What's the dumbest thing you've ever done during a game?

Well if my friends are going to make fun of me for this, why not the fine people in the interwebs too? I was playing my Gangrel vote deck and my predator was playing a standard Setite stealth-bleed and had a Form of Corruption in play with a counter on it. I was down to something like 11 pool, but my predator was in a bad way because his predator and myself had beat up his vamps pretty bad. So I was sitting in a pretty good position, which was about to get even better because I had a Gather in play, on Gitane St. Claire. So it swings around to my turn, I untap my Gather, eagerly anticipating a cheap Gitane coming up. During my influence phase, I'm contemplating how much pool I want to put on her before I tap the Gather to bring her up. I think to myself, "I'll just put one pool counter on her since I have a Restoration in my hand which I'll use next turn to bring her up to 4 blood." Note that while I'm having this mental dialogue with myself my predator is seated across from me, so I'm actually STARING DIRECTLY AT MY PREDATOR'S FORM OF CORRUPTION. Satisfied that I have a solid plan, I tap the Gather to bring Gitane into play with 1 blood, confident that she wasn't going to get rushed or otherwise lose her 1 blood before I was able to play the Restoration next turn. Oops. (Thankfully I ended up winning the game anyway, otherwise my friends would've never let me live that down.) All right people, now that my stupidity is out in the open, make me feel better by sharing your blunders.

Xexyz schrieb: > Satisfied that I have a solid plan, I tap the Gather > to bring Gitane into play with 1 blood, confident that she wasn't > going to get rushed or otherwise lose her 1 blood before I was able to > play the Restoration next turn. Oops. I had a game where I dealed with Stephane Lavrut back in the day and we passed all our vamps and pool back and forth along with the Succubus Club. Except one turn when we forgot to pass the Club. So the guy with everything couldnt give the stuff back and regain pool so all vamps were lost when he was ousted in this turn.

In my first ever game with the "Boston group", I... ... played Werewolf Pack. The game stopped for a laugh break.

Diablerize the dude with Fame when my prey is on 1 pool.

On 25 Feb., 22:00, floppyzedolfin <floppyzedol...@gmail.com> wrote: > Diablerize the dude with Fame when my prey is on 1 pool. allied myself with the nergal player during the storyline.

Not play the bleed modifier. Those who were there know. best - chris

On 25 Feb, 17:07, Xexyz <xe...@hotmail.com> wrote: > All right people, now that my stupidity is out in the open, make me > feel better by sharing your blunders. Put Secure Haven on my Dame Hollerton in torpor, hoping in this way to escape my predator's warghouls... ...except I needed a cross-table rescue. I bet Hugh is still laughing two years later. Emiliano

On 26 helmi, 00:34, Emiliano Imeroni <emiliano.imer...@gmail.com> wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] Played Charnas the Imp on my preys empty Carna The Princess Witch.

I transferred out Matthias when I had Matthias in play during the final round of a tournament... somehow still won, but I flipped the vampire, expecting blackhorse tanner or something like that... and just flung the card and the pool.

Played Protected Resources then bled my prey.

[ quoted text not captured ] A friend did exactly the same with Jaroslav. He was cross table, and was really happy because he now had two vamps with +1 Intercept (his pred was a no-stealth Ventrue Vote. I asked him who his other vamp was that had +1 Intercept. He got real quiet. Then really loud. Probably my biggest mistake, was bleeding into my prey who was on 1 pool, with an Anarch Revolt in play (pre Anarch change). He bounced it to his prey, ousted him (also on 1 pool), went on to win the game. If I'd not bled, I would have gained 12 pool and 2VP and most likely the game. Morgan Vening

I once contested Lucretia, the cess queen. Bold move!

On Feb 25, 5:07 pm, Xexyz <xe...@hotmail.com> wrote: > .. > All right people, now that my stupidity is out in the open, make me > feel better by sharing your blunders. The classic: My prey is tapped out, has a famed vampire in torpor and is on one pool. Obviously I don't need to do anything against him, so I start rushing my grandprey (i.e. next prey). Had I only seen that my prey has the Edge... Regards, Ralf ================== http://extrala.blogspot.com

extrala schrieb: [ quoted text not captured ] Regarding VPs and Fame I always tend to take my VP, there are so many things that can go wrong, Edge, Vessel, Life Boon ... Rather loose an action than taking any chances. -- If playing against Cock all you need to remember is: Don´t get caught by Cock.

[ quoted text not captured ] Merging Petaniqua after another player at the table had brought out Saulot.

[ quoted text not captured ] I saw Dave Tatu play Charnas on The Little Taylor of Prague once. Ouch. -witness1

On Feb 25, 11:06 pm, "davewilso...@gmail.com" <davewilso...@gmail.com> wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] And that is what has been dubbed the "Bakija Gambit" due to me doing the same thing (except it was Lithrac. With 9 blood on him as I thought I was bringing out Suhalia) in a bit tournament in a game that I was totally winning up to that point. Which no longer held after that... -Peter

Peter, > And that is what has been dubbed the "Bakija Gambit" due to me doing > the same thing (except it was Lithrac. With 9 blood on him as I > thought I was bringing out Suhalia) in a bit tournament in a game that > I was totally winning up to that point. Which no longer held after > that... > > -Peter I have heard of that maneuver from the Ohio people, they have dared each other to do a Bakija to get the game started right.

Diablerizing Stanislava with a Soul Gem when I blocked her attempted self rescue. Oh look, a fresh, full Stanislava!!! I can at least blame it on the vodkas i had been drinking all day. Vegas gNat

...I once influenced out Appolonius.

On Feb 27, 1:57 pm, atomwea...@sbcglobal.net wrote: > ...I once influenced out Appolonius. Personally one of the dumbest things I've done was rescuing my own famous vampire when my predator had a built in rusher and tensions on the table... when it would leave the rescuing vamp on 0 blood, the famed vamp on 0 blood and i have less than 5 pool.... there were no happy endings... Dumbest thing I've seen was my prey and predator contesting the exact same vampire because it was the superstar of both decks...

On Feb 27, 11:57 am, atomwea...@sbcglobal.net wrote: > ...I once influenced out Appolonius. i played more than 1 Phobia in a game -- using Saqqaf. w00t, combo! Appolonius at least can bleed well and Freak Drive. and playing Lost in Translation with him was definitely a surprise for my predator. go extra capacity!

> All right people, now that my stupidity is out in the open, make me > feel better by sharing your blunders. During a recent tournament, a funny thing happened. The table was down to four players, my prey had a 10-cap Lasombra (don't remember which one) with a Baltimore's Purge and Renewed Vigor, ready to do the trick for the second time in this game. My grand-prey was playing stealth-bleed with KoT Malkavians, but needed about two turns more to oust my predator with weenie Assamites. I had Mistress Fanchon with Orlando Oriundus, a Banishment in my hand (for the Lasombra, of course) and pool enough not to be afraid of my predator's bleeds. In my grand-prey's turn, she played a Fear of Mekhet on Mistress Fanchon. She was implying, rather gleefully, something fearful for the Inner Circle ever since I brought her out, and now her promise was fulfilled. Unfortunately, I didn't know the card, and it took me a long time to read it, so she proceeded to minion phase while I was reading it. The funny thing is I had completely forgotten about the Sudden Reversal in my hand and somehow didn't realize that Fear of Mekhet is master card, so it wasn't cancelled, Mistress Fanchon burned, and I lost. -- Arry

Unfortunately, I didn't know the card, and it took me a > long time to read it, so she proceeded to minion phase while I was > reading it. The funny thing is I had completely forgotten about the > Sudden Reversal in my hand and somehow didn't realize that Fear of > Mekhet is master card, so it wasn't cancelled, Mistress Fanchon > burned, and I lost. You should have been given the opportunity to react to the card. ie, whilst you were reading it, she should not have progressed with her turn and waited until you were happy to move forward. --> J

This is not something that i did, but something that I benefited from. In the Australian Championships in 2006, I was playing an IC & Friends powerbleed deck. In game two, my prey was on 4 pool. I had Arika out (on 0 blood after getting bashed by a Blood Brother), and Leandro. Arika hunted and then Leandro bled, and played a threats to make it 4. My prey played Archon Investigation. Leandro burnt, I was left on low single digit pool with a tapped Arika on 1 blood, no S:CE in hand and no pool defense. My predator had the bleed on the table to kill me if he did not have the rush. I was resigned to my fate. My prey begins his turn, he is ecstatic that he has survived, and rushes his turn. He knows I'm dead, everyone on the table knows i'm dead. He taps a vamp, gets a Mr Winthrop. Taps another vamp and gets a Hawg. Taps his third vamp, "equip with Aaron's Feeding Razor". I look up, disbeliving what I just heard. "That'll kill you I say" "Crap" says he. In a panic, he looks around the table, asking his prey (Assamite bleed/vote) "Can you block this". His prey slowly looks at his hand. "Hmmm, that's at stealth right" "Yes, 1stealth" Slowly his prey put his cards on the table face down. "No block" My prey then looks at me, and you could tell that he was hoping that I'd take pity on him and do something to save him. I just smile and start collecting my 6 pool. I ended up sweeping the game and it got me into the final. --> J

On Mar 2, 9:10 am, grai...@hotmail.com wrote: > This is not something that i did, but something that I benefited from. Heh. While certainly a funny story, I can't help thinking "Why didn't everyone just have him not do that?" I mean, yeah, tournament and all, but one of those incredibly stupid instant errors that result from this being a game with a lot of moving parts. Would it have killed folks to just be like "Uh, yeah, how about you *don't* do that..." He was probably going to die anyway. -Peter

[ quoted text not captured ] It's fairer not to allow this at all. No take backs. Because I've seen it, and I reckon most people have seen it, you let someone have a takeback and then they are well within their rights at a later stage to deny you a takeback. If nobody gets them, everyone is on the same playing field. Yes, I've seen this in a tournament. And it just leaves a real bad taste in your mouth when you witness it. --> J

On Mar 2, 9:18 am, grai...@hotmail.com wrote: > It's fairer not to allow this at all. No take backs. Because I've > seen it, and I reckon most people have seen it, you let someone have a > takeback and then they are well within their rights at a later stage > to deny you a takeback. If nobody gets them, everyone is on the same > playing field. Yes, I've seen this in a tournament. And it just > leaves a real bad taste in your mouth when you witness it. Really? Like, it strikes me that there is a significant difference between someone changing their mind and trying to undo something after other players have reacted to it ("Oh, I wouldn't have called that vote if I knew you were going to block it...") and someone just stupidly playing a card that is in every way obviously a bad idea and is going to result in them ousting themselves out of not paying attention. Which happens once and a while. I'm vastly more irritated by things like people ousting themselves by accident than by letting someone undo something that hasn't actually gone anywhere yet (i.e. no one played any reaction cards or tried to block or anything of the sort). But I guess that is me. -Peter

[ quoted text not captured ] I don't know if you don't play many tournaments (I don't either), or if your local tournament environment is just different, but it's been my experience that people won't let you take things back in tournaments, and I generally don't blame them. This Saturday, I made three grave errors at the qualifier tournament. 2 of them were in the final and really constituted "cheating", which wasn't noticed until it was too late to trivially take back the action (sucked - was completely burned out and tired and wasn't paying attention to the Independent/Anarch status of my vamps). The other 1 time was that I said that a vote was failing, and then saw the edge and decided to burn it for a vote. Cameron said, "sorry, I'm gonna be a dick and say that you already declared the vote failed - you can't add votes to it". I don't even think he was being a dick. I *did* think that I hadn't moved past the end of the vote yet, but let it go because I had 2 VP's already and was in no position to save myself from being ousted by Cameron for the tie, even if the vote passed. But my point is, that it's not really being a dick to not let people take things back - it's kind of expected in a tournament, and in an earlier round where I made a smaller mistake and was allowed to take it back since nothing else had happened yet - I was mildly surprised that it was allowed. Tournament environments tend to be strict constructionist environments, and a lot of times you just have to live with your errors... If the card is on the table, you usually aren't allowed to pick it up.

Chris Berger wrote: > This Saturday, I made > three grave errors at the qualifier tournament. 2 of them were in the > final and really constituted "cheating", which wasn't noticed until it > was too late to trivially take back the action (sucked - was > completely burned out and tired and wasn't paying attention to the > Independent/Anarch status of my vamps). Then the game state should be adjusted accordingly. Rewinding is not the only available remedy. If rewinding is not logistically feasible, some other remedy should be applied. > The other 1 time was that I said that a vote was failing, and then saw > the edge and decided to burn it for a vote. Cameron said, "sorry, I'm > gonna be a dick and say that you already declared the vote failed - > you can't add votes to it". There's a world of difference between saying a vote was failing and saying that a vote failed. > I *did* think that I hadn't moved past the end of the vote yet, That's even more telling. You can't pass the end of the vote unless *everyone* is done (and thinks that you are moving on to the next thing). Burning the Edge at that point would not be taking anything back, so the question of whether rewinding is feasible doesn't even come up.

