i've just been reading the Revealing cards thread. Thought-provoking
stuff and some of the language indicates that the Fire hasn't gone out of
our collective belly since the 7/7, erm, debate. i want to make a comment
and ask a question.
COMMENT: While i personally don't have a strong view on the PRINCIPLE of
the new rules [no notes, no sneak peeks] i do worry about the
practicality of enforcing them - "what you cannot enforce, do not
command" as Noal's sig file puts it. i'm fairly sure that John
"Dreadjudge" Eagles will share my worries - John? Are you listening? And
in Jyhad on-line e-gossiping behind other players' backs is a large part
of the game and doesn't detract from the conspiratorial aspects at all,
quite the contrary.
QUESTION: How does the new rule affect the Succubus club? "OK, it's my
untap. During it [dear predator] i will swap you this card in my hand for
Gitane's Inverary castle. It's an AI, i promise, and your only chance of
staving off the malky sneak-bleeders for which your deck is so PITIFULLY
unprepared. No, you can't look at it before we clinch the deal - VEKN
rules forbid that. You will just have to take my word for it." Somehow
that doesn't seem right to me.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Oops! My imaginary succubus club deal would have to be my putative AI for
any old rubbish in your hand plus Gitane's Inverary. It says so on the SC
card.
[ quoted text not captured ]
legb...@my-deja.com wrote:
> i've just been reading the Revealing cards thread. Thought-provoking
> stuff and some of the language indicates that the Fire hasn't gone
> out of our collective belly since the 7/7, erm, debate.
Heh. Do you think another NJL will come out of this? *grin*
I think the difference is that the Revealing Cards thread is just one
guy, as opposed to entire regions of people, being upset.
> COMMENT: While i personally don't have a strong view on the
> PRINCIPLE of the new rules [no notes, no sneak peeks]
To be honest, neither do I. OTOH, our tournaments tend to be more social
than competitive events...something I suspect is the case with most
local tournaments. Mind you, the decks are still brutal, but the
difference is the atmosphere of the tornament itself.
However, errata and rulings should keep national tournaments and power
gamers in mind. If something can be abused, it will be.
> i do worry about the practicality of enforcing them - "what you
> cannot enforce, do not command" as Noal's sig file puts it.
Wow. I got quoted. You do know that my .sig was just me being ironic
since I can be a pushy bastard, don't you? Of course, my recent tendency
to be more diplomatic has raised a few eyebrows locally.
> And in Jyhad on-line e-gossiping behind other players' backs is a
> large part of the game and doesn't detract from the conspiratorial
> aspects at all, quite the contrary.
However, JOL is a unique environment and significantly different in
nature than a tournament. In JOL, for example, it's not difficult to go
through past and current games to see if a player has played a certain
deck and what came out of it.
> QUESTION: How does the new rule affect the Succubus club? "OK, it's
> my untap. During it [dear predator] i will swap you this card in my
> hand for Gitane's Inverary castle.
Well, for one you'd have to take a card from his hand too. Thie bit
about "cannot result in any Methuselah having less than his or her hand
size" and all. Ether way, if you can get someone to agree to "this
[unrevealed] card for your Castle" than you are a great con man.
Personally, I'd only agree to "my Castle for an AI." Not to mention that
nothing prevents the other player from backing out at the last minute.
Noal
--
"What you cannot enforce, do not command."
-- Socrates
[ quoted text not captured ]
[ quoted text not captured ]
Well, for one you'd have to take a card from his hand too. The bit about
"cannot result in any Methuselah having less than his or her hand size"
and all. Ether way, if you can get someone to agree to "this
[unrevealed] card for your Castle" than you are a great con man.
Personally, I'd only agree to "my Castle for an AI." Not to mention that
nothing prevents the other player from backing out at the last minute.
Regards,
[ quoted text not captured ]
legb...@my-deja.com wrote:
> QUESTION: How does the new rule affect the Succubus club?
It doesn't. The Succubus plays the same as it always has.
