Revealing Cards

V:EKN Tournament Rules - 4.4. Card Elevation and Disposition Players must keep their cards above the level of the playing surface. Revealing cards in your hand or uncontrolled area to an opponent is not allowed. OK, I must be missing something here because I really fail to see how being prevented from showing your cards to other players is of any benefit to the game whatsoever. The big advantage of being able to show a card to other players is that it provides a quick, clear, unambiguous message, i.e., 'I have such and such a card'. As the saying goes, a picture is worth a thousand words. Particularly in VTES where the metagame revolves around deception and subterfuge, a concrete sighting of a card is often the only way to convince a player that you do in fact have a certain card. The way I see it, being prevented from showing cards to other players does absolutely nothing to improve the game, and degrades the quality of play by creating unneccesary confusion and ambiguity (in a situation where opposite is desired, of course!). Just my two cents, Justicar. Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy.

Justicar <just...@my-deja.com> writes: >V:EKN Tournament Rules - >4.4. Card Elevation and Disposition >Players must keep their cards above the level of the playing surface. >Revealing cards in your hand or uncontrolled area to an opponent is not >allowed. > >OK, I must be missing something here because I really fail to see how >being prevented from showing your cards to other players is of any >benefit to the game whatsoever. Simple: it keeps players from cooperating too closely. That's the interesting trade-off in multiplayer games: you can cooperate to mutual advantage, but to do so you often must risk more than you might normally lose if you hadn't cooperated. Preventing players from revealing cards facilitates this dynamic: players can cooperate heavily in the play of their cards, but to do so they must trust that their ally has the card(s) he claims to have and that he's not just leading them on. It also penalizes that sort of cooperation by forcing players to reveal to the entire table what they would prefer to remain hidden. In short, you can cooperate in card play but you lose the element of surprise in doing so. >Particularly in VTES where the metagame revolves around deception and >subterfuge, a concrete sighting of a card is often the only way to >convince a player that you do in fact have a certain card. Correct. And this is bad. Cooperation which is too easy and too effective penalizes players who built better decks, outguessed the metagame, and have played more effectively on their own. Same reason that the preditor- prey relationship is used in the game. >The way I see it, being prevented from showing cards to other players >does absolutely nothing to improve the game, and degrades the quality >of play by creating unneccesary confusion and ambiguity (in a situation >where opposite is desired, of course!). It depends on what you mean. The "confusion and ambiguity" you're talking about is just how information is handled. The victim of such conspiracies obviously desires the confusion and ambiguity - not the opposite. So it depends on who you talk to. It's a matter of judgement to what extent conspiracies and gang-ups are a "good thing" in this game and should be facilitated by the rules. What you're missing is that the designer's judgement about it is obviously different than yours. Fred

On Tue, 06 Jun 2000 01:00:45 GMT, Justicar <just...@my-deja.com> wrote: >V:EKN Tournament Rules - >4.4. Card Elevation and Disposition >Players must keep their cards above the level of the playing surface. >Revealing cards in your hand or uncontrolled area to an opponent is not >allowed. > >OK, I must be missing something here because I really fail to see how >being prevented from showing your cards to other players is of any >benefit to the game whatsoever. Oh, it is... ;) >The big advantage of being able to show a card to other players is that >it provides a quick, clear, unambiguous message, i.e., 'I have such and >such a card'. As the saying goes, a picture is worth a thousand words. And specifically, you answer your own question in THIS paragraph: >Particularly in VTES where the metagame revolves around deception and >subterfuge, a concrete sighting of a card is often the only way to >convince a player that you do in fact have a certain card. Being unable to PROVE that you do in fact have a certain card -maintains- the deception and subterfuge, providing a certain "Paranoia"-like feel to the game. (The Computer is your Friend). It wouldn't be as good of a game if people were nice to each other. It also helps maintain the "being out for yourself first" aspect of the game, which is required for the game to function properly. If one player is not attempting to win, the table frequently becomes unbalanced. If you can show your cards to other players, you decrease the strategy involved in the game. It goes from something-akin-to-chess, with its possible moves and countermoves and twists and turns, to something-akin-to-checkers, which was solved long ago and now is merely a case of "If A, do B". If you show a Skin of Steel to your predator, he probably doesn't waste his last rush on you and instead rushes backwards. If you can only *say* "I have a Skin of Steel. Don't waste your time", then he might, despite your smiling honest face and outwardly pure appearance, decide you're full of it and try going forwards anyway. This uncertainty is vital to the game. >The way I see it, being prevented from showing cards to other players >does absolutely nothing to improve the game, and degrades the quality >of play by creating unneccesary confusion and ambiguity (in a situation >where opposite is desired, of course!). Not so. There is no confusion and ambiguity about what you have in your own hand, which is what you're supposed to be primarily focused on. There might be plenty of confusion regarding what's in OTHER players' hands... which is to be expected when dealing with four other shady, nefarious Methuselahs who are totally out for themselves and who MIGHT provide accurate information but not necessarily so. -- Derek Deafness never kept composers from hearing the music. It only stopped them hearing the distractions.

Frederick Scott wrote: > > Correct. And this is bad. Cooperation which is too easy and too effective > penalizes players who built better decks, outguessed the metagame, and > have played more effectively on their own. I thought that Jyhad was a preferentially multi-player game - if you go around building solo decks and not-partaking in the metagame then you may as well play Magic. The only potentially bad thing that I see with this new rule is that it will decrease or kill off a great deal of the metagame. shawn

On Tue, 6 Jun 2000, shawn stanley wrote: > may as well play Magic. The only potentially bad thing that I see with > this new rule is that it will decrease or kill off a great deal of the > metagame. Not at all, if by "metagame" you mean the table talk that goes on during the game. All it means is that you can't *prove* what you have in your hand. Integrity and what respect players have for you, based on previous actions, then counts for a lot. -- James Coupe | PGP Key 0x5D623D5D "I know my ex-boyfriend lies. Oh, he does it every time. It's just his permanent disguise, yeah, yeah, but he's drop dead gorgeous."

On 6 Jun 2000, Frederick Scott wrote: > It also penalizes that sort of cooperation by forcing players to reveal > to the entire table what they would prefer to remain hidden. In short, You cannot show any cards which are not in play/ash-heap to any Methuselah, not even all of them at once (except when cards like Recruitment say you have to). [ quoted text not captured ]

On 6 Jun 2000, Frederick Scott wrote: > I understand that. I was referring to just telling people what you had > in your hand. I was making the assumption that you can't speak to people > in secret; anything you say has to be heard by all. Was that not correct? Ah, sorry. Your remark regarding revealing to the whole table something they would prefer kept secret was a remark that, I assumed, referred to revealing a card to the entire table, rather than people simply listening in on table talk. I do not believe there are any rules preventing a player from whispering to another, or even going into the corner, providing that they remain sportsman like, are not considered to be colluding, and continue to take their turn in a timely fashion. Certainly, I can envisage an exchange of that sort taking a lot less time (if coupled with a speedy (though not overly speed) turn) than some of the turns I have seen where players have had to take a considerable amount of time in order to judge the situation and their hand perfectly - situations, I would note, that, were I judging, I certainly *would not* have judged them as unnecessarily slowing the game, precisely because of the concerns they were having to balance and judge in finely balanced nip and tuck games. [ quoted text not captured ]

James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> writes: >On 6 Jun 2000, Frederick Scott wrote: > >> It also penalizes that sort of cooperation by forcing players to reveal >> to the entire table what they would prefer to remain hidden. In short, > >You cannot show any cards which are not in play/ash-heap to any >Methuselah, not even all of them at once (except when cards like >Recruitment say you have to). I understand that. I was referring to just telling people what you had in your hand. I was making the assumption that you can't speak to people in secret; anything you say has to be heard by all. Was that not correct? Fred

In article <8hhs4n$eji$1...@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net>, fre...@netcom.com (Frederick Scott) wrote: > > > Justicar <just...@my-deja.com> writes: > >The way I see it, being prevented from showing cards to other players > >does absolutely nothing to improve the game, and degrades the quality > >of play by creating unneccesary confusion and ambiguity (in a situation > >where opposite is desired, of course!). > > It depends on what you mean. The "confusion and ambiguity" you're talking > about is just how information is handled. The victim of such conspiracies > obviously desires the confusion and ambiguity - not the opposite. So it > depends on who you talk to. > > It's a matter of judgement to what extent conspiracies and gang-ups are > a "good thing" in this game and should be facilitated by the rules. What > you're missing is that the designer's judgement about it is obviously > different than yours. > > Fred > Hey? How does this rule relate to the designer's judgement? If the designer intended this rule to be a part of the game, then it would have been implemented when the game was originally released, not amended ad hoc several years down the track. What exactly is the underlying principle for this new rule anyway? [ quoted text not captured ]

Justicar <just...@my-deja.com> writes: >In article <8hhs4n$eji$1...@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net>, > fre...@netcom.com (Frederick Scott) wrote: >> >> Justicar <just...@my-deja.com> writes: > >> >The way I see it, being prevented from showing cards to other players >> >does absolutely nothing to improve the game, and degrades the quality >> >of play by creating unneccesary confusion and ambiguity (in a >> >situation where opposite is desired, of course!). >> >> It depends on what you mean. The "confusion and ambiguity" you're >> talking about is just how information is handled. The victim of such >> conspiracies obviously desires the confusion and ambiguity - not the >> opposite. So it depends on who you talk to. >> >> It's a matter of judgement to what extent conspiracies and gang-ups >> are a "good thing" in this game and should be facilitated by the rules. >> What you're missing is that the designer's judgement about it is obviously >> different than yours. > >Hey? How does this rule relate to the designer's judgement? I spent a whole E-mail message explaining just that. Reread it, please, and then be more specific about what you're confused about. >If the designer intended this rule to be a part of the game, then it >would have been implemented when the game was originally released, not >amended ad hoc several years down the track. "The designer" at any given time is the person who is in design control of the game. The position can change or the person (or people) in it can change his (their) mind(s). It's pointless to worry about the "original designer" vs. the current one - who I assume is basically LSJ at this point. For all anyone knows, the person or people who were in design control of the game when it was first conceived may have changed (maybe multiple times) before anyone outside WotC laid eyes on the actual release. So who cares? >What exactly is the underlying principle for this new rule anyway? I don't know how to answer a question like that. What do you mean by "the underlying principle"? Can I poke it with a stick? If you mean, "What's the reason to have this rule?", then I'd say it's so that no one can ever (legally) prove to an ally what's in his hand and what isn't, thus making it harder to ally and to trust allies. But I'm just guessing. Fred

In article <8hl55n$eme$1...@slb1.atl.mindspring.net>, [ quoted text not captured ] Checked my email. Didn't see your message there... > > >If the designer intended this rule to be a part of the game, then it > >would have been implemented when the game was originally released, not > >amended ad hoc several years down the track. > > "The designer" at any given time is the person who is in design control > of the game. The position can change or the person (or people) in it > can change his (their) mind(s). It's pointless to worry about the "original > designer" vs. the current one - who I assume is basically LSJ at this point. > For all anyone knows, the person or people who were in design control of > the game when it was first conceived may have changed (maybe multiple times) > before anyone outside WotC laid eyes on the actual release. So who cares? Ah, so by 'designer' you were actually referring to the Rules Team, and not a grand plan of Richard Garfield to prevent players from revealing cards to each other. Are the Rules Team actually responsible for the VEKN tournament rules anyway? > > >What exactly is the underlying principle for this new rule anyway? > > I don't know how to answer a question like that. What do you mean by > "the underlying principle"? Can I poke it with a stick? Huh? > > If you mean, "What's the reason to have this rule?", then I'd say it's so > that no one can ever (legally) prove to an ally what's in his hand and > what isn't, thus making it harder to ally and to trust allies. But I'm > just guessing. > > Fred > I was unaware that this was ever an area of concern about the game that needed fixing. As the current rule stands, it probably won't affect the way that allies play. Now they just write their cards on a piece of paper on pass it over. All it does is slow the game down and make it less fun because you can't show any cool cards you draw to anyone else (Hey, wow! I got an Archon Investigation to use against my Malkavian predator.) It also makes it more difficult to dissuade an erratic player from a particular course of action, because they invariably tend not to be convinced that you have a certain card until they see it waved in front of their face. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Thu, 08 Jun 2000 01:01:21 GMT, Justicar <just...@my-deja.com> wrote: >I was unaware that this was ever an area of concern about the game that >needed fixing. As the current rule stands, it probably won't affect the It's not a fix. It's been this way as far as I can remember for DCI rules. It's not a rule without purpose, however. >way that allies play. Now they just write their cards on a piece of >paper on pass it over. All it does is slow the game down and make it But you can write the wrong thing. This rule's purpose isn't to keep people from communicating privately. This rule's purpose is to MAINTAIN the aura of mistrust and "everyone for themselves" atmosphere that should exist in the game. The predator/prey relationship depends on this. (A pair of players who are going to collude already -know- to trust what each other says, so why show cards? If you are, however, making a TEMPORARY alliance with someone, the chance of being screwed needs to remain.) I would object to most, if not all private communications under the "collusion" rule. It's possible to gang up on someone, and it SHOULD be possible (deal-making is an important part of this game), but it shouldn't be EASY to do so, and being able to describe and coordinate a strategy in secret with another player would make it very easy to do so. When you're forced to speak in front of the player you're ganging up on, you either have to have an indefensible attack ("I'm going to kill all his minions this turn.") or you have to find a way to get your point across without cluing him in as to exactly WHAT is going to happen. Before y'all flip, someone turning and mentioning something under their breath to their predator is not something I'd object to. Two people passing notes or going off in a corner or something like that would frost me a bit, though. >less fun because you can't show any cool cards you draw to anyone else >(Hey, wow! I got an Archon Investigation to use against my Malkavian >predator.) So you show it to everyone and your Malkavian predator never bleeds you for more than 3 at a time again - OR he bleeds you for 5 with Ohanna, the disposable vampire. Wouldn't you rather keep it secret and burn Ozmo's greasy butt when he comes with the Big Kaboom? >It also makes it more difficult to dissuade an erratic player from a >particular course of action, because they invariably tend not to be >convinced that you have a certain card until they see it waved in front >of their face. You'll just have to work on your persuasion skills, eh? I have difficulty coming up with a situation where I'd -want- to show an erratic player (or even a non-erratic player) one of my cards. Say he's rushing cross-table and I say "I have a Skin of Steel. Don't waste your time." If he believes me, that's good! If he doesn't, well, I -do- have the Skin of Steel and his rush will go nowhere. Sure, maybe I wanted to use it against my prey when he blocked one of my bleeds, but that's life when you have an erratic player on the table. Not all events are predictable. I think if I -really- wanted to save my SoS, I'd spend my time explaining why rushing me cross-table didn't help him win the game. If rushing me DOES help him win the game, then he's not acting erratically, is he? [ quoted text not captured ]

Justicar <just...@my-deja.com> writes: >In article <8hl55n$eme$1...@slb1.atl.mindspring.net>, > fre...@netcom.com (Frederick Scott) wrote: >> Justicar <just...@my-deja.com> writes: >> >> >In article <8hhs4n$eji$1...@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net>, >> > fre...@netcom.com (Frederick Scott) wrote: >> >> >> >> Justicar <just...@my-deja.com> writes: >> >Hey? How does this rule relate to the designer's judgement? >> >> I spent a whole E-mail message explaining just that. Reread it, >> please, and then be more specific about what you're confused about. > >Checked my email. Didn't see your message there... Sorry, why did I write that? I mean I spent a whole Usenet post (the one you responded to) explaining that. Reread it, please, and then be more specific about about what you're confused about. I sent you no E-mail, sorry for the confusion. >> >If the designer intended this rule to be a part of the game, then it >> >would have been implemented when the game was originally released, >> >not amended ad hoc several years down the track. >> >> "The designer" at any given time is the person who is in design >> control of the game. The position can change or the person (or people) >> in it can change his (their) mind(s). It's pointless to worry about >> the "original designer" vs. the current one - who I assume is basically >> LSJ at this point. For all anyone knows, the person or people who were >> in design control of the game when it was first conceived may have >> changed (maybe multiple times) before anyone outside WotC laid eyes on >> the actual release. So who cares? > >Ah, so by 'designer' you were actually referring to the Rules Team, and >not a grand plan of Richard Garfield to prevent players from revealing >cards to each other. Are the Rules Team actually responsible for the >VEKN tournament rules anyway? I don't know. Someone was responsible for and authorized to write the rule you're asking about. I was referring to that person. Their identity doesn't matter. >> >What exactly is the underlying principle for this new rule anyway? >> >> I don't know how to answer a question like that. What do you mean by >> "the underlying principle"? Can I poke it with a stick? > >Huh? Huh, what? You asked a question which used a non-specific term in this context. I don't understand what you mean by the "underlying principle for this new rule" so I can't answer your question. >> If you mean, "What's the reason to have this rule?", then I'd say >> it's so that no one can ever (legally) prove to an ally what's in his >> hand and what isn't, thus making it harder to ally and to trust allies. >> But I'm just guessing. > >I was unaware that this was ever an area of concern about the game that >needed fixing. Well, I guess now you know. Was it necessary that you were aware of that? I think what's more to the point is that IN YOUR OPINION this part of the game didn't need fixing. And that's fine, you have a right to you opinion along with everyone else. But apparently, the person or people with design authority must disagree. >As the current rule stands, it probably won't affect the way that allies >play. Now they just write their cards on a piece of paper on pass it over. Perhaps. But you have to believe they're telling the truth when they say they that card. They could be lying about what they write on that piece of paper. They might not even have such a card in their entire deck, let alone being in their hand. If they show you, you know - pure and simple. No trusting. >All it does is slow the game down and make it less fun because you can't >show any cool cards you draw to anyone else Sorry. I guess not everyone finds that to be "fun". It certainly doesn't strike me as anything to live for. To each his own, I guess. And that's not _all_ it does. It makes the difference in trust I pointed out above. >It also makes it more difficult to dissuade an erratic player from a >particular course of action, because they invariably tend not to be >convinced that you have a certain card until they see it waved in front >of their face. Yep, EXACTLY. Now *that's* what *I* call "fun"! Heh! Fred