On Mar 2, 10:34 am, Chris Berger <ark...@ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote: > I don't know if you don't play many tournaments (I don't either), or > if your local tournament environment is just different, but it's been > my experience that people won't let you take things back in > tournaments, and I generally don't blame them. I play in plenty of tournaments (and run plenty of tournaments) and again, while "no take backs" is a reasonable rule of thumb for competetive play, there is a vast difference between deciding that you didn't want to call a vote after it turns out that someone just played a Delaying Tactics and someone saying "I'm gonna play this equipment that costs 1 pool" while they are at 1 pool, before anything else has happened, as inevitably, someone is going to say "Uh, that is going to oust you, ya know..." > But my point is, that it's not really being a dick to not let people > take things back - it's kind of expected in a tournament, and in an > earlier round where I made a smaller mistake and was allowed to take > it back since nothing else had happened yet - I was mildly surprised > that it was allowed. Tournament environments tend to be strict > constructionist environments, and a lot of times you just have to live > with your errors... If the card is on the table, you usually aren't > allowed to pick it up. Except when it is obviously a mistake. Like when you say "I'm going to play this here Nosferatu Kingdom" and you drop it on the table, pay your pool, and someone says "Uh, you don't have an Anti-Nosferatu in play." At which point you are compelled by the rules to pick the card up and put it back in your hand and fix it. I realize that there is a difference between the two situations as presented, but the difference is pretty small. And for my money, totally worth fixing. As again, obvious, stupid, and likely caught before anyone else has reacted or played any cards. -Peter

On Mar 2, 9:49 am, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > Chris Berger wrote: > > This Saturday, I made > > three grave errors at the qualifier tournament. 2 of them were in the > > final and really constituted "cheating", which wasn't noticed until it > > was too late to trivially take back the action (sucked - was > > completely burned out and tired and wasn't paying attention to the > > Independent/Anarch status of my vamps). > > Then the game state should be adjusted accordingly. Rewinding is not the only > available remedy. If rewinding is not logistically feasible, some other remedy > should be applied. The game state was adjusted accordingly, with the agreement of the judge and all the players. (Both for Chris's errors and the identical error I had made on the next turn, amusingly.) -John Flournoy

On Mar 2, 9:49 am, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > Chris Berger wrote: > > This Saturday, I made > > three grave errors at the qualifier tournament. 2 of them were in the > > final and really constituted "cheating", which wasn't noticed until it > > was too late to trivially take back the action (sucked - was > > completely burned out and tired and wasn't paying attention to the > > Independent/Anarch status of my vamps). > > Then the game state should be adjusted accordingly. Rewinding is not the only > available remedy. If rewinding is not logistically feasible, some other remedy > should be applied. > Yeah, as John said, we reached a compromise. I just didn't want to mention the other error and have someone say "that's not the only idiotic thing you did on Saturday." The final was definitely a comedy of errors on my part, and certainly would have gone at least *slightly* better for me if I hadn't accidentally cheated in the first place. Twice. > > The other 1 time was that I said that a vote was failing, and then saw > > the edge and decided to burn it for a vote. Cameron said, "sorry, I'm > > gonna be a dick and say that you already declared the vote failed - > > you can't add votes to it". > > There's a world of difference between saying a vote was failing and saying that > a vote failed. > I believe that my exact words were "so it fails... oh, unless I pitch the Edge for a vote." > > I *did* think that I hadn't moved past the end of the vote yet, > > That's even more telling. > > You can't pass the end of the vote unless *everyone* is done (and thinks that > you are moving on to the next thing). > Well, that's where Cameron and I disagreed. I felt that I hadn't passed the stage where I could add votes, he thought I had. My point is that he wasn't being a dick by saying that I couldn't "go back", I just disagreed that I *had* to go back in order to do so. Since I knew that it wouldn't change the outcome of the game, I let the point go and agreed that Cameron was correct that I was done with the vote. In which case, he was not being a dick by not allowing me to go back.

Millicent Smith, Puritan Vampire Hunter I´ll say no more...

Peter D Bakija wrote: > On Mar 2, 9:18 am, grai...@hotmail.com wrote: >> It's fairer not to allow this at all. No take backs. Because I've >> seen it, and I reckon most people have seen it, you let someone have a >> takeback and then they are well within their rights at a later stage >> to deny you a takeback. If nobody gets them, everyone is on the same >> playing field. Yes, I've seen this in a tournament. And it just >> leaves a real bad taste in your mouth when you witness it. > > Really? Like, it strikes me that there is a significant difference > between someone changing their mind and trying to undo something after > other players have reacted to it ("Oh, I wouldn't have called that > vote if I knew you were going to block it...") and someone just > stupidly playing a card that is in every way obviously a bad idea and > is going to result in them ousting themselves out of not paying > attention. Which happens once and a while. I agree there is a difference. However, there is a lot of grey area in between those two points, and somewhere in there you have your line. I am not sure I'd know exactly where you would want to draw said line, and i am not sure you'd know where I would draw said line. So, in the interests of certainty, especially at a tournament, it makes sense to draw that line at the clearest, and legalest, point possible. Which is, if he legally played it, he played it. -- salem (replace 'hotmail' with 'gmail' to email)

]My mistakes are far to numerous, here is the most recent. I choose to end my minion phase with three minions untapped. My prey has one pool and a vampire in torpor and a empty vampire out of torpor. My pred has Dragonbound in play. My grandprey has an untapped vampire with an untapped Enkil Cog.

> So, in the > interests of certainty, especially at a tournament, it makes sense to > draw that line at the clearest, and legalest, point possible. Which is, > if he legally played it, he played it. Agree 100%. I have a simple rule of thumb: If you've put the card on the table, you've "played" it. If the play was illegal (ie, playing NK with no ready Nos-Anti) play must be rewound. If the play was just bad (ie, ousting yourself with Aaron's Feeding Razor), then I'm afriad that's just bad luck. Chalk it up to experience, and move forward content in the knowledge that you will never make that mistake again. I'm of the firm belief that a "no takeback" rule makes for better players. Allowing take- backs is tolerating, if not outright encouraging, sloppy play imo. And sooner or later those players who have become accustomed to take-back play will find themselves in a tourney where there are no take-backs, play sloppy, and lose as a result. I like to think of it as tough love :)

BTW, dumbest thing I've done: Ancilla Empowerment in my hand. I have 4 minions, 5 pool. Prey has 4 minions, 4 pool. I entrance my prey's War Ghoul so "it won't go to waste when I oust him". Then I call Ancilla Empowerment. Prey wins game.

On Mar 2, 8:21 pm, jasonsv...@iinet.net.au wrote: > Agree 100%. I have a simple rule of thumb: If you've put the card on > the table, you've "played" it. > > If the play was illegal (ie, playing NK with no ready Nos-Anti) play > must be rewound. If the play was just bad (ie, ousting yourself with > Aaron's Feeding Razor), then I'm afriad that's just bad luck. Yeah, see, this strikes me as just stupid. Like, I'm not claiming that anyone is doing anything inappropriate by wanting folks to stick to this sort of thing. But for my money, if my prey is at 1 pool and they play a card that costs them one pool? I'm gonna say "Is that really something you meant to do?" and have them fix it if it wasn't. If someone else already played some cards to tried to block or something? Well, ok, game state has changed, it stays where it is. But if they drop the card on the table, someone points out "That is going to oust you, you know...". I'm all for people fixing things that are stupid. > I like to think of it as tough love :) That is the good difference between games and real life. Games are games. And you can fix stupid errors. -Peter

> But if they drop the card on the table, someone points out "That is going to oust > you, you know...". I'm all for people fixing things that are stupid. But where do you draw the line? Mistakes that oust you? Mistakes that inconvenience you? To me it seems a very slippery slope, and very subjective. Better to simply draw a line, make it clear, and have no complaints because the playing field is always consistent. Otherwise you open the door to "Oh, but last week..." "Oh, but last year..." "Oh, but in City XYZ..." > That is the good difference between games and real life. Games are > games. And you can fix stupid errors. Not making stupid errors is part of being a good player. Learning from your stupid errors is part of becoming a better player. I've lost many games because I was forced to wear the mistakes I've made, and I certainly feel that I've become a much better player as a result. People can sometimes learn far quicker through failure than success. I agree that this is a game and it should be fun. But that doesn't mean you should expect quarter from your opponents. This is a competition game, and it's only natural that people play to win. If you drop the ball and lose, learn from it and move on. jase

Peter D Bakija wrote: > On Mar 2, 8:21 pm, jasonsv...@iinet.net.au wrote: >> Agree 100%. I have a simple rule of thumb: If you've put the card on >> the table, you've "played" it. >> >> If the play was illegal (ie, playing NK with no ready Nos-Anti) play >> must be rewound. If the play was just bad (ie, ousting yourself with >> Aaron's Feeding Razor), then I'm afriad that's just bad luck. > > Yeah, see, this strikes me as just stupid. Like, I'm not claiming that > anyone is doing anything inappropriate by wanting folks to stick to > this sort of thing. But for my money, if my prey is at 1 pool and they > play a card that costs them one pool? I'm gonna say "Is that really > something you meant to do?" and have them fix it if it wasn't. But in a tournament, they can't just show their cards. It's a penalty to show the card. So they will get penalized either way. I'm with most of the Aussie's who have posted so far (Julian, Chris, and Jason) - if it's legally played, it's played, even if stupidly. best - chris

On Mar 2, 10:59 pm, jasonsv...@iinet.net.au wrote: > But where do you draw the line? Mistakes that oust you? Mistakes that > inconvenience you? You draw the line where things make sense. Again, it is very rare that something like this comes up (i.e. something akin to "I'm at 1 pool and I take an action to equip with something that costs a pool" or "I'm at 1 pool and I play a master card that costs 1 pool") and I'm not talking about people just changing their minds on some action they took. I'm talking about something that is obvious and clearly an error in every way. It is unlikely that it happens much. And unlikely that anyone is going to try and somehow take advantage of doing something like playing an Ivory Bow while at 1 pool. It is just a stupid error. And stupid errors are a unsatisfying way to win, or lose, games. > To me it seems a very slippery slope, and very subjective. "Slippery slope"? No. Subjective? Sure. > "Oh, but last week..." "Oh, but last year..." "Oh, but in City XYZ..." You don't have to open the door to anything. If someone does something obviously and unintentionally stupid and it is caught before anything else in the game state changes? Fix it. > I agree that this is a game and it should be fun. But that doesn't > mean you should expect quarter from your opponents. I'm not saying anyone should expect anything. I'm saying that as someone who *didn't* cause the error? I'd want the error fixed. Not 'cause my opponent expects to be allowed to fix the error. But 'cause as someone else playing the game, I get no joy or entertainment out of people losing due to stupid, obvious errors that sometimes come up. -Peter

On Mar 3, 1:34 am, librarian <aucti...@superfuncards.com> wrote: > But in a tournament, they can't just show their cards. It's a penalty > to show the card. So they will get penalized either way. And yet when they play a card illegally (i.e. attempt to play Nosferatu Kingdom when they don't have an !Nos in play), the card is shown, a new card is drawn, everything is *required* to be rewound and fixed, and everyone lives. The game can survive a bit of reasonable leeway in terms of people making stupid obvious errors that are caught before the any of the rest of the game state changes. -Peter

On Mar 3, 7:53 am, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > On Mar 2, 10:59 pm, jasonsv...@iinet.net.au wrote: > > > But where do you draw the line? Mistakes that oust you? Mistakes that > > inconvenience you? > > You draw the line where things make sense. Again, it is very rare that > something like this comes up (i.e. something akin to "I'm at 1 pool > and I take an action to equip with something that costs a pool" or > "I'm at 1 pool and I play a master card that costs 1 pool") and I'm > not talking about people just changing their minds on some action they > took. I'm talking about something that is obvious and clearly an error > in every way. It is unlikely that it happens much. And unlikely that > anyone is going to try and somehow take advantage of doing something > like playing an Ivory Bow while at 1 pool. It is just a stupid error. > And stupid errors are a unsatisfying way to win, or lose, games. > I should say, I tend to agree with you - I would definitely be inclined to have someone take back an action like that. However, in the heat of a game, as that person's predator, I'm not sure I wouldn't feel differently about it... And as a person who makes stupid errors from time to time, I don't feel certain that I would be allowed to take it back in the same situation, making me more inclined to be greedy if the situation does come up. Bottom-line, IMHO, is that being reasonable is not really enforceable, and ousting yourself with an accidental equip isn't necessarily against the rules of the game. I would hope that most people would allow a takeback in that situation, but I'm not sure that many would...

I see no reason to warn my prey that he's about to do something really stupid, such as playing a Feeding Razor when he's at 1 pool. If he starts to play it and immediately realizes his mistake, I'm not going to be a dick and insist on "no takebacks", but I'm not going to warn him of bad decisions ahead of time. I will make an exception for new players though, since I want them to develop a serious interest in the game, not drive them away. I don't mind pointing out hints and strategy, even to my own detriment, if it helps a new player learn about playing the game.

[ quoted text not captured ] > allow a takeback in that situation, but I'm not sure that many would...- Ocultar texto citado - > > - Mostrar texto citado - Talking about enforceable, wouldn't self-oust through card play constitute a PtW violation? I mean, PtW affords some room for poor judgment, sure, but playing a card that outright ousts you ought to be outside the scope of all but the widest definitions of 'poor judgment', right? Drain

> Talking about enforceable, wouldn't self-oust through card play > constitute a PtW violation? > > I mean, PtW affords some room for poor judgment, sure, but playing a > card that outright ousts you ought to be outside the scope of all but > the widest definitions of 'poor judgment', right? > > Drain PtW does not protect against bad/stupid play. -John P

On Mar 3, 10:07 am, Xexyz <xe...@hotmail.com> wrote: > I see no reason to warn my prey that he's about to do something really > stupid, such as playing a Feeding Razor when he's at 1 pool. Yeah, see, I have no interest in all at winning a game 'cause my prey made an incredibly stupid, obvious error, such as accidentally playing a card that costs a pool when they are at 1 pool. If I'm playing a game, tournament or no, and my prey did this? I'd say "Uh, are you sure that is what your plan is?" and be perfectly happy when he fixes the error. I have no need to win this game that bad. -Peter

My grand prey is playing this silly Orun and Awe vote deck with Eze. He has 9 Orun on Eze. I call Ancient influence.....

Peter D Bakija wrote: > On Mar 3, 1:34 am, librarian <aucti...@superfuncards.com> wrote: >> But in a tournament, they can't just show their cards. It's a penalty >> to show the card. So they will get penalized either way. > > And yet when they play a card illegally (i.e. attempt to play > Nosferatu Kingdom when they don't have an !Nos in play), the card is > shown, a new card is drawn, everything is *required* to be rewound and > fixed, and everyone lives. > Sure, but it's still an illegal play, and a penalty will be assessed, presumably. > The game can survive a bit of reasonable leeway in terms of people > making stupid obvious errors that are caught before the any of the > rest of the game state changes. > Sure. It can also survive no leeway as well (in tournaments), and I contend that it survives better that way. I have played with players who are really good guys, nice people, good players, who have considered exploiting the "takeback" rules. Why not? If they are allowed rules (as they seem to be in your meta/house) that allow takebacks, why not exploit them, like any other rule that can be bent? What if someone makes a "stupid" play *every* turn? By the way, I totally don't espouse "no takebacks" for new players, especially in non-tournament games. However, I usually go with a one warning - i.e. "Hey, you know if you play that equipment it's going to oust you. Why not do a different action? But just so you know, the next time, we won't let you take it back, so be ready..." With no takebacks, it's more fun, at least for me. best - chris

librarian wrote: > I have played with players who are really good guys, nice people, good > players, who have considered exploiting the "takeback" rules. Why not? > If they are allowed rules (as they seem to be in your meta/house) that > allow takebacks, why not exploit them, like any other rule that can be > bent? What if someone makes a "stupid" play *every* turn? Then the judge notices the cheating and removes the cheater. Just like making a "stupid" illegal play (I bleed you with this Archon Investigation. Oh, oops. Well, now I guess you really do know I have it. Heh, heh.) Pretending that an intentional stupid move is an innocent mistake doesn't make it so. And we have judges.