> "OK, it's my
> untap. During it [dear predator] i will swap you this card in my hand for> Gitane's Inverary castle. It's an AI, i promise, and your only chance of
> staving off the malky sneak-bleeders for which your deck is so PITIFULLY
> unprepared. No, you can't look at it before we clinch the deal - VEKN
> rules forbid that. You will just have to take my word for it." Somehow
> that doesn't seem right to me.
If you agree to trade an AI for a <from your follow-up> random card
from the hand and the castle, then you have to trade the AI for the
random card and the castle.
You can't filch on the trade, just as you cannot play Disguised
Weapon with an "I promise its a weapon" card only to "prove" that it
is not a weapon (thereby freely discading the DW).
--
LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc.
Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and tournament rules:
http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/
On Tue, 13 Jun 2000 legb...@my-deja.com wrote:
> QUESTION: How does the new rule affect the Succubus club? "OK, it's my> untap. During it [dear predator] i will swap you this card in my hand for
> Gitane's Inverary castle. It's an AI, i promise, and your only chance of
> staving off the malky sneak-bleeders for which your deck is so PITIFULLY
> unprepared. No, you can't look at it before we clinch the deal - VEKN
> rules forbid that. You will just have to take my word for it." Somehow
> that doesn't seem right to me.
When the cards contradict the rules, they contradict the rules. Succubus
Club is fine.
--
James Coupe | PGP Key 0x5D623D5D
"I know my ex-boyfriend lies. Oh, he does it every time. It's just his
permanent disguise, yeah, yeah, but he's drop dead gorgeous."
In article <8i5k55$34r$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
Noal McDonald <dhar...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> legb...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > i've just been reading the Revealing cards thread. Thought-provoking
> > stuff and some of the language indicates that the Fire hasn't gone
> > out of our collective belly since the 7/7, erm, debate.
>
> Heh. Do you think another NJL will come out of this? *grin*
Yeah, JJL, membership 1. REALLY need those solitare rules, now! But
anyway, i think Justicar DOES have a point.
>
> I think the difference is that the Revealing Cards thread is just one
> guy, as opposed to entire regions of people, being upset.
>
> > COMMENT: While i personally don't have a strong view on the
> > PRINCIPLE of the new rules [no notes, no sneak peeks]
>
> To be honest, neither do I. OTOH, our tournaments tend to be more social
> than competitive events...something I suspect is the case with most
> local tournaments. Mind you, the decks are still brutal, but the
> difference is the atmosphere of the tornament itself.
>
> However, errata and rulings should keep national tournaments and power
> gamers in mind. If something can be abused, it will be.
i agree, but don't think it's necessarily ALWAYS practical or desirable
to legislate against it. Tournaments [as i, and for that matter you,
having been saying ever since we came on-line], are only window-dressing
for the game - we [mainly] play to win, but winning doesn't matter and
the tournament qua tournament even less.
>
> > i do worry about the practicality of enforcing them - "what you
> > cannot enforce, do not command" as Noal's sig file puts it.
>
> Wow. I got quoted. You do know that my .sig was just me being ironic
> since I can be a pushy bastard, don't you?
Sure, but Socrates was serious, and right. All bad law comes from good
intentions that can't, in practice, be made concrete. And bad law
contaminates good law by generating contempt for the whole legal system -
which is as true for the VTEs microcosm as it is for the macrocosm.
That's IMO the strong part of Justicar's case but it's not SO strong that
i find myself wanting to argue against the new rules - i think if they're
unenforceable they will just get quietly ignored.
Of course, my recent tendency
> to be more diplomatic has raised a few eyebrows locally.
Last i looked, my eyebrows were halfway down my back and still
travelling. But that has more to do with the summer dresses.
>
> > And in Jyhad on-line e-gossiping behind other players' backs is a
> > large part of the game and doesn't detract from the conspiratorial
> > aspects at all, quite the contrary.
>
> However, JOL is a unique environment and significantly different in
> nature than a tournament. In JOL, for example, it's not difficult to go
> through past and current games to see if a player has played a certain
> deck and what came out of it.
Sure, but i was just responding to the general point made by somebody
that revealing cards would bugger up that [paranoid/conspiratorial]
aspect of the game.
