Fun at the EC!

. Heya! I just got back from Europe, where I had a blast at the EC, as well as hanging out in Munich, Vienna, Budapest, and Bratislava. Many thanks to Carl Pilhatsch and the 2002 EC Team for hosting a fantastic weekend! I had a ton of fun meeting and playing with everyone! Congrats to Dave Bastijn and Stephane Lavrut for their wins at the EC and Qualifier, respectively, as well as to those who won the side events! Random comments on the events: Cool venue! Definitely the nicest place in which I've played a tournament. I've heard some gripes about the cost of the events, but for that venue I think it was money well spent. I found the judging to be very good, with the judges being very available, and their decisions to be fair. I think they handled the discrepancies with the decklists in the Qualifier in a fair and game-friendly manner. I really liked the decision to have players leave the room after completing a round during the EC, as it helped a little bit to mitigate scouting, and it did a ton to keep the playing areas quiet (a big plus!). There's been some talk of possible collusion in the finals of the qualifier, but this outside observer got the impression that Stephane's predator was intimidated by a player of the caliber of Stephane. It was certainly a very dumb time to be intimidated, and I hope that Noel (?) learns his lesson. I mean, c'mon, it's the final round of a major tournament...no sense in being timid. You were good enough to get that far, so you've got a shot at winning. Go for it. European Edge technology lags far behind American Edge technology. You can bitch all you want about an irresposible Malk stealth bleeder winning the championship, but the fact of the matter is that it was a good choice for the event. You needed 2 GW and 8.5 VP to make the finals, so you either have to have a monster 3-win day, or you have to roll the dice with a mega-offense deck and hope to score big. Dave rolled the dice and scored big. I got 1 GW and 4 VP with the Wall of Doom. Oops. Then again, I can't really bitch about a Malk stealth-bleeder winning a championship. ;) I agree with Sten During that the country that hosts the EC should have its national qualifier well before the EC, with an additional last-chance qualifier the day before the EC. I would have liked for there to have been side events on Saturday, to give those who were already qualified something to do instead of the qualifier, event attendance records be damned. ;) More signs at the venue indicating that, yes, we've found the right place, and that the event is on such-and-such floor in such-and-such room. Daaaaaamn...trading was fun...You just showed up where people were trading and you were trading non-stop...fun fun fun... Again, I was honored to have met everyone. I've said it before, and I'll say it again: I'm consistently impressed by the caliber of people who play this game. All in all, I had a truly fantastic time. Carl and the team ran a world-class event, and I very much look forward to attending future ECs! Special thanks to Monica, Rui, Skaffen, Markus, and Thomas Gescwgowifwe of Munich...Carl, Stephan, and Helga of Vienna...Gabor and Peter of Budapest...and Martin and PK of Bratislava...for letting me crash at their flats or showing me around town. The players' network for this game totally rocks. :) - Ben Peal, Prince of Boston fu...@mindstorm.com

> Daaaaaamn...trading was fun...You just showed up where people were > trading and you were trading non-stop...fun fun fun... I really should carry on sorting my cards and counting em, so that i can make myself a list with those cards i can trade ... damn laziness > Again, I was honored to have met everyone. I've said it before, and > I'll say it again: I'm consistently impressed by the caliber of > people who play this game. > > All in all, I had a truly fantastic time. Carl and the team ran > a world-class event, and I very much look forward to attending future > ECs! > > Special thanks to Monica, Rui, Skaffen, Markus, and Thomas Gescwgowifwe > of Munich...Carl, Stephan, and Helga of Vienna...Gabor and Peter of > Budapest...and Martin and PK of Bratislava...for letting me crash at > their flats or showing me around town. The players' network for this > game totally rocks. :) Who's Stephan?

Ben Peal wrote: > I would have liked for there to have been side events on Saturday, > to give those who were already qualified something to do instead of > the qualifier, event attendance records be damned. ;) I've tried that at the NAC final qualifier, and there wasn't enough interest - everyone wanted to play in the qualifier anyhow. YMMV. -- 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/

Ben Peal schrieb: > I would have liked for there to have been side events on Saturday, > to give those who were already qualified something to do instead of > the qualifier, event attendance records be damned. ;) I think this is a very important point. Especially when it comes to qualification for Sunday. I don't know if somebody already mentioned it, but I think this was a problem that occurred to some players. I am talking about the way the qualified players effected the way the games went on Saturday. There was a strong difference in the way the qualified players and the non-qualified players played. Since the GW-rule was invented we saw a decline in VP-splitting and everyone played more for their own interest. That was not the case on every table at the EC. I saw players making deals like "I'm already qualified, I'll let you have the GW." I also benefited from this phenomenon, as my prey offered me a withdrawal in the last game, since he was already qualified. Another example was, that someone (qualified) called the great beast in one game. There is no question that this is absolutely legal and fun to play, but I can not assume that this person was after the goal of maximizing his VP. What I want to say is that in the final qualifier the already qualified players should not be allowed to play, since some of those spoil the extreme affords of the non-qualified. This makes the final one totally different from other qualifiers and much harder to qualify there. This should be changed. What do you think? > Again, I was honored to have met everyone. I've said it before, and > I'll say it again: I'm consistently impressed by the calibre of > people who play this game. Me too. It was so cool to meet and play with those folks from this NG. Having Ben as my Predator in round 1 was great. Thanks to Ben, Jeff, LSJ and all of you for being there. > All in all, I had a truly fantastic time. Carl and the team ran > a world-class event, and I very much look forward to attending future > ECs! Absolutely true. Thanks to the organisation team it was a world class event. I am looking forward to see all of you again next year in Germany. ;) -Markus