Justicar wrote: > It also makes it more difficult to dissuade an erratic player from a > particular course of action, because they invariably tend not to be > convinced that you have a certain card until they see it waved in front > of their face. This is a feature, not a bug, methinks. -David

In article <7A868920D237B22E.B25B6C8A...@lp.airnews.net>, lor...@yahoo.com (Derek Ray) wrote: > On Thu, 08 Jun 2000 01:01:21 GMT, Justicar <just...@my-deja.com> > wrote: > > >I was unaware that this was ever an area of concern about the game that > >needed fixing. As the current rule stands, it probably won't affect the > > It's not a fix. It's been this way as far as I can remember for DCI > rules. It's not a rule without purpose, however. > > >way that allies play. Now they just write their cards on a piece of > >paper on pass it over. All it does is slow the game down and make it > > But you can write the wrong thing. This rule's purpose isn't to keep > people from communicating privately. This rule's purpose is to > MAINTAIN the aura of mistrust and "everyone for themselves" atmosphere > that should exist in the game. The predator/prey relationship depends > on this. > > (A pair of players who are going to collude already -know- to trust > what each other says, so why show cards? If you are, however, making > a TEMPORARY alliance with someone, the chance of being screwed needs > to remain.) But this just penalises new players or players who don't play very often because they don't know who to trust and who not to. It also encourages alliances between people who know each other pre-game because of the increased risk involved in not being able to verify your ally's intentions. > > I would object to most, if not all private communications under the > "collusion" rule. It's possible to gang up on someone, and it SHOULD > be possible (deal-making is an important part of this game), but it > shouldn't be EASY to do so, Why not? I thought VTES was a multiplayer game, not just a group of people who happen to be playing a series of two-player games at the same place and time. If it's easy for to people to gang up, then it's just as easy for the victim to make a counter-offer or gang up with someone else. >and being able to describe and coordinate > a strategy in secret with another player would make it very easy to do > so. When you're forced to speak in front of the player you're ganging > up on, you either have to have an indefensible attack ("I'm going to > kill all his minions this turn.") or you have to find a way to get > your point across without cluing him in as to exactly WHAT is going to > happen. > > Before y'all flip, someone turning and mentioning something under > their breath to their predator is not something I'd object to. Two > people passing notes or going off in a corner or something like that > would frost me a bit, though. > > >less fun because you can't show any cool cards you draw to anyone else > >(Hey, wow! I got an Archon Investigation to use against my Malkavian > >predator.) > > So you show it to everyone Actually, you can't do that either... >and your Malkavian predator never bleeds > you for more than 3 at a time again - OR he bleeds you for 5 with > Ohanna, the disposable vampire. Wouldn't you rather keep it secret > and burn Ozmo's greasy butt when he comes with the Big Kaboom? Not if I only have 4 or 5 pool... All that does is screw both of us. > > >It also makes it more difficult to dissuade an erratic player from a > >particular course of action, because they invariably tend not to be > >convinced that you have a certain card until they see it waved in front > >of their face. > > You'll just have to work on your persuasion skills, eh? I have > difficulty coming up with a situation where I'd -want- to show an > erratic player (or even a non-erratic player) one of my cards. See the example above. I might be able to burn Ozmo with an Archon Investigation, but not particularly want to because it could severely weaken _both_ players. > Say > he's rushing cross-table and I say "I have a Skin of Steel. Don't > waste your time." If he believes me, that's good! If he doesn't, > well, I -do- have the Skin of Steel and his rush will go nowhere. > Sure, maybe I wanted to use it against my prey when he blocked one of > my bleeds, but that's life when you have an erratic player on the > table. Not all events are predictable. > > I think if I -really- wanted to save my SoS, I'd spend my time > explaining why rushing me cross-table didn't help him win the game. Thus extending a relatively simple task (i.e., showing the card), into a lengthy and potentially unneccessary discussion. I fail to see how slowing down a game that can take 15 mins or more between [your] turns is an improvement. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <393F36F3...@amadan.org>, David Edelstein <ama...@amadan.org> wrote: > Justicar wrote: > > It also makes it more difficult to dissuade an erratic player from a > > particular course of action, because they invariably tend not to be > > convinced that you have a certain card until they see it waved in front > > of their face. > > This is a feature, not a bug, methinks. > > -David > Are you saying that encouraging erratic player to carry out irrational actions is a good thing? [ quoted text not captured ]

On Wed, 7 Jun 2000, Justicar wrote: > Hey? How does this rule relate to the designer's judgement? If the Tournaments were not in full swing, presumably. And these are tournament rules, anyway, not official rules for all play. (Which house rules can over-ride anyway.) [ quoted text not captured ]

On Thu, 8 Jun 2000, Justicar wrote: > Are you saying that encouraging erratic player to carry out irrational > actions is a good thing? No-one's encouraging them to. They are not, however, being discouraged in the same fashion. And you can still tell them what you have. If they don't believe you, more fool them. Presumably, the card you have will screw them over and waste their time. This sounds like a good thing. [ quoted text not captured ]

James Coupe wrote: > > On Wed, 7 Jun 2000, Justicar wrote: > > Hey? How does this rule relate to the designer's judgement? If the > > Tournaments were not in full swing, presumably. > > And these are tournament rules, anyway, not official rules for all > play. (Which house rules can over-ride anyway.) The official (non-tournament) rules provide no mechanism for exposing cards to other players, whether from your hand or from another player's hand or from any player's uncontrolled region or library. The rules allow you to look at your own hand and your own uncontrolled region, and they allow anyone to look at anyone's ash heap. [1.6.1.1], [2.3] -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and tournament rules: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/

On Thu, 08 Jun 2000 08:19:45 GMT, Justicar <just...@my-deja.com> wrote: >But this just penalises new players or players who don't play very >often because they don't know who to trust and who not to. It also The personalities of the PLAYERS should not be at issue regarding whom to trust. The whole issue of trust/no trust should be totally dependent on the game situation. Hence, a new player or player who doesn't play very often should be able to look at the table and say "OK, *this* person is claiming to want to help, but he's mostly just going to be out for himself, whereas *this* person actually has a reason to want me to be helped, therefore...", and it shouldn't matter if they know the real-life people or not. I've been able to pull off successful deals in tournaments with people I've never seen before. >encourages alliances between people who know each other pre-game >because of the increased risk involved in not being able to verify your >ally's intentions. Which will get both players booted under the collusion rule. This is a four or five-player game. More specifically, it is a 1 vs 1 vs 1 vs 1 (vs 1)-player game. Two players making a pre-game "alliance" should NEVER happen, as the seating order or table dynamics could make such an alliance not in one player's best interests. Two players looking at the first two turns and deciding to stick together is different, as long as they keep acting in their own best interests. But making a deal to oust everyone else and split the last two VPs is a no-no. >> I would object to most, if not all private communications under the >> "collusion" rule. It's possible to gang up on someone, and it SHOULD >> be possible (deal-making is an important part of this game), but it >> shouldn't be EASY to do so, > >Why not? I thought VTES was a multiplayer game, not just a group of >people who happen to be playing a series of two-player games at the >same place and time. If it's easy for to people to gang up, then it's >just as easy for the victim to make a counter-offer or gang up with >someone else. You can't make a counteroffer to something you never heard in the first place. You can't enlist someone's help against something you don't know is coming. You can try, but you will fail. This is why individual extensive private discussions should not be involved - because it IS a multiplayer game, and it is NOT Diplomacy. >> >less fun because you can't show any cool cards you draw to anyone >else >> >(Hey, wow! I got an Archon Investigation to use against my Malkavian >> >predator.) >> >> So you show it to everyone > >Actually, you can't do that either... I'm perfectly aware of the current rule. Any "show cards" rule SHOULD be in the form of "you must either show it to everyone or nobody." Since you are in favor of showing cards, I assume you wish to show the card to everyone. So... >>and your Malkavian predator never bleeds >> you for more than 3 at a time again - OR he bleeds you for 5 with >> Ohanna, the disposable vampire. Wouldn't you rather keep it secret >> and burn Ozmo's greasy butt when he comes with the Big Kaboom? > >Not if I only have 4 or 5 pool... >All that does is screw both of us. Your predator's job is first and foremost, to oust you. If he's a sneak-bleed predator, he will be bleeding you. He has no other options if he wants to act in his own best interests, ie. gain VPs and WIN. Your AI ensures, for you, that he can't nail you for that 4 or 5 pool in one shot. If he has another vampire handy after the AI, you will still die at 1 or 2 pool. If, however, you KEEP IT SECRET, then he might spend some time setting up his defense for next turn, assuming he will be able to bleed you out at any time, and then send his last vampire to bleed for 6. If you show the AI, you guarantee that he'll send the appropriate number of vampires to ensure your oust. This would be a misplay - an attempt to intimidate that failed. You can also SAY "i have an AI" and produce the same effect. I would personally rather lose one vampire and gain one VP as opposed to sitting around hoping for you to, perhaps, completely lose your mind and discard the AI. So if you have an AI, a Malk predator, and you're at 5 pool, you're probably basically screwed - but you want to make it as expensive as you can for your predator to take you out, since most people will gladly sacrifice Ohanna (or even Ozmo!) for 1 VP and 6 more pool. Maybe he'll send Lucian instead. >> You'll just have to work on your persuasion skills, eh? I have >> difficulty coming up with a situation where I'd -want- to show an >> erratic player (or even a non-erratic player) one of my cards. > >See the example above. I might be able to burn Ozmo with an Archon >Investigation, but not particularly want to because it could severely >weaken _both_ players. This is a misplay, though. Your order of priority should be: 1) Oust my prey 2) Stay alive 3) Not waste time screwing up my predator Assume Ozmo and Roland Bishop are behind you. You tell your predator that you have an AI and will use it, and if he comes to bleed you, you'll both be weakened severely and that would be a Bad Thing(tm). He says "that's nice", and sends Roland to bleed for 5 (govern + condition). You AI Roland, and he then sends Ozmo on a cardless bleed to oust you since he KNOWS you're defenseless. He loses one 4-cap, gains a VP and 6 pool. Bad call on your part. Same situation, you don't tell him you have the AI. Roland makes a better (read: more disposable) defender than Ozmo does, so he bleeds with Ozmo for 6 (govern + condition). You AI Ozmo. Because you didn't show a card or tell him, he has to decide whether you can stop his one remaining vampire, and just decided to burn Ozmo for giggles (and because it's freaking Ozmo). He may send Roland to bleed anyway, but it's not an automatic choice anymore. (And, he needs another bleed card.) Almost the same situation, except it's just Ozmo behind you. You absolutely want to burn Ozmo here, because that keeps you alive and predator-free for another couple turns while he sets up again OR gets ousted by his own predator, whichever. It shouldn't matter to you - you can't gain that VP until after you oust your OWN prey. Different situation: Ozmo and Roland behind you, except you have 15 pool now. This is the only time step #3 above comes into play - you could tell your predator "If anyone bleeds me, I'm going to burn them with AI". With any luck, he'll be scared and waste time defending instead of bleeding you twice for 3 (which he ought to do). [editorial: In all 4 of these, I'd keep my AI secret and burn a vamp. Malk S&B isn't going to be any less sneaky-bleedy one turn from now, and if I'm defenseless it's actually in my interest to get anything BUT a Malk deck as my predator.] >> Say >> he's rushing cross-table and I say "I have a Skin of Steel. Don't >> waste your time." If he believes me, that's good! If he doesn't, >> well, I -do- have the Skin of Steel and his rush will go nowhere. >> Sure, maybe I wanted to use it against my prey when he blocked one of >> my bleeds, but that's life when you have an erratic player on the >> table. Not all events are predictable. >> >> I think if I -really- wanted to save my SoS, I'd spend my time >> explaining why rushing me cross-table didn't help him win the game. > >Thus extending a relatively simple task (i.e., showing the card), into >a lengthy and potentially unneccessary discussion. I fail to see how >slowing down a game that can take 15 mins or more between [your] turns >is an improvement. But showing the card doesn't fix his erratic play, and his erratic play is what threatens my chances of winning. So maybe I show him my SoS, and he goes elsewhere. My turn comes around, and I use my SoS against my prey like I planned. Now his turn comes around and he DOES IT AGAIN, because now he knows/thinks I don't have the SoS. I did nothing to stop him from WANTING to Rush me - a misplay on my part. And it doesn't have to be a lengthy discussion - usually just asking the question "How exactly does this help you gain VPs?" brings them back around to reality. If it doesn't, it's usually time to try and make deals to gang up and oust that player before he unbalances the table any more, and save the elaborate half-hour explanations for later. (It's entirely possible that showing the SoS would -guarantee- that he Rushed me, especially if his whole purpose was just to burn through a bunch of combat cards that he didn't need right then.) [ quoted text not captured ]

Justicar wrote: > Are you saying that encouraging erratic player to carry out irrational > actions is a good thing? An erratic player who carries out irrational actions will either learn better, or you'll learn to make him pay for it. <g> On the other hand, eliminating the ability to bluff and the need to make careful decisions as to who you trust and who you believe is a bad thing, IMO. -David

>The rules allow you to look at your own hand and your own uncontrolled >region, and they allow anyone to look at anyone's ash heap. >[1.6.1.1], [2.3] > But does it state you CAN'T show anyone cards from your hand? Personally, I don't call any of this collusion. I call it politics. Some guy wants to pass a vote, you tell him to vote in your favor and show him why. You don't have to use it (unless the stupid bugger uses monicle, and that's another story). Also, with succubus club, I suppose it'd be fair to show someone a card in your hand in offer's of a trade for anything (votes, cards, blood, a pop... you get the idea). Further, I like the idea of being able to show you cards to prey and predator. If the course of thier caction may hinder you and you make it worth thier while, that's politics, not colusion... and politics is what V:Tes is! If not, _prove me wrong_. It has been called the chess game of CCG's, and it is closer in it's mechanics to how the american political systm works than most people care to realise (or believe). My 2 shillings and half a pound of pork chops. Richard Starkweather II, Harpy of Dallas "My energy's spent at last, and my armor is destroyed. I've used up all my weapons and I'm helpless and bereved. Scars are all I made of. I'm not sure if we're ever gonna be free." -- Blue Oyster Cult, Veteren of 1000 Pyschic Wars

drkdr...@aol.com (Drkdrm2000) wrote: > It has been called the chess game of CCG's, If you want a more apt comparison, Magic: the Crack Habit is Go Fish and VTES is poker. Bluffing and other methods of social engineering are more a part of the strategy in poker than in chess. In fact, conversation is usually discouraged in competitive chess games. *shrug* Noal McDonald -- "What you cannot enforce, do not command." -- Socrates [ quoted text not captured ]

On 8 Jun 2000, Drkdrm2000 wrote: > Personally, I don't call any of this collusion. It wouldn't necessarily always be so. However, it does make such collusion *very* easy. Obscenely easy, in fact. [ quoted text not captured ]

On 08 Jun 2000 18:09:11 GMT, drkdr...@aol.com (Drkdrm2000) wrote: >Personally, I don't call any of this collusion. I call it politics. Some guy Politics, as poker, is played with a closed hand and concealed information. >Further, I like the idea of being able to show you cards to prey and predator. >If the course of thier caction may hinder you and you make it worth thier >while, that's politics, not colusion... and politics is what V:Tes is! If >not, _prove me wrong_. It has been called the chess game of CCG's, and it is OK. Politics involves bluffing. If you say "If you call that vote against me, I'm going to Rush and kill that vampire. I have the Rush in hand right now, so trust me, I CAN." If you can't show cards, he HAS to decide whether or not you're bluffing. If you CAN show cards, he just says "prove it", and your bluff mechanism no longer works. Either you show the Rush, or you don't. If you don't show the Rush, he assumes you're bluffing, since why would you NOT show him - you don't want to Rush him, you want the vote not to be called. No good. V:TES involves a lot of politics. Showing cards removes a significant amount of the politics and reduces it to "if A, then B, then C." [ quoted text not captured ]

