[Case Study] Illegal Tournament decks

TOURNAMENT CASE STUDY You are the head judge in a local tournament (2 rounds + Final) where one player played an illegal deck by bringing a crypt with group 1, 2, and 3 vampires. In the first round of the tournament, only group 2 and 3 vampires were influenced out, so nothing was noticed. In the second round, the player influenced out several group 2 and 3 vampires, and then influenced out a group 1 vampire. You're not sure if the table noticed immediately, or after the group 1 vampire had taken some actions. You did not require that the players provide a decklist. For reference, the VEKN Judge's Guide, section 103, http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/veknJudgesGuide.html suggests a penalty of a Game Loss for an illegal deck, and states that, "If the penaly occurs in the middle of a game, the judge should award pool and/or Victory Points to the player's Predator, or making other arrangements to preserve game balance for the remaining players, as warranted (possibly awarding partial VPs)." DISCUSSION QUESTIONS 1) Do you agree with the recommended penality from the Judge's Guide? If yes, describe what approach you would use to "preserve game balance for the remaining players." If no, what penality would you enforce? 2) Does the player's experience level matter in determining the penality? Elaborate. 3) Does the number of actions the group 1 vampire took make a difference? If so, how does that change the penality you would enforce? 4) If this situation arose in the first round, or if the player made the finals, how would you adjust (or have the player adjust) the illegal deck to continue playing? MY THOUGHTS I didn't request decklists. I don't like to require them, because it creates a hurdle for tournament entry. Nonetheless, I should at least make them optional. Before the tournament, I said, "Everyone has legal decks, right?" and everyone kinda nodded approval. I didn't state clearly what defines a "legal deck" and I should have. At the time of the ruling, I didn't ask how much the group 1 vampire did before the table noticed the problem. I vaguely recall that it was untapped with full blood when I was called over, but still I should have asked. At the time, I assumed (perhaps incorrectly) that the problem was noticed immediately. I wonder about that now, as I'm writing this up. I ruled that the vampire was immediately removed from play. The player was good natured about it, and apologetic. The table seemed to think it was a fair penality. He is a very experienced player and should have known better, so I felt confident in punishing him severely (at least it seemed severe to me.) I considered disqualifying him, but even in that case, I wouldn't have removed him from the game. In my opinion, removing someone from the game in the middle is one of the most disruptive things that can happen (short of spilling a bunch of liquid on the table.) I think that the Judge's Guide suggested penality is both too harsh and too disruptive. I understand that we wouldn't want the penality too lax lest players begin to intentionally abuse it. Nonetheless, actually removing someone mid-game lacks elegance. In this case, I was confident that it was an unintentional mistake, and not cheating. Fortunately from a judging perspective, the player didn't make the final, so it wasn't an issue what would happen with his deck. Had the problem arose in the first round, I'm not sure what I would have done for the second round. I believe I would have found a similar capacity vampire that was legal for that crypt, perhaps duplicating an existing vampire in the crypt. If the player made the final, I would have been tempted to prevent him from playing in the final, though it's hard to say. Whatever ruling I made, I would have attempted to nullify any benefit the player received from bringing an illegal crypt. Also, it was fortunate that 11 cards were group 2-3, and only one was group 1. If there had been more group 1s, the problem would have been more difficult to correct, and the infraction more severe (in my opinion.) I'm not sure how it would have changed my ruling; I probably still would have replaced all the group 1s with similar cap vampires. I welcome the insight of everyone else who has tournament judging experience. I'm sure a similar situation has come up at many different tournaments. Ira

Ira wrote: > 1) Do you agree with the recommended penality from the Judge's Guide? > If yes, describe what approach you would use to "preserve game balance > for the remaining players." If no, what penality would you enforce? I agree with the recommended penalty at the Continental Championship level, and perhaps even at the Continental Qualifier level. At these events, the players are expected to know the full tournament rules and abide by them. Er...well...players are expected to know the full tournament rules at _all_ tournaments, but they REALLY should be expected to know them at the Championship/Qualifier level. :) At local tournaments, I think leniency is in order, particularly since we often get new players or players who used to play but came back to the game and might not be cognizant of the grouping rule, and I think the approach you took is just fine. As for "preserving game balance", that really depends on the state of the table, so it's hard to give a blanket description on how to handle it. You can really only do it on a case-by-case basis, and again, I think you handled the situation just fine. > 2) Does the player's experience level matter in determining the > penality? Elaborate. Well, newer/re-newed players might not know any better, and probably should get some leniency. More experienced players should know better and should not get leniency. Still, in a local tournament, I'd probably give some leniency to the experienced player 'cause it was probably an honest mistake (i.e. made adjustments to crypt prior to getting to the tournament and forgot about one guy). > 3) Does the number of actions the group 1 vampire took make a > difference? If so, how does that change the penality you would > enforce? I'd rate "experience level of player" much higher than "number of actions taken". > 4) If this situation arose in the first round, or if the player made > the finals, how would you adjust (or have the player adjust) the > illegal deck to continue playing? At the Championship/Qualifier level, game loss. At a local tournament, allow the player to acquire a legal vampire and put it into his/her crypt, possibly burning the illegal vampire in play depending on game state/personal judgement. > I didn't request decklists. I don't like to require them, because it > creates a hurdle for tournament entry. Nonetheless, I should at least > make them optional. They're typically only really needed at the Championship level. > I ruled that the vampire was immediately removed from play. The player > was good natured about it, and apologetic. The table seemed to think > it was a fair penality. He is a very experienced player and should > have known better, so I felt confident in punishing him severely (at > least it seemed severe to me.) I considered disqualifying him, but > even in that case, I wouldn't have removed him from the game. In my > opinion, removing someone from the game in the middle is one of the > most disruptive things that can happen (short of spilling a bunch of > liquid on the table.) Again, I think you handled things just fine. > I think that the Judge's Guide suggested penality is both too harsh and > too disruptive. I understand that we wouldn't want the penality too > lax lest players begin to intentionally abuse it. Nonetheless, > actually removing someone mid-game lacks elegance. In this case, I was > confident that it was an unintentional mistake, and not cheating. I think the Judge's Guide's suggested penalty is just fine, since it should assume the worst (that they're cheating). Perhaps a range of options could be listed, depending on context. - Ben Peal fu...@mindstorm.com