fu...@optical.mindstorm.com (Ben Peal) wrote in message news:<bf72a12e.02121...@posting.google.com>... > . > > > Heya! I just got back from Europe, where I had a blast at the EC, as > well as hanging out in Munich, Vienna, Budapest, and Bratislava. why didn't you come to Holland :-) > You can bitch all you want about an irresposible Malk stealth > bleeder winning the championship, but the fact of the matter is > that it was a good choice for the event. You needed 2 GW and > 8.5 VP to make the finals, so you either have to have a monster > 3-win day, or you have to roll the dice with a mega-offense deck > and hope to score big. Dave rolled the dice and scored big. I > got 1 GW and 4 VP with the Wall of Doom. Oops. Then again, I > can't really bitch about a Malk stealth-bleeder winning a > championship. ;) I have been thinking about this a little... One needs at least 2 GW and 8.5 VP to get into the final.... Doesn't this already favor stealth-bleed-decks? I mean, 2 GW with a stealth-bleed-deck usually is already around 8/9 VP's while a very good result with say potence-weenie-rush,or Wall-deck is also 2 GW, but getting it with 8/9 VP is almost undoable... So...my question, Can we say that the bigger the event, the more favorable it is to play a deck that can actually sweep, for instance stealth-bleed? ( I remember a discussion i had with Joshua Duffin about that it might be better to count the VP's in games NOT won as a tiebreaker with equal GW's instead of total VP's) thx, W

Angus, the Unruled wrote in message > Who's Stephan? Whoops...Meant Sascha...It was about 3am my time when I posted that. Still wiped out from the trip... :) [ quoted text not captured ]

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:3DF88615...@white-wolf.com... > Ben Peal wrote: > > I would have liked for there to have been side events on Saturday, > > to give those who were already qualified something to do instead of > > the qualifier, event attendance records be damned. ;) > > I've tried that at the NAC final qualifier, and there wasn't enough > interest - everyone wanted to play in the qualifier anyhow. YMMV. There was a side event during the final North American qualifier this year, although you didn't run it - the "Sect War" thing that Bernie did. I think we had twelve participants? It's true that a lot of people still wanted to play in the qualifier even though they were already qualified, though. Josh

>> I've tried that at the NAC final qualifier, and there wasn't enough >> interest - everyone wanted to play in the qualifier anyhow. YMMV. > >There was a side event during the final North American qualifier >this year, although you didn't run it - the "Sect War" thing that >Bernie did. I think we had twelve participants? Yes, 12 was right. 3 tables of four and on each table there were two people allied with each other (same sect). I hear the Sect War was very fun, challenging, and popular and I kind of regret I played in the qualifier instead (since I was already qualified). >It's true that a lot of people still wanted to play in the >qualifier even though they were already qualified, though. I did. For me, I just thought it would be fun, especially since I didn't have to worry about all the pressure of getting qualified and all. Lets you enjoy the atmosphere and the experience instead. And spy on all the other decks out there... =) Halcyan 2

On 12 Dec 2002, Halcyan 2 wrote: > I hear the Sect War was very fun, challenging, and popular and I kind of regret > I played in the qualifier instead (since I was already qualified). Yeah, the sect war rocked. It would have been even better for the Cam group if we had actually read Bernie's very well-written instructions and understood that the seating for the final round was pre-determined with allied decks sitting next to each other. Cost us the win, that did. David Cherryholmes Prince of Durham, NC

>> I hear the Sect War was very fun, challenging, and popular and I kind of >regret >> I played in the qualifier instead (since I was already qualified). > >Yeah, the sect war rocked. It would have been even better for the Cam >group if we had actually read Bernie's very well-written instructions and >understood that the seating for the final round was pre-determined with >allied decks sitting next to each other. Cost us the win, that did. Yeah, I heard about how some groups screwed up by having the bleed deck sit as the predator of the allied combat deck. Halcyan 2

Markus Schlein wrote: <SNIP> > the last game, since he was already qualified. Another example was, that > someone (qualified) called the great beast in one game. There is no > question that this is absolutely legal and fun to play, but I can not > assume that this person was after the goal of maximizing his VP. That "someone" is, I believe, from our local Gothenburg playgroup. We've grown extremely combatorientated. He's had too many Beast and Bell eaten not to try a different combatvariant. He totally destroyed us at a non-tournament-game later with that deck. We brought a lot of combat to Vienna and we got wiped out at the prelims during saturday by bleeders and voters dealing with each other to remove the combat-threat to the table. "There is no quastion" etc etc, but I sat at two consecutive tables where players backousted me with a deal that explicitly gave away a GW to an other player. The winning deck wouldn't have lasted through our own prelims as we kill those bleeders early on. That doesn't change that it was a good deck in the hands of a good player. > > What I want to say is that in the final qualifier the already qualified > players should not be allowed to play, since some of those spoil the > extreme affords of the non-qualified. This makes the final one totally > different from other qualifiers and much harder to qualify there. This > should be changed. What do you think? I agree that the last national qualifier should not be held the day before the EC. Not for the reasons that you tried to implicate, as at least our group travelled to Vienna with the hopes of doing well both days, but for the reason that the EC should be an event that is more or less standalone. Sten During

> I've tried that at the NAC final qualifier, and there wasn't enough > interest - everyone wanted to play in the qualifier anyhow. YMMV. Unless you do not allow them to play in the qualifier if allready qualified.