<snip Succubus club discussion which has got me wondering whether we have
EVER played this card right in the UK. Ulp.>
[ quoted text not captured ]
legb...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> i've just been reading the Revealing cards thread. Thought-provoking
> stuff and some of the language indicates that the Fire hasn't gone out of> our collective belly since the 7/7, erm, debate. i want to make a comment
> and ask a question.
>> COMMENT: While i personally don't have a strong view on the PRINCIPLE of> the new rules [no notes, no sneak peeks] i do worry about the> practicality of enforcing them - "what you cannot enforce, do not> command" as Noal's sig file puts it. i'm fairly sure that John> "Dreadjudge" Eagles will share my worries - John? Are you listening? And> in Jyhad on-line e-gossiping behind other players' backs is a large part
> of the game and doesn't detract from the conspiratorial aspects at all,
> quite the contrary.
>
I'd like to comment on the way of enforcing that "rule". How do you
prevent a player from revealing a threatening card like a Bum's Rush or
other nasties? Imho it is impossible. If i really want to show the card
under the new rules, i can just drop it on the table, either by
"clumsiness" or apologizing and saying that i played the wrong card ("i
bleed with GtU! _shows Bum's Rush....oops!)
Apart from having a judge behind each player pondering if the "reveal
card" action was intentional or not, i guess there is no way to enforce
that rule. Besides over here, the tournaments are much closer to social
events than ultra-competitive environments ala Magic. In my (old?) days
i used to play magic, and got really tired of the tournament attitude,
the "don't do this, don't do that! or be disqualified" thing.
I do understand that one of the arguments put forward in favor of the
rule are that flashing a card to an opponent to scare him or her, or it,
is "bad" because you should just have to use poker-like techniques to
persuade yr prey that you have the said card. ok some people like to
play that way and bluff is always good :)
However many others play differently and the ability to show cards can
play a great part in their strategy i.e. combat decks: if you bleed/vote
against/do any nasty thing to me i will crush you! hey look i do have
the means of enforcing what i said. I do think this is the only way to
calm down a dedicated sneak-bleed...and it saves time, showing the card
instead of spending half an hour trying to convince a thick-headed not
to bleed just to hear yr predator says: "bleed with GtU...and
conditioning"...sigh....
My point is, again to quote Noal's sig file, "what you cannot enforce,
do not command", trying to enforce the rule will only lead to situations
like this: "judge, he showed a card! No i didn't, it fell! no you showed
it on purpose....etc ad nauseum....followed by kindergarden
whining....did not, did to, did not....
Oh well, I never have to show any card when i have Beast on the
table...maybe an IG?
Regards, P.
legb...@my-deja.com wrote:
> Yeah, JJL, membership 1. REALLY need those solitare rules, now! But
> anyway, i think Justicar DOES have a point.
To some degree, I also agree. I just didn't feel strongly enough about
it to participate in the ritualistic beating of a dead horse. It's a
rule that's not used in NJL tournaments at all because it's never been
an issue that anyone cared about.
> Tournaments [as i, and for that matter you, having been saying
> ever since we came on-line], are only window-dressing for the
> game - we [mainly] play to win, but winning doesn't matter and
> the tournament qua tournament even less.
Very true. But when issuing errata, making rulings, playetesting cards,
etc., one really has to keep in mind the highly competitive nature of
tournaments and the temptation of people with lesser integrity to cheat
to win. After being on the NJL rules team for almost two years now, I
truly empathize with LSJ and co. It's not an easy job.
> Sure, but Socrates was serious, and right. All bad law comes
> from good intentions that can't, in practice, be made concrete.
In this case, you _can_ keep people from intentionally revealing their
cards to other players when not compelled to do so by a game mechanic.
Whether or not it's worth the hassle is an entirely different issue.
>> Of course, my recent tendency to be more diplomatic has
>> raised a few eyebrows locally.>
> Last i looked, my eyebrows were halfway down my back and still
> travelling. But that has more to do with the summer dresses.
Sorry to disappoint you, Leggy. I don't wear summer dresses. *grin*
Noal
--
"What you cannot enforce, do not command."