On 17 May 2005 19:40:26 -0700, "ira...@gmail.com" <ira...@gmail.com> scrawled: >TOURNAMENT CASE STUDY > >You are the head judge in a local tournament (2 rounds + Final) where >one player played an illegal deck by bringing a crypt with group 1, 2, >and 3 vampires. In the first round of the tournament, only group 2 and >3 vampires were influenced out, so nothing was noticed. > >In the second round, the player influenced out several group 2 and 3 >vampires, and then influenced out a group 1 vampire. You're not sure >if the table noticed immediately, or after the group 1 vampire had >taken some actions. > >You did not require that the players provide a decklist. > >For reference, the VEKN Judge's Guide, section 103, >http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/veknJudgesGuide.html suggests a penalty >of a Game Loss for an illegal deck, and states that, "If the penaly >occurs in the middle of a game, the judge should award pool and/or >Victory Points to the player's Predator, or making other arrangements >to preserve game balance for the remaining players, as warranted >(possibly awarding partial VPs)." > >DISCUSSION QUESTIONS > >1) Do you agree with the recommended penality from the Judge's Guide? >If yes, describe what approach you would use to "preserve game balance >for the remaining players." If no, what penality would you enforce? I agree with it. Penalty, in addition to the game loss? probably a tracked Warning. method of preserving game balance? totally and utterly subjective depending on game state. >2) Does the player's experience level matter in determining the >penality? Elaborate. no. elaboration: really, it doesn't. bad deck, out. >3) Does the number of actions the group 1 vampire took make a >difference? If so, how does that change the penality you would >enforce? yes. but only so much in how i 'preserve game balance' after giving them the game loss. >4) If this situation arose in the first round, or if the player made >the finals, how would you adjust (or have the player adjust) the >illegal deck to continue playing? depends on the nature of the deck. if it was 13 vampire, with one group 1, the answer is obvious. other solutions would need to be decided by a judge, who would use their judgement, based on materials at hand. >MY THOUGHTS > >Before the tournament, I said, "Everyone has legal decks, right?" and >everyone kinda nodded approval. I didn't state clearly what defines a >"legal deck" and I should have. well, it might have helped. it might not. i once saw a large (20+) crypt across table from me at the start of a round, owned by a newbie. i asked "that does conform to the grouping rules, doesn't it?" to just be careful...he replied "yeah..". turned out he didn't know what the grouping rule was. a situation almost identical to the one you described then occurred. i thought the judge was too soft about it, but i was merely a player. luckily in the situation i had, the G1 vamp was noticed as soon as it became controlled, so 'fixing' was a lot less messy. salem http://www.users.tpg.com.au/adsltqna/VtES/index.htm (replace "hotmail" with "yahoo" to email)

ira...@gmail.com wrote: > TOURNAMENT CASE STUDY > > You are the head judge in a local tournament (2 rounds + Final) In local tournaments i am usually less harsh as in a big tournament. The interest to have nice games and a friednly athmosphere rates very high in my opinion. > For reference, the VEKN Judge's Guide, section 103, > http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/veknJudgesGuide.html suggests a penalty > of a Game Loss for an illegal deck, and states that, "If the penaly > occurs in the middle of a game, the judge should award pool and/or > Victory Points to the player's Predator, or making other arrangements > to preserve game balance for the remaining players, as warranted > (possibly awarding partial VPs)." It is a guide. I am absolutely happy with it. But it describes the strongest penenalty you can rule. > 1) Do you agree with the recommended penality from the Judge's Guide? > If yes, describe what approach you would use to "preserve game balance > for the remaining players." If no, what penality would you enforce? If i think, i really need to give a player a game loss, i usually would let his pool stay in the game. So his predator first has to work himself trough this before attacking the new prey. But all depends on the actual situation. > 2) Does the player's experience level matter in determining the > penality? Elaborate. Not the experience. But IMO the intent. If there are any clues, that the player really tried to cheat, i would react very strict. > 3) Does the number of actions the group 1 vampire took make a > difference? If so, how does that change the penality you would > enforce? Yes. If it would be immediately noticed, than no illegal play has happened. Burn the vampire and go on. Change the deck afterwards. > > 4) If this situation arose in the first round, or if the player made > the finals, how would you adjust (or have the player adjust) the > illegal deck to continue playing? Changing the wrong vampire with a vampire that gives no unproportional benefit to the player. Doubling a random vampire of teh crypt would be a solution. > I didn't request decklists. I don't like to require them, because it > creates a hurdle for tournament entry. Nonetheless, I should at least > make them optional. No decklists in small tournaments. Optional decklists would not help anything. > Before the tournament, I said, "Everyone has legal decks, right?" and > everyone kinda nodded approval. I didn't state clearly what defines a > "legal deck" and I should have. Everyone has to know, what legal decks are. If you have Newbies maybe it is necessary to check that their decks are legal. But experienced players know what they can play. > I ruled that the vampire was immediately removed from play. The player > was good natured about it, and apologetic. The table seemed to think > it was a fair penality. I agree. If a table feels good with a judge decision it usually is a good decision. > I considered disqualifying him, Way over the top. but > even in that case, I wouldn't have removed him from the game. You cannot disqualify a player but allow him to play on. It is very disruptive to let a player play but canecel his options to win. In my > opinion, removing someone from the game in the middle is one of the > most disruptive things that can happen (short of spilling a bunch of > liquid on the table.) Yes, but sometimes needed. > I think that the Judge's Guide suggested penality is both too harsh and > too disruptive. I understand that we wouldn't want the penality too > lax lest players begin to intentionally abuse it. Nonetheless, > actually removing someone mid-game lacks elegance. It is a guide line. And sometimes harsh reactions are necessary. In this case, I was > confident that it was an unintentional mistake, and not cheating. Thats the point. > Fortunately from a judging perspective, the player didn't make the > final, so it wasn't an issue what would happen with his deck. Had the > problem arose in the first round, I'm not sure what I would have done > for the second round. I believe I would have found a similar capacity > vampire that was legal for that crypt, perhaps duplicating an existing > vampire in the crypt. Agreed. > If the player made the final, I would have been tempted to prevent him > from playing in the final, though it's hard to say. After you have changed the deck, you cannot prevent the player from getting to the finals. Your decision has to be made without knowledge, if he would get to the finals. Your decision has to stand, regardless what will happen next.

In message <1116398943.1...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, x5m...@gmx.de writes: >ira...@gmail.com wrote: >> For reference, the VEKN Judge's Guide, section 103, >> http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/veknJudgesGuide.html suggests a >penalty >> of a Game Loss for an illegal deck, and states that, "If the penaly >> occurs in the middle of a game, the judge should award pool and/or >> Victory Points to the player's Predator, or making other arrangements >> to preserve game balance for the remaining players, as warranted >> (possibly awarding partial VPs)." > >It is a guide. I am absolutely happy with it. But it describes the >strongest penenalty you can rule. No, it doesn't. All penalties in this document (with the exception of section 160) assume that the infraction is unintentional. If a judge believes that an infraction was intentional, the penalty should be upgraded as appropriate (see section 160). Please remember that these are only guidelines. If the judge believes that the situation has significant, extenuating circumstances, he or she is free to modify the penalty as appropriate. The document lays down guidelines, not absolute maximums or minimums. -- James Coupe "Why do so many talented people turn out to be sexual PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D deviants? Why can't they just be normal like me and EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 look at internet pictures of men's cocks all day?" 13D7E668C3695D623D5D -- www.livejournal.com/users/scarletdemon/

Hey Ben, > I think the approach you took is just fine. Fair enough. What I'm more interested in from you (and everyone else) is not approval or disapproval of my actions, but to take a moment to discuss what you would have done instead. It's a useful exercise for you personally as a judge, and it's useful to all of us to learn from your choices and decisions. If we consider the situation in advance, we will be more prepared when it actually occurs. Also, the discussion will illuminate the wide range of judge's opinions on the same situation (which I personally think we should strive to minimize.) If everyone generally agrees on something, that's good to know, too. For instance, one thing that I've noticed is that pretty much everyone agrees it's very tricky to remove someone from the game and "preserve game balance." How could we teach a new judge how to do such a thing? I've judged 20+ tournaments and I still would have difficulty removing someone from the game and preserving balance. Making someone a poolbag helps their predator and prey, and hurts both people crosstable. That doesn't preserve balance at all. > I think the Judge's Guide's suggested penalty is just fine, since > it should assume the worst (that they're cheating). I think the Judge's Guide would be most useful if it assumed the most common case (not the worst case.) I personally would prefer to be guided on the most common cases (local tournaments), not the rare cases (continental championships.) I also believe that most crypt grouping errors will occur by mistake, not on purpose, but I have only a sample size of 2 so far. :) > Perhaps a range of options could be listed, depending on context. That seems like a great addition! Who maintains that document? Ira

