Then you never play that deck all week long leading up to EC. You now have an advantage over the other players who keep waiting to see said deck. You can even take this to the next level by playing Lumumba in your Guruhi toolbox deck, or Jayne in your Mata Hari recursion deck, or whatever. The ol' double blind trick. best - chris

On Nov 22, 4:37 pm, "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote: > damn not paying attention to the threads, because they aren't > worth paying attention to in the first place ;) Heh, it's ok. I'm here to catch these things :-) -Peter

On Nov 22, 12:30 pm, _angst_ <a...@student.chalmers.se> wrote: > No, it's obvious that you and several others don't see why knowing > another players decklists would be an advantage. Personally I find it > very strange that you don't see why this would be an advantage. It's > not a matter of knowing the exact decklist (well, in some cases it is) > but it helps you get the upper hand in tight games against top > players. > > If you can't see the advantage in this. Then fair enough, we'll agree > to disagree. I don't have the energy or will to write an article about > this ATM. I'm going to have to break ranks with my American compatriots and agree with the Europeans on this one. I'm not sure why people are making such a big deal out of this. If people want to keep their decks secret then who cares? (From my experience, it does seem that Americans have a propensity towards publishing such information). There are many, many legitimate reasons why people might not want to reveal such information. The one which immediately comes to mind (and which strongly motivated even bothering to post in this thread), is the faulty, underlying assumption that the winning player will simply change/modify his deck. I've known quite a few players who simply don't have time to be constantly tweaking and modifying their decks. Though I have spare time now, there have been plenty of stretches of time when I used to play the same decks (unmodified even after one or two years) simply because I didn't have the time for deck building. In fact, I know quite a few players who are on the verge of quitting - while they love playing VTES they are thinking about quitting because they simply don't have the time to spend on constantly building new decks. So if you ignore the assumption that decks will constantly change (and from what I've read there are plenty of playgroups where things become quite stagnant) then there's a much better reason for why some of the Europeans are so guarded. In addition to limited time, there is also the issue of limited resources. Perhaps the winning player has a very limited card pool and simply can't make many modifications to his deck? Hey while we're at it, why don't we just publish the decks of all finalists? (Or even all players?). In the past, I've known players who kept playing the same deck until they've won a major tournament with it. I'm sure they wouldn't want their deck published as a finalist deck because they wanted to keep playing it until they actually won. So they're not "done with" their deck yet (and they're going to keep playing it) so publishing such information would be a significant disadvantage for them. Similarly, perhaps the concern is with *who* gets to learn your secrets. Personally I wouldn't care if some stranger on the other side of the world learns about your secret deck tech. However, if members of your local playgroup regularly frequent the forums, then it could be exceedingly valuable for them. In some playgroups you end up playing with the same people week after week. You might not always want them to know that you always include X copies of card Y. Etc. Perhaps it's not the deck list itself but a pattern/trend seen when combined with your other decks. Most players have certain playstyles and also have distinctive deckbuilding habits (i.e. always putting in a DI or never playing Sudden Reversal, or using a lot of Carlton, or always preferring Forced Awakening over On the Qui Vive). Others might not realize it immediately but by putting two and two together, it makes a lot more sense. Even more so if you're of the school that a large component of VTES is playing the other players (not their decks). Kinda like Poker where you're trying to figure out the other player's strategies, cues, and ticks. There might be any other number of corner case reasons. Maybe the player stole the deck from his brother/wife/whatever and if the deck list gets posted it will become quite obvious? Maybe the player skipped out on an important family event or anniversary to attend the tournament and doesn't want his winning (or attendance) advertised? Maybe the player is in some sort of witness protection program and wants to keep a low profile (and getting his name plastered in the TWDA is one additional thing he doesn't need)? Whatever. And who cares? If people want some privacy and secrecy, then let them have it! If anything, maybe some people don't even care about the TWDA. (Though great job to the Lasombra for doing such a superb job). Many people are speaking condescendingly of those who want to keep things secret. Is it any better to be a fame-seeking gloryhound, desperate to seek the praise and accolades of others?

On Nov 22, 6:01 pm, "echiang...@yahoo.com" <echiang...@yahoo.com> wrote: > I'm going to have to break ranks with my American compatriots and > agree with the Europeans on this one. I'm not sure why people are > making such a big deal out of this. If people want to keep their decks > secret then who cares? As noted, I don't care. But if you want to keep your deck secret, don't submit it to the TWDA. There is a definite incongruity that comes from: A) Wanting to keep your stuff secret. and B) Wanting to get the props that come from winning and getting your deck in the TWDA. If you want to keep your stuff secret, keep it secret. If you want it in the TWDA, put it in the TWDA. Trying to skate both, however, seems, what do you say, kind of douche-baggy. > There are many, many legitimate reasons why people might not want to > reveal such information. Again, I in no way object to people wanting to keep their stuff secret. If they want to keep their stuff secret, they should keep it secret. But if the reason for keeping their stuff secret is to avoid providing advantages to their opponents, well, that is highly unlikely to actually pay off. > The one which immediately comes to mind (and which strongly motivated > even bothering to post in this thread), is the faulty, underlying > assumption that the winning player will simply change/modify his deck. That isn't remotely faulty, what with this being a game where decks are built and modified as the player sees fit. Yes. Some people keep the same decks together and never change them ever. But that is likely far less common than the propensity for changing and tweaking decks constantly. And more to the point, even if people *do* keep their decks completely unchanged between games, the opponents of those decks can't assume that the deck is unchanged, as that puts you more at a disadvantage than assuming the deck is unchanged is advantageous. Because decks can and do change constantly, assuming that they don't is asking to be killed based on faulty assumption. > Hey while we're at it, why don't we just publish the decks of all > finalists? That is a complete straw man. No one here is even suggesting that *any* decks be published mandatorily. If no one ever published a winning deck ever again? I'd be sad, but ok. Again, the issue here (if any) is: A) I want my deck in the TWDA, 'cause it makes me look cool. and B) I want to keep my deck secret until it is time to "release" it. Which is incongruous. And silly. > Similarly, perhaps the concern is with *who* gets to learn your > secrets. Then don't publish your deck designs. It is an easy solution. > Is it any better to be a fame-seeking gloryhound, desperate to seek > the praise and accolades of others? Yet some folks, apparently, want to be both. Wherein lies the issue, if any at all. -Peter

On Nov 23, 12:24 am, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > If you want to keep your stuff secret, keep it secret. If you want it > in the TWDA, put it in the TWDA. Trying to skate both, however, seems, > what do you say, kind of douche-baggy. I'm having a very hard time understanding why this would be a bad thing. You have your deck that you play and win a couple of events with. Perhaps you play it during the year up to the next EC. You want to keep your tech secret for whatever reason till you have played it at the EC. And so finally you play your deck at the EC and then decide that you're done with it. So you pick it apart and publish the decklists and reports for the events you've won. I see absolutely nothing wrong with acting this way as a player. An organizer could however demand to publish your deck after you've won the event they organized. Fine, then you'd have to live with that (iirc some of the Swiss academy decks got published due to organizers demanding to publish the twd's of their events). I don't think many organizers I know of wouldn't think it to be fine to wait a couple of weeks or months before publishing the list if the player asked them to do so. And I just can't understand why you would be a douchebag if you want to keep your deck secret while you play it and publish it and give it its rightful 15 minutes of fame once you retire it. Regards Alex

"Peter D Bakija" <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote in message news:6af0b05f-b99f-44b7...@p28g2000vbi.googlegroups.com... > As noted, I don't care. But if you want to keep your deck secret, > don't submit it to the TWDA. There is a definite incongruity that > comes from: > > A) Wanting to keep your stuff secret. > > and > > B) Wanting to get the props that come from winning and getting your > deck in the TWDA. > > If you want to keep your stuff secret, keep it secret. If you want it > in the TWDA, put it in the TWDA. Trying to skate both, however, seems, > what do you say, kind of douche-baggy. Sometimes conveying a thought in verse is more effective. To wit: "You won your thing a your ago, your deck is old and skaggy. To list it now with winning decks I think is so douche-baggy!"

On Nov 23, 1:18 am, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: > "Peter D Bakija" <p...@lightlink.com> wrote in messagenews:6af0b05f-b99f-44b7...@p28g2000vbi.googlegroups.com... [ quoted text not captured ] Sometimes posting in the right thread is more effective.

[ quoted text not captured ] Are you feeling that perhaps you don't have to take heat for whatever Orian is/was doing ;) Especially since you weren't the one asking for the delay of the publication of this TWD :D Good times on the newsgroup! //Alex

On Nov 22, 7:16 pm, _angst_ <a...@student.chalmers.se> wrote: > I'm having a very hard time understanding why this would be a bad > thing. I'm not saying it is a bad thing. If that is what someone wants to do, they can do that all they want. I'm just saying it strikes me as silly. And kind of douche baggy. But people are allowed to be douche baggy if they want. -Peter

"henrik" <www.h...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:e2208327-8166-46d7...@o13g2000vbl.googlegroups.com... [ quoted text not captured ] Sorry, dude. I know it wasn't fair - but when my muse strikes, I must post!

