GenCon 2005 Report

I see that Josh has beaten me to the blow-by-blow from the finals table. Still, I thought I would file my report on this year's GenCon. High points for me: 1. The Player's Guide: The new V:tes strategy tome was unveiled at the con. That was fun to see. It is a good looking book, filled with lots of goodies and sage advice. Everyone should grab that when it comes out. Of course, I am not at all biased by the fact that my name is in the credits. 2. The Swainbank Draft: Three draft tournaments with the format had been played before I got there on Thurs., and we played another one on Sun. It was fun to get the reports. Reviews were somewhat mixed, but generally positive. The format is intended to cost less, be faster to draft, let player build good (for draft) decks, still feel like V:tes, and encourage draft play. The last criterion seems to have been met - given the workout the format got at the con. Hopefully, it can become an official format for more drafty goodness. 3. The NAC finals! I was great to be able take a second trip the NAC finals table. It was a bummer to lose yet again, but it was a good game. Well played by all. More on that later of course. Other topics before I get the tournaments themselves: The Venue: The Con was its usual GenConny self -- overstuffed with gaming goodness. But after this third trip to Indy I'm ready to see something new, and excited that we'll be doing our own thing in Atlanta next year. 2-Day Format: I liked this. I liked that we had 3 big tournaments. I liked the fact that field got smaller as the days progressed. The deck variety was good, level of play was high, and I liked the fact that 2 two game wins assured you a spot in the finals and the threshold ended up even a little lower. Game Length: I am a firm supporter of the 2 1/2 hour finals. Players are more talkative, deliberative, and cautious in the finals. At least one player at the table always has an incentive to make the table go to time. Its lame for tournament finals to end with a time out. And it doesn't add much time to the tournament day. Finals should have an extra 1/2 hour - especially at qualifiers and championships. The Tournaments: I don't have the memory or patience for a blow-by-blow but here are some flavor and highlight clips from my tables - from my own myopic POV. The Meat Grinder on Thurs. I ran a Ravnos with Celerity combat toolbox deck that won me a Boston tournament two weeks ago. Here's the deck list: Deck Name : Fauberge's Eggs Author : Ben Swainbank Crypt [12 vampires] Capacity min: 2 max: 8 average: 5.25 ------------------------------------------------------------ 3x Etienne Fauberge 8 ANI CEL CHI FOR Ravnos:3 1x Joaquina Amaya 6 ANI CHI FOR Ravnos:2 1x Vaclav Petalengro 6 ANI CHI for pot Ravnos:2 1x Andrei Puxon 5 ani cel chi for Ravnos:2 1x Khalil Ravana 5 CHI ani for pre Ravnos:2 1x Gustavo Morales 4 ani cel for Gangrel:3 1x Salbatore Bokkengr 4 CHI for pro Ravnos:2 1x Sennuwy, The Promo 4 ani chi for Ravnos:2 1x Vedel Esbreno 3 chi for Ravnos:2 1x Zip 2 ani Ravnos:3 Library [90 cards] ------------------------------------------------------------ Master [13] 3x Blood Doll 1x Carver's Meat Packing and Storage 1x Dreams of the Sphinx 1x Erciyes Fragments, The 1x Fortune Teller Shop 1x Giant's Blood 1x Park Hunting Ground 1x Path of Lilith, The 1x Powerbase: Montreal 1x WMRH Talk Radio 1x Week of Nightmares Action [3] 1x Army of Rats 1x Embrace, The 1x Tumnimos Action Modifier [6] 2x Fata Morgana 4x Forced March Action Modifier/Combat [4] 2x Mirror Image 2x Occlusion Action/Reaction [2] 2x Draba Ally [2] 2x Neighborhood Watch Commander (Hunter) Combat [39] 1x Canine Horde 7x Carrion Crows 2x Flash 5x Hidden Strength 2x Imposing Phantasm 5x Pack Alpha 2x Psyche! 6x Pursuit 5x Skin of Steel 2x Taste of Vitae 2x Weighted Walking Stick Event [1] 1x NSA Trio Reaction [13] 5x Cats' Guidance 4x Forced Awakening 4x Wake with Evening's Freshness Retainer [7] 1x Murder of Crows 1x Owl Companion 5x Raven Spy Crafted with : Anarch Revolt Deck Builder. [Sun Aug 14 15:03:30 2005] Round 1. I'd been wondering how the deck would stand up to a real stealth-bleed predator. I found out in this game. And the answer was OKish. I took some big bleeds, and couldn't move forward much at all until I was set up enough to shut down my predator's Malks. She got ousted by Jeff Thompson playing War Ghouls. Which left me stuck between Scott Gomes' celerity-guns and Jeff's Ghouls. Things got worse when they decided to gang up and crush me. I completely failed to come up with reasonable counter-offer and took my beating. The guns went on to beat the ghouls and Scott got the table. Round 2. I was between a Tremere Ally deck and David Tatu playing Lasombra(?) as my predator. My grand-prey brought out Enkidu but she didn't do much damage with him. I got upstreamed by my prey a lot, but my combat was stronger and he mostly got torpor, taken hostage, and tortured for his efforts. I did a lot of complaining but it mostly worked out in my favor. Eventually, I dropped the Week of Nightmares and won the table. I think it was a sweep. Round 3. In round 3 my prey was playing Assamites. He brought out Joe Hill and Yazid. Joe took some Earth Sword hits from his fairy prey. I blocked and dropped him when he tried to hunt and dunked Yazid when he tried a rescue. Very early, my prey had no minions and not a ton of pool. What should have been an easy oust turned in to an hour-long ordeal as his vamps got rescued, he found plenty of untap, my killing bleeds got stopped with Eagle Site blocks from my predator (Mike Ooi playing with a merged Hell's Fool!). Finally, I played the Week of Nightmares and got the oust. By this time, his prey, Matt Flint playing Kiyasid, had picked up a VP and was closing in a second one. Matt grabbed my Neighborhood Watch Command with a Far Mastery and used it to dismember me - forcing my Ravnos to hunt off each other or knocking the empty ones into torpor. So, I got stuffed for the second time in a day by another Boston player and Matt got the table. I ended up with 1GW and 5 or 6 VP. A solid showing but not enough for the finals. NAC Day 1. With a 63 person field and two thirds of us going on to day two. I knew a few VPs would be enough to get a ticket to day two. I played an old-school weenie Tremere bruise-bleed deck that can get its prey pretty reliably and does a good job chewing up some tables. Here goes: Deck Name : Blood Thirsty Author : Ben Swainbank Crypt [12 vampires] Capacity min: 2 max: 7 average: 3.59 ------------------------------------------------------------ 1x Muaziz, Archon of 7 THA aus dom for Tremere:2 1x Aisling Sturbridge 5 AUS THA dom Tremere:2 1x Merrill Molitor 5 THA aus dom Tremere:1 1x Ignatius 4 aus dom tha Tremere:1 1x Sarah Cobbler 4 THA dom Tremere:1 1x Blythe Candeleria 3 THA aus Tremere:2 1x Brooke 3 dom tha !Tremere:2 1x Dr. John Casey 3 aus tha Tremere:1 1x Jing Wei 3 dom tha Tremere:1 1x Magdelena Schaefer 2 THA Caitiff:2 1x Mustafa Rahman 2 dom Tremere:2 1x Roreca Quaid 2 tha Tremere:1 Library [80 cards] ------------------------------------------------------------ Master [16] 1x Academic Hunting Ground 1x Anarch Troublemaker 2x Arcane Library 2x Blood Doll 2x Chantry 2x Dominate 1x Elder Library 1x From a Sinking Ship 1x Gambit Accepted 1x Jake Washington (Hunter) 1x Misdirection 1x Tremere Convocation Action [5] 5x Govern the Unaligned Action Modifier [14] 2x Bonding 2x Command of the Beast 5x Conditioning 5x Threats Combat [31] 12x Apportation 3x Blood Fury 1x Burst of Sunlight 12x Theft of Vitae 3x Walk of Flame Reaction [13] 7x Deflection 1x Eagle's Sight 1x Enhanced Senses 4x Wake with Evening's Freshness Event [1] 1x NSA Trio Crafted with : Anarch Revolt Deck Builder. [Sun Aug 14 15:30:58 2005] Round 1. I am very proud of my round 1 game. I managed to squeeze 2VPs out of a bad, bad, bad situation. My predator was Matt Hirsh playing a Tzimisce bleed toolbox with bats and crows fight. My prey was playing Tzimisce with Starvation of Marnea fight. His prey was an Omaya and Nadima wall that dropped Smiling Jack early. I smashed into my prey who seemed to fear the wrath of Omaya and wasn't going forward. We beat on each others with lots of torpor and blood loss on both sizes. Meanwhile Matt was bleeding me steadily and Jack was killing us all, but especially bad for my prey and I, who were already weak. It looked ugly. I stopped going forward and started thinking about how to survive another turn. My grand prey realized Matt was going to run through me and my prey agreed to my helpful suggestion that he let me Theft blood off of Omaya to keep me afloat and pay some of the Jack cost. Then he let my prey burn Jack and his prey - none other than Peter Charnley and his Arika deck - banished Omaya. That was my opening and I ran for it. I ousted my prey with some speedy bleeds and then charged into Nadima. Her fortitude wasn't much help against my Thefts and Blood Fury and down she went -- allowing me swoop up a second VP. With the intercept threat gone, Peter's deck really switched on and he vote-blasted Matt and I off the island and won the table - announcing "No guts no galaxy!" before he threw down the big bleed that ousted Matt. I was happy to walk away with a pair of VPs. And, fortunately, I had seen Peter and his deck in action. I wouldn't underestimate him again! No sirreee. Round 2. Four person table - so I can almost remember everyone. My prey was Josh Duffin playing Lasombra. He prey was David Tatu - who opened the game with a delightful Tatuism. Upon learning Josh was playing Lasombra David announced "You can have anyone else. But I need Gratiano. I will contest him till the end." Then he brought out Gregor Anderseen and a few others. No Lasombra in sight. My predator was Chad? (?) who was also playing Temere and !Tremere. And his were bigger than mine. I plowed into Josh with a bruise-bleed swarm and even managed to burn Gratiano, whom Josh had defiantly brought out, with a Walk of Flame and an assist from NSA Trio. Then I ousted him. With my quick 1 VP and big DOM behind me I decided to play a little conservatively. 