Drkdrm2000 wrote: > > >The rules allow you to look at your own hand and your own uncontrolled > >region, and they allow anyone to look at anyone's ash heap. > >[1.6.1.1], [2.3] > > > > But does it state you CAN'T show anyone cards from your hand? It doesn't say you can't grab more pool from the blood bank during your discard phase, either. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <DCF239977BFAF419.C1BC3025...@lp.airnews.net>, lor...@yahoo.com (Derek Ray) wrote: > On Thu, 08 Jun 2000 08:19:45 GMT, Justicar <just...@my-deja.com> > wrote: > > >But this just penalises new players or players who don't play very > >often because they don't know who to trust and who not to. It also > >encourages alliances between people who know each other pre-game > >because of the increased risk involved in not being able to verify your > >ally's intentions. > > Which will get both players booted under the collusion rule. I disagree. If if I get offered a similar deal by two different players, one player that I know (and can trust) and one that I don't, I'll be inclined to side with the player I know, simply because I know that they'll hold up the deal. >This is > a four or five-player game. More specifically, it is a 1 vs 1 vs 1 vs > 1 (vs 1)-player game. Two players making a pre-game "alliance" should > NEVER happen, as the seating order or table dynamics could make such > an alliance not in one player's best interests. It's definitely not very sportmanslike regardless of the seating position. >Two players looking > at the first two turns and deciding to stick together is different, as > long as they keep acting in their own best interests. But making a > deal to oust everyone else and split the last two VPs is a no-no. I assume that you're referring to a pregame deal. I have no problems with two players working to oust everyone else, provided that they arranged that particular deal within the context of the current game, and not beforehand. > >>and your Malkavian predator never bleeds > >> you for more than 3 at a time again - OR he bleeds you for 5 with > >> Ohanna, the disposable vampire. Wouldn't you rather keep it secret > >> and burn Ozmo's greasy butt when he comes with the Big Kaboom? > > > >Not if I only have 4 or 5 pool... > >All that does is screw both of us. > > Your predator's job is first and foremost, to oust you. Actually, I disagree. Your predators job is to get as many VPs as possible, and WIN (as you state below). This does not necessarily entail working flat out to oust your current prey. You might want to hold back from an all-out assault to build your strength to attack your grand-prey, or you might want to make a deal with prey that will guarantee you more VPs. >If he's a > sneak-bleed predator, he will be bleeding you. He has no other > options if he wants to act in his own best interests, ie. gain VPs and > WIN. Your AI ensures, for you, that he can't nail you for that 4 or 5 > pool in one shot. If he has another vampire handy after the AI, you > will still die at 1 or 2 pool. If, however, you KEEP IT SECRET, then > he might spend some time setting up his defense for next turn, > assuming he will be able to bleed you out at any time, and then send > his last vampire to bleed for 6. > > If you show the AI, you guarantee that he'll send the appropriate > number of vampires to ensure your oust. This would be a misplay - an > attempt to intimidate that failed. You can also SAY "i have an AI" > and produce the same effect. To which he says, 'You're just trying to save yourself', and bleeds you anyway. Then your grand-predator bleeds through and gets both VPs. It tends to be more difficult to believe people who are about to ousted, because they understandly become more desperate in their attempts to save themselves. Justicar. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <39400126...@white-wolf.com>, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > Drkdrm2000 wrote: > > > > >The rules allow you to look at your own hand and your own uncontrolled > > >region, and they allow anyone to look at anyone's ash heap. > > >[1.6.1.1], [2.3] > > > > > > > But does it state you CAN'T show anyone cards from your hand? > > It doesn't say you can't grab more pool from the blood bank during > your discard phase, either. > But there are rules that specify how and when pool can be gained from the blood bank. There are no similar rules that outline how a Methusaleh's 'hand' should be displayed. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <Pine.SOL.4.21.0006081230300.9962- 100...@orange.csi.cam.ac.uk>, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: > On Thu, 8 Jun 2000, Justicar wrote: > > Are you saying that encouraging erratic player to carry out irrational > > actions is a good thing? > > No-one's encouraging them to. > > They are not, however, being discouraged in the same fashion. And you can > still tell them what you have. If they don't believe you, more fool > them. Presumably, the card you have will screw them over and waste their > time. This sounds like a good thing. > > -- > James Coupe | PGP Key 0x5D623D5D Not if you'd prefer to save the card for something else more useful. Then it just ends up wasting time for of you. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <393FBA84...@amadan.org>, David Edelstein <ama...@amadan.org> wrote: > Justicar wrote: > > Are you saying that encouraging erratic player to carry out irrational > > actions is a good thing? > > An erratic player who carries out irrational actions will either learn > better, or you'll learn to make him pay for it. Actually, you'd be surprised. In my experience, erratic players tend to suffer from a lack of forethought. Showing a card to them is a simple, concrete method of showing them the consequences of a particular action. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <8hn9l8$hob$1...@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net>, fre...@netcom.com (Frederick Scott) wrote: > > > Justicar <just...@my-deja.com> writes: > > >In article <8hl55n$eme$1...@slb1.atl.mindspring.net>, > > fre...@netcom.com (Frederick Scott) wrote: > >> Justicar <just...@my-deja.com> writes: > >> > >> >In article <8hhs4n$eji$1...@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net>, > >> > fre...@netcom.com (Frederick Scott) wrote: > >> >> > >> >> Justicar <just...@my-deja.com> writes: > >> >What exactly is the underlying principle for this new rule anyway? > >> > >> I don't know how to answer a question like that. What do you mean by > >> "the underlying principle"? Can I poke it with a stick? > > > >Huh? > > Huh, what? You asked a question which used a non-specific term in this > context. I don't understand what you mean by the "underlying principle for > this new rule" so I can't answer your question. What is the principle of the game that motivated the introduction of this new rule? E.g. Does it make the game easier to play? Does it make it more fun? Does it make the game more consistent with existing rules? > > >> If you mean, "What's the reason to have this rule?", then I'd say > >> it's so that no one can ever (legally) prove to an ally what's in his > >> hand and what isn't, thus making it harder to ally and to trust allies. > >> But I'm just guessing. > > > >I was unaware that this was ever an area of concern about the game that > >needed fixing. > > Well, I guess now you know. Was it necessary that you were aware of >that? If it ain't broke, don't fix it. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <Pine.SOL.4.21.000608...@red.csi.cam.ac.uk>, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: > On 8 Jun 2000, Drkdrm2000 wrote: > > Personally, I don't call any of this collusion. > > It wouldn't necessarily always be so. However, it does make such > collusion *very* easy. Obscenely easy, in fact. So ban collusion (ie., pregame deals). Our playgroup used to have a big problem with collusion in tournaments. We banned it. Problem solved. Usually it's pretty easy to determine which players may collude, and whether they are during a particular game. [ quoted text not captured ]

Justicar <just...@my-deja.com> writes: >In article <8hn9l8$hob$1...@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net>, > fre...@netcom.com (Frederick Scott) wrote: >> >> Justicar <just...@my-deja.com> writes: >> >> >In article <8hl55n$eme$1...@slb1.atl.mindspring.net>, >> > fre...@netcom.com (Frederick Scott) wrote: >> >> Justicar <just...@my-deja.com> writes: >> >> >> >> >In article <8hhs4n$eji$1...@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net>, >> >> > fre...@netcom.com (Frederick Scott) wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> Justicar <just...@my-deja.com> writes: > >> >> >What exactly is the underlying principle for this new rule anyway? >> >> >> >> I don't know how to answer a question like that. What do you mean >> >> by "the underlying principle"? Can I poke it with a stick? >> > >> >Huh? >> >> Huh, what? You asked a question which used a non-specific term in >> this context. I don't understand what you mean by the "underlying >> principle for this new rule" so I can't answer your question. > >What is the principle of the game that motivated the introduction of >this new rule? >E.g. Does it make the game easier to play? Does it make it more fun? >Does it make the game more consistent with existing rules? That's not a "principle". That's a reason or motivation to write such a rule. So I addressed this below: >> >> If you mean, "What's the reason to have this rule?", then I'd say >> >> it's so that no one can ever (legally) prove to an ally what's in >> >> his hand and what isn't, thus making it harder to ally and to trust >> >> allies. But I'm just guessing. >> > >> >I was unaware that this was ever an area of concern about the game >> >that needed fixing. >> >> Well, I guess now you know. Was it necessary that you were aware of >> that? > >If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Apparently, someone considered it "broke". You need to learn how to identify where your taste differs from that of other people. And stick "IMHO" where applicable. It kind of grates to have to read your inferences that if you don't care for a thing it is therefore logically bad and must be done away with. Fred

LSJ wrote: > > But does it state you CAN'T show anyone cards from your hand? > > It doesn't say you can't grab more pool from the blood bank during > your discard phase, either. Now, in fairness I don't think that's a good comparison. "You can't help yourself to more blood from the blood bank at will" is rather obvious. "You can't show your cards to other players" is NOT intuitive. I wouldn't have known about that rule if it hadn't come up at a tournament. I agree with this rule, but it needs to be explicitly stated or there isn't much reason for people to assume they CAN'T show their cards if they want to. -David

On Fri, 9 Jun 2000, Justicar wrote: > But there are rules that specify how and when pool can be gained from > the blood bank. There are no similar rules that outline how a > Methusaleh's 'hand' should be displayed. These new rules - for tournaments only - do. In friendly games, you can do what you want. In many friendly games, just before someone gets completely screwed over, I've often seen them show their hand to people, or just count out all the cards onto the table, to demonstrate the bad luck they're getting in draws. It can be immensely amusing. However, this is inappropriate for competitive tournament play. -- James Coupe | PGP Key 0x5D623D5D "I know my ex-boyfriend lies. Oh, he does it every time. It's just his [ quoted text not captured ]

On Thu, 8 Jun 2000, Justicar wrote: > I disagree. If if I get offered a similar deal by two different > players, one player that I know (and can trust) and one that I don't, > I'll be inclined to side with the player I know, simply because I know > that they'll hold up the deal. If you get offered a similar deal by two players, both of these will be in your interests. One may be "more" in your interests. However, if you are still acting in your own interests, a Judge will have a hard time booting you for collusion. It is, however, rare, IME, that a player will be offered two deals, both of which are to his advantage in that manner. [ quoted text not captured ]

Justicar <just...@my-deja.com> wrote: > LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > > Drkdrm2000 wrote: > > > > > > >The rules allow you to look at your own hand and your own > uncontrolled > > > >region, and they allow anyone to look at anyone's ash heap. > > > >[1.6.1.1], [2.3] > > > > > > > > > > But does it state you CAN'T show anyone cards from your hand? > > > > It doesn't say you can't grab more pool from the blood bank during > > your discard phase, either. > > > > But there are rules that specify how and when pool can be gained from > the blood bank. Where? Please cite you rules reference so that I can offer parallel examples for the hand. > There are no similar rules that outline how a > Methusaleh's 'hand' should be displayed. So you advocate being able to look at anyone's hand anytime you like? (The rules don't say you *can't* do that, either.) And what is it that keeps you from looking at the top (or any other) card of your library? The rules don't say that you *can't* do that, either. The point is that the primary purpose of the rules is to establish what you CAN do - everything else (not stated in the rules) is assumed to be stuff you *can't* do. This is true of most (all?) games. The rules that deal with stuff you *can't* do typically serve to limit a corresponding "can do" rule. -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) VTES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and tournament rules: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/ [ quoted text not captured ]

David Edelstein <ama...@amadan.org> wrote: > LSJ wrote: > > > But does it state you CAN'T show anyone cards from your hand? > > > > It doesn't say you can't grab more pool from the blood bank during > > your discard phase, either. > > Now, in fairness I don't think that's a good comparison. "You can't help > yourself to more blood from the blood bank at will" is rather obvious. > "You can't show your cards to other players" is NOT intuitive. I > wouldn't have known about that rule if it hadn't come up at a > tournament. I agree with this rule, but it needs to be explicitly stated > or there isn't much reason for people to assume they CAN'T show their > cards if they want to. ? Right. Which is why it *is* explicitly stated in the V:EKN rules whereas "you can't grab pool during your influence phase" is not. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Fri, 09 Jun 2000 01:34:34 GMT, Justicar <just...@my-deja.com> wrote: >In article <393FBA84...@amadan.org>, > David Edelstein <ama...@amadan.org> wrote: >> Justicar wrote: >> > Are you saying that encouraging erratic player to carry out >irrational >> > actions is a good thing? >> >> An erratic player who carries out irrational actions will either learn >> better, or you'll learn to make him pay for it. > >Actually, you'd be surprised. In my experience, erratic players tend to >suffer from a lack of forethought. Showing a card to them is a simple, >concrete method of showing them the consequences of a particular >action. Which, as I've stated before, does nothing to teach them to not be erratic. It just teaches them that you have the counter to their action. Your earlier assumption, by the way, is also of the "all-dogs-have-four-legs, my-cat-has-four-legs, my-cat-is-a-dog" variety, by the way. Experienced players ALSO tend to suffer from a lack of forethought. Erratic players, on the other hand, tend to suffer from a lack of remembering the object of the game (or just plain inexperience) - being carried away with the fun of playing a combat deck, or being Jedi Mind Tricked with their vote deck. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Fri, 9 Jun 2000 11:44:44 +0100, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: >On Fri, 9 Jun 2000, Justicar wrote: >> But there are rules that specify how and when pool can be gained from >> the blood bank. There are no similar rules that outline how a >> Methusaleh's 'hand' should be displayed. > >These new rules - for tournaments only - do. > >In friendly games, you can do what you want. In many friendly games, just >before someone gets completely screwed over, I've often seen them show >their hand to people, or just count out all the cards onto the table, to >demonstrate the bad luck they're getting in draws. It can be immensely >amusing. Actually, in our local playgroup's friendly games, there is a good bit of card-showing to make things amusing. Oftentimes someone will glare across the table and growl, and then display a vampire in their uncontrolled region that matches the one the other player just influenced, or something equally as ironic. But it's worth noting that when the deal-making starts, the cards do NOT get shown, and in fact most reference to specific cards stops totally. Vote decks tend to say things like "I have something that will hurt your prey, too, if you go rush Bob" as opposed to "I'm going to be tossing around a Domain Challenge, so leave some guys untapped, eh?" It'd be perfectly acceptable to *say* it, but we've found that the secrecy factor begins to really mount up in one's favor after awhile. It's not what you DO say, it's what you DON'T say that will win you games. In one game recently, my predator and prey kept stopping and checking if I was going to block actions. I wordlessly flipped over my hand after the third question to show six Walk of Flames and one Theft of Vitae, and after a good giggle, the game resumed. >However, this is inappropriate for competitive tournament play. Exactly. My grandpredator and grandprey have a vested interest in me NOT demonstrating that I'm defenseless for the next several turns - it gives my predator and prey a much freer hand to play with. So I should not be showing my cards around like that in a tournament. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <8hpas8$pv4$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, Justicar <just...@my-deja.com> wrote: > In article > <DCF239977BFAF419.C1BC3025...@lp.airnews.net>, > lor...@yahoo.com (Derek Ray) wrote: > > On Thu, 08 Jun 2000 08:19:45 GMT, Justicar <just...@my-deja.com> > > wrote: > > > > >But this just penalises new players or players who don't play very > > >often because they don't know who to trust and who not to. It also > > >encourages alliances between people who know each other pre-game > > >because of the increased risk involved in not being able to verify > your > > >ally's intentions. > > > > Which will get both players booted under the collusion rule. > > I disagree. If if I get offered a similar deal by two different > players, one player that I know (and can trust) and one that I don't, > I'll be inclined to side with the player I know, simply because I know > that they'll hold up the deal. Normally people don't deal unless they have to or there is something in it for them. Trust is not an issue in either of these two equations. A known deal-breaker will as often or not be exposed by those who have witnessed him break a deal before, just so that the deal will fall through. > >This is > > a four or five-player game. More specifically, it is a 1 vs 1 vs 1 vs > > 1 (vs 1)-player game. Two players making a pre-game "alliance" should > > NEVER happen, as the seating order or table dynamics could make such > > an alliance not in one player's best interests. > > It's definitely not very sportmanslike regardless of the seating > position. > > >Two players looking > > at the first two turns and deciding to stick together is different, as > > long as they keep acting in their own best interests. But making a > > deal to oust everyone else and split the last two VPs is a no-no. > > I assume that you're referring to a pregame deal. I have no problems > with two players working to oust everyone else, provided that they > arranged that particular deal within the context of the current game, > and not beforehand. > > > >>and your Malkavian predator never bleeds > > >> you for more than 3 at a time again - OR he bleeds you for 5 with > > >> Ohanna, the disposable vampire. Wouldn't you rather keep it secret > > >> and burn Ozmo's greasy butt when he comes with the Big Kaboom? > > > > > >Not if I only have 4 or 5 pool... > > >All that does is screw both of us. > > > > Your predator's job is first and foremost, to oust you. > > Actually, I disagree. Your predators job is to get as many VPs as > possible, and WIN (as you state below). This does not necessarily > entail working flat out to oust your current prey. You might want to > hold back from an all-out assault to build your strength to attack your > grand-prey, or you might want to make a deal with prey that will > guarantee you more VPs. As I stated above, unless you have something to gain out of making a deal with your prey you normally won't. > >If he's a > > sneak-bleed predator, he will be bleeding you. He has no other > > options if he wants to act in his own best interests, ie. gain VPs and > > WIN. Your AI ensures, for you, that he can't nail you for that 4 or 5 > > pool in one shot. If he has another vampire handy after the AI, you > > will still die at 1 or 2 pool. If, however, you KEEP IT SECRET, then > > he might spend some time setting up his defense for next turn, > > assuming he will be able to bleed you out at any time, and then send > > his last vampire to bleed for 6. > > > > If you show the AI, you guarantee that he'll send the appropriate > > number of vampires to ensure your oust. This would be a misplay - an > > attempt to intimidate that failed. You can also SAY "i have an AI" > > and produce the same effect. > > To which he says, 'You're just trying to save yourself', and bleeds you > anyway. Then your grand-predator bleeds through and gets both VPs. It > tends to be more difficult to believe people who are about to ousted, > because they understandly become more desperate in their attempts to > save themselves. Such is the art of the deal Comments Welcome, Norman S. Brown Jr. X_Zealot Archon of the Swamp [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <Pine.SOL.4.21.00060...@orange.csi.cam.ac.uk>, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: > On Thu, 8 Jun 2000, Justicar wrote: > > Are you saying that encouraging erratic player to carry out irrational > > actions is a good thing? Absolutely, When I can get my predator to attack my prey, that's when I feel that I am at the top of my form [ quoted text not captured ]