> I think this is a very important point. Especially when it comes to > qualification for Sunday. I don't know if somebody already mentioned it, > but I think this was a problem that occurred to some players. I am > talking about the way the qualified players effected the way the games > went on Saturday. > > There was a strong difference in the way the qualified players and the > non-qualified players played. Since the GW-rule was invented we saw a > decline in VP-splitting and everyone played more for their own interest. > That was not the case on every table at the EC. I saw players making > deals like "I'm already qualified, I'll let you have the GW." I also > benefited from this phenomenon, as my prey offered me a withdrawal in > the last game, since he was already qualified. Another example was, that > someone (qualified) called the great beast in one game. There is no > question that this is absolutely legal and fun to play, but I can not > assume that this person was after the goal of maximizing his VP. I really suffered from this phenomenon. For example the 1st game : One guy lays down one Anarch Revolt after the other. He gets ousted first (by his own Anarch Revolts) and the lucky guy who drew a Minion Tap swept the table. Is this fair ? I do not think so. Did he try to maximize his chances of winning. Not at all. And if you are trying to qualify this is EXTREMELY frustrating. Which such a starting round you can even give up after Round 1. The Problem is not that I lost, the problem is that I did not have the slightest change to fight for the victory because someone chose to ruin the game because he does not have to win. I think for a tournament the main focus of the players should be the same. In a Storyline event everybody tries to have fun and make a quote which will end up on a V:TES card ;-). In an EC tournament everybody tries to collect GWs. In a qualifier the day before the championship we have a very mixed field with people who are decktesting, having fun, trying to qualify and even some who do not have a specific goal at all. This does not mix very well. My suggestion would be the following : - The country which holds the EC has it´s own national qualifier way before the EC. Probably another city than the one which is having the EC should be considered. - The day before the EC there is an international qualifier which is only open for people who are not allready qualified. There should be some side events for those. - The alternative qualifying slots / participants scheme suggested by Andreas Nusser should be used. This way we have the attendance record on the EC and not on the qualifier :-). Aside from the fact that this is fairer for the countries with large V:TES communities or strong foreign attendance. > Absolutely true. Thanks to the organisation team it was a world class > event. I am looking forward to see all of you again next year in Germany. ;) Hopefully! The EC might end up somewhere else ... johannes walch v:ekn germany

David Cherryholmes <d...@petsparc.mc.duke.edu> wrote in message news:<Pine.GSO.4.21.02121...@petsparc.mc.duke.edu>... [ quoted text not captured ] What about a sect war as side event next year? But not just Camarilla and Sabbat... I'd prefer 6-player tables, 2 Camarilla, 2 Sabbat and 2 Independents ;)

On 13 Dec 2002, Angus, the Unruled wrote: > What about a sect war as side event next year? > But not just Camarilla and Sabbat... I'd prefer 6-player tables, 2 > Camarilla, 2 Sabbat and 2 Independents ;) We had three four-man teams. The independents were considered a sect for this purpose. Each team got the four starter decks for their sect, assigned them as they wished, and then there was a booster draft. David Cherryholmes Duke Radiology P.E.T. Facility (919) 684-7714 d...@petsparc.mc.duke.edu

halc...@aol.com (Halcyan 2) wrote in message news:<20021212164708...@mb-fp.aol.com>... > >It's true that a lot of people still wanted to play in the > >qualifier even though they were already qualified, though. > > I did. For me, I just thought it would be fun, especially since I didn't have > to worry about all the pressure of getting qualified and all. Lets you enjoy > the atmosphere and the experience instead. And spy on all the other decks out > there... =) and give your deck a test run, and preventing some people from participating in the ec by preventing them from getting enough points to qualify? > Halcyan 2