12 pool, two minions untapped, two Deflections and a Wake in hand. Its all under control. David KRCs me for 2 and then 2 more. 8 pool. Chad Pentex Subversions one of my vamps and throws down two Govern bleeds, which I deflect, followed by two Conditioning bleeds that oust me. Ouch. Stinkin' Dominate bleed. Who plays with that sleaze? Round 3. My grand predator was Robyn Tatu playing Maris Streck and despite the fact that she was being hammered by a stealth-bleed deck, she managed to get her prey (my predator Mark Loughman playing what looked like Giovanni Power-Bleed) down to one pool. Robyn bled, Hugh bounced, and I asked Robyn how much it was worth for me to bounce it back. Robyn offered 5 turns with no pressure. Sold! I leapt forward with newfound freedom. Unfortunately my prey was Tobin Lopes and I leapt headfirst into his Fatima wall deck. Tobin seemed to have a LOT of untap and Fatima shot the crap out of my poor little Tremere, and still ousted his prey. I zapped Fatima with a Burst of Sunlight, and Ignatius got burned by the bloodhunt when he ate her. But, with Fatima gone I was finally able to bruise and bleed my way through Tobin. About this time, the 5 turns of freedom ended and Robyn rightfully crushed what was left of my broken and dispirited band. So, 0 GW 4 VP for the day. Not super, but I got me a golden ticket to day 2. Good enough. NAC Day 2. The stakes are high. It's time to bust out the Giovanni Power-Deck: Deck Name : Spectral Divination Author : Ben Swainbank Crypt [12 vampires] Capacity min: 3 max: 7 average: 4.75 ------------------------------------------------------------ 3x Le Dinh Tho 5 NEC aus dom Nagaraja:2 2x Isabel Giovanni 5 DOM NEC pot Giovanni:2 2x Gloria Giovanni 4 DOM nec Giovanni:2 1x Andrea Giovanni 7 DOM NEC pot vic Giovanni:2 1x Gillespi Giovanni 7 DOM NEC POT aus Giovanni:2 1x Francesca Giovanni 4 dom nec pot Giovanni:2 1x Lia Milliner 3 dom nec Giovanni:3 1x Rudolfo Giovanni 3 NEC Giovanni:2 Library [90 cards] ------------------------------------------------------------ Master [21] 1x Anarch Troublemaker 3x Blood Doll 1x Channel 10 1x Dis Pater 1x Dreams of the Sphinx 1x Erciyes Fragments, The 1x Giant's Blood 1x Jake Washington (Hunter) 5x Life in the City 2x Liquidation 1x Misdirection 1x Morgue Hunting Ground 1x Perfectionist 1x WMRH Talk Radio Action [9] 1x Aranthebes, The Immortal 1x Dominate Kine 7x Govern the Unaligned Action Modifier [21] 8x Bonding 9x Call of the Hungry Dead 4x Conditioning Action Modifier/Reaction [8] 8x Spectral Divination Ally [12] 2x Ambrosius, The Ferryman (Wraith) 1x Carlton Van Wyk (Hunter) 1x Leonardo, Mortician 8x Shambling Hordes Combat [6] 6x Spiritual Intervention Reaction [10] 6x Deflection 4x Wake with Evening's Freshness Event [3] 1x FBI Special Affairs Division 2x Unmasking, The Crafted with : Anarch Revolt Deck Builder. [Sun Aug 14 15:23:29 2005] Round1. My predator is Darby Keeney with his patented 1st Tradition-Pay-to-Play deck. It didn't take him long to get a 1st Trad on the table and have us all grudgingly fork over 2 pool for the pleasure of taking a turn. Sadly, tragically, a big bleed got bounced to him right after he brought out a second, big minion. Darby went down to 2 pool and couldn't afford to take a turn himself. Oh the irony! He got ousted. My new predator was Matt Flint playing what appeared to be the same deck as me. Lucky for me, I got all the cool vampires first, and Matt was stuck with an uncontrolled region full of vamps already on the table. He contested Le Dinh Tho and Rudolpho. I sent my Hordes after his remaining vamps to get him off the table. Fortunately, that didn't take too long. Once I got my team back I was able to move forward pretty easily and picked up the table for a GW and 3VP. Round 2. This was the Table That Got Away. Early on my prey, grand-prey, and great-grand prey all got rather low in pool- while my position was pretty solid. If ever there was a table begging to get swept this was it. And it was begging me. Ben, it was saying, please sweep me... please... I awaken from my daydream to find that my prey, playing Ahrimanes, has talked his grand-prey (Nick Watkins) into sending a War Ghoul rushing at him so he could cycle, like, 10 combat cards. This gives him a handful of untap and intercept - more than enough to stop me from bleeding him out on my turn. And it buys him time to oust his prey (Todd Holland - Malk Kindred Spirits bleed). Grrrr... Eventually, I oust him, and I decide this is as good a time as any to see who my predator is.. hey its Peter Charnley playing the same Arika deck I saw yesterday. Fortunately, since I had faced this deck already, I knew exactly what to do. Le Din Tho swiped Peter's power cards while I ran through the table. Just kidding! What actually happened was Nick and I got into a debate about whether we had a deal, and if we did, was anyone breaking it. Meanwhile Peter PTOed my Mr. Tho, blasted us with a KRC or two, and announced "No guts no galaxy!" before throwing a monster Arika bleed at me. This would have been a great time to be holding a Deflection. Sadly, the cupboard was bare (hadn't seen one all game. Bummer). Nick could have blocked with Eagle Site but that wasn't part of the deal we may or may not have had. I got ousted. Peter got Nick shortly thereafter. Round 3. My prey is Jay Kristoff playing Nos Breed-and-Bloat. I set Le Dinh Tho to work getting rid of those Con Boons while Jay made babies. My other minions set up an ally intercept wall that totally stymied my !Toreador bleed-and-vote predator, Shane Schneider. I got Jay with a series of Really Big Bleeds. Mat Morgan was prey number 2 and held out for an annoyingly long time- blocking and bouncing my bleeds. I got down to 4 pool and - here I have give myself a pat on the back for my Oscar-worthy subtle-yet-nuanced performance as The Man With No Deflections - right before I woke and bounced a big bleed from Shane to oust Matt. I was able to finish off my new prey (Will Kristoff playing Ahrimanes) during my turn. With the table down the Shane and I, it just seemed like a matter of time before I got him. But it turned into a matter of too much time. The table timed out before I could finish him off. 2 GW 7 1/2 VP for the day gets me into... THE 2005 NAC FINALS The Seating: I knew Josh and Jared were playing vote. I didn't know what Stefan was playing. I knew I didn't want to be between the vote decks, and guesses Stefan was playing something fast and sleazy. I chose to Jared's prey, Stefan's predator. I think that was the right call. Peter Charnley has top seed. As he picks his seat he says "Jared and I have worked together well before. And I think we can again." He chose his seat between Stefan and Josh and that probably sealed the game right there. The Game Josh has already blogged up a good overview. But here are my notes: When I found out Stefan was playing Celerity gun I know my survival would depend on getting Ambrosious out early to block rushes and getting Le Dinh Tho out to strip away more rushes - which would leave Stefan at my mercy -- assuming I didn't get vote-jacked by the three other vote decks at the table. I was very happy to seem my opening draw with the deadly Mr. Tho in the crypt and Ambrosious in my hand. Very happy in indeed. I also got my intercept locations early which I thought would be great against Jared. In retrospect I don't think I blocked much that he cared about, and the intercept locations were mostly a waste of pool. My anti-rush tech worked as planned. Stefan took two rushes against the Thoboy but only shot up Ambrosious and Jake Washington with his efforts. My problem was that I wasn't hitting my bleed. I had a hand full of Call of the Hungry Dead all game - completely forgetting that you CAN cycle Call even if you don't need to. Doh! Eventually, I found my bleed and took my shot at Stefan. I was a little surprised he decided to transfer out after my kill-shot got DIed. But I'll take it. I don't know if Jared could have taken me on his turn or if I could have just ousted Stefan on my next turn. As soon as Stefan fell, Peter PTOed Le Dinh Tho for the second time that day. Ouch. That left me with only Gloria and Andrea as bleeders and nobody to scout for them. I got ripped by a few votes on Peter's and the Jared's turns, which brought the table around to what would be my last turn. (Astute readers may notice that Josh doesn't have a large role in this narrative. Frankly, he wasn't getting much done over there.) My last turn was basically a big stupid-fest. My problem was that I was jammed on Call, Spectral Intervention, Allies, and Masters. I needed to nail Peter and needed Bleed cards to do it. From this need to cycle flowed much idiocy. I played a Hunting Ground - which turned out to be a rather poor investment of 2 pool. I tried to get the Ericiyes Fragment from Jared with Andrea (it was Josh's idea. Josh made me do it) - somehow oblivious to the fact that he had TWO untapped minions and was sure to block me. He did. Then I tried to get Shambling Hordes with Gloria - which Jared stopped with a 2nd Trad. Wouldn't it have been smarter to get the Hordes with Andrea who gets and additional stealth? And can get by a 2nd Trad with basic Call? Yes. Yes, that would have been smarter. The good news was that I had found my bleed cards. I probably ate some KRC splash on Peter's turn and Josh did nothing special with his turn... and here we shall pause and consider the table state at the start of Jared's turn... Jared had 4 pool and 5 minions. I 5 pool, only Ambrosious untapped, and no wakes. Peter had 6 pool. Josh 5 pool - Carlton Van Wyk and Gideon untapped. If I could survive the turn I had the cards in had to take a run at Peter's pool. Jared calls the Parity Shift. I convince Josh to try to block with Carlton - offering to throw Aranthebes and WMRH. The air is thick with tension. The championship hangs in the balance... and.... Jared plays the Forgotten Labyrinth and dashes all hope of us catching him. At this point, the really smart play would have been throw the WMRH intercept anyhow, eat the pool loss and go out of Parity Shift range! Sadly, I was long done with smart plays for the day. I ate the pool loss, and a bleed, and got ousted. Later, Jared informed me that his backup plan was to take Josh's pool and toss it to Peter. And he had a Major Boon in hand ready for my bleed. But I think he was just trying to make me feel better. Peter then ousted Josh with a big Arika bleed - "No guts no galaxy!". I'm out but the ride isn't over. The Charnley-Strait alliance is ended and Peter moves in for the kill. It looks like he has the cards in hand to oust Jared. I'm only seconds away from 2nd place! The time runs out-- denying Peter the Game Win (but not the tournament win) and putting me in 3rd, behind Jared. Congrats to Peter and the rest of the finalist for a good game. The championship was over but not the Con. On Sunday we had a Swainbank Draft with Sabbat War and KMW - two great draft sets that gave us a rather strong and interesting decks. Fun stuff. I didn't make the finals. But thanks to those who played, and a special thanks to Jeff (The Lasombra) Thompson who provided the cards, prize support, and ran the event. All in all, a great Championship event. Next stop Budapest! -Ben Swainbank