> > But does it state you CAN'T show anyone cards from your hand? > > Personally, I don't call any of this collusion. I call it politics. Some guy > wants to pass a vote, you tell him to vote in your favor and show him why. You > don't have to use it (unless the stupid bugger uses monicle, and that's another > story). Also, with succubus club, I suppose it'd be fair to show someone a > card in your hand in offer's of a trade for anything (votes, cards, blood, a > pop... you get the idea). First of all, it is considered in every card game I have ever played from Gin Rummy to Poker to Magic to Jyhad to be extremely bad form to show someone your cards (In fact, in some of the darker corners of New Orleans, it is a shooting offense) > Further, I like the idea of being able to show you cards to prey and predator. > If the course of thier caction may hinder you and you make it worth thier > while, that's politics, not colusion... and politics is what V:Tes is! If > not, _prove me wrong_. It has been called the chess game of CCG's, and it is > closer in it's mechanics to how the american political systm works than most > people care to realise (or believe). Actually, it makes you a better politician to not show your cards to change their mind. You merely tell them you have the counter to their action. If they continue and don't heed your warning then you play the counter and let then deal with the consequences of their action. In the future they will put much more stock into your threats and cajoling. Then you have the option of negotiating and even bluffing once you have established your credability. It is not politics at all to show someone you have the counter to what they are planning to do, rather it is mere stupidity. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <Pine.SOL.4.21.0006091148210.787- 100...@orange.csi.cam.ac.uk>, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: > On Thu, 8 Jun 2000, Justicar wrote: > > I disagree. If if I get offered a similar deal by two different > > players, one player that I know (and can trust) and one that I don't, > > I'll be inclined to side with the player I know, simply because I know > > that they'll hold up the deal. > > If you get offered a similar deal by two players, both of these will be in > your interests. One may be "more" in your interests. However, if you are > still acting in your own interests, a Judge will have a hard time booting > you for collusion. It is, however, rare, IME, that a player will be > offered two deals, both of which are to his advantage in that manner. > Actually, in my experience, whenever one player offers a deal, it is quite common for another player to make a counter-deal of similar value (e.g., both players offer deals which will gain me 2 VPs). It is usually in my best interests to accept the deal from a player who has previously proven reliable in similar situations. However, this can be quite easily offset if the previously unknown player can demonstrate the means of ensuring the success of the deal that they are offering. Showing a card (e.g., Kine Resources, or Dramatic Upheaval) can be a quick and convenient way to enlist the cooperation of another player. Justicar. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <8hqnk3$pg0$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > Justicar <just...@my-deja.com> wrote: > > LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > > > Drkdrm2000 wrote: > > > > > > > > >The rules allow you to look at your own hand and your own > > uncontrolled > > > > >region, and they allow anyone to look at anyone's ash heap. > > > > >[1.6.1.1], [2.3] > > > > > > > > > > > > > But does it state you CAN'T show anyone cards from your hand? > > > > > > It doesn't say you can't grab more pool from the blood bank during > > > your discard phase, either. > > > > > > > But there are rules that specify how and when pool can be gained from > > the blood bank. > > Where? Please cite you rules reference so that I can offer parallel > examples for the hand. Some examples from the rulebook that specify particular circumstances in which pool can be gained or lost (by no means exhaustive). 2.2. Blood Bank and the Edge Each player takes thirty blood counters to form her starting pool. 4. Untap Phase If you have the Edge, you may take one blood counter from the blood bank and add it to your pool. 4.1. Contested Cards The cost to contest a card is one pool, which you pay during each of your untap phases. 6.1.1. Bleed Bleeding is one of the most fundamental actions of the game. It is the basic means of removing your prey's pool. ... To bleed a Methuselah, announce the action and tap the acting minion (the minion who is taking the bleed action). If the action is successful, the target Methuselah burns an amount of pool equal to the bleed amount. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <8hqnk3$pg0$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > The point is that the primary purpose of the rules is to establish > what you CAN do - everything else (not stated in the rules) is > assumed to be stuff you *can't* do. This is true of most (all?) > games. The rules that deal with stuff you *can't* do typically serve > to limit a corresponding "can do" rule. Does that mean you can't have a conversation with another player? The only verbal interactions that seem to be indicated by the rules are those that occur when an action, strike, referendum or withdrawing is announced. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <3EEAEA7577A4287C.2983CF05...@lp.airnews.net>, lor...@yahoo.com (Derek Ray) wrote: > On Fri, 09 Jun 2000 01:34:34 GMT, Justicar <just...@my-deja.com> > wrote: > > >In article <393FBA84...@amadan.org>, > > David Edelstein <ama...@amadan.org> wrote: > >> Justicar wrote: > >> > Are you saying that encouraging erratic player to carry out > >irrational > >> > actions is a good thing? > >> > >> An erratic player who carries out irrational actions will either learn > >> better, or you'll learn to make him pay for it. > > > >Actually, you'd be surprised. In my experience, erratic players tend to > >suffer from a lack of forethought. Showing a card to them is a simple, > >concrete method of showing them the consequences of a particular > >action. > > Which, as I've stated before, does nothing to teach them to not be > erratic. It just teaches them that you have the counter to their > action. Your earlier assumption, by the way, is also of the > "all-dogs-have-four-legs, my-cat-has-four-legs, my-cat-is-a-dog" > variety, by the way. I don't have a cat. I do have a dog. Therefore my cat is in fact a dog :) [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <8hro7i$k3j$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, X_Ze...@email.msn.com wrote: > > > > > > But does it state you CAN'T show anyone cards from your hand? > > [ quoted text not captured ] You're probably right. However, it still slows the game down while having a debatable improvement on game play. > > It is not politics at all to show someone you have the counter to what > they are planning to do, rather it is mere stupidity. > 'Stupid is, as stupid does.' - Forrest Gump. Who's to say it's not stupid spending 5 minutes trying to convince a player of something that can be demonstrated in half a second. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <8hpkn7$6tn$1...@slb7.atl.mindspring.net>, [ quoted text not captured ] From www.dictionary.com Principle: A basic truth, law, or assumption: (e.g., the principles of democracy.) What is the principle (i.e., basic truth, law or assumption) of the game of VTES that determines why this rule should introduced? > > >> >> If you mean, "What's the reason to have this rule?", then I'd say > >> >> it's so that no one can ever (legally) prove to an ally what's in > >> >> his hand and what isn't, thus making it harder to ally and to trust > >> >> allies. But I'm just guessing. Making alliances difficult hardly seems to me to be one of the guiding concepts of the game. > >> > > >> >I was unaware that this was ever an area of concern about the game > >> >that needed fixing. > >> > >> Well, I guess now you know. Was it necessary that you were aware of > >> that? > > > >If it ain't broke, don't fix it. > > Apparently, someone considered it "broke". Any idea of who those people were? > > You need to learn how to identify where your taste differs from that of > other people. And stick "IMHO" where applicable. It kind of grates to > have to read your inferences that if you don't care for a thing it is > therefore logically bad and must be done away with. > Everything I say is purely my opinion :) IMHO. But I could be wrong if other people agree with what I say, because then it would be their opinion too... [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <8hro7i$k3j$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, X_Ze...@email.msn.com wrote: > > > > > > But does it state you CAN'T show anyone cards from your hand? > > > > Personally, I don't call any of this collusion. I call it politics. > Some guy > > wants to pass a vote, you tell him to vote in your favor and show him > why. You > > don't have to use it (unless the stupid bugger uses monicle, and > that's another > > story). Also, with succubus club, I suppose it'd be fair to show > someone a > > card in your hand in offer's of a trade for anything (votes, cards, > blood, a > > pop... you get the idea). > > First of all, it is considered in every card game I have ever played > from Gin Rummy to Poker to Magic to Jyhad to be extremely bad form to > show someone your cards (In fact, in some of the darker corners of New > Orleans, it is a shooting offense) But then again, it is also considered to be poor form in most card games to discuss your strategy with other players, or to gang up on other players. Should all diplomacy in Jyhad be banned, on the basis that it does not exist in other card games? [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <8hhifk$vjt$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, Justicar <just...@my-deja.com> wrote: > V:EKN Tournament Rules - > 4.4. Card Elevation and Disposition > Players must keep their cards above the level of the playing surface. > Revealing cards in your hand or uncontrolled area to an opponent is not > allowed. Here's something interesting I just found in the 1999-2000 DCI Universal Tournament Rules, which included VTES. 33. Card Elevation Players must keep their cards above the level of the playing surface. Revealing your hand to your opponent is not considered to be a violation of the DCI Universal Tournament Rules. Any reason that revealing your hand should specifically be banned in VTES, as opposed to any other game that was sanctioned by the DCI? [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <8hro7i$k3j$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, X_Ze...@email.msn.com wrote: > > > > > > But does it state you CAN'T show anyone cards from your hand? > > > > Personally, I don't call any of this collusion. I call it politics. > Some guy > > wants to pass a vote, you tell him to vote in your favor and show him > why. You > > don't have to use it (unless the stupid bugger uses monicle, and > that's another > > story). Also, with succubus club, I suppose it'd be fair to show > someone a > > card in your hand in offer's of a trade for anything (votes, cards, > blood, a > > pop... you get the idea). > > First of all, it is considered in every card game I have ever played > from Gin Rummy to Poker to Magic to Jyhad to be extremely bad form to > show someone your cards (In fact, in some of the darker corners of New > Orleans, it is a shooting offense) > Also, revealing your cards is supported by the 'DCI™ UNIVERSAL TOURNAMENT RULES: 1999–2000 Tournament Season' 33. Card Elevation Players must keep their cards above the level of the playing surface. Revealing your hand to your opponent is not considered to be a violation of the DCI Universal Tournament Rules. -------- These tournament rules applied to the following games: • Magic: The Gathering® • Rage: Across Las Vegas™ • Pokémon™* • Netrunner® • Legend of the Five Rings™ • Dune™: Eye of the Storm™ • Doomtown™ • BattleTech® • Vampire: The Eternal Struggle™ • Legend of the Burning Sands™ • ARC System™ games - C•23™ - Hercules: The Legendary Journeys™ - Xena: Warrior Princess™ Revealing cards hardly seems to be poor form in every card game. Particularly when it is _specifically_ allowed by the DCI Universal Tournament Rules. Justicar. [ quoted text not captured ]

Justicar <just...@my-deja.com> wrote: > LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > > Justicar <just...@my-deja.com> wrote: > > > LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > > > > It doesn't say you can't grab more pool from the blood bank > > > > during your discard phase, either. > > > > > > But there are rules that specify how and when pool can be gained > > > from the blood bank. > > > > Where? Please cite you rules reference so that I can offer parallel > > examples for the hand. > > Some examples from the rulebook that specify particular circumstances > in which pool can be gained or lost (by no means exhaustive). While your list is not exhaustive, the rules themselves are. Same with looking at cards. > 2.2. Blood Bank and the Edge > Each player takes thirty blood counters to form her starting pool. 2.3. You can look at the cards in your hand and uncontrolled region at any time during the game. > 4. Untap Phase > If you have the Edge, you may take one blood counter from the blood > bank and add it to your pool. 1.6.1.1. A card is played by placing it face-up in the playing area or by showing it to the other players and placing it face-up in the ash heap. > 4.1. Contested Cards > The cost to contest a card is one pool, which you pay during each of > your untap phases. 2.3. As the game progresses, you will gain control of some of your vampires, moving them from the uncontrolled region to the ready region, face-up. > 6.1.1. Bleed > Bleeding is one of the most fundamental actions of the game. It is the > basic means of removing your prey's pool. > > ... > > To bleed a Methuselah, announce the action and tap the acting minion > (the minion who is taking the bleed action). If the action is > successful, the target Methuselah burns an amount of pool equal to the > bleed amount. 6.2.1. Any card required for the action is played (face-up) at this time. ... I also notice that you chose to delete a pair of important questions from my post. Please provide your answers to / positions on these points: > > So you advocate being able to look at anyone's hand anytime you > > like? (The rules don't say you *can't* do that, either.) > > > > And what is it that keeps you from looking at the top (or any > > other) card of your library? The rules don't say that you > > *can't* do that, either. -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) VTES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and tournament rules: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/ [ quoted text not captured ]

Justicar <just...@my-deja.com> wrote: > LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > > > The point is that the primary purpose of the rules is to establish > > what you CAN do - everything else (not stated in the rules) is > > assumed to be stuff you *can't* do. This is true of most (all?) > > games. The rules that deal with stuff you *can't* do typically serve > > to limit a corresponding "can do" rule. > > Does that mean you can't have a conversation with another player? The > only verbal interactions that seem to be indicated by the rules are > those that occur when an action, strike, referendum or withdrawing is > announced. (You forgot your ":-)", BTW :-) Yes, you can talk, breathe, go to the bathroom, scratch your ears, blink, get a drink, blow you nose, etc., depending on the rules of the local (some places may have rules on exactly where you can do some of these things, but those aren't enforced by the rules). The rules deal with the game, which includes the cards. Some forms of conversation are restricted in a tournament environment, however, such as oustide assistance (coaching), profanity, beliigerent speech (or other behavior), bribery, and misrepresenting public information, for example. [ quoted text not captured ]

> > > > Actually, it makes you a better politician to not show your cards to > > change their mind. You merely tell them you have the counter to their > > action. If they continue and don't heed your warning then you play the > > counter and let then deal with the consequences of their action. In > the > > future they will put much more stock into your threats and cajoling. > > Then you have the option of negotiating and even bluffing once you > have > > established your credability. > > You're probably right. However, it still slows the game down while > having a debatable improvement on game play. > > > > > It is not politics at all to show someone you have the counter to what > > they are planning to do, rather it is mere stupidity. > > > > 'Stupid is, as stupid does.' - Forrest Gump. > Who's to say it's not stupid spending 5 minutes trying to convince a > player of something that can be demonstrated in half a second. Certainly you are entitled to delay the game for 5 minutes, although that in itself it considered to be not a good thing. As I said above the best way to convince someone that you are not bluffing is to let them do what ever they are threatening to do, then you counter it or play what ever you were debating about. The reality is that your ablity to prove that you have in your hand what you say you have in your hand will carry from game to game if you play with the same people over and over. In addition, it is always good to establish yourself by doing so with people with whom you have never played before. Politics can only performed if you have established your position. The stronger your position is; the stronger your ability to politic is. Comments Welcome, Norman S. Brown Jr. X_Zealot Archon of the Swamp [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <8i1ud7$if1$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, Justicar <just...@my-deja.com> wrote: > In article <8hro7i$k3j$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, > X_Ze...@email.msn.com wrote: > > > > > > > > > > But does it state you CAN'T show anyone cards from your hand? > > > > > > Personally, I don't call any of this collusion. I call it politics. > > Some guy > > > wants to pass a vote, you tell him to vote in your favor and show > him > > why. You > > > don't have to use it (unless the stupid bugger uses monicle, and > > that's another > > > story). Also, with succubus club, I suppose it'd be fair to show > > someone a > > > card in your hand in offer's of a trade for anything (votes, cards, > > blood, a > > > pop... you get the idea). > > > > First of all, it is considered in every card game I have ever played > > from Gin Rummy to Poker to Magic to Jyhad to be extremely bad form to > > show someone your cards (In fact, in some of the darker corners of New > > Orleans, it is a shooting offense) > > But then again, it is also considered to be poor form in most card > games to > discuss your strategy with other players, or to gang up on other > players. > Should all diplomacy in Jyhad be banned, on the basis that it does not > exist > in other card games? Actually, most other games do not have a established dynamic of predator and prey relationship. Usually it is a winner take all situation, and as such there are no partial victorys, so therefore politics doesnt' occur. Please cite any specific examples you would like to discuss. [ quoted text not captured ]

