Qualifiers Questions

It's kind of silly I know, but there seems to be a difference of opinion amongst us. If you successfully qualify for the North American finals at a regional qualifier, can you compete again in another qualifier elsewhere?

pete...@icqmail.com (PeterM) wrote in message news:<5802b3d0.02010...@posting.google.com>... [ quoted text not captured ] Last year when we had our Euro Qualifiers, a whole group of French guys came along to compete in our British qualifier - and we then returned the favour when it came to theirs. Around half the people that got through in the British qualifier played in the French one. So I would say yes. Though, if you have already qualified, I would suggest you play an experimental deck at the next qualifier - you don't wanna go qualifying twice and therefore denying someone else a place... That's just mean :) Martin

martin.c...@southbeds.gov.uk (Marty) wrote in message > > Though, if you have already qualified, I would suggest you play an > experimental deck at the next qualifier - you don't wanna go > qualifying twice and therefore denying someone else a place... That's > just mean :) > > Martin It would be mean. Very. I'm assuming you can't compete in a qualifier if you're already qualified for the Championship; I'd just like confirmation.

"PeterM" <pete...@icqmail.com> wrote in message news:5802b3d0.02011...@posting.google.com... [ quoted text not captured ] As far as i know, there are no rules to prevent you from competing in a Qualifier if you are already qualified. Imho this should be slightly ammended by stating that players who are already qualified will not take extra slots in another qualifier. For example, if three already-qualified players finish 2nd, 4th and 9th then the players 11th, 12th and 13th will be qualified...am i making sense here? i'm afraid i don't anymore... TPOTH Koldun -- Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG

"PeterM" <pete...@icqmail.com> wrote in message news:5802b3d0.02011...@posting.google.com... [ quoted text not captured ] Don't know about this year, but last year it was A-Okay. Not only was it okay, it was the 'in' thing to do. Most of the infamous VTES players(many on this board) decided at gencon that it would be a really great idea to knock people out of the championship by trying to requalify again! Of course there are problems with not allowing qualified people to play again(well, arguments against it anyway) For example, if people were banned from playing once they were qualified suposedly tournaments would get easier as they go. With the best and most experienced players being unable to play. Meaning that competition in Boston could be really high. But then they cannot travel to Columbus and if there are only people there that play for fun, they will not have to be as good to get the same qualification slot that the people in Boston did.(just an example, I'm sure there are a couple of people good in Ohio! ;) Check the origional talk last year here: http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&threadm=3B70435E.2926F4A8%40white-wolf .com&rnum=1&prev=/groups%3Fq%3Drequalify%26hl%3Den%26group%3Drec.games.tradi ng-cards.jyhad%26selm%3D3B70435E.2926F4A8%2540white-wolf.com%26rnum%3D1 Personally I think this is crap. You realize this makes it perfectly possible for 10 people to play at every qualifier, requalify every time, and be the only 10 people in the nationals. Of course its not likly to happen. But then since when has there ever been a ruling in Jyhad that said: "Well its too corner case to be ruled on" The bulk of the rules/errata/whatever its called covers very specific, hardly ever happens stuff. Either way there is no telling about this year, as there have been no announcements to the general players about qualifier events.(I'm sure they are waiting to get a timeline finalized) -- Aaron The Nosferatu Stuff

Aaron wrote: >I'm sure there are a couple of people good in Ohio! ;) Yes, I have heard that there are some good players in Ohio:) Ok folks, I'm the guy who qualified for the N. American Championship three times last year (I duck and cover my head). (I now peer up to see if it is safe)...I played in the Dallas qualifier in June because my parents moved to Texas a while ago and I used it as an excuse to see them, and I love good competition. I played in the Columbus qualifier in July because it was my home town and I wanted to make sure that there was a strong Ohio showing (four Ohio players ended up qualifying at a convention that pulls players from all over), and I love good competition. I played in the final qualifier at Gen*Con because it was looking like I wasn't going to have any other good thing to do during that time, and I love good competition. There was talk of an LSJ run side event, but that never really materialized. Bernie was holding some team event but it was too expensive for me. So damn it, I qualified for a third time. I kind of liked the notion that I was keeping other people from qualifying. I thought that it would be less work that I would have to do during the Championship. Well, I was quick to get ZERO vp all day long during the championship :(. It seems like my over-qualifying efforts weren't much help. This year I plan to attend more than one qualifier...because I love good competition. I may be lucky enough to get in the top ten more than once. If I qualify a second time this year I hope that I am skipped over and that the eleventh place finisher in that event gets to go. Jay Kristoff, V:EKN Prince of Columbus Ohio (standing up straight, but looking for lobbed projectiles)