Ben Swainbank wrote: > Game Length: I am a firm supporter of the 2 1/2 hour finals. Players > are more talkative, deliberative, and cautious in the finals. At least > one player at the table always has an incentive to make the table go to > time. Its lame for tournament finals to end with a time out. And it > doesn't add much time to the tournament day. Finals should have an > extra 1/2 hour - especially at qualifiers and championships. So, by your argument, the problem isn't the two-hour time limit, but rather the actions of the players. While the "gaseous expansion" phenomenon won't eat up all of the 30 added minutes, I agree with Fred Scott that it's largely true that the urgency of decision-making in the finals only starts appearing with 10 minutes left, when preliminary-round tiebreakers become more important than the game win. For that matter, I think the preliminary-round tiebreakers have a huge impact on the length of the finals throughout the finals, and not just the last 10 minutes. No matter what, there's always one person - the person with the best tiebreaker - who wants the finals to go to time. I personally feel that two hours is a reasonable amount of time for a final round, and I feel that it's up to the players - and not the clock - to stop screwing around and play the game. You know what's at stake. You know who has the best tiebreaker. You know how much time there is to play. If you want to talk yourself to death, that's on you, not the rules. - Ben Peal

Ben wrote: > I personally feel that two hours is a reasonable amount of time for > a final round, and I feel that it's up to the players - and not the > clock - to stop screwing around and play the game. You know what's > at stake. You know who has the best tiebreaker. You know how much > time there is to play. If you want to talk yourself to death, that's > on you, not the rules. This is all completely true, but it seems likely that adding a half an hour is a small enough increment that it won't make that much difference in terms of player fatigue and event time but *might* just be enough time for some extra stuff to happen. Sure, it is possible that the extra half hour will result in the exact same dynamic of "play slowly till the last 10 minutes and then see what happens", just for an extra half hour, but it is also possible that a few more games will actually end--assuming that people are playing consistiently but cautiously, rather than sandbagging for a time out, the extra half hour could make a significant difference. On the other hand, if everyone is just sandbagging for a time out, then it just makes the game go longer before it times out. But as, again, it isn't that much of a time increase, and I suspect that everyone really only cares about doing this to, like, Qualifiers and Contenental Championships (as opposed to local, 10 player 2R+F events where the length of the event is often very significant as the venue wants to close and go home, or whatever), that it seems reasonable to, at the very least, give it a try. Maybe for the upcoming season, have all the Qualifiers and Contenental Championships have a 2.5 hour final, see what happens, and if they all just time out anyway, then go back to 2 hour finals. Yes, someone (likely Josh) pointed out that having 2 hour rounds and a 2.5 hour final might have an effect on deck performance (i.e. some deck might do well in a 2 hour game but less well in a 2.5 hour game, or whatever), which isn't a completely insignificant issue, but still, I suspect it is worth giving it a try for a season and see what happens. Peter D Bakija pd...@lightlink.com http://www.lightlink.com/pdb6 "So in conclusion, our business plan is to sell hot, easily spilled liquids to naked people." -Brittni Meil

Ben Swainbank wrote: > ...I thought I would file my report on this year's > GenCon... Great report. Thanks. > ... I had a hand full of > Call of the Hungry Dead all game - completely forgetting that you CAN > cycle Call even if you don't need to. How do you mean? You can only play it when someone's attempting to block.

Peter D for Danger Bakija wrote: > Ben wrote: > > I personally feel that two hours is a reasonable amount of time for > > a final round, and I feel that it's up to the players - and not the > > clock - to stop screwing around and play the game. You know what's > > at stake. You know who has the best tiebreaker. You know how much > > time there is to play. If you want to talk yourself to death, that's > > on you, not the rules. > > This is all completely true, but it seems likely that adding a half an hour > is a small enough increment that it won't make that much difference in terms > of player fatigue and event time but *might* just be enough time for some > extra stuff to happen. > > But as, again, it isn't that much of a time increase, and I suspect that > everyone really only cares about doing this to, like, Qualifiers and > Contenental Championships (as opposed to local, 10 player 2R+F events where > the length of the event is often very significant as the venue wants to > close and go home, or whatever), that it seems reasonable to, at the very > least, give it a try. Maybe for the upcoming season, have all the Qualifiers > and Contenental Championships have a 2.5 hour final, see what happens, and > if they all just time out anyway, then go back to 2 hour finals. > > Yes, someone (likely Josh) pointed out that having 2 hour rounds and a 2.5 > hour final might have an effect on deck performance (i.e. some deck might do > well in a 2 hour game but less well in a 2.5 hour game, or whatever), which > isn't a completely insignificant issue, but still, I suspect it is worth > giving it a try for a season and see what happens. When was the last time the European Championship finals went to time? The South American? The Australian? Why should we change the rules for these championships when they've been doing an excellent job of resolving their final rounds in less than two hours? In the case of the finals of the North American Championships for the past 5 years, 4 of those final rounds have gone to time. However, nowhere have I read that insufficient time was allocated for the final round. In addition, every account I've read and heard (and seen with my own eyes or have been a part of) has indicated that the games went to time as the result of constant player table talk, dealmaking, and table-balancing maneuvers. In other words, it's been because of the actions of the players, not the clock. - Ben Peal

fudjo wrote: > Peter D for Danger Bakija wrote: [snip much smart stuff] I totally agree with Ben AND additionally I find it important to note that usually you build a deck for a 2h hour game. When you have 2,5h it is a different game and that benefits some decks (esp. vote) which is kind of unfair. So stick to the 2h, everybody wants to go to dinner in time anyway ;-) -- johannes walch