Please, direct me to your source for this information. Thank You, Norman S. Brown Jr. X_Zealot Archon of the Swamp > Also, revealing your cards is supported by the 'DCI™ UNIVERSAL [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <8i1vbq$j2s$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, Justicar <just...@my-deja.com> wrote: > In article <8hhifk$vjt$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, > Justicar <just...@my-deja.com> wrote: > > V:EKN Tournament Rules - > > > 4.4. Card Elevation and Disposition > > Players must keep their cards above the level of the playing surface. > > Revealing cards in your hand or uncontrolled area to an opponent is > not > > allowed. > > Here's something interesting I just found in the 1999-2000 DCI > Universal Tournament Rules, which included VTES. > > 33. Card Elevation > Players must keep their cards above the level of the playing surface. > Revealing your hand to your opponent is not considered to be a > violation of the DCI Universal Tournament Rules. > > Any reason that revealing your hand should specifically be banned in > VTES, as opposed to any other game that was sanctioned by the DCI? The first one that pops into my head is that V:TES is a Multiplayer game as opposed to a head to head game, and that partial victories and even ties can occur. The ability to politic, which is a large part of V:TES, is governed by credibilty not by if A then B basic rudamentary logic. Therefore one player's willingness to show his cards to everyone else to back up his politics undermines the credibility of the other players who prefer not to show their cards during politics. This in turn creates an environment in which politics are no longer a factor as everyone has to show their cards or have their bluff called. Comments Welcome, Norman S. Brown Jr. X_Zealot Archon of the Swamp [ quoted text not captured ]

Justicar <just...@my-deja.com> writes: >In article <8hpkn7$6tn$1...@slb7.atl.mindspring.net>, > fre...@netcom.com (Frederick Scott) wrote: >> Justicar <just...@my-deja.com> writes: >> >What is the principle of the game that motivated the introduction of >> >this new rule? >> >E.g. Does it make the game easier to play? Does it make it more fun? >> >Does it make the game more consistent with existing rules? >> >> That's not a "principle". That's a reason or motivation to write such >> a rule. So I addressed this below: > >From www.dictionary.com >Principle: A basic truth, law, or assumption: (e.g., the principles of >democracy.) > >What is the principle (i.e., basic truth, law or assumption) of the >game of VTES that determines why this rule should introduced? None. Rules are not determined by "basic truth, laws, or assumptions". I don't know where you got the idea they were. Game design is not determined by principle. The intent of (the vast majority of games including, I believe, this one) is to be fun. Period. That's the only principle you need to look for. Does the rules make the game more fun or less? And the answer depends solely on your taste. >Making alliances difficult hardly seems to me to be one of the guiding >concepts of the game. Fine. But the statement is absolutely pulsating with subjective judgements that come only from your opinion. "Making alliences difficult"? How "difficult" is "difficult"? The only thing clear about the effect of this rule is that it makes the logistics of alliances more difficult. Is it too difficult or not difficult enough to be effective in alliances in the game? It's not even very clear to me that the rule has much effect at all. I've never shown a player a card and seldom even wanted to, personally - except for amusement purposes in informal games. And there are plenty of other rules which likewise prevent alliances from too easily taking control of a game. So if you're going insist on constructing semantic arguments about "underlying priniples" or "guiding concepts", I'd point you at the things like the predator-prey relationships and the limitationg ons blocking directed actions and so forth. >> You need to learn how to identify where your taste differs from that >> of other people. And stick "IMHO" where applicable. It kind of grates >> to have to read your inferences that if you don't care for a thing it is >> therefore logically bad and must be done away with. >> > >Everything I say is purely my opinion :) >IMHO. >But I could be wrong if other people agree with what I say, because >then it would be their opinion too... That's just my point. Whether others agree with you or not does not make you either right OR wrong. It just means there are people who have the same taste about this point (or not). I don't mind you pointing out why you have problems with the rule and what they are. I think they're perfectly legitimate problems and I believe I understand why you don't like it. Some of your comments just make it sound like you'd like to "prove" the rule is bad. I don't think you can "prove" why it's bad. You might convince some folks - perhaps even those responsible for writing it (no I don't know for sure who they are) - that's it's not a good rule on balance. But it won't be because of a lack of some underlying principle or a violation or one or anything like that. It would be because your complaints about the practical aspects of observing the rule hit home with a lot of other people. (Unforunately, for me they do not.) Fred

drkdr...@aol.com (Drkdrm2000) writes: >>Imagine playing poker or bridge where you can reveal your cards. > >I can think of a specific example in a world tournement of poker final game >where one player intentionally flashed an ace from his hand in an intimidation >attempt. Guess what. It worked. There are no rules stating that you cannot >show you hand to other players in poker. Generally speaking, it's usually not >to your advantage. However, in poker, showing your cards is perfectly legal. Sure, there's no alliances in poker anyway nor any other reason why showing your cards should be illegal. For any reasons except psychological ones, revealing hidden information about your hand is just bad. And frankly, I have trouble believing a player on that level got "intimidated". More likely, he just got outguessed as to the significance of the exhibitionism. "Is he showing me the Ace to make me thing he has a good hand when he has a bad one so I'll fold a winner or is he trying to make me THINK that so I'll bet on a loser...or is he trying to make me think THAT so I'll fold a winner...or..." - wheels within wheels. Which is what poker is. If his victim got "intimidated", it was likely only to the extent that the unexpected stimulus threw his normal thinking patterns off. Fred

On Sun, 11 Jun 2000, Justicar wrote: > offering. Showing a card (e.g., Kine Resources, or Dramatic Upheaval) > can be > a quick and convenient way to enlist the cooperation of another player. And a quicker and easier way of colluding. I do not dispute the potential utility of the mechanism, merely point out its *big* pit falls. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Mon, 12 Jun 2000, Justicar wrote: > Should all diplomacy in Jyhad be banned, on the basis that it does not > exist > in other card games? That is wildly inaccurate. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Mon, 12 Jun 2000 X_Ze...@email.msn.com wrote: > Certainly you are entitled to delay the game for 5 minutes, although > that in itself it considered to be not a good thing. As I said above That would depend on its still being sportsman-like conduct and taking your turn in a timely fashion. Granted, there are situations where delaying the game by 5 minutes *would* qualify as that, but not always. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <8i2stk$6bb$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, X_Ze...@email.msn.com wrote: > Please, direct me to your source for this information. > > Thank You, > Norman S. Brown Jr. > X_Zealot > Archon of the Swamp No worries. http://www.wizards.com/DCI/UTRules.asp Justicar. > > > Also, revealing your cards is supported by the 'DCI™ UNIVERSAL > > TOURNAMENT RULES: 1999–2000 Tournament Season' > > > > 33. Card Elevation > > Players must keep their cards above the level of the playing surface. > > Revealing your hand to your opponent is not considered to be a > > violation of the DCI Universal Tournament Rules. > > > > -------- > > > > These tournament rules applied to the following games: > > > > • Magic: The Gathering® > > • Rage: Across Las Vegas™ > > • Pokémon™* > > • Netrunner® > > • Legend of the Five Rings™ > > • Dune™: Eye of the Storm™ > > • Doomtown™ > > • BattleTech® > > • Vampire: The Eternal Struggle™ > > • Legend of the Burning Sands™ > > • ARC System™ games > > - C•23™ > > - Hercules: The Legendary Journeys™ > > - Xena: Warrior Princess™ > > > > Revealing cards hardly seems to be poor form in every card game. > > Particularly when it is _specifically_ allowed by the DCI Universal > > Tournament Rules. > > > > Justicar. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <8i2m24$1i9$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > Justicar <just...@my-deja.com> wrote: > > LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > > > Justicar <just...@my-deja.com> wrote: > > > > LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > I also notice that you chose to delete a pair of important questions > from my post. Please provide your answers to / positions on these > points: > > > > So you advocate being able to look at anyone's hand anytime you > > > like? (The rules don't say you *can't* do that, either.) > > > > > > And what is it that keeps you from looking at the top (or any > > > other) card of your library? The rules don't say that you > > > *can't* do that, either. > The DCI Universal Penalty Guidelines prevent players from looking at the top card of their deck, and at cards from other players. --- From: http://www.wizards.com/DCI/judge/MTG_DCI_Penalty_Guidelines_Print.asp 122. Card Drawing--Looking at Extra Cards Definition: Players are considered to have looked at a card when the card is moved any significant amount from the deck. This could include dropping cards on the floor, turning a card over while shuffling their opponent's deck, or revealing cards from their deck in the act of misplaying a card. This penalty also applies when a player has looked at a card in an opponent's deck or hand in the course of a game (such as turning over an extra card while resolving a random discard effect). A player is not considered to have looked at extra cards when he or she places a card face down on the table (without looking at the card) in an effort to count out cards he or she will draw. --- However, a player is allowed to reveal his cards his cards to another player under the DCI Universal Tournament Rules: 1999-2000 Tournament Season. --- From http://www.wizards.com/DCI/UTRules.asp 33. Card Elevation Players must keep their cards above the level of the playing surface. Revealing your hand to your opponent is not considered to be a violation of the DCI Universal Tournament Rules. --- Under these rules at least, it would seem looking at someone else's hand, or your own library are prevented, while revealing your hand is allowed. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <8i394u$die$1...@slb7.atl.mindspring.net>, fre...@netcom.com (Frederick Scott) wrote: > > > Justicar <just...@my-deja.com> writes: > > >In article <8hpkn7$6tn$1...@slb7.atl.mindspring.net>, > > fre...@netcom.com (Frederick Scott) wrote: > >> Justicar <just...@my-deja.com> writes: > It's not even very clear to me that the rule has much effect at all. I've > never shown a player a card and seldom even wanted to, personally - except > for amusement purposes in informal games. Then why not leave the game the way it was. It's not going to affect you either way, but it will affect those playgroups that do reveal cards. > > > >Everything I say is purely my opinion :) > >IMHO. > >But I could be wrong if other people agree with what I say, because > >then it would be their opinion too... > > That's just my point. Whether others agree with you or not does not make > you either right OR wrong. It does with respect to the statement that 'everything I say is purely my opinion' , and that is all I was referring to. If other people agree with me, the things that I say are not purely my opinion. They are other peoples opinions as well. QED. BTW, that means I was right about this one ;) Have a nice day. [ quoted text not captured ]

> However, a player is allowed to reveal his cards his cards to another > player under the DCI Universal Tournament Rules: 1999-2000 Tournament > Season. Please note that the DCI tournament rules are no longer in effect, same goes for the DCI penalty guidelines. The current set of rulings are the VEKN tournament rules. Carl [ quoted text not captured ]

On Tue, 13 Jun 2000 01:17:08 GMT, Justicar <just...@my-deja.com> wrote: >Players are considered to have looked at a card when the card is moved >any significant amount from the deck. This could include dropping cards >on the floor, turning a card over while shuffling their opponent's >deck, or revealing cards from their deck in the act of misplaying a >card. This penalty also applies when a player has looked at a card in >an opponent's deck or hand in the course of a game (such as turning So when your opponent shows you a card, the penalty applies, since you've looked at a card in your opponent's hand. The rule does not specify whether or not you were SHOWN the card. If you want to be a rules lawyer, go for it. But in the meantime, try responding to the arguments in mine and other people's posts, which lay out a number of good reasons why there needs to be a rule preventing people from showing cards. One you constantly ignore is that with no rule against showing your cards, and by showing your OWN cards, you force others to do the same and remove yours AND their ability to bluff - totally removing an important aspect of a game which is LARGELY ABOUT manipulation and deal-making. Do you agree that bluffing should be possible in V:TES? >over an extra card while resolving a random discard effect). > >However, a player is allowed to reveal his cards his cards to another >player under the DCI Universal Tournament Rules: 1999-2000 Tournament >Season. However, as with all "universal" rules, the game-specific rules override where conflicts arise. See the Golden Rule of Card Text. >Players must keep their cards above the level of the playing surface. >Revealing your hand to your opponent is not considered to be a >violation of the DCI Universal Tournament Rules. Because you'd be an idiot to reveal your hand in a game like Magic. Why would you want to stop your opponent from playing a card and allowing you to play a countereffect that would be beneficial to you? Answer: No reason. -- Derek Deafness never kept composers from hearing the music. It only stopped them hearing the distractions.

Justicar <just...@my-deja.com> writes: >In article <8i394u$die$1...@slb7.atl.mindspring.net>, > fre...@netcom.com (Frederick Scott) wrote: >> >> >> Justicar <just...@my-deja.com> writes: >> >> >In article <8hpkn7$6tn$1...@slb7.atl.mindspring.net>, >> > fre...@netcom.com (Frederick Scott) wrote: >> >> Justicar <just...@my-deja.com> writes: >> It's not even very clear to me that the rule has much effect at all. >> I've never shown a player a card and seldom even wanted to, personally - >> except for amusement purposes in informal games. > >Then why not leave the game the way it was. It's not going to affect >you either way, but it will affect those playgroups that do reveal >cards. Then in playgroups that do reveal cards, it does have an effect. Either way, the answer is someone thought it was better this way. >> >Everything I say is purely my opinion :) >> >IMHO. >> >But I could be wrong if other people agree with what I say, because >> >then it would be their opinion too... >> >> That's just my point. Whether others agree with you or not does not >> make you either right OR wrong. > >It does with respect to the statement that 'everything I say is purely >my opinion' , and that is all I was referring to. If other people agree >with me, the things that I say are not purely my opinion. That statement is incorrect. If other people agree with you, it is STILL purely your opinion. It just happens to be opinion that others hold as well. There is still no right or wrong in the matter, regardless of the consensus. Of course, a firm consensus one way or the other is probably something the designers would do well to listen, as it will determine how the rule is liked or disliked by the masses, which in turn affects the popularity of the game. But that's a different thing. Fred

Justicar wrote: > LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > > Justicar <just...@my-deja.com> wrote: > > > LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > > > > Justicar <just...@my-deja.com> wrote: > > > > > LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > > > I also notice that you chose to delete a pair of important questions > > from my post. Please provide your answers to / positions on these > > points: > > > > > > So you advocate being able to look at anyone's hand anytime you > > > > like? (The rules don't say you *can't* do that, either.) > > > > > > > > And what is it that keeps you from looking at the top (or any > > > > other) card of your library? The rules don't say that you > > > > *can't* do that, either. > > > > The DCI Universal Penalty Guidelines prevent players from looking at > the top card of their deck, and at cards from other players. Ah, good, then we agree: Tournament rules can specify rules that do not explicitly appear in the "base" rules. The V:EKN Tournament rules specify (explicitly) that a player cannot show cards ni her hand or uncontrolled region to another player (or other players). Since the V:EKN Tournament Rules serve the function that *used to* be served by the DCI rules, hopefully this thread can end. -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <394623A1...@white-wolf.com>, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > Justicar wrote: > > LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > > > Justicar <just...@my-deja.com> wrote: > > > > LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > > > > > Justicar <just...@my-deja.com> wrote: > > > > > > LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > > > > > I also notice that you chose to delete a pair of important questions > > > from my post. Please provide your answers to / positions on these > > > points: > > > > > > > > So you advocate being able to look at anyone's hand anytime you > > > > > like? (The rules don't say you *can't* do that, either.) > > > > > > > > > > And what is it that keeps you from looking at the top (or any > > > > > other) card of your library? The rules don't say that you > > > > > *can't* do that, either. > > > > > > > The DCI Universal Penalty Guidelines prevent players from looking at > > the top card of their deck, and at cards from other players. > > Ah, good, then we agree: Tournament rules can specify rules that do > not explicitly appear in the "base" rules. > > The V:EKN Tournament rules specify (explicitly) that a player cannot > show cards ni her hand or uncontrolled region to another player (or > other players). > In that case, it would be nice to know why a rule that is currently considered appropriate for all DCI card games (including their multiplayer games), and was applicable to VTES up until two weeks ago has suddenly been overturned. Particularly since the ruling has a profound impact on those playgroups that have been revealing cards as a form of diplomatic interaction, and have possibly been doing so for a number of years. Cheers, Justicar. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Wed, 14 Jun 2000, Justicar wrote: > In that case, it would be nice to know why a rule that is currently > considered appropriate for all DCI card games (including their > multiplayer games), and was applicable to VTES up until two weeks ago > has suddenly been overturned. The DCI rules were primarily written for Magic (initially) and never really cared for any other card game produced by Wizards. Presumably, there are a number of aspects that Netrunner (etc.) players would like to fix but, under the DCI rules, can't. Since each game is different, blanket rules do not work for each. For instance, rules on in-game collusion are irrelevant in two-player dueling Magic, but highly relevant in Jyhad. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <Pine.SOL.4.21.00061...@red.csi.cam.ac.uk>, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: > On Wed, 14 Jun 2000, Justicar wrote: > > In that case, it would be nice to know why a rule that is currently > > considered appropriate for all DCI card games (including their > > multiplayer games), and was applicable to VTES up until two weeks ago > > has suddenly been overturned. > > The DCI rules were primarily written for Magic (initially) and never > really cared for any other card game produced by Wizards. > > Presumably, there are a number of aspects that Netrunner (etc.) players > would like to fix but, under the DCI rules, can't. Since each game is > different, blanket rules do not work for each. > > For instance, rules on in-game collusion are irrelevant in two-player > dueling Magic, but highly relevant in Jyhad. > However, there were specific rules for VTES under the previous DCI format as well. If revealing cards is really such a problem, then shouldn't it have been addressed in the VTES DCI tournament rules? [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <8i7vdg$p4k$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, [ quoted text not captured ] Are you talking about DCI Tournament Rules with the accepted V:TES Errata or just the DCI Tournament Rules? Oh, but what does it matter, we no longer fall under DCI management anymore. -- Worry comes from the belief you are powerless. (So get in there and kick some butt!) [ quoted text not captured ]