> You cannot disqualify a player but allow him to play on. It is very > disruptive to let a player play but canecel his options to win. In this case, I think such a solution would have worked fine. I simply would have asked the player to keep playing the game and attempt to win in the same way he would do in a non-tournament game. Then again, I didn't feel the infraction warranted disqualification or game loss. > > removing someone from the game in the middle is one of the > > most disruptive things that can happen (short of spilling a bunch of > > liquid on the table.) > > Yes, but sometimes needed. I think this would be a great thing to explore with a case study. Can you give any case study of a situation where removing someone was needed, and what sort of things you did to preserve table balance? > After you have changed the deck, you cannot prevent the > player from getting to the finals. Your decision has to > be made without knowledge, if he would get to the finals. > Your decision has to stand, regardless what will happen next. This is a good discussion point! I think I disagree. Why can't I prevent the player from entering the finals, if he played with an illegal deck? Ira

In message <1116407178....@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>, "ira...@gmail.com" <ira...@gmail.com> writes: >This is a good discussion point! I think I disagree. Why can't I >prevent the player from entering the finals, if he played with an >illegal deck? You can - see the judging guidelines for details of the fact that they're only guidelines and appropriate penalties are always required, not slavish adherence to guidelines. You could simply DQ a player, if it was an appropriate penalty to the situation at hand. However, imagine a player with a 90 card deck. It's a heavily political deck, and the player happens to include one copy of Dramatic Upheaval - they've been out of touch for a while or is new, and aren't aware it's been banned. Upon attempting to play it, the rest of the table says "But that's banned!" The player calls the judge over to confirm and sort out the situation. The card is withdrawn from the deck, and the judge checks the rest of the deck to confirm that they are legal for both grouping and banned cards. End result: the player has an 89 card deck which is still a legal size, has received no benefit from the card and is about to be subject to a penalty. The guidelines already lay down a game loss as a typical penalty, and make clear that the intended resolution is to allow the player to compete in all other rounds - which includes the final, if they happen to do well in the remaining rounds. What purpose would be served by preventing them from playing in the final, in such a case, if they amassed sufficient GW and VP in other rounds? When judging, I have often very briefly gone over common problem cases before the start of play. This used to include: - please make sure people know the difference between negotiation prior to a block on a political action, and the setting of terms afterwards, as the fighting about who said what is tedious - please don't hurry through combat, making it hard for people to play cards at the right time, if you can avoid it sensibly - if you have an issue with a deal that is being brokered at your table, please call me over sooner rather than later, as it is much easier to make rulings sensibly if I know what the earlier situation was These days, it would also include: - please make sure that you have a legal deck, particularly the newly banned cards X, Y and Z. Also, make sure that your vampires are from an allowed grouping pair. If you didn't know that there are some restrictions on what vampires can go in the same deck, or aren't sure how they work, please come and talk to me RIGHT NOW. [ quoted text not captured ]

ira...@gmail.com <ira...@gmail.com> wrote: > TOURNAMENT CASE STUDY > You are the head judge in a local tournament (2 rounds + Final) where > one player played an illegal deck by bringing a crypt with group 1, 2, > and 3 vampires. In the first round of the tournament, only group 2 and > 3 vampires were influenced out, so nothing was noticed. > In the second round, the player influenced out several group 2 and 3 > vampires, and then influenced out a group 1 vampire. You're not sure > if the table noticed immediately, or after the group 1 vampire had > taken some actions. This thread has given me a slightly-tangential idea for a suggestion of a change to the Grouping Rule. Instead of being an at-deckbuilding-time rule, what if the Grouping Rule were a game-time rule? That is: You could build your crypt however you want, with whatever vampires you want, from any group. But it would be illegal to bring a vampire into the ready region from your uncontrolled region if his Group would violate the Grouping restrictions. If it happened "by accident", then the incoming vampire would burn, just as if it would self-contest. You could still take control of vampires from other Methuselahs that violate the grouping rule. If you were playing Group 3-4, and took control of another Methuselah's Group 1 or 2 vampire in such a way that you controlled them during your influence phase (i.e. Graverobbing), then you wouldn't be able to bring out any more of your own vampires legally until you got rid of him (and if he got Banished, you could burn him by "re-influencing" him). But other than that, I think the rule could be handled quite smoothly. Thoughts? Josh "Jozxyqk" Feuerstein Prince of Boston