-- Socrates
[ quoted text not captured ]
pierre rebstock wrote:
> I'd like to comment on the way of enforcing that "rule". How do you
> prevent a player from revealing a threatening card like a Bum's Rush or
> other nasties? Imho it is impossible. If i really want to show the card
> under the new rules, i can just drop it on the table, either by
> "clumsiness" or apologizing and saying that i played the wrong card ("i
> bleed with GtU! _shows Bum's Rush....oops!)
Obviously this would be judged on a case-by-case basis. I believe the
tournament rules use some sort of "warning system" -- once is a mistake,
after you pull the same stunt twice, it's probably not.
> However many others play differently and the ability to show cards can
> play a great part in their strategy i.e. combat decks: if you bleed/vote
> against/do any nasty thing to me i will crush you! hey look i do have
> the means of enforcing what i said. I do think this is the only way to
> calm down a dedicated sneak-bleed...and it saves time, showing the card
> instead of spending half an hour trying to convince a thick-headed not
> to bleed just to hear yr predator says: "bleed with GtU...and
> conditioning"...sigh....
Then you punish him for not listening to you. Or you suffer because he
called your bluff. <g>
> My point is, again to quote Noal's sig file, "what you cannot enforce,
> do not command", trying to enforce the rule will only lead to situations
> like this: "judge, he showed a card! No i didn't, it fell! no you showed
> it on purpose....etc ad nauseum....followed by kindergarden
> whining....did not, did to, did not....
Actually, I think most players, if told "You're not allowed to do this
by the rules," will simply not do it.
-David
pierre rebstock <por...@soton.ac.uk> writes:
>I'd like to comment on the way of enforcing that "rule". How do you
>prevent a player from revealing a threatening card like a Bum's Rush or
>other nasties? Imho it is impossible. If i really want to show the card
>under the new rules, i can just drop it on the table, either by
>"clumsiness" or apologizing and saying that i played the wrong card ("i
>bleed with GtU! _shows Bum's Rush....oops!)>Apart from having a judge behind each player pondering if the "reveal
>card" action was intentional or not, i guess there is no way to enforce
>that rule.
How do you prevent a person from "accidentally" grabbing a second card
from the top of his deck and looking at it as he draws? You can't really,
and you can't know if it was accidental or deliberate. There are rules for
these kinds of situations. No-revealing-cards falls under them.
>I do understand that one of the arguments put forward in favor of the
>rule are that flashing a card to an opponent to scare him or her, or it,
>is "bad" because you should just have to use poker-like techniques to
>persuade yr prey that you have the said card. ok some people like to
>play that way and bluff is always good :)>However many others play differently and the ability to show cards can
>play a great part in their strategy i.e. combat decks: if you bleed/vote
>against/do any nasty thing to me i will crush you!
Sure, many people play differently. What's your point? You can only
play one way in a game. The thing is either permitted to all or not
permitted to all. A choice has to be made. I think you can get by with
a combat deck by simply telling your opponent what you will do to him.
Fred
legb...@my-deja.com wrote:
> <snip Succubus club discussion which has got me wondering
> whether we have EVER played this card right in the UK. Ulp.>
Y'know...Pulse of Canaille at minor allows you to look at _every_
player's hand. If the 3 blood cost isn't too prohibitive, I've found it
to be extremely useful in an intercept deck. Helps me to decide what to
block. In this case, it would be very useful in a Malk deck to couple it
with Madness Network & Succubus Club since you can find out what
everyone has during your predator's turn and use that information to
offer trades.
I've made Malkavian OOT combat/Graverobbing/Time Auction decks in the
past. Why not give it something else to auction off?
[ quoted text not captured ]
Noal McDonald <dhar...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>Y'know...Pulse of Canaille at minor allows you to look at _every_
>player's hand. If the 3 blood cost isn't too prohibitive, I've found it
>to be extremely useful in an intercept deck. Helps me to decide what to
>block. In this case, it would be very useful in a Malk deck to couple it
>with Madness Network & Succubus Club since you can find out what
>everyone has during your predator's turn and use that information to
>offer trades.