Johannes Walch wrote: > I totally agree with Ben AND additionally I find it important to note > that usually you build a deck for a 2h hour game. When you have 2,5h it > is a different game and that benefits some decks (esp. vote) which is > kind of unfair. Really--ya think? I have never put any thought at all into what time frame my deck works well for. I just use the decks that have been working well in casual play (which has no time limit) for competetive play. I never build decks just for tournaments (excepting, like storyline tournaments that have specific deck requirmeents, and even then, I usually just modify a pre-existing deck to fit the format), and never pick decks based on a 2 hour time limit. Like, I suppose that is a possibility for some folks, but I suspect that it isn't *that* common. > So stick to the 2h, everybody wants to go to dinner in time anyway ;-) Like, if we give it a try for a season, and it doesn't change anything, then forget the whole thing, and just go back to 2 hour limits in the finals. *But* there is a possibility that playing with the 2.5 hour finals might, like, increase the incidence of finals actually finishing by a significant percentage, in which case, it was clearly a good idea. I can't really see how it would hurt to try. [ quoted text not captured ]

fudjo wrote: > When was the last time the European Championship finals went to time? > The South American? The Australian? Why should we change the rules > for these championships when they've been doing an excellent job of > resolving their final rounds in less than two hours? Ok then--if most games have been finishing, then this is all moot. I was under the impression that games timing out was more common than it apparently is. > > In the case of the finals of the North American Championships for the > past 5 years, 4 of those final rounds have gone to time. However, > nowhere have I read that insufficient time was allocated for the > final round. In addition, every account I've read and heard (and seen with > my own eyes or have been a part of) has indicated that the games went > to time as the result of constant player table talk, dealmaking, and > table-balancing maneuvers. In other words, it's been because of the > actions of the players, not the clock. Would the extra half hour have helped them actually finish? [ quoted text not captured ]

Peter D Bakija wrote: > fudjo wrote: > > In the case of the finals of the North American Championships for the > > past 5 years, 4 of those final rounds have gone to time. However, > > nowhere have I read that insufficient time was allocated for the > > final round. In addition, every account I've read and heard (and seen with > > my own eyes or have been a part of) has indicated that the games went > > to time as the result of constant player table talk, dealmaking, and > > table-balancing maneuvers. In other words, it's been because of the > > actions of the players, not the clock. > > Would the extra half hour have helped them actually finish? In the year (2000 IIRC) that Ben and I and Jared ran it to time, the extra 30 minutes might have seemed like it would have helped me quite a bit. In truth, I went for a late game kill (about 10 minutes left). Had the round been 2.5 hours I probably still would have made my lunge with 10 minutes left and probably still come up short. Two years ago, when Christian won, Stephen Lavrut made his lunge to oust his prey with the intention of the game ending after his lunge. Seems that there'd be no different outcome with 2.5 hours. I don't know about the others. -Robert

Peter D Bakija wrote: > Johannes Walch wrote: > > >>I totally agree with Ben AND additionally I find it important to note >>that usually you build a deck for a 2h hour game. When you have 2,5h it >>is a different game and that benefits some decks (esp. vote) which is >>kind of unfair. > > > Really--ya think? I have never put any thought at all into what time frame > my deck works well for. I just use the decks that have been working well in > casual play (which has no time limit) for competetive play. I never build > decks just for tournaments (excepting, like storyline tournaments that have > specific deck requirmeents, and even then, I usually just modify a > pre-existing deck to fit the format), and never pick decks based on a 2 hour > time limit. Like, I suppose that is a possibility for some folks, but I > suspect that it isn't *that* common. Want an example? E.g my beloved Julius deck works beautifully getting one gamewin after another in casual games. But I can´t take it to tournaments because it will time out almost all the tables with 2h. With 2,5h per round I could probably take it. -- johannes walch

Emmit Svenson wrote: > Ben Swainbank wrote: > > ...I thought I would file my report on this year's > > GenCon... > > Great report. Thanks. I see the Google rather mangled the formatting. Its nice of them to let you see the preview and then change it again after that. I recommend Show Options-> Show Original for Google users who want to read it. > > > ... I had a hand full of > > Call of the Hungry Dead all game - completely forgetting that you CAN > > cycle Call even if you don't need to. > > How do you mean? You can only play it when someone's attempting to > block. Good point. You can play it if they don't have intercept to match you stealth. But you do need a blocker. In retrospect, I may not have missed a cycle opportunity. -Ben Swainbank

On Mon, 29 Aug 2005, Ben Swainbank wrote: > Good point. You can play it if they don't have intercept to match you > stealth. But you do need a blocker. In retrospect, I may not have > missed a cycle opportunity. I watched most of that game pretty carefully. I'd say you would've needed a nice run of Delaying Tactics or something to pull off a win in that game. Jared had too much stealth, too many KRCs and too easy a time passing his votes. There wasn't a major "doh!" moment or anything. Sure, you could've avoided the Parity Shift with WMRH, but it didn't look like that maneuver would've gotten you more VPs. You had a bad matchup and you still pulled off a VP. You might've moved an extra card here or there, but the outcome would've probably been the same. Matt Morgan

Johannes Walch wrote: > Want an example? E.g my beloved Julius deck works beautifully getting > one gamewin after another in casual games. But I can´t take it to > tournaments because it will time out almost all the tables with 2h. With > 2,5h per round I could probably take it. I mean, like, sure, it seems possible that people decide what decks to take based on 2 hour tables, but I suspect that it is less common than you seem to think. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Mon, 29 Aug 2005, Peter D Bakija wrote: > Johannes Walch wrote: > >> Want an example? E.g my beloved Julius deck works beautifully getting >> one gamewin after another in casual games. But I can´t take it to >> tournaments because it will time out almost all the tables with 2h. With >> 2,5h per round I could probably take it. > > I mean, like, sure, it seems possible that people decide what decks to take > based on 2 hour tables, but I suspect that it is less common than you seem > to think. It's a criticism I hear and give sometimes. "Nice deck, but I don't see how it could take a table in two hours." It usually means "thanks for making me sit here getting nothing done for three hours with your stupid-ass, slow-ass intercept deck!" Matt Morgan

Matthew T. Morgan wrote: > It's a criticism I hear and give sometimes. "Nice deck, but I don't see > how it could take a table in two hours." > It usually means "thanks for making me sit here getting nothing done for > three hours with your stupid-ass, slow-ass intercept deck!" Heh heh. Reasonable :-) Yeah, overall, it is certainly possible that going to a 2.5 hour final would be sheer folly and accomplish nothing but make people hungrier. But it is already a possibility (I'm pretty certain that the VEKN allows 2.5 hour rounds), and I can't see how it would hurt, in the grand scheme, to try it out for a season. Even with decks that can't win in 2 hours but can win in 2.5 (although I'm hard pressed to think of a deck design that cant reliably win in 2 hours but can reliably win in 2.5 hours--maybe 5 hours vs 2 hours, ok, but the extrahalf hour is going to make thatmuch of a difference?) [ quoted text not captured ]

On Mon, 29 Aug 2005, Peter D Bakija wrote: > Yeah, overall, it is certainly possible that going to a 2.5 hour final would > be sheer folly and accomplish nothing but make people hungrier. But it is > already a possibility (I'm pretty certain that the VEKN allows 2.5 hour > rounds), and I can't see how it would hurt, in the grand scheme, to try it > out for a season. Even with decks that can't win in 2 hours but can win in > 2.5 (although I'm hard pressed to think of a deck design that cant reliably > win in 2 hours but can reliably win in 2.5 hours--maybe 5 hours vs 2 hours, > ok, but the extrahalf hour is going to make thatmuch of a difference?) One assumes that decks that generally can't win in two hours are unlikely to be at a final table. In my experience at final tables, either people play the game and it ends under two hours or people talk the game to death and then whoever can sneak in a quick VP wins. Making the final longer probably wouldn't change that. Matt Morgan

