First of all, I just want to say that my GenCon 2001 trip was an amazing
experience. With as many players as we had at these events I didn't get to play
with most of you but I'm happy to have at least met so many of you. Now we've
finally got some faces to attach to all the acerbic posts. :)
My core playgroup arrived on Wednesday night and met up with many of the other
players from our area for a total of 9 players who were able to make the trip.
We played a couple of pickup games, had a great Italian dinner, and headed back
to the hotel (with a small group of people who wanted to play a little more).
Little did we know that we had stumbled upon the best hotel on the planet. We
ventured into the hotel bar and played a couple of pickup games as we drank. I
think we ended up starting 2 or 3 tables of 5 players each by around 1:00 AM.
After the bar closed they let us play there till about 4:00 AM--a decision they
most likely regretted by the wee morning hours on Sunday.
Thursday evening's newbie friendly tournament was a lot of fun. I did a little
demo and had a couple of guys (Hank and Matt?) who jumped right in for the event
and didn't do too badly. There were lots of new players and everyone had a
blast. I personally played a weenie vote deck that used Bribes and table-talk
as a means to get things passed. Calling Autaurkis Persecutions with Bribes on
them was about as polite a deck as I own and I thought that would be the best
choice to play against new players. I was already off eating and drinking by
the time it was over. I seem to recall hearing it was a obf/dom bleed deck that
won. We all went back to the hotel and played V:TES with the L.A. crowd and a
whole bunch of great guys from all over the country. The 20 of us played till
about 5:00 AM. Alex Harmon and I worked with Daniel Harting to help him tune
his Tor-A deck for the Friday qualifier. My first suggestion was to "ditch all
of those damn flashes" (it'll make sense later).
On Friday, the final NA Qualifier had over 70 players if I'm not mistaken.
Everyone played in the event because they didn't want to play in a tiny side
event. It was a hard call because I (and probably most players) didn't want to
keep someone out of the Championships. However, the lure of tough competition
in the largest No. Amer. tournament ever was too much for any of us to bear. I
am intending to play a Ventrue deck or my Obf./Aus Weenie deck in the
Championships but I've brought a third deck that I am just barely
considering--sorta my distant third option. It was a weenie potence rush deck.
Alright, in the first round my predator was none other than Dan Harting who
quickly wished that I had not talked him into taking out those flashes just 8
hours earlier. With me knowing his entire deck makeup Dan was forced to deal
carefully with me and ended up splitting the table with me getting 3 VPs and him
getting 2 VPs. Daniel eventually went to the finals and got third place,
qualifying for the NA Championships. IIRC, my weenie potence deck beat up a
bunch of vampires and got about 5 VPs. I cannot for the life of me remember a
thing about that final even though I watched most of it. We head back to the
hotel for some pickup games and frozen meals and junk food we got from the
Kwikie Mart across the street. After not getting a single VP in any pickup
games prior to this night, David Tatu donated some Rolling Rock bottles to the
us in hopes of improving his chances (thanks for the beer David). About 25 of
us, including LSJ and his private chauffeur, Matt Heslin, played V:TES till
about 5:00AM. Back in our room we were just plain exhausted and slap happy. We
stayed up a while longer and discussed the meta-game environment for the NA
Champ. event at length and discussed Niki Stewart's deck choice. Alex Harmon
has been winning with IG combat in L.A. quite a bit recently and he was tempting
me to play my potence rush deck that I played in the qualifier the night before.
On Saturday we took signups for the Shadow-Twin Event and the North American
Championships that would run concurrently. Steve Bucy of Los Angeles was the
emcee for the Shadow-Twin event. Steve, the non-championships qualifying and
self-effacing helper to LSJ, kept spirits high among the players by calling them
losers and rubbing salt in their wounds over their failure to qualify. Steve,
by the way, earlier in the day said that he thought I should play the weenie
potence rush deck as well.
I ended-up going with the weenie potence deck in the Championships and I didn't
doubt my decision for long. After a close race in which my prey nearly bled his
prey out first, I was able to get him and Robyn Merrill and eventually 4 VPs.
In the second round I got three more VPs after a really tight game with Jay
Kristoff and Trey Morita. Trey and I worked together in that game and began a
wonderful working relationship that would last a lifetime--or actually maybe
only another 3.9 hours. In the third round I had Niki Stewart as my predator
with a nasty weenie obf deck. The deer rifles scared me a lot with my grapple
deck. I managed to Fame, rinse, and repeat, one of Donovan Brouwer's vamps
enough times to just about oust him. Donovan had had enough and understandably
gave his minions and his last pool to Tatu (his prey). That last kill,
fortunately, managed to keep me out of the Dice With Death(tm) that would soon
ensue.
I'm still processing the final but I'll briefly say that it was long and intense
and a great game to play in. Probably not the best one to watch but it was
really intense from where we were sitting. I didn't know what anybody's deck
did (save Trey's) and I liked Trey in an ally position like in my previous
round. I sat down with Jared as my predator and Stephen as my prey and then Ben
sat as Stephen's prey. The short version of the game was that I didn't allow
Stephen Fazio to have minions and he got assistance from the rest of the table.
Then we had a seating change (which Trey again tried to help me quash) whereby
Stephen would move away and Trey would become my prey. Now the game was
completely locked down. Insert 1 hour of terrifying manueverings and
deal-making that accomplish little except to take years off my life. Jared
Strait had me low on pool but realized also that I could at a minimum take his
vamps with me when we'd fight (he was playing mid to large size Brujah
combaters) so we were deadlocked. However, at one point Trey got a little
over-extended and he seemed to still be thinking that him and I were working
together. I can't say he was mistaken because I was really doing my best to not
harm him--needing also to stay defensive and keep the last of my pool from
Jared's grip. That said, I notice that he transfered himself down to 4 pool. I
had a computer hack and four minions. I could kill him if he didn't have more
than one Forced Awake in his hand. He had been playing them in this and prior
rounds so I wasn't terribly confident of my chances. Frankly, I just asked Trey
if he could help me cycle a combat card (just like we had done many times
before) and he said he couldn't. Armed with my new knowledge I bled Trey out
immediately. It was a cruel thing to do after all the help he had been in this
round but I certainly couldn't pass on the opportunity. I had to get a VP. Not
much changed from there until Stephen Fazio decided to let Ben (my prey) have
all of his pool without putting up a fight. All I can say is that Stephen was
completely crippled by me probably 15 minutes into the game. Having moved to
his new table position (between Ben and Jared) it isn't any wonder that Stephen
didn't find this new home very inviting either. Those of you who've played with
one or both of them can easily imagine why. :) Anyway, Jared and I, having
unfortunately been seated as predator and prey, were now finally on the same
page with respect to the destruction of Ben. However, time was not on our side
and the round timed out with Ben in first, me in second, and Jared in third. A
special congrats to Ben on a great win, to Scott Johnson for judging, and to
Steve Wieck of White Wolf for his personal and professional support of the game.
Ben and I enjoyed reliving the adrenaline filled finals at...where else but, the
bar back at my hotel!!!. This time we had around 30-35 players packed into the
place (pictures will be up at www.vtesinla.org withing a few days--nevermind,
there's links below!!!). We guzzled down a great big bottle of Chivas Regal and
a heck of a lot of beer while we all tried to get in one more game and avoid the
realization that GenCon 2001 was about over. The security guards gave us the
boot at 5:00 AM so we said our goodbyes and were off to bed. It was great to
hang out with all of you guys. See you next year!
-Robert
Robert Goudie
rob...@vtesinla.org
Championships Pictures
http://vtesinla.org/IMAGE002.jpghttp://vtesinla.org/IMAGE003.jpghttp://vtesinla.org/IMAGE004.jpg
Hotel
http://vtesinla.org/IMAGE007.jpghttp://vtesinla.org/IMAGE008.jpghttp://vtesinla.org/IMAGE001.jpg
"Robert Goudie" <rrgo...@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:<QFtb7.1$nb4...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net>...
[snipped actual report]
Thanks for that, was a good report and good reading for those of us who
can't make it to the event :)
I wondered if maybe you could give an indication of who were in some of
those photos? At least those in the foreground if you know them :) It
would be interesting to have faces to go with some of the names from all
the posts I have been reading on here for so many years. :)
Anyway, thanks again >;->
Simidh
Robert,
It is good to see that your Rush deck did as well as it did. It makes a
Jackbooted Thug proud.
What did it finally end up looking like and how did it work mostly? You could
e-mail me if you don't want to post.
Heh heh. I gotta say that "Nah. You won't need all those Flashes" angle was
brilliant. I keep trying that, and it keeps not working :-)
Peter D Bakija
PD...@aol.com
http://www.geocities.com/bakija6
"She's a hero you see.
She's not like us."
-Giles
"Peter D Bakija" <pd...@aol.comANTISPAM> wrote in message
news:20010806131742...@mb-mc.aol.com...
> Robert,
>
> It is good to see that your Rush deck did as well as it did. It makes a
> Jackbooted Thug proud.
>
> What did it finally end up looking like and how did it work mostly? You could
> e-mail me if you don't want to post.
I ended up using the Secret Horde version again and dropped the Effective
Managements that we talked about. In testing the EMs didn't benefit me as much
as we'd hoped. The final version had maybe 3 Secret Horde's, Parthenon, 2 Fame,
a Succubus Club, a DI, and a Sudden. For combat I used probably 18 Bum's Rush
mixed with Ambush. Add another dozen computer hacks (that oftentimes play as
additional rushes), roughly 14 Immortal Grapples, maybe 20 Increased Strenghts,
18 Undead Strength, a couple of Thrown Gates and a Sacrament of Carnage. Oh,
and 2 Rampages and 4 Disarm. There were several little one-shot surprises as
well.
Depending on the timing of my play of the Secret Horde, I put anywhere from 1 to
8 pool on the thing (to be matched by the bank), using the Parthenon to get it
back quickly. (Note: I got 16 counters off of one in the Qualifier!) The lack of
master cards keeps my from jamming in combat. The few long range strikes are to
put away a fixed long range deck like those using Sniper Rifles or Cailean. I
just save up the Increased Strength and hit them hard, diablizerize, and
sacrafice a small vamp. In one round I launched a Sacrament of Carnage for
something like 18 damage. :)
I was in a number of races with people where I had to run them out of Obedience
or something before I could hurt them but I always knew the hurt would come
eventually. In most cases it was simple and there rarely a question how a
combat'd end. Several times I was able to Fame, Rinse, and Repeat a prey's
vamps to and from the torpor region. I can see how you jackbooted thugs can get
into this whole combat thing. The feeling of power is very enticing.
> Heh heh. I gotta say that "Nah. You won't need all those Flashes" angle was
> brilliant. I keep trying that, and it keeps not working :-)
I think it was the right move for him, truthfully--after all, his newly tuned
deck did get him qualified in a 70+ player tournament. Against almost any other
prey he would have been fine, as the following rounds showed. I didn't see any
serious Potence combat until I found Jared in the final.
-Robert
Robert Goudie wrote in message ...
>First of all, I just want to say that my GenCon 2001 trip was an amazing
>experience. With as many players as we had at these events I didn't get to
play
>with most of you but I'm happy to have at least met so many of you. Now
we've
>finally got some faces to attach to all the acerbic posts. :)
I must 100% agree. Great fun. I really enjoyed meeting people and seeing
many I met last year again. It seem the only time I wasn't having much fun
was getting my butt kicked in the 70+ person in the qualifier...
I finished #30.
(snip)
>On Friday, the final NA Qualifier had over 70 players if I'm not mistaken.
>Everyone played in the event because they didn't want to play in a tiny
side
>event. It was a hard call because I (and probably most players) didn't
want to
>keep someone out of the Championships. However, the lure of tough
competition
>in the largest No. Amer. tournament ever was too much for any of us to
bear.
I think it was also due to the lack of set format and sanctioning for the
alternate. Everyone kept asking what the format was and if it was
sanctioned. With the format being a loose "whatever you want" and it not
being sanctioned nobody seemed interested. A few people played in Bernie's
team tournament I believe but everyone else wanted something sanctioned.
Next year we really need someone to put together a firm sanctioned event. I
don't think LSJ had the time to deal with it, especially when the number of
players for the qualifier became apparent. I don't know how he managed a 70
player tournament by himself. It was insanity then next day with the finals
and loser... er... a... I mean "shadow" tournament...
(snip)
>On Saturday we took signups for the Shadow-Twin Event and the North
American
>Championships that would run concurrently. Steve Bucy of Los Angeles was
the
>emcee for the Shadow-Twin event. Steve, the non-championships qualifying
and
>self-effacing helper to LSJ, kept spirits high among the players by calling
them
>losers and rubbing salt in their wounds over their failure to qualify.
Steve,
>by the way, earlier in the day said that he thought I should play the
weenie
>potence rush deck as well.
He he he... Just trying to make light of the situation and enjoy myself. I
had fun with it. It was lots of fun until LSJ asked what moron counted the
cards wrong. That was me of course... Seems my problems with V:TES do not
just concern my play. Seems I can't sign up people without messing it up
too... :-P
(snip)
>I'm still processing the final but I'll briefly say that it was long and
intense
>and a great game to play in.
I watched the entire thing and can confirm the long and intense part. It was
like a train wreck. Terrible, but you just had to watch.
[ quoted text not captured ]
I also had a front row seat for this one. I was shocked when Trey
transferred to 4 pool but I thought you must have had some kind of deal with
him. I figured out you didn't when you asked your sneeky question. Pretty
brutal...
> Not much changed from there until Stephen Fazio decided to let Ben (my
prey) have
>all of his pool without putting up a fight. All I can say is that Stephen
was
>completely crippled by me probably 15 minutes into the game. Having moved
to
>his new table position (between Ben and Jared) it isn't any wonder that
Stephen
>didn't find this new home very inviting either. Those of you who've played
with
>one or both of them can easily imagine why. :)
Fazio seemed to give up after you ousted Trey. He may have had a shot at
Jared with Tatiana and the two smaller vamps all ready. However I think
prefered to pay you back for the beating he took at the start of the game.
He had Tatiana and other minion untapped but declined to block Ben. Several
people said he had some Telephatic Counters and Majesty in his hand when
died. I guess Ben would have likely killed him anyway but in my opinion it
seemed pretty lame to roll over in the Finals of the national championship.
I personally didn't like what I saw Fazio do in the finals of both
tournaments at Gen-con...
>Anyway, Jared and I, having
>unfortunately been seated as predator and prey, were now finally on the
same
>page with respect to the destruction of Ben. However, time was not on our
side
>and the round timed out with Ben in first, me in second, and Jared in
third. A
>special congrats to Ben on a great win, to Scott Johnson for judging, and
to
>Steve Wieck of White Wolf for his personal and professional support of the
game.
LSJ did an incrediable job. After judging a 25 person tournament this year I
was ready to tear my hair out. I don't even want to think of doing a 70
player or two 30+ player tournaments at once.