>
>I've made Malkavian OOT combat/Graverobbing/Time Auction decks in the
>past. Why not give it something else to auction off?
Man that's bad! Very bad!
By the way, my trick has always been to tell the rest of the table what cards
every one had. Or another variant was to tell everyone what cards their
predator and prey had. That variant, of course, is more easily done in JOL.
Bleu
Going a little off topic -
LSJ wrote:
>
> legb...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > QUESTION: How does the new rule affect the Succubus club?
>> If you agree to trade an AI for a <from your follow-up> random card
> from the hand and the castle, then you have to trade the AI for the
> random card and the castle.
>
> You can't filch on the trade, just as you cannot play Disguised
> Weapon with an "I promise its a weapon" card only to "prove" that it
> is not a weapon (thereby freely discading the DW).
>
What is the penalty for not doing the trade right? I.e., if you don't
actually have an AI - what is the penalty? Are you DQ'd? What about in
casual games - oh yeah, I forgot, heaps of ridicule and social
pariah-ism (different from social priapism, I swear...).
Chris
--
chris
ultimate disc - V:TES - hockey
v:ekn prince of torrance, ca
Chris Shorb <ultima...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> LSJ wrote:
> > legb...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > > QUESTION: How does the new rule affect the Succubus club?
> >
> > If you agree to trade an AI for a <from your follow-up> random card
> > from the hand and the castle, then you have to trade the AI for the
> > random card and the castle.
> >
> > You can't filch on the trade, just as you cannot play Disguised
> > Weapon with an "I promise its a weapon" card only to "prove" that it
> > is not a weapon (thereby freely discading the DW).
>
> What is the penalty for not doing the trade right? I.e., if you don't
> actually have an AI - what is the penalty? Are you DQ'd? What about in
> casual games - oh yeah, I forgot, heaps of ridicule and social
> pariah-ism (different from social priapism, I swear...).
I assume you mean: trade the player a card other than the one (AI) that
you agreed to trade. See the V:EKN Penalty Guidelines.
If the judge doesn't consider this cheating (it seems to qualify to me),
it is at least unsportsmanlike conduct.
If the player merely declines to trade the "AI" (changes her mind), then,
of course, there's no problem.
--
LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) VTES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc.
Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and tournament rules:
http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/[ quoted text not captured ]
What if a player makes a deal with his grand-prey, where he gets some
pool, and in exchange gives Succubus Club to his grand-prey until that
players master phase. Now, it's the grand-prey's turn, he makes his
deals with the Succubus club, but either doesn't return the Club *or*
trades it to another player.
Would that be unsportsmanlike conduct, or cheating? After all, it was a
deal, and he *broke* his part. However, you can make any deals in VTES
(during voting, e.g.) and get not punished if you don't fulfill your
part. I'm just curious.
Carl
[ quoted text not captured ]
In article <8id0sr$eqg$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
> Chris Shorb <ultima...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > LSJ wrote:
> > > legb...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > > > QUESTION: How does the new rule affect the Succubus club?
> > >
> > > If you agree to trade an AI for a <from your follow-up> random card
> > > from the hand and the castle, then you have to trade the AI for the
> > > random card and the castle.
> > >
> > > You can't filch on the trade, just as you cannot play Disguised
> > > Weapon with an "I promise its a weapon" card only to "prove" that it
> > > is not a weapon (thereby freely discading the DW).
> >
> > What is the penalty for not doing the trade right? I.e., if you don't
> > actually have an AI - what is the penalty? Are you DQ'd? What about in
> > casual games - oh yeah, I forgot, heaps of ridicule and social
> > pariah-ism (different from social priapism, I swear...).
>
> I assume you mean: trade the player a card other than the one (AI) that
> you agreed to trade. See the V:EKN Penalty Guidelines.
>
> If the judge doesn't consider this cheating (it seems to qualify to me),
> it is at least unsportsmanlike conduct.
>
> If the player merely declines to trade the "AI" (changes her mind), then,
> of course, there's no problem.