Matthew T. Morgan wrote: > > One assumes that decks that generally can't win in two hours are unlikely > to be at a final table. Indeed. The players (with their decks) demonstrated that they know how to get GWs within 2 hours in order to get to the finals. Still finals time out with some frequency. The NAC timed out in 2001, 2003, 2004, and 2005. The Northeast Qualifier finals timed out in 2004 and 2005. I'm sure there are other examples. But these are the ones I'm most familar with. I don't its the players and I don't think its their decks. I think its the finals. > In my experience at final tables, either people > play the game and it ends under two hours or people talk the game to death > and then whoever can sneak in a quick VP wins. That is not my experience. In the NEQ this year I don't think we talked that table to death. I think we played conservatively - because we were smart and none of us wanted to get ousted. Despite having 3 vote decks on the table I don't think the 2005 NAC table talked itself to death. A a prelim table everyone is missing a shot at a GW (and other tables are not) by talking it death or playing slowly. At a finals table, nobody wants to get ousted, nobody wants to screw up, the guy in the lead wants to see it go to time with the smallest number of elapsed turns, and there's more incetive to maintain the balance than let the table fall. This results in slower play, even if players aren't overnegotiating or trying to stall (which they might be). With a 2 1/2 final it would be harder to time-out the table or play wait-and-lunge. More turns would mean more games would finish - which is a more satisfying ending. The NAC time-out wasn't such a big deal because Peter was already in the lead. If Jared had been a higher seed it would have seemed most unfair. I advocate 2 1/2 hours for all finals, but especially Qualifiers and Championships. In cost/benefit terms: Benefits: More finals that result in clear GWs and fewer timeouts (How many more? I don't know. Lets find out!) Cost: For players in the finals, getting to play an addition 1/2 hour (if required) is not a high cost. I, and expect most other players, would prefer to let the game play out some more. Players not in the finals don't have to stick around. No cost there. The Judge is the only one who has to bear any "cost". I would think a potential extra 1/2 hour tacked onto a long tournament day would not be too painful. But people who actually run events could say better than I. -Ben Swainbank

On Mon, 29 Aug 2005, Ben Swainbank wrote: >> In my experience at final tables, either people >> play the game and it ends under two hours or people talk the game to death >> and then whoever can sneak in a quick VP wins. > > That is not my experience. In the NEQ this year I don't think we talked > that table to death. I think we played conservatively - because we were > smart and none of us wanted to get ousted. Despite having 3 vote decks > on the table I don't think the 2005 NAC table talked itself to death. Being 5th seed, I definately should've played less conservatively in that NEQ final. That would've forced Robyn to either save me or attempt to oust her prey, since if I were the only one ousted, that would've given you the win. I guess that game didn't exactly fit the rule above - we didn't talk all that much. In fact, we didn't do too terribly much of anything. You bled me a little. Jared got you kind of low a few times but you always bounced back. I might've passed a KRC once. Still, would another 30 minutes have made much of a difference? I recall things still being pretty much deadlocked right up to the end. I don't think she used Maris' ability much, but Robyn certainly benefitted from status quo the most so she could've started passing out intercept at any point. This year's NAC final almost finished under two hours and so it makes a decent argument for a 2.5 hour limit, I'll grant you. Still, lower-seed players should know they have a time limit to play against. It's something they have to deal with if they want to win, just like the "do not replace" clause on Wake with Evening's Freshness. If you can't play the game properly with six cards in hand, run Forced Awakening. If you can't win the game in two hours, build a faster deck. Matt Morgan

On 29 Aug 2005 10:50:32 -0700, Ben Swainbank <bswai...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > Matthew T. Morgan wrote: > >> One assumes that decks that generally can't win in two hours are >> unlikely to be at a final table. > > Indeed. The players (with their decks) demonstrated that they know how > to get GWs within 2 hours in order to get to the finals. I very much agree. In fact, I even think that time limits in the finals should be extended as much as possible from a technical perspective. I'm all for 2 1/2 hours, 3 hours or even completely untimed finals (where feasible). > A a prelim table everyone is missing a shot at a GW (and other tables > are not) by talking it death or playing slowly. At a finals table, > nobody wants to get ousted, nobody wants to screw up, the guy in the > lead wants to see it go to time with the smallest number of elapsed > turns, and there's more incetive to maintain the balance than let the > table fall. The problem with finals is that you do not need a GW to win the table (and as a result, the tournament). I know it's probably mostly impossible to verify, but I'd very much be interested in what effect it would have on final tables timing out if you'd need at least 2 final table VPs to win the tournament; otherwise, the tournament would end up "unwon" (probably even feasible in case of a tournament series where prizes would cumulate). -- Bye, Daneel

Daneel wrote: > On 29 Aug 2005 10:50:32 -0700, Ben Swainbank <bswai...@hotmail.com> > wrote: > > > > > Matthew T. Morgan wrote: > > > >> One assumes that decks that generally can't win in two hours are > >> unlikely to be at a final table. > > > > Indeed. The players (with their decks) demonstrated that they know how > > to get GWs within 2 hours in order to get to the finals. > > I very much agree. > > In fact, I even think that time limits in the finals should be extended > as much as possible from a technical perspective. I'm all for 2 1/2 > hours, 3 hours or even completely untimed finals (where feasible). > > > A a prelim table everyone is missing a shot at a GW (and other tables > > are not) by talking it death or playing slowly. At a finals table, > > nobody wants to get ousted, nobody wants to screw up, the guy in the > > lead wants to see it go to time with the smallest number of elapsed > > turns, and there's more incetive to maintain the balance than let the > > table fall. > > The problem with finals is that you do not need a GW to win the table > (and as a result, the tournament).... The corrolary to this is that you must build a deck that can lunge in order to have a better shot at winning the finals. It is a given that at least one player has an incentive to make the table time out. Since we can expect some deliberately cautious/slow play at the table, it follows that all other players have an incentive to be the sole player one to earn a VP at the table, thus winning the event. This may lead them to play cautiously, hopefully timing things properly so they can take their last turn, lunge and earn one VP, ideally without their predator having another turn after they've tapped out and spent all their resources. This scenario seems to play out all too often, and it really doesn't to VTES justice to have tables end like this as frequently as they do. Jeff

Daneel wrote: > The problem with finals is that you do not need a GW to win the table > (and as a result, the tournament). I know it's probably mostly > impossible to verify, but I'd very much be interested in what effect > it would have on final tables timing out if you'd need at least 2 > final table VPs to win the tournament; otherwise, the tournament > would end up "unwon" (probably even feasible in case of a tournament > series where prizes would cumulate). On one hand, it would probably make people work a lot harder to win. On the other hand, it would be impossible to impliment, really, as having a tournament "unwon" means that sometimes, due to forces outside of your control, the tournament fails to be won. Which no one likes. I'd think that the very fact that if no one gets any VPs and the event times out, the first seed going in winds by default would make the low seed folks work really hard to try and oust folks, and in the process, either win or get ousted--they gain nothing by timing out (as they aren't going to win without getting VPs, where first seed will win if no one gets VPs), so I'd figure seat, like, 4 and 5 would play much riskier than one would think--win or die trying. This being said, I still think it might be a good idea to try some 2.5 hour final games in major events. [ quoted text not captured ]

Peter D Bakija wrote: > Daneel wrote: > > > The problem with finals is that you do not need a GW to win the table > > (and as a result, the tournament). I know it's probably mostly > > impossible to verify, but I'd very much be interested in what effect > > it would have on final tables timing out if you'd need at least 2 > > final table VPs to win the tournament; otherwise, the tournament > > would end up "unwon" (probably even feasible in case of a tournament > > series where prizes would cumulate). > > On one hand, it would probably make people work a lot harder to win. > > On the other hand, it would be impossible to impliment, really, as having a > tournament "unwon" means that sometimes, due to forces outside of your > control, the tournament fails to be won. Which no one likes. > > I'd think that the very fact that if no one gets any VPs and the event times > out, the first seed going in winds by default would make the low seed folks > work really hard to try and oust folks, and in the process, either win or > get ousted--they gain nothing by timing out (as they aren't going to win > without getting VPs, where first seed will win if no one gets VPs), so I'd > figure seat, like, 4 and 5 would play much riskier than one would think--win > or die trying. On some level I agree (see above). But, you don't have to *win* -- you just need to have more VPs than everyone else. Ergo, slow play and lunge. Jeff