On Nov 22, 5:24 pm, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > > Hey while we're at it, why don't we just publish the decks of all > > finalists? > > That is a complete straw man. No one here is even suggesting that > *any* decks be published mandatorily. If no one ever published a > winning deck ever again? I'd be sad, but ok. Again, the issue here (if > any) is: Well actually several posters *are* suggesting that winning decks be published mandatorily (even without the winner's consent). Kevin Mergen writes: "Come to Origins, where winning decklists are made public, whether you want them to be made public or not." Chris "librarian" writes: "I don't understand why the tournament organizers enable this." suggesting that organizers shouldn't keep the decks secret at the player's request (and should then be releasing that information publicly). > Again, I in no way object to people wanting to keep their stuff > secret. If they want to keep their stuff secret, they should keep it > secret. But if the reason for keeping their stuff secret is to avoid > providing advantages to their opponents, well, that is highly unlikely > to actually pay off. Actually, this could be quite readily abused. We'll ignore the corner- case situation of photographic memory, but that's largely a moot issue when you can instead use it in conjunction with VEKN Rule 1.4. Taking Notes: Players are allowed to take written notes of their opponents' decks and activities, so long as doing so doesn't interfere with game play (especially the speed of play). If you recall, there was a lengthy newsgroup discussion on this back in 2006 with the subject: "Now that I have my notes... (Tournament rule 1.4)". Technically, you can already take notes on your opponent's deck (as long as you aren't slowing down the game). You could for example, write down every card someone else plays. On the more abusive side, you could play a Harbingers Slaughterhouse deck, deck opponents (write down the exact contents of their whole deck, and pass it around to other people). Won't win you any kudos (except whoever you give your notes to), but technically legal. The main challenge might be writing everything down quickly enough. *However*, combine this with the availability of online notes. In some tournaments, seating arrangements are posted in advance (i.e. before a lunch break, etc.). Let's say that I learn that Henrik is my predator/ prey and I hear that it's some sort of Presence bleedy thing. Hypothetically, during the break I could go online, find Henrik's winning deck and print out a copy. Of course it isn't guaranteed to be the exact same deck, but it's likely to be very similar (say a baseline of 80-90%). Since you already have a pretty accurate baseline, it does make it quite easy for you to detail the exact changes (just tick off each card he plays), which eliminates the "can't delay game" restriction of taking notes. And then by the end of the game, I should have the exact deck contents (noting any changes from his old winning deck), which will prove especially helpful if I face him in the finals. Unlikely, yes. But legal according to the rules, as far as I am aware. > As noted, I don't care. But if you want to keep your deck secret, > don't submit it to the TWDA. There is a definite incongruity that > comes from: > > A) Wanting to keep your stuff secret. > > and > > B) Wanting to get the props that come from winning and getting your > deck in the TWDA. Well, I think it all comes down to the question: "What is the purpose of the TWDA?" As far as I am aware, there is no "official" statement of purpose, so it could mean different things to different people. For example: A. Historical Recordkeeping. Keeps track of the history of the game and of winning decks and tournaments. In this case, a delay shouldn't matter (historical records often have gaps and any new information is welcomed, even if discovered much much later). B. Fame. Actually alluded to in the FAQ which states "Claim your 15 minutes of fame." Fame from winning a tournament. Shouldn't matter if the winning deck is delayed (because it's the fact that you won which matters. If anything, the tournament results and announced winner should already be available so it's largely a moot issue). C. Sharing Information. This is the explanation where your arguments seem most valid. In this case, you argue that the TWDA exists to promote the game by inspiring other players, helping with the evolution of deck building. TWDA decks are only useful when they are still legal (because that is the current playing environment) and by releasing it so late, the deck is useless in terms of helping other players with their own decks. D. Misc other motivations. Maybe the TWDA is a completely personal thing (and the Lasombra doesn't care what other people think). Many Blogs and Newsletters are done for reasons of personal satisfaction. Maybe the overarching goal is just plain community building. I doubt it's the case, but hypothetically, the TWDA could be used as an indirect way to promote other parts of the website (or to generate "hits" for the site). Blah blah. I'm sure you can come up with plenty of other creative possibilities. But the point is, the TWDA may mean different things to different people. While you focus on Sharing Information, other people might emphasize the Historical or Fame aspects. So while a delayed release may be an affront to your perception of the TWDA's purpose, it's not a conflict from someone else's perspective. And so unless The Lasombra wants to establish an "official" purpose, who's to say which interpretation is better? (The challenge is that even if an "official" purpose was declared, it risks fracturing the community and you could potentially end up with a separate, "Winning Tournament Deck Archive for Decks that Didn't Meet Lasombra's Standards"). Not that my opinion matters, but I think a centralized repository is more useful, even if it does mean accommodating multiple viewpoints (and differences regarding when to release the info).

A few other points: In the other thread, Kevin suggested that the TWDA only accept decks posted within 30 days. The problem is that not all Tournament Organizers are administratively competent. Some can be quite terrible at following through. Winning players shouldn't be penalized if the tournament organizer fails to post the necessary information. (Add in corner-case situations where the reporting e-mail bounces, or the organizer and winning players are in comas for a month, etc.) Online deck lists could also be a problem if you're in the middle of playing several online (JOL, Lackey) games using the exact same deck (or something similar). One of the previous arguments was that it is unrealistic to think people are going to be memorizing deck lists. In the case of JOL games, there's plenty of downtime between turns and you have access to online deck lists so you don't need to memorize anything at all. Especially since online games may be going on for quite some time (you could have started the game on the same day you played the winning tournament). So I definitely wouldn't want my deck to be revealed when I'm still playing it in a current game. In some cases, you might be winning with someone else's deck. (It's not uncommon to play with a borrowed deck). In this case, the "rights" don't even belong to the winning player (but whoever he borrowed it from). Some people might be happy enough that their deck is in the archive (even under someone else's name). But some people might reasonably object. The most frustrating thing about this thread is the apparent narrow- mindedness by refusing to accept that the other side has valid reasons. Peter et al make several excellent points, and sharing information freely may be especially beneficial in some environments (take for example open-sourcing situations). But there are plenty of other cases where the norm is the exact opposite. In many cases involving intellectual property, the trend is towards keeping things secret and only releasing when necessary (or safe to do so). When I finished one of my theses, I had to fill out a form where I had to decide between A.) releasing the information immediately, B.) allowing the information to be released after a year, and C.) never releasing it at all. Apparently that was the norm at that academic institution. Maybe Henrik works in an environment where this sort of thing is more common. Who knows? But I would at least like to give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he has his reasons, whatever they may be.

[ quoted text not captured ] So being douche baggy isn't bad? Last time I checked that was kinda the whole point with the word "douchebag".

> The most frustrating thing about this thread is the apparent narrow- > mindedness by refusing to accept that the other side has valid > reasons. Peter et al make several excellent points, and sharing > information freely may be especially beneficial in some environments > (take for example open-sourcing situations). But there are plenty of > other cases where the norm is the exact opposite. In many cases > involving intellectual property, the trend is towards keeping things > secret and only releasing when necessary (or safe to do so). When I > finished one of my theses, I had to fill out a form where I had to > decide between A.) releasing the information immediately, B.) allowing > the information to be released after a year, and C.) never releasing > it at all. Apparently that was the norm at that academic institution. > Maybe Henrik works in an environment where this sort of thing is more > common. Who knows? But I would at least like to give him the benefit > of the doubt and assume he has his reasons, whatever they may be. This is all very true. Peter, you are the only one (and maybe Kevin) to think that a player releasing a deck after a long time is doing this for the sake of FAME, GLORY of being in the TWD. That's true, it is a side advantage but who do you think it benefits the most to? Do you think it is not better to publish information on an interesting deck which has won tournaments? And which place is better to keep such legacy than the TWD on the lasombra webpage, that every player in the world knows? Peter, one of your major arguments is that the deck is old and rubbish and that everybody knows it. Well, first, I must admire your incredible knowledge of the game because most people I played against were not expecting anything like this. Happily I did not play with you during my tournaments, I would not have standed a chance.Now, considering the deck everybody knows, there is no "reversal of fortunes" on the TWD, so you probably are a long term player, you know the deck as you said, it has been played for 15 years as you said (even if it is just a crap deck without last stand in it, but let's accept this sentence), but did you think about the more recent players, that never got a chance to see the deck? Yet, with such a memory, you are the guy who also says "you cannot remember anything important by just looking at the decklist" but look... in Erik's deck there are 2 DARING THE DAWN. I played against this very deck played by Erik during the EC. What do you think has happened when I took a bleed for 10 unblockable... I just thought "o my god, now, how many daring more does he have? does he pack fortitude skills? do I need to try rushing all his vampires before he gets the chance to kill me or should I stay in defence?" If I had seen the deck before, just once, since I know how good Erik is, and how high the probability to play against him at the EC, I would have looked the deck closely and seen those 2 daring the dawn. And a good player does not change his deck that often, and I would, maybe falsely, have considered correct to think that he had 2 daring the dawn in his deck. Information is gold. Now on the opposite side, I understand the thing about making decklists mandatory but, I think you are assimilating lasombra TWD with a magical list that would give all TWdecks. I mean, I have lived in a town during three years between 2003 and 2006, we did not even know google groups - jyhad was something that existed, we did not even know about the Lasombra TWD. Did you think that 90% of the decklists before 2002 were coming from the USA because Europeans had not discovered Jyhad yet? As long as there is no tab to put the TWdeck in the archon, I don't see any official intent to the TWD list, and I don't think Jeff designed it with this idea of ego and exhaustivity in mind, but rather than a place to share. If people don't want to share, why would you not respect their way to think? Just as I have never yelled after a tournament organizer publishing my decklist even if I did not want to. The fact that the term 'collusion' has been used in this thread is simply an insult in my opinion and I hope whoever used it did not think it, really... Peter, I don't think you're understanding that Jyhad is a game, and Lasombra TWD page a tool. It should be done as well as possible for the benefit of everybody but should not bound anybody. How can you think it should? How can you think it is a bad thing to publish a deck after one year? Do you think that people won't be happy to discover it one year after? Do you think they just roam after the decks within one month?