>Ben and I enjoyed reliving the adrenaline filled finals at...where else
but, the
>bar back at my hotel!!!. This time we had around 30-35 players packed into
the
>place (pictures will be up at www.vtesinla.org withing a few
days--nevermind,
>there's links below!!!). We guzzled down a great big bottle of Chivas
Regal and
>a heck of a lot of beer while we all tried to get in one more game and
avoid the
>realization that GenCon 2001 was about over. The security guards gave us
the
>boot at 5:00 AM so we said our goodbyes and were off to bed. It was great
to
>hang out with all of you guys. See you next year!
Definitely the high light of the trip for me. I laughed myself silly until
being ousted in a game with Tatu, Joe Churchhill, and Niki. Lots of drinking
and tons of fun. I also had my biggest V:TES success of the weekend when I
won a 5 player with the likes of Ethan Burrow, Mike Pearlman, LSJ, and Keith
Thompson with 4 vp. I was most likely due to the Alcohol they had
consumed... :-)
Steve Bucy
--
"The only human commander to survive combat
with the Minbari fleet is behind me. You are in front of me.
If you value your lives be somewhere else!" - Delenn
Check out http://vtesinla.org/ for all V:TES information in Los Angeles
area.
>>On Friday, the final NA Qualifier had over 70 players if I'm not mistaken.
>>Everyone played in the event because they didn't want to play in a tiny>side event. It was a hard call because I (and probably most players) didn't
>want to keep someone out of the Championships. However, the lure of tough
>competition in the largest No. Amer. tournament ever was too much for any
>of us to bear.
Not entirely true. My little Sealed side event included Ben and Trey,
who were gracious enough to step away from the qualifier and
had a great time. Maybe stepping away from the metagame was
better than immersing oneself in it?
As some heard, WotC screwed up twice by not listing my event in
the pre-reg book nor in the On-site booklet. Thank god I managed
to get 12 players together to recoup my cost on product/prizes.
>I think it was also due to the lack of set format and sanctioning for the
>alternate. Everyone kept asking what the format was and if it was
>sanctioned. With the format being a loose "whatever you want" and it not
>being sanctioned nobody seemed interested. A few people played in Bernie's
>team tournament I believe but everyone else wanted something sanctioned.
>Next year we really need someone to put together a firm sanctioned event.
Funny thing about sanctioned events. Why anyone would really care
is beyond me. White-Wolf/VEKN hasn't maintained the ratings on the
website since when?? What does having a VEKN rating do aside
from giving you bragging rights?
While on the discussion of Rated tourneys; I would propose that if there
are any "Novice" tournaments ran again in the future, that they NOT be
rated events. I've no problem with experienced players in such
a format, but by keeping it non-rated "serious" players should
be encouraged to play for "fun". So let's not get all caught up
on ratings, when the goal should be to help out the newbies..
Thems me two coppers..
Bernie
"BernieTime" <berni...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010806172748...@ng-fr1.aol.com...
[clip]
> Funny thing about sanctioned events. Why anyone would really care
> is beyond me. White-Wolf/VEKN hasn't maintained the ratings on the
> website since when??
The ratings are absolutely being maintained and are updated quite often.
> What does having a VEKN rating do aside from giving you bragging rights?
Not a thing. Its just a score on your recent performance in relation to others.
> While on the discussion of Rated tourneys; I would propose that if there
> are any "Novice" tournaments ran again in the future, that they NOT be
> rated events. I've no problem with experienced players in such
> a format, but by keeping it non-rated "serious" players should
> be encouraged to play for "fun". So let's not get all caught up
> on ratings, when the goal should be to help out the newbies..
I agree with you on this completely. I'd prefer to see the event be
non-sanctioned and described in a way that makes it clear that new players are
encouraged to be helped.
However, I think the lure of the "qualifier" was the constructed tournament
format and not necessarily whether or not it was "rated". I just wanted to play
in a standard, brutal, constructed event with tons of competition.
-Robert
>The ratings are absolutely being maintained and are updated quite often.
>>> What does having a VEKN rating do aside from giving you bragging rights?>
>Not a thing. Its just a score on your recent performance in relation to
>others.
All I can tell ya is that my VEKN rating hasn't chanced since Origins.
Not that I really care, but was curious to see where I placed after
dominating for both days.
As I've said before, having the fear and respect of my playgroup
is good enough for me..
Bernie
"BernieTime" <berni...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010806180100...@ng-fr1.aol.com...
> >The ratings are absolutely being maintained and are updated quite often.
> >
> >> What does having a VEKN rating do aside from giving you bragging rights?
> >
> >Not a thing. Its just a score on your recent performance in relation to
> >others.
>
> All I can tell ya is that my VEKN rating hasn't chanced since Origins.
> Not that I really care, but was curious to see where I placed after
> dominating for both days.
My guess would be that Todd is waiting for the results of (a) tournament(s) that
happened before Origins to be reported. A late report can cause all kinds of
problems.
> As I've said before, having the fear and respect of my playgroup
> is good enough for me..
If I had the respect and fear of your playgroup that would probably be good
enough for me as well. :) But, of course, not everyone is made up the same way.
As I said though, I didn't hear anyone say they wanted to play in the qualifier
because of the ratings. I suspect there were other motivations.
-Robert
Robert Goudie wrote in message ...
[ quoted text not captured ]
For the most part you are probably correct. I think people played for many
reasons; competition, prizes, to qualify, for fun, for ratings, etc..
However I do know at least 6 people asked me if it was a sanctioned
tournament. If that many asked me I'm sure it was a factor for many people.
[ quoted text not captured ]
[Simidh wanted captions]
All from the left and facing the camera unless otherwise noted, and
the names I can recall:
> Championships Pictures
> http://vtesinla.org/IMAGE002.jpg
Andy Genz (grey/brown shirt) - Minneapolis, Larry Strait (standing &
pointing) - Detroit?, Lee (seated, lots of black) - Toronto area?,
Mike Nielsen (black shirt, curly hair, extreme foreground) - LA, Mike
Courtois (seated, facing left, baseball hat) - LA, don't know anyone
else.
> http://vtesinla.org/IMAGE003.jpg
(no clue about the guy in blue), Andy Genz (again), Nick Watkins
(seated just in front of --->), LSJ (standing in the background with
the teal shirt & long hair), Larry Strait (again).
> http://vtesinla.org/IMAGE004.jpg
Ben Peal (standing, lots of black) - Boston, Steve Wieck (standing) -
Atlanta presumably, Matt Heslin (seated, white shirt) - Milwaukee,
lots of no clue, David Tatu (standing, with camera) - Atlanta, Dan ?
(seated, facing left, intent on cards) - LA?, Gene Martin (directly
above Dan, facing right, long hair) - LA, Steve Bucy (facing right,
long hair) - LA, more no clue.
> Hotel
> http://vtesinla.org/IMAGE007.jpg
Ben Peal (standing), Dan? (striped shirt) - Boston, Alex ? (Nautica
jacket) - LA, Joe Churchill (white t-shirt, multi-colored intimidation
hat) - Columbia (I think...) , Norm Brown (seated, facing camera) -
Archon of the Swamp :), Jeff "The Lasombra" Thompson (standing), David
Tatue (extreme foreground, facing away), Gene Martin (long hair,
facing camera), me (profile) - Minneapolis, Steve Bucy (facing away),
Paul Johnson (glasses, brown shirt) - LA, 3 not sures.
> http://vtesinla.org/IMAGE008.jpg
Looks like the same, but different angle.
Mike Courtois (extreme left edge, you can see his ear and a little
hair), Joe Churchill, Dan? from Boston, someone in a white tshirt,
Gene Martin, someone else, Robin Merril, part of my head, Paul
Johnson, some guy Dan? from LA (I think), Norm Brown, Alex?, Kevin
Mergen - Madison, Niki Stewart.
> http://vtesinla.org/IMAGE001.jpg
Alex?, Robin, Dan? (why can't I remember his name?), Mike Courtois (in
the extreme rear, baseball hat), the back of Ben's head, Kevin Mergen,
Gene Martin, Steve Bucy, me, Paul Johnson.
HTH. Heh.
Xian, hoping to make more of these events...
>>I ended up using the Secret Horde version again and dropped the Effective
Managements that we talked about. In testing the EMs didn't benefit me as much
as we'd hoped. The final version had maybe 3 Secret Horde's, Parthenon, 2
Fame,
a Succubus Club, a DI, and a Sudden. For combat I used probably 18 Bum's Rush
mixed with Ambush. Add another dozen computer hacks (that oftentimes play as
additional rushes), roughly 14 Immortal Grapples, maybe 20 Increased Strenghts,
18 Undead Strength, a couple of Thrown Gates and a Sacrament of Carnage. Oh,
and 2 Rampages and 4 Disarm. There were several little one-shot surprises as
well.>>
Sounds super solid. I really like tha Secret Horde/Parthenon angle. The
Succubus Club looks like a new addition. Did it work out?
>>Depending on the timing of my play of the Secret Horde, I put anywhere from 1
to 8 pool on the thing (to be matched by the bank), using the Parthenon to get
it
back quickly. (Note: I got 16 counters off of one in the Qualifier!) The lack
of
master cards keeps my from jamming in combat. The few long range strikes are
to
put away a fixed long range deck like those using Sniper Rifles or Cailean. I
just save up the Increased Strength and hit them hard, diablizerize, and
sacrafice a small vamp. In one round I launched a Sacrament of Carnage for
something like 18 damage. :)>>
Heh heh. That is pretty solid. Was your crypt, like, Agatha, Dunn, Hugo,
Hector, and then lots of 2's?
>>I was in a number of races with people where I had to run them out of
Obedience
or something before I could hurt them but I always knew the hurt would come
eventually. In most cases it was simple and there rarely a question how a
combat'd end. Several times I was able to Fame, Rinse, and Repeat a prey's
vamps to and from the torpor region. I can see how you jackbooted thugs can
get
into this whole combat thing. The feeling of power is very enticing.>>
Oh, it's a great time, the Rush deck. You get to giveth and taketh away like
mad. A funny angle that Noal was using was a few Pulled Fangs to go with the
Fames--you Fame them, torporize them, and pull their fangs, and then pull them
out of torpor, but just leave them there--they dive into torpor on their next
turn (barring a Hunting Ground or surprise Blood Doll) and it saves you an
action.
>>I think it was the right move for him, truthfully--after all, his newly tuned
deck did get him qualified in a 70+ player tournament. Against almost any
other
prey he would have been fine, as the following rounds showed. I didn't see any
serious Potence combat until I found Jared in the final.>>
Seems likely. The combat defense angle that is most efective (certainly in a
large tournament), I have found is simply to hope they don't have
blasters--build your deck assuming you won't run into any Rush decks, assume
that if you do, you'll be killed, but that you'll do really well in any other
situation. If you sit next to a Rush deck, you die, but have 2 other rounds to
sweep in.
[ quoted text not captured ]
Hi,
I'm the guy in the striped shirt in these pix. My name is Matt, not
Dan. I'm from Wellesley, MA, though Boston is a fair approximation.
For those of you who played in the continental championships, I was
the guy wearing the Exorcist "puke" shirt during the tournament.
Just wanted to say what a good time I had playing in the intro
tournament, Bernie's Clan War tournament, the Continental
championships, and all those pickup games we had back at the hotel.
Met lots of people, played lots of good, fierce vtes games. Hope to
play with you guys again some time(maybe next year :) )
happy bleeding,
Matt Hirsch
(who got a respectable 4 VP in the continental championship prelims :)
)
Xian <xi...@NOSPAMwaste.org> wrote
> [Simidh wanted captions][ quoted text not captured ]
Bernietime wrote:
>All I can tell ya is that my VEKN rating hasn't chanced since Origins
The results from Origins were posted last Tuesday. They can be found at
www.white-wolf.com/vtes
enjoy,
Jay
> We all went back to the hotel and played V:TES with the L.A. crowd and a
> whole bunch of great guys from all over the country. The 20 of us played till
> about 5:00 AM. Alex Harmon and I worked with Daniel Harting to help him tune
> his Tor-A deck for the Friday qualifier. My first suggestion was to "ditch > all of those damn flashes" (it'll make sense later).
Dan gave me the best advice to pay Robert back for this comment during
the Championship!
> about 5:00AM. Back in our room we were just plain exhausted and slap happy. > We stayed up a while longer and discussed the meta-game environment for the NA
> Champ. event at length and discussed Niki Stewart's deck choice.
I was stuck with deciding between a Auspex Gun deck or a
weenie-computer-hack-stealth bleed-disguised-deer rifle deck. I chose
the later based on the comment that Robert made which was something
like "If you have 2 maneuvers, you will shut down my potence
deck"(referring, of course, to the deer rifles). Robert sat as my prey
in the 3rd round of the Championship. Dan Harting walked by and told
me to remind and thank Robert for his assistance and advice about the
deer rifles. (Payback for the removal of his Flashes I suppose!)
I am now a big advocate of deer rifles. They saved my little vamps
from both Ethan Burrow and Robert Goudie's potence rush!
> In the third round I had Niki Stewart as my predator
> with a nasty weenie obf deck. The deer rifles scared me a lot with my grapple
> deck. I managed to Fame, rinse, and repeat, one of Donovan Brouwer's vamps
> enough times to just about oust him. Donovan had had enough and understandably gave his minions and his last pool to Tatu (his prey). That last kill, fortunately, managed to keep me out of the Dice With Death(tm) that would soon ensue.
>
Damn Succubus Club! :) Tatu's brilliant Parity Shift and then
Anarchist Uprising to oust both my predator and prey was wonderful
though....
> A special congrats to Ben on a great win, to Scott Johnson for judging, and to
> Steve Wieck of White Wolf for his personal and professional support
of the game. Ben and I enjoyed reliving the adrenaline filled finals
at...where else but, the bar back at my hotel!!!. This time we had
around 30-35 players packed into the place (pictures will be up at
www.vtesinla.org withing a few days--nevermind, there's links
below!!!). We guzzled down a great big bottle of Chivas Regal and a
heck of a lot of beer while we all tried to get in one more game and
avoid the realization that GenCon 2001 was about over. The security
guards gave us the boot at 5:00 AM so we said our goodbyes and were
off to bed. It was great to hang out with all of you guys. See you
next year!
Bar time was a blast. So were all the pick-up games and the tourneys.
It was wonderful meeting everyone and being able to put faces with
names. Thanks for making me laugh! I will try to not have a cracked
rib next year so laughing doesn't hurt so much! :) See you all next
year (Or at Gamex in LA in September!)
Niki
"Xian" <xi...@NOSPAMwaste.org> wrote in message news:<vzGb7.1465$gt4.2...@news.uswest.net>...
> [Simidh receives well detailed captions]
>
That must have taken quite some time to type, but really appreciate
the effort you took with the captions.
Thank you kindly, sir >;->
(now i just want to actually get over there one of these days)
Firstly though, I suspect it is time that I got in contact with
Salem over in Canberra and see if I can prompt my local prince to
actually get a national tournament going here in Australia. That
way we might get to take part in some sort of International
tournament.
>;->
Hmm, might be time to contend for princehood in my city again...
Anyway, that aside, thanks for the captions, these and the detailed
reports make it almost as good as being there 8-)
Simidh
"Peter D Bakija" <pd...@aol.comANTISPAM> wrote in message
news:20010806220711...@ng-fq1.aol.com...
