We want to hold a Black Hand draft event at Free States : Texas.
Ideally we'd like to do it similar to the pre-release style where you
get starters and then draft boosters. Would this event still be
sanctioned (for ratings purposes)? And if so, as a booster draft
event?
I'm trying to find a way to sanction the event while still letting
people play with the starters. We would prefer to draft only boosters
to add to the starters rather than do pure sealed. While we could go
Elder Draft (which seems to indicate starters and boosters are used)
it seems it would dissolve the starter and make it draftable, which
some of our players have indicated they'd rather not do.
--------------------------------------
Ethan Burrow - Owner of many Art Scams
http://texas.vekn.org/http://monger.vekn.org/
Ethan Burrow wrote:
> We want to hold a Black Hand draft event at Free States : Texas.
> Ideally we'd like to do it similar to the pre-release style where you
> get starters and then draft boosters. Would this event still be
> sanctioned (for ratings purposes)? And if so, as a booster draft
> event?
Yes. As a limited event. The limited events are not further subdivided
for ratings.
--
LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc.
Links to V:TES news, rules, cards, utilities, and tournament calendar:
http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/
"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message
news:3F9A62AD...@white-wolf.com...
> Ethan Burrow wrote:
> > We want to hold a Black Hand draft event at Free States : Texas.
> > Ideally we'd like to do it similar to the pre-release style where you
> > get starters and then draft boosters. Would this event still be
> > sanctioned (for ratings purposes)? And if so, as a booster draft
> > event?
>
> Yes. As a limited event. The limited events are not further subdivided
> for ratings.
I think Ethan's main question was whether the specific limited
format they want to use is sanctionable.
According to the VEKN rules:
7.1. Limited Formats
The V:EKN sanctions the following Sealed formats:
Sealed (standard) (see section 7.3)
Restricted Trade (also called Michigan Draft) (see section 7.4)
The V:EKN sanctions the following Draft formats:
Booster Draft (standard) (section 7.6)
Table Draft (also called Rochester Draft) (section 7.7)
Mixed Draft (also called Elder Draft) (section 7.8)
As Ethan points out, none of these actually match the typical
"prerelease" format of treating the starter decks as part of
a "sealed" event but standard-booster-drafting the boosters.
So it would seem that such a format cannot be sanctioned.
As a guess on my own part, I would think that it might be
more interesting to do "mixed draft" than "sealed starters,
draft boosters" anyway, in that the precons in previous
sets have typically been cohesive enough that it's hard to
improve on them much with only a few boosters worth of
cards - so, pretty often, all the decks people have made
from each clan starter tend to end up looking pretty much
the same.
Or it might be fun/worthwhile to draft, say, 4 packs of
Sabbat War and 5 packs of Black Hand (assuming the supply
of SW is available to do such a thing) rather than using
the precons. Or not, depending.
Also somewhat noteworthy: while limited events using a
new set are sanctionable within the 30-day window before
the new set is usable in constructed tournaments, people
who playtested the set are not eligible to play in
sanctioned events within those 30 days.
It might be worth revisiting that rule (in VEKN 1.1)
given the probably relatively high percentage of VTES
players who are also playtesters (relative to big-budget
games like Magic, that is). While I understand that
the purpose of the rule is to make everyone feel that
sanctioned tournaments don't allow anyone an unfair
advantage due to prior knowledge of new sets, I've
talked to non-playtesters about it and they've said
that they don't think there's that much advantage to
be gained, and that they would have more fun with
everyone being able to play than if certain people had
to sit out because of sanctioning restrictions. The
number of available players often affects how feasible
it is to even run an event, in many areas, and reducing
that pool in the time-frame where the most players are
most likely to be interested in limited events using new
sets (since they haven't yet purchased as many packs as
they might want to own) may not be a net-good thing for
the game.