[ quoted text not captured ] It's that fine line between cheating and mistakes that can get blurry. Why even go there, when you can just have a custom of "if a card is revealed, and it can legally be played, it must be played"? My feeling: allowing sloppy play to have no negative consequences should not be encouraged. best - chris

> I have no need to win this game that bad. To my mind this is not about "needing to win" at all. I insist on no take-backs in any tournament setting I am judging, regardless of whether I am being advantaged, disadvantaged or not affected by the error in play at all. This is about setting rules and sticking to them. Rules that my players will almost certainly encounter when they travel interstate to other events. Rules that I 100%, absolutely believe will make my guys and gals better players in the long run. jase

librarian wrote: > It's that fine line between cheating and mistakes that can get blurry. > Why even go there, when you can just have a custom of "if a card is > revealed, and it can legally be played, it must be played"? So if you try to Govern down (superior) with a vampire that has only inferior, you must bleed? Or play a Discipline card and all of your vampires have it at superior, you must play it on someone else's vampire? That's a BadIdea(tm). > My feeling: allowing sloppy play to have no negative consequences should > not be encouraged. But you have no problem with sloppy illegal play having no negative consequences?

> By the way, I totally don't espouse "no takebacks" for new players, > especially in non-tournament games. Agree 100%. We actually have an official "cheating phase" in our casual games for limited take-backs, when you play something out of turn, or forget to get pool for the edge and play a Master, etc. And there is certainly a vast amount of leeway given to new players - everyone has a very sensinble head on their shoulders. Tourneys are different to casual games. jase

LSJ wrote: > librarian wrote: >> It's that fine line between cheating and mistakes that can get blurry. >> Why even go there, when you can just have a custom of "if a card is >> revealed, and it can legally be played, it must be played"? > > So if you try to Govern down (superior) with a vampire that has only > inferior, you must bleed? Or play a Discipline card and all of your > vampires have it at superior, you must play it on someone else's vampire? > > That's a BadIdea(tm). > Really? Why? Honestly, why? >> My feeling: allowing sloppy play to have no negative consequences >> should not be encouraged. > > But you have no problem with sloppy illegal play having no negative > consequences? I'm not sure I ever said that. best - chris

librarian wrote: > LSJ wrote: >> librarian wrote: >>> It's that fine line between cheating and mistakes that can get >>> blurry. Why even go there, when you can just have a custom of "if a >>> card is revealed, and it can legally be played, it must be played"? >> >> So if you try to Govern down (superior) with a vampire that has only >> inferior, you must bleed? Or play a Discipline card and all of your >> vampires have it at superior, you must play it on someone else's vampire? >> >> That's a BadIdea(tm). >> > > Really? Why? Honestly, why? It's been tried. It's the difference between playing the game and playing some gotcha game about the game. Google bright lights. or The crux being: You announce cards as they are played. If it isn't playable in that manner, then it isn't played, pure and simple. >>> My feeling: allowing sloppy play to have no negative consequences >>> should not be encouraged. >> >> But you have no problem with sloppy illegal play having no negative >> consequences? > > I'm not sure I ever said that. And so....?

Did this last night. I was going second in a four player. Being tools, myself and player number 4 were both playing 1/2 cap weenie votes (Only real difference was I was Archbishops, he was Princes). First round, I brought out 2 vamps, my across the table brought out 4. Neither of the other two players looked even close to having a minion, so the first of the two of us to call a title vote would shut down his across table guy for the rest of the game. I was going first, so after a couple of minutes internal cackling and victory thoughts, I ever so happily tapped my vampire and called a Crusade vote. Across the table discarded a KRC and I lost the vote. I had slipped into some weird oblivious state and forgotten to bleed to get the Edge to push the vote! My across the table wasn't so stupid, and sure enough got the edge, got a Prince, and my first third of the game was spent cycling through votes. I did end up table sweeping, but only thanks to the binning of the across the table Prince. Was almost the worst game losing mistake I've ever made in turn 1 :P - Jahn

LSJ wrote: > librarian wrote: >> LSJ wrote: >>> librarian wrote: >>>> It's that fine line between cheating and mistakes that can get >>>> blurry. Why even go there, when you can just have a custom of "if a >>>> card is revealed, and it can legally be played, it must be played"? >>> >>> So if you try to Govern down (superior) with a vampire that has only >>> inferior, you must bleed? Or play a Discipline card and all of your >>> vampires have it at superior, you must play it on someone else's >>> vampire? >>> >>> That's a BadIdea(tm). >>> >> >> Really? Why? Honestly, why? > > It's been tried. > > It's the difference between playing the game and playing some gotcha > game about the game. > Ok, let's go back to the original example, the Feeding Razor legally played, but it ousts the person playing it. Should we let the player back up? It seems like you say yes, but I'm not sure. Maybe you are just clearing up a hole I left in my argument. My feeling is mental errors are part of every game, and shouldn't those who do not make mental errors benefit, and those who make mental errors should bear the consequences? > Google bright lights. > > or > > The crux being: You announce cards as they are played. If it isn't > playable in that manner, then it isn't played, pure and simple. Ok, that's a subtle difference from my statement of "legally played, must be played." And it's one I can live with. Legally played as declared then. If not legally played, then penalty in regards to showing cards out of hand should be applied, and play backed up to proper place prior to illegal play, etc etc. Still doesn't apply to the example being discussed, or do you feel like it does? > >>>> My feeling: allowing sloppy play to have no negative consequences >>>> should not be encouraged. >>> >>> But you have no problem with sloppy illegal play having no negative >>> consequences? >> >> I'm not sure I ever said that. > > And so....? I still feel that allowing sloppy or stupid legal play to have no negative consequences should not be encouraged. If a play is illegal, there are separate, usually different consequences. I sort of thought that was already assumed in this discussion, but it helps to be clear. best - chris

As the judge for the Aaron's Feeding Razor tournament in question, the rules were stiplulated at the beginning of the day that if a card was played or card's name fully read out as it's being played and the card could be played for the particular action (self ousting included) then it was deemed to have been played. There were several instances through the tournament and the previous day's tournament where cards were "stupidly" played but given the stipulation at the start of the event were required to continue. Usually in a tournament or social game I would allow people to take back "stupid" actions, heck I do it all the time, but since this was the national championship there is a reasonable expectation that people know what they're doing. Yes it was a silly thing to do, yes some laughs were had on the day, even by the player who did it. If it were a different event, maybe a takeback would have been allowed. In this case 3 of us consulted as to how it should be ruled and the 3 of us decided that the action was taken legally, if silly and accidental, but that was no reason to rewind the action. I may have been right I may have been wrong by allowing it, it was funny to see happen and I felt sorry for the guy but ultimately I had to make a decision.

librarian wrote: > It's that fine line between cheating and mistakes that can get blurry. > Why even go there, when you can just have a custom of "if a card is > revealed, and it can legally be played, it must be played"? So you want me to tap Arika, drop a Computer Hacking onto the table while stating "Arika Governs your Unaligned for... whoops <switch CH for GtU in hand> Governs your Unaligned for 5." and be forced by your proposed rule to bleed you with the CH? Is this what you really want, Chris? > My feeling: allowing sloppy play to have no negative consequences > should not be encouraged. The negative consequences are that you have revealed information. The negative consequences are that your friends will tease you a bit about being a bad player. The POSITIVE consequences are absolutely ZERO, above the attempt to make players "better" but at the point of a gun, instead of making them better through encouragement and tough but reasonable rules (like allowing cardplay to be corrected when improperly misstated, etc). Kevin M., Prince of Las Vegas "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 Please visit VTESville daily! http://vtesville.myminicity.com/ Las Vegas NAQ 2009! http://members.cox.net/vtesinlv/

librarian wrote: > LSJ wrote: >> librarian wrote: >>> LSJ wrote: >>>> librarian wrote: >>>>> It's that fine line between cheating and mistakes that can get >>>>> blurry. Why even go there, when you can just have a custom of "if a >>>>> card is revealed, and it can legally be played, it must be played"? >>>> >>>> So if you try to Govern down (superior) with a vampire that has only >>>> inferior, you must bleed? Or play a Discipline card and all of your >>>> vampires have it at superior, you must play it on someone else's >>>> vampire? >>>> >>>> That's a BadIdea(tm). >>>> >>> >>> Really? Why? Honestly, why? >> >> It's been tried. >> >> It's the difference between playing the game and playing some gotcha >> game about the game. >> > > > Ok, let's go back to the original example, the Feeding Razor legally > played, but it ousts the person playing it. "legally played" is debatable. As written, the case could be made that the action was illegal: that the action announced was for a zero-cost equipping of Feeding Razor, when, in fact, the Razor costs 1 pool. So: card improperly played. > Should we let the player > back up? It seems like you say yes, but I'm not sure. If it was improperly played, there is no choice (well, you could look for some other remedy if you feel that enough has transpired to make picking up the Feeding Razor impractical). As a judge, I've done exactly this (well, the card in question was a Saturday-Night Special, but otherwise the details are the same). > Maybe you are > just clearing up a hole I left in my argument. My feeling is mental > errors are part of every game, and shouldn't those who do not make > mental errors benefit, and those who make mental errors should bear the > consequences? No benefit has been gained. Consequences are borne. >> Google bright lights. >> >> or >> >> The crux being: You announce cards as they are played. If it isn't >> playable in that manner, then it isn't played, pure and simple. > > > Ok, that's a subtle difference from my statement of "legally played, > must be played." And it's one I can live with. Legally played as > declared then. If not legally played, then penalty in regards to > showing cards out of hand should be applied, and play backed up to > proper place prior to illegal play, etc etc. Still doesn't apply to the > example being discussed, or do you feel like it does? It applies if the declared action is illegal (as in a no-cost Razor). >>>>> My feeling: allowing sloppy play to have no negative consequences >>>>> should not be encouraged. >>>> >>>> But you have no problem with sloppy illegal play having no negative >>>> consequences? >>> >>> I'm not sure I ever said that. >> >> And so....? > > > I still feel that allowing sloppy or stupid legal play to have no > negative consequences should not be encouraged. And it is not encouraged and is not being encouraged. So that works out well. [ quoted text not captured ]

My stupidest mistake: It was a long time ago during a final in amsterdam. there were three players left. Me, Peter bouwman and Tobias op den Brouw. I was calculation my bleed and I expected a block or deflect of my prey. I came to the conclusion that it couldnt be enough. Then I bled with every vamp except the last guy. In my mind I had failed to oust my prey and decided to get an ivory bow. Leaving my prey on 1. It was one of the first finals I played and I was very nervous. I became 3rd instead of the supposed easy 1st. I have no clue how I couyld forget it. Greetz, Oortje

LSJ wrote: > librarian wrote: >> LSJ wrote: >>> librarian wrote: >>>> LSJ wrote: >>>>> librarian wrote: >>>>>> It's that fine line between cheating and mistakes that can get >>>>>> blurry. Why even go there, when you can just have a custom of "if >>>>>> a card is revealed, and it can legally be played, it must be played"? >>>>> >>>>> So if you try to Govern down (superior) with a vampire that has >>>>> only inferior, you must bleed? Or play a Discipline card and all of >>>>> your vampires have it at superior, you must play it on someone >>>>> else's vampire? >>>>> >>>>> That's a BadIdea(tm). >>>>> >>>> >>>> Really? Why? Honestly, why? >>> >>> It's been tried. >>> >>> It's the difference between playing the game and playing some gotcha >>> game about the game. >>> >> >> >> Ok, let's go back to the original example, the Feeding Razor legally >> played, but it ousts the person playing it. > > "legally played" is debatable. > > As written, the case could be made that the action was illegal: that the > action announced was for a zero-cost equipping of Feeding Razor, when, > in fact, the Razor costs 1 pool. So: card improperly played. An equal case could be made that the action was legal, yet stupidly played. I guess it's up to the judge to decide whether it's stupidity (let the action continue) or impropriety (back up and restore game state as much as possible and apply penalties as necessary). And that's where I'm going to leave it. Which was probably your goal all along - it's up to the judge to judge. best - chris

Kevin M. wrote: > librarian wrote: >> It's that fine line between cheating and mistakes that can get blurry. >> Why even go there, when you can just have a custom of "if a card is >> revealed, and it can legally be played, it must be played"? > > So you want me to tap Arika, drop a Computer Hacking onto the table while > stating "Arika Governs your Unaligned for... whoops <switch CH for GtU in > hand> Governs your Unaligned for 5." and be forced by your proposed rule to > bleed you with the CH? > > Is this what you really want, Chris? > If the declaration is a GTU, and the wrong card is shown, then a penalty should be assessed for displaying the wrong card (CH). Perhaps the penalty is a warning, or more, depends of course. I already answered LSJ on that point. >> My feeling: allowing sloppy play to have no negative consequences >> should not be encouraged. > > The negative consequences are that you have revealed information. The > negative consequences are that your friends will tease you a bit about being > a bad player. > > The POSITIVE consequences are absolutely ZERO, above the attempt to make > players "better" but at the point of a gun, instead of making them better > through encouragement and tough but reasonable rules (like allowing cardplay > to be corrected when improperly misstated, etc). I guess it's a different viewpoint. I feel like folks learn better from their mistakes when they have to live with those mistakes, especially in a game where the mistakes aren't that important (in relative terms to bad things that can happen in RL). And I am all for legal play, which includes proper declaration of play as well. And if they don't match, then I suppose that my position is the declaration should take precedence. Maybe others feel differently. Maybe others feel that the "optimal" play should take precedence, I don't know. Ultimately it seems to boil down to letting the judge judge, ain't that always the case. best - chris

On Wed, 4 Mar 2009, librarian wrote: > I guess it's a different viewpoint. I feel like folks learn better from > their mistakes when they have to live with those mistakes, especially in a > game where the mistakes aren't that important (in relative terms to bad > things that can happen in RL). And I am all for legal play, which includes > proper declaration of play as well. And if they don't match, then I suppose > that my position is the declaration should take precedence. Maybe others > feel differently. Maybe others feel that the "optimal" play should take > precedence, I don't know. You can turn vtes into a gotcha game. What fun. Or you can develop good habits and get everyone to fully and correctly declare actions. Instead of "HAHAHAHAYOUSCREWEDUPROYCECAN'TPLAYSUPERIORGOVERN!!!!11" make players declare the action correctly. If it isn't a legal action, back up (issue a warning if necessary). If the player is attempting to gain some advantage by repeatedly attempting illegal actions, a judge should intervene. It's not really that hard. Apply it to the original example: "Smudge gets Aaron's Feeding Razor at 1 stealth paying zero and not ousting me." Illegal declaration. Back up. "Smudge gets Aaron's Feeding Razor at 1 stealth paying 1 pool, ousting me." Legal declaration. Player is ousted. Matt Morgan

> > All right people, now that my stupidity is out in the open, make me > feel better by sharing your blunders. Playing Tension in the ranks in a pure Warghouldeck relying on Jake W.s :o/ .