> >>I ended up using the Secret Horde version again and dropped the Effective
> Managements that we talked about. In testing the EMs didn't benefit me as much
> as we'd hoped. The final version had maybe 3 Secret Horde's, Parthenon, 2
> Fame,
> a Succubus Club, a DI, and a Sudden. For combat I used probably 18 Bum's Rush
> mixed with Ambush. Add another dozen computer hacks (that oftentimes play as
> additional rushes), roughly 14 Immortal Grapples, maybe 20 Increased
Strenghts,
> 18 Undead Strength, a couple of Thrown Gates and a Sacrament of Carnage. Oh,
> and 2 Rampages and 4 Disarm. There were several little one-shot surprises as
> well.>>
>
> Sounds super solid. I really like tha Secret Horde/Parthenon angle.
Never glutted on Master Cards, that's for sure.
> The Succubus Club looks like a new addition. Did it work out?
Yes. I contested it as a defensive move. I rampaged 2 others. On Friday night
I borrowed a bunch of minions and bleed cards as part of a deal. In the
championships, I died with it in my hand. Another turn and I'd have been
borrowing Jared's vamps to bleed Ben for 6 instead of 4.
> >>Depending on the timing of my play of the Secret Horde, I put anywhere from
1
> to 8 pool on the thing (to be matched by the bank), using the Parthenon to get
> it back quickly. (Note: I got 16 counters off of one in the Qualifier!) The
lack
> of master cards keeps my from jamming in combat. The few long range strikes
> are to put away a fixed long range deck like those using Sniper Rifles or
Cailean. I
> just save up the Increased Strength and hit them hard, diablizerize, and
> sacrafice a small vamp. In one round I launched a Sacrament of Carnage for
> something like 18 damage. :)>>
>
> Heh heh. That is pretty solid. Was your crypt, like, Agatha, Dunn, Hugo,
> Hector, and then lots of 2's?
Exactly. Dunn was the only 4 cap prior to the Saturday. I added Agatha in the
morning. I also use all of the ones with the serious drawbacks. Rather than
use the Effective Managements, I went with the Info Hwy. With 6 xfrs I can
bring one from my crypt and usually get it out in one turn.
> Oh, it's a great time, the Rush deck. You get to giveth and taketh away like
> mad. A funny angle that Noal was using was a few Pulled Fangs to go with the
> Fames--you Fame them, torporize them, and pull their fangs, and then pull them
> out of torpor, but just leave them there--they dive into torpor on their next
> turn (barring a Hunting Ground or surprise Blood Doll) and it saves you an
> action.
That's really nice. It may get added in. Thanks Noal.
-Robert
You're actually POSTING to the GROUP? =) Scary. =)
On 6 Aug 2001 23:16:51 -0700, nikist...@yahoo.com (Niki Stewart)
wrote:
>> about 5:00AM. Back in our room we were just plain exhausted and slap happy. > We stayed up a while longer and discussed the meta-game environment for the NA
>> Champ. event at length and discussed Niki Stewart's deck choice.>
>I was stuck with deciding between a Auspex Gun deck or a
>weenie-computer-hack-stealth bleed-disguised-deer rifle deck. I chose
>the later based on the comment that Robert made which was something
>like "If you have 2 maneuvers, you will shut down my potence
>deck"(referring, of course, to the deer rifles). Robert sat as my prey
>in the 3rd round of the Championship. Dan Harting walked by and told
>me to remind and thank Robert for his assistance and advice about the
>deer rifles. (Payback for the removal of his Flashes I suppose!)
>
>I am now a big advocate of deer rifles. They saved my little vamps
>from both Ethan Burrow and Robert Goudie's potence rush!
now you just need to put some presses, ammo cards, and Haven Uncovereds
in the deck... =)
>> In the third round I had Niki Stewart as my predator
>> with a nasty weenie obf deck. The deer rifles scared me a lot with my grapple
>> deck. I managed to Fame, rinse, and repeat, one of Donovan Brouwer's vamps
>> enough times to just about oust him. Donovan had had enough and understandably gave his minions and his last pool to Tatu (his prey). That last kill, fortunately, managed to keep me out of the Dice With Death(tm) that would soon ensue.
>>>Damn Succubus Club! :) Tatu's brilliant Parity Shift and then
>Anarchist Uprising to oust both my predator and prey was wonderful
>though....
Let me guess. Someone listened to something Tatu was saying again,
didn't they? =) Hint: Never let Tatu talk. Just put a big cork in
his mouth... your game will run much more smoothly, and you won't ever
be on the wrong end of any pesky Jedi Mind Tricks. =)
>Bar time was a blast. So were all the pick-up games and the tourneys.
>It was wonderful meeting everyone and being able to put faces with
>names. Thanks for making me laugh! I will try to not have a cracked
>rib next year so laughing doesn't hurt so much! :) See you all next
>year (Or at Gamex in LA in September!)
DragonCon is THIS way, in August. ;)
-- Derek
"Nice girl, but about as sharp as a sack of wet mice." - F. Leghorn
"Robert Goudie" <rrgo...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:WdEb7.1433$nb4.1...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> However, I think the lure of the "qualifier" was the constructed
tournament
> format and not necessarily whether or not it was "rated". I just wanted to
play
> in a standard, brutal, constructed event with tons of competition.
>
Robert,
In your best estimation, how many of the top ten slots of that last
"meatgrinder" qualifer were taken up by people already qualified for the NA
Championships... ie how many non-qualified people were denied entry into the
NA championships by pre-qualified people playing in the final qualifier?
I ask this because, in Magic, pre-qualified players are allowed to play in
the big Qualifier events (like Grand Prix's). However, if any pre-qualified
people make top eight (ie qualify) those invites trickle down to the next
unqualified person.
So, lets say that four pre-qualfied people made top 10 on Friday. Those 4
qualifier slots would then scoot down to the 11th place and beyond, until
the four slots were filled by unqualified people.
Could VEKN adopt that? This way you pre-qualified folks get your "standard,
brutal, constructed event with tons of competition" without denying that guy
who places 11th in a 70 person qualifier who drove 500 miles to try and
qualify.
What do ya think?
Matt
Matt Latham wrote:
>
> "Robert Goudie" <rrgo...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:WdEb7.1433$nb4.1...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
>
> > However, I think the lure of the "qualifier" was the constructed
> tournament
> > format and not necessarily whether or not it was "rated". I just wanted to
> play
> > in a standard, brutal, constructed event with tons of competition.
> >
>
> Robert,
>
> In your best estimation, how many of the top ten slots of that last
> "meatgrinder" qualifer were taken up by people already qualified for the NA
> Championships...
As my estimation will be better than Robert's, I'll field that one:
Three.
> ie how many non-qualified people were denied entry into the
> NA championships by pre-qualified people playing in the final qualifier?
Or, conversely, how many players in the original qualifiers were denied
entry because the qualifiers at their events would've qualified anyway
(at the final qualifier) - that is, which set of 'just missed' players
do you want to include - and why does that set get priority over the
other set?
> I ask this because, in Magic, pre-qualified players are allowed to play in
> the big Qualifier events (like Grand Prix's). However, if any pre-qualified
> people make top eight (ie qualify) those invites trickle down to the next
> unqualified person.
>
> So, lets say that four pre-qualfied people made top 10 on Friday. Those 4
> qualifier slots would then scoot down to the 11th place and beyond, until
> the four slots were filled by unqualified people.
>
> Could VEKN adopt that? This way you pre-qualified folks get your "standard,
> brutal, constructed event with tons of competition" without denying that guy
> who places 11th in a 70 person qualifier who drove 500 miles to try and
> qualify.
The current method seems most fair (see the set argument above).
The only argument against it with merit is the idea that someone
with no stake in the event (someone already qualified) would be
more likely to play "kingmaker". If that argument is used, however,
the solution is to ban qualified players from the reminaing
qualifiers (making the later qualifiers a bit easier than the
eralier ones as some strong players will be excluded). Given the
rate of growth of the game, that may be what happens next year.
--
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/
Matt Latham wrote in message <9kopmh$s9v$1...@nntp1-cm.news.eni.net>...
[ quoted text not captured ]
This is a great idea. It eliminates the dumb argument about the competition
being easier if you prevented qualified people from playing and yet still
gives more people a chance to qualify. This change really needs to be
implemented.
[ quoted text not captured ]
> > ie how many non-qualified people were denied entry into the
> > NA championships by pre-qualified people playing in the final qualifier?
>
> Or, conversely, how many players in the original qualifiers were denied
> entry because the qualifiers at their events would've qualified anyway
> (at the final qualifier) - that is, which set of 'just missed' players
> do you want to include - and why does that set get priority over the
> other set?
>
I want to provide priority to those who come and make the Premiere Event a
Premiere Event i.e. those who attend the Meatgrinder Final Qualifier at
Gen-Con should get, as you put it, priority.
Why I chose this is simple... its the last qualifier. People who attended
the Midwest qualifier, for example, and "just missed" have this last
opportunity to not "just miss". The logic does not work in reverse.
I believe the purpose of the game is to be entertaining, so my plan provides
for more people to be entertained by playing Jyhad at the NA Qualifier
level, while at the same time promoting the game and making the organizers
seem "magnanimous to the masses" so to speak.
But based on your tone I forsee no chance to change your mindset on this
matter via debate. I just wanted to suggest an alternate ideaset.
Matt
Matt Latham wrote:
> But based on your tone I forsee no chance to change your mindset on this
> matter via debate. I just wanted to suggest an alternate ideaset.
My tone aside, the content of my previous post indicated that this
would probably be changed for next year.
[ quoted text not captured ]
"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message
news:3B701D27...@white-wolf.com...
> Matt Latham wrote:
> > But based on your tone I forsee no chance to change your mindset on this
> > matter via debate. I just wanted to suggest an alternate ideaset.
>
> My tone aside, the content of my previous post indicated that this
> would probably be changed for next year.
>
Actually, this is what you posted...
Quoth LSJ
The current method seems most fair (see the set argument above).The only
argument against it with merit is the idea that someone with no stake in the
event (someone already qualified) would bemore likely to play "kingmaker".
If that argument is used, however, the solution is to ban qualified players
from the reminaing qualifiers (making the later qualifiers a bit easier than
the eralier ones as some strong players will be excluded). Given the rate of
growth of the game, that may be what happens next year.
End Quoth:
The first thing to note is your complete belief that no argument I could
frame to support my idea can have merit, since you acknowledge there is only
one argument with merit. No one likes to be dismissed, especially by a
representative of a corporation who I thought wanted my business. Not every
idea brought to you is going to have merit, true. But to tell someone,
before they have even presented the argument, that no argument they could
make could have merit is not a very good corporate stance to make, in my
opinion.
This is why, although you say, "my tone aside", your tone is critical to the
discussion.
And when did "may" become "probably"? They are different words that imply
different things. "May" to me implys a 50-50 prospect. "Probably" is more
80-20, and there is quite a bit of difference in these percentages.
Again, the interpretation of the words may differ, and if the bulk of the
readership equates may with probably, then I concede the point with
apologies.
I still believe my solution allows everyone something... the pre-quals get
to play in a big tourney without ruining the chances of other non-qualified
people, and the non-quals get a tourney with the same high level of
competition as the other qualifiers (in fact a potentially higher one since
ALL the pre-quals will be at the con and could be in the tourney.)
But you have your solution that may or probably be enacted. I hope it works
the way you want it to.
Matt
Matt Latham wrote:
>
> "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message
> news:3B701D27...@white-wolf.com...
> > Matt Latham wrote:
> > > But based on your tone I forsee no chance to change your mindset on this
> > > matter via debate. I just wanted to suggest an alternate ideaset.
> >
> > My tone aside, the content of my previous post indicated that this
> > would probably be changed for next year.
> >
>
> Actually, this is what you posted...> > Given the rate of> > growth of the game, that may be what happens next year.
>> The first thing to note is your complete belief that no argument I could
> frame to support my idea can have merit, since you acknowledge there is only
> one argument with merit. No one likes to be dismissed, especially by a
> representative of a corporation who I thought wanted my business. Not every
> idea brought to you is going to have merit, true. But to tell someone,
> before they have even presented the argument, that no argument they could
> make could have merit is not a very good corporate stance to make, in my
> opinion.
No need to get defensive.
I corrected Derek's math earlier.
It is my position that no argument with any merit will support any other
basis for the "win probability" of the specified game.
Similarly here, the number of things to be considered is sufficiently
small so that my position is, after considering all the possibilities,
the one described.
> And when did "may" become "probably"? They are different words that imply
> different things. "May" to me implys a 50-50 prospect. "Probably" is more
> 80-20, and there is quite a bit of difference in these percentages.
Shortly after you converted it to "no chance", if I've followed this thread
correctly. :-)
> I still believe my solution allows everyone something... the pre-quals get
> to play in a big tourney without ruining the chances of other non-qualified
> people, and the non-quals get a tourney with the same high level of
> competition as the other qualifiers (in fact a potentially higher one since
> ALL the pre-quals will be at the con and could be in the tourney.)
This point I addressed in this thread already.
If you have a counter-point to it, I'm happy to consider it.
[ quoted text not captured ]
Matt Latham wrote:
> And when did "may" become "probably"? They are different words that imply
> different things. "May" to me implys a 50-50 prospect. "Probably" is more
> 80-20, and there is quite a bit of difference in these percentages.
Sorry I missed this in my last reply.
While "may" doesn't imply "probably", it also does not imply "50%".
I "may" watch TV tonight.
I "may" go to a movie.
I "may" read the newsgroup tomorrow.
Or I "may" quit my job.
"May" means that the chance is greater than zero. That is all.
"probably" means that the chance is greater than 50%.
[ quoted text not captured ]
"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message
news:3B70395E...@white-wolf.com...
> While "may" doesn't imply "probably", it also does not imply "50%".
I acknowledge the above statement has having strong merit. It does support
my overall argument, however.
I'll mention the other points in the other post.
Matt
Here's Ben Peal's Championship-winning deck. Other final-round players' decks
will be posted as follow-ups to this message.
Deck: Short Leash Bleed 4.0
1 Zebulon
1 Ozmo
1 Gilbert Duane
1 Mariel, Lady Thunder
1 Didi Meyers
1 Roland Bishop
1 Normal
1 Regilio, The Seeker of Akhenaten
1 Count Ormonde
1 Gratiano
1 Badr al-Budur
1 Reverend Blackwood
1 Asylum Hunting Ground
2 Malkavian Rider Clause
2 Dramatic Upheaval
1 Muddled Vampire Hunter
3 Blood Doll
2 Barrens, The
2 KRCG News Radio
2 London Evening Star
2 Rumor Mill, The
2 Minion Tap
4 Sudden Reversal
8 Bonding
10 Govern the Unaligned
1 Revelations
9 Change of Target
2 Eagle's Sight
2 Spirit's Touch
2 Enhanced Senses
4 Spying Mission
4 Swallowed by the Night
4 Lost in Crowds
3 Faceless Night
4 Elder Impersonation
10 Deflection
4 Obedience
[ quoted text not captured ]
Here's Robert Goudie's second-place-in-the-NAC deck:
Deck: Torpor Machine
1 Christofero Givanni
1 Koko
1 Lupo
1 Mitchell, The Headhunter
1 Duck
1 Raziya Samater
1 Dre, Leader of the Cold Dawn
1 Tommy
1 Jimmy Dunn
2 Paul DiCarlo, The Alpha
1 Mario Giovanni
1 Hasina Kesi
1 Jacob Bragg
1 Agatha
1 Fear of Mehket
3 Secret Horde
2 Potence
2 Fame
2 Parthenon
1 Succubus Club
1 Information Highway
1 Direct Intervention
1 Sudden Reveral
15 Increased Strength
12 Undead Strength
12 Immortal Grapple
11 Bum's Rush
10 Computer Hacking
4 Disarm
3 Pushing the Limit
3 Thrown Gate
2 Ambush
2 Rampage
1 Hand of Conrad
1 Sacrament of Carnage
[ quoted text not captured ]
"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message
news:3B703740...@white-wolf.com...