Just something to consider. Even reducing the "waiting
period" to something like 7 or 10 days (long enough for
people to have seen the product at prereleases and
probably long enough for them to have bought some packs,
if not seen full spoilers) could make more people
interested in holding limited events soon after the
release of new sets.
Josh
could never pass tests in play school
Joshua Duffin wrote:
> "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message
> news:3F9A62AD...@white-wolf.com...
>>>Ethan Burrow wrote:
>>>>>We want to hold a Black Hand draft event at Free States : Texas.
>>>Ideally we'd like to do it similar to the pre-release style where you
>>>get starters and then draft boosters. Would this event still be
>>>sanctioned (for ratings purposes)? And if so, as a booster draft
>>>event?>>
>>Yes. As a limited event. The limited events are not further subdivided
>>for ratings.>
> I think Ethan's main question was whether the specific limited
> format they want to use is sanctionable.
Yes, that was his main question.
The main answer given to that was "yes", and still stands.
> Also somewhat noteworthy: while limited events using a
> new set are sanctionable within the 30-day window before
> the new set is usable in constructed tournaments, people
> who playtested the set are not eligible to play in
> sanctioned events within those 30 days.
It doesn't seem to be a problem - that rule isn't applied
to the pre-release events, and playtesters are generally
mature enough to be able to wait a month.
[ quoted text not captured ]
"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message
news:3F9E6DCA...@white-wolf.com...
> Joshua Duffin wrote:> > I think Ethan's main question was whether the specific limited
> > format they want to use is sanctionable.
>
> Yes, that was his main question.
> The main answer given to that was "yes", and still stands.
Cool. Can the VEKN tournament rules be updated to reflect the
acceptability of the "sealed starters plus drafted boosters"
format? If the VEKN intention on limited formats is to
actually allow pretty much anything based on sealed product
(though I'm not sure that you would go *that* far :-) perhaps
that could be spelled out?
> It doesn't seem to be a problem - that rule isn't applied
> to the pre-release events, and playtesters are generally
> mature enough to be able to wait a month.
Sure. But from the discussions I've had, the issue isn't
whether the playtesters are able to deal with waiting. The
issue is that it's perceived that the best time to run
limited events is immediately after the release of a new set,
because while it seems that a lot of people are not very
interested in limited most of the time, they are more likely
to be interested when a set has just been released, because
they have not yet bought lots of cards from that set.
Because of this, it's desirable to hold tournaments during
the 30 days following a new release (and good for WW who
would get to sell more cards to the players at such events).
But since playtesters are a relatively large proportion of
the VTES population, and aren't able to play in such
(sanctioned) events, there is a "players not able to play
in limited events" effect working against the "players
excited about playing limited with a new set" effect.
This is unfortunate. And since it may also be unnecessary,
if having playtested turns out not to be too significant
an advantage (taking into consideration not only the non-
playtesters having seen the cards at prerelease and in,
say, 7-10 days post-release, as well as the fact that
card texts may have changed since the last time playtesters
saw them), perhaps it could be modified.
Josh
limited appeal
Joshua Duffin wrote:
> Cool. Can the VEKN tournament rules be updated to reflect the
> acceptability of the "sealed starters plus drafted boosters"
> format? If the VEKN intention on limited formats is to
> actually allow pretty much anything based on sealed product
> (though I'm not sure that you would go *that* far :-) perhaps
> that could be spelled out?
I suppose they could be reworded to accomodate almost anything.
But that would be Robert's gig.
> saw them), perhaps it could be modified.
Perhaps, indeed.
[ quoted text not captured ]
LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:<3F9E6DCA...@white-wolf.com>...
> Joshua Duffin wrote:
> > "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message
> > news:3F9A62AD...@white-wolf.com...> > Also somewhat noteworthy: while limited events using a
> > new set are sanctionable within the 30-day window before
> > the new set is usable in constructed tournaments, people
> > who playtested the set are not eligible to play in
> > sanctioned events within those 30 days.