On Mar 3, 5:50 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > It's the difference between playing the game and playing some gotcha game about > the game. > > Google bright lights. > What were we supposed to find? All I found was ... A film journal named Bright Lights A Nebraska non-profit organization Music lyrics containing the words bright lights Bright Lights is a discipleship group to train young ladies in godliness (maybe I'll check this out after work) ;) A bunch of stuff on page 2 of Google results that didn't seem relevant and then I got bored of looking. Later, ~Rehlow

[ quoted text not captured ] Even searching in google on just this NG results in: This discussion here. Caitiff Newsletter from 2004 A Josh Duffin post about going to GenCon Followers of Set NL from 2003 talking about vampiric aversion to bright lights Body of Sun guy giving off bright lights for a Beefcake deck (post 2000) A huge story by Frederic Genest from 1998 based (I think) on a JOL game A legbiter Gangrel! newsletter from 2001 mentions bright lights in a story best - chris A mention that the UK National cup in 2005 was moved to the "bright Lights" of Watford best - chris

> Instead of "HAHAHAHAYOUSCREWEDUPROYCECAN'TPLAYSUPERIORGOVERN!!!!11" make > players declare the action correctly. What exactly is incorrect about declaring "Smudge equips the Aaron's Feeding Razor."? I can't find a rule anywhere about having to declare cost, or inherint stealth, or the fact that this action will or will not oust anyone, including myself as part of declaring an action. If this is the case, every tournament I have ever played in has been illegal. jase

> The POSITIVE consequences are absolutely ZERO, above the attempt to make > players "better" but at the point of a gun, instead of making them better > through encouragement and tough but reasonable rules (like allowing cardplay > to be corrected when improperly misstated, etc). There was nothing misstated in the play of the original example. The play was legal, clearly declared, the minion was tapped, the card was placed on the table. This was a preliminary round of a National Championship game. At what point do you believe it's ok to stop encouraging people and start letting them feel the consequences of their actions? Would you have allowed a take-back if it were the final? jase

> > Ok, let's go back to the original example, the Feeding Razor legally > > played, but it ousts the person playing it. > > "legally played" is debatable. > > As written, the case could be made that the action was illegal: that the action > announced was for a zero-cost equipping of Feeding Razor, when, in fact, the > Razor costs 1 pool. So: card improperly played. I don't believe at any point the cost of the action was stated by the player. Are you assuming that "zero-cost" is implied because nobody in that position would reasonably oust themselves? Are you saying the legality is debatable because of an illegal declaration, or are you saying that the very act of ousting yourself accidentally is somehow a contravention of the rules?

jason...@iinet.net.au wrote: > What exactly is incorrect about declaring "Smudge equips the Aaron's > Feeding Razor."? The failure to declare the 1-pool cost and the undirectedness and the stealth. > I can't find a rule anywhere about having to declare cost, or inherint > stealth, or the fact that this action will or will not oust anyone, > including myself as part of declaring an action. for actions, there's 6.2.1. Announce the Action All details of the action are declared when the action is announced, including the target(s), the cost, the effects, etc. and for all cards in general, there's 1.6.1.1. Playing Cards The player completely declares the effect of the card when it is played.

jason...@iinet.net.au wrote: >> The POSITIVE consequences are absolutely ZERO, above the attempt to make >> players "better" but at the point of a gun, instead of making them better >> through encouragement and tough but reasonable rules (like allowing cardplay >> to be corrected when improperly misstated, etc). > > There was nothing misstated in the play of the original example. The > play was legal, clearly declared, the minion was tapped, the card was > placed on the table. The example as given in this thread omitted the cost and at least plausibly allows that the player playing the card overlooked the cost altogether. > This was a preliminary round of a National Championship game. At what > point do you believe it's ok to stop encouraging people and start > letting them feel the consequences of their actions? Moot. If it was a misplay (improperly announced), the misplay should be corrected (picking up the improperly played card and playing on from that point). > Would you have allowed a take-back if it were the final? I would not allow an infraction in the final, no.

jason...@iinet.net.au wrote: > I don't believe at any point the cost of the action was stated by the > player. Are you assuming that "zero-cost" is implied because nobody in > that position would reasonably oust themselves? Zero cost is assumed because it is the default.

> > What exactly is incorrect about declaring "Smudge equips the Aaron's > > Feeding Razor."? > > The failure to declare the 1-pool cost and the undirectedness and the stealth. OK, so are you saying that, for the play to be legal, anytime I play a card I must state Who is playing it What it costs Whether the action is undirected or directed Whether the action has inherint stealth What it's effects are (presumably reading all lines of text on the card so as not to make error by paraphrasing), both immediate and pertaining to change of game state (ie, if you don't block this it will oust you) so instead of (tap minion, look at prey) "Bleed you with a Govern." we must (tap minion) "Minion X attempts to bleed you with a Govern the Unaligned at a cost of 1 blood. This is a directed Action at zero stealth. If successful, you will lose 3 pool." Do you not believe this is an unreasonable expectation as far as two hour limit games are concerned? Do you not believe that players being forced to restate what is already laid down in the rules and should already be understood by everyone at the table (ie, bleeds are Directed, equip actions are not) would be both tedious and time consuming? jase

[ quoted text not captured ] How do you get to that? The cost of Aaron's Feeding is 1 pool, always has been. Its printed right there on the card. The default cost of equipping Aaron's Feeding Razor is 1 pool. In the event in question, there is no misplay. The player is ousted. Carpe noctem. The Lasombra http://www.TheLasombra.com Your best source of V:TES information. Now also selling boxes and individual cards.

The Lasombra wrote: > On Wed, 04 Mar 2009 17:50:54 -0500, LSJ wrote: > >> jason...@iinet.net.au wrote: >>> I don't believe at any point the cost of the action was stated by the >>> player. Are you assuming that "zero-cost" is implied because nobody in >>> that position would reasonably oust themselves? > >> Zero cost is assumed because it is the default. > > How do you get to that? Because it's true. All actions (and all cards) have no cost unless otherwise stated. > The cost of Aaron's Feeding is 1 pool, always has been. > Its printed right there on the card. Yes. It is printed. It needs to be printed in order to override the default. Contrast Grenade, which does not need to print "0" for its cost. > The default cost of equipping Aaron's Feeding Razor is 1 pool. Correct. And hunting has a default of 1 stealth whereas actions have a default of zero stealth. > In the event in question, there is no misplay. Incorrect. The player didn't announce the cost *and*, more importantly, seemed to play it as a zero-cost card. (Or, at least, it's up to a judge to determine which case occurred). > The player is ousted. Incorrect.

jason...@iinet.net.au wrote: >>> What exactly is incorrect about declaring "Smudge equips the Aaron's >>> Feeding Razor."? >> The failure to declare the 1-pool cost and the undirectedness and the stealth. > > OK, so are you saying that, for the play to be legal, anytime I play a > card I must state > I'm saying that the action needs to be fully declared and properly declared. If the player played the Razor with a zero cost, that's a misplay.

On Mar 4, 6:12 pm, jasonsv...@iinet.net.au wrote: > OK, so are you saying that, for the play to be legal, anytime I play a > card I must state > > Who is playing it > What it costs > Whether the action is undirected or directed > Whether the action has inherint stealth > What it's effects are (presumably reading all lines of text on the > card so as not to make error by paraphrasing), both immediate and > pertaining to change of game state (ie, if you don't block this it > will oust you) Well, or, you could just declare what is obvious, and then assume that if something goes amiss, you back up and fix it as needed ... > Do you not believe that players being forced to restate what is > already laid down in the rules and should already be understood by > everyone at the table (ie, bleeds are Directed, equip actions are not) > would be both tedious and time consuming? Yes, it would. Which is why it is reasonable to let people fix obvious errors when they accidentally come up. -Peter

> I'm saying that the action needs to be fully declared and properly declared. If > the player played the Razor with a zero cost, that's a misplay. Then I ask again, do you not believe this is an unreasonable expectation as far as two hour limit games are concerned? Because "fully and properly declared" would seem to dictate that cards need to read, verbatim, every time they are played. Cost, Directed or Undirected, base stealth, full effect, etc. I would also be curious to know if ANYONE currently playing VTES, anywhere in the world, actually does this. Because if not, the entire world is misplaying this game. jase

> Well, or, you could just declare what is obvious, and then assume that > if something goes amiss, you back up and fix it as needed ... Yeah but this is a misplay, if I understand what I'm reading from LSJ. Unless I'm mistaken, he's saying nothing can be assumed. > Yes, it would. Which is why it is reasonable to let people fix obvious > errors when they accidentally come up. Yeah dude, I'm not saying that PoV is unreasonable. But I don't think that the "no take-backs in tournament" PoV is unreasonable either. Maybe that's just me. I think we'd established that the call is up to individual judges. I'm more concerned about the door this policy is opening. It would seem that unless people start reading text verbatim every time they play a card, then any play they make is subject to take-back on the basis of misplay. "Beast rushes Afifa." "Anna wakes and blocks." "Oh wait, I didn't declare that it was a D Action. Misplay. I take it back." jase

> >>> I don't believe at any point the cost of the action was stated by the > >>> player. Are you assuming that "zero-cost" is implied because nobody in > >>> that position would reasonably oust themselves? > >> Zero cost is assumed because it is the default. > > How do you get to that? > Because it's true. All actions (and all cards) have no cost unless otherwise stated. And this equipment is explicitly stated on the card. There can be no confusion. > > The cost of Aaron's Feeding is 1 pool, always has been. > > Its printed right there on the card. > Yes. It is printed. It needs to be printed in order to override the default. Irrelevant. > Contrast Grenade, which does not need to print "0" for its cost. Irrelevant. > > The default cost of equipping Aaron's Feeding Razor is 1 pool. > > Correct. And hunting has a default of 1 stealth whereas actions have a default > of zero stealth. > > In the event in question, there is no misplay. > Incorrect. You're wrong there Scott. The player intended to equip a minion with an Aaron's Feeding Razor. That was the announced action. There is no misplay. >The player didn't announce the cost *and*, more importantly, seemed > to play it as a zero-cost card. (Or, at least, it's up to a judge to determine > which case occurred). The cost of actions is printed on the card. It isn't variable (in the case of this equipment). There is no benefit to announcing the cost that is printed on the card nor is there any potential for misplay. > > The player is ousted. > Incorrect. It think is demonstrated fact that the player is ousted. This is not in dispute. Carpe noctem. [ quoted text not captured ]

jason...@iinet.net.au wrote: >> I'm saying that the action needs to be fully declared and properly declared. If >> the player played the Razor with a zero cost, that's a misplay. > > Then I ask again, do you not believe this is an unreasonable > expectation as far as two hour limit games are concerned? http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/50e4464dfe330ee0 http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/0aa9248618fe2d92

The Lasombra wrote: [snip spurious contrariness] >>> In the event in question, there is no misplay. > >> Incorrect. > > You're wrong there Scott. The player intended to equip a minion with > an Aaron's Feeding Razor. > That was the announced action. There is no misplay. Back to my bit in this merry-quote-round, Jeff: he didn't announce the action's cost and could plausibly be considered to be announcing it as a zero-cost action (more plainly plausible given his pool level), which would make it an improper declaration. The details are all here in this thread now (several times). No need to keep spinning 'em.

[ quoted text not captured ] 1) Was the minion prohibited from having equipment? No. 2) Could the cost of the action be paid when it was attempted? Yes. The action was announced and blockers were requested, per the standard of play of the local playgroup. There is no misplay. Carpe noctem. The Lasombra [ quoted text not captured ]

On Mar 4, 3:12 pm, jasonsv...@iinet.net.au wrote: > OK, so are you saying that, for the play to be legal, anytime I play a > card I must state > > Who is playing it > What it costs > Whether the action is undirected or directed > Whether the action has inherint stealth > What it's effects are (presumably reading all lines of text on the > card so as not to make error by paraphrasing), both immediate and > pertaining to change of game state (ie, if you don't block this it > will oust you) > > so instead of > > (tap minion, look at prey) > "Bleed you with a Govern." > > we must > > (tap minion) > "Minion X attempts to bleed you with a Govern the Unaligned at a cost > of 1 blood. This is a directed Action at zero stealth. If successful, > you will lose 3 pool." I constantly see people: 1. Not declare who is taking an action; 2. Not make it clear what sort of action they are taking; 3. Not declare what level they are taking the action at; 4. Declaring an incorrect bleed amount, even when nothing would change the amount, but especially when something would; 5. Not declaring the stealth; 6. Declaring the wrong amount of stealth. Do I want to see people fully declare every single aspect of what they are doing? Of course not. I do want people to declare who is doing an action, what sort of action it is, what level it's at if it requires a discipline, how much a bleed is for. I also want people to declare stealth whenever it isn't the normal level of stealth for the action type. I've gotten grief from someone in a tournament for making a comment as a bystander because the amount of bleed being declared was inaccurate. That's a whole separate kettle of fish, but if people would actually declare what the hell they were doing in a reasonably informative way, errors would decrease dramatically. So, the declaration on a Govern bleed should be something like: Elisabetta bleeds for 3 with Govern; or, Elisabetta Govern bleeds you for 3; if you control a FoS, Elisabetta, Govern bleed, bleeding you for 4; if Elisabetta has Clan Impersonated to HoS and has the Erebus Mask and you control a FoS, Elisabetta Govern bleeds you for 4 at 1 stealth. For a superior Govern, something like: Cassandra superior Governs to this minion; with The Sargon Fragment and Ex Nihilo, Cassandra Governs at superior to this minion at 2 stealth, losers. That's not terribly cumbersome. If people don't know what Govern does at superior, they maybe shouldn't be playing in a tournament*, so this level of precision below spelling everything out isn't going to matter as much. But, of course, any time something is not normal for the action - bleed, stealth, who can block - or when someone doesn't know what a card does, then it's imperative that it be made clear what's going on. * Same with people who don't know that employing, recruiting, hunting, equipping are at stealth. Etc.