On 17 May 2005 19:40:26 -0700, "ira...@gmail.com" <ira...@gmail.com> wrote: >TOURNAMENT CASE STUDY >You are the head judge in a local tournament (2 rounds + Final) where >one player played an illegal deck by bringing a crypt with group 1, 2, >and 3 vampires. In the first round of the tournament, only group 2 and >3 vampires were influenced out, so nothing was noticed. >In the second round, the player influenced out several group 2 and 3 >vampires, and then influenced out a group 1 vampire. You're not sure >if the table noticed immediately, or after the group 1 vampire had >taken some actions. >You did not require that the players provide a decklist. That's the problem in the "setup", I think. >For reference, the VEKN Judge's Guide, section 103, >http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/veknJudgesGuide.html suggests a penalty >of a Game Loss for an illegal deck, and states that, "If the penaly >occurs in the middle of a game, the judge should award pool and/or >Victory Points to the player's Predator, or making other arrangements >to preserve game balance for the remaining players, as warranted >(possibly awarding partial VPs)." > >DISCUSSION QUESTIONS >1) Do you agree with the recommended penality from the Judge's Guide? >If yes, describe what approach you would use to "preserve game balance >for the remaining players." If no, what penality would you enforce? It largely depends on the situation at the table. If neting the said predator 6 pool and a VP would do things much easier for him to gain the GW, one alternative is to make the offending player to remove the illegal group 1 vampire with no "refunding" of the pool invested in it. Essentially he had "bled himself" to that amount and would have to cope with that. It could ease things to his predator, but his predator will have to oust him the normal way to proceed for the GW. >2) Does the player's experience level matter in determining the >penality? Elaborate. It shouldn't in theory, but in practice it's difficult to ignore if the offending player is a newbie which was not taught the grouping rules properly (and that's why I don't feel comfortable with houseruling free use of any group). But I'm also a supporter of the idea that you can't postpone penalties out of pity for lack of experience. The best way to get experienced to certain situations is to cope with the consequences. So even if I'm sure the player did that unintentionally, I'd apply at least a small penalty, like the aforementioned burning of the vampire. >3) Does the number of actions the group 1 vampire took make a >difference? If so, how does that change the penality you would >enforce? I guess the number of actions he took is not as important as what *type* of actions he took and what vampire it is. If he called a PTO and the offending player does not control other minion capable of calling it, I'd "revive" the PTO'ed vampire with whatever cards and counters it had. If he just bled for 1, maybe net part of the pool back to his prey is enough. In short, the solution goes through rewinding the play as much as possible, as suggested by the VEKN rules. Rewinding takes a careful assertion of the situation at the table, and it's hard to say how much you can "generally" rewind without a specific example. It also is the point where how many actions the vampire took could hamper things - the more you have to rewind, the more difficult it is to accomplish properly. >4) If this situation arose in the first round, or if the player made >the finals, how would you adjust (or have the player adjust) the >illegal deck to continue playing? Take out the group 1 vampires (in your example) and the player is free to swap them for appropriate ones, borrowed or not. If there's none available of his liking, he'll have to do the best he can with whatever vampires of the appropriate groups are available. The important thing to consider is that he can't go on with less than 12 vampires in his crypt. Reducing an illegal group 1-2-3 crypt to 9 or 10 vampires to make it group 2-3 also ease things for the player to draw the "best" vampire he has (of course, some tricky decks could lose a lot if they depend on the group 1 vampires to function, but that's usually the exception to the rule.) >MY THOUGHTS >I didn't request decklists. I don't like to require them, because it >creates a hurdle for tournament entry. Nonetheless, I should at least >make them optional. I understand that it sometimes postpone the beginning of the tournament, but it's a necessary "evil". It's easier to start the tournament 10 to 20 minutes late and cope with it than it is to correct an illegal crypt in the middle of a round. You can ask players to send you the decklists in advance by mail or in hand during casual play. Once the Prince of my city even awarded a discount in the entry fee to the players who sent decklists in advance. If you do this regularly, players will get used. Last sunday's qualifier in here had more than 80% of the decklists sent in advance or brought out ready at the tournament. It significantly reduced the amount of time taken to check for illegal in the venue. It also incidentally make players aware that they should prepare properly to a tournament. >Before the tournament, I said, "Everyone has legal decks, right?" and >everyone kinda nodded approval. I didn't state clearly what defines a >"legal deck" and I should have. At the time of the ruling, I didn't ask how much the group 1 vampire >did before the table noticed the problem. I vaguely recall that it was >untapped with full blood when I was called over, but still I should >have asked. At the time, I assumed (perhaps incorrectly) that the >problem was noticed immediately. I wonder about that now, as I'm >writing this up. I think you shouldn't blame yourself and wonder much. These sort of things happen, and if someone was hampered by that particular vampire, that someone will eventually understand that the main problem was not your assumptions at the time, but the misinformation/dishonesty of the offending player who came in with an illegal deck. >I ruled that the vampire was immediately removed from play. The player >was good natured about it, and apologetic. The table seemed to think >it was a fair penality. He is a very experienced player and should >have known better, so I felt confident in punishing him severely (at >least it seemed severe to me.) I considered disqualifying him, but >even in that case, I wouldn't have removed him from the game. In my >opinion, removing someone from the game in the middle is one of the >most disruptive things that can happen (short of spilling a bunch of >liquid on the table.) Personally I consider the penalty to be far from severe. A "very experienced player" should know the grouping rule. Of course, no one is short of making mistakes - I've built a crypt once for an anarch deck, and when I started playing it, I noticed that I included six titled vampires! (it was before Anarch Secession was out, obviously). But it was a deck assembled in a hurry before a casual game. Tournaments should be taken seriously by players. I know there are very experienced players out there that assemble decks at the time, but I'm sure most of them do that because building decks is so easy to them that they can't go wrong. Every player should know what are his limits and don't risk commiting deckbuilding errors ("errors" used here in the sense of assembling something illegal). >I think that the Judge's Guide suggested penality is both too harsh and >too disruptive. I understand that we wouldn't want the penality too >lax lest players begin to intentionally abuse it. Nonetheless, >actually removing someone mid-game lacks elegance. In this case, I was >confident that it was an unintentional mistake, and not cheating. If you are confident with that, I personally think you ruled the situation very well. About the judge's guide being too disruptive, the VEKN rules talk about rewinding thing as much as possible. I find rewinding a good "tool" to make things less disruptive after most given penalties. >Fortunately from a judging perspective, the player didn't make the >final, so it wasn't an issue what would happen with his deck. Had the >problem arose in the first round, I'm not sure what I would have done >for the second round. I believe I would have found a similar capacity >vampire that was legal for that crypt, perhaps duplicating an existing >vampire in the crypt. >If the player made the final, I would have been tempted to prevent him >from playing in the final, though it's hard to say. Whatever ruling I >made, I would have attempted to nullify any benefit the player received >from bringing an illegal crypt. >Also, it was fortunate that 11 cards were group 2-3, and only one was >group 1. If there had been more group 1s, the problem would have been >more difficult to correct, and the infraction more severe (in my >opinion.) I'm not sure how it would have changed my ruling; I probably >still would have replaced all the group 1s with similar cap vampires. Fine considerations, but if I was to suggest something, it would be for you to start asking for decklists prior to the beginning of play (be it in advance or for the players to bring the lists ready when they come to play) and take some time to check at least the crypts. Most of the time nobody will be able to, say, play a Return to Innocence without being noticed - and even if they do, it's easier to correct the play of most banned library cards than it is to correct illegal crypts on the fly. It also helps in determined whether a player is intentionally trying to cheat or he's just misguided. Most cheaters won't push their luck bringing a decklist featuring an illegal crypt. And if they're caught using a vampire that's not in their decklist, you're free to take the most severe of penalties without drawing attention to himself or being taken as a harsh judge. >I welcome the insight of everyone else who has tournament judging >experience. I'm sure a similar situation has come up at many different >tournaments. >Ira I must admit that I judged two or three tournaments only, but I'm usually side to side to most organizers in nearby cities as an NC. Hope I could help. best, Fabio "Sooner" Macedo V:TES National Coordinator for Brazil Giovanni Newsletter Editor ----------------------------------------------------- V for Vendetta on the big screen! http://vforvendetta.warnerbros.com/

Jozxyqk wrote: > Instead of being an at-deckbuilding-time rule, what if the Grouping Rule > were a game-time rule? > > That is: > You could build your crypt however you want, with whatever vampires you > want, from any group. > But it would be illegal to bring a vampire into the ready region from > your uncontrolled region if his Group would violate the Grouping > restrictions. If it happened "by accident", then the incoming vampire > would burn, just as if it would self-contest. > > You could still take control of vampires from other Methuselahs that > violate the grouping rule. > If you were playing Group 3-4, and took control of another Methuselah's > Group 1 or 2 vampire in such a way that you controlled them during your > influence phase (i.e. Graverobbing), then you wouldn't be able to bring > out any more of your own vampires legally until you got rid of him (and > if he got Banished, you could burn him by "re-influencing" him). > But other than that, I think the rule could be handled quite smoothly. > > Thoughts? Your idea could work, yes. But where is the advantage that would justify changing the rules AGAIN? Even worse (in terms of player satisfaction) than introducing a grouping rule is to change it over and over. -- johannes walch