>
> It doesn't seem to be a problem - that rule isn't applied
> to the pre-release events, and playtesters are generally
> mature enough to be able to wait a month.
In my experience, most players will purchases boxes of product from
online sources because this is much cheaper than getting it locally.
These people will quickly reach a critical mass in their collections
for any new VTES expansions and in all probability resort to trading
or the secondary market for singles to fill out what they really
desire.
However, I believe there is a substantial population which wants to
play limited VTES and acquire some of their collection this way. This
helps the game in at least three ways: 1) Local Retailers get a bigger
piece of the action than they might normally get; and 2) Having more
VTES events of any type increases exposure to the game; 3) New players
generally feel more inclined to play in limited formats where size of
collection is not a factor at all.
Combining the reality of how collectors collect and the benefits of
limited VTES, it is apparent to many that the first few weeks beyond a
set's release date are the prime opportunities for folks to play
limited. Beyond that point, people begin to question whether the cash
outlay is worth the fun of playing with a new group of cards perhaps 2
or 3 games in a single day.
Even Steve Wieck (I believe) mentioned that WW has moved to a 6 month
release between Black Hand and Gehenna partially to appease retailers
who feel their customers "forget" about VTES during a longer 9-12
month schedule. Encouraging limited environments is one way to
encourage retailers to stock product beyond the initial push for a set
when it is first released. It just so happens that many of the VTES
playtesters are also those who are most passionate about the game;
those who donate their time and effort as Princes to promote a game in
their localities.
While locking the playtesters out of limited play shortly after a
set's release may make logical sense from a competitive standpoint
(though that is arguable as well), I think it's short-sighted because
it is obviously dampening interest in limited play shortly after a
set's release.
>> It doesn't seem to be a problem - that rule isn't applied
>> to the pre-release events, and playtesters are generally
>> mature enough to be able to wait a month.>
>Sure. But from the discussions I've had, the issue isn't
>whether the playtesters are able to deal with waiting. The
>issue is that it's perceived that the best time to run
>limited events is immediately after the release of a new set,
>because while it seems that a lot of people are not very
>interested in limited most of the time, they are more likely
>to be interested when a set has just been released, because
>they have not yet bought lots of cards from that set.
>
>Because of this, it's desirable to hold tournaments during
>the 30 days following a new release (and good for WW who
>would get to sell more cards to the players at such events).
Also, to point out the obvious, because no sanctioned constructed event during
the period can use the new cards providing a discouragement to running
constructed events during the period.
There are only 13 players in the world ranked for limited play - it's not
popular. I'm sure that the peak of limited popularity will be in the 30 days
after the release of a new set for the reasons given above.
>But since playtesters are a relatively large proportion of
>the VTES population, and aren't able to play in such
>(sanctioned) events, there is a "players not able to play
>in limited events" effect working against the "players
>excited about playing limited with a new set" effect.
Right. It's quite understandable why playtesters of Magic, for instance,
wouldn't be allowed to play in events. One, limited play is huge for such a
game and doesn't need any help. Two, more importantly, the playtesters for a
CCG like Magic comprise an insignificant portion of the player base, so there's
little real world impact of such a rule. Matters a lot more for smaller CCGs.
>This is unfortunate. And since it may also be unnecessary,
>if having playtested turns out not to be too significant
>an advantage (taking into consideration not only the non-
>playtesters having seen the cards at prerelease and in,
>say, 7-10 days post-release, as well as the fact that
>card texts may have changed since the last time playtesters
>saw them), perhaps it could be modified.
I could see having no waiting period for limited play. A set is out. Sure, it
usually takes time for people to acquire the cards or find out what they do.
But, if the release is on a Monday, the likely tournament date is at least 5
days later. And, if people are bothered by a supposed playtester advantage,
they can always opt not to play or push for a later date. I've noticed that:
people in general don't make a concerted effort to nullify others' information
advantage (by learning what rarely played cards do, etc.); people take limited
play less seriously which means they are less likely to care about any
advantage someone else may have.