On Wed, 14 Jun 2000, Justicar wrote: > However, there were specific rules for VTES under the previous DCI > format as well. Which worked *within* the DCI rules, and could not over-rule them, so far as I can tell. ObligatoryAnalogy: If something is banned by nation-wide law in America, I do not believe there are any circumstances under which a single state could then choose to "opt out", unless a clause allwoing that were written in. [ quoted text not captured ]

> From: lor...@yahoo.com (Derek Ray) [snip] > I would object to most, if not all private communications under the > "collusion" rule. It's possible to gang up on someone, and it SHOULD > be possible (deal-making is an important part of this game), but it > shouldn't be EASY to do so, and being able to describe and coordinate > a strategy in secret with another player would make it very easy to do > so. When you're forced to speak in front of the player you're ganging > up on, you either have to have an indefensible attack ("I'm going to > kill all his minions this turn.") or you have to find a way to get > your point across without cluing him in as to exactly WHAT is going to > happen. *sigh* I guess I really don't understand this. Who says "collusion" is bad in V:TES? Who says it shouldn't be easy? I guess I'm a little confused by the whole need for this rule. After all, V:TES has the image of a dying game (pun intended), has more errata and extra rules than one can possible absorb, and all we keep doing is adding more complexity? I would put it to all of that that the art of deal making is to offer something up so that you get something more in return (but maybe in some future turn.) If you hold this premise true, then you must admit that the inability to prove you have anything of value is not a "hindrance" but almost an impossibility if there's no established history with the partner. For long established playing groups, this may not be an issue. For tournaments where many if not all of the people are new, this is a critical aspect that must be considered. Personally, I think that deal making and "collusion" is THE aspect of V:TES that I enjoy. It's what separates it from the kiddy games. Now, all we've done is put a needless shackle on that aspect. Pity us. > > Before y'all flip, someone turning and mentioning something under > their breath to their predator is not something I'd object to. Two > people passing notes or going off in a corner or something like that > would frost me a bit, though. Please don't take this personally, but so what? What prevents you from making deals with the others? "Hey, look at them. They're plotting something no good. If you team up with me....." [snip] > You'll just have to work on your persuasion skills, eh? I have > difficulty coming up with a situation where I'd -want- to show an > erratic player (or even a non-erratic player) one of my cards. Say > he's rushing cross-table and I say "I have a Skin of Steel. Don't > waste your time." If he believes me, that's good! If he doesn't, > well, I -do- have the Skin of Steel and his rush will go nowhere. > Sure, maybe I wanted to use it against my prey when he blocked one of > my bleeds, but that's life when you have an erratic player on the > table. Not all events are predictable. > > I think if I -really- wanted to save my SoS, I'd spend my time > explaining why rushing me cross-table didn't help him win the game. > If rushing me DOES help him win the game, then he's not acting > erratically, is he? > > -- Derek All good comments, but I still don't agree. I just wish I had some recourse against this rule. Even though I'm a Prince in V:EKN, I still have to passively accept these types of things. *sigh* -- Merlisk V:EKN Prince of Dallas m.w....@ieee.org ICQ: 22389734 http://merlisk.tripod.com/jyhad/jyhad.html

On Thu, 15 Jun 2000 17:13:12 GMT, Merlisk <mer...@gte.net> wrote: >*sigh* I guess I really don't understand this. Who says "collusion" is bad >in V:TES? Who says it shouldn't be easy? So you won't mind if a friend and I play with 3 of you, and he spends the whole game using Eagle's Sight and cross-table Rush, making sure that I win? That's collusion. Is it bad? Deal-making _in your own best interests_ is something entirely different. But not attempting to win, for whatever reason, really throws off the game balance. (There is, obviously, a difference between choosing to get only 3 VPs because it's a sure thing, and trying to get all 5 but risking only getting 1. 3 is enough to win.) >I would put it to all of that that the art of deal making is to offer >something up so that you get something more in return (but maybe in some >future turn.) If you hold this premise true, then you must admit that the >inability to prove you have anything of value is not a "hindrance" but >almost an impossibility if there's no established history with the partner. >For long established playing groups, this may not be an issue. For >tournaments where many if not all of the people are new, this is a critical >aspect that must be considered. In general, if someone directly lies, the entire table tends to turn on them and they successfully make NO DEALS for the rest of the game. This usually means they lose. The extra 1 pool loss from a KRC tends to be thrown their way, bleeds tend to get bounced, combat decks that need to cycle cards tend to Rush them... you get the idea. I don't have a problem making deals with people I don't know, personally. You just point out the situation on the table, and for example: I say to my predator, "If you don't bleed me this turn, I'll Rush your predator's voter-vamp who keeps damaging you and might oust you next turn." (Which, by the way, is in my own best interest because partly, I don't get bled, and partly, I don't want my predator ousted and to have the ugly vote deck down my OWN throat.) They say "OK" or "no". What cards need to be shown there? That I have a Rush? Now say my intended victim says "If you rush me, I can prevent all the damage. You better just rush his bleeders on your turn instead." (true or false, it's GREAT for him if I rush his prey's vampires, so he should say this whether or not he has prevent) Now both I and the person I'm making a deal with must make a choice now - do you believe him? What's in it for everyone if I succeed? What's in it for everyone if I *fail*? The obvious card that could be shown is the Skin of Steel - now see below why it shouldn't be permissible to show. I'll say it again. If you do not PREVENT people from showing their cards, you remove the ability to bluff. "If you have it, why won't you show it?" is the question that will be asked, and without the rule, you have no recourse - you must either show the card or have your bluff called. Please refute this argument, which nobody else seems to even be trying to do. Bluffing is vital to politics and deal-making, because THREATS are vital. Politics isn't all "i get this, you get this, yay!" - a lot of it is "I get this OR ELSE." >Please don't take this personally, but so what? What prevents you from >making deals with the others? "Hey, look at them. They're plotting >something no good. If you team up with me....." See above. Mind if I bring my friend and gang up on y'all so that I win? It's real easy to do with two people on one team, and two people making a secret deal off in the corner makes it real hard to defend against... And don't say it won't happen. Once the prize support kicks off and gets bigger again, it WILL happen. Better to have the issue resolved now, as opposed to later... >All good comments, but I still don't agree. I just wish I had some recourse >against this rule. Even though I'm a Prince in V:EKN, I still have to >passively accept these types of things. I'm glad the players DON'T have any direct recourse against the rules other than to present arguments to be reviewed, or the Rules Team would be forever bogged down with complaints and BS from every single person who didn't like some rule or other. There are rules that *I* don't agree with, but they're the rules, and I have to play with them. I can at least rest assured that someone is at least CONSIDERING the rules, and if I bring up a valid argument, it will be submitted for review. But it's got to be a valid argument. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Thu, 15 Jun 2000, Merlisk wrote: > *sigh* I guess I really don't understand this. Who says "collusion" is bad > in V:TES? Who says it shouldn't be easy? So you like the fact that if a group of players turn up who you've never seen before, and they all start making extra-game deals in order to achieve *one* of them getting to the final, rather than actually playing the game, such that on one table, you can end up with two or three people all effectively being your predator for no reason? That's why the collusion rules exist, and why most people I know support them. [ quoted text not captured ]

> From: James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> > On Thu, 15 Jun 2000, Merlisk wrote: >> *sigh* I guess I really don't understand this. Who says "collusion" is bad >> in V:TES? Who says it shouldn't be easy? > > So you like the fact that if a group of players turn up who you've never > seen before, and they all start making extra-game deals in order to > achieve *one* of them getting to the final, rather than actually playing > the game, such that on one table, you can end up with two or three people > all effectively being your predator for no reason? > > That's why the collusion rules exist, and why most people I know support > them. > > -- > James Coupe | PGP Key 0x5D623D5D > And not allowing me to show others my cards so that I can make deals will stop your collusion scenario how? [ quoted text not captured ]

Merlisk <mer...@gte.net> writes: >*sigh* I guess I really don't understand this. Who says "collusion" is bad >in V:TES? Who says it shouldn't be easy? Matter of opinion, either way. But clearly there were already some rules intended to limit collusion (and other rules intended to facilitate it, for that matter) so this is just another zig in the zig-zag line between the two extremes. >I guess I'm a little confused by the whole need for this rule. After all, >V:TES has the image of a dying game (pun intended), has more errata and >extra rules than one can possible absorb, and all we keep doing is adding >more complexity? I'm sorry, "You can't reveal cards in your hand." is not complex nor is it adding relative new complexity unless one assumes it was legal in the first place (in which case the extra nit is a _slight_ complexity) which I never did, anyway. >Personally, I think that deal making and "collusion" is THE aspect of V:TES >that I enjoy. It's what separates it from the kiddy games. Now, all we've >done is put a needless shackle on that aspect. Pity us. It just makes it a bit more challenging. To me, this makes the game more interesting and less simple, thus less like a "kiddy game". That doesn't refute your way of looking at it; it just presents you with a different one. Fred

On Fri, 16 Jun 2000, Merlisk wrote: > And not allowing me to show others my cards so that I can make deals will > stop your collusion scenario how? If I can show my cards to all my friends, they can work out exactly what to do, fact. If they have to discuss it as table-talk, everyone knows what's going on - or can guess, at least - fact. You can still make deals. You just have to learn more about diplomacy and politicing, and how to resolve issues like integrity, trust and honesty. -- James Coupe | PGP Key 0x5D623D5D "I know my ex-boyfriend lies. Oh, he does it every time. It's just his [ quoted text not captured ]

On 16 Jun 2000, Frederick Scott wrote: > It just makes it a bit more challenging. To me, this makes the game more > interesting and less simple, thus less like a "kiddy game". For anyone who doesn't understand why collusion is bad, I suggest they take up "Diplomacy" (the board game set in war-time Europe). There was also a very good article in "The Duelist" by Richard Garfield on the subject of king-making. He invents a very simple game. Give three players each one counter. Now, select one player to start at random. When it is a player's turn, they choose someone to lose a counter. Thus, in this situation, the first player cannot win. He can, however, king-make. Collusion works on the same principle. Rather than people working to win themselves (which is good, because it creates a challenging game), they work to king-make their friend. This is bad. If I turn up to a random tournament in America, no-one knowing who I am, I would hope I have as much chance as everyone else. the fact that I can't turn up with friends who (when they see they are going down) will just hand me all their minions to use (effectively - I just tell him what I want done etc., or something similar) shouldn't make a difference. It should rely on my deck building skill, a little luck (shuffles), and my skill. It shouldn't turn into a "Who can bring the most friends with them to unbalance the tables" contest. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <D01B17FB6AD1C7DD.CF8B867F...@lp.airnews.net>, lor...@yahoo.com (Derek Ray) wrote: > I'll say it again. If you do not PREVENT people from showing their > cards, you remove the ability to bluff. "If you have it, why won't > you show it?" is the question that will be asked, and without the > rule, you have no recourse - you must either show the card or have > your bluff called. Please refute this argument, which nobody else > seems to even be trying to do. Bluffing is vital to politics and > deal-making, because THREATS are vital. Have you ever played a game where players were permitted to show their cards? If you had, then you would realise that you always have a CHOICE about whether or not to show your card. If you choose not to reveal, the other player has no waying of knowing whether you are bluffing or not. However, on some occasions you wish to ensure that another player knows for certain that you aren't bluffing. Usually this is in a situation where a misunderstanding will be suboptimal for both players. It's a shame that an aspect of the game that was capable of serving as quick, clear, unambiguous means of communication between players (if so desired) has to be made more difficult in a game that is already quite complex. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Sat, 17 Jun 2000, Justicar wrote: > Have you ever played a game where players were permitted to show their > cards? Yes. > If you had, then you would realise that you always have a CHOICE > about whether or not to show your card. If you choose not to reveal, the > other player has no waying of knowing whether you are bluffing or not. "Do you have a Sudden Reversal?" "Yes" "Show me" "No" Since you've already told someone - with whom you are intending to co-operate - that you have a card, you have no reason not to show it to them. So showing becomes the de facto standard. It is only for bluffing against an adversary that the not showing them becomes an issue. And the reason why these rules are the way they are is to prevent collusion, the former situation, not the latter. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Sat, 17 Jun 2000 08:02:42 GMT, Justicar <just...@my-deja.com> wrote: >In article ><D01B17FB6AD1C7DD.CF8B867F...@lp.airnews.net>, > lor...@yahoo.com (Derek Ray) wrote: >> I'll say it again. If you do not PREVENT people from showing their >> cards, you remove the ability to bluff. "If you have it, why won't >> you show it?" is the question that will be asked, and without the >> rule, you have no recourse - you must either show the card or have >> your bluff called. Please refute this argument, which nobody else >> seems to even be trying to do. Bluffing is vital to politics and >> deal-making, because THREATS are vital. > >Have you ever played a game where players were permitted to show their >cards? If you had, then you would realise that you always have a CHOICE Yes, I have, actually. >about whether or not to show your card. If you choose not to reveal, the >other player has no waying of knowing whether you are bluffing or not. You're wrong -- you DON'T have a choice. If it is a well-known fact that you CAN reveal your cards, and if revealing cards is commonly used to prove that you're not bluffing, then it immediately becomes the standard. Either you show a card and prove you're not bluffing, or someone assumes you are bluffing and no deal gets made - often to both people's disadvantage. The previous Skin of Steel example is an excellent one. Player A is being rushed cross-table by player B. A says "Don't do that, I'll just prevent your damage and you'll hurt both of us." B says "I think you're lying just to save your vampire. Prove it." A says "Nope. I won't prove it, just trust me." Player B now Rushes, since if A really had the prevent he'd show it in order to save the prevent card - and it's in A's interest to say he has one whether or NOT he does. A's "best course of action" is clearly defined to all by being able to reveal cards, so B can now tell when player A is lying/bluffing simply by when he deviates from that "best course". It becomes a vicious circle, since player A -knows- that by saying "Don't do that" he'll provoke a Rush, so he's more likely to show his cards, making it even more of a standard. >However, on some occasions you wish to ensure that another player knows >for >certain that you aren't bluffing. Usually this is in a situation where a >misunderstanding will be suboptimal for both players. Surety does not belong in a game about manipulation, deal-making, politics, and the seamy side of the World of Darkness. If a misunderstanding would be suboptimal, correct the misunderstanding, don't just show the card. >It's a shame that an aspect of the game that was capable of serving as >quick, clear, unambiguous means of communication between players (if so >desired) has to be made more difficult in a game that is already quite >complex. Nobody ever said the world would be easy. Pokemon is generally quick, clear, and unambiguous - do you think it compares at all to V:TES? [ quoted text not captured ]

> From: James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> > On Fri, 16 Jun 2000, Merlisk wrote: >> And not allowing me to show others my cards so that I can make deals will >> stop your collusion scenario how? > > If I can show my cards to all my friends, they can work out exactly what > to do, fact. If they have to discuss it as table-talk, everyone knows > what's going on - or can guess, at least - fact. > > You can still make deals. You just have to learn more about diplomacy and > politicing, and how to resolve issues like integrity, trust and honesty. > > -- > James Coupe | PGP Key 0x5D623D5D > Actually, using your own collusion scenario, they wouldn't need to show their cards. In fact, they would try to hide the fact they are working together. They would "trust" each other since there's a pre-determined set of objectives. Now, put these conspirators in a tournament. If I'm at a table with two of them, then my only defense is to make deals on my own. However, unlike the conspirators who trust each other, I'm now crippled by a trust issue with people I've never met before. Thus, not having the ability to show cards and prove a non-bluff, rewards the conspirators who will not bluff their friends and hurts the individual players who must be prove to be trustworthy with new people. Of course, I understand the diplomacy issue. However, the ability to show my cards certainly doesn't reduce this issue. Now, the other fellow simply knows that I *could* do such-and-such. I still must convince him that I *will*. Please don't underestimate this. My playgroup (and even at the last Praxis Seizure: Dallas) has been playing this way for years. In no way does having the ability to show cards reduce the excitement and peril of diplomacy. My two cents. [ quoted text not captured ]

> From: James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> > > On 16 Jun 2000, Frederick Scott wrote: >> It just makes it a bit more challenging. To me, this makes the game more >> interesting and less simple, thus less like a "kiddy game". > > For anyone who doesn't understand why collusion is bad, I suggest they > take up "Diplomacy" (the board game set in war-time Europe). There was > also a very good article in "The Duelist" by Richard Garfield on the > subject of king-making. > > He invents a very simple game. Give three players each one counter. Now, > select one player to start at random. When it is a player's turn, they > choose someone to lose a counter. Thus, in this situation, the first > player cannot win. He can, however, king-make. > > Collusion works on the same principle. Rather than people working to win > themselves (which is good, because it creates a challenging game), they > work to king-make their friend. This is bad. If I turn up to a random > tournament in America, no-one knowing who I am, I would hope I have as > much chance as everyone else. the fact that I can't turn up with friends > who (when they see they are going down) will just hand me all their > minions to use (effectively - I just tell him what I want done etc., or > something similar) shouldn't make a difference. It should rely on my deck > building skill, a little luck (shuffles), and my skill. It shouldn't turn > into a "Who can bring the most friends with them to unbalance the > tables" contest. > > -- > James Coupe | PGP Key 0x5D623D5D I can see by your example that I've must have not stated what I meant clearly. What I mean is that not having the ability to show your cards does little to prevent collusion. In fact, as I've stated in another post, it hurts all non-colluders. (Let's pretend that's a word. :) [ quoted text not captured ]