"Johannes Walch" <joha...@scram.de> wrote in message news:atc812$4el$1...@stu1id2.ip.tesion.net... [someone else wrote - sorry, attribution lost] > > There was a strong difference in the way the qualified players and the > > non-qualified players played. [...] I saw players making > > deals like "I'm already qualified, I'll let you have the GW." > > I really suffered from this phenomenon. For example the 1st game : One guy > lays down one Anarch Revolt after the other. He gets ousted first (by his > own Anarch Revolts) and the lucky guy who drew a Minion Tap swept the table. > Is this fair ? I do not think so. Did he try to maximize his chances of > winning. Not at all. This is true as far as it goes, but this will *always* be possible (that there are people who aren't "trying as hard as they could" to win) in tournaments, and I don't think it's feasible to try to legislate against it. If you think certain decktypes tend to make other people win more often than they win themselves (and I would agree with that), what are you going to do, force people not to play those decktypes? People who aren't already qualified might play decks like that too, you know (and do!). You're right that people who are qualified don't even have the same incentives as people who aren't in qualifier tournaments. And it was for that reason that LSJ said, a year or so ago, that the solution would obviously be to not allow qualified players to compete in qualifier tournaments. A lot of people didn't want that to happen, though, because they wanted to be able to play in the "high-level competition" environment of the qualifiers even if they had already qualified at an earlier event. So they didn't make such a rule. Maybe they should, but I really doubt that it would solve the problem of people playing erratically or "incorrectly", or selecting decks that you don't think are good choices. > My suggestion would be the following : > > - The country which holds the EC has it´s own national qualifier way before > the EC. Probably another city than the one which is having the EC should be > considered. I agree that this is a good idea just because the "last-chance qualifier" isn't really going to draw only (or even mainly) from the host country/region. So the host country should have a qualifier that's "really its own". > - The day before the EC there is an international qualifier which is only > open for people who are not allready qualified. There should be some side > events for those. I think having side events can be a good idea, but if qualified people are going to be excluded here, they should probably be excluded in all qualifier tournaments after they become qualified. (This results, in theory, in qualifiers getting "easier" as it gets later in the year, as LSJ has written in the past. And it annoys people who would like to play in qualifiers even after becoming qualified. But those may be acceptable issues, I don't know.) > - The alternative qualifying slots / participants scheme suggested by > Andreas Nusser should be used. This way we have the attendance record on the > EC and not on the qualifier :-). Aside from the fact that this is fairer for > the countries with large V:TES communities or strong foreign attendance. I think a method like that (top 1/4 of participants qualify, or something along those lines) might be good, sure. It's not necessarily obvious that the Continental Championships should be the largest tournaments of the year, though. The concept behind them is that they are invitationals designed to have the best players competing for the title of "best of the best". Josh not a continental soldier

>> I've tried that at the NAC final qualifier, and there wasn't enough >> interest - everyone wanted to play in the qualifier anyhow. YMMV. > >Unless you do not allow them to play in the qualifier if allready qualified. Wasn't this discussion already covered when people were arguing about whether people already qualified should take up qualified slots for subsequent qualifiers? Since people already qualified do not take up such slots, then why are you so adamant about not letting them play? Do you really want to diminish the level of competition and the caliber of play by making it so much easier? Halcyan 2

Halcyan 2 wrote: > Since people already qualified do not take up such slots, then why are you so > adamant about not letting them play? Do you really want to diminish the level > of competition and the caliber of play by making it so much easier? Restricting the pre-qualified players from playing vs. restricting the pre-qualified played from occupying "qualifying" slots makes no clear difference to the level of competition among the non-pre-qualified players one way or the other - they'd still be battling it out against the same number of players for the same slots (assuming more than 19 non-pre-qualified players, that is). It doesn't diminish the level of competition. [ quoted text not captured ]

>You're right that people who are qualified don't even have the same >incentives as people who aren't in qualifier tournaments. And it >was for that reason that LSJ said, a year or so ago, that the >solution would obviously be to not allow qualified players to >compete in qualifier tournaments. A lot of people didn't want that >to happen, though, because they wanted to be able to play in the >"high-level competition" environment of the qualifiers even if they >had already qualified at an earlier event. So they didn't make >such a rule. Does LSJ think it's a good idea to ban qualifieds from qualifiers? It's not clear that mentioning the possibility is the same as suggesting it. It does seem fairly clear that the player base is against it. >Maybe they should, but I really doubt that it would solve the >problem of people playing erratically or "incorrectly", >or selecting decks that you don't think are good choices. It does solve the problem of qualifieds manipulating the results so that the people they want to qualify do so or screwing those players they don't want to qualify. >> - The day before the EC there is an international qualifier which is only >> open for people who are not allready qualified. There should be some side >> events for those. > >I think having side events can be a good idea, but if qualified >people are going to be excluded here, they should probably be >excluded in all qualifier tournaments after they become qualified. >(This results, in theory, in qualifiers getting "easier" as it >gets later in the year, as LSJ has written in the past. And it >annoys people who would like to play in qualifiers even after >becoming qualified. But those may be acceptable issues, I don't >know.) It blows my mind that qualifieds are allowed to play in qualifiers because of the opportunities to manipulate results in multiplayer CCGs. As for events getting easier, 1) it's not important, 2) you could always qualify less people in later events. BTW, as I did last time I commented on the subject however many months ago, I'm talking about events that are nothing more than qualifiers and not major championships that happen to qualify players.

"Halcyan 2" <halc...@aol.com> wrote in message news:20021213121508...@mb-cg.aol.com... [ quoted text not captured ] GenCon *is* GenCon, after all. With the huge attendance of high-quality players compared to regional tournaments, why play in anything BUT the qualifier? I don't agree, but there it is. At Origins 2002, I *asked* players already qualified to play in a Booster Draft tournament instead. Almost all of them played in the Booster Draft tournament. Go figure. > > Halcyan 2 Kevin M., Prince of Henderson, NV (USA) "Know your enemy, and know yourself; in one-thousand battles you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, *The Art of War* "Contentment... Complacency... Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier

"Joshua Duffin" <jtdu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:atd1e4$12976j$1...@ID-121616.news.dfncis.de... > > You're right that people who are qualified don't even have the same > incentives as people who aren't in qualifier tournaments. And it > was for that reason that LSJ said, a year or so ago, that the > solution would obviously be to not allow qualified players to > compete in qualifier tournaments. A lot of people didn't want that > to happen, though, because they wanted to be able to play in the > "high-level competition" environment of the qualifiers even if they > had already qualified at an earlier event. So they didn't make > such a rule. and > I think having side events can be a good idea, but if qualified > people are going to be excluded here, they should probably be > excluded in all qualifier tournaments after they become qualified. > (This results, in theory, in qualifiers getting "easier" as it > gets later in the year, as LSJ has written in the past. And it > annoys people who would like to play in qualifiers even after > becoming qualified. But those may be acceptable issues, I don't > know.) You seem to be confusing LSJ with me, here, Josh, as it was I -- not LSJ -- who said everything you have attributed to LSJ. He said exactly the opposite, and even said of my suggestion of not allowing already-qualified players to participate in additional qualifiers that, while it is certainly an option, "It seems to decrease the fun." LSJ won. :) > > Josh [ quoted text not captured ]

David Cherryholmes <d...@petsparc.mc.duke.edu> wrote in message news:<Pine.GSO.4.21.02121...@petsparc.mc.duke.edu>... > > Yeah, the sect war rocked. It would have been even better for the Cam > group if we had actually read Bernie's very well-written instructions Any chance of getting these rules posted here? T

"David Cherryholmes" <d...@petsparc.mc.duke.edu> wrote in message news:Pine.GSO.4.21.02121...@petsparc.mc.duke.edu... [ quoted text not captured ] Ha ha ha, simple Camarilla fools. Um, not that we Sabbat fared much better, even though we knew the plan. Cursed power-bleeding Giovanni... :-) Honestly though, the Camarilla probably would've run away with the win if they'd known that. The CE starter decks are just so much more focused than the FN and SW ones that I'm not sure they can quite compete fairly against them, at least in a team format (where the power advantage of the Cam is (sort of) doubled). It might be better to do three-player games with one player from each sect rather than six-players with two? Normally I do consider 3-player an inferior alternative, but to six- player teams... well, not necessarily. :-) (Not that the team game wasn't fun, it just tended, I think, to produce snowballing advantages for the team that got ahead.) Josh easily seduced

[ quoted text not captured ] http://bernietime.mega.net.kg/vampire/gencon2002.html Team Rules (12 Player) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TOURNAMENT STRUCTURE 1. DEFINE TEAMS a. Receive Team assignation (Randomly) b. Players Choose a Starter (from their Team) for Tourney Play c. Players have 5 minutes to familiarize themselves with contents d. Teams are defined as follows; Team A: Camarilla (A1, A2, A3, A4) Team B: Independent (B1, B2, B3, B4) Team C: Sabbat (C1, C2, C3, C4) 2. DRAFT a. Each player receives 4 boosters for purpose of draft b. Split players into pods as per draft seating chart. c. Players open their first pack (simultaneously) and may choose one card d. Pass the booster to the player on your left e. Repeat until all cards from booster are gone. f. Each player opens next booster g. Repeat from step b, except step c will have booster passed in direction opposite of previous alignment (right instead of left for instance) Draft Pod - 1 Draft Pod - 2 Draft Pod - 3 A1 B2 C3 C1 B1 C2 A3 B4 A4 A2 B3 C4 3. DECK CONSTRUCTION a. All crypts must be constructed 75% of a chosen clan b. Grouping rules are in effect c. 12 Vampires in Crypt, no more - no less d. 75 Cards in Library, no more - no less e. Players have 40 minutes to construct play decks f. Players may NOT trade cards with their team members g. All cards not included in decks go into the "Coffin" h. Each Pod/table is to ensure that the proper # of cards end up in the "Coffin" 4. TOURNAMENT RESOLUTION a. Games will run with 3x Two Hour Rounds, NO Final round b. Winning Team is defined by total number of Tournament Points gained by all team members at the end of 3 rounds. c. Winning Team also gets 6x Booster Packs for each player d. Player with the highest cumulative Tournament Points receives all cards in the "Coffin". 5. SEATING CHART Table 1 Bold Text indicates starting Player Table 2 Round 1 Round 2 Round 3 Round 1 Round 2 Round 3 A1 C4 B1 A3 C2 B2 C1 A2 A4 C3 A4 C1 B1 B4 A3 B3 B2 C3 A2 C1 C2 A4 C3 A2 C2 A3 C4 C4 A1 A1 B2 B1 B3 B4 B3 B4 6. JUDGES NOTES Estimated cost is $20 per player. (2 Boxes Starters, 2 Box Boosters) The way cards and Prizes are distributed, the only "left-over" product is 2 Starters. 12 Starters (1 per player), with 2 Starters in excess 72 Boosters (48 Drafted, 24 for Prizes) For the StartersBoxes, you will probably be looking at: 1 Box Camarilla Edition Precons (6 Starters) 1 Box V:TES Combo Starter Box (8 Starters)* * No official word what exactly these are yet, but guessing 4 Sabbat & 4 Independent PreCons For seating, I recommend handing out 3x5 cards labelled A1,B1,C1, and so on. Players then should write their name on the 3x5 card, and judges can use it for keeping track of seating, VP's, and Tournament Points. You may also want to add an additional $5 per person and have food delivered for just after the 2nd round of play. This tends to keep players in one place, and the event running timely. The idea of the "Coffin" is to discourage Rare-Drafting somewhat, and gives a perk to the player with the highest cumulative Tournament Points. There will be some seating redundancy, though players should never find themselves seated next to someone they've already played against. Independent Clan starters aren't quite as good as the Sabbat pre-cons (and possibly the Camarilla Edition pre-cons). They gain a slight advantage by having more transfers overall.