On Nov 23, 5:12 am, "echiang...@yahoo.com" <echiang...@yahoo.com> wrote: > Maybe Henrik works in an environment where this sort of thing is more > common. Who knows? But I would at least like to give him the benefit > of the doubt and assume he has his reasons, whatever they may be. Just for the record. Henrik was never the one requesting the delay in publication. He just won a tournament with a nasty weenie presence deck. Regards Alex

On Nov 23, 3:38 am, henrik <www.hen...@gmail.com> wrote: > So being douche baggy isn't bad? Last time I checked that was kinda > the whole point with the word "douchebag". It isn't bad in the sense of being illegal or against the rules. It *is* bad in the sense of "maybe one doesn't want to be so douche- baggy", ya know, like how wearing your pants hanging off your ass or non-ironic Play Boy Bunny paraphenalia is douche-baggy. It isn't illegal or against the rules. It is just behavior that one might want to avoid. -Peter

[ quoted text not captured ] If it's not worse than using clothes that doesn't meet your standards I suggest we let the matter rest.

Frederick Scott schrieb: [ quoted text not captured ] Awesome. This brought a little sunshine in my rainy day :-)

echia...@yahoo.com schrieb: > On Nov 22, 12:30 pm, _angst_ <a...@student.chalmers.se> wrote: > >> No, it's obvious that you and several others don't see why knowing >> another players decklists would be an advantage. Personally I find it >> very strange that you don't see why this would be an advantage. It's >> not a matter of knowing the exact decklist (well, in some cases it is) >> but it helps you get the upper hand in tight games against top >> players. >> >> If you can't see the advantage in this. Then fair enough, we'll agree >> to disagree. I don't have the energy or will to write an article about >> this ATM. > > > > I'm going to have to break ranks with my American compatriots and > agree with the Europeans on this one. I'm not sure why people are > making such a big deal out of this. If people want to keep their decks > secret then who cares? (From my experience, it does seem that > Americans have a propensity towards publishing such information). Being american makes you hate secrets, I guess. At least the export and use of encryption technology was severely interfered by the american legislative for many years ;-) But seriously I think this is one of the major cultural differences. Most americans will easily give up the annual earnings in a party chat. Not something any European will do. We just have different views on what is private or not. Keeping your winning decklist secret seems a bit overprotective to me, though. Like LSJ said, who is going to know you are playing this very deck. Also you could use it as counter-surveillance by playing hardcore bleed all the time and bringing a weenie Potence to the EC. Stick those Deflections up your *** ! :-)

On Nov 23, 8:33 am, henrik <www.hen...@gmail.com> wrote: > If it's not worse than using clothes that doesn't meet your standards > I suggest we let the matter rest. To be fair here, the douchebaggyness or not of this practice was clearly not the main thrust of my argument here--that was pretty clearly "I don't think it is actually helpful to do this, and as such, strikes me as silly and pointless". I just mentioned that it struck me as kind of douche-baggy, and other people went with that. I'd much rather discuss how it isn't actually helpful :-) -Peter

[ quoted text not captured ] If used correctly, the information can be helpful. It can help you understand other people's deckbuilding strategies and playstyles. If you use the information badly, it won't be helpful though. But that goes for any information.

On Nov 22, 10:53 pm, "echiang...@yahoo.com" <echiang...@yahoo.com> wrote: > Well actually several posters *are* suggesting that winning decks be > published mandatorily (even without the winner's consent). Sure, but they don't actually have a leg to stand on, argumentwise. Well, except that apparently, WW claims the right to publish decks of winners or something (see: that thing that Jeff posted recently), although that rule is vague, at best. > Actually, this could be quite readily abused. I think you are overstating the meaning of "readily". I could print myself a book of every tournament winning deck ever posted. Have a very handy, cross referenced index, and take it with me to every tournament I go to. And any time I sat down with a player who I thought had a deck in there, I could look up their deck in the book, and see exactly what cards their posted deck had in it. Ya know how much help that is going to be? Very little. As nothing is saying the deck they are playing is anything like the deck that is in the notes. And the deck is more likely to be different than not. And even if it isn't, I could probably reverse engineer what is likely in the deck anyway, by virtue of seeing it in play, through guesswork and logic. And guesswork and logic is going to be about as reliable as a book full of tournament winning decks anyway. > Let's say that I learn that Henrik is my predator/ > prey and I hear that it's some sort of Presence bleedy thing. > Hypothetically, during the break I could go online, find Henrik's > winning deck and print out a copy. Of course it isn't guaranteed to be > the exact same deck, but it's likely to be very similar (say a > baseline of 80-90%). Or, you could say "Huh. That is a weenie PRE bleed deck. I can probably guess what is in there..." and be just as accurate as the printed off list. > But the point is, the TWDA may mean different things to different > people. While you focus on Sharing Information, other people might > emphasize the Historical or Fame aspects. So while a delayed release > may be an affront to your perception of the TWDA's purpose, it's not a > conflict from someone else's perspective. I don't think it is an afront to anything. As mentioned multiple times, if people want to do this, they can go nuts. It just strikes me as silly, not actually advantageous, and kind of pompous. But people can be silly and pompous all they want. -Peter

On Nov 23, 8:51 am, henrik <www.hen...@gmail.com> wrote: > If used correctly, the information can be helpful. It can help you > understand other people's deckbuilding strategies and playstyles. Sure. But you can get that from years old TWDA decks, other decks that are similar but by a different player, or just through play/ interaction with said player. That Deck X is from two months ago, or whatever, isn't necessarily helpful. I mean, to be fair, if someone comes up with a really clever, completely new and effective deck design (say, for example, someone built the best, winningest 419 Operation deck ever. Which clearly needs to be unforseen and incredibly clever, as otherwise, it probably doesn't work :-) and wins a tournament with it. And they want to keep their clever ideas hidden, and don't want it posted. Ok, cool. But it seems incredibly likely that if something that fantastic hits the scene, it is going to be revealed, reverese engineered, and discussed in the open anway. At which point, the surprise is foiled on a worldwide scale anyway. > If you use the information badly, it won't be helpful though. But that > goes for any information. Oh, sure. One of my points is that if the information is out there, relying on it to be accurate, in a game where decks are fluid and constantly in flux, is using the information badly. Such that looking at a TWDA post, and expecting it to be anything other than colorful information, is pointless. -Peter

I want to be clear, in my post I only attempted to clarify that secrecy was the point. To Eric Chang: If you loan a deck to someone and they win, then you lose the decklist to the public. To All: I don't think I've ever played the same deck in two tournaments, so I was surprised someone kept it secret. If you need to keep your decklist secret, then I laugh at thee, adapt. I think all decklists should be posted within 72 hours of the event. You should not be allowed to leave an event without giving your decklist, period. Now are tournament organizers able to meet that standard? good question, but if you play a deck, it is now public domain.

Also I want to mention why I think decks should be public. 1) Accountability. If someone claims they have X copies but players know they saw Y copies, you know someone cheated. 2) Improved Play. If people see good decks, they learn to build good decks and the next time I go to an event, I face better decks. I am not here to win a game cause I can't win other games, I want everyone to play better. If you want secrecy for your decks, leave them at home.

Well, I can sort of understand why someone might want to keep their deck secret, but a) I do think it's a bit lame and b) if the deck is kept secret for a long time (over a month), it shouldn't be eligible for the TWDA anymore. Secrets, fame, choose one. IMHO, YMMV, yadda yadda -Petri

Added: for what it's worth, the decklist of the winner (and finalists, for bigger tournaments) for the tournaments I run *will* be made public, regardless of wishes of the winner(s). If you do not like that, please do not attend. -Petri

On Nov 23, 3:04 pm, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > On Nov 23, 8:51 am, henrik <www.hen...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > If used correctly, the information can be helpful. It can help you > > understand other people's deckbuilding strategies and playstyles. > > Sure. But you can get that from years old TWDA decks, other decks that > are similar but by a different player, or just through play/ > interaction with said player. That Deck X is from two months ago, or > whatever, isn't necessarily helpful. No, you can't. With the EC, most people gets to play persons that they've never met before so playing/interacting with them before the tournament could be difficult. And similar decks by other players doesn't show you how the player you're trying to get a grip around builds or plays her decks. > I mean, to be fair, if someone comes up with a really clever, > completely new and effective deck design (say, for example, someone > built the best, winningest 419 Operation deck ever. Which clearly > needs to be unforseen and incredibly clever, as otherwise, it probably > doesn't work :-) and wins a tournament with it. And they want to keep > their clever ideas hidden, and don't want it posted. Ok, cool. But it > seems incredibly likely that if something that fantastic hits the > scene, it is going to be revealed, reverese engineered, and discussed > in the open anway. At which point, the surprise is foiled on a > worldwide scale anyway. So if it's a deck that you haven't seen before it would be cool, but since you knew about the decks in question here it's douche baggy? > > If you use the information badly, it won't be helpful though. But that > > goes for any information. > > Oh, sure. One of my points is that if the information is out there, > relying on it to be accurate, in a game where decks are fluid and > constantly in flux, is using the information badly. Such that looking > at a TWDA post, and expecting it to be anything other than colorful > information, is pointless. Relying on a decklist from a week ago to be exactly 100% the same deck as you're facing now would be kinda pointless, sure. But knowing how the deck looked one week ago will give you a rather good idea about how it looks now. It's not likely to have changed entirely. If it had Legal Manipulations instead of Public Trust, chances are quite good that it stayed that way. If the deck used Leverage, you should count on that when calculating how much bleed you'll get next turn. If there were no Leverage in the deck a week ago, you could count on that. If it used 4 Anarch Troublemakers and 0 Misdirections you could take your chances that the deck stayed that way. Of course you might be wrong and fail horrible due to not counting on Misdirection, but you still have more information when you make your choices in the game. And that's not pointless.