> Matt Latham wrote:
> >
> > "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message
> > news:3B701D27...@white-wolf.com...
> > > Matt Latham wrote:
> > > > But based on your tone I forsee no chance to change your mindset on
this
> > > > matter via debate. I just wanted to suggest an alternate ideaset.
> > >
> > > My tone aside, the content of my previous post indicated that this
> > > would probably be changed for next year.
> > >
> >
> > Actually, this is what you posted...
>
> > > Given the rate of
> > > growth of the game, that may be what happens next year.
Way to snip the part in which you tell me that no point I could have would
have merit... clever use of snipping.
> > The first thing to note is your complete belief that no argument I could
> > frame to support my idea can have merit, since you acknowledge there is
only
> > one argument with merit. No one likes to be dismissed, especially by a
> > representative of a corporation who I thought wanted my business. Not
every
> > idea brought to you is going to have merit, true. But to tell someone,
> > before they have even presented the argument, that no argument they
could
> > make could have merit is not a very good corporate stance to make, in my
> > opinion.
>
> No need to get defensive.
> I corrected Derek's math earlier.
> It is my position that no argument with any merit will support any other
> basis for the "win probability" of the specified game.
> Similarly here, the number of things to be considered is sufficiently
> small so that my position is, after considering all the possibilities,
> the one described.
So therefore there is no chance that I may have had a perspective that did
not fall into your "all the possibilities". Man, I've got to get on whatever
Omniscience train you ride on.
> > And when did "may" become "probably"? They are different words that
imply
> > different things. "May" to me implys a 50-50 prospect. "Probably" is
more
> > 80-20, and there is quite a bit of difference in these percentages.
>
> Shortly after you converted it to "no chance", if I've followed this
thread
> correctly. :-)
You did not. What I said was that there is no chance, based on the rather
self-righteous tone of the first posting, that you would give MY solution
(the trickle down of invites) a fair listen because you had decided that
either the way you did the tournament (top 10 get invites, even if they had
them already) or your "may enact" solution (barring pre-quals from competing
in further qualifiers) were the only solutions with merit.
> > I still believe my solution allows everyone something... the pre-quals
get
> > to play in a big tourney without ruining the chances of other
non-qualified
> > people, and the non-quals get a tourney with the same high level of
> > competition as the other qualifiers (in fact a potentially higher one
since
> > ALL the pre-quals will be at the con and could be in the tourney.)
>
> This point I addressed in this thread already.
> If you have a counter-point to it, I'm happy to consider it.
>
I did provide counterpoint. You just chose to ignore it. I'll re-state it
for convienence.
The Gen-con qualifier was the last chance to qualify. It is the signature
event (Both Gen-Con and the NA Championships) on this continent for Gaming
and VTES. What makes it the signature event is the large amount of dedicated
people who pack up and travel to it.
You can justify the trickle-down invite theory for this last qualifier based
on the fact that it IS the signature event and that it IS the last chance to
qualify. It can HAVE special rules all its own, as long as those rules are
thrown out there in advance and published in the same press-releases as the
original announcement of the NA Championships and qualifiers.
This nets you a lot of gain, and it is my belief that it will garner more
good will than ill will. I cannot prove this because it hasn't even been
tried yet, but you can't prove it will garner more ill-will either.
I think that even if you don't agree with the above logic, the above logic
does have merit. You've already said that no argument I could make would
have merit.
Did I change your mind?
Matt
White-Wolf Customer
Matt Latham wrote:
>
> "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message
> news:3B703740...@white-wolf.com...
> > Matt Latham wrote:
> > >
> > > "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message
> > > news:3B701D27...@white-wolf.com...
> > > > Matt Latham wrote:
> > > > > But based on your tone I forsee no chance to change your mindset on
> this
> > > > > matter via debate. I just wanted to suggest an alternate ideaset.
> > > >
> > > > My tone aside, the content of my previous post indicated that this
> > > > would probably be changed for next year.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Actually, this is what you posted...
> >
> > > > Given the rate of
> > > > growth of the game, that may be what happens next year.
>
> Way to snip the part in which you tell me that no point I could have would
> have merit... clever use of snipping.
Thanks.
When replying, it is appropriate to snip the quote to the section of the
post being replied to.
I did not do this to obscure the other topic. In fact, later in the same
post (see below), I reaffirmed my position, removing the need to retain
the excess quoted material above. If this application of netiquette offends
you, you have my apologies.
> > > The first thing to note is your complete belief that no argument I could
> > > frame to support my idea can have merit, since you acknowledge there is
> only
> > > one argument with merit. No one likes to be dismissed, especially by a
> > > representative of a corporation who I thought wanted my business. Not
> every
> > > idea brought to you is going to have merit, true. But to tell someone,
> > > before they have even presented the argument, that no argument they
> could
> > > make could have merit is not a very good corporate stance to make, in my
> > > opinion.
> >
> > No need to get defensive.
> > I corrected Derek's math earlier.
> > It is my position that no argument with any merit will support any other
> > basis for the "win probability" of the specified game.
> > Similarly here, the number of things to be considered is sufficiently
> > small so that my position is, after considering all the possibilities,
> > the one described.
>
> So therefore there is no chance that I may have had a perspective that did
> not fall into your "all the possibilities". Man, I've got to get on whatever
> Omniscience train you ride on.
As I said, the number of cases to be considered is very small:
Include qualifiers...
Who can "requalify"
Who cannot "requalify".
Exclude qualifiers.
Welcome aboard.
> > > And when did "may" become "probably"? They are different words that
> imply
> > > different things. "May" to me implys a 50-50 prospect. "Probably" is
> more
> > > 80-20, and there is quite a bit of difference in these percentages.
> >
> > Shortly after you converted it to "no chance", if I've followed this
> thread
> > correctly. :-)
>
> You did not. What I said was that there is no chance, based on the rather
> self-righteous tone of the first posting, that you would give MY solution
> (the trickle down of invites) a fair listen because you had decided that
> either the way you did the tournament (top 10 get invites, even if they had
> them already) or your "may enact" solution (barring pre-quals from competing
> in further qualifiers) were the only solutions with merit.
As I said, I had already considered YOUR solution (back before it was "YOURS").
[ quoted text not captured ]
As you have not addressed my point, I'll assume you missed it (instead of
self-righteously assuming that you've chosen to ignore it). I'll restate
it for your convenience:
Having players playing in a qualifier who have no stake in the qualifying
process would increase the likelyhood of "kingmaking" by those players.
I will happily respond to posts about this point ("kingmaking").
If you wish instead to continue on your current path, then this marks
the end of my involvement in this thread.
[ quoted text not captured ]
> As you have not addressed my point, I'll assume you missed it (instead of
> self-righteously assuming that you've chosen to ignore it). I'll restate
> it for your convenience:
I did not address your point because, at no time, did you even acknowledge
that my point had been considered. (until your last posting) I was still
working on getting you to state your reasoning why trickling down the
invites was dis-allowed as an option. Instead, you asked me to explain why I
wanted to give the Gen-con attendees a priority over the other qualifiers.
This I did. Twice. You ignored it. Twice.
> Having players playing in a qualifier who have no stake in the qualifying
> process would increase the likelyhood of "kingmaking" by those players.
>
> I will happily respond to posts about this point ("kingmaking").
> If you wish instead to continue on your current path, then this marks
> the end of my involvement in this thread.
So, since my point doesnt deserve thought-provoking debate, and since I did
not address your complete change of topic, you are taking your ball and
going home? Wow.
I did not address your point, as stated above, because it was about a
completely separate issue. I will now though so you don't flee.
Before I debate your point though, could you define Kingmaking? What I think
you are referring to is the following...
I am pre-qualified. I play in the final qualifier. I am at a table with
folks that, for whatever reason, I want (or don't want) qualified, so I make
them win to the exclusion of myself (or I sabotage them).
Is this what you mean?
Matt
On Mon, 06 Aug 2001 17:48:57 GMT, "Robert Goudie"
<rrgo...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>I think it was the right move for him, truthfully--after all, his newly tuned
>deck did get him qualified in a 70+ player tournament. Against almost any other
>prey he would have been fine, as the following rounds showed. I didn't see any
>serious Potence combat until I found Jared in the final.
Actually, I also played a weenie potence deck in the nationals myself.
Damn die roll.....
-------------------------------
Ethan Burrow - Prince of Austin
saa...@yahoo.com
http://whitestar.ddg.com/vtes/
On Mon, 6 Aug 2001 12:53:07 -0700, "Steve Bucy" <tb...@lainet.com>
wrote:
>I also had my biggest V:TES success of the weekend when I
>won a 5 player with the likes of Ethan Burrow, Mike Pearlman, LSJ, and Keith
>Thompson with 4 vp. I was most likely due to the Alcohol they had
>consumed... :-)
I can't speak for anyone else, but I had a fierce hangover the next
morning. Thus, any victories you may have achieved that evening
against me you should savor for a very long time ;-)
It was great meeting you and the LA crowd Bucy.
[ quoted text not captured ]
"Mongrel Matt Hirsch" <mon...@hotpop.com> wrote in message
news:683c6519.01080...@posting.google.com...
> I'm the guy in the striped shirt in these pix. My name is Matt, not
> Dan. I'm from Wellesley, MA, though Boston is a fair approximation.
Damn. It seemed like every other person I met was named Dan, so when
I couldn't remember your name, I just assumed it was Dan. :) Sorry
about the mix-up.
Xian
Matt Latham wrote:
>
> > As you have not addressed my point, I'll assume you missed it (instead of
> > self-righteously assuming that you've chosen to ignore it). I'll restate
> > it for your convenience:
>
> I did not address your point because, at no time, did you even acknowledge
> that my point had been considered. (until your last posting) I was still
> working on getting you to state your reasoning why trickling down the
> invites was dis-allowed as an option. Instead, you asked me to explain why I
> wanted to give the Gen-con attendees a priority over the other qualifiers.
> This I did. Twice. You ignored it. Twice.
What?
I stated that the options, given their limited numbers, had been considered.
As "your" option is an option, it follows that it was considered.
Trickling down is not an option because of the kingmaking aspect that I've
mentioned more than once already in this thread.
Sorry you missed all those posts, but I haven't been ignoring you.
> > Having players playing in a qualifier who have no stake in the qualifying
> > process would increase the likelyhood of "kingmaking" by those players.
> >
> > I will happily respond to posts about this point ("kingmaking").
> > If you wish instead to continue on your current path, then this marks
> > the end of my involvement in this thread.
>
> So, since my point doesnt deserve thought-provoking debate, and since I did
> not address your complete change of topic, you are taking your ball and
> going home? Wow.
No. Since you won't address the points being made, ignore the points being
made and insist (with personal remarks) that the points being made do not
exist, I saw no point in continuing the thread, since addressing the points
was the only reasonable response I could give and that didn't seem to work
for you.
> I did not address your point, as stated above, because it was about a
> completely separate issue. I will now though so you don't flee.
This is the issue.
If there's some other point you've got, please make it.
(Do not confuse flight with propriety.)
> Before I debate your point though, could you define Kingmaking? What I think
> you are referring to is the following...
>
> I am pre-qualified. I play in the final qualifier. I am at a table with
> folks that, for whatever reason, I want (or don't want) qualified, so I make
> them win to the exclusion of myself (or I sabotage them).
>
> Is this what you mean?
Yes. Trickling down may work alright in two-player games, but it creates
an aire of impropriety in a multi-player game. The current system suffers
a bit from that as well, but since the qualifiers get some benefit from
re-qualifying (thinning the field), the effect is not as great. Still,
it's a good reason to change to a system whereby the qualifiers are
excluded from future qualifiers.
[ quoted text not captured ]
Ethan Burrow wrote in message
<3b705f1d...@news-server.austin.rr.com>...
>On Mon, 6 Aug 2001 12:53:07 -0700, "Steve Bucy" <tb...@lainet.com>
>wrote:
>>>I also had my biggest V:TES success of the weekend when I
>>won a 5 player with the likes of Ethan Burrow, Mike Pearlman, LSJ, and
Keith
>>Thompson with 4 vp. I was most likely due to the Alcohol they had
>>consumed... :-)>
>I can't speak for anyone else, but I had a fierce hangover the next
>morning. Thus, any victories you may have achieved that evening
>against me you should savor for a very long time ;-)
True. I will have to savor that victory for a year... until I get another
one next year.
>It was great meeting you and the LA crowd Bucy.
Great beating...er...a... meeting you. :-)
Steve Bucy
--
"The only human commander to survive combat
with the Minbari fleet is behind me. You are in front of me.
If you value your lives be somewhere else!" - Delenn
Check out http://vtesinla.org/ for all V:TES information in Los Angeles
area.
[ quoted text not captured ]
> Its clear that I have not seen what you have seen in your posts, and I clearly
> do not see what you see in mine. I most certainly do not see what you state is
> "clearly said".While I still think you were overtly abrupt and borderline
> condescending, (and you very well may find me narrow minded, hard-headed, and
> over-sensitive) I'll concede that this could all be some kind of
> misunderstanding>
> > Before I debate your point though, could you define Kingmaking? What I think
> > you are referring to is the following...
> >
> > I am pre-qualified. I play in the final qualifier. I am at a table with
> > folks that, for whatever reason, I want (or don't want) qualified, so I make
> > them win to the exclusion of myself (or I sabotage them).
> >
> > Is this what you mean?
>
> Yes. Trickling down may work alright in two-player games, but it creates
> an aire of impropriety in a multi-player game. The current system suffers
> a bit from that as well, but since the qualifiers get some benefit from
> re-qualifying (thinning the field), the effect is not as great. Still,
> it's a good reason to change to a system whereby the qualifiers are
> excluded from future qualifiers.
Could you explain why you would think trickling down of invites makes the
kingmaking situation any worse? I acknowlege that the trickling down theory does
not make the kingmaking situation any better, but I certainly don't see how it
makes it any worse. The only way I see it making the situation any worse is that
by taking away the thinning effect of less players in the next days tourney, you
take away the tangible benefit of being in the Qualifier. Is this why you think
Trickledown aids Kingmaking? Because the pre-quals don't have any reason to do
well so they'll throw the tourney to aid their friends???
Robert, in his post, mentioned that his only reason to get in the Qualifier was to
be in a big, competitive tourney. If people's sole motivation for going in the
qualifier was to thin the herd by three people then we have a larger problem as a
community than the potential for Kingmaking...