"Kevin M." <you...@imaspammer.org> wrote in message news:5XCK9.64293$r4.51...@news1.west.cox.net... > > "Joshua Duffin" <jtdu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message > news:atd1e4$12976j$1...@ID-121616.news.dfncis.de... > > > > You're right that people who are qualified don't even have the same > > incentives as people who aren't in qualifier tournaments. And it > > was for that reason that LSJ said, a year or so ago, that the > > solution would obviously be to not allow qualified players to > > compete in qualifier tournaments. A lot of people didn't want that > > to happen, though, because they wanted to be able to play in the > > "high-level competition" environment of the qualifiers even if they > > had already qualified at an earlier event. So they didn't make > > such a rule. > You seem to be confusing LSJ with me, here, Josh, as it was I -- not LSJ -- > who said everything you have attributed to LSJ. Did you? I'm pretty sure he said at least some of it too, though it seems he changed his mind to the "that would be less fun" position by the time decisions were actually made about this year's methods. The message I'm thinking of is this, from Aug 7, 2001: http://www.google.com/groups?selm=3B7007E7.5BC05DA6%40white-wolf.com where at the bottom he wrote "The current method seems most fair (see the set argument above). The only argument against it with merit is the idea that someone with no stake in the event (someone already qualified) would be more likely to play "kingmaker". If that argument is used, however, the solution is to ban qualified players from the reminaing qualifiers (making the later qualifiers a bit easier than the eralier ones as some strong players will be excluded). Given the rate of growth of the game, that may be what happens next year." > He said exactly the opposite, and even said of my suggestion of not allowing > already-qualified players to participate in additional qualifiers that, while > it is certainly an option, "It seems to decrease the fun." > > LSJ won. :) LSJ always wins. :-) Josh "WINNERS DON'T DO DRUGS"

"Curevei" <cur...@aol.commetal> wrote in message news:20021213141555...@mb-cv.aol.com... > Does LSJ think it's a good idea to ban qualifieds from qualifiers? It's not > clear that mentioning the possibility is the same as suggesting it. It does > seem fairly clear that the player base is against it. As Kevin pointed out, LSJ had suggested it as a counter to the argument with merit against letting them play (that they don't have incentive to "play to win", but later seemed not to be in favor of it, as it decreases the fun of the qualifier (really "major regional") tournaments. [I wrote] > >Maybe they should, but I really doubt that it would solve the > >problem of people playing erratically or "incorrectly", > >or selecting decks that you don't think are good choices. > > It does solve the problem of qualifieds manipulating the results > so that the people they want to qualify do so or screwing those > players they don't want to qualify. Exactly right, but I doubt that it would eliminate *all* sources of "weird" or "annoying" or "incorrect" play. > It blows my mind that qualifieds are allowed to play in qualifiers > because of the opportunities to manipulate results in multiplayer CCGs. > > As for events getting easier, 1) it's not important, 2) you could always > qualify less people in later events. > > BTW, as I did last time I commented on the subject however many months ago, I'm > talking about events that are nothing more than qualifiers and not major > championships that happen to qualify players. Right... but there are no such events for VTES, and probably won't be. If you were to hold "qualifier-only" events, what would they be? Tournaments that you play in only if you want to go to GenCon (or wherever in Europe) and play in the NAC/EC/etc? So, either they'd be the size they are now, and be "de facto" major tournaments, or they'd be much smaller (if for example only the people who could and would go to the Continental Championship event participated) and would be (a) less fun and (b) probably less accurate endorsements of the qualifying players' "qualifications to be qualified". Josh q to the u to the a to the l

Joshua Duffin wrote: > > "Kevin M." <you...@imaspammer.org> wrote in message > news:5XCK9.64293$r4.51...@news1.west.cox.net... > > > > "Joshua Duffin" <jtdu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message > > news:atd1e4$12976j$1...@ID-121616.news.dfncis.de... > > > > > > You're right that people who are qualified don't even have the same > > > incentives as people who aren't in qualifier tournaments. And it > > > was for that reason that LSJ said, a year or so ago, that the > > > solution would obviously be to not allow qualified players to > > > compete in qualifier tournaments. A lot of people didn't want that > > > to happen, though, because they wanted to be able to play in the > > > "high-level competition" environment of the qualifiers even if they > > > had already qualified at an earlier event. So they didn't make > > > such a rule. > > > You seem to be confusing LSJ with me, here, Josh, as it was I -- not > LSJ -- > > who said everything you have attributed to LSJ. > > Did you? I'm pretty sure he said at least some of it too, though > it seems he changed his mind to the "that would be less fun" > position by the time decisions were actually made about this > year's methods. Acknowledging what is fun and acknowledging what is fair is not exactly changing one's mind. Decisions are best made when the goals and priorities are clearly stated. To what extent do you sacrifice "fair" in favor of "fun", with the understanding that "fun" degrades rapidly when "fair" is reduced past a certain point (where that point is also needs to be determined and used as the basis of making the decision)? > > He said exactly the opposite, and even said of my suggestion of not allowing > > already-qualified players to participate in additional qualifiers that, while > > it is certainly an option, "It seems to decrease the fun." That is not the opposite. That is merely more information. I hope I have not said the opposite of what Josh says I said, as what Josh says I said is true (and the opposite is, well, not). > > LSJ won. :) > > LSJ always wins. :-) Don't be so sure. [ quoted text not captured ]

David Cherryholmes <d...@petsparc.mc.duke.edu> wrote in message news:<Pine.GSO.4.21.02121...@petsparc.mc.duke.edu>... > Yeah, the sect war rocked. It did, at that. > It would have been even better for the Cam > group if we had actually read Bernie's very well-written instructions and > understood that the seating for the final round was pre-determined with > allied decks sitting next to each other. Cost us the win, that did. Are you sure it wasn't because the Giovanni totally rocked the house with their unstoppable power-bleed? Nothing beats hearing Josh say "ouch..." :) Xian mmm...Foreshadowing Destruction...