> I'm more concerned about the door this policy is opening. It would > seem that unless people start reading text verbatim every time they > play a card, then any play they make is subject to take-back on the > basis of misplay. > > "Beast rushes Afifa." > "Anna wakes and blocks." > "Oh wait, I didn't declare that it was a D Action. Misplay. I take it > back." Jason I am sad to inform you that this is exactly the case. I discovered this to my great annoyance in the finals table of a tournament. I was being bled by Lucita with a Conditioning. I had Laz out ready and untapped, and my prey had a couple of Tzimisce; one was a 5 cap, one was an 8 cap. Laz played Deflection to send the bleed to my prey. My prey says “5 cap Tzimisce plays Forced Awakening and blocks”. I laughed and said “you’ll need intercept, or you fail to block and burn blood. Younger Sabbat vampires get -1 intercept when trying to block her.” My predator looks sad and apologises to his grandprey who looks like he might be taking a bleed for 4. My prey goes “oh crap! Can I take that back and wake the other guy?” My predator obviously wanted to let him, I obviously protested and called a judge, since this was blatant cheating as far as I was concerned. Judge came over and ruled AGAINST me, saying that my prey could take back his Wake and change his mind about who to wake and block with, since my predator hadn’t announced to the table, when he bled ME, (and I didn’t even control a younger Sabbat vampire, my guy was a 10 cap, so it was completely irrelevant) that younger Sabbat vampires get -1 intercept on her actions. You can imagine how happy I was. The Tzim guy felt really bad and decided not to take back the Wake despite the ruling, but still, you can imagine how happy I was. I went straight to the newsgroup the next day and was told by LSJ that the judge was correct. Apparently when you announce an action you have to declare all “relevant details” about the action. Which apparently encompasses pretty much everything. So apparently any time Lucita acts, you have to tell people her special, or you are breaking the rules. Even if her special doesn’t apply to any eligible blockers. Or for instance if you are taking any actions with Francis Milliner, you have to politely inform the table that Francis will get +1 strength in combat with a Toreador or Toreador Antitribu. Even if there aren’t any eligible blockers on the table that meet the criteria. How great is that? I’m not making this crap up. Just search the newsgroup for lucita sabbat author:Dasein and you'll find it. Yes I believe this is a complete and utter load of sh1t. I have considered abusing this rule but have decided that it is unethical. But yeah if you want to make sure you never make a mistake in a tournament again, just remember this old trick. I'm sure you can find *something* that wasn't announced. “Oh crap, I didn’t notice that Cailean had an Eternal Vigilance and a Sports Bike on him, now he’s going to block my bleeder and kill me… um… oh wait, when I played this Fiendish Tongue I forgot to inform the table that anarch vampires get -1 intercept on the action. Not that you have any anarch vampires in play. But yeah that is theoretically possibly relevant. Maybe there’s an invisible crosstable anarch who was considering Eagle Sighting my bleed and he wouldn’t have been informed about this -1 intercept business. So anyway yeah, damn I’m forced to take this action back, and I think I’ll, um, do nothing this turn. Whew, that was a close one!”. Great stuff huh?

> > Then I ask again, do you not believe this is an unreasonable > > expectation as far as two hour limit games are concerned? > > http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/50e4...http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/0aa9... >"If someone doesn't know that Faceless Night will leave them tapped if they fail to block, then that fact needs to be announced." You cannot expect player X to know what player Y does/does not know. Ergo, it would be safe for player X to assume that player Y does not know how any given card works to avoid violations of this misplay rule. Which would lead to: a) At worst, verbatim reading of every card that is played in the game b) At best, a query after every play of every card, asking if everyone at the table knows what it does. Honestly Scott, do you play VTES this way? >"In practice (the slippery slope), it is common to announce only what needs to be announced (as determined by the table -- that is, to announce whatever needs to be announced so that everyone at the table is fully aware of all the pertinent aspects of the card)." "What needs to be announced" is highly subjective. It appears that what I consider "needs to be announced" differs vastly from you as chief designer/developer/rules guru. For example, I (and indeed, every judge of every tournament I have ever played) would consider announcing that equipping Aaron's Feeding Razor costs 1 pool, and that the action is at +1 stealth to be totally redundant and uneccessary. However, you as chief designer/developer/rules guru of this game consider it a misplay. It's a bit of a worry that everyone I've ever played with is playing this game wrong. Is there anyone out there who actually plays VTES this way? jase

>But, of course, any time something is not normal for the > action - bleed, stealth, who can block - or when someone doesn't know > what a card does, then it's imperative that it be made clear what's > going on. I agree. And if a player is uncertain, there is always the opportunity to ask for clarification/explanation or to read the card. My concern is that LSJ is stating that "normal" effects, such as inherint +1 stealth on an equip action, still need to be stated as the card is played to avoid misplay. Which means I and everyone I know have been misplaying this game for years. jase

On Mar 5, 3:21 pm, jasonsv...@iinet.net.au wrote: > > > Then I ask again, do you not believe this is an unreasonable > > > expectation as far as two hour limit games are concerned? > > >http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/50e4...... > >"If someone doesn't know that Faceless Night will leave them tapped if they fail to block, then that fact needs to be announced." > > You cannot expect player X to know what player Y does/does not know. > Ergo, it would be safe for player X to assume that player Y does not > know how any given card works to avoid violations of this misplay > rule. Which would lead to: > > a) At worst, verbatim reading of every card that is played in the game > b) At best, a query after every play of every card, asking if everyone > at the table knows what it does. > > Honestly Scott, do you play VTES this way? > > >"In practice (the slippery slope), it is common to announce only what needs to be announced (as determined by the table -- that is, to announce whatever needs to be announced so that everyone at the table is fully aware of all the pertinent aspects of the card)." > > "What needs to be announced" is highly subjective. It appears that > what I consider "needs to be announced" differs vastly from you as > chief designer/developer/rules guru. For example, I (and indeed, every > judge of every tournament I have ever played) would consider > announcing that equipping Aaron's Feeding Razor costs 1 pool, and that > the action is at +1 stealth to be totally redundant and uneccessary. > However, you as chief designer/developer/rules guru of this game > consider it a misplay. > > It's a bit of a worry that everyone I've ever played with is playing > this game wrong. > > Is there anyone out there who actually plays VTES this way? > > jase LSJ: If I declare an action to use Vast Wealth (with no modifiers and nobody blocks me**), knowing that ANY piece of equipment left in my libaray WILL oust me allows me to search through... declare it stupid when I find a flame-thrower and shuffle my library? (Because nobody blocked me, and I haven't really gained any advantage and I'll just untap that vampire) If not, then my solution to the whole situation of "Oops equipping this will oust me" situation is simple.... Drink a cup of concrete/cement and harden up princess.... Then shuffle your deck and play the next game. Seriously... this whole debate is heading to the point where I nearly have to declare what I ate last Thursday and was it at stealth... I don't want to be playing in tournaments where I have to read every card out, its cost and the potentially 9000 other details on the card... I can deal with asking the table "Does anyone have a (insert relevant vampire feature here)? If so then (card name) will have this effect on you... (read effect)" But reading all the text from every card that may potentially affect the situation if I manage to somehow get my bleeding vampire flicked to a minion on Table 34... [** Possibly because they are all chumps and haven't seen anyone Vast Wealth/Magic of the Smith, etc a Bowl of Convergence onto Arika or maybe an Assault Rifle]

> saying that my prey could take > back his Wake and change his mind about who to wake and block with, > since my predator hadn’t announced to the table, when he bled ME, (and > I didn’t even control a younger Sabbat vampire, my guy was a 10 cap, > so it was completely irrelevant) that younger Sabbat vampires get -1 > intercept on her actions. My opinion: It is not up to your predator to hold his grand-prey's hand throughout the game. It is up to your prey to pay enough attention to what's happening across table to be appraised of the situation enough to act accordingly, should play of his GP affect him. If he is unsure, he should ask before he acts/reacts. Be responsible, pay attention and take responsibility for your own action/inaction. This is what concerns me. The legality of every tournament I've ever played in, but more importantly judged, is called into question by this revelation. jase

On Feb 25, 11:07 am, Xexyz <xe...@hotmail.com> wrote: > All right people, now that my stupidity is out in the open, make me > feel better by sharing your blunders. On Feb 25, 11:07 am, Xexyz <xe...@hotmail.com> wrote: > All right people, now that my stupidity is out in the open, make me > feel better by sharing your blunders. The worst one I remember was misplaying an Awe during a final; back when Kindred Restructure was legal, I was going to move out from under the Malkavian Sneak'n'Bleed threat, and decided I'd count table votes when I played the card. So, the conversation went something like: "I'll play Awe, for 3...and those 4 over there...and those others over there." "No you won't." "Oh. Well, $&%# then." So, instead of a likely 2nd place (again, back when 3rd-5th existed), I was ousted at the 25-minute mark. In the "chronically stupid" file, I have left dozens of VP on the table, by forgetting to claim pool for the Edge, transfer off a Blood Doll/Vessel, etc.

VTES Was a gotcha game in the old times of madness of the bard (what rhymes with gotcha, anyway?) However, could someone move that discusion about rules somewhere else? I kind of like stories of degradation far better...

On Mar 5, 4:33 pm, jasonsv...@iinet.net.au wrote: > > saying that my prey could take > > back his Wake and change his mind about who to wake and block with, > > since my predator hadn’t announced to the table, when he bled ME, (and > > I didn’t even control a younger Sabbat vampire, my guy was a 10 cap, > > so it was completely irrelevant) that younger Sabbat vampires get -1 > > intercept on her actions. > > My opinion: It is not up to your predator to hold his grand-prey's > hand throughout the game. It is up to your prey to pay enough > attention to what's happening across table to be appraised of the > situation enough to act accordingly, should play of his GP affect him. > If he is unsure, he should ask before he acts/reacts. > Be responsible, pay attention and take responsibility for your own > action/inaction. I agree 100%! If you're not sure who's bleeding you, and what their specials are, ask! If you block a deflected bleed, don't start complaining if they turn out to have +1 strength. It's YOUR job when choosing a blocker to make a sensible and informed decision, and not just wave around a reaction card hoping for the best without even looking at who is coming your way. > This is what concerns me. The legality of every tournament I've ever > played in, but more importantly judged, is called into question by > this revelation. I agree also. Especially because there is such a hugely grey area around what constitutes "relevant information": on an action. When Lucita bled me, I had no younger Sabbat vampires. But I deflected the bleed, and my prey did have younger Sabbat vampires. So when is her special "relevant"? All the time, apparently, assuming there is at least one ready younger Sabbat vampire on the table. (bleeds might get flicked, people might play Eagle Sight or Falcon's Eye, etc). Same with say Francis Milliner's special. Your predator or prey might not have any Tore/!Tore. But what if you get blocked crosstable, or a ! Salubri sends you off into combat with Anson via Blissful Agony, or whatever. It's impossible to determine what is or isn't relevant. So either you announce everything and the game slows to a crawl, or you play like we normally do, and everyone has the chance to take back any mistakes and claim that they didn't give or receive enough information. How crap.

[ quoted text not captured ] The direction that is heading is far closer to state everything, on every card, at all times, even (or possibly especially) when it is irrelevant to the table/game-state at hand. Apparently declaring the name of a standard non-card required action, Vampire X hunts. You must declare Vampire X hunts, when Vampire X is in combat with a Baali its hand strikes are aggravated, Vampire X gains an option maneuver when in combat with an Ally and Vampire X of Capacity K has ((list of disciplines)). This is in contrast to how games are practically run where you would hear... "Constanza Vinti hunts" (don't mention the hand strength cause there are no Ventrue on the table) or "I use Black Horse's Special text" (without reading verbatim what that special is) or "Elihu bleeds you for 2 with Enchant Kindred" (and don't mention anything of his special weapon text, or the fact he's carrying a Sengir Dagger)... I agree with the concept of being accountable for your choices. If you aren't sure who or if you're going to block... ask the questions you want answers to! It's not hard to say "Can you just read out Elihu's text?" or "He's got a Sengir Dagger right?" So back to the previous moment... if you do something dumb because you weren't paying attention enough to ask the question.. then drink that cup of concrete and harden up. In the end its a game, and some of the most convincing lessons I've learned (or delivered) have been by taking full advantage of someone's bad mistakes. I ousted someone on the turn after I made a deal with them not to go forward because I got the KRC I needed to oust them and they had no way to block me. Lesson learned: Only trust your predator as far as you can block him... I got myself ousted by going massively hard at my prey and fell short by 1 pool, and got ousted myself. Lesson Learned: Unless it's a sure- kill, don't leave yourself wide open when you could get ousted yourself. There are valuable lessons to be learned in playing VTES precisely by getting boned by your Predator. Those Predators who aren't willing to absolutely mangle their Prey when the ideal opportunity presents itself... aren't playing hard enough in game.

librarian wrote: > Kevin M. wrote: >> librarian wrote: >>> It's that fine line between cheating and mistakes that can get >>> blurry. Why even go there, when you can just have a custom of "if a >>> card is revealed, and it can legally be played, it must be played"? >> >> So you want me to tap Arika, drop a Computer Hacking onto the table >> while stating "Arika Governs your Unaligned for... whoops <switch CH >> for GtU in hand> Governs your Unaligned for 5." and be forced by >> your proposed rule to bleed you with the CH? >> >> Is this what you really want, Chris? > > If the declaration is a GTU, and the wrong card is shown, then a > penalty should be assessed for displaying the wrong card (CH). Perhaps the > penalty is a warning, or more, depends of course. I know you may not be able to come, Chris, but seriously, you need to come to Origins, so that you can actually ENJOY playing VTES. =) I haven't assessed, nor seen the need to assess a penalty in NINE YEARS of tournaments. Kevin M., Prince of Las Vegas "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 Please visit VTESville daily! http://vtesville.myminicity.com/ Las Vegas NAQ 2009! http://members.cox.net/vtesinlv/

jason...@iinet.net.au wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] Is this really the constructive reason that you post on this newsgroup, Jase? To ask questions such as this? To pose scenarios such as you pose here, and have posed in the past? I'm desperately trying to understand what makes a VTES player invent bizzare scenarios and then *share them* with the community at-large while attempting to pass them off as reasonable discussion. (And no, your question wasn't worth answering.) [ quoted text not captured ]

jason...@iinet.net.au wrote: > My opinion: It is not up to your predator to hold his grand-prey's > hand throughout the game. It is up to your prey to pay enough > attention to what's happening across table to be appraised of the > situation enough to act accordingly, should play of his GP affect him. > If he is unsure, he should ask before he acts/reacts. > > Be responsible, pay attention and take responsibility for your own > action/inaction. > > This is what concerns me. The legality of every tournament I've ever > played in, but more importantly judged, is called into question by > this revelation. You might then want to take LSJ's advice to silly players like yourself: http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/50e4464dfe330ee0 It'd certainly make the newsgroup easier to read. Certainly it'd make your playgroup happier. And who knows? When you start hanging out with your new friends, you might even be a happier guy, too. Good luck. I'll pray for you. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Mar 5, 5:03 am, Curevei <Cure...@aol.com> wrote: > That's not terribly cumbersome. If people don't know what Govern does > at superior, they maybe shouldn't be playing in a tournament*, so this > level of precision below spelling everything out isn't going to matter > as much. But, of course, any time something is not normal for the > action - bleed, stealth, who can block - or when someone doesn't know > what a card does, then it's imperative that it be made clear what's > going on. > > * Same with people who don't know that employing, recruiting, > hunting, equipping are at stealth. Etc. Good post. I agree with most of it, even. Just a small thing. If someone actually doesn't know what GtU or some other card does, they could just ask and reciece an answer in like 10 seconds max. Which should last for the rest of the game. It's not really a huge deal imo.