Plus, would not Kingmaking be against the VEKN tourney rules? If so, could you not
simply enforce said rules and leave the pre-qualified in? Then you could still
trickle down I think.
BTW, this is what I mean by trickling down. You said three pre-quals placed top
10, and hence re-qualified. By trickeling down I mean that in this case the 11th,
12th, and 13th place would get an invite to the big show. If one of them was
pre-qualified, then 14th would get the invite, and so on.
Matt
Matt Latham wrote:
>
> > Its clear that I have not seen what you have seen in your posts, and I clearly
> > do not see what you see in mine. I most certainly do not see what you state is
> > "clearly said".While I still think you were overtly abrupt and borderline
> > condescending, (and you very well may find me narrow minded, hard-headed, and
> > over-sensitive) I'll concede that this could all be some kind of
> > misunderstanding
Alright. I agree with you there.
> > > Before I debate your point though, could you define Kingmaking? What I think
> > > you are referring to is the following...
> > >
> > > I am pre-qualified. I play in the final qualifier. I am at a table with
> > > folks that, for whatever reason, I want (or don't want) qualified, so I make
> > > them win to the exclusion of myself (or I sabotage them).
> > >
> > > Is this what you mean?
> >
> > Yes. Trickling down may work alright in two-player games, but it creates
> > an aire of impropriety in a multi-player game. The current system suffers
> > a bit from that as well, but since the qualifiers get some benefit from
> > re-qualifying (thinning the field), the effect is not as great. Still,
> > it's a good reason to change to a system whereby the qualifiers are
> > excluded from future qualifiers.
>
> Could you explain why you would think trickling down of invites makes the
> kingmaking situation any worse? I acknowlege that the trickling down theory does
> not make the kingmaking situation any better, but I certainly don't see how it
> makes it any worse. The only way I see it making the situation any worse is that
> by taking away the thinning effect of less players in the next days tourney, you
> take away the tangible benefit of being in the Qualifier. Is this why you think
> Trickledown aids Kingmaking? Because the pre-quals don't have any reason to do
> well so they'll throw the tourney to aid their friends???
Yes. Not that they /will/ throw the tourney. Just that it becomes more likely
(and makes the /appearance/ of impropriety more likely).
> Robert, in his post, mentioned that his only reason to get in the Qualifier was to
> be in a big, competitive tourney. If people's sole motivation for going in the
> qualifier was to thin the herd by three people then we have a larger problem as a
> community than the potential for Kingmaking...
Yes. That's how this game has been for many years - people play to play.
But, as the popularity has been resparked recently, the ratio of people
with that mentality has decreased. Which is why, earlier in the thread,
I said that next year, given the current growth, we "may" switch to
a policy of banning pre-qual players from playing in qualifiers.
> Plus, would not Kingmaking be against the VEKN tourney rules? If so, could you not
> simply enforce said rules and leave the pre-qualified in? Then you could still
> trickle down I think.
Yes. But that leaves the appearance of impropriety.
Many people have already complained about the current V:EKN rules being
too hard for judges. Facilitating pre-qual kingmakers would exacerbate
the problem.
> BTW, this is what I mean by trickling down. You said three pre-quals placed top
> 10, and hence re-qualified. By trickeling down I mean that in this case the 11th,
> 12th, and 13th place would get an invite to the big show. If one of them was
> pre-qualified, then 14th would get the invite, and so on.
I understood what you meant. It is the same meaning I was applying to the term.
[ quoted text not captured ]
(long post to follow)
(never posted with google before, hope the carriage returns work out)
LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:<3B703D2D...@whitewolf.com>...
> Here's Trey Morita's fourth-place-in-the-NAC deck:
>
> Deck: Proteolicious Redux
I'd like to give "props" here to Peter Bakija, for posting the deck
this was originally based on, called "Yummm Proteolicious", which is
now archived here:
http://www4.ncsu.edu/~rfgrau/jyhad/decks/yum051099.html
I copied the deck when I first started playing (yes, only 2 years) and
it's my oldest and best tuned deck. Ironically, I met Peter earlier
this year at a New Jersey tournament, but I didn't even know at the
time that it was Peter's deck that was the genesis of mine, so I
couldn't thank him in person then. I was playing some cruddy Tzimisce
deck at the time. I got bored at some point at work a few months later
and went looking for the deck that I had originally copied, figuring
it would be easy to find since I had always remembered it had the word
"Proteolicious" in the name, and the comments had indicated it was
created to give Daliyah a special home. Josh Duffin and I got a kick
out of my discovery that his old chum was the creator.
> 1 Igo the Hungry
> 2 Huang, Blood Cultist
> 1 Sadie
> 2 Chandler Hungerford
> 2 Anastasia Grey
> 1 Ricki Van Dempsi
> 1 Daliyah
> 1 Miremba Kimbada
> 1 Raven
> 1 Camille Devereau
2 Huangs is nice because he can get an early blood doll and be an
absolute pool-generating machine. Also, you can send him off to
diablerize Harrod and even get another copy of him later. 2 Anastasia
(instead of 2 Ricki) is because this deck uses a touch of animalism (3
Raven spies), and Anastasia has (pro/ani) whereas Ricki has (pro/for).
An extra copy of Chandler or Anastasia in your opening crypt makes an
easy Ecoterrorist target while you fish for other vamps.
(some reorganization below to group cards by purpose)
Combat stuff:
> 8 Claws of the Dead> 1 Quick Meld
> 9 Form of Mist
> 12 Earth Meld> 2 Body Flare
> 2 .44 Magnum
Claws are good for their maneuver at superior, to get away from
grapplers. Expensive, but better than getting grappled and punched for
5. Plus you can maneuver to long to cycle one and then use a combat
ends strike. Also good backup maneuver for the .44s. The body flares
are a great addition, and always seem to show up when I need them
(sent Cailean for a dirt-nap in my 3rd round game with one). The .44s
work great with an Atonement to put a lid on a low-stealth
weenie-swarm. ("This here 5-cap with Atonement and a .44 blocks your
weenie without tapping. I maneuver to long and shoot you. Again.")
Intercept:
> 3 Raven Spy
> 2 Atonement
> 1 Mr. Winthrop
> 2 Sport Bike
> 1 KRCG News Radio
> 1 London Evening Star
It's possible to set up a huge intercept wall (or even 2), but mostly
the large amount of intercept is just to ensure something shows up
early. This would be where my deck differs most from Peter's original,
as his was very forward-oriented, mine wants to be able to survive
most anything my predator can bring at me. The intercept works well
with the large number of Wakes and Earth Melds, because I can tap a
vampire who already has 1 intercept on it to get another intercept
(ie, vampire with atonement gets a sport bike), and if I have a wake
and an earth meld, I can still conceivably block 2 actions at up to 2
stealth (assuming superior PRO on the vampire).
Blood gain:
> 5 Blood Doll> 2 Ecoterrorists
> 1 Aaron's Feeding Razor> 1 Zoo Hunting Ground
Pretty self-explanatory here. Maybe could use another hunting ground.
Bleed:
> 1 Tasha Morgan
> 10 Computer Hacking
Somewhat light here, in comparison to the original. My deck usually
doesn't oust first, but it ousts eventually.
Defense:
> 2 Archon Investigation
> 8 Forced Awakening> 1 Direct Intervention
> 1 Wake with Evening's Freshness> 3 Delaying Tactics
Dunno how the one WWEF snuck in. Probably would make it a FA if I
thought it mattered.
Stealth:
> 1 Backways
> 2 Earth Control
Other:
> 3 Protean
> 2 Effective Management
> 3 Bum's Rush
The Bum's Rushes are kind of weak. Usually even a non-combat deck will
pack and hold a dodge or majesty and so my one Bum's Rush is usually a
wasted action. Every once in a while I can pound a no-defense weenie
into torpor and eat it, but honestly these could probably go, to be
replaced by more Computer Hackings or something.
Somewhere along the way, I lost the Garous Peter had in his version,
and gained a buttload of intercept and other crap, and the deck went
up to 90 cards, but every deck becomes your own after you play and
tweak it enough.
As for the 2 AI's, I have played this deck in 3 tournaments this year
(NY, DC, N.A. Champ), made the finals in all 3, so that's 12 rounds of
play, and I've only played 1 AI in all that time, on a bleed of 4.
Maybe they're not worth it, who knows. The DI, and the Delaying
Tactics, have been absolutely KEY for me, however. The AI's may be
better as Sudden Reversals, for those pesky Minion Tapping big vampire
decks.
Thanks to all who I met and played with at Gencon this year, I hope to
see everyone again, and maybe someday Scott will remember my name.
Hellos go out here to the newsgroup personalities I met at Gencon in
no particular order: Bernie Bresnahan, Aaron Steele, Jay Kristoff,
Robert Goudie, John Bell, Mike ?Courtous? (LA), Jeff (Lasombra)
Thompson, Norm Brown, Mike Perlman, Xian.
Thanks to LSJ for running a great event, in parallel with another
great event.
Trey
-that long-haired dude.
On 7 Aug 2001 22:46:27 -0700, trey_...@yahoo.com (Trey) wrote:
>Thanks to all who I met and played with at Gencon this year, I hope to
>see everyone again, and maybe someday Scott will remember my name.
Speaking from experience, I didn't have that problem the second
convention I attended where he was there.
But then again I gave him a lot of sh*t for it too <g>
[ quoted text not captured ]
"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote
> Matt Latham wrote:
> >
> > Is this why you think
> > Trickledown aids Kingmaking? Because the pre-quals don't have any reason
to do
> > well so they'll throw the tourney to aid their friends???
>
> Yes. Not that they /will/ throw the tourney. Just that it becomes more
likely
> (and makes the /appearance/ of impropriety more likely).
If the appearance of impropriety is an issue in V:tES tournaments,
your first target should be banning table splitting deals, as those
situations reek to high heaven. Indeed, the table splitting deals
may very well be the tools by which the kingmaking is done.
If the appearance of impropriety is insufficient to ban table
splitting deals (the defense presumably being that the tournament
rules prohibit deals that do not maximize VP), then it should also
be insufficient to exclude trickle down qualifying slots (since
the same tournament rules prohibit kingmaking for the same
reasons).
- Jason Bell
> It's possible to set up a huge intercept wall (or even 2), but mostly
> the large amount of intercept is just to ensure something shows up
> early. This would be where my deck differs most from Peter's original,
> as his was very forward-oriented, mine wants to be able to survive
> most anything my predator can bring at me. The intercept works well
> with the large number of Wakes and Earth Melds, because I can tap a
> vampire who already has 1 intercept on it to get another intercept
> (ie, vampire with atonement gets a sport bike), and if I have a wake
> and an earth meld, I can still conceivably block 2 actions at up to 2
> stealth (assuming superior PRO on the vampire).
Irony that the author uses the same tactics (Atonement vs. weenies)
that´ll shut down his own deck. Thx WW wisdom to put that in the
'mites starters! :)
Jason Bell wrote:
>
> "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote
> > Matt Latham wrote:
> > >
> > > Is this why you think
> > > Trickledown aids Kingmaking? Because the pre-quals don't have any reason
> to do
> > > well so they'll throw the tourney to aid their friends???
> >
> > Yes. Not that they /will/ throw the tourney. Just that it becomes more
> likely
> > (and makes the /appearance/ of impropriety more likely).
>
> If the appearance of impropriety is an issue in V:tES tournaments,
> your first target should be banning table splitting deals, as those
> situations reek to high heaven. Indeed, the table splitting deals
> may very well be the tools by which the kingmaking is done.
I agree. As I've said recently on the group.
Table splitting is nearly impossible to do legally, since the player
taking the 2 side of a 3-2 split (with the intention of honoring it)
is taking a losing deal.
[ quoted text not captured ]
LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message
news:3B712237...@white-wolf.com...
> Jason Bell wrote:
> >
> > "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote
> > > Matt Latham wrote:> I agree. As I've said recently on the group.
> Table splitting is nearly impossible to do legally, since the player
> taking the 2 side of a 3-2 split (with the intention of honoring it)
> is taking a losing deal.
I'm sorry if I have misunderstood but I have had a quick read of the whole
thread.
Am I correct in assuming that you are *against* table splitting deals per
se, or as part of a whole ? ie. in conjunction with the Trickledown aspect ?
If the former then I am truly scared.
Thanks and again apologies if I have mis-read but I just am not sure from
reading.
Rob Treasure.
shsoton wrote:
> LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
> > Table splitting is nearly impossible to do legally, since the player
> > taking the 2 side of a 3-2 split (with the intention of honoring it)
> > is taking a losing deal.> Am I correct in assuming that you are *against* table splitting deals per> se, or as part of a whole ? ie. in conjunction with the Trickledown aspect ?
I'm not *against* it, except that it is illegal.
If you must play to win (and you must by V:EKN rules), then taking a losing
deal (with the intention of honoring it) is illegal, unless you cannot win
anyhow (which is rare).
[ quoted text not captured ]
"Trey" <trey_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:eca88b86.01080...@posting.google.com...
> Hellos go out here to the newsgroup personalities I met at Gencon in
> no particular order: Bernie Bresnahan, Aaron Steele, Jay Kristoff,
> Robert Goudie, John Bell, Mike ?Courtous? (LA), Jeff (Lasombra)
> Thompson, Norm Brown, Mike Perlman, Xian.
Hey Trey! Nice to meet ya. Think you could email or post that deck we
played in the pickup game? You know, where you had 6 embraces out?
Sorry you had to be on the receiving end of my brujah smack down in the team
sealed. You were a great ventrue-anti...er I guess it was lasombra? ;)
Aaron
Trey wrote:
>>I'd like to give "props" here to Peter Bakija, for posting the deck
this was originally based on, called "Yummm Proteolicious", which is
now archived here:
http://www4.ncsu.edu/~rfgrau/jyhad/decks/yum051099.html>>
Yaa! I always wanted some props! Trey, you rock. Very solid. I gotta say that
between you getting into the finals, and Bernie winning at Origins with a very
similar deck (and how when I played it at Origins a few years ago, I got into
the finals on 8 VPs...), I should probably consider playing it in tournaments
more often :-)
>>2 Huangs is nice because he can get an early blood doll and be an
absolute pool-generating machine. Also, you can send him off to
diablerize Harrod and even get another copy of him later. 2 Anastasia
(instead of 2 Ricki) is because this deck uses a touch of animalism (3
Raven spies), and Anastasia has (pro/ani) whereas Ricki has (pro/for).
An extra copy of Chandler or Anastasia in your opening crypt makes an
easy Ecoterrorist target while you fish for other vamps.>>
2 Huangs? That is some good stuff. I never considered that, My current crypt
is:
1x Igo
1x Huang
1x Sadie
1x Anistasia
1x Ricki
2x Chandler
1x Ramona
2x Daliyah
1x Mirembe
1x Camille
Have you considered getting Ramona in your crypt? A) She's hot. B) Her special
is surprisingly useful. C) She has her own cool assed theme song by,
appropriately, The Ramones ("Sweet sweet little Ramona..."). I might put a
Raven in my deck, but I don't have one, and Mirembe is certainly less likely to
contest.