"Jozxyqk" <jfeu...@eecs.tufts.edu> wrote in message news:epGdnVdhf-4...@comcast.com... [ quoted text not captured ] Initial impression; that's pretty damned smooth. Lets think on it a bit, though. I'm mulling a few questions right now...Can the proposed rule exclusion for taking control of other Meth's vampires end up with any freaky-wierd rules conflicts? How would this work with temporary control effects on your own crypt/uncontrolled region (Chain of Command, Illusions of the Kindred...)? Oh, amy I give your proposed rules change a name? The Smooth Grouping Rule (SGR). It'll save some posting headaches. If it fails under scrutiny, then we'll rename it the Un-smooth Grouping Rule :-) LSJ, was this one of the grouping rules options which was considered and rejected for some reason, or is this "original work"? DaveZ AW

Fabio "Sooner" wrote: >>You did not require that the players provide a decklist. > That's the problem in the "setup", I think. Why? Even if you have decklists it is impossible to check them before the tournament starts. I assume that checking one decklist for a) banned cards, b) not yet legal cards and c) grouping rule takes average 1,5min per piece. With 20 players it takes 30min too check, a bit too long for everybody to wait. And with more players it愀 even worse. -- johannes walch

Johannes Walch <johanne...@vekn.de> wrote: > Jozxyqk wrote: > > Instead of being an at-deckbuilding-time rule, what if the Grouping Rule > > were a game-time rule? > > [snip] > Your idea could work, yes. But where is the advantage that would justify > changing the rules AGAIN? It's just an idea. It would stop judges from having to worry about newbies screwing up their crypts, and it might introduce some new strategies (in much the same way that the Anarch Revolt change has created as much as it has destroyed). I don't think it's *necessary*; I like the grouping rule fine the way it is. But I read your post, and this was the first thing that came to mind, and I like sharing my ideas.

1) I agree with the penalty - when at the highest tournament level(s). I'd prefer a more lenient solution (like yours) in lower-level tournaments - expecially for a newbie. The vampire goes 'poof' immediately. If he's taken no further actions, that's it - the player just hosed himself for x pool and x transfers - that's enough penalty (that's assuming there's indeed 1 deviantly grouped vampire in the crypt). No further rebalancing needed (although I'm sure prey and predator are secretly rejoycing, and cross-table isn't liking it, you can't legislate against stupidity). If the vampire had taken a number of actions it still goes poof. I'd prefer to do as little as possible to remaining pool, etc. (under the assumption that had the deck been legal, a similar vampire that should've been in the crypt would've probably done roughly the same things). I might penalise the player by some pool loss if that particular vampire had been having a particularly great effect on the game state. Assuming no bad intent, of course, but that's not in your example. Had the crypt been equally split in groups 1, 2, or 3, the player's going to get more of a penalty. In the final, the penalty would've been more harsh. 2) Not really, a beginner might get a bit more leniency, but tough love means better learning. 3) Mentioned previously 4) If it was first round, the vampire still burns as previously mentioned. I go through the crypt to check what work will be needed to make the deck legal. (I would go through the crypt anyway). I check the deck to see if there's other illegal stuff in there. Then I force a drop of illegal cards from the deck and replace the illegal vampire from the appropriate group with as close an approximation (imo) as possible.

David Zopf <david...@snetx.net> wrote: > "Jozxyqk" <jfeu...@eecs.tufts.edu> wrote in message > > Instead of being an at-deckbuilding-time rule, what if the Grouping Rule > > were a game-time rule? > > [snip] > Initial impression; that's pretty damned smooth. Lets think on it a bit, > though. I'm mulling a few questions right now...Can the proposed rule > exclusion for taking control of other Meth's vampires end up with any > freaky-wierd rules conflicts? How would this work with temporary control > effects on your own crypt/uncontrolled region (Chain of Command, Illusions > of the Kindred...)? Chain of Command/Undue Influence-qui would cause the incoming vampires to burn if they violated the rule. Illusions of the Kindred, no. It would only be checked when vampires move from the uncontrolled region to the ready region, not any other way. Where it might break down is with Embraces. Effects which bring a new vampire into play would necessitate a default Group, or a "Groupless" term, in case of banishment/stealing/etc. > Oh, amy I give your proposed rules change a name? The Smooth Grouping Rule > (SGR). It'll save some posting headaches. If it fails under scrutiny, then > we'll rename it the Un-smooth Grouping Rule :-) It's difficult to test, since the current grouping rule would be a total subset of it, but I might run a test event (or custom storyline) that uses this new rule. I don't expect it to be widely embraced (no pun intended), but I had to share it when it entered my brain...

On Wed, 18 May 2005, Jozxyqk wrote: > Chain of Command/Undue Influence-qui would cause the incoming vampires to burn > if they violated the rule. > Illusions of the Kindred, no. It would only be checked when vampires move from > the uncontrolled region to the ready region, not any other way. Hello turbo-Possession decks! Matt Morgan

"Jozxyqk" <jfeu...@eecs.tufts.edu> wrote in message news:vtednQ7B34X...@comcast.com... > David Zopf <david...@snetx.net> wrote: > > Chain of Command/Undue Influence-qui would cause the incoming vampires to > burn > if they violated the rule. > Illusions of the Kindred, no. It would only be checked when vampires move > from > the uncontrolled region to the ready region, not any other way. > 'K. So I'm thinking a narrower rule might help matters, such as: "SGR checks vampire cards for their group when entering play from the uncontrolled region." > Where it might break down is with Embraces. Does it? > Effects which bring a new > vampire into play would necessitate a default Group, or a "Groupless" > term, in case of banishment/stealing/etc. > I think this is actually sovled by the narrowed definition above; SGR checks *vampire* cards when entering play from the uncontrolled region. Embrace, Tumnimos, WoKR, Waters are not vampire cards in the sense that they lack brown backs, and should therefore not be checked by this rule. I've also been thinking about the limitations this would place on targeting of temporary and permanent changes of control originated by other players. Does this rule unnecessarily limit those tactics (which aren't so prevalent to begin with, and IMO don't really need limitation)? I worry that a deck based on control change might start targeting in a non-systematic fahsion, if their prey happens to be "immune" simply due to choosing the right groups. That potentially takes the game in a bad direction (cross-table). Is there some easy/elegant way to eliminate this possibility? > It's difficult to test, since the current grouping rule would be a total > subset of it, but I might run a test event (or custom storyline) that > uses this new rule. > I don't expect it to be widely embraced (no pun intended), but I had to > share it when it entered my brain... > Yeah, I agree on both counts. It looks nice on the surface, and all we're doing is knocking around an idea. I'm suggesting no knee-jerk proposals, but this has a nice, self-limiting angle to it which appeals to me a fair bit more than the current rule. If you take the added value of incorporating an extra group in your crypt, you accept the risk that some of the vampires you draw may be unusable. Risk...Reward, and an easy to understand explanation of how it works. DZ AW