On Nov 23, 9:33 am, henrik <www.hen...@gmail.com> wrote: > No, you can't. With the EC, most people gets to play persons that > they've never met before so playing/interacting with them before the > tournament could be difficult. And consequently, memorizing their decks is unlikely to be helpful--if you have never met someone, and are unlikely to sit with them in any given game, and their deck is unlikely to be the same anyway, how is this helping you? > So if it's a deck that you haven't seen before it would be cool, but > since you knew about the decks in question here it's douche baggy? No, it's still douche-baggy. But I figured we moved away from that point. See how in the last post I didn't call anything douche-baggy? > Relying on a decklist from a week ago to be exactly 100% the same deck > as you're facing now would be kinda pointless, sure. But knowing how > the deck looked one week ago will give you a rather good idea about > how it looks now. So will, ya know, knowing how to play the game. Again, your deck (which is a totally solid, reasonable weenie PRE deck) is similar to many other decks that have been published or played by hundreds of players. Looking at the deck list did not in any significant way add to that body of knowledge. Seeing those minions hit the table and take a few actions is just as likely to provide the necessary understanding of the deck as anything else. -Peter

On Nov 23, 3:54 pm, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > On Nov 23, 9:33 am, henrik <www.hen...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > No, you can't. With the EC, most people gets to play persons that > > they've never met before so playing/interacting with them before the > > tournament could be difficult. > > And consequently, memorizing their decks is unlikely to be helpful--if > you have never met someone, and are unlikely to sit with them in any > given game, and their deck is unlikely to be the same anyway, how is > this helping you? I'm not talking about memorizing decks. I'm talking about knowing what type of decks they usually play, which masters they're likely to have, if I should be watchful for The Uncoiling etc. Knowing how people usually build their decks can give you an advantage when facing them. > > So if it's a deck that you haven't seen before it would be cool, but > > since you knew about the decks in question here it's douche baggy? > > No, it's still douche-baggy. But I figured we moved away from that > point. See how in the last post I didn't call anything douche-baggy? Indeed. You called it cool instead. > > Relying on a decklist from a week ago to be exactly 100% the same deck > > as you're facing now would be kinda pointless, sure. But knowing how > > the deck looked one week ago will give you a rather good idea about > > how it looks now. > > So will, ya know, knowing how to play the game. Again, your deck > (which is a totally solid, reasonable weenie PRE deck) is similar to > many other decks that have been published or played by hundreds of > players. Looking at the deck list did not in any significant way add > to that body of knowledge. Seeing those minions hit the table and take > a few actions is just as likely to provide the necessary understanding > of the deck as anything else. Thinking that all players construct their decks in the same fashion is bad.

On Mon, 23 Nov 2009, Peter D Bakija wrote: > And consequently, memorizing their decks is unlikely to be helpful--if > you have never met someone, and are unlikely to sit with them in any > given game, and their deck is unlikely to be the same anyway, how is > this helping you? This may be true, but what about someone else copying a deck and playing the same deck at the EC? Like say I've figured out some ultra-awesome tech that I think is guaranteed to win a continental championship (whether I'm delusional or not is irrelevant). I test it in a smaller tournament and win. Is it completely unreasonable for me to want to limit the exposure of this deck to minimize the odds of someone else copying the deck and either causing me a lot of problems with contestation or just getting better tables/playing better and bumping me out of the finals? What if (I think) it's so good, half a dozen players will try it? For my money, the decision to post a deck or not post a deck should be between the player and the tournament organizer and the decision of whether or not to archive a deck is up to the archivist. Matt Morgan

Matthew T. Morgan schrieb: [ quoted text not captured ] You are so european. Are you sure you don�t want to come live in my attic :-))

On Nov 23, 11:11 am, "Matthew T. Morgan" <farq...@io.com> wrote: > On Mon, 23 Nov 2009, Peter D Bakija wrote: > > And consequently, memorizing their decks is unlikely to be helpful--if > > you have never met someone, and are unlikely to sit with them in any > > given game, and their deck is unlikely to be the same anyway, how is > > this helping you? > > This may be true, but what about someone else copying a deck and playing > the same deck at the EC? Like say I've figured out some ultra-awesome > tech that I think is guaranteed to win a continental championship (whether > I'm delusional or not is irrelevant). I test it in a smaller tournament > and win. Is it completely unreasonable for me to want to limit the > exposure of this deck to minimize the odds of someone else copying the > deck and either causing me a lot of problems with contestation or just > getting better tables/playing better and bumping me out of the finals? Yes, it is completely unreasonable. If the deck needs to be a secret, you won't be able to play it in tournaments until the EC. You'll have to do your testing elsewhere, because of this: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/index.php?line=veknRules 1.6. Publishing Event Information White Wolf, Inc. reserves the right to publish event information such as the contents of any player's deck as well as transcripts or video reproductions of any sanctioned tournament. The tournament organizer is also permitted to publish event information. > What if (I think) it's so good, half a dozen players will try it? > > For my money, the decision to post a deck or not post a deck should be > between the player and the tournament organizer and the decision of > whether or not to archive a deck is up to the archivist. > > Matt Morgan That's all well and good, and if the tournament organizer agrees with you, your wishes might be respected, but they don't have to be. If you want the Publishing Event Information rule to be changed, that's fine, too, but you should advocate for that explicitly. -Dave Clooney

On Nov 22, 5:01 pm, "echiang...@yahoo.com" <echiang...@yahoo.com> wrote: > Hey while we're at it, why don't we just publish the decks of all > finalists? (Or even all players?). That would be embarrassing given some of the decks I've taken into tournaments.

On Mon, 23 Nov 2009, quickbeam wrote: > That's all well and good, and if the tournament organizer agrees with > you, your wishes might be respected, but they don't have to be. If > you want the Publishing Event Information rule to be changed, that's > fine, too, but you should advocate for that explicitly. Uh yeah, I know that. I'm trying to contribute to the discussion and offer a reason someone might want to keep a decklist secret. I'm not trying to change any rules. I publish all my decklists. I just think if a player doesn't want to (and the tournament organizer agrees), then there's no harm in holding it for a while. Matt Morgan

On Nov 23, 10:01 am, henrik <www.hen...@gmail.com> wrote: > I'm not talking about memorizing decks. I'm talking about knowing what > type of decks they usually play, which masters they're likely to have, > if I should be watchful for The Uncoiling etc. But seeing a deck in print does not give you the ability to know what types of decks they usually play. It gives you the ability to know what type of deck they played once. > Knowing how people > usually build their decks can give you an advantage when facing them. It also can put you at a disadvantage, due to assuming things that you shouldn't assume. A wash. > Indeed. You called it cool instead. And then went on to explain that it was a pointless exercize. Don't get too hung up on coloquial use of language. > Thinking that all players construct their decks in the same fashion is > bad. Just like thinking one player constructs his decks in the same fashion is bad. -Peter

On Nov 23, 10:13 am, Johannes Walch <johannes.wa...@vekn.de> wrote: > > Matt Morgan > > You are so european. Are you sure you don´t want to come live in my > attic :-)) That is enough of that. We cannot have the Emperor in absentia of Canada, and King of Wales living in an attic in Germany. Enough is enough.

On Nov 23, 5:46 pm, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > > I'm not talking about memorizing decks. I'm talking about knowing what > > type of decks they usually play, which masters they're likely to have, > > if I should be watchful for The Uncoiling etc. > > But seeing a deck in print does not give you the ability to know what > types of decks they usually play. It gives you the ability to know > what type of deck they played once. Sorry. I forgot that it's impossible to draw any conclusions from anything anymore.

On Nov 23, 11:52 am, henrik <www.hen...@gmail.com> wrote: > Sorry. I forgot that it's impossible to draw any conclusions from > anything anymore. Don't be all extreme. I can look at your solid weenie PRE bleed deck and draw the conclusion that Henrik won a tournament with a solid weenie PRE bleed deck. This does not mean that you will be playing that weenie PRE bleed deck the next time I see you. Or that if you are playing a weenie PRE bleed deck the next time I see you, that it will be the same. This game is all about things changing constantly. Assuming that things will not change constantly is asking to get blindsided. -Peter

echia...@yahoo.com wrote: > A few other points: > > In the other thread, Kevin suggested that the TWDA only > accept decks posted within 30 days. I meant it as a suggestion to Jeff, not that it is a current rule. Kevin M., Prince of Las Vegas "Know your enemy and know yourself; in one-thousand battles you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, *The Art of War* "Contentment...Complacency...Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier Please visit VTESville daily! http://vtesville.myminicity.com/ Please buy my cards! http://shop.ebay.com/kjmergen/m.html

On Nov 23, 11:11 am, "Matthew T. Morgan" <farq...@io.com> wrote: > This may be true, but what about someone else copying a deck and playing > the same deck at the EC? Unless it is some sort of incredibly innovative, previously unseen tech, someone will be playing the same deck at the EC anyway. If it is some sort of incredibly innovative, previously unseen tech, that it won a tournament, even if the deck list isn't directly published, will result in people reverse engineering it anyway, which isn't significantly different from posting the deck on the web. > For my money, the decision to post a deck or not post a deck should be > between the player and the tournament organizer and the decision of > whether or not to archive a deck is up to the archivist. I don't disagree with you. I'm not here to attempt to force people to post their decks if they don't want to. If you don't want to share your deck with the world, go nuts. I just like to attempt to disabuse people of the notion that doing so is particularly advantageous. -Peter