> > It would be mean. Very. I'm assuming you can't compete in a qualifier > > if you're already qualified for the Championship; I'd just like > > confirmation. > > As far as i know, there are no rules to prevent you from competing in a > Qualifier if you are already qualified. Imho this should be slightly ammended > by stating that players who are already qualified will not take extra slots in > another qualifier. For example, if three already-qualified players finish 2nd, > 4th and 9th then the players 11th, 12th and 13th will be qualified...am i > making sense here? i'm afraid i don't anymore... That is very much not a good idea. Reason: QUALIFIER #1 I play, I get 10th. Some guy named "Scott" gets 11th, he doesn't qualify. QUALIFER #2 I play, I get 10th. Some guy named "Johnson" gets 11th, because I'm qualified he takes my place and is qualified. QUALIFIER #3 I play, I get 10th...again. Some guy name "L" gets 11th. I'm qualified and he takes my spot. So currently, I would beat all 3 out, none of them get to play. In the game where my re-qualification doesn't count, and you roll it down to L and Johnson, see why that would be VERY unfair to Scott? I mean L, Scott, and Johnson all performed at the same level, and none of them made top 10. All that does is reward the people who's qualifiers are later in the year. =( [ quoted text not captured ]

"The Nosferatu Stuff" <roans...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > As far as i know, there are no rules to prevent you from competing in a > > Qualifier if you are already qualified. Imho this should be slightly > ammended > > by stating that players who are already qualified will not take extra > slots in > > another qualifier. For example, if three already-qualified players finish > 2nd, > > 4th and 9th then the players 11th, 12th and 13th will be qualified...am i > > making sense here? i'm afraid i don't anymore... > > That is very much not a good idea. Reason: > > QUALIFIER #1 > I play, I get 10th. Some guy named "Scott" gets 11th, he doesn't qualify. > > QUALIFER #2 > I play, I get 10th. Some guy named "Johnson" gets 11th, because I'm > qualified he takes my place and is qualified. > > QUALIFIER #3 > I play, I get 10th...again. Some guy name "L" gets 11th. I'm qualified and > he takes my spot. > > So currently, I would beat all 3 out, none of them get to play. In the game > where my re-qualification doesn't count, and you roll it down to L and > Johnson, see why that would be VERY unfair to Scott? I mean L, Scott, and > Johnson all performed at the same level, and none of them made top 10. All > that does is reward the people who's qualifiers are later in the year. =( Definately see your point there, i admit i hadn't thought of it like that. Then you could imagine the situation where the same 10 ppl qualify at 3-4 different Qualifiers, thereby removing 20-30 ppl from the final event (be it The US or the European Championship) making the Championship a smaller event than it could have been. I'm not even trying to argue, you're right but it seems that there is definately something unsavoury about players participating in more than one Qualifier and hogging the qualifying spots. I can't really speak about the US, but in Europe we had only one Qualifier per country and one could say that travel between US states is easier than between European countries :) Thereby making attending multiple Qualifiers easier in the States than over here? well i don't really know...An outright interdiction for already-qualified players to participate in subsequent Qualifiers seems a bit too drastic and i can say that i wouldn't have taken it with a smile if it had happened last year in Paris...then again, i would have known and not make the trip a day earlier to attend the Qualif but just the EC...I'd be happy to know if others have different views on the matter. ;) TPOTH Koldun -not feeling very clever right now....

[ quoted text not captured ] And? I don't see an issue with qualifiers getting progressively easier. Seems to me what you want is a predictable number of qualified players. Actually, there's a far more important reason to worry about qualified players playing in qualifiers. If they have little to nothing to gain, there's a much stronger incentive for them to try and manipulate the results of the tournament - helping buddies to qualify, etc. Not having looked it up, I assume a number of the qualifiers are championships of some sort - regional, national, whatever. If so, not much you can do about keeping players from playing in them. However, if a qualifier is nothing more than a tournament to move players forward (besides normal tournament prizes), then I'd never allow already qualified players to play in them.