On Sat, 17 Jun 2000, Merlisk wrote: > Actually, using your own collusion scenario, they wouldn't need to show > their cards. In fact, they would try to hide the fact they are working > together. They would "trust" each other since there's a pre-determined set > of objectives. Not necessarily. I've never sat down at a predetermined game before. People have to adapt. > > Now, put these conspirators in a tournament. If I'm at a table with two of > them, then my only defense is to make deals on my own. However, unlike the > conspirators who trust each other, I'm now crippled by a trust issue with > people I've never met before. Conspirators being unabel to exchange information about the cards they have becomes difficult to deal with, eventually. You simply have to deal with the situation based on politicking, diplomacy, thoughtful play, luck (no-one can deny that this does play a role), skill, clever deck building, and so forth. -- James Coupe | PGP Key 0x5D623D5D "I know my ex-boyfriend lies. Oh, he does it every time. It's just his [ quoted text not captured ]

On Sat, 17 Jun 2000, Merlisk wrote: > I can see by your example that I've must have not stated what I meant > clearly. Actually, my response was to Frederick who didn't see why collusion was a bad idea in the first place - so far as I could tell, anyway. [ quoted text not captured ]

James Coupe wrote: > Since you've already told someone - with whom you are intending to > co-operate - that you have a card, you have no reason not to show it to > them. So showing becomes the de facto standard. It is only for bluffing > against an adversary that the not showing them becomes an issue. And the > reason why these rules are the way they are is to prevent collusion, the > former situation, not the latter. you can collude without having to show cards to other people if you want to. It is a little harder to persuade a recalcitrant adversary against a course of action however if you can't show them the card. Talking from seeing what has gone on in games previouslt the worst examples of collusion occurred without players showing their cards to each other - however, at the same time there have been situations in a game where someone has shown a card to an adversary which has improved the overall fun of the game. shawn

> From: James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> [various snipage] > On Sat, 17 Jun 2000, Merlisk wrote: >> Now, put these conspirators in a tournament. If I'm at a table with two of >> them, then my only defense is to make deals on my own. However, unlike the >> conspirators who trust each other, I'm now crippled by a trust issue with >> people I've never met before. > > Conspirators being unabel to exchange information about the cards they > have becomes difficult to deal with, eventually. You simply have to deal > with the situation based on politicking, diplomacy, thoughtful play, luck > (no-one can deny that this does play a role), skill, clever deck building, > and so forth. > > -- > James Coupe | PGP Key 0x5D623D5D > My point exactly! By not being able to show cards, these colluders have the advantage. One simply says, if you do this, I'll do that. And the other guys believes him! On the other hand, I (being one of the non-colluders) do not have that advantage with any other person sitting at the table. I will probably pick up on the pre-determined deal but will have no suitable recourse other than trying to convince another player to help. If the other person says "How do I know that you can even do that?", I reply "trust me." [ + Insert "politicking, diplomacy, thoughtful play, luck (no-one can deny that this does play a role), skill, clever deck building," but non-card showing, action here] Thus, with one "simple" rule change, we've given the colluders an upper hand. Now, that being said, I rarely see this type of behavior, except with someone shows up with a stealth/bleed deck. Somehow, the whole table turns to that person. :) Also, let's be honest. Was not having the rule there a problem? Has the way we've played for years broken? Was there so much card passing in tournament play to justify this rule? How has taking away this function been a "value add" to the game? [These questions aren't really, of course, being directed to you.] -- Merlisk V:EKN Prince of Dallas m.w....@ieee.org ICQ: 22389734 http://merlisk.tripod.com/jyhad/jyhad.html P.S. - My two cents: An exciting, long-lasting game is inversely proportional to the number of rules.

On Sun, 18 Jun 2000, shawn stanley wrote: > you can collude without having to show cards to other people if you want > to. Of course. Making it excessively easy to collude, allowing showing cards to other people, seems a wholly silly thing to do, however. As I've said, there are two separate issues here: 1) Collusion 2) Legitimate deals Since 2) can still occur, and 1) is stamped on (though not out), I believe that the basis for the current rules is sound. Of course, tweaks around the edges are always usable, but I feel that the overall theme of this rule is, in and of itself, good. -- James Coupe | PGP Key 0x5D623D5D "I know my ex-boyfriend lies. Oh, he does it every time. It's just his [ quoted text not captured ]

James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> writes: >On Sat, 17 Jun 2000, Merlisk wrote: >> I can see by your example that I've must have not stated what I meant >> clearly. > >Actually, my response was to Frederick who didn't see why collusion was a >bad idea in the first place - so far as I could tell, anyway. No, it was Merkisk who used those particular words. I just responded to him that (IMHO) the game seems to want to balance between too much and too little collusion. And I can see why, as I think there's dangers to either extreme. I sympathize with your concern about being the stranger playing a tournament amongst a crowd of friends. But there's always going to be that problem to some degree or another as no reasonable rule in Jyhad could ever prevent it. Even if all interaction outside of predator/prey competition was prevented, Joe - who's Sam's predator - could be a deliberately ineffective predator in a covert effort to permit Sam to sweep the table while publicly declaring that he is simply trying to trim back Sam's prey by allowing Sam a free hand to attack. Anyway, Jyhad would be a dull game if you couldn't cooperate against the apparent leader to some degree. I think the only issue here is how easy that is and whether the game is more fun or less fun when a particular tactic is permitted. Fred

Justicar <just...@my-deja.com> writes: >In article ><D01B17FB6AD1C7DD.CF8B867F...@lp.airnews.net>, > lor...@yahoo.com (Derek Ray) wrote: >> I'll say it again. If you do not PREVENT people from showing their >> cards, you remove the ability to bluff. "If you have it, why won't >> you show it?" is the question that will be asked, and without the >> rule, you have no recourse - you must either show the card or have >> your bluff called. Please refute this argument, which nobody else >> seems to even be trying to do. Bluffing is vital to politics and >> deal-making, because THREATS are vital. > >Have you ever played a game where players were permitted to show their >cards? If you had, then you would realise that you always have a CHOICE >about whether or not to show your card. If you choose not to reveal, the >other player has no waying of knowing whether you are bluffing or not. Sure he does. He simply reasons that if you had the card you claimed to have, you'd show it to him since you were permitted to and have every reason to do so. Therefore, he can be fairly confident that you do not have it. That seems plain enough. Derek is completely correct. Permit players to show cards from their hands and it effectively kicks out the foundation out from under the concept of bluffing. Fred

On 18 Jun 2000, Frederick Scott wrote: > Anyway, Jyhad would be a dull game if you couldn't cooperate against the > apparent leader to some degree. You can still do that to any degree you choose. You just don't have the option to prove it in advance. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <8ij3ao$lfj$1...@slb3.atl.mindspring.net>, [ quoted text not captured ] Except if I want him to think that I don't really have the card, when in fact I do. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <8i6o1l$tmm$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, Justicar <just...@my-deja.com> wrote: > In article <394623A1...@white-wolf.com>, > LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > > Justicar wrote: > > > LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > > > > Justicar <just...@my-deja.com> wrote: > > > > > LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > > > > > > Justicar <just...@my-deja.com> wrote: > > > > > > > LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > > > > > > > I also notice that you chose to delete a pair of important > questions > > > > from my post. Please provide your answers to / positions on theseof di > > > > points: > > > > > > > > > > So you advocate being able to look at anyone's hand anytime > you > > > > > > like? (The rules don't say you *can't* do that, either.) > > > > > > > > > > > > And what is it that keeps you from looking at the top (or any > > > > > > other) card of your library? The rules don't say that you > > > > > > *can't* do that, either. > > > > > > > > > > The DCI Universal Penalty Guidelines prevent players from looking at > > > the top card of their deck, and at cards from other players. > > > > Ah, good, then we agree: Tournament rules can specify rules that do > > not explicitly appear in the "base" rules. > > > > The V:EKN Tournament rules specify (explicitly) that a player cannot > > show cards ni her hand or uncontrolled region to another player (or > > other players). > > > > In that case, it would be nice to know why a rule that is currently > considered appropriate for all DCI card games (including their > multiplayer games), and was applicable to VTES up until two weeks ago > has suddenly been overturned. > > Particularly since the ruling has a profound impact on those playgroups > that have been revealing cards as a form plomatic interaction, and > have possibly been doing so for a number of years. > Any chance of getting an official explanation for why it was necessary to change the rule? [ quoted text not captured ]

On Mon, 19 Jun 2000 00:50:59 GMT, Justicar <just...@my-deja.com> wrote: >In article <8ij3ao$lfj$1...@slb3.atl.mindspring.net>, [ quoted text not captured ] This sort of convoluted thinking is a 100% game-loser of an idea. To use the Skin of Steel example, you want him to rush you in order that you can get rid of the Skin of Steel in your hand. WHY WOULD YOU EVER TRY TO ARGUE THAT HE SHOULDN'T RUSH YOU!?@#$ That would be considered "shooting yourself in the foot with an Assault Rifle". Why even bring up that he shouldn't rush you, just so you can "fail" to prove that you have a Skin of Steel and make him Rush you anyway, WHICH HE WAS GOING TO DO IN THE FIRST PLACE?!#@$! All you do by this sort of double-blind cockamamie idea is give yourself a chance to not be Rushed, which is NOT what you want. To do so would be a terrible misplay in this situation! [ quoted text not captured ]

Justicar <just...@my-deja.com> writes: >In article <8ij3ao$lfj$1...@slb3.atl.mindspring.net>, >fre...@netcom.com (Frederick Scott) wrote: > >> Justicar <just...@my-deja.com> writes: >> >> >In article >> ><D01B17FB6AD1C7DD.CF8B867F...@lp.airnews.net>, >> >lor...@yahoo.com (Derek Ray) wrote: >> > >> >> I'll say it again. If you do not PREVENT people from showing their >> >> cards, you remove the ability to bluff. >> > >> >Have you ever played a game where players were permitted to show >> >their cards? If you had, then you would realise that you always have >> >a CHOICE about whether or not to show your card. If you choose not to >> >reveal, the other player has no waying of knowing whether you are >> >bluffing or not. >> >> Sure he does. He simply reasons that if you had the card you claimed >> to have, you'd show it to him since you were permitted to and have every >> reason to do so. Therefore, he can be fairly confident that you do >> not have it. That seems plain enough. > >Except if I want him to think that I don't really have the card, when >in fact I do. It's much quicker, simpler, and far more believable to just never mention card X in the first place. And if he specifically asked if you had card X, you would simply say, "no". Period. Saying, "Yes, it's right here but I refuse to show it to you." is silly. Fred

On Mon, 19 Jun 2000, Justicar wrote: > Except if I want him to think that I don't really have the card, when > in fact I do. Which is doable now, if your manipulation and politicking are up to it. How good is your Poker^w Jyhad face? [ quoted text not captured ]

James Coupe wrote: > > On Sun, 18 Jun 2000, shawn stanley wrote: > > you can collude without having to show cards to other people if you want > > to. > > Of course. Making it excessively easy to collude, allowing showing cards > to other people, seems a wholly silly thing to do, however. > > As I've said, there are two separate issues here: > > 1) Collusion > 2) Legitimate deals > > Since 2) can still occur, and 1) is stamped on (though not out), I believe > that the basis for the current rules is sound. Of course, tweaks around > the edges are always usable, but I feel that the overall theme of this > rule is, in and of itself, good. but thaat's jut the point, I don't believe that 1) is stamped on. It is affected but not to the degree you suggest. And since 2) is harder now I simply believe that the balance is now wrong. I don't see that this discussion will go any further than this however as it is pretty much a question of balance. However if getting rid of collusion is your only argument in favour of this new rule then I would only have to say that a good judge can and should be able to deal with collusion no matter what form it takes - rather than making specific rules to discourage collusion. shawn

Justicar <just...@my-deja.com> wrote: > Justicar <just...@my-deja.com> wrote: > > LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > > > Ah, good, then we agree: Tournament rules can specify rules that do > > > not explicitly appear in the "base" rules. > > > > > > The V:EKN Tournament rules specify (explicitly) that a player cannot > > > show cards ni her hand or uncontrolled region to another player (or > > > other players). > > > > > > > In that case, it would be nice to know why a rule that is currently > > considered appropriate for all DCI card games (including their > > multiplayer games), and was applicable to VTES up until two weeks ago > > has suddenly been overturned. > > > > Particularly since the ruling has a profound impact on those > playgroups > > that have been revealing cards as a form plomatic interaction, and > > have possibly been doing so for a number of years. > > > > Any chance of getting an official explanation for why it was necessary > to change the rule? I do not know why the DCI changed the rules for displaying cards - I'm not sure the DCI ever issued any explanation, sorry. The V:EKN rules do not include DCI addition since it wasn't necessary and didn't add anything to the game and lessened certain social aspects of the game. -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) VTES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and tournament rules: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/ Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy.

In article <8ika4i$h8b$1...@slb7.atl.mindspring.net>, fre...@netcom.com (Frederick Scott) wrote: > > > Justicar <just...@my-deja.com> writes: > > >In article <8ij3ao$lfj$1...@slb3.atl.mindspring.net>, > >fre...@netcom.com (Frederick Scott) wrote: > > > >> Justicar <just...@my-deja.com> writes: > >> > >> >In article > >> ><D01B17FB6AD1C7DD.CF8B867F...@lp.airnews.net>, > >> >lor...@yahoo.com (Derek Ray) wrote: > >> > > >> >> I'll say it again. If you do not PREVENT people from showing their > >> >> cards, you remove the ability to bluff. > >> > > >> >Have you ever played a game where players were permitted to show > >> >their cards? If you had, then you would realise that you always have > >> >a CHOICE about whether or not to show your card. If you choose not to > >> >reveal, the other player has no waying of knowing whether you are > >> >bluffing or not. > >> > >> Sure he does. He simply reasons that if you had the card you claimed > >> to have, you'd show it to him since you were permitted to and have every > >> reason to do so. Therefore, he can be fairly confident that you do > >> not have it. That seems plain enough. > > > >Except if I want him to think that I don't really have the card, when > >in fact I do. > > It's much quicker, simpler, and far more believable to just never mention > card X in the first place. And if he specifically asked if you had card X, > you would simply say, "no". Period. Saying, "Yes, it's right here but I > refuse to show it to you." is silly. > Not really. You say, 'Don't do that, or I'll slap into torpor with my Rotschreck' He says 'Show me.' You say 'No.' I've now created an element of doubt in my opponent's mind about whether I do in fact have the card. If he assumes that I don't the card because I won't show and I put him in torpor, then he'll think twice next time. If he assumes that I do have the card, then I've pulled off a BLUFF. The fact is, just because you can show your cards doesn't mean you have to. Justicar. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <8il5ph$fr1$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, [ quoted text not captured ] Actually, it would appear that the DCI rule was a clarification of whether players would be penalised for revealing their hands, since it was never specifically prevented under the DCI rules. I was wondering why the VEKN rule was added, since it likewise could be considered unnecessary and detrimental to certain social aspects of the game. Justicar. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <FF4A1B099F49E00A.F2950C25...@lp.airnews.net>, lor...@yahoo.com (Derek Ray) wrote: > On Mon, 19 Jun 2000 00:50:59 GMT, Justicar <just...@my-deja.com> > wrote: > > >In article <8ij3ao$lfj$1...@slb3.atl.mindspring.net>, > > fre...@netcom.com (Frederick Scott) wrote: > >> Sure he does. He simply reasons that if you had the card you claimed > >to > >> have, you'd show it to him since you were permitted to and have every > >> reason to do so. Therefore, he can be fairly confident that you do > >not > >> have it. That seems plain enough. > > > >Except if I want him to think that I don't really have the card, when > >in fact I do. > > This sort of convoluted thinking is a 100% game-loser of an idea. To > use the Skin of Steel example, you want him to rush you in order that > you can get rid of the Skin of Steel in your hand. WHY WOULD YOU EVER > TRY TO ARGUE THAT HE SHOULDN'T RUSH YOU!?@#$ That would be considered > "shooting yourself in the foot with an Assault Rifle". Why even bring > up that he shouldn't rush you, just so you can "fail" to prove that > you have a Skin of Steel and make him Rush you anyway, WHICH HE WAS > GOING TO DO IN THE FIRST PLACE?!#@$! > > All you do by this sort of double-blind cockamamie idea is give > yourself a chance to not be Rushed, which is NOT what you want. To do > so would be a terrible misplay in this situation! Look, if you're incapable of understanding why you might want to confuse a player about the contents of your hand, then I suggest you try playing a simpler card game. I really don't understand the relevance of your Skin of Steel argument, since this particular discussion is related to whether or not bluffing is possible in an environment where players are permitted to show cards. Maybe you didn't realise because you snipped out the first half of the discussion, and chose to respond to the rest out of context. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Tue, 20 Jun 2000 01:58:21 GMT, Justicar <just...@my-deja.com> wrote: >Look, if you're incapable of understanding why you might want to >confuse a player about the contents of your hand, then I suggest you >try playing a simpler card game. Look, Rosco, if you're incapable of understanding the finer points of bluffing, I want to play you in poker sometime... preferably for large sums of money. There are only two stances to take - one is to tell someone "no" when you mean "yes", and one is to tell someone "no" when you mean "no". The concept of telling someone "no" in an effort to make them think you're telling them "no" when you mean "yes" but you really mean "no" is Just Plain Stupid(tm). It's the sort of over-convoluted thinking that people like to believe is actually effective, usually because they read too many detective novels. >I really don't understand the relevance of your Skin of Steel argument, Well, it's ONLY the same damned example we've been using all along as to why you would want to be able to show a card to someone. Are you that hopeless as far as your own memory is concerned? Then I recommend dejanews - it'll refresh you a little bit. >since this particular discussion is related to whether or not bluffing >is possible in an environment where players are permitted to show cards. It's not (possible, that is). Read all our posts. Read them closely. Then go back and read the one that this message of yours is a response to. Then you might, MIGHT begin to understand why bluffing is totally impossible if you are permitted to show your cards. >Maybe you didn't realise because you snipped out the first half of the >discussion, and chose to respond to the rest out of context. As if you should talk, since you have so far totally failed to respond to all my posts putting the smack down on your points. However, I did in fact respond to your post in context - I appear to have unfortunately quoted something beyond your limited memory of one week. That's a shame. -- Derek Deafness never kept composers from hearing the music. It only stopped them hearing the distractions.