On Nov 23, 11:45 am, "Matthew T. Morgan" <farq...@io.com> wrote: > On Mon, 23 Nov 2009, quickbeam wrote: > > That's all well and good, and if the tournament organizer agrees with > > you, your wishes might be respected, but they don't have to be. If > > you want the Publishing Event Information rule to be changed, that's > > fine, too, but you should advocate for that explicitly. > > Uh yeah, I know that. I'm trying to contribute to the discussion and > offer a reason someone might want to keep a decklist secret. I'm not > trying to change any rules. I think that the arguments about the value of not publishing a decklist are understood by the folks involved in the discussion, although there is disagreement about whether the arguments are correct. If there is real value to keeping decklists secret, then someone should advocate for changing 1.6, because it has the possibility to destroy that value (especially in Ann Arbour, Finland, and Origins). If no one is arguing for such a change, then I think the advocacy for secret deck lists is soft. > > I publish all my decklists. I just think if a player doesn't want to (and > the tournament organizer agrees), then there's no harm in holding it for a > while. > > Matt Morgan I agree that there isn't much harm, but I don't agree that there is none. Eric is right that the underlying question is about what the value of publishing deck lists actually is (http://tinyurl.com/ yffygeu). I think the ultimate reason should be the recruitment, cultivation, and retention of new players. Any other considerations, such as fame or increasing/decreasing the chance for a player to win a second tournament with the same deck are subordinate to making information about the game available to new players. The learning curve for this game is very steep. I can't really imagine what it is like to come in as a new player to it, since I started a long time ago, but I know it must be hard. If a new player has access to the lists of the decks that just won the toughest tournaments, it will help them understand what is going on with the game now. The counter argument, as I understand it, is that champion players want to preserve (or perhaps mythologize) the advantages of an unpublished deck that has already won a tournament. I do not think that competitive advantage is as valuable as the opportunity for newer players to see what is current in terms of competitive deck building, and I don't want to see the general community cater to the desires of winning players at the expense of expanding the player base. -Dave Clooney

[ quoted text not captured ] You can notice small things though. You can see that certain players are very fond of using Ossian in decks where he normally wouldn't be, for example. Information like that can be used when you're playing against that person. You're the one who keep being all extreme by saying that information on what decks a person has played lately is totally worthless. It isn't, unless you use the information in a crappy way.

On Nov 23, 8:04 am, Wilsoros <davewilso...@gmail.com> wrote: > To Eric Chang: If you loan a deck to someone and they win, then you > lose the decklist to the public. Which is bad because it creates disincentives to loan decks. Many new players (and many old guard players who don't keep up with expansions) do not have a lot of cards and may rely on another local player (with a large collection) to borrow decks from. Borrowing decks can be important to keep newbies interested in the game and should be encouraged. In some (rare) situations, what you are suggesting could actually hurt participation in the game. > To All: I don't think I've ever played the same deck in two > tournaments, so I was surprised someone kept it secret. If you need > to keep your decklist secret, then I laugh at thee, adapt. > > I think all decklists should be posted within 72 hours of the event. > You should not be allowed to leave an event without giving your > decklist, period. > > Now are tournament organizers able to meet that standard? good > question, but if you play a deck, it is now public domain. IMHO, creating rules like this is bad because it promotes a schism within the VTES community. People dissatisfied with the official VEKN rules are then motivated to do things on their own. (Instead of holding a VEKN tournament, I'll just hold a private VTES tournament which uses most of the VEKN rules but not all, but this means that the private tournament won't get publicly announced). I would imagine that your Michigan experience with the NJL would offer some valuable insights in this regard. I think it's crucial for the VTES community to maintain cohesion (rather than fragmentation). And if this requires some compromise and tolerance to take into consideration the concerns of some players, then so be it.

On Nov 23, 11:25 am, quickbeam <dcloo...@gmail.com> wrote: > I agree that there isn't much harm, but I don't agree that there is > none. Eric is right that the underlying question is about what the > value of publishing deck lists actually is (http://tinyurl.com/ > yffygeu). I think the ultimate reason should be the recruitment, > cultivation, and retention of new players. Any other considerations, > such as fame or increasing/decreasing the chance for a player to win a > second tournament with the same deck are subordinate to making > information about the game available to new players. > > The learning curve for this game is very steep. I can't really > imagine what it is like to come in as a new player to it, since I > started a long time ago, but I know it must be hard. If a new player > has access to the lists of the decks that just won the toughest > tournaments, it will help them understand what is going on with the > game now. The counter argument, as I understand it, is that champion > players want to preserve (or perhaps mythologize) the advantages of an > unpublished deck that has already won a tournament. I do not think > that competitive advantage is as valuable as the opportunity for newer > players to see what is current in terms of competitive deck building, > and I don't want to see the general community cater to the desires of > winning players at the expense of expanding the player base. Several excellent points. Hypothetically, if the primary purpose of the TWDA is to help new players, then in addition to a time requirement (i.e. obsolete decks aren't helpful one or two years later), then there should *also* be a requirement that the winning player provide comments describing the deck and how to play it. A while back I was reading another poster's comments about his frustration that a lot of winning deck lists aren't useful to new players because they don't provide instructions on how to play the deck (it might have been on one of the various VTES blogs). It strikes a rather accurate note. Simply shoving a deck list in front of a new player is not going to help that player become better. Explaining how the deck works (why Card X is included and when to use Card Y) is even more important. So in this case, maybe those advocating for this purpose should also be campaigning for required deck comments explaining how to play the deck?

[ quoted text not captured ] Well, I generally agree but just a few points. 1) I don't think we're in any danger of the TWDA drying up because nobody wants to release their secret tech. Most players can't wait to get a winning deck in there. 2) I don't think a few players temporarily withholding contributions to the TWDA will impact the overall player base of vtes very much at all. 3) Americans really have no business telling French what they need to do to get more players. The game is pretty healthy over there while our playgroups (mine in particular, I'll admit) are small and sickly. Matt Morgan

orianice wrote: >> > > The fact that the term 'collusion' has been used in this thread is > simply an insult in my opinion and I hope whoever used it did not > think it, really... > That was me, and I figured that my meaning would not be clear. So, to explain: Some posters here are arguing that the deck list has value. Not just a historical value, or value for new players, or value for others trying to improve their games; but direct value in terms of other players sitting at a table with the deck-in-question playing player - i.e. direct competitive value. If we grant for the sake of argument that the decklist has direct competitive value, then the organizer, who gets to see this decklist, and even gets to keep a copy to have and study, gains a distinct advantage over xer peers simply due to being the tourney organizer. That doesn't strike me as fair. The situation I am inferring from one of these threads is that the organizer and the player have an "agreement" that the organizer will continue to withhold this direct competitive information from the rest of the players. Is that fair? Legally speaking, it is not collusion. Even in the spirit of the word, I don't think it's collusion. But it's an outside agreement that is giving the TO an advantage that has nothing to do with their ability in-game. It leaves a mildly bad taste in my mouth. Others apparently don't actually care. And to be honest, the amount of time I have spent on this is about as much as I want to spend on it. best - chris

[ quoted text not captured ] Would you say that it's the same thing as people in a playgroup knowing what decks the others in the playgroup are going to bring to a big tournament? I don't see how it's different, really. And I don't get any bad taste from that.

On Nov 23, 12:31 pm, henrik <www.hen...@gmail.com> wrote: > You're the one who keep being all extreme by saying that information > on what decks a person has played lately is totally worthless. It > isn't, unless you use the information in a crappy way. You'll notice that what I have actually said, repeatedly, is that it is just as likely to be disadvantageous as advantageous. Not that it is totally worthless. That it might be good. It might be bad. You don't know. Such that going out of ones way to hide said information from the public is likely unecessary. And kind of silly. -Peter

[ quoted text not captured ] Well, sure. You said pointless and not worthless, and that it was "incredibly unlikely to result in any benefit". I figured it was kinda similar to being worthless. (You also said douche baggy). And waiting a week with posting a report isn't really much out of ones way much.

[ quoted text not captured ] If so, then why keep the deck list secret in the first place? (which I can't remember now if you are advocating secret decks lists, or not, and I sure can't be assed to go look it up...) best - chris

[ quoted text not captured ] Because it's going to get played in a big tournament next week, and posting the decklist on the newsgroup would've felt stupid. But how would you consider playgroups knowing each other's decklists? Does that leave an equally bad taste in your mouth as hiding TWDs from all but the organizer?

On Nov 23, 3:17 pm, henrik <www.hen...@gmail.com> wrote: > Well, sure. You said pointless and not worthless, and that it was > "incredibly unlikely to result in any benefit". I figured it was kinda > similar to being worthless. Hiding one's deck from the public is incredibly unlikely to result in any benefit, correct. Reading someone's deck list from last week is incredibly unlikely to result in any benefit this week. Correct. Hoping to either gain benefit from hiding such information, or gain benefit from seeing such information is incredibly unlikely to pay off in either direction. > (You also said douche baggy). Yes, I did. As I think that being so full of confidence in one's clever deck design such that one is concerned that someone might steal one's brilliant idea or that someone might want to attempt to gain advantage over one's brilliance through careful analysis of one's clever deck design is kind of douche-baggy. But then, I also think wearing non ironic Playboy paraphernalia is kind of douche-baggy, so take that for what it is worth. And that I think it is kind of douche baggy doesn't mean I think people shouldn't be allowed to do so, however. > And waiting a week with posting a report isn't really much out of ones > way much. No, it isn't. But then, you aren't really the discussion that brought this up. You are just an innocent caught in the crossfire. -Peter

On Nov 23, 3:48 pm, henrik <www.hen...@gmail.com> wrote: > Because it's going to get played in a big tournament next week, and > posting the decklist on the newsgroup would've felt stupid. See, but here is the thing. *You* know the exact deck is going to get played in a big tournament next week. No one else knows this. Nor can anyone assume this. Nor can anyone safely assume that you didn't completely change the deck between last week and this week. Worst case scenario, in the middle of your first game, someone says "Huh. Didn't you play that deck last week?" to which you reply "Maybe?" and that someone read the deck list last week isn't going to provide much more helpful information than simply seeing the deck in play. -Peter