"Ben Swainbank" <bswai...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:1125168429.4...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... >I see that Josh has beaten me to the blow-by-blow from the finals > table. Still, I thought I would file my report on this year's > GenCon. Oh, I don't think mine was quite a blow-by-blow. We'd need someone with really good memory (like... say... Matt?) and a lot of time on their hands (hmm...) to do that. :-) > 1. The Player's Guide: The new V:tes strategy tome was unveiled at > the con. That was fun to see. It is a good looking book, filled with > lots of goodies and sage advice. Everyone should grab that when it > comes out. Of course, I am not at all biased by the fact that my name > is in the credits. Yeah, it's VERY cool looking. I also recommend picking one up when you get a chance. And while my name may also be in the credits, I can assure my readers that my contract did not include royalties, so my advice is rather unbiased here. :-) > 2. The Swainbank Draft: Three draft tournaments with the format had > been played before I got there on Thurs., and we played another one on > Sun. It was fun to get the reports. Reviews were somewhat mixed, but > generally positive. The format is intended to cost less, be faster to > draft, let player build good (for draft) decks, still feel like V:tes, > and encourage draft play. The last criterion seems to have been met - > given the workout the format got at the con. Hopefully, it can become > an official format for more drafty goodness. I definitely enjoyed the Swainbank Draft format. I think that a big part of the goodness is the smaller minimum crypt size - in draft, that really allows focusing your crypt - and therefore library - in a useful way. The library reshuffle is also important, for sure, but I think not as critical to making *playable* decks out of fewer packs; rather it's important for making people's decks work better (since they can play transients and burn permanents in a more carefree way). I would probably endorse trying the "one reshuffle" alternative to "unlimited reshuffles" - although I don't know if it would very often make a difference, since I can only remember seeing one person reshuffle more than once in a game - in principle it seems like a good idea to keep draft-library resources at least *somewhat* limited. > THE 2005 NAC FINALS > > The Seating: > > I knew Josh and Jared were playing vote. I didn't know what Stefan was > playing. I knew I didn't want to be between the vote decks, and > guesses > Stefan was playing something fast and sleazy. I chose to Jared's prey, > Stefan's predator. I think that was the right call. > > Peter Charnley has top seed. As he picks his seat he says "Jared and I > have worked together well before. And I think we can again." He chose > his seat between Stefan and Josh and that probably sealed the game > right there. The moral of the story is, make sure to get a higher seed and know what people are playing. Then you won't be the one screwed by being stuck in between vote decks. :-) > The Game > I was very happy to seem my opening draw with the deadly Mr. Tho in > the > crypt and Ambrosious in my hand. Very happy in indeed. I also got my > intercept locations early which I thought would be great against > Jared. > In retrospect I don't think I blocked much that he cared about, and > the > intercept locations were mostly a waste of pool. I think you're right as far as it went, but it seemed to me like you were *really close* to making them matter - Jared seemed to be almost (but not quite in time) out of stealth cards to get past you. > (Astute readers may notice that Josh doesn't have a large role in this > narrative. Frankly, he wasn't getting much done over there.) Yeah, I was pretty thoroughly stymied. Would have needed more Awes (and maybe hanging onto the Ventrue Headquarters for a special moment would have helped) to actually push any votes through my prey's four princes and predator's Arika. > My last turn was basically a big stupid-fest. My problem was that I > was > jammed on Call, Spectral Intervention, Allies, and Masters. I needed > to > nail Peter and needed Bleed cards to do it. From this need to cycle > flowed much idiocy. I played a Hunting Ground - which turned out to be > a rather poor investment of 2 pool. I tried to get the Ericiyes > Fragment from Jared with Andrea (it was Josh's idea. Josh made me do > it) - somehow oblivious to the fact that he had TWO untapped minions > and was sure to block me. He did. Then I tried to get Shambling Hordes > with Gloria - which Jared stopped with a 2nd Trad. Wouldn't it have > been smarter to get the Hordes with Andrea who gets and additional > stealth? And can get by a 2nd Trad with basic Call? Yes. Yes, that > would have been smarter. I'm full of good ideas! :-) It really seemed like a good idea to me, but then I couldn't see your hand, and had the impression that you were full of stealth cards. I didn't realize you were only full of Call of the Hungry Dead. Spectral Div + Call would have been great - Call by itself, not so good. Hordes with Andrea instead would probably have been the wise move given your knowledge of your own hand. ;-) > If I could survive the turn I had the cards in had to take a run at > Peter's pool. Jared calls the Parity Shift. I convince Josh to try to > block with Carlton - offering to throw Aranthebes and WMRH. The air is > thick with tension. The championship hangs in the balance... and.... > Jared plays the Forgotten Labyrinth and dashes all hope of us catching > him. At this point, the really smart play would have been throw the > WMRH intercept anyhow, eat the pool loss and go out of Parity Shift > range! Sadly, I was long done with smart plays for the day. I ate the > pool loss, and a bleed, and got ousted. Later, Jared informed me that > his backup plan was to take Josh's pool and toss it to Peter. And he > had a Major Boon in hand ready for my bleed. But I think he was just > trying to make me feel better. That would have been cute, but Jared would have been "pretty low" on pool if he'd actually had to play a Major Boon for 3 or 4 or 5... it would have amused me to see you WMRH to get out of Shift range, I also didn't think of it at the time though. Sadly. > Congrats to Peter and the rest of the finalist for a good game. Indeed. Thanks for the report! Josh daydreaming about petaniqua decks

jeff...@pacbell.net wrote: > On some level I agree (see above). But, you don't have to *win* -- you > just need to have more VPs than everyone else. Ergo, slow play and > lunge. Sure, sure, but the low seed players have incentive to play decisively early--if they can get a VP early, they have a VP and then can sit on it--if the game times out then, the person with 1.5 VP's, even if they were 5th seed, wins the tournament (heck--I won a tournament once exactly by doing that; I was 3rd or 4th seed, got the 1 and only VP in the game, at which point the remaing 4 players, realizing that no one was really getting anywhere due to the amount of defense and bloat on the table, ceased moving much. The game timed out in half an hour and I won with 1.5 VP). But if they try a "wait till the last 5 minutes and lunge to get that VP" plan, there is nothing saying that: A) Someone else won't do the same thing, and maybe better than you. or B) That you won't fail in the last 5 minutes, leaving you in the sameplace you were two hours earlier. At least if you get a VP early, you are (theoretically) in a good position, and then everyone else has to work to beat you. I'd figure that this logic alone would make final games be more active. At least they are when I play :-) [ quoted text not captured ]

> Cost: For players in the finals, getting to play an addition 1/2 hour > (if required) is not a high cost. I, and expect most other players, > would prefer to let the game play out some more. > Cost: 3 man-hours, assuming the tournament organizer and all Finalists have their own transportation. Benefit: The small percentage of games that were about to end but hadn't yet are allowed to end. > Players not in the finals don't have to stick around. No cost there. > Assuming all finalists came alone, yes.

> In fact, I even think that time limits in the finals should be extended > as much as possible from a technical perspective. I'm all for 2 1/2 > hours, 3 hours or even completely untimed finals (where feasible). > Untimed Finals are not feasible. In B5CCG, the only other Multiplayer CCG whose tournament structure I'm familiar with, where Finals were untimed for several years, there was one Final Table that took 3 Days to complete. And B5CCG was a game with Deck-Death. Everyone at the Final Table has incentive to continue the game. Therefore, the Time Limit should remain constant through the Tournament.

"Robert Goudie" <rob...@vtesinla.org> wrote in message news:1125285116.5...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com... [ quoted text not captured ] By "two years ago" you mean "the year before this one" aka NAC 2004, right? I remember watching that game, but I don't remember enough about it now to comment. :-) This year (2005), I actually don't think the game went to time because of player talk, dealmaking, or table-balancing maneuvers. It went to time because we didn't quite get a fourth person ousted within two hours. Another fifteen minutes would pretty clearly have done it; even another five might have been enough. In 2003, there were some slowish decks involved (weenie Auspex, euro-Brujah) but there was probably a reasonable amount of table-balancing as well. In 2002, Jared Strait won with a 2/2/1 split with Szilan Fodor (2) and Trey Morita (1). This game might have finished naturally before time if Jared hadn't had to catch a plane and therefore conceded the last 2 VPs to Szilan (Jared could do this since he still won the tournament without those VPs, being higher seed going into the finals) - I don't know how much time remained in the round when the game was called. 2001 appears to be the game you were thinking of, Robert - that's the one that Ben Peal won with Short Leash Bleed, where you were playing weenie Potence. But I wonder - have European, Australian, and South American Championships been that much better at finishing their finals before 2 hours? Flipping through Google, the EC finals have been at least sometimes run with more than the American 2 hour time limit - In Paris, in 2001, there was no time limit for the finals; Joscha Düll won with stealth bleed with Deranges. For Vienna in 2002 I can't find anything definite about the time limit; Dave Bastijns won with stealth bleed. In Barcelona in 2003, there was a 2.5 hour time limit; Stefan Ferenci won with weenie Auspex, timing out with Stefan and Zsolt still alive. (2.5 VPs Stefan, 1.5 VPs Zsolt) In Heidelberg in 2004, I again can't find definite info on a time limit; Ruben Vidaña Ramos won with War Ghouls and 3 VPs before time, in any case. Josh big hand on the nine

