Normally I expect any player at the table in a Jyhad game to be acting
in his own best interest. To be trying to win the game, or the
tournament. If the game is a tournament, I consider it acceptable to
be focused on winning the tournament, or the individual game, player
discretion.
However I don't know what to think for the storyline tournaments.
Each player is playing a clan. It would seem logical to allow the
player to do whatever best increases the odds that his clan will win
the tournament.
So what do you think? Is it kosher for two bruiser Brujah decks to
not only split the table, but have one hand the other every victory
point?
If so, then whichever clan wins the storyline overall would more
strongly correlate with which clan is most played. If not, then a
clan that is overplayed faces the normal chance of contestation.
Basically I'm asking because I'm thinking of making a bruiser !Salubri
deck, and I want to know if it's a good thing for me to see another
such deck at the table, or not.
Of course, even if we unanimously decry such clan alliances, people
might still do it. However, if we all say, go ahead clan pride! then
people will be more likely to do it.
Wisefool
Mercuriel
mathi...@hotmail.com (Matt) wrote in message news:<589ebf00.02092...@posting.google.com>...
> Normally I expect any player at the table in a Jyhad game to be acting
> in his own best interest. To be trying to win the game, or the
> tournament. If the game is a tournament, I consider it acceptable to
> be focused on winning the tournament, or the individual game, player
> discretion.
>
> However I don't know what to think for the storyline tournaments.
> Each player is playing a clan. It would seem logical to allow the
> player to do whatever best increases the odds that his clan will win
> the tournament.
>
> So what do you think? Is it kosher for two bruiser Brujah decks to
> not only split the table, but have one hand the other every victory
> point?
>
well, I'm sure I won't hand over my victory points just for the sake
of my clan, but if you can get someone to do this for you, go you! you
deserve those viccies :)
> If so, then whichever clan wins the storyline overall would more
> strongly correlate with which clan is most played. If not, then a
> clan that is overplayed faces the normal chance of contestation.
I don't think many players would readily hand over their victory
points just because you happen to play the same clan.
> Basically I'm asking because I'm thinking of making a bruiser !Salubri
> deck, and I want to know if it's a good thing for me to see another
> such deck at the table, or not.
I doubt you will face another !salubri deck anyway :)
(but then, i don't know your metagame)
> Of course, even if we unanimously decry such clan alliances, people
> might still do it. However, if we all say, go ahead clan pride! then
> people will be more likely to do it.
go clan pride! we -insert clan- got to stick together in this and put
me in finals :)
> Wisefool
> Mercuriel
mathi...@hotmail.com (Matt) wrote in message news:<589ebf00.02092...@posting.google.com>...
> Normally I expect any player at the table in a Jyhad game to be acting
> in his own best interest. To be trying to win the game, or the
> tournament. If the game is a tournament, I consider it acceptable to
> be focused on winning the tournament, or the individual game, player
> discretion.
>
> However I don't know what to think for the storyline tournaments.
> Each player is playing a clan. It would seem logical to allow the
> player to do whatever best increases the odds that his clan will win
> the tournament.
The storyline events aren't sanctioned. You can do whatever you want
as far as strategy is concerned. Other players may not appreciate it,
but who says multi-player games are "fair" anyway?
> So what do you think? Is it kosher for two bruiser Brujah decks to
> not only split the table, but have one hand the other every victory
> point?
>
> If so, then whichever clan wins the storyline overall would more
> strongly correlate with which clan is most played.
More so which players cooperate if they're playing the same clan.
> If not, then a
> clan that is overplayed faces the normal chance of contestation.
>
> Basically I'm asking because I'm thinking of making a bruiser !Salubri
> deck, and I want to know if it's a good thing for me to see another
> such deck at the table, or not.
I'd hope not. There aren't enough good !Salubri around for both of you
to be effective without contesting a lot.
> Of course, even if we unanimously decry such clan alliances, people
> might still do it. However, if we all say, go ahead clan pride! then
> people will be more likely to do it.
I plan on playing !Tremere for at least one of the Storyline events I
will be attending (hopefully 3). I know another local is possibly
playing the !Tremere as well and I'm looking forward to working
together (before and during the event) to get at least one of us into
the finals. ;)
Jeff
Matt wrote:
>
> Aww cmon, I thought this was a very reasonable, and relevant question!
I didn't see the original post, which has expired on my server for some
reason. I will copy another respondent's quote of your question and
assume it was accurate:
> Normally I expect any player at the table in a Jyhad game to be acting
> in his own best interest. To be trying to win the game, or the
> tournament. If the game is a tournament, I consider it acceptable to
> be focused on winning the tournament, or the individual game, player
> discretion.
>
> However I don't know what to think for the storyline tournaments.
> Each player is playing a clan. It would seem logical to allow the
> player to do whatever best increases the odds that his clan will win
> the tournament.
>
> So what do you think? Is it kosher for two bruiser Brujah decks to
> not only split the table, but have one hand the other every victory
> point?
(By the way, although I don't agree with your opinions this is very
reasonable as a question and certainly relevant. Who claimed it wasn't?)