On Nov 23, 9:59 pm, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > On Nov 23, 3:48 pm, henrik <www.hen...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Because it's going to get played in a big tournament next week, and > > posting the decklist on the newsgroup would've felt stupid. > > See, but here is the thing. *You* know the exact deck is going to get > played in a big tournament next week. No one else knows this. Nor can > anyone assume this. Nor can anyone safely assume that you didn't > completely change the deck between last week and this week. > To sum things up. Yes. You can know this. Since you have taken the time to find out how a bunch of key players think and you expect to face them in the finals (or preliminary rounds) of an upcoming big event. Perhaps you leave things to chance in your playgroup but if you want to be a top player you don't do that. This is why you prepare. Try to analyze the local meta. Scout before and after the torunament. Etc, etc, etc... This might be a very small thing but if you want to be a top player you will have to take the time to get all the info you can get and then process it to your advantage. Good players don't change their decks much. So if you've seen the decklist of a player like Orian or Erik you can assume that 95% of it is the same when he play it at a later time. Good players also play their decks on several occasions to get the experience with the deck they need to be good players so studying which decks have been successful during the year for potential big event finalists will provide valuable intel since they'll probably play one of those decks at the big event. > Worst case scenario, in the middle of your first game, someone says > "Huh. Didn't you play that deck last week?" to which you reply > "Maybe?" and that someone read the deck list last week isn't going to > provide much more helpful information than simply seeing the deck in > play. > Like Orian has already said and you seem to have ignored the card daring the dawn is the good example of this deck. So if I see Erik playing pre weenie at the EC and I've seen his decklist before the event I will perhaps warn the players at my table that he plays with daring if it suits my interests. In Orians deck it's even simpler. It's a nasty nasty pile of cards so when I see Orian bring Normal or Brazil or whatever weenie malk into play and I've seen his decklist I probably will put my pentex subversion on him crosstable during turn 1. Else I might never get a turn again. These are just examples of how to use the info provided and IMO these are the small things that help you win tricky games. Not always. Not even very often. But sometimes it will be the difference and that's enough to want to keep your list secret for the time being. Like some people have mentioned this might be a vtes-cultural difference. I don't know. We have players taking your approach to this here too. But they're rarely worth scouting to the same extent anyways. Regards Alex

On Nov 23, 9:55 pm, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > > > Well, sure. You said pointless and not worthless, and that it was > > "incredibly unlikely to result in any benefit". I figured it was kinda > > similar to being worthless. > > Hiding one's deck from the public is incredibly unlikely to result in > any benefit, correct. Reading someone's deck list from last week is > incredibly unlikely to result in any benefit this week. Correct. > Hoping to either gain benefit from hiding such information, or gain > benefit from seeing such information is incredibly unlikely to pay off > in either direction. How is it douche baggy to do it then? If you think that it won't have any effect. > > (You also said douche baggy). > > Yes, I did. As I think that being so full of confidence in one's > clever deck design such that one is concerned that someone might steal > one's brilliant idea or that someone might want to attempt to gain > advantage over one's brilliance through careful analysis of one's > clever deck design is kind of douche-baggy. But then, I also think > wearing non ironic Playboy paraphernalia is kind of douche-baggy, so > take that for what it is worth. And that I think it is kind of douche > baggy doesn't mean I think people shouldn't be allowed to do so, > however. It's still not about the deck design being so unique. It's not about memorizing decklists. It's like this: I'm going to play deck X on the EC (or any other big tournament) the next week. Would I have anything to gain from posting the decklist at the newsgroup? Not bloody likely since the newsgroup doesn't have much to offer in terms of deckbuilding advice. Would I have anything to lose? Possibly, since people I'll face at the tournament might read it and get some knowledge about my deck. > > And waiting a week with posting a report isn't really much out of ones > > way much. > > No, it isn't. But then, you aren't really the discussion that brought > this up. You are just an innocent caught in the crossfire. Waiting a year isn't really much work either tbh. But whatever. Let's just agree that all deckbuilding is totally random (that was proven in some other thread iirc) and quit here. Sleep well.

I find it amusing that this discussion is being held in this thread. This TWD was entered 14 days after the finals as required. So, whats the problem? That this deck has 2 Daring the Dawns in it is good information to have. If you knew who Henrik is or what he looks like. Which I don't. To be honest, I took one look it this deck and thought PRE tap/bleed and moved on never even noticing the DtD. The RoF 08 deck on the other hand, held my attention long enough to want to see the key cards (early, middle and late game) Yes it has some holes that can be targeted. I do not think all of them are obvious. Can anyone tell me what they are without looking at the deck? Matt

We're talking about a deck whose game is made or broken in the first few turns of a table and which might be highly affected by table awareness of it's game plan. The archtype itself is fairly easy to spot once the first few cards see play. In addition, it's an idea that's far-fetched enough to stick in people's memory. Doesn't matter if the basic build has existed for 15 or 30 years, what matters is if it has been done recently and how vivid it is in the collective awareness of the player base. Then we're talking about a player who is no less than the top ranked player worldwide. Someone who just _might_ be subjected to some exposure in regard to deck-building tendencies. Can Orian's approach be faulted, at least in this particular case? Can you really not see some logic in this line of reasoning? Of course the logic falls through when discussing Methuselah Doe's not- so-innovative deck-list who won a ten player tournament in the backwaters of Enoch... but a player from the top-ten? I can totally see the justification for it. Drain

On Nov 23, 4:43 pm, henrik <www.hen...@gmail.com> wrote: > How is it douche baggy to do it then? If you think that it won't have > any effect. That it has no effect doesn't make it any less kind of douche baggy. The act of thinking it does have an effect, and then acting on it, is the douche-baggy part. To be a douche bag, one is not criminal or rulebreaker. Just kind of an ass. In the way that someone says "Yeah, that guy is kind of a douche bag..." Not that they will do anything about it. They'll just consider them kind of a douche bag. Kind of like the guy who doesn't leave a tip at dinner, or borrows a CD and gives it back scratched, denying anything happened to it. It's douche baggy. Again, this was just something I said, like, 15 posts ago as an aside, and was happy to give up on 5 posts ago. But you keep bringing it up. > Would I have anything to gain from posting the decklist at the > newsgroup? Not bloody likely since the newsgroup doesn't have much to > offer in terms of deckbuilding advice. > Would I have anything to lose? Possibly, since people I'll face at the > tournament might read it and get some knowledge about my deck. See, the fear of having something to lose is kind of irrational-- still, someone seeing your deck design a week before a big tournament is super unlikely to have any impact one way or the other (see: might be good, might be bad; a wash). Worrying about it isn't something worth doing. I mean, ya know, if it is going to keep you up at night, do what you need to do. But in the long run, you are better off just not worrying about it. > Waiting a year isn't really much work either tbh. It isn't the work. It is even thinking about it at all. Again, if y'all want to hide your deck lists from public, go nuts. I'm not demanding that people make them public. It just strikes me as essentially irrational. -Peter

On Nov 23, 11:21 pm, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > On Nov 23, 4:43 pm, henrik <www.hen...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > How is it douche baggy to do it then? If you think that it won't have > > any effect. > > That it has no effect doesn't make it any less kind of douche baggy. > The act of thinking it does have an effect, and then acting on it, is > the douche-baggy part. To be a douche bag, one is not criminal or > rulebreaker. Just kind of an ass. In the way that someone says "Yeah, > that guy is kind of a douche bag..." Not that they will do anything > about it. They'll just consider them kind of a douche bag. Kind of > like the guy who doesn't leave a tip at dinner, or borrows a CD and > gives it back scratched, denying anything happened to it. It's douche > baggy. Again, this was just something I said, like, 15 posts ago as an > aside, and was happy to give up on 5 posts ago. But you keep bringing > it up. Yes. Being one of those you called douche baggy, I'm interested in how this is comparable with scratching a borrowed CD. > > Would I have anything to gain from posting the decklist at the > > newsgroup? Not bloody likely since the newsgroup doesn't have much to > > offer in terms of deckbuilding advice. > > Would I have anything to lose? Possibly, since people I'll face at the > > tournament might read it and get some knowledge about my deck. > > See, the fear of having something to lose is kind of irrational-- > still, someone seeing your deck design a week before a big tournament > is super unlikely to have any impact one way or the other (see: might > be good, might be bad; a wash). It's not, really. Since some players do look at the TWDA and look for trends etc. You might not, but some actually do. > Worrying about it isn't something > worth doing. I mean, ya know, if it is going to keep you up at night, > do what you need to do. But in the long run, you are better off just > not worrying about it. Which is why waiting with posting the deck list is good. It's no real work involved and you have nothing to worry about. If people see right through your deck, at least you'll know it wasn't due to posting it on the newsgroup. > > Waiting a year isn't really much work either tbh. > > It isn't the work. It is even thinking about it at all. > > Again, if y'all want to hide your deck lists from public, go nuts. I'm > not demanding that people make them public. It just strikes me as > essentially irrational. It strikes me as irrational not to use available information when competing/playing a game.