On 17 Dec 2002, Xian wrote: > Are you sure it wasn't because the Giovanni totally rocked the house > with their unstoppable power-bleed? IIRC, we had the highest VP's going into the final round. We were housing people left and right. Of course the Giovanni bled for a pile, and once we'd hamstrung ourselves, it looked pretty inevitable. You guys had the right idea... Giovanni out in front bleeding like there's no tomrrow and the Assamite's behind running surgical strikes on problematic minions. Had we known the deal, we probably would've set up something like that with Malks/Brujah (or maybe Malks/Tremere). > Nothing beats hearing Josh say "ouch..." It was sort of earth-shattering to know that legendary cool could be shaken. [ quoted text not captured ]

Wouter Kuyper wrote: > Ben Peal wrote: > > Heya! I just got back from Europe, where I had a blast at the EC, as > > well as hanging out in Munich, Vienna, Budapest, and Bratislava. > > why didn't you come to Holland > :-) So many countries...so little time. :) > I have been thinking about this a little... > One needs at least 2 GW and 8.5 VP to get into the final.... > Doesn't this already favor stealth-bleed-decks? I mean, 2 GW with a > stealth-bleed-deck usually is already around 8/9 VP's while a very > good result with say potence-weenie-rush,or Wall-deck is also 2 GW, > but getting it with 8/9 VP is almost undoable... > > So...my question, Can we say that the bigger the event, the more > favorable it is to play a deck that can actually sweep, for instance > stealth-bleed? Sounds plausible to me, especially given the evidence from the 2002 EC. Or at least that's what I was getting at by saying that I think it was a good choice. [ quoted text not captured ]

fu...@optical.mindstorm.com (Ben Peal) wrote in message news:<bf72a12e.02121...@posting.google.com>... [ quoted text not captured ] Hmm... I made 2 GW without Stealth Bleed. And i will certainly never play classic stealth bleed, because for me, it's just too boring to play.

fu...@optical.mindstorm.com (Ben Peal) wrote in message news:<bf72a12e.02121...@posting.google.com>... > Wouter Kuyper wrote: > > Ben Peal wrote: > > > Heya! I just got back from Europe, where I had a blast at the EC, as > > > well as hanging out in Munich, Vienna, Budapest, and Bratislava. > > > > why didn't you come to Holland > > :-) > > So many countries...so little time. :) See you next time then, when you visit Europe? > > > I have been thinking about this a little... > > One needs at least 2 GW and 8.5 VP to get into the final.... > > Doesn't this already favor stealth-bleed-decks? I mean, 2 GW with a > > stealth-bleed-deck usually is already around 8/9 VP's while a very > > good result with say potence-weenie-rush,or Wall-deck is also 2 GW, > > but getting it with 8/9 VP is almost undoable... > > > > So...my question, Can we say that the bigger the event, the more > > favorable it is to play a deck that can actually sweep, for instance > > stealth-bleed? > > Sounds plausible to me, especially given the evidence from the 2002 EC. > > Or at least that's what I was getting at by saying that I think it was > a good choice. > Agreed, it was obviously a good choice (the fact alone that it won, substantiates this). but then the next question: Do we want the size of the tournament to play a role in your choice of deck? Should the size of the tournament favour some deck-types? W

"Wouter Kuyper" <Wouter...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:44a2da05.0212...@posting.google.com... > but then the next question: Do we want the size of the tournament to > play a role in your choice of deck? Should the size of the tournament > favour some deck-types? I think it's probably unavoidable that the size of tournament (really, any "fact" about a tournament) can favor certain deck- types. Any scoring system you could choose will be better for some kinds of decks than for others. If you scrapped the VP system and said "last person standing always wins the game, no matter how many VPs they had", that would make "wall" decks a lot "better" in tournaments. Similarly, an 8-person tournament is probably better for rush combat decks than a 50-person tournament, both because it doesn't need as many game wins to make the finals and because it would only sit on 4-player tables in the preliminary rounds. That make any sense? Josh every good boy deserves favor

Wouter Kuyper wrote: > but then the next question: Do we want the size of the tournament to > play a role in your choice of deck? Should the size of the tournament > favour some deck-types? > > W I think few people will say yes to that. The number of decks that can do well at a tournament should be as large as possible, so as to give the players more choices and keep the game dynamic. The 'problem' with large tournaments is that they make Game Wins redundant. You get back to the pre-GW situation, where VPs are all that really matters, and so the 'old' sweep-the-table heavy bleed decks dominate (no pun intended). IMO, the 'best' way to avoid this as much as possible (given the currents rules) would be to have more rounds in large tournaments, so sweep decks would have more of an opportunity to find their counter and miss a few tables, and other decks could get some more GWs. Of course, organizing a 100-person-3+f-round-tournament seems hard enough, adding more rounds can't make it any easier... :) Flux