As I remember, your current deck has a bit less bleed modifiers and fewer, if
any, Garous (I'm currently packing 4 Garous, 1 Abomination, and 2 or 3 Meat
Hooks), and more combat (I have only 4 or 6 Bone Spur and a couple Body Flare
in there). Maybe I'll just post the durnned thing shortly.
>>Claws are good for their maneuver at superior, to get away from
grapplers.>>
Hmm. Strong point as well. Perhaps I should use those instead of the Spurs.
>>It's possible to set up a huge intercept wall (or even 2), but mostly
the large amount of intercept is just to ensure something shows up
early. This would be where my deck differs most from Peter's original,
as his was very forward-oriented, mine wants to be able to survive
most anything my predator can bring at me.>>
I currently (I don't know how this differs from the original) pack about 9
wakes, an Attonement, and a handfull of Sports Bikes. I have less intercept
that you do, certainly, but some, and it works out pretty well. I can't
generate more than +1 intercept generally (barring an Attoned Sports Bike
owner), so I have to settle for Meat Hook equipped garous for S+B defense.
>>The Bum's Rushes are kind of weak. Usually even a non-combat deck will
pack and hold a dodge or majesty and so my one Bum's Rush is usually a
wasted action. Every once in a while I can pound a no-defense weenie
into torpor and eat it, but honestly these could probably go, to be
replaced by more Computer Hackings or something.>>
Probably. Your Rushes are rarely going to be effective, so the hacks would
probably work better all around.
>>The DI, and the Delaying
Tactics, have been absolutely KEY for me, however. The AI's may be
better as Sudden Reversals, for those pesky Minion Tapping big vampire
decks.>>
The DI has a pretty serious opportunity cost, so it won't come up much. The
DTs, however, I think should be in every deck that can afford the space (and
this deck strategy can)--they are easy to play and cycle if you need to, almost
always effective, and invaluable against the very present seat swap votes that
are popular these days, where someone takes your seat and all of your hard
work.
Peter D Bakija
PD...@aol.com
http://www.geocities.com/bakija6
"She's a hero you see.
She's not like us."
-Giles
LSJ wrote:
>
> Yes. Trickling down may work alright in two-player games, but it creates
> an aire of impropriety in a multi-player game. The current system suffers
> a bit from that as well, but since the qualifiers get some benefit from
> re-qualifying (thinning the field), the effect is not as great. Still,
> it's a good reason to change to a system whereby the qualifiers are
> excluded from future qualifiers.
>
> --
> 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/
WEll but there is the problem that the qualifiers have also been
national championships and i think you can't exclude anybody from a
championship. So to avoid this one should held the qualifier as separate
events and not mix a championship with a qualifier.
Still I wouldn't change anything ! If somebody wants to qualify he has a
lot of oppurtunities to do so. And people want to play all the time so
why should you forbid players to participate in a big tournament when
there are only 5-10 a year. So I think one should leave the system like
it is !
Greetings
Carsten
Carsten Isselhorst wrote:
> LSJ wrote:
> > Yes. Trickling down may work alright in two-player games, but it creates
> > an aire of impropriety in a multi-player game. The current system suffers
> > a bit from that as well, but since the qualifiers get some benefit from
> > re-qualifying (thinning the field), the effect is not as great. Still,
> > it's a good reason to change to a system whereby the qualifiers are
> > excluded from future qualifiers.
>> WEll but there is the problem that the qualifiers have also been
> national championships and i think you can't exclude anybody from a
> championship. So to avoid this one should held the qualifier as separate
> events and not mix a championship with a qualifier.
We could. [VEKN 1.1]
It's not necessarily a good idea, as you note, so if we do, we could
also get away from calling the qualifiers "local championships" as well.
> Still I wouldn't change anything ! If somebody wants to qualify he has a
> lot of oppurtunities to do so. And people want to play all the time so
> why should you forbid players to participate in a big tournament when
> there are only 5-10 a year. So I think one should leave the system like
> it is !
It seemed to work OK this year.
Maybe I've misjudged the growth of the game and we'll still have a large
enough ratio of people who play to play that it won't be a problem. But
the trend looks otherwise, I'm afraid. See the trend in the civility level
of this group, for instance.
[ quoted text not captured ]
On Tue, 07 Aug 2001 20:09:19 -0400, Matt Latham <sv...@chartermi.net>
wrote:
>Could you explain why you would think trickling down of invites makes the
>kingmaking situation any worse? I acknowlege that the trickling down theory does
>not make the kingmaking situation any better, but I certainly don't see how it
>makes it any worse. The only way I see it making the situation any worse is that
>by taking away the thinning effect of less players in the next days tourney, you
>take away the tangible benefit of being in the Qualifier. Is this why you think
>Trickledown aids Kingmaking? Because the pre-quals don't have any reason to do
>well so they'll throw the tourney to aid their friends???
If I don't need to win, I'm going to play the most fun (read: amusing)
deck I can find. This is almost certainly going to be an Eagle's
Sight/Life Boon intercept deck, because that way I can make sure that
nobody stops MY fun from cross-table, or makes deals to get me ousted,
etc... and I can also get to see Legbiter scream in frustration when I
block a cross table Rush to play Flash, Vampiric Speed, and press to end
twice against his Hideous Combat Thugs.
An "any stealth, any action, anywhere" intercept deck is inherently
destabilizing to a table if it doesn't ever intend to go forward. When
you put it on a table with one of its friends, it's VERY easy for such a
deck to mysteriously be "tapped out" or "out of Eagle's Sight" when its
friend gains VPs... and it can pretty much shut down the rest of the
table from ever doing anything worthwhile. Include a couple Malkavian
Rider Clauses and Dramatic Upheavals, to put yourself as your friend's
predator, and presto.
It's possible to kingmake by playing something non-winning that screws
up every table it's at... even if you never aim specifically to help a
certain person.
>Plus, would not Kingmaking be against the VEKN tourney rules? If so, could you not
>simply enforce said rules and leave the pre-qualified in? Then you could still
>trickle down I think.
How do you prove that I'm kingmaking, given the above deck? I can
always claim that I need to protect myself from my predator, and that's
why I'm not using the Forced/Eagle's/Enhanced in my hand to intercept my
friend cross-table. And since this deck tends to draw into its own
intercept, I won't have much in hand and I can also make the claim that
I don't want to risk not drawing up and being screwed; both of which are
valid claims.
-- Derek
"You should rush your predator this turn."
"Why?"
"Because he's not me."
LSJ wrote:
> That's how this game has been for many years - people play to play.
> But, as the popularity has been resparked recently, the ratio of people
> with that mentality has decreased. Which is why, earlier in the thread,
> I said that next year, given the current growth, we "may" switch to
> a policy of banning pre-qual players from playing in qualifiers.
>
I understand the need to legislate to the lowest common denominator. However, as an
experiment, could you not try legislating to the ideal and see if perhaps the community
itself could police the potential kingmakers? I'm not saying this is inherently easier
or better than legislating to prevent cheating, but we used to be a community who had to
pretty much police ourselves.
>
> > Plus, would not Kingmaking be against the VEKN tourney rules? If so, could you not
> > simply enforce said rules and leave the pre-qualified in? Then you could still
> > trickle down I think.
>
> Yes. But that leaves the appearance of impropriety.
> Many people have already complained about the current V:EKN rules being
> too hard for judges. Facilitating pre-qual kingmakers would exacerbate
> the problem.
Ok, so in your opinion, do you think the increase in the appearance of impropriaty is
more damaging than either of the two options below?
1) Letting the pre-quals play like you did at Gencon with no restrictions.
2) Letting the pre-quals play and yet still allowing the top 10 Non-qualified players to
qualify for the NA championships?
In option one you get the potential for the appearance of impropriaty, but get happy
pre-quals.
In option two you get the potential for the appearance of impripriaty, but get happy
pre-quals and non-quals.
Your option removes the potential for the appearance of impropriaty and gets happy
non-quals.
That was the basis for my suggestion of the trickledown (option two). That is why I
thought it superior to options 1 and yours (banning pre-quals). However, with your
addition of the potential for the appearance of impropriaty, the equation gets more
complex.
How strong a force do you consider the potential for the appearance of impropriaty?
Matt
PS: Quoth LSJ
My apologies to those who feel that the work I do is not enough.
End Quoth:
No one is saying that you don't do enough work. All people are saying is that you could
treat people's concerns as if you were speaking to a person rather than a nuisance.
There are a ton of people who do a lot of work to promote this game, and most are not WW
employees. You contribute a ton to the community of VTES, and have for a long time. But
others have to, and they are just as worthy of respect as you are. They are just as
worthy of "the benefit of the doubt" as you are. And while I admit freely that I did not
give you the benefit of the doubt when reading your brusque responses to my concerns
(and I should have, as stated above you've earned it) I don't believe you always give
the benefit of the doubt to others as well.
Just something to think about. You've given me plenty to think about over the course of
this thread so I should at least try to do the same.
LSJ wrote:
> Maybe I've misjudged the growth of the game and we'll still have a large
> enough ratio of people who play to play that it won't be a problem. But
> the trend looks otherwise, I'm afraid. See the trend in the civility level
> of this group, for instance.
Actually, the decrease in civility of this group has, to my untrained eye anyway,
come more from the longtime players than the new arrivals. I think there have
been more rude comments from the "I've been on this newsgroup for X years and I
deserve respect" than from newer posters. I think the newer posters have been
pretty good thus far.
Just my opinion of course.
Matt
Matt Latham wrote:
> LSJ wrote:
> > That's how this game has been for many years - people play to play.
> > But, as the popularity has been resparked recently, the ratio of people
> > with that mentality has decreased. Which is why, earlier in the thread,
> > I said that next year, given the current growth, we "may" switch to
> > a policy of banning pre-qual players from playing in qualifiers.
> >
>
> I understand the need to legislate to the lowest common denominator. However, as an
> experiment, could you not try legislating to the ideal and see if perhaps the community
> itself could police the potential kingmakers? I'm not saying this is inherently easier
> or better than legislating to prevent cheating, but we used to be a community who had to
> pretty much police ourselves.
The "ideal" is what we attempted to legislate to this time.
The "ideal", to the V:EKN, was that every qualifier be treated the same.
I've received some negative feedback on this state, so we may shift to
the other option next year - disallowing pre-quals in qualifiers.
The third option, the one you propose, is less than satifactory in
solving the "problem" of kingmaking (if that's a problem at all) than
the no-pre-qual solution, and is less impartial than the current system
(favoring players who play in later qualifiers by thinning the field).
> > > Plus, would not Kingmaking be against the VEKN tourney rules? If so, could you not
> > > simply enforce said rules and leave the pre-qualified in? Then you could still
> > > trickle down I think.
> >
> > Yes. But that leaves the appearance of impropriety.
> > Many people have already complained about the current V:EKN rules being
> > too hard for judges. Facilitating pre-qual kingmakers would exacerbate
> > the problem.
>
> Ok, so in your opinion, do you think the increase in the appearance of impropriaty is
> more damaging than either of the two options below?
>
> 1) Letting the pre-quals play like you did at Gencon with no restrictions.
> 2) Letting the pre-quals play and yet still allowing the top 10 Non-qualified players to
> qualify for the NA championships?
(note: switching problem numbering from the above - lest the casual reader
be caught anaware).
2) is the option under discussion, AFAIK; it cannot be more damaging than itself.
It is more damaging than 1), though, as we've discussed.
> In option one you get the potential for the appearance of impropriaty, but get happy
> pre-quals.
The appearance is not very much, given that the pre-quals have a stake in the
outcome (playing well can help them thin the field for the Championships).
> In option two you get the potential for the appearance of impripriaty, but get happy
> pre-quals and non-quals.
At an increase in the appearance of impropriety.
> Your option removes the potential for the appearance of impropriaty and gets happy
> non-quals.
And happy pre-quals. If the option was used, we'd surely have a sideline (Shadow
Twin) event for the players excluded from the final qualifier.
> That was the basis for my suggestion of the trickledown (option two). That is why I
> thought it superior to options 1 and yours (banning pre-quals). However, with your
> addition of the potential for the appearance of impropriaty, the equation gets more
> complex.
>
> How strong a force do you consider the potential for the appearance of impropriaty?
Strong enough to warrant using option 1 or 3.
> Matt
>
> PS: Quoth LSJ
>
> My apologies to those who feel that the work I do is not enough.
>
> End Quoth:
>
> No one is saying that you don't do enough work.
Someone was suggesting that I should do more than I'm doing.
That's what I responded to with the quote above.
> All people are saying is that you could
> treat people's concerns as if you were speaking to a person rather than a nuisance.
I do.
I was told by someone that I was ignoring him, when I was not. The poster assumed
that I was ignoring him. When the poster continued asking for the
same responses and, upon receiving them, continued to say that he had not
received them, and began adding personal jibes like "self-righteous" and
"omnipotent" to describe a 3-choice option, well...
What's your definition of a nuisance?
> There are a ton of people who do a lot of work to promote this game, and most are not WW
> employees. You contribute a ton to the community of VTES, and have for a long time. But
> others have to, and they are just as worthy of respect as you are. They are just as
Quite right.
> worthy of "the benefit of the doubt" as you are. And while I admit freely that I did not
> give you the benefit of the doubt when reading your brusque responses to my concerns
> (and I should have, as stated above you've earned it) I don't believe you always give
> the benefit of the doubt to others as well.
I certainly try.
> Just something to think about. You've given me plenty to think about over the course of
> this thread so I should at least try to do the same.
Thanks.
[ quoted text not captured ]
dre...@hotmail.com (Scac) wrote in message news:<cefd2701.01080...@posting.google.com>...
[Trey wrote]
> > (ie, vampire with atonement gets a sport bike), and if I have a wake
> > and an earth meld, I can still conceivably block 2 actions at up to 2
> > stealth (assuming superior PRO on the vampire).
>
> Irony that the author uses the same tactics (Atonement vs. weenies)
> that´ll shut down his own deck. Thx WW wisdom to put that in the
> 'mites starters! :)
Heh! That is kinda funny, now that you mention it. Although Trey's
Proteolicious deck isn't likely to be "shut down" by Atonement in
the same way that, say, a Kindred Embassy style no-discipline weenie
deck could be. If Trey's vamps get blocked by someone with Atonement
(and weren't able to block the Atone action in the first place), they
can Claw the Atoner and get him diablerized if necessary, or possibly
even burn the Atonement with (a) Form of Mist (if the Atoned vamp isn't
at least as big as all of Trey's vamps), (b) Earth Control, or (c) a
swarm of weenies on the turn the Atonement is performed (so the Atoner
is already tapped).
Josh
on the other hand, aabbt kindred with atonements and fourteen forced
awakenings could be trouble. but really, who plays that?
Quoth LSJ:
I was told by someone that I was ignoring him, when I was not. The poster assumed
that I was ignoring him. When the poster continued asking for the
same responses and, upon receiving them, continued to say that he had not
received them, and began adding personal jibes like "self-righteous" and
"omnipotent" to describe a 3-choice option, well...
What's your definition of a nuisance?
End Quoth:
Since you seem to want to continue this jabbing so be it...