Juggernaut1981 wrote: > LSJ: If I declare an action to use Vast Wealth (with no modifiers and > nobody blocks me**), knowing that ANY piece of equipment left in my > libaray WILL oust me allows me to search through... declare it stupid > when I find a flame-thrower and shuffle my library? (Because nobody > blocked me, and I haven't really gained any advantage and I'll just > untap that vampire) You misunderstand the position. The rules do not prohibit stupid play. I am not using the term misplay to mean stupid play. Misplays, that is, plays which violate the rules, are prohibited (by definition of violate the rules).

jason...@iinet.net.au wrote: >>> Then I ask again, do you not believe this is an unreasonable >>> expectation as far as two hour limit games are concerned? >> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/50e4...http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/0aa9... > >> "If someone doesn't know that Faceless Night will leave them tapped if they fail to block, then that fact needs to be announced." > > You cannot expect player X to know what player Y does/does not know. > Ergo, it would be safe for player X to assume that player Y does not > know how any given card works to avoid violations of this misplay > rule. Which would lead to: > > a) At worst, verbatim reading of every card that is played in the game > b) At best, a query after every play of every card, asking if everyone > at the table knows what it does. > > Honestly Scott, do you play VTES this way? I play it as stated: announcing what needs to be announced, yeah. >> "In practice (the slippery slope), it is common to announce only what needs to be announced (as determined by the table -- that is, to announce whatever needs to be announced so that everyone at the table is fully aware of all the pertinent aspects of the card)." > > "What needs to be announced" is highly subjective. It appears that > what I consider "needs to be announced" differs vastly from you as > chief designer/developer/rules guru. For example, I (and indeed, every > judge of every tournament I have ever played) would consider > announcing that equipping Aaron's Feeding Razor costs 1 pool, and that > the action is at +1 stealth to be totally redundant and uneccessary. > However, you as chief designer/developer/rules guru of this game > consider it a misplay. Only if it is a misplay. > It's a bit of a worry that everyone I've ever played with is playing > this game wrong. > > Is there anyone out there who actually plays VTES this way? Yes.

jason...@iinet.net.au wrote: >> But, of course, any time something is not normal for the >> action - bleed, stealth, who can block - or when someone doesn't know >> what a card does, then it's imperative that it be made clear what's >> going on. > > I agree. And if a player is uncertain, there is always the opportunity > to ask for clarification/explanation or to read the card. > > My concern is that LSJ is stating that "normal" effects, such as > inherint +1 stealth on an equip action, still need to be stated as the > card is played to avoid misplay. Which means I and everyone I know > have been misplaying this game for years. Yes, some players do under-announce their plays. It would help, especially in tournaments where people get a little more huffy about perceived take-backs, if those players got into the habit of more fully announcing their plays. It doesn't take any meaningful extra time to always announce "at 1 stealth" for actions at 1 stealth. But, no, it doesn't always "need" to be stated to avoid misplay. It only needs to be stated when necessary, and should be stated always.

dasei...@hotmail.com wrote: >> I'm more concerned about the door this policy is opening. It would >> seem that unless people start reading text verbatim every time they >> play a card, then any play they make is subject to take-back on the >> basis of misplay. >> >> "Beast rushes Afifa." >> "Anna wakes and blocks." >> "Oh wait, I didn't declare that it was a D Action. Misplay. I take it >> back." > > Jason I am sad to inform you that this is exactly the case. I > discovered this to my great annoyance in the finals table of a > tournament. I was being bled by Lucita with a Conditioning. I had Laz > out ready and untapped, and my prey had a couple of Tzimisce; one was > a 5 cap, one was an 8 cap. Laz played Deflection to send the bleed to > my prey. My prey says “5 cap Tzimisce plays Forced Awakening and > blocks”. I laughed and said “you’ll need intercept, or you fail to > block and burn blood. Younger Sabbat vampires get -1 intercept when > trying to block her.” My predator looks sad and apologises to his > grandprey who looks like he might be taking a bleed for 4. My prey > goes “oh crap! Can I take that back and wake the other guy?” My That's not the same at all. "Beast rushes Afifa" is understood to be a (D) action by everyone who understands what "rushes" means and would both to have Anna attempt to block such a thing. In contrast, "Lucita bleeds You" doesn't immediately invoke the concept of "and younger Sabbat vampires get -1 intercept when blocking her". Indeed, it isn't even inherent, thanks to the existence of advanced Lucita. So you announce Lucita's ability when you play her, at least, making sure everyone at the table understands her ability, or you announce it as needed during the course of play.

jason...@iinet.net.au wrote: >> I have no need to win this game that bad. > > To my mind this is not about "needing to win" at all. I insist on no > take-backs in any tournament setting I am judging, regardless of > whether I am being advantaged, disadvantaged or not affected by the > error in play at all. > > This is about setting rules and sticking to them. Rules that my > players will almost certainly encounter when they travel interstate to > other events. Rules that I 100%, absolutely believe will make my guys > and gals better players in the long run. and consistency. if the baseline is 'no takebacks', you know where it is. if the baseline is 'no takebacks, unless it's obviously going to oust you right then', then you start to get into hazy ground. is playing a day op to hunt with your last minion when you're on one pool and there's a dragonbound in play 'obviously going to kill you' too? what about transferring onto a second scarce vampire when you're on three or less pool? where exactly does one draw the line of 'obviously'? it's all very subjective, and i'd rather not have to see how far some people might take it before they'll disallow it. so, instead, just don't allow it at all, and then everyone knows exactly where they stand. -- salem (replace 'hotmail' with 'gmail' to email)

LSJ wrote: > librarian wrote: >> LSJ wrote: >>> librarian wrote: >>>> It's that fine line between cheating and mistakes that can get >>>> blurry. Why even go there, when you can just have a custom of "if a >>>> card is revealed, and it can legally be played, it must be played"? >>> >>> So if you try to Govern down (superior) with a vampire that has only >>> inferior, you must bleed? Or play a Discipline card and all of your >>> vampires have it at superior, you must play it on someone else's >>> vampire? >>> >>> That's a BadIdea(tm). >>> >> >> Really? Why? Honestly, why? > > It's been tried. > > It's the difference between playing the game and playing some gotcha > game about the game. > > Google bright lights. > > or > > The crux being: You announce cards as they are played. If it isn't > playable in that manner, then it isn't played, pure and simple. i completely agree. but would extend that to explicitly include 'and if it is playable in the manner announced, then it is played'. eg: 'my vampire equips with aaron's feeding razor' when you are on one pool is a legal play. >>>> My feeling: allowing sloppy play to have no negative consequences >>>> should not be encouraged. >>> >>> But you have no problem with sloppy illegal play having no negative >>> consequences? >> >> I'm not sure I ever said that. > > And so....? cautions, warnings, and whatever else the judge has at their disposal. [ quoted text not captured ]

LSJ wrote: > The Lasombra wrote: > > [snip spurious contrariness] > >>>> In the event in question, there is no misplay. >> >>> Incorrect. >> >> You're wrong there Scott. The player intended to equip a minion with >> an Aaron's Feeding Razor. >> That was the announced action. There is no misplay. > > Back to my bit in this merry-quote-round, Jeff: he didn't announce the > action's cost and could plausibly be considered to be announcing it as a > zero-cost action (more plainly plausible given his pool level), which > would make it an improper declaration. so if the player just didn't realise how little pool they had, instead, and announced 'equip with aaron's feeding razor' and the cross-table guy said 'how much does that cost?' and the player said '1 pool. any blockers?' ...then they would be ousted (if the action succeeds)? [ quoted text not captured ]

Salem wrote: > if the baseline is 'no takebacks', you know where it is. if the baseline > is 'no takebacks, unless it's obviously going to oust you right then', Non-seqitur. Now you're talking about violating play to win instead of violating the rules on declaring effects.

Salem wrote: > LSJ wrote: >> The crux being: You announce cards as they are played. If it isn't >> playable in that manner, then it isn't played, pure and simple. > > i completely agree. but would extend that to explicitly include 'and if > it is playable in the manner announced, then it is played'. > > eg: 'my vampire equips with aaron's feeding razor' when you are on one > pool is a legal play. You seem to be missing the idea that if it is declared as a no-cost action, it is mis-declared (and the mis-declared play is therefore an illegal one).

Salem wrote: > so if the player just didn't realise how little pool they had, instead, > and announced 'equip with aaron's feeding razor' and the cross-table guy > said 'how much does that cost?' and the player said '1 pool. any > blockers?' ...then they would be ousted (if the action succeeds)? Yes. Assuming (as you explicitly did, but as I have to restate in order to reduce the level of misquoting that would later be done through google) that it was not a violation of play to win, but rather a simple miscalculation.

jason...@iinet.net.au wrote: > [announce stuff out the wa-zoo] > Is there anyone out there who actually plays VTES this way? not me. but i also believe me and most of my playgroup do under-announce to some extent. but i think our under-announcing is just around stuff outside the 'standard'. eg: if muaziz is hunting, i'd like it announced to be at +2 stealth. but players often leave that off. if Una is playing force of will, i'd like it to be announced to cost 0 blood if a minion is equipping while there is an NRA PAC in play, i'd like the '...and untaps at the end of the turn' to be announced. if Lydia Van Cuelen is bleeding, i'd like it to be announced as 'bleed for 2'. but in general, in my playgroup, 'bleed' would be assumed to be 'bleed for 1 at zero stealth costing 0 blood, pool and/or convictions', and 'equip' would be assumed to be 'equip at +1 stealth, costing whatever it says on this card i have just placed on the table for all to see and/or ask me about if they're unsure how much it costs or what it does'. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Mar 4, 11:15 pm, dasein2...@hotmail.com wrote: > I went straight to the newsgroup the next day and was told by LSJ that > the judge was correct. Apparently when you announce an action you have > to declare all “relevant details” about the action. Which apparently > encompasses pretty much everything. Correct. If you are bleeding, for example, and it is at stealth, and you don't say it is at stealth, and someone reacts to the bleed, not knowing that there is stealth 'cause you didn't announce that there was stealth? It makes complete sense to fix what needs to be fixed. > So apparently any time Lucita > acts, you have to tell people her special, or you are breaking the > rules. Correct. Or, you could just not worry about it and if someone does something based on *not* knowing her special (when you didn't announce it), and then wants to fix it due to a lack of appropriate information, you just fix it. -Peter

On Mar 5, 1:17 am, Juggernaut1981 <brasscompo...@gmail.com> wrote: > The direction that is heading is far closer to state everything, on > every card, at all times, even (or possibly especially) when it is > irrelevant to the table/game-state at hand. You need to announce relevant information. If it isn't relevant, it is unlikely to come up (i.e. if you have +1 strength against Toreador, and there are no Toredaor in play? It is probably safe to ignore that. As it isn't going to come up.) And when someone forgets to announce something relevant and it suddenly becomes important (i.e. you neglected to announce that Sabbat vampires have -1 intercept against this action, and your prey wakes and tries to block with a sabbat vampire, at which point you go "Aha! You have -1 intercept!"? You fix it.) you make things better. -Peter

On Mar 4, 9:33 pm, jasonsv...@iinet.net.au wrote: > Yeah but this is a misplay, if I understand what I'm reading from LSJ. > Unless I'm mistaken, he's saying nothing can be assumed. My point was that you can either: A) Announce out loud every single bit of information on every action, regardless of how irrelevant it seems, which, as you note, is laborious and time consuming. or B) Announce what seems relevant, and if something else turns out to be relevant that wasn't announced, fix it as necessary. Either one works. > I'm more concerned about the door this policy is opening. Everyone is always concerend about doors opening and slipery slopes. Which aren't really something worth worrying about. The vast majority of the time, people aren't going to be trying to squeeze some kind of absurd advantage out of intentionally misplaying cards. The vast majority of the time, this isn't going to come up. And when it does, it is going to be the result of an honest mistake. And in the infintisimal number of instances where someone *is* trying to gain some sort of absurd advantage by an intentional misplay, there is always a judge (i.e. if someone rewinds due to a misplay for the third time in a game, it is likely they are doing it intentionally. Call a judge. 'Cause that is what judges are for.) > It would > seem that unless people start reading text verbatim every time they > play a card, then any play they make is subject to take-back on the > basis of misplay. > > "Beast rushes Afifa." > "Anna wakes and blocks." > "Oh wait, I didn't declare that it was a D Action. Misplay. I take it > back." If people seem to be trying to use this to their advantage? Call a judge. That is what judges are for. The vast majority of the time, however? It is unlikely people will be trying to use this to their advantage. -Peter

On 5 maalis, 14:37, Salem <kella...@hotmail.com> wrote: > where exactly does one draw the line of 'obviously'? it's all very > subjective, and i'd rather not have to see how far some people might > take it before they'll disallow it. so, instead, just don't allow it at > all, and then everyone knows exactly where they stand. Same goes for announcing actions. How much information do you allow people to leave unannounced? I doubt that the majority of groups are in the habit of announcing absolutely everything. It's more likely that they use common sense when determining what needs to be announced and what is obvious. We've survived this, the game didn't slip down the slope. If common sense is adequate to decide what is necessary to announce then why not rely on it when deciding what is reasonable to take back?