These tournaments are sanctioned by VEKN, so one would assume the tournament
rules are the same except where specifically noted. I see no exceptions
to the collusion rules or those specifying that players must play to win.
Even were that not true, however, I would hope most tournament directors
would use the same rules for Storyline tournaments, anyway. It's a question
of how you would like to be treated. Allowing this sort of collusion is as
unfair as any other type. For instance, if three or four buddy-buddies got
together and decided they were all going to work for, say, a Daughters of
Cacophony victory or some other particular clan, they'd have a nice advantage
going in. But not everyone is going to have a bunch of their friends show
up for the same tournaments. It would suck to get to a tournament and be the
victim of repeated predetermined alliances when you don't have a clique of
of your own to fall back on.
Fred
jeff...@hotmail.com (Jeff Kuta) wrote in message news:<621dd332.0210...@posting.google.com>...
> mathi...@hotmail.com (Matt) wrote in message news:<589ebf00.02092...@posting.google.com>...> The storyline events aren't sanctioned. You can do whatever you want> as far as strategy is concerned. Other players may not appreciate it,
> but who says multi-player games are "fair" anyway?
Oops, I guess they are sanctioned. However, they aren't rated which is
what I had confused. I'm sure they are sanctioned and unrated for just
this eventuality.
I guess it will be hard for the Tremere antitribu, but still worth a
shot at resurrecting them into the Storyline. ;)
Jeff
jeff...@hotmail.com (Jeff Kuta) wrote in message news:<621dd332.02102...@posting.google.com>...
> jeff...@hotmail.com (Jeff Kuta) wrote in message news:<621dd332.0210...@posting.google.com>...
> > mathi...@hotmail.com (Matt) wrote in message news:<589ebf00.02092...@posting.google.com>...
>
> > The storyline events aren't sanctioned. You can do whatever you want
> > as far as strategy is concerned. Other players may not appreciate it,
> > but who says multi-player games are "fair" anyway?
>
> Oops, I guess they are sanctioned. However, they aren't rated which is
> what I had confused. I'm sure they are sanctioned and unrated for just
> this eventuality.
From the White Wolf site, under storyline tournaments [note expecially
the asterisked sections]:
"Format
Attend a designated Storyline Tournament and
bring a clan-based deck representing who you'd like to control the
Eye.
**All standard V:EKN Rules will apply.**
Players will bring decks that follow the regular V:EKN Constructed
Format rules (60-90 card libraries, etc.) except that at least 75% of
each player's crypt must be comprised of a single clan. The rest of
the crypt and the entire library may be completed in any manner the
player chooses.
Additional Rules
Some additional rules will be in effect for each
game.
1.Each game begins with the Eye of Hazimel
card uncontrolled, in center of the table.
2.If the Eye is uncontrolled, a Methuselah
may burn the Edge during his or her untap phase to place the
uncontrolled Eye of Hazimel on one of his or her ready vampires.
3.Any minion may take a (D) action to enter
combat with the vampire who possesses the Eye of Hazimel.
4.Any vampire who diablerizes the vampire
with the Eye of Hazimel must take the Eye of Hazimel. No blood hunt
may be called against the diablerizing vampire.
5.If the Eye is burned at any point during
the game, it is immediately returned to the center of the table,
uncontrolled.
The tournament Historian will make a record of
key battles and of the winning clan at your event and forward the
results to White Wolf. Here's your chance to finish this chapter of
the story of the Eye of Hazimel.
** As this sanctioned event will not count toward
player ratings and because of the fun nature of the event, this would
be an ideal time for new players to attend their first tournament.**"
In short, colluding is still illegal, and the unrated nature of the
things is to encourage people to experiment, and to encourage people
who wouldn't normally play in tournaments to have a bash.
>
> I guess it will be hard for the Tremere antitribu, but still worth a
> shot at resurrecting them into the Storyline. ;)
Indeed, go for it. But for heaven's sake don't try to bend the rules,
this is supposed to be a showcase for the game and it's not going to
look too clever if it's marred by questionable play.
legb...@mailandnews.com (legbiter) wrote in message news:<22fea992.02102...@posting.google.com>...
> jeff...@hotmail.com (Jeff Kuta) wrote in message news:<621dd332.02102...@posting.google.com>...> > I guess it will be hard for the Tremere antitribu, but still worth a
> > shot at resurrecting them into the Storyline. ;)
>
> Indeed, go for it. But for heaven's sake don't try to bend the rules,
> this is supposed to be a showcase for the game and it's not going to
> look too clever if it's marred by questionable play.
Just to clarify, knowing that it's sanctioned yet unrated (as opposed
to unsanctioned an unrated), I would never try to do such a thing.
However, I still think it would be very interesting indeed if there
were a format where clan-based collusion were acceptable, and even
encouraged.
Jeff
Jeff Kuta wrote:
(re: colluding with other players to ensure your favorite clan wins the
local Storyline tournament)
> Just to clarify, knowing that it's sanctioned yet unrated (as opposed
> to unsanctioned an unrated), I would never try to do such a thing.