For completeness sake, I am going to repost my initial post and the LSJ retort.
(my words will be in the brackety things, LSJ's will not be until the end snip message, where
I resume my point)
> So, lets say that four pre-qualfied people made top 10 on Friday. Those 4
> qualifier slots would then scoot down to the 11th place and beyond, until
> the four slots were filled by unqualified people.
>
> Could VEKN adopt that? This way you pre-qualified folks get your "standard,
> brutal, constructed event with tons of competition" without denying that guy
> who places 11th in a 70 person qualifier who drove 500 miles to try and
> qualify.
The current method seems most fair (see the set argument above).
The only argument against it with merit is the idea that someone
with no stake in the event (someone already qualified) would be
more likely to play "kingmaker". If that argument is used, however,
the solution is to ban qualified players from the reminaing
qualifiers (making the later qualifiers a bit easier than the
eralier ones as some strong players will be excluded). Given the
rate of growth of the game, that may be what happens next year.
(end snip)
This is the entirity of the issue that spawned all this. Note that you do not, in any way,
reference a connection between kingmaking and trickledown. You are specific in your statement
that the only argument against THE CURRENT SYSTEM is that since the pre-quals have no stake in
the qualifier, that they will kingmake. Note the first two sentences of your response where
you state that the pre-quals have no stake in the event under the CURRENT SYSTEM.
It isn't until several posts later that you reference that the pre-quals do have a stake under
the current system, that of "thinning the herd", and that my trickledown system removes that
last incentive. This is why I got so frustrated. Read the above post that started all of this
please. Can you see how I may have gotten the idea that my plan didn't receive a fair listen?
Is that being a nuisance? I was trying to share an idea which I genuinely thought may make the
VTES tourney experience a little better. Isn't that the goal of having a VTES netrep on the
newsgroup? To answer questions and receive feedback? Hell, I was even being constructive. (I
got much less constructive later I'll admit, and shouldn't have, but I was not alone on that
road...)
Matt
Matt Latham wrote:
>
> Quoth LSJ:
>
> I was told by someone that I was ignoring him, when I was not. The poster assumed
> that I was ignoring him. When the poster continued asking for the
> same responses and, upon receiving them, continued to say that he had not
> received them, and began adding personal jibes like "self-righteous" and
> "omnipotent" to describe a 3-choice option, well...
>
> What's your definition of a nuisance?
>
> End Quoth:
>
> Since you seem to want to continue this jabbing so be it...
Not my idea. Someone suggested I was treating people as a nuisance out of hand.
The response you quote is the result.
> For completeness sake, I am going to repost my initial post and the LSJ retort.
>[ quoted text not captured ]
OK. That isn't to say that my initial response treated you as a nuisance.
You'll also note that I said that if the problem is king-making, then the solution
is banning pre-quals. In this context, that means that not banning pre-quals
(as in your suggested fix or the current system) doesn't fix the king-making
problem.
> Is that being a nuisance?
Not at all.
>I was trying to share an idea which I genuinely thought may make the
> VTES tourney experience a little better. Isn't that the goal of having a VTES netrep on the
> newsgroup? To answer questions and receive feedback? Hell, I was even being constructive. (I
> got much less constructive later I'll admit, and shouldn't have, but I was not alone on that
> road...)
And I responded to that point with the feedback you quote, without indicating
that it was a nuisance.
[ quoted text not captured ]
LSJ wrote:
[ quoted text not captured ]
This is the part where I felt treated as a nuisance, and I state this in my very next post on the
subject.
Quoth LSJ:
<The current method seems most fair (see the set argument above).
> The only argument against it with merit is the idea that someone
> with no stake in the event (someone already qualified) would be
> more likely to play "kingmaker".
"The only argument against it with merit..." Can you not see the interpretation of "If you have an
argument against the current system don't bother to make it because it will not have merit."??? That
is why I felt like a nuisance.
Quoth LSJ:
>
> You'll also note that I said that if the problem is king-making, then the solution
> is banning pre-quals.
End Quoth:
But at no time did I say that I believed the problem to be kingmaking. Thats why I felt you ignored
my topic and jumped to your own, furthering my belief that you find my idea and potential argument
of said idea to be meritless.
Quoth LSJ:
In this context, that means that not banning pre-quals
(as in your suggested fix or the current system) doesn't fix the king-making
problem.
End Quoth:
In no way did I make that context jump. To me the Kingmaking issue was a non-issue because its
already handled under VEKN rules. VEKN rules state that you must play to win. This prevents
Kingmaking. Yes, I acknowledge that said rules are hard to enforce, but to me that was a separate
topic and I didn't want to jump topics on you.
I appreciate that you have hundreds of posts to respond to each day, and this forces you to be
concise. I hope I was able to show that in this case I did not see the context jump the same way you
did, and that both your concise rendition of the answer and my mis-interpretation of said redition
is what created this misunderstanding.
Matt
Matt Latham wrote:
> LSJ wrote:> > OK. That isn't to say that my initial response treated you as a nuisance.
>
> This is the part where I felt treated as a nuisance, and I state this in my very next post on the
> subject.
>
> Quoth LSJ:
>
> <The current method seems most fair (see the set argument above).
> > The only argument against it with merit is the idea that someone
> > with no stake in the event (someone already qualified) would be
> > more likely to play "kingmaker".
>
> "The only argument against it with merit..." Can you not see the interpretation of "If you have an
> argument against the current system don't bother to make it because it will not have merit."??? That
> is why I felt like a nuisance.
OK. But that isn't the same as saying that *I* felt that you were a nuisance.
Teh V:EKN (with me as a party) had considered the various (3) ways of handling
the finals and had come up with the current system. The only argument "with
merit" (not an accusation, just an observation) against the system is the
kingmaker one. The argument about having more players qualify runs afoul of
the idea that the qualifiers should be equal, and not progressively easier.
> Quoth LSJ:
>
> >
> > You'll also note that I said that if the problem is king-making, then the solution
> > is banning pre-quals.
>
> End Quoth:
>
> But at no time did I say that I believed the problem to be kingmaking. Thats why I felt you ignored
> my topic and jumped to your own, furthering my belief that you find my idea and potential argument
> of said idea to be meritless.
Sorry. The problem with changing to your system is the preference given to players
in later qualifiers (who have a artificially thinner field). I refered to this
in the original response. The only reason to change from the current, level, system
is the king-making problem, if it is a problem. And, if it is a problem, then the
solution is to exclude pre-quals, not to give them even more reason to play
kingmaker.
> Quoth LSJ:
>
> In this context, that means that not banning pre-quals
> (as in your suggested fix or the current system) doesn't fix the king-making
> problem.
>
> End Quoth:
>
> In no way did I make that context jump. To me the Kingmaking issue was a non-issue because its
> already handled under VEKN rules. VEKN rules state that you must play to win. This prevents
> Kingmaking. Yes, I acknowledge that said rules are hard to enforce, but to me that was a separate
> topic and I didn't want to jump topics on you.
The idea (in context - not a jump) was, to me, as follows:
If Kingmaking is not a problem, then there's no reason to change from the current
system, which treats all qualifiers equally. This equality trait was cited in my
original response. Changing the system to weight the qualfiers differently is
not an improvement.
> I appreciate that you have hundreds of posts to respond to each day, and this forces you to be
> concise. I hope I was able to show that in this case I did not see the context jump the same way you
> did, and that both your concise rendition of the answer and my mis-interpretation of said redition
> is what created this misunderstanding.
Sure. I thought we had covered that already (and agreed on the nature of the
misunderstanding). (-- he said, with a friendly smile).
[ quoted text not captured ]
In message <3B712CBD...@white-wolf.com>, LSJ <vtesrep@white-
wolf.com> writes
>> LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
>> > Table splitting is nearly impossible to do legally, since the player
>> > taking the 2 side of a 3-2 split (with the intention of honoring it)
>> > is taking a losing deal.>>> Am I correct in assuming that you are *against* table splitting deals per
>> se, or as part of a whole ? ie. in conjunction with the Trickledown aspect ?>
>I'm not *against* it, except that it is illegal.
>If you must play to win (and you must by V:EKN rules), then taking a losing
>deal (with the intention of honoring it) is illegal, unless you cannot win
>anyhow (which is rare).
With two combat decks on a table, long and bitter experience has taught
me (and I've had conversations about this with a number of UK players in
the past) that whereas one of them is likely to win if they're sat
apart, they're *extremely* likely to annihilate each other if sat next
to each other. The predator has to try and get through them, but can't
do that without combat - in which case, both vampires end up exploding.
Unless one of the combat decks has a significant numerical advantage
(e.g. Hasina Kesi potence rush decks), this will leave both decks in a
position where they're both seriously debilitated. Since there is no
gap between them, the predator can *only* gain VPs by ousting the prey
(Life Boon apart). Since this is a 0/0 outcome for them both, a deal of
3/2 (either way) is a far better deal for both.
This has happened many, many times in my, and others, experience, and
isn't terribly rare in my experience.
--
James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D
EBD690ECD7A1F
You scumbag, you maggot, you cheap lousy faggot B457CA213D7E6
Happy Christmas your arse, I pray God it's our last 68C3695D623D5D
This thread has strung out to the point I can't get to some of the
text I wanted to quote..
Matt, here's one reason I do not prefer the trickle-down option
you proposed.
If I understand/recall it correctly you proposed that if a pre-qualified
player placed in the Top 10 of another qualifier, that person is
simply bumped so that player #11 makes it in. Correct??
Here's my concern with such.
Let's say that a Player (let's call him Bob) is at a pre-qualifier
and is sitting at a table over three rounds always with
someone that's qualified.
By definition, people who've already pre-qualified will most likely
be strong competition. So if Bob gets stuck at all three tables
with one or more pre-qualified people, Bob may not net
enough VP's to register on the chart as others occupying
tables without pre-qualified players.
Yet Bob's deck in comparison to his peer group (non-qualifieds)
may be better than or on par with the rest of said peer group.
Because of Bob's seating (unfortunate), we'd never know if
he would have been able to garner enough VP's otherwise.
I may not have illustrated that very well, as long as you get
the spirit of my arguement.
Ciao,
Bernie
LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:<3B712CBD...@white-wolf.com>...
> shsoton wrote:> > Am I correct in assuming that you are *against* table splitting deals per
> > se, or as part of a whole ? ie. in conjunction with the Trickledown aspect ?
>
> I'm not *against* it, except that it is illegal.
> If you must play to win (and you must by V:EKN rules), then taking a losing
> deal (with the intention of honoring it) is illegal, unless you cannot win
> anyhow (which is rare).
It seems to me that that VEKN rule really ought to go hand in hand
(and I know it's already under consideration) with the proposed
"tournament ranking by table wins first" scoring system. Under the
current "rank by VPs over X rounds" system, you have an odd situation
where it can be worthwhile to get the 2 VPs of a 3/2 split even if
you have some (smaller) chance of managing 3+ without the deal, but
actually making this deal is (generally) forbidden by the tournament
rules.
Maybe this goes without saying by now. But I felt like saying it
anyway. :-)
Josh
dealing's all well and good, but not playing to win, well, we don't
like that now do we? ;-)
"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message
news:3B712CBD...@white-wolf.com...
> shsoton wrote:
> > LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
> > > Table splitting is nearly impossible to do legally, since the player
> > > taking the 2 side of a 3-2 split (with the intention of honoring it)
> > > is taking a losing deal.
>
> > Am I correct in assuming that you are *against* table splitting deals
per
> > se, or as part of a whole ? ie. in conjunction with the Trickledown
aspect ?
>
> I'm not *against* it, except that it is illegal.
> If you must play to win (and you must by V:EKN rules), then taking a
losing
> deal (with the intention of honoring it) is illegal
I think on the most basic level, this undermines a lot of dealmaking
possibilities within the game. Deeper than this, as soon as you begin
'entering the players head'* a dangerous precedent is set where decisions
have to be made on the basis of opinion.
*[By entering the players head I am referring to analysing what the decks on
the table do, looking at the players hand / deck, questioning motives,
enforcing the keeping or not of deals etc.]
I realise that guidelines and structure need to be implemented but this is
not IMO a solid statute to build comparatively new dealmaking guidelines
upon.
> unless you cannot win
> anyhow (which is rare).
I cannot disagree with this strongly enough. Deals such as this (where you
have for example 2 combat decks sat together) are commonplace in the UK (and
elsewhere from what I read and research). A 2/3 split is the only semi-
amicable agreement where the very real alternative is ripping each other a
new hole and both ending up with squat.
Personally, I would also consider taking the level one step further and
offering the deal step by step with an agreement to duke it out at the end
for the last 2 VP's putting faith in my deck, how would this be viewed at
present ?
One of the things that we (myself and immediate playgroup) are most
concerned with is the bad / inexperienced judge nightmare.
------ A call is made and a decision goes against a player on a ruling based
on opinion. I know there is a 'formal' complaints procedure but this isn't
much good after the fact. More and more the post of Judge is becoming a
'qualified' position.
Hmmm. I am pretty worried about this. Myself and a number of other
experienced players are rapidly feeling constrained by the ammunition that
this sort of rule is providing 'losing' players. As I said I realise the
need for the rules and as you know, I hold the team in high regard but some
of the latest rulings and traffic has given me some serious worries.
Rob.
BernieTime wrote:
[ quoted text not captured ]
Indeed. I understand that. LSJ suggested that since my trickle-down method
does not address the potential for "kingmaking" (except to possible
exasperate it), that it does not provide a strong enough upside to warrent
changing the current system.
LSJ's other point, the one that counters your argument, is that if we bar
the pre-quals from further qualifiers, we are inherently making each
subsequent qualifier "easier", which is unfair to those only able to attend
the earlier qualifier. However, his desire to correct Kingmaking leads him
to consider that which you suggest... banning the pre-quals.
Your point is a good one, and when I was told about the pre-quals being
allowed in the last qualifier it was the first point to run through my head.
However, with no other general constructed tourney planned (other than your
interesting and unusual one which I thought was a great idea) I felt bad
suggesting to bar folks from going to a con and squeezing in as much
competitive Jyhad as possible.
I concede that my solution may not be the strongest, but I am glad I brought
it up just the same. Thanks for the input Bernie.
Matt
>The current method seems most fair (see the set argument above).
>The only argument against it with merit is the idea that someone
>with no stake in the event (someone already qualified) would be>more likely to play "kingmaker". If that argument is used, however,
>the solution is to ban qualified players from the reminaing
>qualifiers (making the later qualifiers a bit easier than the
>eralier ones as some strong players will be excluded). Given the
>rate of growth of the game, that may be what happens next year.
I suggest banning already qualified players from qualifiers.
"BernieTime" <berni...@aol.com> wrote
>
> Yet Bob's deck in comparison to his peer group (non-qualifieds)
> may be better than or on par with the rest of said peer group.
>
> Because of Bob's seating (unfortunate), we'd never know if
> he would have been able to garner enough VP's otherwise.
>
> I may not have illustrated that very well, as long as you get
> the spirit of my arguement.
I understand the concern, but a couple of thigs to also
consider:
Bob is trying to qualify. Bob would hope that his deck and play
are competitive with the decks and play of already qualified
players, or else he probably shouldn't be qualified. If Bob's
peer group is the non-qualified's, well...