On Wed, 4 Mar 2009, jason...@iinet.net.au wrote: > >> Instead of "HAHAHAHAYOUSCREWEDUPROYCECAN'TPLAYSUPERIORGOVERN!!!!11" make >> players declare the action correctly. > > What exactly is incorrect about declaring "Smudge equips the Aaron's > Feeding Razor."? > > I can't find a rule anywhere about having to declare cost, or inherint > stealth, or the fact that this action will or will not oust anyone, > including myself as part of declaring an action. If this is the case, > every tournament I have ever played in has been illegal. Try reading the rules of the game. It is explicitly stated in 6.2.1 that the cost must be announced when an action is declared. Matt Morgan

On Wed, 4 Mar 2009, jason...@iinet.net.au wrote: > so instead of > > (tap minion, look at prey) > "Bleed you with a Govern." > > we must > > (tap minion) > "Minion X attempts to bleed you with a Govern the Unaligned at a cost > of 1 blood. This is a directed Action at zero stealth. If successful, > you will lose 3 pool." Tapping the minion is good enough to indicate which minion is taking the action. Zero stealth is assumed. The target of the action is indicated by saying "bleed you." The cost must be announced, yes. Announcing the bleed amount of 3 is appropriate (better than "you will lose 3 pool" because the amount can change). So tap the minion and say "bleed you for 3 costing 1 blood." And really, announcing the cost is probably optional in this case if everyone present is aware of the cost of Govern the Unaligned. In the original example, the player of Aaron's Feeding Razor was apparently not aware of the cost, so it should've been announced. Announcing the bleed amount is mandatory, though. If it's Royce and your prey has an untapped Aranthebetes, you must announce a bleed of 2. If your minion has a Laptop, you must announce a bleed of 4. Etc. I'm honestly not seeing what's so difficult about all this. Matt Morgan

On Feb 25, 4:00 pm, floppyzedolfin <floppyzedol...@gmail.com> wrote: > Diablerize the dude with Fame when my prey is on 1 pool. Man, I had figured up until I just read this that you'd had some master plan in mind when you did that. John Eno

[ quoted text not captured ] i was expanding upon Jason's comment to addressing Peter's point. Being, roughly, "someone just stupidly playing a card that is in every way obviously a bad idea and is going to result in them ousting themselves out of not paying attention. Which happens once and a while.". Peter seemed to think the line was ok to draw somewhere around there. Exactly how far 'obviously...ousting themselves' gets to extend is somewhat subjective and a grey area, which seems like an unnecessary inconsistency to me, and can lead to the judge being used to allow correction of poor play, rather than just being used to judge incorrect play. [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] I am not. However, I am assuming that there is that level of 'implied knowledge' on a table, especially about one's own cards that one is playing oneself, that precludes the necessity for declaration. I believe, in the example under discussion, that a declaration of 'equips with feeding razor' would in the absence of specifying otherwise, be generally taken by all players at the table to mean "equip Aaron's Feeding Razor at +1 stealth. an undirected action. It's a unique equipment costing 1 pool. It allows my vampire to gain an additional blood upon successfully hunting." Some playgroups might be ok to leave off the last sentence as assumed known. Some the last two. Most, I think often leave off the last three, and are quite fine assuming all those things. Many again probably leave off all of them, and probably just say 'equip' and put the card on the table, and are happy to clarify any aspects of the action if asked. Yet no one is advocating rewinding actions there all through games on tournaments the world over. But for some reason if the guy happens to get ousted while assuming the other sentences, it's take-back time? this just feels awfully inconsistent to me. [ quoted text not captured ]

> I play it as stated: announcing what needs to be announced, yeah. Very well. So your official stance is that inherint stealth and whether an action is undirected or directed needs to be announced as part of every play, yes? I just want to be clear. > > "What needs to be announced" is highly subjective. It appears that > > what I consider "needs to be announced" differs vastly from you as > > chief designer/developer/rules guru. For example, I (and indeed, every > > judge of every tournament I have ever played) would consider > > announcing that equipping Aaron's Feeding Razor costs 1 pool, and that > > the action is at +1 stealth to be totally redundant and uneccessary. > > However, you as chief designer/developer/rules guru of this game > > consider it a misplay. > > Only if it is a misplay. Well is it or not? In the original example you're saying it is. Based on the assumption that the player didn't mean to oust himself, so was playing the card as a 0 cost equip action. This seems to set the precendent that any time I play a card mistakenly (forget that my Villein will cost a pool, forget that my Day op costs a blood, whatever) i can just declare that "Oh, I forgot X, that's a misplay, I take it back." What if I play a Master before I remember to take my pool for the Edge? Or put Conviction on my Imbued? I can use the same rationale that you're using for the Feeding Razor to rewind play to my Untap phase and take my pool for the Edge. jase

On Fri, 6 Mar 2009, Salem wrote: > Exactly how far > 'obviously...ousting themselves' gets to extend is somewhat subjective and a > grey area, which seems like an unnecessary inconsistency to me, and can lead > to the judge being used to allow correction of poor play, rather than just > being used to judge incorrect play. It is incorrect play to play a card and not announce the cost. When this is done unintentionally, the judge should correct the play (issuing a warning if necessary). If done intentionally (maybe to be able to take it back when a block is announced), then the player should be given an appropriate punishment for cheating. It is poor play to fail to notice one's prey is at 1 pool and that one has a Night Moves in hand (or insert your own example). When this is done, the judge should do nothing and allow play to continue. Those two examples seem pretty obvious to tell apart. Obviously judgment must be used to determine whether the player has made an honest mistake or is attempting to take advantage of the judge's good nature (which is why we have judges). Perhaps you could put forth an example where it's not so clear. In any event, the judge should make a judgment and play will continue. It's true that not every judge will rule the same situation in the same way. That's okay because vtes isn't brain surgery. Matt Morgan

> But, no, it doesn't always "need" to be stated to avoid misplay. It only needs > to be stated when necessary, and should be stated always. My point is, given the lack of telepathic ability in most humans, saying "It only needs to be stated when necessary" is tantamount to saying "It needs to be stated always", because I can't look across the table and KNOW that my GP knows what Lucita's special is, or that Equip Actions are undirected by default. So I can either read the text, or ask if everyone knows what it does every time I play a card. In order to avoid misplay, the safest stance would be to state every component of every card played, verbatim, yes? jase

> That's not the same at all. > > "Beast rushes Afifa" is understood to be a (D) action by everyone who > understands what "rushes" means and would both to have Anna attempt to block > such a thing. This seems totally inconsistent. I would have thought that "Minion X equips with Aaron's feeding Razor" is understood to be an undirected Action by anyone who plays this game - the undirected nature of equip actions are clearly staed in the rules. But you're saying that the Undirection nature of the action must be stated or the card has been misplayed. Where are you drawing this line? It's safe to assume everyone knows that a "Rush" action is directed, but not that Equip Actions are undirected? jase

jason...@iinet.net.au wrote: >> I play it as stated: announcing what needs to be announced, yeah. > > Very well. So your official stance is that inherint stealth and > whether an action is undirected or directed needs to be announced as > part of every play, yes? I just want to be clear. > > >>> "What needs to be announced" is highly subjective. It appears that >>> what I consider "needs to be announced" differs vastly from you as >>> chief designer/developer/rules guru. For example, I (and indeed, every >>> judge of every tournament I have ever played) would consider >>> announcing that equipping Aaron's Feeding Razor costs 1 pool, and that >>> the action is at +1 stealth to be totally redundant and uneccessary. >>> However, you as chief designer/developer/rules guru of this game >>> consider it a misplay. >> Only if it is a misplay. > > Well is it or not? Ask the judge on the scene. I wasn't there. > In the original example you're saying it is. No. I said it is plausible that it is. That is, as covered before, it is plausible that the player knew he was at 1 pool (quite likely, even), and played the Razor thinking it was a zero-cost equipment (and his announcement does nothing to contradict this possibility). In which case, the card was improperly announced as a zero-cost action. The other plausible case is that he didn't realize that he was at 1 pool and did realize that the Razor costs 1 pool and left the pool cost out of his announcement. In which case, the card is properly played (albeit inadequately announced). > Based > on the assumption that the player didn't mean to oust himself, so was > playing the card as a 0 cost equip action. This seems to set the > precendent that any time I play a card mistakenly (forget that my > Villein will cost a pool, forget that my Day op costs a blood, > whatever) i can just declare that "Oh, I forgot X, that's a misplay, I > take it back." I suppose. I suppose, too, that you'll learn how to announce cards rather quickly or face every-increasing penalties (ejection from a tournament or loss of a local game groups' acceptance, as the case may be). Either way, there's no advantage to be gained from the overly-sloppy announcements. > What if I play a Master before I remember to take my pool for the > Edge? Covered before. You've clearly left your untap phase, and taking pool is optional. Too bad you forgot. > Or put Conviction on my Imbued? Same. So sad. > I can use the same rationale > that you're using for the Feeding Razor to rewind play to my Untap > phase and take my pool for the Edge. Not the same at all.

> Try reading the rules of the game. It is explicitly stated in 6.2.1 that > the cost must be announced when an action is declared. Do you do this, Matt? Do you declare "all details of the action when the action is announced" including cost, inherint stealth, whether the action in D or Undirected, any Minion special abilities that pertain to the action, EVERY TIME you play a card? So, instead of (tap Ossian) "Ossian rushes Isabelle DeLeon" your play is more like (tap Ossian) "Ossian attempts to enter combat with Isabelle DeLeon. This is a D action at +1 stealth. In the first round of combat with a vampire who has played a card that requires Auspex [aus] during this action, that vampire cannot use any maneuvers or strikes. Ossian gains 1 life at the end of each round for each blood the opposing vampire used to heal damage or prevent destruction that round."? And you repeat this card text every time Ossian rushes a minion during the game, and indeed every game in which you ever play Ossian, from now until Gehenna, yes? Because this is what the rules state you need to do.

> Tapping the minion is good enough to indicate which minion is taking the > action. Zero stealth is assumed. Zero stealth is NOT assumed. If +1 stealth must be stated as part of an equip action, which is clearly printed in the rulebook, then it cannot be assumed as part of the play of any other card. Since none of us can read minds, nothing can be assumed. It must either be verified by query in game, or players must simply someone at the table is ignorant about the play in question, and clearly define every aspect of it in order to avoid misplay. In the case of minions, common sense would dictate that it would be ok to clearly and concisely announce when Lucita (or whoever) is brought into play what her special is, so that everyone at the table is aware of it - this is my current practice. I'm sure none of us want to be burdened with having to read her text every time she acts. But I cannot see the distinction between having to announce EVERY equip action as undirected and at +1 stealth (both clearly stated in the rules) and not having to announce EVERY action Lucita makes as being tagged with -1 intercept for younger Sabbat vampires. If we cannot assume that everyone at the table is aware that Equip Actions are undirected and at +1 stealth, despite those details having been previously announced multiple times during the game, and despite everyone at table being familiar with the rules of the game, and MUST declare "this is an undirected action at +1 stealth" every time we equip, how can we assume that everyone is aware what Lucita's special is, despite having already announced it? I cannot see the distinction. Please explain it to me if you can. > So tap the minion and say "bleed you for 3 costing 1 blood." And really, > announcing the cost is probably optional in this case if everyone present > is aware of the cost of Govern the Unaligned. In the original example, > the player of Aaron's Feeding Razor was apparently not aware of the cost, > so it should've been announced. I disagree. They player was entirely aware of the cost, he simply didn't make the correlation between the cost of the item and his current pool level. Just as in a previous example in this thread, a player was aware what Form of Corruption did, he just didn't make the link between a Form with one counter on it and what would happen if he Gathered out a minion with one blood on it. It's not that he didn't know, he just didn't click. Peter is essentially 100% correct. By these rulings you must either: a) Clearly state every time any action is taken or card is played the full effects of it's play, verbatim, ad nauseum assuming nothing is known about anything to do with the card, it's nature or the printed rules pertaining to it or b) Allow take-backs on virtually any mistake, on the grounds of "misplay" because cards aren't ever being announced correctly jase

> I suppose. I suppose, too, that you'll learn how to announce cards rather > quickly or face every-increasing penalties (ejection from a tournament or loss > of a local game groups' acceptance, as the case may be). > > Either way, there's no advantage to be gained from the overly-sloppy announcements. I disagree, I can envisage a very clear advantage. Do you not think that this ruling quite clearly opens the door for abuse at national level tournaments, where ostracism by local playgroups is less of a factor? Final round. Clutch play. Player X performs action to oust player Y. Player Y drops DI. Player Z drops Dark influences. Player Y is going to be ousted, but cries "Hold the phone chaps, Player X didn't announce that this was a directed action! Misplay. Rewind please." The judge is called over, and even though it might be obvious to everyone at the table that this is dodgy as hell, it is still 100% correct by the rules of the game, yes? How is this not advantageous? > You've clearly left your untap phase, and taking pool is optional. Too bad you > forgot. Where is the distinction between this "too bad you forgot" and "too bad you forgot Aaron's costs 1 pool?" For the life of me, I can see absolutely none. jase

jason...@iinet.net.au wrote: >> I suppose. I suppose, too, that you'll learn how to announce cards rather >> quickly or face every-increasing penalties (ejection from a tournament or loss >> of a local game groups' acceptance, as the case may be). >> >> Either way, there's no advantage to be gained from the overly-sloppy announcements. > > I disagree, I can envisage a very clear advantage. Do you not think > that this ruling quite clearly opens the door for abuse at national > level tournaments, where ostracism by local playgroups is less of a > factor? > > Final round. Clutch play. Player X performs action to oust player Y. > Player Y drops DI. Player Z drops Dark influences. Player Y is going > to be ousted, but cries "Hold the phone chaps, Player X didn't > announce that this was a directed action! Misplay. Rewind please." > > The judge is called over, and even though it might be obvious to > everyone at the table that this is dodgy as hell, it is still 100% > correct by the rules of the game, yes? How is this not advantageous? That's a whole 'nother conversation. So far, we've been talking about things that are mis-announced and corrected at that time. Even so, "forgot to announce directed" is spurious. See other posts in this thread (and linked from this thread) regarding the need to resort to spurious baggage to attempt to avoid playing reasonably. And, then, even so, if you found a judge to listen to the spurious argument and rewind, what benefit is gained? If you find one, then refer to the section of the tournament rules whereby the judge attempts to find a solution that maintains the balance that would have been had if no error had been made. >> You've clearly left your untap phase, and taking pool is optional. Too bad you >> forgot. > > Where is the distinction between this "too bad you forgot" and "too > bad you forgot Aaron's costs 1 pool?" > > For the life of me, I can see absolutely none. Announcement. As has been covered repeatedly.

> So far, we've been talking about things that are mis-announced and corrected at > that time. > > Even so, "forgot to announce directed" is spurious. See other posts in this > thread (and linked from this thread) regarding the need to resort to spurious > baggage to attempt to avoid playing reasonably. I don't see how you consider it spurious. I'm sorry, but I simply can't see how you are drawing this line. In your posts explaining why the play in the Aaron's example was incorrect, you have listed failure to announce cost, failure to announce it as undirected AND failure to announce inherint stealth as criteria through which the call could be made. What makes failure to announce "Undirected" and "+1 stealth" incorrect play, when failing to announce that the action that will oust Player Y is seen as spurious? I'm not trying to be difficult. I'm just trying to understand where your head is at. > And, then, even so, if you found a judge to listen to the spurious argument and > rewind, what benefit is gained? Cards have been revealed? Everyone now knows Player Y has a DI, and Player Z has a Dark Influences. So player Y now has to opportunity to re-assess his play, resort to other methods of keeping himself alive, strike a deal with Player Z on the basis that he's holding a Dark Influences, etc. > Announcement. As has been covered repeatedly.- Hide quoted text - Ok, I'm understanding you on the "skip phase" vs "mis-play" point, cheers. jase

jason...@iinet.net.au wrote: >> So far, we've been talking about things that are mis-announced and corrected at >> that time. >> >> Even so, "forgot to announce directed" is spurious. See other posts in this >> thread (and linked from this thread) regarding the need to resort to spurious >> baggage to attempt to avoid playing reasonably. > > I don't see how you consider it spurious. I'm sorry, but I simply > can't see how you are drawing this line. > > In your posts explaining why the play in the Aaron's example was > incorrect, you have listed failure to announce cost, failure to > announce it as undirected AND failure to announce inherint stealth as > criteria through which the call could be made. What makes failure to > announce "Undirected" and "+1 stealth" incorrect play, when failing to > announce that the action that will oust Player Y is seen as spurious? "forgot to announce directed" is not "forgot to announce will oust Y". The first is immaterial. The target is announced, and directedness doesn't add anything to that. The omission is immaterial. The second is not part of the action. "Bleed for 1" is sufficient to describe the pool loss. "would oust" doesn't add anything to that. The omission is immaterial.