[ quoted text not captured ] It depends largely on the way you handle the thing and what resources you have available. As I said throughout the answer, the local Prince tends to ask for the decklists in advance, usually by e-mail. At worst, players should bring the decklists ready from home. This reduces significantly the amount of decklist to be checked right out the time the tournament is supposed to begin. Of course, if you have to fully check 20 decklists or more at the venue, it will take precious time. But usually checking for illegal crypts is enough. There are so few banned cards, and the players normally are well aware of which cards they can't use. Again, if the organizers receive decklists in advance, they have plenty of time to check every single card if they want to. Also, it depends on how many people are involved in the organization, and how early players come to the tournament. In here we got used to announce a start time around 30 to 60 minutes earlier than the exact time needed to handle all rounds properly - so if the tournament must begin at 11 a.m. it is announced that it will begin at 10 or 10:30 a.m. This compensates late arrivals, which are pretty common, and gives the organizers time to check the lists. Of course, this doesn't prevent players from bringing decklists that are not accurate, but as I said in the previous post, once a player is caught doing that, it will be hard for him to convince the judge that he is not intentionally cheating. Even if it's perfectably normal for someone to mismatch a vampire in a hurry, once one's caught, he'll certainly check more than twice next time he builds a deck for an important tournament. Leniency is the basis of bad habits. [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] Specifically, Might of the Camarilla followed by Possession would allow you to play vampires together that were never meant to be played together. Also, Turbo Baron brings the majority of its vampires into play via The Baron burning and triggering Soul Gem. This would also get around the SGR. As far as taking control of other players' vampires with cards such as Graverobbing; I don't think this should limit who you can later influence into play group-wise. No one likes having their vampires stolen, but is it fair to the, for example, Gangrel deck that pokes you with Claws and then Graverobs to not be able to influence out any more of its crypt if it Graverobbed a vampire outside of its group range or can't use Gather after that Graverob? Also, if grouping is an in play rule, I don't think exceptions for stolen vampires will leave us with an elegant grouping rule. Unfortunately, this does not look like it will solve more problems than it will cause. Later, ~Rehlow

"Matthew T. Morgan" <far...@io.com> wrote in message news:2005051810...@eris.io.com... [ quoted text not captured ] Hrrm. SGR 1.1?: "SGR is checked when crypt cards enter the controlled region from either the uncontrolled region, or the ash heap." ...implying that it is not check when the card enters play from your hand, or control changes from another player. *shrug* DZ AW

[ quoted text not captured ] Both Chain of Command and Undue Influence (at qui) move a vampire from the uncontrolled region to the controlled region. The text I quoted didn't say anything about moving from the ashheap. I wasn't actually familiar with all the rules for SGR 1.1, but since I believe it was invented only this morning, I feel fairly comfortable discussing the above quoted rule variant, even if it doesn't conform exactly to SGR 1.1. :) Matt Morgan

"Matthew T. Morgan" <far...@io.com> wrote in message news:2005051812...@eris.io.com... [ quoted text not captured ] Sorry. I was proposing a revision to SGR, to shut down potential Possession abuses by adding the "or the ash heap" to the original proposal. I didn't mean to imply that it was an aspect you overlooked. It is a revision I'm proposing to correct the loophole you pointed out. DZ AW

"Rehlow" <news...@rehlow.com> wrote in message news:1116437055.1...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > >> Also, Turbo Baron brings the majority of its vampires into play via The > Baron burning and triggering Soul Gem. This would also get around the > SGR. > Soul Gem brings crypt cards in directly from the crypt into the controlled region (if they meet the capacity limitation), yes? If so, then the crypt could be added as a point of origin that SGR checks for grouping consistency, if this loophole was deemed too powerful. Meh. I don't know that it is, per se... How would having SGR check the crypt change the dynamic of Soul Gem? I envision a string of off-group vampires coming into play, burning, and triggering the Soul Gem effect over again, due to the effect being an 'involuntary' violation of SGR. Could one use such an effect to advantage? Probably not... On a randomized crypt, it lands a few off-group vampires in your ash heap, but not in any predictive fashion (not helping the draw of further vampires from the crypt too much), unless you combined it with an as-yet-unmade card which somehow let you order the contents of your own crypt... > As far as taking control of other players' vampires with cards such as > Graverobbing; I don't think this should limit who you can later > influence into play group-wise. No one likes having their vampires > stolen, but is it fair to the, for example, Gangrel deck that pokes you > with Claws and then Graverobs to not be able to influence out any more > of its crypt if it Graverobbed a vampire outside of its group range or > can't use Gather after that Graverob? Also, if grouping is an in play > rule, I don't think exceptions for stolen vampires will leave us with > an elegant grouping rule. > Absolutely agreed. This seems to be the key sticky point for SGR... I don't think its wise to limit the steal vamp tactic at all, so this would need to be satisfactorily resolved somehow, before anyone could take SGR at all seriously. Any method I've thought of to 'mark' the stolen vamipre (counters, etc) and alter SGR makes the whole thing seriously clunky... But, I'm an optimist, and its only 2:50pm here... Maybe an afternoon cuppa will shake something loose :-) > Unfortunately, this does not look like it will solve more problems than > it will cause. > Yeah, there really _isn't_ a problem to solve here, other than perhaps a PR one, is there? The Grouping Rule works without a doubt, although it can be perceived by someone under-informed in a negative light. Neh. Consider this a thinking experiment, then. DZ AW

[ quoted text not captured ] My mistake! In that case, yeah, applying the restriction to vampires moving to inplay from the ashheap might make it work. I'd suggest giving it a try in casual play or online. Unfortunately, I don't really see this fixing the "newbie doesn't understand grouping rule" problem. Sure, the newbie won't be playing an illegal deck or doing anything illegal, but the newbie will have to be told "No, you didn't do anything illegal per se, but that 10 cap you just influenced out will go straight to your ashheap due to the grouping rule." Matt Morgan

ira...@gmail.com wrote: > 1) Do you agree with the recommended penality from the Judge's Guide? > If yes, describe what approach you would use to "preserve game balance > for the remaining players." If no, what penality would you enforce? I agree that the penalty in the judges guide is useful in some instances, up to the discression of the judge. I suspect, however, that most situations are resolved in a much easier and more reasonable way than by eliminating a player. > 2) Does the player's experience level matter in determining the > penality? Elaborate. Sure. If someone is new, I'm a lot more likely to just fix it. If it is someone who plays a lot, and they are like "Man, I didn't notice that. Doh!", I'm also likely to just fix it. If, however, it is someone who does this every time we play, I'm a lot more likely to opt for something more drastic. > 3) Does the number of actions the group 1 vampire took make a > difference? If so, how does that change the penality you would > enforce? No. If someone notices as soon as the vampire comes into play, I'd likely just have the player pick another vampire off the top of their crypt (making sure it is legal) and either replace the illegal one and get a pool refund (if smaller) or leave them uncontrolled to influence out with more pool (if larger). If the vampire had been in play for a while, and someone just noticed, I'd likely suggest that I go through the player's crypt and find the closest aproximation of that vampire that is legal and replace them, and pretend it had been there all along. > 4) If this situation arose in the first round, or if the player made > the finals, how would you adjust (or have the player adjust) the > illegal deck to continue playing? By finding a way to fix the illegal crypt between rounds--maybe replacing illegal vampires with non illegal ones as closely as possible. If it was, like, the continental championships or something, yeah, I'd probably have to DQ the offender, but the situation as presented was a small local tournament. Given this, I'd find a way to fix the problem without DQing anyone, and everyone would move on. 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