"henrik" <www.h...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:0c884f41-f2c0-4aef...@o31g2000vbi.googlegroups.com... > On Nov 23, 11:21 pm, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > > On Nov 23, 4:43 pm, henrik <www.hen...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > How is it douche baggy to do it then? If you think that it won't have > > > any effect. > > > > That it has no effect doesn't make it any less kind of douche baggy. > > The act of thinking it does have an effect, and then acting on it, is > > the douche-baggy part. To be a douche bag, one is not criminal or > > rulebreaker. Just kind of an ass. In the way that someone says "Yeah, > > that guy is kind of a douche bag..." Not that they will do anything > > about it. They'll just consider them kind of a douche bag. Kind of > > like the guy who doesn't leave a tip at dinner, or borrows a CD and > > gives it back scratched, denying anything happened to it. It's douche > > baggy. Again, this was just something I said, like, 15 posts ago as an > > aside, and was happy to give up on 5 posts ago. But you keep bringing > > it up. > > Yes. Being one of those you called douche baggy, I'm interested in how > this is comparable with scratching a borrowed CD. I don't know that it's exactly like scratching a borrowed CD exactly myself. And I really REALLY don't want to get myself involved in the debate over whether having your deck published is any kind of a real disadvantage or not because I think that's a complicated issue. But that said, I don't think it's all that hard to grasp what Peter's getting at. To me, the hinky thing is pretty obvious: if you want to advertise a tournament winning deck, then put it out there and don't worry about who sees it or when they see it. If you want to keep it private, then fine - but don't worry about getting it recorded as a TWD. It's that having-your-cake-and-eating-it-too part that some of us don't respect so much. It's definiately not that big a deal. Your opinion may vary. Fred

On Nov 23, 5:46 pm, henrik <www.hen...@gmail.com> wrote: > Yes. Being one of those you called douche baggy, I'm interested in how > this is comparable with scratching a borrowed CD. It's douche baggy. Wanting to have the adoration of the crowd that comes from your name printed in lights, but being so concerned with people getting the leg up on you that one would delay "releasing" the deck to the public. If one wants ones deck in the TWDA, put it in the TWDA. If one doesn't want people seeing it, don't put it in the TWDA. > It's not, really. Since some players do look at the TWDA and look for > trends etc. You might not, but some actually do. They do look for trends. But that doesn't mean they'll have an advantage over you 'cause they saw your deck list from last tournament. > It strikes me as irrational not to use available information when > competing/playing a game. The available information (i.e. your posted deck list) isn't going to provide any significant advantage to anyone. As there is nothing saying that you are ever playing that deck or again. Or anything like it. Or not changing it. Looking at your weenie PRE bleed deck from last week is no more likely to provide an advantage against you than looking at whatever deck you got in the TWDA last year. -Peter

[ quoted text not captured ] Why would Orian releasing his deck be "douch baggy"? Notwithstanding the completely rediculus notion that information should somehow be shunned and could lead to horrible disaster; apparantly Orian won't need any more e-fame than he already has in the Vtes-world, seeing how he's nr.1 on the official website. I'm just grateful that he actually decided to post the decklist at all. It's to the whole Vtes community's service and I know at least I have a valid reference for a Reversals deck if I ever feel like creating one. So I'd call Orian honourable, not a douch bag. Of course this service to the community is aside from the service of me learning how to better beat this deck. (Parenthesis: I have never seen this deck as a real competitive deck until I heard about Orian's, and would have been totally fooled by it. Had I read about it before the EC and had I met Orian in a game at the EC he'd be worse off, no discussion)

TWD - From here to hell - Gothenburg, November 2009 On another note I have a TWD to report now that the EC has been played. Event name: From here to hell - Gothenburg, November 2009 Date: 2009-11-07 Location: Gothenburg, Sweden Number of players: 15 Winner: Henrik Ericsson U.S. Date: 11-7-2009 Date of Post: 11-21-2009 9.2. Event Report Deadline Event reports are due to the V:EKN within eight days of the tournament's conclusion. Tournament reports not received by the V:EKN within eight days are considered late, and are listed in the V:EKN tournament database as "Not Received" for fourteen days after the event. 9.3. Delinquent Tournaments Event reports must be received by the V:EKN within thirty days of the tournament's conclusion. Event reports not received within fifteen to thirty days are listed as "Delinquent" in the V:EKN tournament database. Organizers may still submit event results in this time frame without penalty. I see no problem. I am sure players would like to know in advance, if you are invoking 6.3 in your tournament. 6.3. Constructed Deck Registration The head judge or tournament organizer may require players to register their decks upon arrival at a tournament. Registration records the original composition of each deck. Once a tournament official receives a player's decklist, the deck may not be altered. Failure to properly register a deck will result in the head judge applying the appropriate provisions of the V:EKN Penalty Guidelines. The V:EKN recommends that organizers check a reasonable number of decks against their decklists each round.

"Xaddam" <xad...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:09bd5b1b-3242-4435...@r31g2000vbi.googlegroups.com... > Why would Orian releasing his deck be "douch baggy"? > Notwithstanding the completely rediculus notion that information > should somehow be shunned and could lead to horrible disaster; > apparantly Orian won't need any more e-fame than he already has > in the Vtes-world, seeing how he's nr.1 on the official website. I think that last assertion isn't one with which everyone would agree. Of course, the real question is whether Orian agrees with it. After all, he took the time and trouble to post a year-old deck. Fred

_angst_ <a...@student.chalmers.se> writes: > Good players don't change their decks much. So if you've seen the > decklist of a player like Orian or Erik you can assume that 95% of it > is the same when he play it at a later time. > > Good players also play their decks on several occasions to get the > experience with the deck they need to be good players so studying > which decks have been successful during the year for potential big > event finalists will provide valuable intel since they'll probably > play one of those decks at the big event. This is the point that Peter doesn't (want to?) understand, I think. cheers, -jakob

Xaddam <xad...@gmail.com> writes: > It's to the whole Vtes community's service and I know at least > I have a valid reference for a Reversals deck if I ever feel like > creating one. So I'd call Orian honourable, not a douch bag. +1 > Of course this service to the community is aside from the > service of me learning how to better beat this deck. > (Parenthesis: I have never seen this deck as a real competitive > deck until I heard about Orian's, and would have been totally fooled > by it. Had I read about it before the EC and had I met Orian > in a game at the EC he'd be worse off, no discussion) In fact, I had read reports of both tournaments on SiF and VEKN.fr and made a mental note to watch out for the Reversal of Madness deck (and specifically the Smiling Jack). cheers, -jakob

On Nov 24, 1:04 am, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > On Nov 23, 5:46 pm, henrik <www.hen...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Yes. Being one of those you called douche baggy, I'm interested in how > > this is comparable with scratching a borrowed CD. > > It's douche baggy. Wanting to have the adoration of the crowd that > comes from your name printed in lights, but being so concerned with > people getting the leg up on you that one would delay "releasing" the > deck to the public. If one wants ones deck in the TWDA, put it in the > TWDA. If one doesn't want people seeing it, don't put it in the TWDA. I don't really do it for adoration. I doubt people who read the newsgroup will adore me even if I manage to win 25 more tournaments. It just doesn't work that way around here. I do think that the TWDA provides some interesting information, even if I sometimes want to hold back a deck list a short while before getting it up there. > > It's not, really. Since some players do look at the TWDA and look for > > trends etc. You might not, but some actually do. > > They do look for trends. But that doesn't mean they'll have an > advantage over you 'cause they saw your deck list from last > tournament. It could. If they knew me and knew that I'd be likely to play that deck at the EC and all that. Since I wasn't going to the EC or playing that deck there, it's not really relevant for this particular deck posting, but in general. > > It strikes me as irrational not to use available information when > > competing/playing a game. > > The available information (i.e. your posted deck list) isn't going to > provide any significant advantage to anyone. As there is nothing > saying that you are ever playing that deck or again. Or anything like > it. Or not changing it. Looking at your weenie PRE bleed deck from > last week is no more likely to provide an advantage against you than > looking at whatever deck you got in the TWDA last year. But there are something saying that I'm going to play the deck again. There are trends that shows this. Or well, not that I'm going to do it since I don't really go to bigger tournaments, but it goes for the good players who travel around and win stuff. Just look at the TWDA and check some decks of topranked players. How many times did Hugh win with !ventrue? Did the deck change much inbetween those tournaments? Did he play the deck at the EC? If the possible advantage is significant or not depends on what one would call significant, of course. But compared to the work involved I think it's worth it, as I said earlier. It's no extra work for a possible slight advantage over some players (not you, obviously).

On Nov 24, 12:53 am, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: > "henrik" <www.hen...@gmail.com> wrote in message [ quoted text not captured ] I see a small point, yeah. But it's more like waiting a short while before eating the cake. And being called a douche bag, being capsed at and mocked by some poetry due to that felt a bit harsh. Overprotecting maybe, but douche baggy is kind of a low blow imo. Your opinion may vary. And regarding deck list posting being a disadvantage or not, it's more a case of "better safe than sorry".

> In fact, I had read reports of both tournaments on SiF and VEKN.fr and > made a mental note to watch out for the Reversal of Madness deck (and > specifically the Smiling Jack). > Yeah, I could not prevent reports on my national website, you're too nosy, Jakob ^^. Ok, I have read the thread entirely (and you know maybe how difficult it is to me to read more than 5 lines with no card names in there) and I might adress some remarks basically I like what MATT said about everybody having good reasons to do what he wants to do and I think it is as reasonable to publish a decklist after two days, after two months, after one year, or never. I loved all people defending me and understanding me, mostly Europeans lol. It is true lot of people know my decks and it is my job to re- design them. When I play Una at the French championship, most people could tell precisely one maybe stealth cards, and how many cards to make damages I had in the deck, so they could take advantage of that and in those conditions, it was horrible to play. For Una, I had changed the deck to prevent this, but for a reversal deck, you cannot make lot of changes, so it is not the same way. Now, to PETER and everybody who agrees with him, in the fact that he does not seem to play in accordance to the decklists he sees. Well, maybe you should read the number of players accepting this fact in the thread, and wonder if that is not possible that some people do study decks of other players they consider good, for many different reasons. Why do I look Erik Thorstensson's decks eagerly? -> it gives me an edge about what a good player consider a good deck to play at the moment. -> it gives me deckbuilding basics for my own deck -> if I play against Erik, I would be better prepared, which is a consequence of the first two points, which are just things I do naturally when I try to be a better V:tes player. I remember we had such an issue at the time of the Swiss players dominating the world (it was Jurassic I think) because they were not always releasing decklists... I will try to look for it.