Bob must suffer the slings and arrows of unfortunate seating
position like the rest of us. I can't count the number of games
I've played, and afterwards said "You know, if you and me
had been switched, I would not have been beaten like a
red-headed stepchild." Hmm, where are those Dramatic
Upheavals...
What if Bob were to sit with *eventual* qualifiers in each of
his three games? Wouldn't the concerns you noted still be
valid, vis-a-vis the rest of the field, who may have faced a
smaller number of eventual qualifiers?
The V:EKN needs to balance their desire to have well-attended
events (and therefore allowing the pre-qualified to play) against
the potential of a cleaner, more friendly qualifying atmosphere
(I have been assured that when Magic banned the pre-qualified
from meat grinders, the atmosphere became more congenial,
and the variety of decks seen became much more varied,
enriching the entire environment). V:tES may bee too young
a tournament game to exclude players from major events.
I am a bit distraught to see LSJ commenting on V:EKN
procedures, as DCI's close association with Wizards
was perhaps my least favorite thing about the
tournament environment for Magic. But I suppose
since he's the rules rep, and the tournament rules
are the rules in question, there may be nothing else
for it.
- Jason Bell
"Joshua Duffin" <duff...@bls.gov> wrote in message
news:59b20daa.01080...@posting.google.com...
[clip]
> It seems to me that that VEKN rule really ought to go hand in hand
> (and I know it's already under consideration) with the proposed
> "tournament ranking by table wins first" scoring system.
I've asked around quite a bit and so far everyone has been in favor of the
change under consideration. There are still some issues to work out, though.
Ties, etc.
-Robert
Robert Goudie
Chairman, V:EKN
rob...@vtesinla.org
In message <20010808163719...@ng-fb1.aol.com>, Ian Lee
<cur...@aol.com> writes
>I suggest banning already qualified players from qualifiers.
How would you deal with the situations (such as running them at GenCon
or Origins) where they are also national/regional annual championships?
[ quoted text not captured ]
"Rob Treasure" <Rob.Tr...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:9ks59q$626go$1...@ID-99315.news.dfncis.de...
> "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message
> news:3B712CBD...@white-wolf.com...
> > shsoton wrote:
> > > LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
> > > > Table splitting is nearly impossible to do legally, since the player
> > > > taking the 2 side of a 3-2 split (with the intention of honoring it)
> > > > is taking a losing deal.
> >
> > > Am I correct in assuming that you are *against* table splitting deals
> per
> > > se, or as part of a whole ? ie. in conjunction with the Trickledown
> aspect ?
> >
> > I'm not *against* it, except that it is illegal.
> > If you must play to win (and you must by V:EKN rules), then taking a
> > losing deal (with the intention of honoring it) is illegal
>
> I think on the most basic level, this undermines a lot of dealmaking
> possibilities within the game. Deeper than this, as soon as you begin
> 'entering the players head'* a dangerous precedent is set where decisions
> have to be made on the basis of opinion.
>
> *[By entering the players head I am referring to analysing what the decks on
> the table do, looking at the players hand / deck, questioning motives,
> enforcing the keeping or not of deals etc.]
Certainly the preferred method of handling this is rewarding players who *WIN*
their games and then we can assume that, for the most part, players' will alter
their deals to acheive the goal we've layed out for them. The next tournament
rules update will attempt to remedy this.
> I realise that guidelines and structure need to be implemented but this is
> not IMO a solid statute to build comparatively new dealmaking guidelines
> upon.
>
> > unless you cannot win
> > anyhow (which is rare).
>
> I cannot disagree with this strongly enough. Deals such as this (where you
> have for example 2 combat decks sat together) are commonplace in the UK (and
> elsewhere from what I read and research). A 2/3 split is the only semi-
> amicable agreement where the very real alternative is ripping each other a
> new hole and both ending up with squat.
The practice of 2/3 splits is common only because the player accepting the 2
side of the deal is still moving himself closer to his short-term goal of
reaching the finals.
> Personally, I would also consider taking the level one step further and
> offering the deal step by step with an agreement to duke it out at the end
> for the last 2 VP's putting faith in my deck, how would this be viewed at
> present ?
I think that would be perfectly acceptable in my estimation.
[ quoted text not captured ]
Trey,
So here is my current version of the deck in question:
Ymmm. Proteolicious.
1x Igo (1) pro
1x Huang (1) pro
1x Sadie (2) pro
1x Anistasia Grey (3) pro
1x Ricki van Demsi (3) pro
2x Chandler Hungerford (3) PRO
1x Ramona (4) pro
2x Daliyah (4) PRO
1x Mirembe Kabada (5) PRO
1x Camille Devereux (5) PRO
Masters:
4x Protean
4x Blood Doll
4x Effective Management
2x Eco Terrorists
1x Backways
1x Zoo Hunting Ground
12x Form of Mist
10x Earth Meld
4x Claws of the Dead (these were Spurs, but I liked the Manuver idea)
2x Body Flare
14x Computer Hacking
8x Wake
4x Delaying Tactics
3x Renegade Garou
1x Abomination
2x Meat Hook
2x Sport Bike
1x Atonement
1x Mr. Winthrop
This deck is only 80 cards, as 92 cards fit very nicely into an old Jyhad
box--I should probably up it to 90 (probably put in 1x Blood Doll, 1x Protean,
2x Form of Mist, 2x Earth Meld, 2x Hacking, 1x Garou, 1x Sport Bike or
something).
[ quoted text not captured ]
>>I suggest banning already qualified players from qualifiers.>
>How would you deal with the situations (such as running them at GenCon
>or Origins) where they are also national/regional annual championships?
>
>--
>James Coupe
I would suggest that these are the perfect times to run Novice tournaments
for those that want to play, but not compete in the big hoo-ha.
Qualified players are often folks that have a lot to teach to the newbies.
Bernie Bresnahan
Prince of Lansing
In message <20010809003547...@ng-cr1.aol.com>, BernieTime
<berni...@aol.com> writes
>I would suggest that these are the perfect times to run Novice tournaments
>for those that want to play, but not compete in the big hoo-ha.
>
>Qualified players are often folks that have a lot to teach to the newbies.
So folks already qualified for something are now excluded from being
national champion? Doesn't that somewhat tarnish the accolade?
[ quoted text not captured ]
"BernieTime" <berni...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010809003547...@ng-cr1.aol.com...
[ quoted text not captured ]
Bernie, *that* is an excellent idea. I'd love to do this in the future!!!
[ quoted text not captured ]
"James Coupe" <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote in message
news:Mggz1XzT...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk...
> In message <20010809003547...@ng-cr1.aol.com>, BernieTime
> <berni...@aol.com> writes
> >I would suggest that these are the perfect times to run Novice tournaments
> >for those that want to play, but not compete in the big hoo-ha.
> >
> >Qualified players are often folks that have a lot to teach to the newbies.
>
> So folks already qualified for something are now excluded from being
> national champion? Doesn't that somewhat tarnish the accolade?
If I want to be the "Pacific Region" champion, it would serve me well not to fly
to Seattle and first qualify there. If you'd like to be the European Champion,
you may play in the qualifier in London (and may be crowned English Champion) as
long as you haven't scuttled off to Barcelona and first qualified there.
-Robert
--
[ quoted text not captured ]
In message <eepc7.1707$Fc7.1...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>,
Robert Goudie <rrgo...@earthlink.net> writes
>> I would suggest that these are the perfect times to run Novice tournaments
>> for those that want to play, but not compete in the big hoo-ha.
>>
>> Qualified players are often folks that have a lot to teach to the newbies.>
>Bernie, *that* is an excellent idea. I'd love to do this in the future!!!
How many qualified players are going to spend the time and money
(potentially a lot of both) travelling to an event where they can't
enter the tournament? (Serious question.)
Not everyone necessarily has the option of taking days off in order to
try and pick up the games on, say, a Thursday and Friday too, meaning
they don't mind too much sticking around on the day of the tournament
they can't enter.
[ quoted text not captured ]
"James Coupe" <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote in message
news:LyWSRC2K...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk...
> In message <eepc7.1707$Fc7.1...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>,
> Robert Goudie <rrgo...@earthlink.net> writes
> >> I would suggest that these are the perfect times to run Novice tournaments
> >> for those that want to play, but not compete in the big hoo-ha.
> >>
> >> Qualified players are often folks that have a lot to teach to the newbies.
> >
> >Bernie, *that* is an excellent idea. I'd love to do this in the future!!!
>
> How many qualified players are going to spend the time and money
> (potentially a lot of both) travelling to an event where they can't
> enter the tournament? (Serious question.)
I'm sure no one will travel to a regular Qualifier if they cannot play. Are you
referring to the final European and/or North American qualifiers? My entire
group would have gone to GenCon anyway, if that means anything to you. We
weren't intending to play in the qualifier but changed our mind at the last
minute.
-Robert
In message <Thpc7.2217$%o4.2...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net>,
Robert Goudie <rrgo...@earthlink.net> writes
>If I want to be the "Pacific Region" champion, it would serve me well not to fly
>to Seattle and first qualify there. If you'd like to be the European Champion,
>you may play in the qualifier in London (and may be crowned English Champion) as
>long as you haven't scuttled off to Barcelona and first qualified there.
This could be less clear cut in areas with many far smaller regions.
e.g. continental European nations
[ quoted text not captured ]
In message <wvpc7.2243$%o4.2...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net>,
Robert Goudie <rrgo...@earthlink.net> writes
>> How many qualified players are going to spend the time and money
>> (potentially a lot of both) travelling to an event where they can't
>> enter the tournament? (Serious question.)>
>I'm sure no one will travel to a regular Qualifier if they cannot play. Are you
>referring to the final European and/or North American qualifiers?
They're still "regular" qualifiers, of course.
If I am already qualified and could only get to GenCon for the Saturday
but *couldn't* play the tournament, I'm unlikely to turn up.
How many good free players are likely to be able to do a teaching set of
games? Those who are good, but haven't qualified, will most likely be
playing. A section of those who have already qualified may not be able
to get there (taking the extremes of, say, someone from qualified in
Seattle needing to get to a tournament in New York). A section of those
qualified may not be able to turn up anyway (just as it happens, say
they're on their honeymoon that weekend or something). A section of
those qualified may only be able to attend any given tournament on the
one day of the main tournament (which they can't play in) anyway, and
may think that travel and accommodation for a day spent teaching is too
rich for them.
Realistically, how many good players would you have left over in
attendance who weren't playing in the tournament?
[ quoted text not captured ]
pd...@aol.comANTISPAM (Peter D Bakija) wrote in message news:<20010808212659...@ng-bg1.aol.com>...
[ quoted text not captured ]
We have a weenie-fan in our group too and thus everyone plays the
Atonement/Guardian Angel. And usually with Sniper rifle too. Should
have mentioned that too really =/.
[ quoted text not captured ]
Perhaps to bring this into focus, run the Novice tournaments as Starter
Decks only. The decks could be provided with a nominal entry fee, or
people could bring their own. Of course bringing your own would require
checking the decks to insure they are still starter decks.
In this fashion the Experianced players who wish to play, can also
teach, without being so over whelming, which will happen with
constructed decks.
Raille
"Joshua Duffin" <duff...@bls.gov> wrote in message
news:59b20daa.01080...@posting.google.com...
> on the other hand, aabbt kindred with atonements and fourteen forced
> awakenings could be trouble. but really, who plays that?
I'd say that someone playing this deck is consciously trying to steal
Legbiter's & my shtick.
:P
Xian
got a couple of funky new concepts that I gotta try out soon...
LSJ wrote:
>Having players playing in a qualifier who have no stake in the qualifying
>process would increase the likelyhood of "kingmaking" by those players.
Surely kingmaking would be against the standard tournament rules,
where you must attempt to win the game?
>So folks already qualified for something are now excluded from being
>national champion?
Oh. I couldn't figure out what your comment meant.
I think we mean different things by qualifiers. A qualifying tournament's only
purpose is to put you into the finals so that you can win a championship.
"Qualifiers" are never championships themselves.
For instance, for two games I play on a regular basis, at Gen Con US, there
were qualifiers Friday afternoon and Saturday morning to place people in the
Saturday finals. That's all they were for.
cur...@aol.com (Ian Lee) wrote in message news:<20010810123920...@mb-fh.aol.com>...
> >So folks already qualified for something are now excluded from being
> >national champion?
>
> Oh. I couldn't figure out what your comment meant.
All of the qualifier tournaments for the European Championship are
also National Championships for the nations in which they are held,
this year anyway.
See:
http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/vekn2001champ.html> I think we mean different things by qualifiers. A qualifying tournament's only
> purpose is to put you into the finals so that you can win a championship.
> "Qualifiers" are never championships themselves.
Except in this game.
Except this year.
> For instance, for two games I play on a regular basis, at Gen Con US, there
> were qualifiers Friday afternoon and Saturday morning to place people in the
> Saturday finals. That's all they were for.
Not true for most of the events on this page though:
http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/vekn2001champ.html
Carpe noctem.
Lasombra
http://www.TheLasombra.com
cur...@aol.com (Ian Lee) wrote in message news:<20010810123920...@mb-fh.aol.com>...
[ quoted text not captured ]
That's not true. In soccer for example, the national league is a
qualifier to the Champion's League and the Uefa Cup if I'm not
mistaken.
Lord Darksword wrote:
>
> So, is the 1st place deck posted somewhere? I'd love to check it out.
Yes. Google can't follow the thread, however, since the first message (the
ones all the others were follow-ups to) had a different subject line.
It's the second message listed in the "References:" header of your post
(and, consequently, of this post).
Message-ID: <3B703AF7...@white-wolf.com>
(Use Google's "Advanced Search" to seach on Message-ID)
[ quoted text not captured ]
wcouv...@netscape.net (Lord Darksword) wrote in message news:<831037c7.01082...@posting.google.com>...
> So, is the 1st place deck posted somewhere? I'd love to check it out.
All of the decks posted to the newsgroup rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad
are archived here:
http://clubs.yahoo.com/clubs/rgtcjdeckarchive
And, of course, the Tournament Winning Decks are always archived here:
http://www.TheLasombra.com/decks/twd.htm[ quoted text not captured ]
"Ethan Burrow" <saa...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3b705e7d...@news-server.austin.rr.com...
> On Mon, 06 Aug 2001 17:48:57 GMT, "Robert Goudie"
> <rrgo...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> >I think it was the right move for him, truthfully--after all, his newly
tuned
> >deck did get him qualified in a 70+ player tournament. Against almost
any other
> >prey he would have been fine, as the following rounds showed. I didn't
see any
> >serious Potence combat until I found Jared in the final.
>
> Actually, I also played a weenie potence deck in the nationals myself.
> Damn die roll.....
That was one of the harshest things I've witnessed. V:TES Russian Roulette.
If you'd have rolled your way in we could have really carved that table up
good! Did you at least appreciate that your deck (or the closest thing to
it) made it to the finals?
By the way, I really enjoyed meeting you. I instantly saw something
familiar about your play style as it reminds me of my own. Our meta games
have evolved similarly over the years as well.
-Robert