"David Cherryholmes" <d...@petsparc.mc.duke.edu> wrote in message news:Pine.GSO.4.21.021217...@petsparc.mc.duke.edu... > On 17 Dec 2002, Xian wrote: > > > Are you sure it wasn't because the Giovanni totally rocked the house > > with their unstoppable power-bleed? > > IIRC, we had the highest VP's going into the final round. We were housing > people left and right. Of course the Giovanni bled for a pile, and once > we'd hamstrung ourselves, it looked pretty inevitable. You guys had the > right idea... Giovanni out in front bleeding like there's no tomrrow and > the Assamite's behind running surgical strikes on problematic > minions. Had we known the deal, we probably would've set up something > like that with Malks/Brujah (or maybe Malks/Tremere). The Sabbat, in that last game, might have done pretty well if we'd gotten one more turn before I got ousted. I think I actually did get in hand, that turn, the votes to oust David (or am I misremembering who Trey's prey was?) just as he had been agitating that I would. I think I had just drawn them that time around the table, though, or else was it that Trey had just (finally) gotten out a titled vamp to make us able to pass them? Something like that. :-) As you say, the Cam was doing very well. But I think we can all agree that the Giovanni bleeding rocked the hizzouse. > > Nothing beats hearing Josh say "ouch..." > > It was sort of earth-shattering to know that legendary cool could be > shaken. I have legendary cool? Hmmm. I think legendary winningness would be better. ;-) Josh shaken, but not stirred

"Joshua Duffin" <jtdu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<atq1b3$1ems9$1...@ID-121616.news.dfncis.de>... [ quoted text not captured ] yes that does make sense, but doesn't it also make sense to find (or at least look for) a way where this effect is minimalised. I would like to know for instance what the finals of the EC would have looked like if the scoring method was used: 1) # GW 2) # VP in games not won 3) total # VP or any other way and indeed, increasing the number of rounds might also be an option to explore.. W

<snippety> > I would like to know for instance what the finals of the EC would have > looked like if the scoring method was used: > 1) # GW > 2) # VP in games not won > 3) total # VP exactly the same, since #VP in games not won is irrelevant since you have to have won all your games to be in the finals anyway. > > or any other way > > > and indeed, increasing the number of rounds might also be an option to > explore.. multi-day tournaments? enforced fast play? how would you like to explore this? :) > > > W -Bram Vink

jja....@hccnet.nl (Darky) wrote in message news:<93148a54.0212...@posting.google.com>... > <snippety> > > I would like to know for instance what the finals of the EC would have > > looked like if the scoring method was used: > > 1) # GW > > 2) # VP in games not won > > 3) total # VP > > exactly the same, since #VP in games not won is irrelevant since you > have to have won all your games to be in the finals anyway. hmm, ok, i understood that 2 GW and 8.5 VP was the break....but if i was wrong, then i can't think of a way either...at this point > > > > or any other way > > > > > > and indeed, increasing the number of rounds might also be an option to > > explore.. > > multi-day tournaments? enforced fast play? how would you like to > explore this? :) I meant exploring it in the mind, as in thinking about it. But in a big tournament like the EC it might have been possible to play 1 extra round, with the top 25 players, 5 tables, table winner goes to the final (if no table win, the most VP's in that round, and last the standing entering this round) Just a thought, W

"Joshua Duffin" <jtdu...@yahoo.com> wrote: > The Sabbat, in that last game, might have done pretty well if > we'd gotten one more turn before I got ousted. I think I Luckily, you didn't get that extra turn. I had to spend a short period of time trying to figure out what order of play would result in me nailing you for 10 pool, if it's any consolation. :) > actually did get in hand, that turn, the votes to oust David > (or am I misremembering who Trey's prey was?) just as he had No, you're right. The order was: Josh (!Ventrue) -> Trey (Lasombra) -> Dave (Tremere) -> Ben (right?) (Brujah) -> Jared (Assamite) -> me (Giovanni) > been agitating that I would. I think I had just drawn them > that time around the table, though, or else was it that Trey > had just (finally) gotten out a titled vamp to make us able to > pass them? Something like that. :-) A little from column A, a little from column B? > As you say, the Cam was doing very well. But I think we can > all agree that the Giovanni bleeding rocked the hizzouse. Yes, eventually everyone felt the pointy end of my DOM bleeding stick. It was all good. > I have legendary cool? To paraphrase Aaron's V:tES Electronic Survival Guide. Or even better, to quote it: "Logic plus style, what more could you ask for?" That says cool to me. > Hmmm. I think legendary winningness would be better. ;-) Nah. Only the other geeks are impressed by legendary winningness. All the fine ladies (and gents) are impressed by legendary cool. :) Xian all the fine ladies are making a fuss...

>> multi-day tournaments? enforced fast play? how would you like to >> explore this? :) > >I meant exploring it in the mind, as in thinking about it. > >But in a big tournament like the EC it might have been possible to >play 1 extra round, with the top 25 players, 5 tables, table winner >goes to the final (if no table win, the most VP's in that round, and >last the standing entering this round) "Day 1": Three rounds, no final, cut to the top 25 (or whatever). "Day 2": Three more rounds plus final. Could even start introducing byes if you really want the feel of a Magic tournament.