"Jozxyqk" <jfeu...@eecs.tufts.edu> wrote in message news:vtednQ7B34X...@comcast.com... > David Zopf <david...@snetx.net> wrote: > >> "Jozxyqk" <jfeu...@eecs.tufts.edu> wrote in message >> > Instead of being an at-deckbuilding-time rule, what if the Grouping Rule >> > were a game-time rule? >> > [snip] > >> Initial impression; that's pretty damned smooth. Lets think on it a bit, >> though. I'm mulling a few questions right now...Can the proposed rule >> exclusion for taking control of other Meth's vampires end up with any >> freaky-wierd rules conflicts? How would this work with temporary control >> effects on your own crypt/uncontrolled region (Chain of Command, Illusions >> of the Kindred...)? > > Chain of Command/Undue Influence-qui would cause the incoming vampires to burn > if they violated the rule. > Illusions of the Kindred, no. It would only be checked when vampires move from > the uncontrolled region to the ready region, not any other way. This is precisely why the rule is "unsmooth". You'd have to make rulings about every which a vampire can show up in a player's controlled region. And all players and judges would have to remember all nuances of all rules. This was being proposed to simplify anything? I think not. Fred

Ira writes: > For instance, one thing that I've noticed is that pretty much > everyone agrees it's very tricky to remove someone from > the game and "preserve game balance." How could we > teach a new judge how to do such a thing? I've judged 20+ > tournaments and I still would have difficulty removing > someone from the game and preserving balance. Making > someone a poolbag helps their predator and prey, and > hurts both people crosstable. That doesn't preserve > balance at all. I think one assume "preserve game balance as best you can". There's no way to fully restore game balance in these situations, so minimizing the damage done to balance probably should be the guiding principle. Also, these situations are typically very subjective and/or contextual, and as such it's very difficult to give a blanket guideline. So, when I say "I think you handled things just fine", it's meant not just as a pat on the head, but an acknowledgement that the course of action you took could be recommended and applicable to similar situations. For further guidance, I think all we can really do is collect as many examples of rulings as we can as well as list more suggestions in the Judge's Guide based on context. The only similar such ruling I can remember having made myself was when someone recruited a Nephandus Mage with a Tremere (and had no !Tremere in play at the time), and (I think) torporized a vampire with it. Given the time that had passed since the ally was recruited, it wasn't possible to rewind back to the player's turn, so I decided that the torporize vampire should be out of torpor with as much blood as it should have had on it, and the Nephandus Mage was burned. With respect to your grouping rule problem, there was a tournament around here where someone made that mistake at the start of a game in the first round (honest mistake), so the judge had the player correct the crypt and re-do his first turn and move on. > I think the Judge's Guide would be most useful if it assumed > the most common case (not the worst case.) I personally > would prefer to be guided on the most common cases (local > tournaments), not the rare cases (continental championships.) I'd rather it assume the highest level of seriousness, and list a range of options depending on context. I believe Robert Goudie maintains the document. - Ben Peal

David Zopf wrote: > Oh, amy I give your proposed rules change a name? The Smooth Grouping Rule > (SGR). It'll save some posting headaches. If it fails under scrutiny, then > we'll rename it the Un-smooth Grouping Rule :-) > > LSJ, was this one of the grouping rules options which was considered and > rejected for some reason, or is this "original work"? Well, it wouldn't have made it far after the initial glance reveals the complications, no. A more tenable approach would be to basically have the same rule as the current, but instead of declaring a violation result in an illegal deck, you only have to refrain from influencing out (or otherwise putting into play) the vampire(s) that would reveal the violation. If a vampire is forced out into your play area, it is burned instead. If a vampire is forced out into another Methuselah's play area (via some future effect that allows a Methuselah to go digging vampires out of other Methuselahs' uncontrolled regions, crypts, or ash heaps), then the violation is simply ignored (until such time as the vampire is again out of play). -- 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/

"Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote in message news:6eNie.19284$ye1.11469@okepread06... > > "Jozxyqk" <jfeu...@eecs.tufts.edu> wrote in message > news:vtednQ7B34X...@comcast.com... >> Chain of Command/Undue Influence-qui would cause the incoming vampires to >> burn >> if they violated the rule. >> Illusions of the Kindred, no. It would only be checked when vampires >> move from >> the uncontrolled region to the ready region, not any other way. > > This is precisely why the rule is "unsmooth". You'd have to make rulings > about > every which a vampire can show up in a player's controlled region. And > all > players and judges would have to remember all nuances of all rules. > *Shrug* You have a rule, and a list of times at which you check for the rule's condition to be fulfilled. Its no more complicated than checking each vampire in your uncontrolled region at the end of influence, to see which fills the condition of having enough blood to move to the controlled region, or checking to see if you are eligible for a certain strike. It does add more checks in-game, but that part is fairly acceptable, if it gives a person greater crypt selection flexibility. > This was being proposed to simplify anything? I think not. > Agreed, not (not in its current form, anyways), even though we probably disagree as to why not. It was being proposed as an early idea (like Jozxyqk and I were saying in the first few posts), because it initially looked promising, but has shortcomings upon further scrutiny. I think that any further changes to Grouping only have validity if they both improve game PR with non-netizens, _and_ improve flexibility of crypt selection without allowing dial-a-crypt. If this or some other idea fulfilled both criteria, even if it were slightly more complex, I think it might warrant a look-see by the Rules Team. DZ AW

"David Zopf" <david...@snetx.net> wrote in message news:Wj0je.970$Bv5...@newssvr31.news.prodigy.com... >> This is precisely why the rule is "unsmooth". You'd have to make rulings about >> every which a vampire can show up in a player's controlled region. And all >> players and judges would have to remember all nuances of all rules. >> > *Shrug* You have a rule, and a list of times at which you check for the > rule's condition to be fulfilled. Its no more complicated than checking > each vampire in your uncontrolled region at the end of influence, to see > which fills the condition of having enough blood to move to the controlled > region, or checking to see if you are eligible for a certain strike. Sorry, there's not nineteen different things with which a vampire can be filled - only blood. But there's an open-ended number of ways a vampire can appear in players controlled region: from uncontrolled, from torpor, from graveyard, from hand, from library, from another player's controlled/graveyard/hand/library/etc. and not to mention various nuances depending on the card (e.g. Illusion of the Kindred). >> This was being proposed to simplify anything? I think not. >> > Agreed, not (not in its current form, anyways), even though we probably disagree as to why not. If the above doesn't pretty much state the issue, I can't imagine anything else that's worse. > I think that any further changes to Grouping only have validity if they both improve game PR with non-netizens, _and_ improve > flexibility of crypt selection without allowing dial-a-crypt. If this or some other idea fulfilled both criteria, even if it were > slightly more complex, I think it might warrant a look-see by the Rules Team. I'll put it this way: I don't see any benefits to something like this which comes close to adding another can of worms to the game rules. Fred

Jozxyqk wrote: > Instead of being an at-deckbuilding-time rule, what if the Grouping Rule > were a game-time rule? > > That is: > You could build your crypt however you want, with whatever vampires you > want, from any group. > But it would be illegal to bring a vampire into the ready region from > your uncontrolled region if his Group would violate the Grouping > restrictions. If it happened "by accident", then the incoming vampire > would burn, just as if it would self-contest. You could fix the problems that other people have pointed out in your change by making a grouping rule along the lines of "if you move a vampire from your uncontrolled region to your ready region that is more than one group number away from any other vampire you moved from from your uncontrolled region to your ready region, remove the vampire just moved from the game." Not a necessary change, IMHO.

"Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote in message news:C%0je.19325$ye1.11564@okepread06... > I'll put it this way: I don't see any benefits to something like this > which > comes close to adding another can of worms to the game rules. > Fine, Negative Nancy... ;-) You're opinion is noted DaveZ Atom Weaver

Put it back in uncontrolled, its not a valid card to put on the controlled part of the table. re-fill it from owners pool. If they want the blood back they have to influence it back. If many turns/actions have gone by then the other players must take responsibility for their inattention. If the owner has spent all that time/effort influencing it then that is a penalty to start with. If it's complete newbie more lenancy. It's it's a repeat offender, burn the vamp, penalise pool or partial VP. If it's a deliberate cheat, then look towards DQ. And if you find you've done it to yourself, hide it in your uncontrolled and hope no-one decides to look!

"David Zopf" <david...@snetx.net> wrote in message news:8i2je.1264$H24...@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com... > "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote in message > news:C%0je.19325$ye1.11564@okepread06... > > >> I'll put it this way: I don't see any benefits to something like this which comes close to trouble caused by adding another can >> of worms to >> the game rules. > > Fine, Negative Nancy... ;-) You're opinion is noted "Negative Nancy"?!? I resemble that remark! Heh, yeh. After finally getting around to taking a survey of how to play the events-caused-by-combat-cards-that-cancel-each-other-out rules and finding them to be an arbitrary hodge-podge of unmemorizable minutia, I'm not terribly thrilled to hear someone propose another twist to the game that I suspect would turn out the same way. Fred

> However, imagine a player with a 90 card deck. > It's a heavily political deck, and the player > happens to include one copy of Dramatic Upheaval In my opinion, that is not as severe a problem as mixed-group crypts. Ira

On Wed, 18 May 2005 23:54:29 GMT, LSJ <vtesr...@TRAPwhite-wolf.com> wrote: > David Zopf wrote: >> Oh, amy I give your proposed rules change a name? The Smooth Grouping >> Rule (SGR). It'll save some posting headaches. If it fails under >> scrutiny, then we'll rename it the Un-smooth Grouping Rule :-) >> >> LSJ, was this one of the grouping rules options which was considered >> and rejected for some reason, or is this "original work"? > > Well, it wouldn't have made it far after the initial glance reveals the > complications, no. > > A more tenable approach would be to basically have the same rule as the > current, but instead of declaring a violation result in an illegal deck, > you only have to refrain from influencing out (or otherwise putting into > play) the vampire(s) that would reveal the violation. If a vampire is > forced out into your play area, it is burned instead. If a vampire is > forced out into another Methuselah's play area (via some future effect > that allows a Methuselah to go digging vampires out of other Methuselahs' > uncontrolled regions, crypts, or ash heaps), then the violation is > simply ignored (until such time as the vampire is again out of play). I kind of like this. Would it complicate things? Would it make play "safer" for players in allowing them to play even if they make a deck construction "mistake"? Would it be disruptive, or would it give some peculiar advantage to some decks? Only thing that pops into mind is the Betrayer deck (not that it would be too powerful anyway). What's your opinion? -- Bye, Daneel

[ quoted text not captured ] I see the biggest benefits for Camarilla at present because they have the fullest and most balanced group design thus far, partially due to their longevity in the game. They could use all the G2 Inner Circle sleaze and balance out the rest of the crypt between G1 and G3 vamps as appropriate. If there were contestation issues in G1 or G3, they could avoid (or force) the issue. I think the inherent "penalty" is probably enough. If ya start off with three different groups in your crypt, the most you can influence out is three vampires without having to fish or decrypt for more, which can be a significant loss of tempo in VTES. Weenie decks would probably still stick with two groups so they don't lose their speed advantage. I'd like to say I see benefits to Clan Assamite (e.g. having the option of G2 Indies or G4 Sabbat to avoid bad predator/prey relationships), but the dearth of G3 vampires makes it unlikely that any Indie clan will seriously pursue a three-group strategy unless it "stars" such a G3 vampire. Perhaps certain discipline combinations would benefit, but it is hard to say. Jeff

[ quoted text not captured ] I see a much greater problem with providing decklists to tournaments of this size than to hoping players have legal decks, namely that the person running the event is in all likelihood playing in it and would get a gross advantage over other players.

[ quoted text not captured ] This largely depends on how the domain handles the "organizer playing the tournament" issue. In here, the Prince almost never plays. If he does so, it is because he found someone to take the role of organizer. Sometimes, even then he does not play - like in our last qualifier - because the tournament is big enough to demand two or three people to work around. One could say that since he's the one who assigned another player to be the organizer, he still has a somewhat easy access to the decklists. But in practice nobody has seen it happen. best, Fabio "Sooner" Macedo V:TES National Coordinator for Brazil Giovanni Newsletter Editor [ quoted text not captured ]

"Daneel" <dan...@eposta.hu> wrote in message news:opsq5a46...@news.chello.hu... > On Wed, 18 May 2005 23:54:29 GMT, LSJ > <vtesr...@TRAPwhite-wolf.com> wrote: >> A more tenable approach would be to basically have the same rule as the >> current, but instead of declaring a violation result in an illegal deck, >> you only have to refrain from influencing out (or otherwise putting into >> play) the vampire(s) that would reveal the violation. If a vampire is >> forced out into your play area, it is burned instead. If a vampire is >> forced out into another Methuselah's play area (via some future effect >> that allows a Methuselah to go digging vampires out of other Methuselahs' >> uncontrolled regions, crypts, or ash heaps), then the violation is >> simply ignored (until such time as the vampire is again out of play). > > I kind of like this. Would it complicate things? Only if Scott means that "revealing a violation" only ever involves checking _owned_ vampires rather than checking what's in a player's controlled area. Because if he meant that latter, then you've got the whole can of worms, etc. And, of course, if cards allow one player to steal vampires out of other player's uncontrolled areas or crypts (or even fill vampires in other players uncontrolled areas with more blood - or reduce their capacities), things start getting at least a little more interesting. Fred

Frederick Scott wrote: > "Daneel" <dan...@eposta.hu> wrote in message >>On Wed, 18 May 2005 23:54:29 GMT, LSJ >>>A more tenable approach would be to basically have the same rule as the >>>current, but instead of declaring a violation result in an illegal deck, >>>you only have to refrain from influencing out (or otherwise putting into >>>play) the vampire(s) that would reveal the violation. If a vampire is >>>forced out into your play area, it is burned instead. If a vampire is >>>forced out into another Methuselah's play area (via some future effect >>>that allows a Methuselah to go digging vampires out of other Methuselahs' >>>uncontrolled regions, crypts, or ash heaps), then the violation is >>>simply ignored (until such time as the vampire is again out of play). >> >>I kind of like this. Would it complicate things? > > Only if Scott means that "revealing a violation" only ever involves > checking _owned_ vampires rather than checking what's in a player's > controlled area. Because if he meant that latter, then you've got the > whole can of worms, etc. ? "basically the same rule as current" with a violation make a burned vampire rather than making a deck illegal/invalid. That cannot mean the latter. [ quoted text not captured ]