Ben Swainbank wrote: > Matthew T. Morgan wrote: > > One assumes that decks that generally can't win in two hours are unlikely > > to be at a final table. > > Indeed. The players (with their decks) demonstrated that they know how > to get GWs within 2 hours in order to get to the finals. Still finals > time out with some frequency. Preliminary round games also time out with some frequency. > I don't its the players and I don't think its their decks. I think its > the finals. Finals do not negotiate, make decisions, or take actions. Players do. > > In my experience at final tables, either people play the game and it > > ends under two hours or people talk the game to death and then whoever > > can sneak in a quick VP wins. > > That is not my experience. In the NEQ this year I don't think we talked > that table to death. I think we played conservatively - because we were > smart and none of us wanted to get ousted. Despite having 3 vote decks > on the table I don't think the 2005 NAC table talked itself to death. Oscar, can we go to the tape? ;) > A a prelim table everyone is missing a shot at a GW (and other tables > are not) by talking it death or playing slowly. At a finals table, > nobody wants to get ousted, nobody wants to screw up, the guy in the > lead wants to see it go to time with the smallest number of elapsed > turns, and there's more incetive to maintain the balance than let the > table fall. > > This results in slower play, even if players aren't overnegotiating or > trying to stall (which they might be). Simply put, the one difference in the finals is that there is always someone who wants the round to time out - the person with the best tiebreaker. As such, there's an inherent amount of "gaseous expansion" with respect to using up the allotted time. The rate of play doesn't accelerate until there are about 10-15 minutes left, when people realize that they can't play conservatively and carefully anymore. If we added another half an hour, I'm certain that most games that wouldn't have already resolved themselves in two hours would start accelerating at 2:15 instead of 1:45. Unless, of course, players decide for themselves to quicken their rate of play much sooner. (gee, maybe this is good strategy...) I also think that people's perception factors in here. Do we remember the games that timed out where there wasn't much hope of resolution, or do we remember the games where we would have gotten that game win "...if only I had one more turn"? As a personal feeling about it all, while it may be more "satisfying" if a championship finals is played out to a GW conclusion, I haven't at all felt that there has been any injustice done by their timing out. They were all resolved fairly. Everyone knew what was at stake and knew what the score was when then they sat down at the table. If they couldn't demonstrate that they were better than everyone else in the span of two whole hours (and could someone please tell me how two hours is an unreasonable amount of time for a game?), then they didn't deserve to win. It's my feeling that players need to be much more mindful of the clock, much more mindful of the amount of time their turns take, and much quicker in their rate of play _for_their_own_sake_. - Ben Peal

Peter D Bakija <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote: > Maybe for the upcoming season, have all the Qualifiers > and Contenental Championships have a 2.5 hour final, > see what happens, and if they all just time out anyway, > then go back to 2 hour finals. > > [...] > > ...but still, I suspect it is worth giving it a try for a season > and see what happens. As only 1 in 5 of the Qualifier finals at Origins have ever timed out (and that one by only about a minute, iirc), I see no need to implement this dubious rules change at Origins. As has been stated before, change your own behavior before you go making or asking for rules changes. Maybe you should all come to Origins next year and see how Ben Peal and Robyn Tatu make sure the finals don't time out. hehee ;) > Peter D Bakija Kevin M., Prince of Las Vegas "Know your enemy, and know yourself; in one-thousand battles you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, *The Art of War* "Contentment... Complacency... Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier

In message <2005082909...@fnord.io.com>, Matthew T. Morgan <far...@io.com> writes: >It's a criticism I hear and give sometimes. "Nice deck, but I don't >see how it could take a table in two hours." > >It usually means "thanks for making me sit here getting nothing done >for three hours with your stupid-ass, slow-ass intercept deck!" IME, technically, there is a vast range of possible deck styles, covering any length of play speed or whatever. IME, practically, there are *mostly* decks that sit on their hands and don't have much forward motion potential at all AND decks that have forward motion potential but can be played more slowly. There's also a minor third category of deck - those which explode, with no longevity. However, these are relatively minor as most players will easily take a few hints like "Include a handful of blood-dolls and some Taste of Vitae, okay?" But that hints at what the problem is with the other two deck types. Taking the sit on their hands decks specifically. This isn't always just sitting on their hands. But players have come up with some ingenious new strategy that involves doing all sorts of cool stuff - but not ousting their prey. Quite a few players are horror-struck when you say "Why not cut down some of that cute tech, and shove in some bleed?" "Butbutbutbutbutbut the whole point of my deck is to make Camarilla Assamites with guns! YOU'RE MISSING THE POINT!" So, this isn't just limited to intercept - it's any deck style that doesn't move forward hard enough, or where the player is more interested in setting up something cool than setting up something that will win. So, the hint from Blood Doll relative to the other deck type - the one that can win OR sit on its hands. Thing is, the most popular pool gain card in the game is a permanent. Shove in 4-6 Blood Dolls in a deck and at a few turns in you have 1, maybe 2? Now, you could be a stealth- bleed player going forward to annihilate the enemy. Yep. Or... when things get tight, you sit on your hands. Permanent pool gain, hunt with a vampire each turn (maybe less, with Hungry Coyote, Inbase Discotek, or whatever other tech you might have), wait. 2 pool back now. Maybe 3 pool back when you cycle down to your third Blood Doll? Wait. Sit. It's not *just* Blood Doll, of course. There are other options. For instance, Nikolaus Vermulen and Menele demonstrate other interesting permanent sit-on-your-hands options. But Blood Doll is so common amongst decks that any strong deck can ease back and rely on Blood Doll for some bloat, just waiting and waiting until a better time comes. But most of the decks in this strong category can push forward when they need and / or want to. It's just that cautious play (for whatever reason) can also work out well for them. -- James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D YOU ARE IN ERROR. EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 NO-ONE IS SCREAMING. 13D7E668C3695D623D5D THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.

>> Cost: For players in the finals, getting to play an addition 1/2 hour >> (if required) is not a high cost. I, and expect most other players, >> would prefer to let the game play out some more. >> > > Cost: 3 man-hours, assuming the tournament organizer and all Finalists > have their own transportation. > > Benefit: The small percentage of games that were about to end but hadn't > yet are allowed to end. On the flip side. . . cut each round of the tournaments to 1:50 minutes. Total man hours saved? 10 minutes x number of participants + judge. If you have 17 or more, you just saved 10 man hours. Cost: The small percentage of games that would end at 2 hours but not at 1:50. The point? Why arbitrarily draw the line at 2 hours? Why change it for the final? No one's arguing that it's going to take more time, but clearly the question is whether the cost is worth the benefit. The benefit is what's being argued. Until then, any comparative analysis won't be helpful in determining what to do. Ankur Gupta Prince of West Lafayette "Corn has no benefit."

Ankur Gupta wrote: > Why arbitrarily draw the line at 2 hours? Why change it for the final? No > one's arguing that it's going to take more time, but clearly the question > is whether the cost is worth the benefit. The benefit is what's being > argued. Until then, any comparative analysis won't be helpful in > determining what to do. Did this bit come from the dilbert mission statement generator? :O) http://www.dilbert.com/comics/dilbert/games/career/bin/ms.cgi -Anthony

> Ankur Gupta wrote: > >> Why arbitrarily draw the line at 2 hours? Why change it for the final? >> No one's arguing that it's going to take more time, but clearly the >> question is whether the cost is worth the benefit. The benefit is >> what's being argued. Until then, any comparative analysis won't be >> helpful in determining what to do. > > Did this bit come from the dilbert mission statement generator? :O) Sadly enough. . . no. :) Ankur Gupta Prince of West Lafayette Organic Dilbert Mission Statement Generator

Peter D Bakija wrote: > > Yeah, overall, it is certainly possible that going to a 2.5 hour final would > be sheer folly and accomplish nothing but make people hungrier. But it is > already a possibility (I'm pretty certain that the VEKN allows 2.5 hour > rounds), It allows whatever you want, with 2 hrs being the minimum. Why people don't experiment more with this I do not know. "3.1.1. Round Time Limits Each round in the tournament has a time limit. The minimum time limit used in V:TES rounds is two hours. The time limit must be announced before play begins. The final round may last longer than the preliminary rounds, at the judge's option." > and I can't see how it would hurt, in the grand scheme, to try it > out for a season. Neither can I. In fact Brian Moritz and I had a discussion over timelimits during the 2004 qualifier, and we both felt that most timed out games would likely crumble and award more vps if not finish entirely with just 15 more minutes. G

talonz wrote: > "3.1.1. Round Time Limits > > Each round in the tournament has a time limit. The minimum time limit > used in V:TES rounds is two hours. The time limit must be announced > before play begins. The final round may last longer than the > preliminary rounds, at the judge's option." Yeah--it even specifically says "The final round may last longer than the preliminary rounds, at the judges option." It's not even like it would be a werid rules change, or even a weird rules tweak. > Neither can I. In fact Brian Moritz and I had a discussion over > timelimits during the 2004 qualifier, and we both felt that most timed > out games would likely crumble and award more vps if not finish > entirely with just 15 more minutes. I mean, like, ok, a lot of people have given some perfectly cromulent rational as to how it wouldn't actually help anything at all, which certainly holds water. But still, I can't see, again, for the life of me, how it would hurt anyone at all to try a season with 2.5 hour final rounds for the Qualifier and the Championships. I mean, like, yeah, ok, if all the European (Heh heh heh--he said "european". Heh heh.) finals have been finished in time, we don't even need to try this there. But the US NAC has timed out 4 of 5 times. Tacking on an extra half hour might do nothing at all. But it also might make the game actually finish. And people have already invested that much time playing in a serious VTES event--is the extra half hour *really* going to make that much of a difference to anyone's life? Try it out. If it doesn't have any noticable effect, then go back to 2 hour final rounds. We don't *lose* anything by trying it out. [ quoted text not captured ]