>
But [and this is the point of the thread, IMO] Succubus club says: "any
terms may be set, but none are enforced". So if i say "i will trade you
this card in my hand - it's an AI, i promise - for a random card in your
hand and something of yours i want [on the table]" and the player says
yes to the deal, and it turns out i lied about the card in my hand being
an AI, then all i've done is lie legally. The way you are ruling this at
the moment, it seems to me you would have to warn me for unsportsmanlike
conduct if i lied about the pre-terms of a KRC in order to prevent
someone from blocking.
[ quoted text not captured ]
prea...@utanet.at wrote:
> What if a player makes a deal with his grand-prey, where he gets some
> pool, and in exchange gives Succubus Club to his grand-prey until that
> players master phase. Now, it's the grand-prey's turn, he makes his
> deals with the Succubus club, but either doesn't return the Club *or*
> trades it to another player.
> Would that be unsportsmanlike conduct, or cheating? After all, it was a
> deal, and he *broke* his part. However, you can make any deals in VTES
> (during voting, e.g.) and get not punished if you don't fulfill your
> part. I'm just curious.
That's covered by card text on Succubus Club - "... not enforced by the
rules."
--
LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) VTES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc.
Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and tournament rules:
http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/[ quoted text not captured ]
[ quoted text not captured ]
Ah. Saying "I'll trade you this card, whatever it is" is different than saying
"I'll trade you an AI". If you don't agree to trade an AI, then of course, you
don't have to trade an AI.
However, your phrasing - "I'll trade you this card - it's an AI" would be
suspect, and could easily get you in trouble with the judge. I'd be clear
about the terms of the trade ("this card") and what it was I was just talking
about ("It's an AI, I promise").
> The way you are ruling this at
> the moment, it seems to me you would have to warn me for unsportsmanlike
> conduct if i lied about the pre-terms of a KRC in order to prevent
> someone from blocking.
The nature of the card being traded is not a "pre-term" of the trade - it is
a term of the trade. If you wish to make it a pre-term, you should be clear -
that the term is just "this card" and, as an additional note, but not a term
of the trade, it may be (and you assert that it is) an AI.
Likewise you cannot "lie" about the terms of the KRC when you announce
them (after having not been blocked) - you can't "lie" and say "I'll get 3 and
my prey gets 1" and then, after the votes are in, say "Oh, that wasn't quite
true, the actual terms were that my prey gets 3 and my grand-prey gets
1".
[ quoted text not captured ]
>>Likewise you cannot "lie" about the terms of the KRC when you
announce them (after having not been blocked) - you can't "lie" and say
"I'll get 3 and my prey gets 1" and then, after the votes are in, say
"Oh, that wasn't quite true, the actual terms were that my prey gets 3
and my grand-prey gets 1".<<
No but I understand that *within the rules* you can state that "Ozmo
will attempt to call a KRC and will designate X to lose 3 pool and Y to
lose 1 pool", and then, assuming no blocks, state before votes are cast
the terms really are that X will lose 1 pool and Z will lose 3 pool.
However, being a social game with a relatively small pool of players,
one needs to keep one's word.
Madman
[ quoted text not captured ]
In article <8iilrk$vr5$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
> prea...@utanet.at wrote:
> > What if a player makes a deal with his grand-prey, where he gets some
> > pool, and in exchange gives Succubus Club to his grand-prey until that
> > players master phase. Now, it's the grand-prey's turn, he makes his
> > deals with the Succubus club, but either doesn't return the Club *or*
> > trades it to another player.
> > Would that be unsportsmanlike conduct, or cheating? After all, it was a
> > deal, and he *broke* his part. However, you can make any deals in VTES
> > (during voting, e.g.) and get not punished if you don't fulfill your
> > part. I'm just curious.
>
> That's covered by card text on Succubus Club - "... not enforced by the
> rules."
>> --
> LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) VTES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc.
The most beastly thing we've ever done with the Succubus club in
Portsmouth was when Steve [with the SC] was bleeding Lunar and lunar was
kicking me. So on Steve's untap i gave him ALL my minions for 3 pool,
with the promise that i would get them all back in his next untap. He
used them to bleed out Lunar and kept the deal. But he needn't have done,
as LSJ says, because of the text.
[ quoted text not captured ]