On Tue, 20 Jun 2000 01:13:48 GMT, Justicar <just...@my-deja.com> wrote: >In article <8ika4i$h8b$1...@slb7.atl.mindspring.net>, > fre...@netcom.com (Frederick Scott) wrote: >> It's much quicker, simpler, and far more believable to just never >mention >> card X in the first place. And if he specifically asked if you had >card X, >> you would simply say, "no". Period. Saying, "Yes, it's right here >but I >> refuse to show it to you." is silly. > >Not really. >You say, 'Don't do that, or I'll slap into torpor with my Rotschreck' >He says 'Show me.' >You say 'No.' At this point, he does it. >I've now created an element of doubt in my opponent's mind about >whether I do in fact have the card. If he assumes that I don't the card No you haven't. If you CAN show cards, the next thing he says is "show me the card, or I'll do it." You must either show him the card, or he does it. Why can't you grasp this? Does nobody you play with have any balls? >because I won't show and I put him in torpor, then he'll think twice >next time. If he assumes that I do have the card, then I've pulled off I doubt it, he'll just try it anyway. Look, it's very simple. As a player, you weigh the options in front of you. If you're not willing to show cards, he just weighs the risk of whether or not you have the Rotschreck to the gain if you DON'T have it - what you *say* is totally, completely, 100% irrelevant. If you ARE willing to show cards, what you say is also irrelevant, since only what you show matters. Are you picking up on it yet that the only way to make what you say relevant is to forbid you to show cards? Then the only way you can convey information is by what you say. [ quoted text not captured ]

Justicar <just...@my-deja.com> wrote: > LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > > I do not know why the DCI changed the rules for displaying cards - > > I'm not sure the DCI ever issued any explanation, sorry. > > > > The V:EKN rules do not include DCI addition since it wasn't > > necessary and didn't add anything to the game and lessened > > certain social aspects of the game. > > Actually, it would appear that the DCI rule was a clarification of > whether players would be penalised for revealing their hands, since it > was never specifically prevented under the DCI rules. We've been over this before. The rules do not "specifically prevent" a lot of things, like grabbing more pool. The rules tell you how the game is played; they're main purpose is not to explain how it is not played. The rules of the game do not allow you to look at the cards in other player's hands. It follows easily from that statement that the DCI rules were an addition. If you feel that the base rules of the game allow a player to display cards in her hand to other players, please explain how they do while simultaneously disallowing a player to show the top card of her library to herself or to other players and how they disallow a player to look at the cards in another player's hand without that player's permission. > I was wondering why the VEKN rule was added, since it likewise could > be considered unnecessary and detrimental to certain social aspects > of the game. The rule was included explicitly in the V:EKN rules since many players assumed that the DCI addendum was part of the base rules set, which it was not. The V:EKN rule is therefore a clarification. -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) VTES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and tournament rules: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/ [ quoted text not captured ]

Justicar <just...@my-deja.com> writes: >In article <8ika4i$h8b$1...@slb7.atl.mindspring.net>, >fre...@netcom.com (Frederick Scott) wrote: >> >> Justicar <just...@my-deja.com> writes: >> >> >In article <8ij3ao$lfj$1...@slb3.atl.mindspring.net>, >> >fre...@netcom.com (Frederick Scott) wrote: >> > >> >> Justicar <just...@my-deja.com> writes: >> >> >> >> >In article >> >> ><D01B17FB6AD1C7DD.CF8B867F...@lp.airnews.net>, >> >> >lor...@yahoo.com (Derek Ray) wrote: >> >> > >> >> >> I'll say it again. If you do not PREVENT people from showing >> >> >> their cards, you remove the ability to bluff. >> >> > >> >> >Have you ever played a game where players were permitted to show >> >> >their cards? If you had, then you would realise that you always >> >> >have a CHOICE about whether or not to show your card. If you choose >> >> >not to reveal, the other player has no waying of knowing whether you >> >> >are bluffing or not. >> >> >> >> Sure he does. He simply reasons that if you had the card you >> >> claimed to have, you'd show it to him since you were permitted to >> >> and have every reason to do so. Therefore, he can be fairly >> >> confident that you do not have it. That seems plain enough. >> > >> >Except if I want him to think that I don't really have the card, when >> >in fact I do. >> >> It's much quicker, simpler, and far more believable to just never >> mention card X in the first place. And if he specifically asked if you >> had card X, you would simply say, "no". Period. Saying, "Yes, it's >> right here but I refuse to show it to you." is silly. > >Not really. >You say, 'Don't do that, or I'll slap into torpor with my Rotschreck' >He says 'Show me.' >You say 'No.' > >I've now created an element of doubt in my opponent's mind about >whether I do in fact have the card. So what? This argument makes no sense whatsoever. You'll create a lot more doubt in your opponent's mind that you have a Rotschreck if you simply never say anything. But this isn't what you're trying to prove - which is why you're confusing everyone. You aren't trying to make your opponent "think you don't have the card when really you do" (as you stated above). You are trying to get him to think you are capable of being slightly irrational, having cards to threaten him with which you will refuse to show him, thus cultivating doubt if you were to bluff in the future. That's fine. For that matter, I suppose you could also just announce before the game that your policy is to never reveal your cards and make good on it. I concede that (put that way) you do not technically remove the element of bluffing by allowing people to reveal threat cards. However, in this kind of scenario, your threats will be taken far less seriously and when you carry them out, you will have to do so needlessly at times - which presumedly is bad. I still say it's pretty clear that bluffing is much more effective if you're not allowed to show your cards. Otherwise, there will always be the element of doubt by your opponents that the instant you _really_ need to threaten them, you'd drop your policy of not revealing your "threat" cards. Fred

In article <8iofqi$nf$1...@slb6.atl.mindspring.net>, [ quoted text not captured ] It appears that we've reached some common ground. Woo hoo! Bluffing is possible in an environment where players are permitted to reveal cards, although it is probably less effective than if card- showing is prevented. On the other hand, convincing players that you absolutely do have a certain card (before you play it) is extremely difficult if you cannot show the card. The issue seems to be which of these two is more beneficial to game play. I would argue that there is much of muchness between the two, simply reflecting different play-styles. However, given that, I don't think that there is the requirement for the addition of a rule that specifies which should be allowed, but rather left to the game default. I'd like to think that the game default is that revealing cards is at the player's discretion, but then that's probably more of an issue for LSJ to discuss. Justicar. [ quoted text not captured ]

Justicar wrote in message <8ip72j$89i$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>... >The issue seems to be which of these two is more beneficial to game >play. I would argue that there is much of muchness between the two, >simply reflecting different play-styles. However, given that, I don't >think that there is the requirement for the addition of a rule that >specifies which should be allowed, but rather left to the game default. > Gotta side with LSJ on this one. Your assuming that the rules have to specifically mention that a particular tactic (revealing cards) must be excluded. Thats A Bad Thing(tm). It'd be funny to play a game like that :-) I can see it now... Monopoly "The rules don't say that I can't rob the bank..." Scrabble "The rules don't say I can't make my own tiles if I need extra letters..." V:TES : "The rules don't say I can't grab five (fifty? five hundred?) pool from the bank while your getting a cup of coffee..." This is the path you're walking, Justicar... OTOH, the rules state that you _do_ reveal a card immediately when you play it. Over here in the Reasonable Rules Interpretation Gamer's Commision, we read rules as defining the exclusive means by which a game mechanic operates. If the book says that you reveal cards when they are played, then that means the rules are saying its the _only_ time you reveal cards. (barring specific card text to the contrary, of course). Any other interpretation of any set of rules usually leads to mandatory shock therapy. :-) Regards, R. David Zopf Atom Weaver V:EKN Prince of Charlotte, NC

In article <8ins51$6o5$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > Justicar <just...@my-deja.com> wrote: > > LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > > > I do not know why the DCI changed the rules for displaying cards - > > > I'm not sure the DCI ever issued any explanation, sorry. > > > > > > The V:EKN rules do not include DCI addition since it wasn't > > > necessary and didn't add anything to the game and lessened > > > certain social aspects of the game. > > > > Actually, it would appear that the DCI rule was a clarification of > > whether players would be penalised for revealing their hands, since it > > was never specifically prevented under the DCI rules. > > We've been over this before. The rules do not "specifically prevent" > a lot of things, like grabbing more pool. The rules tell you how the > game is played; they're main purpose is not to explain how it is not > played. > OK, I think I follow so far. Does it then follow that anything that is not specifically allowed by the rules can be considered to be prohibited? Of course, I assume that refers to things that directly effect the state of play (conversation, breathing, etc are unaffected). > The rules of the game do not allow you to look at the cards in other > player's hands. It follows easily from that statement that the DCI > rules were an addition. > > If you feel that the base rules of the game allow a player to display > cards in her hand to other players, please explain how they do while > simultaneously disallowing a player to show the top card of her > library to herself or to other players and how they disallow a player > to look at the cards in another player's hand without that player's > permission. > The base rules specify (I think) how you should place your library, and when you should draw cards. However, they do not specify how you should position your hand. A literal interpretation of the rules could mean that I could hold my hand so that it faces towards the other players, but that they would not be able to 'look' at it (because of the rules that specify what you can 'look' at). However, I interpreted 'look' to be an active process, that is different to the passive process involved in having a card placed directly in the centre of your field of vision. It might sound a bit strange, but it does seem to be supported by the DCI Universal tournament rules, that prevent 'looking' at other players cards, but allow 'revealing' (i.e., the two processes are different). Cheers, [ quoted text not captured ]

Justicar wrote: >LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > > Justicar <just...@my-deja.com> wrote: > > > Actually, it would appear that the DCI rule was a clarification of > > > whether players would be penalised for revealing their hands, since > it > > > was never specifically prevented under the DCI rules. > > > > We've been over this before. The rules do not "specifically prevent" > > a lot of things, like grabbing more pool. The rules tell you how the > > game is played; they're main purpose is not to explain how it is not > > played. > > OK, I think I follow so far. Does it then follow that anything that is > not specifically allowed by the rules can be considered to be > prohibited? Sure. If it omits something reasonable, please let me know so that it can be corrected. > Of course, I assume that refers to things that directly > [affect] the state of play (conversation, breathing, etc are unaffected). See my previous post on this, or just re-read my paragraph above - it handles your "assumption" just fine. > > The rules of the game do not allow you to look at the cards in other > > player's hands. It follows easily from that statement that the DCI > > rules were an addition. > > > > If you feel that the base rules of the game allow a player to display > > cards in her hand to other players, please explain how they do while > > simultaneously disallowing a player to show the top card of her > > library to herself or to other players and how they disallow a player > > to look at the cards in another player's hand without that player's > > permission. > > > The base rules specify (I think) how you should place your library, and > when you should draw cards. However, they do not specify how you should > position your hand. A literal interpretation of the rules could mean > that I could hold my hand so that it faces towards the other players, > but that they would not be able to 'look' at it (because of the rules > that specify what you can 'look' at). However, I interpreted 'look' to > be an active process, that is different to the passive process involved > in having a card placed directly in the centre of your field of vision. The standard meaning of "hand" in regards to card play handles the positioning quite well, I think. Writing a rulebook that doesn't assume some pre-existing vocabulary on the part of the reader is not possible. If you'd like to take a stab at writing such a rulebook, however, I'll be glad to look it over when you're done. > It might sound a bit strange, but it does seem to be supported by the > DCI Universal tournament rules, that prevent 'looking' at other players > cards, but allow 'revealing' (i.e., the two processes are different). And, since the V:EKN rules don't support it, we can (again) be done with this thread. -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <39520153...@white-wolf.com>, [ quoted text not captured ] hand (hnd) n. Games. The cards held in a card game by a given player at any time. The number of cards dealt each player; the deal. A player or participant in a card game: We need a fourth hand for bridge. A portion or section of a game during which all the cards dealt out are played: a hand of poker. I still don't get it. There doesn't seem to be anything in the definition of 'hand', as it refers to card play, that indicates how the cards should be oriented. As long as you are holding the cards, that seems fulfill the definition of a 'hand'. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <8iu9qs$vgr$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, [ quoted text not captured ] Did I miss something? As far as I can tell, the basic rules of VTES and the standard meaning of "hand" in regards to card play do not preclude showing your cards to other players... [ quoted text not captured ]

> > > > hand (hnd) n. > > Games. > > The cards held in a card game by a given player at any time. > > The number of cards dealt each player; the deal. > > A player or participant in a card game: We need a fourth hand for > > bridge. > > A portion or section of a game during which all the cards dealt out > are > > played: a hand of poker. > > > > I still don't get it. There doesn't seem to be anything in the > > definition of 'hand', as it refers to card play, that indicates how > the > > cards should be oriented. As long as you are holding the cards, that > > seems fulfill the definition of a 'hand'. > > > > Did I miss something? As far as I can tell, the basic rules of VTES and > the standard meaning of "hand" in regards to card play do not preclude > showing your cards to other players... And? What's your point? *sigh* There isn't a rule regarding when to have dinner, yet the vast majority of people have dinner sometime in the evening, not in the morning or at noon? Is it written anywhere? No. Does it prove something. No. So what's the point of your arguments? If you want to show your cards to players in casual play, go ahead if the other players on the table don't mind. In tournaments however, it is simply not allowed. It prevents collusion and as long as all tournaments follow this rule, every player has the same opportunities in dealmaking. Please be generous and let's stop this fruitless argument here. It should have stopped some 100 postings back, but we can lay it to rest *now*. Ok? Thanks. Carl [ quoted text not captured ]

On Mon, 26 Jun 2000, Justicar wrote: > Did I miss something? As far as I can tell, the basic rules of VTES and > the standard meaning of "hand" in regards to card play do not preclude > showing your cards to other players... That's why the tournaments rules were written, to spell out some of the more obvious things that just get argued over in tournamnets. No definition was given of the term "hand" however, hence the definition above, to explain exactly what hand means. -- James Coupe | PGP Key 0x5D623D5D "I know my ex-boyfriend lies. Oh, he does it every time. It's just his permanent disguise, yeah, yeah, but he's drop dead gorgeous."

Justicar <just...@my-deja.com> wrote: > Justicar <just...@my-deja.com> wrote: > > LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > > > Justicar <just...@my-deja.com> wrote: > > > > The base rules [...] do not specify how you should > > > > position your hand. > > > > > > The standard meaning of "hand" in regards to card play handles the > > > positioning quite well, I think. > > > > > > > hand (hnd) n. > > Games. > > The cards held in a card game by a given player at any time. > > I still don't get it. There doesn't seem to be anything in the > > definition of 'hand', [...] > > Did I miss something? As far as I can tell, [...] > the standard meaning of "hand" in regards to card play do not preclude > showing your cards to other players... You are confusing the dictionary definition of "hand" with the standard meaning. You call it "missing something", but I suspect it is merely "playing Devil's Advocate" now. It would be hard to imagine playing a game as complex as V:TES without having some understanding of card games to begin with. For a more elaborate (more complete) explanation of "hand" and what is expected of the player, see, for example, the "General Mechanics of Card Games": http://www.pagat.com/mech.html Excerpt from that page: "all players pick up their cards and hold them in such a way that the faces can be seen by the holder of the cards but not the other players." Or see Scarne or Hoyle's rules of card games and note how penalties for displaying cards are given, even though showing a card is never "defined" as illegal. Devil's Advocate or no, everything that needs to be said (and more) in this thread has been said. Let's move on. -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) VTES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and tournament rules: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/ [ quoted text not captured ]