Peter D Bakija wrote: > > I mean, like, ok, a lot of people have given some perfectly cromulent > rational as to how it wouldn't actually help anything at all, which > certainly holds water. I'm not convinced at all that that is the case. I'm convinced otherwise in fact. Certainly there will be instances where the extra time will not change the final standings of a game, but I wager that there will be plenty of instances where it will. And that's what we want right? More completed games? > But still, I can't see, again, for the life of me, > how it would hurt anyone at all to try a season with 2.5 hour final rounds Preaching to the 'converted' here. =] G

talonz wrote: > Peter D Bakija wrote: > > > and I can't see how it would hurt, in the grand scheme, to try it > > out for a season. I've got no problem with trying it out. > Neither can I. In fact Brian Moritz and I had a discussion over > timelimits during the 2004 qualifier, and we both felt that most timed > out games would likely crumble and award more vps if not finish > entirely with just 15 more minutes. I'd say that it will almost always appear that this is true...but I think it is not actuallyt the case. That's because players make their decisions based on **how much time is left** and not on **how much time has elapsed**. I'm tempted to say that when we add time to the round time limit we're not adding it to the end but to the middle. :) I think it's probably even true. We'd extend the mid-game and give players a little more time to develop but that hurried end-game will always begin as players see that X amount of time is remaining. Then we'll have the typical lunges, table split deals, backstabs, and so on as the end-game countdown begins. -Robert

On 1 Sep 2005 14:27:30 -0700, "talonz" <talo...@yahoo.ca> scrawled: > >Peter D Bakija wrote: >> >> I mean, like, ok, a lot of people have given some perfectly cromulent >> rational as to how it wouldn't actually help anything at all, which >> certainly holds water. > >I'm not convinced at all that that is the case. I'm convinced >otherwise in fact. Certainly there will be instances where the extra >time will not change the final standings of a game, but I wager that >there will be plenty of instances where it will. And that's what we >want right? More completed games? For what it's worth, we're going with 2/2/2/2.5 for the Australian Championships. (Note for Jeff: at least the venue is listed on my website now :) salem http://www.users.tpg.com.au/adsltqna/VtES/index.htm (replace "hotmail" with "yahoo" to email)

Robert Goudie wrote: > > I'd say that it will almost always appear that this is true...but I > think it is not actuallyt the case. That's because players make their > decisions based on **how much time is left** and not on **how much time > has elapsed**. > I agree that is a big factor. But I constantly find myself concerned from game to game that so much time has passed in the buildup to the endgame that there often isn't quite enough time left for the endgame to play out properly. Thus my belief that adding just 15minutes would resolve most timed out games. G

On 31 Aug 2005 23:49:38 -0700, talonz <talo...@yahoo.ca> wrote: > > Peter D Bakija wrote: >> >> Yeah, overall, it is certainly possible that going to a 2.5 hour final >> would >> be sheer folly and accomplish nothing but make people hungrier. But it >> is >> already a possibility (I'm pretty certain that the VEKN allows 2.5 hour >> rounds), > > It allows whatever you want, with 2 hrs being the minimum. Why people > don't experiment more with this I do not know. We run technically* untimed finals. From my experience, untimed finals seldom last more than around 1,5 hours. Of course, it may be a metagame - environment thing. *Techically in the sense that the tournament location isn't booked indefinately. So there could be a time limit of sorts. -- Bye, Daneel

Daneel wrote: > We run technically* untimed finals. From my experience, untimed finals > seldom last more than around 1,5 hours. Of course, it may be a metagame > - environment thing. Oh, me too--local tournament finals here never time out. Local not finals almost never time out. I rarely ever see games I'm in time out. But apparently, finals do time out more often than in my experience, and they often do in big, "important" tournaments. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Sat, 03 Sep 2005 01:21:38 -0400, Peter D Bakija <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote: > Daneel wrote: > >> We run technically* untimed finals. From my experience, untimed finals >> seldom last more than around 1,5 hours. Of course, it may be a metagame >> - environment thing. > > Oh, me too--local tournament finals here never time out. Local not finals > almost never time out. I rarely ever see games I'm in time out. But > apparently, finals do time out more often than in my experience, and they > often do in big, "important" tournaments. We're talking about your regular 80-player tournament here. That's as far as size is concerned; as for importance, that would probably mean a Championship or Last Chance qualifier, and we haven't had any of those yet. Maybe later this year... ;) (Anyway, the EC2005 will have a timed final, for practical reasons, despite the fact that most of us see the time limit as something that in practice actually lengthens play due to player behaviour.) -- Bye, Daneel

Daneel wrote: > We run technically* untimed finals. From my experience, untimed finals > seldom last more than around 1,5 hours. Of course, it may be a metagame > - environment thing. > > *Techically in the sense that the tournament location isn't booked > indefinately. So there could be a time limit of sorts. The time limit for all rounds should be announced prior to the tournament start. And typically much prior. -- LSJ (vtesr...@TRAPwhite-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep (remove spam trap to reply) Links to V:TES news, rules, cards, utilities, and tournament calendar: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/

Joshua Duffin wrote: > "Ben Swainbank" <bswai...@hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:1125168429.4...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > >I see that Josh has beaten me to the blow-by-blow from the finals > > table. Still, I thought I would file my report on this year's > > GenCon. > > Oh, I don't think mine was quite a blow-by-blow. We'd need someone with > really good memory (like... say... Matt?) and a lot of time on their > hands (hmm...) to do that. :-) > So, I watched The NAC 2005 Video last night (Thank you Lasombra!). Rather intersting. Man, I got vote-jacked! That was a lot of KRCs. Maybe I should start playing with some vote defense. We didn't talk that table to death. But we did play verrry slowly and very deliberately. Lots of thinking going on. There were also an interesting number of screw ups. The Barrens-Arika thing, which at least we noticed during the game. But the one I noticed in the video is that when I go to get the Erciyes Fragment on my last turn, I looked at Jared and he blocked. But Jared didn't have the Fragment! Peter did. This makes my move both less stupid (who cares how manay untapped minions Jared had) and more stupid - how did we all fail to notice I got the target of the action totally wrong? I don't feel as bad about getting out the HG. I still had 10 pool at the end of my turn, so thinking longer term wasn't such a bad idea. I hadn't planned on eating 2 KRCs, an Anarchist Uprising, and a bleed before my next turn. My other 20-20 hindsight moment was that I left Le Dihn Tho untapped right before Stefan ousted himself, and then he got PTOed. I definately should have used him to check Peter or Jared. *sigh*. Fun to watch the show though. > > daydreaming about petaniqua decks Hmmm... me too... I got to build me one of those. Post it if you can win a game with one. -Ben Swainbank

Maybe we should have games that last 2 hours + 1d20 minutes, where the d20 is rolled at the 2 hour mark. :) That way, people will still rush to finish in 2 hours, but would then sometimes get the extra time they need to finish. LSJ, could it still be a sanctioned tournament if we used those time limits (assuming we announced it well in advance) ? Ira, eager to playtest.

[ quoted text not captured ] My personal preference would be 2 hours + 5d6 minutes. YMMV. ;) Jeff

[ quoted text not captured ] The only thing I don't like about this type of scenario is that each player may or may not even benefit from the added time. When time limits are known, the closer to end time, the slower a player may play, in order to prevent other Meths from having the chance to win. How about this: At 1 hr 45 mins, note which Meth is acting. Each Methuselah except for the current acting Meth is *guaranteed* to have one more turn opportunity this game if they are due a turn and not ousted. This is pretty fair IMO. If games do time out beyond 2 hours, it is only to give other Meths a chance to have one last shot at (Khabar) glory. It isn't overly onerous for time limits either. Most individual turns, even at relatively talkative and complicated tables, take under 5 minutes. Sometimes it is much faster. If the game is already near is conclusion, say a 2 player game, then each Meth could still get several turns in each trying to oust the other. The only complication could arise with cards like Reversal of Fortune. Still, the rule would apply where each Meth is guaranteed one more turn opporunity (so they couldn't use First Tradition as an excuse). Jeff

<jeff...@pacbell.net> wrote in message news:1126160138.9...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com... > > ira...@gmail.com wrote: >> Maybe we should have games that last 2 hours + 1d20 minutes, where the >> d20 is rolled at the 2 hour mark. :) > > My personal preference would be 2 hours + 5d6 minutes. YMMV. ;) If you're going to do something like that, you don't want to roll a bunch of dice whose effect would tend to even out over large numbers. You want to roll a single die and amplify its result. So you're looking for something more like 2 hours + (1d6 X 10 minutes). And, of course, don't show the players the result of the die roll until after time is out. Fred

ira...@gmail.com wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] Not under the current V:EKN rules. [ quoted text not captured ]