On Nov 24, 5:12 am, orianice <coincoinmas...@hotmail.com> wrote: > Now, to PETER and everybody who agrees with him, in the fact that he > does not seem to play in accordance to the decklists he sees. Well, > maybe you should read the number of players accepting this fact in the > thread, and wonder if that is not possible that some people do study > decks of other players they consider good, for many different > reasons. Oh lord. Once again, looking at winning decks is certainly handy in an abstract sense. Looking at lots of winning decks is handy for, as Henrik mentioned, looking for trends and they direction things go. But the thing about looking for trends is that individual data points are irrelevant. 10 decks all doing something in particular creates an interesting trend to consider. Any one of those decks, individually, is irrelevant. 'Cause that is how trend analysis works. Looking at one person's deck, and saying "That person is using X! Therfore I must use Y, as I might play person X!" is a foolish plan. As there is nothing saying you will run into person X. Or that person X will be playing that deck. Or that person X will not change that deck. Looking at winning decks is handy. Being concerned that other people looking at your winning deck will put you at a disadvantage is irrational. See the difference? -Peter

On Nov 24, 3:36 am, henrik <www.hen...@gmail.com> wrote: > I see a small point, yeah. But it's more like waiting a short while > before eating the cake. And being called a douche bag, being capsed at > and mocked by some poetry due to that felt a bit harsh. Overprotecting > maybe, but douche baggy is kind of a low blow imo. Your opinion may > vary. Oh, Henrik. I did not call you a douche bag. I said Behavior X is kind of douche baggy. If you want to avoid putting your deck in the public eye, fine. But what happens when *everyone* decides to not put their decks in the public eye? The TWDA vanishes, due to everyone being concerned about their proprietary info being used against them, putting them at a disadvantage. Which would be sad. "But I'm a top player! I don't care if those crappy players in Podunk post their decks. I need to keep *mine* secret!" one might claim. And that is kind of douche baggy. > And regarding deck list posting being a disadvantage or not, it's more > a case of "better safe than sorry". So is not ever driving, as you might get in an accident. Which is also irrational. -Peter

[ quoted text not captured ] Oh lord indeed. Orian just told you that he looks at Erik's decks in order to play better against Erik. How is it then irrational for Erik to not post his decklist for one of the decks he'll play at the EC one week before the tournament? Do you think Orian is stupid for looking at decks like that? Do you think it's a waste of time? Do you think there's nothing to learn? It's true that the 90% of the deck might be changed. But it's quite certain that it won't. Because that's not how the game works at that level. You don't just throw together a deck last minute and fly to the EC expecting a great result. Or maybe some people do, but many people don't.

On Nov 24, 3:00 am, Jakob Sievers <cad...@gmail.com> wrote: > This is the point that Peter doesn't (want to?) understand, I think. Oh, for the love of punk rock, Again. I understand why someone might think that hiding their winning deck from the public eye might be advantageous. I just think they are incorrect. Yes. If I know that I am playing the exact same deck next week, I might think "Oh! If I hide it, no one will be able to know what is in my deck when I play it next week!". But no one else knows that you are playing the exact same deck. And they can't assume you are playing the exact same deck. As doing so is more likely to put them at a disadvantage than not. So even if you are playing the exact same deck as you just posted, no one can base decisions on that. As they don't know it is the exact same deck. And as decks in this game constantly change, as that is how the game is designed, one must assume that decks constantly change. So seeing someone's winning deck does not let you know what deck they are playing. It lets you know *a* deck they have played. And it is easy to know *a* deck someone has played. -Peter

On Nov 24, 3:06 pm, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > On Nov 24, 3:36 am, henrik <www.hen...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > I see a small point, yeah. But it's more like waiting a short while > > before eating the cake. And being called a douche bag, being capsed at > > and mocked by some poetry due to that felt a bit harsh. Overprotecting > > maybe, but douche baggy is kind of a low blow imo. Your opinion may > > vary. > > Oh, Henrik. I did not call you a douche bag. I said Behavior X is kind > of douche baggy. Ah, so you just called my behaviour douche baggy. That's much better, thanks. > If you want to avoid putting your deck in the public > eye, fine. But what happens when *everyone* decides to not put their > decks in the public eye? The TWDA vanishes, due to everyone being > concerned about their proprietary info being used against them, > putting them at a disadvantage. Which would be sad. "But I'm a top > player! I don't care if those crappy players in Podunk post their > decks. I need to keep *mine* secret!" one might claim. And that is > kind of douche baggy. The decks are being put in the TWDA. > > And regarding deck list posting being a disadvantage or not, it's more > > a case of "better safe than sorry". > > So is not ever driving, as you might get in an accident. Which is also > irrational. It's not about "not ever" though. And there are times when I chose not to drive because the risks of accidents are too high. Bad weather and stuff.

On Nov 24, 9:08 am, henrik <www.hen...@gmail.com> wrote: > Oh lord indeed. Orian just told you that he looks at Erik's decks in > order to play better against Erik. How is it then irrational for Erik > to not post his decklist for one of the decks he'll play at the EC one > week before the tournament? I think looking at Erik's deck the week before the tournament is not particularly likely to help anyone against Erik in the long run. And is more likely to hinder them, as they are assuming things about what Erik is doing based on looking at his decks, which might very well shoot them in the foot. > It's true that the 90% of the deck might be changed. But it's quite > certain that it won't. It isn't certain at all. Assuming people don't change their decks is asking to get killed by that assumption. Do people not change their decks? Sure. But you can't ever be sure that that is the case. And need to assume that it isn't the case. -Peter

On Nov 24, 9:20 am, henrik <www.hen...@gmail.com> wrote: > Ah, so you just called my behaviour douche baggy. That's much better, > thanks. Why do you care? I'm just some random yahoo on the internet who stated in an off hand sense that doing X struck me as kind of douche baggy. Lots of things strike me as douche baggy. Who cares? > It's not about "not ever" though. And there are times when I chose not > to drive because the risks of accidents are too high. Bad weather and > stuff. Fair enough. -Peter

[ quoted text not captured ] But you can go back and look at earlier decks, and see things about certain players. Do they usually change their decks alot? Do they usually keep the deck identical for more than 1 tournament? Drawing assumptions out of your ass and playing on them without thinking is always stupid and will likely shoot you in the foot. But that's not what I'm talking about here.

On Nov 24, 3:33 pm, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > > Ah, so you just called my behaviour douche baggy. That's much better, > > thanks. > > Why do you care? I'm just some random yahoo on the internet who stated > in an off hand sense that doing X struck me as kind of douche baggy. > Lots of things strike me as douche baggy. Who cares? I'm mostly curious, and somewhat annoyed. You're free to think I'm a douche bag, of course. I just don't see how waiting a week with posting a decklist is on that level.

On Nov 24, 9:39 am, henrik <www.hen...@gmail.com> wrote: > I'm mostly curious, and somewhat annoyed. You're free to think I'm a > douche bag, of course. I just don't see how waiting a week with > posting a decklist is on that level. I don't think you are a douche bag. All indications are that you are a perfectly reasonable guy. I said, in an off hand comment about a certain behavior (i.e. feeling it is necessary to hide one's decks from the public view) is kind of douche baggy. And then it went away, like, 15 posts ago. But you kept hanging on it. So here we are. -Peter

On Nov 24, 9:37 am, henrik <www.hen...@gmail.com> wrote: > But you can go back and look at earlier decks, and see things about > certain players. Do they usually change their decks alot? Do they > usually keep the deck identical for more than 1 tournament? Which you can determine by looking at people's history in the long run, and one more deck from right now isn't going to make a difference. If you are concerned about people determining things about your long range behavior in the long run, don't put *any* decks in the TWDA. If it is the only deck in the TWDA, no one can determine long term trends about an individual based on it. If it is one of many, it adds to the trend data, but the individual deck is mostly irrelevant. If you don't want people having trend data on you, don't provide any trend data to them. -Peter

On Tue, 24 Nov 2009, Peter D Bakija wrote: > Looking at one person's deck, and saying "That person is using X! > Therfore I must use Y, as I might play person X!" is a foolish plan. > As there is nothing saying you will run into person X. Or that person > X will be playing that deck. Or that person X will not change that > deck. Sure, Y (playing Y) is being irrational because Y isn't that likely to play X, unless X and Y frequently meet on final tables of large tournaments. X (playing X) is maybe being less irrational if there are a handfull of players like Y who want to put anti-X into their decks. So given that Y represents some non-insignificant percentage of the tournament and given that Y will irrationally add anti-X to their decks, is X being irrational by concealing his decklist? I don't actually know whether or not this is a realistic scenario, but it could be. I know there were some players who actively tried to keep track of the number of Deflections and whatnot in Olivier Perez' decks. You can say that isn't a worthwhile thing to do, and I won't disagree, but if folks are actively trying to gain advantage this way, then it isn't completely irrational for a player to try to prevent that by concealing a decklist. Another thing to watch for is trend-setters in the metagame. We definitely have them and Orian is one of them, at least in Europe (though I think his tech trickles over to the US as well). Calling the metagame correctly is a huge, huge advantage. Yes, that's got nothing to do with the number of Pentex Subversions that may or may not be in one player's deck, but still seeing winning decklists leading up to a major tournament can offer some advantage. Still, this is all pretty minor stuff. It's the kind of stuff some players are into and some aren't. Like someone might sit down and pour over a deck for hours trying to figure out if it should have six WWEF or seven. Someone else will just shuffle it and go, maybe not even sure what the number is. It's not really all that likely to make a difference, but it might. Matt Morgan

On Nov 24, 4:00 pm, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > On Nov 24, 9:37 am, henrik <www.hen...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > But you can go back and look at earlier decks, and see things about > > certain players. Do they usually change their decks alot? Do they > > usually keep the deck identical for more than 1 tournament? > > Which you can determine by looking at people's history in the long > run, and one more deck from right now isn't going to make a > difference. If you are concerned about people determining things about > your long range behavior in the long run, don't put *any* decks in the > TWDA. If it is the only deck in the TWDA, no one can determine long > term trends about an individual based on it. If it is one of many, it > adds to the trend data, but the individual deck is mostly irrelevant. > If you don't want people having trend data on you, don't provide any > trend data to them. Or, as in this case, if one don't want people to have the latest trend data, don't provide the latest trend data.