> However, I still think it would be very interesting indeed if there
> were a format where clan-based collusion were acceptable, and even
> encouraged.
It would be an interesting concept for a variant tournament, I suppose.
Whoever set the rules for it would do well to think through exactly
what is to be allowed in the way of collusion, put it in explicit
tournament rules, and advertise the variation well. It would be bad
for someone to show up unwarned.
Were I writing the rules for something like that, I would probably be
sure to include a limit on the "team size", registration as a team, and
organize tables so that no more than 2 members of a team be at the same
table. (And no colluding between teams, even if they share the same
clan. That point might need further thought, too.)
Fred
> Attend a designated Storyline Tournament and
> bring a clan-based deck representing who you'd like to control the
> Eye.
So the admitted goal is deciding which clan controls the eye. The
game won't affect player ratings either.
A lot of people won't be bringing decks they expect will garner the
most victory points. It would be reasonable to rule they must focus
on victory points once the game starts, but that hasn't been made
clear.
I certainly wouldn't want to encourage players to make agreements
before the game. That would still sound like collusion to me.
However I think it would be reasonable to allow players to choose
whether they are maximizing the chance of their deck winning, or their
clan winning.
Either way, some official word would be nice.
Wisefool
Mercuriel
Matt wrote:
> I certainly wouldn't want to encourage players to make agreements
> before the game. That would still sound like collusion to me.
> However I think it would be reasonable to allow players to choose
> whether they are maximizing the chance of their deck winning, or their
> clan winning.
Not really, for all the reasons I stated. The problem is that a judge
can't tell the difference. If you left the door open to such play, all
the bad things could happen and the players could simply lie about how
it came about. Granted, collusion is always kind of sticky to deal with
but at least as it is, judges can do something about the truly blatant
examples.
> Either way, some official word would be nice.
It's already been pointed out that Storyline tournaments are sanctioned
and run under VEKN rules - including collusion and "playing to win"
rules. Why would you assume anything further need be said?
Fred
jeff...@hotmail.com (Jeff Kuta) wrote in message news:<621dd332.0210...@posting.google.com>...
[ quoted text not captured ]
i agree. Last September at the Euros in Paris Stephane Lavrut, Kamel
Senni, Pierre Van Tranh and their chums came up with exactly this. i
hope they will read this thread and chip in with the details cos it
sounded like a jolly good idea. If memory serves, it was one of
several events they put on for the LOSERS [eg me] ... others being a
sealed-deck tourney [in which i played] and a combat-fest. The Legal
Colluding event had teams and you played it rather like bridge
partners IIRC. i don't know how it ended up but at one point a deck
that was 50% Brainwash was one half of the leading team ;-(
>
> Jeff
For the reasons stated above. Namely, the exceptions already made to
the rules, and that the stated goal is to help your clan gain the eye.
Wisefool
Mercuriel
Matt wrote:
>
> For the reasons stated above. Namely, the exceptions already made to
> the rules, and that the stated goal is to help your clan gain the eye.
The V:EKN rules will be used, as stated.
--
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/
Great thanks!
Ok I've got another question which is vaguely related.
It is clear now that for tournaments it is necessary to legislate a
players priorities. What those priorities must be though doesn't seem
clear to me.
I assume it is legal for a player to postpone the claim of a victory
point if it increases the odds he will get his next point.
As I understand it a player must seek a table win first, and after
that has been assured, or become an impossibility, he is then trying
to maximize his victory points.
However I would only consider it a true impossibility if someone else
has already achieved it.
If I have this right it would not be legal for a player to postpone
claiming the last victory point he needs for the win, for any reason.
Nor is he allowed to concern himself with anything but winning the
table until someone has done it.
Do I have this right?
Wisefool
Mercuriel
Matt wrote:
>
> Great thanks!
>
> Ok I've got another question which is vaguely related.
>
> It is clear now that for tournaments it is necessary to legislate a
> players priorities. What those priorities must be though doesn't seem
> clear to me.
Priorities:
1) Win the game.
2) If winning is not possible, maximize your VP accumulation.
> I assume it is legal for a player to postpone the claim of a victory
> point if it increases the odds he will get his next point.
If he wins, sure.
Otherwise (if he doesn't), then, if the delay leads to the maximum
accumulation of VPs for him, then sure.
> As I understand it a player must seek a table win first, and after
> that has been assured, or become an impossibility, he is then trying
> to maximize his victory points.
Correct.
> However I would only consider it a true impossibility if someone else
> has already achieved it.
It would be up to the judge to make the ruling for any individual
case presented.
> If I have this right it would not be legal for a player to postpone
> claiming the last victory point he needs for the win, for any reason.
Not true.
If chances of winning via the postponement are not less than his chances
otherwise, then the postponement is still an example of playing to win.
> Nor is he allowed to concern himself with anything but winning the
> table until someone has done it.
Depends on what you mean by "done it".
If you mean "someone has accumulated 3VPs" then no.
If you mean "some one/group (not including "he") has gotten into the
position where a win (among themselves) is assured, or the fact that
no one will be able to achieve a table win is assured," then yes.
[ quoted text not captured ]