On 28 Oct 2003 18:07:33 GMT, cur...@aol.commetal (Curevei) wrote:
>>> It doesn't seem to be a problem - that rule isn't applied
>>> to the pre-release events, and playtesters are generally
>>> mature enough to be able to wait a month.>>
>>Sure. But from the discussions I've had, the issue isn't
>>whether the playtesters are able to deal with waiting. The
>>issue is that it's perceived that the best time to run
>>limited events is immediately after the release of a new set,
>>because while it seems that a lot of people are not very
>>interested in limited most of the time, they are more likely
>>to be interested when a set has just been released, because
>>they have not yet bought lots of cards from that set.
>>
>>Because of this, it's desirable to hold tournaments during
>>the 30 days following a new release (and good for WW who
>>would get to sell more cards to the players at such events).>
>Also, to point out the obvious, because no sanctioned constructed event during
>the period can use the new cards providing a discouragement to running
>constructed events during the period.
>
>There are only 13 players in the world ranked for limited play - it's not
>popular. I'm sure that the peak of limited popularity will be in the 30 days
>after the release of a new set for the reasons given above.
That's not entirely accurate. I have ran sanctioned limited events in
the past, and they have never been entered in the system. I attribute
that to the timeframe of the event submissions (Pre-Robyn).
>>But since playtesters are a relatively large proportion of
>>the VTES population, and aren't able to play in such
>>(sanctioned) events, there is a "players not able to play
>>in limited events" effect working against the "players
>>excited about playing limited with a new set" effect.>
>Right. It's quite understandable why playtesters of Magic, for instance,
>wouldn't be allowed to play in events. One, limited play is huge for such a
>game and doesn't need any help. Two, more importantly, the playtesters for a
>CCG like Magic comprise an insignificant portion of the player base, so there's
>little real world impact of such a rule. Matters a lot more for smaller CCGs.
>>>This is unfortunate. And since it may also be unnecessary,
>>if having playtested turns out not to be too significant
>>an advantage (taking into consideration not only the non-
>>playtesters having seen the cards at prerelease and in,
>>say, 7-10 days post-release, as well as the fact that
>>card texts may have changed since the last time playtesters
>>saw them), perhaps it could be modified.
Having playtested some of the previous VTES expansions, I would like to
note that playtest groups do not see all of the cards that make it into
print nor do they see the final versions decided through the process.
They (playtesters) in my experience have a heads-up on 60-75% general
sense of what eventually goes into the boosters. Neither my group, or
the few others I'm aware of have or had any knowledge of what to expect
of the starters from any set.
I only state the above as I think it's relevent to the thread, and
shouldn't violate the terms of the NDA.
Constructed allows for players to put together decks containing the
strongest cards of a given set. Limited Sealed/Booster events during
pre-release isn't going to give playtesters that much of an edge over
other skilled players that aren't involved in the playtest process IMHO.
>I could see having no waiting period for limited play. A set is out. Sure, it
>usually takes time for people to acquire the cards or find out what they do.
>But, if the release is on a Monday, the likely tournament date is at least 5
>days later. And, if people are bothered by a supposed playtester advantage,
>they can always opt not to play or push for a later date. I've noticed that:
>people in general don't make a concerted effort to nullify others' information
>advantage (by learning what rarely played cards do, etc.); people take limited
>play less seriously which means they are less likely to care about any
>advantage someone else may have.
I Agree. Allowing immediate sanctioning of events for limited play
could only aid in getting people to tourneys and build excitement about
the latest set (Anarch's not withstanding).
My opinion on the matter is that the 30-day rule should only apply
towards constructed play, not for limited play.
Also, the Restricted Trade format (aka: Michigan Draft) may need to be
updated. As I've noted previous, it came into being based on the
inherent weakness of the original Jyhad/VTES starters.
But that should probably be discussed in a seperate thread..
BernieTime
Lansing, Michigan