"The Nosferatu Stuff" <roans...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<a1o24n$s41ts$1...@ID-125246.news.dfncis.de>... > > QUALIFIER #1 > I play, I get 10th. Some guy named "Scott" gets 11th, he doesn't qualify. > > QUALIFER #2 > I play, I get 10th. Some guy named "Johnson" gets 11th, because I'm > qualified he takes my place and is qualified. > > QUALIFIER #3 > I play, I get 10th...again. Some guy name "L" gets 11th. I'm qualified and > he takes my spot. > > So currently, I would beat all 3 out, none of them get to play. In the game > where my re-qualification doesn't count, and you roll it down to L and > Johnson, see why that would be VERY unfair to Scott? I mean L, Scott, and > Johnson all performed at the same level, and none of them made top 10. All > that does is reward the people who's qualifiers are later in the year. =( I´ve got two points on that, "Scott" would obviously have more than one oportunity to qualify if he really wanted to, and if you where banned from compeating after qualifying once, then "Johnson" and "L" would qualify anyway. Aren´t qualifiers supposed to find the best 10 (or whatever) players from each state/country? It´s a bit like a foreign player compeating in a national champions tournament, he can win the tournament, but he can´t become the national champion :) So if we have 10 countrys, and 10 people qualifying from each country, I´d like to think that we´d end up with a big tournament consisting of 100 players.

Curevei wrote: > And? I don't see an issue with qualifiers getting progressively easier. Seems > to me what you want is a predictable number of qualified players. Predictable number of qualified players isn't of interest. V:EKN rules handle tournaments of all sizes. Besides, you couldn't quarantee any given qualifier would make the trip to the finals anyhow. Maximum number of qualified players is of interest, however. > Actually, there's a far more important reason to worry about qualified players > playing in qualifiers. If they have little to nothing to gain, there's a much > stronger incentive for them to try and manipulate the results of the tournament > - helping buddies to qualify, etc. They only have "nothing to gain" if you do not allow them to re-qualify. > Not having looked it up, I assume a number of the qualifiers are championships > of some sort - regional, national, whatever. If so, not much you can do about > keeping players from playing in them. However, if a qualifier is nothing more > than a tournament to move players forward (besides normal tournament prizes), > then I'd never allow already qualified players to play in them. That's the other option (although it still provides the "successively easier qualifiers" property). It seems to decrease the fun, though. Going further, to remove the successively easier property, you could also ban players who have *played* in a prvious qualifier from playing in another. That doesn't seem very fun, either. -- 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/

Daz wrote: > Aren´t qualifiers supposed to find the best 10 > (or whatever) players from each state/country? No. [ quoted text not captured ]

"Curevei" <cur...@aol.com> wrote in message news:20020112145437...@mb-fh.aol.com... [ quoted text not captured ] That is a different issue. This problem has nothing to do with getting easier. This has to do with the #11 player from tournament 1 getting shafted because his tournament was first. Because the original proposal was for play #11 of tournament 2 to go ahead and qualify instead the already qualified, top 10 player. That is unfair to the first person who finished 11th. As it stands, if I qualify 5 times I knock 5 people out of the competition. If the system said that once I was qualified just take the next guy, why would it be fair to let 4 of those people qualify, and not the other? [ quoted text not captured ]

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:3C40BAFD...@white-wolf.com... > Daz wrote: > > Aren´t qualifiers supposed to find the best 10 > > (or whatever) players from each state/country? > > No. I have decided it won't matter anyway. If you can't beat someone who requalified then chances are in the big championship you won't beat them either. Then all you do is take up space and give out free VP. Now maybe this year there needs to be a rule to keep me from the nationals, so I don't give away any more free VP! =) [ quoted text not captured ]

The Nosferatu Stuff wrote: > > As it stands, if I qualify 5 times I knock 5 people out of the competition. > If the system said that once I was qualified just take the next guy, why > would it be fair to let 4 of those people qualify, and not the other? Perhaps, since there is a set number of prequalifiers held, and since 10 people could be selected from each, the Championship game is expected to yeild "X" players. If there is fewer Prequalified people available to fill all of "X" slots, then the rest of the slots could be filled by the vtes community at large based on their overall player rating. Thus a player that plays well but gets 11th place and cannot get the time to play in another prequalifier, might still get to play in the Championship. Raille