On Thu, 5 Mar 2009, jason...@iinet.net.au wrote: > Do you declare "all details of the action when the action is > announced" including cost, inherint stealth, whether the action in D > or Undirected, any Minion special abilities that pertain to the > action, EVERY TIME you play a card? If I think there's any relevant information the other players should know about, then I will try to remember to announce it, sure. Experienced players don't need to be told an equip action is undirected or a rush is directed. If I'm playing with inexperienced players who may not always know whether or not they are allowed to attempt to block, then I'll make that clear. > So, instead of > > (tap Ossian) > "Ossian rushes Isabelle DeLeon" > > your play is more like > > (tap Ossian) > "Ossian attempts to enter combat with Isabelle DeLeon. This is a D > action at +1 stealth. In the first round of combat with a vampire who > has played a card that requires Auspex [aus] during this action, that > vampire cannot use any maneuvers or strikes. Ossian gains 1 life at > the end of each round for each blood the opposing vampire used to heal > damage or prevent destruction that round."? There's no need to read all of Ossian's text every time he's involved in an action. If players are unfamiliar with Ossian when he is recruited, it should be read then. After that, they can be given reminders. I would tap Ossian and announce I'm rushing Isabel at +1 stealth and mention the thing about blocking with auspex cards if it seemed relevant. That doesn't take very long. At that point, someone may have a question about Ossian and what he's like in combat. Does he get a manuever? Can he prevent damage? More often people know Ossian and play can continue. What I wouldn't do is rush someone with Ossian and then go "HAH, now you can't strike!" when Isabel blocks with Enhanced Senses. > And you repeat this card text every time Ossian rushes a minion during > the game, and indeed every game in which you ever play Ossian, from > now until Gehenna, yes? > > Because this is what the rules state you need to do. The rules do not say I need to read every card on the table outloud every time anything happens. If you think that's what I'm saying, then I understand why you don't like it. Well, good news! That's not what I'm saying. Matt Morgan

> At that point, someone may have a question about Ossian and what he's like > in combat. Does he get a manuever? Can he prevent damage? More often > people know Ossian and play can continue. What I wouldn't do is rush > someone with Ossian and then go "HAH, now you can't strike!" when Isabel > blocks with Enhanced Senses. OK, hypothetical for you: Final round of national tournament. You control Ossian. He's been in play for over an hour, doing his thing. Your prey controls Isabelle. He is on 3 pool. Isabelle has a Fame on her. You announce a Rush action on Isabelle with your Ossian. Prey declares a block with Isabelle using Enhanced Senses. Do you a) Ask if he's sure if he wants to do that. b) Acknowledge the block and proceed to combat. c) Other. If b) and the player realises that Isabelle can't strike once the combat commences, do you allow a take-back? > The rules do not say I need to read every card on the table outloud every > time anything happens. Well, yeah, technically they do. This is what is turning my panties brown. "6.2. All details of the action are declared when the action is announced, including the target(s), the cost, the effects, etc." Ossian's text is part of the effect of the rush. It *must* be announced if playing by the letter, if not the spirit of the rules. Understand I'm in no way advocating anybody having to read out the text of every card they play/use. I'm just saying that by the rules, and as per LSJ's statements in this thread, in the above example if you DIDN'T read Ossian's text aloud when you declared the Rush on Isabelle, your prey would be perfectly within his rights to put up his hand, call over a judge and demand a take-back of the block once he was in combat and realised he couldn't strike. This concerns me deeply. jase

On Thu, 5 Mar 2009, jason...@iinet.net.au wrote: > >> Tapping the minion is good enough to indicate which minion is taking the >> action. Zero stealth is assumed. > > Zero stealth is NOT assumed. If +1 stealth must be stated as part of > an equip action, which is clearly printed in the rulebook, then it > cannot be assumed as part of the play of any other card. It is. Zero stealth is the default. > Since none of us can read minds, nothing can be assumed. It must > either be verified by query in game, or players must simply someone at > the table is ignorant about the play in question, and clearly define > every aspect of it in order to avoid misplay. Nope. We merely need to do our best to make sure players are aware of what's going on and what effects are at play. If mistakes happen, they can be corrected. > In the case of minions, common sense would dictate that it would be ok > to clearly and concisely announce when Lucita (or whoever) is brought > into play what her special is, so that everyone at the table is aware > of it - this is my current practice. I'm sure none of us want to be > burdened with having to read her text every time she acts. But I > cannot see the distinction between having to announce EVERY equip > action as undirected and at +1 stealth (both clearly stated in the > rules) and not having to announce EVERY action Lucita makes as being > tagged with -1 intercept for younger Sabbat vampires. Every equip action that is at +1 stealth should be announced as being at +1 stealth. What if it's Kisha? Then it's at 0 stealth. What if you control Carmen? Then it's at +2 stealth. This is part of the action declaration. Lucita's special should be mentioned when she's acting and there are younger Sabbat vampires around. Or do like this. A bleeds B with Lucita. B doesn't control any Sabbat vampires. The special probably should've been announced at some point, but isn't really that relevant right now. B deflects to C, who controls a younger Sabbat vampire. At this point, A should remind C about Lucita's card text. C might say "I know about it" and then A doesn't need to bring it up again. This stuff doesn't take very long. > If we cannot assume that everyone at the table is aware that Equip > Actions are undirected and at +1 stealth, despite those details having > been previously announced multiple times during the game, and despite > everyone at table being familiar with the rules of the game, and MUST > declare "this is an undirected action at +1 stealth" every time we > equip, how can we assume that everyone is aware what Lucita's special > is, despite having already announced it? We can't and shouldn't assume that. If it isn't obvious (if it must be assumed), then just announce it. > I cannot see the distinction. Please explain it to me if you can. I think it's more reasonable to expect that everyone understands that equip actions are undirected and at +1 stealth than everyone is aware of Lucita's card text. I don't see her in play much. But really, there's no distinction. It's part of action declaration. In my opinion, some of this stuff can be omitted if it's clear that everyone is aware of it. But it's still a good idea to develop the habit of fully declaring an action. One of the first times I played vtes with Ben Peal, I noticed how he would declare Kindred Spirits actions as (looking right at me) "bleed you for two gaining a pool if successful." It seemed strange to me at the time, but over time I've come to realize that by quickly and clearly declaring your action, you actually save time in the long run. I won't ask him how much the bleed is for. Nobody will ask him why he just gained a pool when the bleed lands. It's actually faster. >> So tap the minion and say "bleed you for 3 costing 1 blood." And really, >> announcing the cost is probably optional in this case if everyone present >> is aware of the cost of Govern the Unaligned. In the original example, >> the player of Aaron's Feeding Razor was apparently not aware of the cost, >> so it should've been announced. > > I disagree. They player was entirely aware of the cost, he simply > didn't make the correlation between the cost of the item and his > current pool level. Just as in a previous example in this thread, a > player was aware what Form of Corruption did, he just didn't make the > link between a Form with one counter on it and what would happen if he > Gathered out a minion with one blood on it. > > It's not that he didn't know, he just didn't click. If that's the case, then it's a good argument for declaring an action correctly. If the player had better habits about declaring actions, he would've said "Smudge gets Aaron's Feeding Razor costing 1 pool." And everybody knows he is expecting to spend a pool as opposed to thinking Aaron's was free. I confess I was assuming the player thought the Razor was free and that's why he was buying it while on 1 pool. If he didn't know he was at 1 and was gladly paying 1, I think that's different. But that's what judges are for. I'm not trying to judge your tournament from the other side of the globe. > Peter is essentially 100% correct. By these rulings you must either: > > a) Clearly state every time any action is taken or card is played the > full effects of it's play, verbatim, ad nauseum assuming nothing is > known about anything to do with the card, it's nature or the printed > rules pertaining to it I think sometimes this is necessary. vtes has a lot of cards in print. Sometimes at tournaments I run into players who have never before seen a card I'm playing. In that case, it's important to make sure those players understand what's going on. Otherwise they'll just hate the game. Fortunately, this can be done quickly. > b) Allow take-backs on virtually any mistake, on the grounds of > "misplay" because cards aren't ever being announced correctly Again, this is what judges are for. If players are abusing the rules, then they should be punished accordingly. This argument holds no weight with me. Matt Morgan

> It is. Zero stealth is the default. +1 stealth is the default for every Equip action. Yet LSJ is saying it still must be stated. Ergo, nothing can be assumed. Everything must be stated, regardless of default status. > Nope. We merely need to do our best to make sure players are aware of > what's going on and what effects are at play. If mistakes happen, they > can be corrected. Indeed. But doesn't "doing our best" logically consist of reading all text and explaining all effects, everytime we play a card? If we were playing together, I influenced out Lucita, looked directly at you and said "Matt me old chum, younger Sabbat vampires have -1 intercept when attempting to block Lucita's actions. Signal your understanding of this in a manner you see fit." and you vigorously nod your head, I would in all fairness say that I have done enough to ensure you have a full understanding of Lucita and her effects. If at a later point in the game, you are my prey and play a wake with a younger Sabbat vampire, attempting to block Lucita's action and don't have any intercept in hand, then I'm sorry, but that is tough goddamn luck imo. I've told you once, young man, and I shouldn't have to tell you again. But apparently, this is the wrong attitude to have. And that bothers me as a player because it to my mind leads to awful and unneccesary hand-holding, but more importantly as a judge because it calls into question many rulings that I've made in the past that at the time, and to everyone at the table, seemed absolutely fair. > Every equip action that is at +1 stealth should be announced as being at > +1 stealth. What if it's Kisha? Then it's at 0 stealth. What if you > control Carmen? Then it's at +2 stealth. This is part of the action > declaration. Lucita's special should be mentioned when she's acting and > there are younger Sabbat vampires around. I think if there is an effect in play that alters default setting of cards (eg, Black Cat equipping), then it should be plainly stated. But tagging every baseline cardplay with the heads-up that yes, in fact the default settings still apply, just like the last time and just like the next time, seems like madness to me. > In my opinion, some of this stuff can be omitted if it's clear that > everyone is aware of it. But it's still a good idea to develop the habit > of fully declaring an action. One of the first times I played vtes with > Ben Peal, I noticed how he would declare Kindred Spirits actions as > (looking right at me) "bleed you for two gaining a pool if successful." > It seemed strange to me at the time, but over time I've come to realize > that by quickly and clearly declaring your action, you actually save time > in the long run. I won't ask him how much the bleed is for. Nobody will > ask him why he just gained a pool when the bleed lands. It's actually > faster. I can certainly see in some situations how it would be, sure. I confess I try to do the same myself. > I think sometimes this is necessary. vtes has a lot of cards in print. > Sometimes at tournaments I run into players who have never before seen a > card I'm playing. In that case, it's important to make sure those players > understand what's going on. Otherwise they'll just hate the game. > Fortunately, this can be done quickly. Absolutely. From the kick-off of this discussion I've always stated that exception must be taken for new players, and leeway given. I guess I'm thinking in these cases about established players at high- level tournaments with a proven understanding of the basic rules of the game and a goodly amount of experience. > Again, this is what judges are for. If players are abusing the rules, > then they should be punished accordingly. This argument holds no weight > with me. Well, it's not really about abuse, is my point. The Ossian example I stated above - if the player controlling Isabelle demands a take-back after he blocks and realises he cant' strike, would you really consider this abusive? jase

jason...@iinet.net.au wrote: >I'm just saying that by the rules, >and as per LSJ's statements in this thread, in the above example if >you DIDN'T read Ossian's text aloud when you declared the Rush on >Isabelle, your prey would be perfectly within his rights to put up his >hand, call over a judge and demand a take-back of the block once he >was in combat and realised he couldn't strike. > >This concerns me deeply. This isn't per LSJ's statements in this thread. Indeed, LSJ has explicitly pointed at earlier statements where he says you don't have to clutter the game with tedium out of some desire to show LSJ how he's wrong. Do the players know what's going on? Then there's no problem. The point is that V:TES isn't a game where you get to win by hiding as much information as possible from other players, and seeing how much you can get away with it. -- James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D YOU ARE IN ERROR. EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 NO-ONE IS SCREAMING. 13D7E668C3695D623D5D THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.

jason...@iinet.net.au wrote: >> The rules do not say I need to read every card on the table outloud every >> time anything happens. > > Well, yeah, technically they do. This is what is turning my panties > brown. > > "6.2. All details of the action are declared when the action is > announced, including the target(s), the cost, the effects, etc." > > Ossian's text is part of the effect of the rush. It *must* be > announced if playing by the letter, if not the spirit of the rules. "Reading aloud part of the effect of the rush" is not the same as "reading aloud every card on the table". Some cards on the table may have nothing to do with the action and would therefore no be included in the rules text you quote of "details of the action". And, as stated, when players are reasonable, players can announce just what needs to be announced and let the rest go unstated. And, when reasonable players are not telepathic, sometimes they will misjudge what "needs" to be declared and, being reasonable, will find a way to fix that mistake in a simple and straightforward manner. Again, players who have to get silly in order to avoid doing their part to ensure the games runs smoothly may be better served by finding a game more suited to their style.

On Mar 5, 7:32 pm, jasonsv...@iinet.net.au wrote: > Final round. Clutch play. Player X performs action to oust player Y. > Player Y drops DI. Player Z drops Dark influences. Player Y is going > to be ousted, but cries "Hold the phone chaps, Player X didn't > announce that this was a directed action! Misplay. Rewind please." The judge would be perfectly within his judgement to say "Nope. Keep going." 'Cause that is obvious someone trying to game the system, not someone making an error. > The judge is called over, and even though it might be obvious to > everyone at the table that this is dodgy as hell, it is still 100% > correct by the rules of the game, yes? How is this not advantageous? Rewinding isn't the necessary solution to all mistakes. > Where is the distinction between this "too bad you forgot" and "too > bad you forgot Aaron's costs 1 pool?" Gaining pool from the Edge is optional. Announcing that the Feeding Razor costs 1 pool (and consequently realizing that it is going to oust you, and everyone is on the same page as to what is going on) in not optional. -Peter

On Mar 5, 11:50 pm, jasonsv...@iinet.net.au wrote: > OK, hypothetical for you: I'm not Matt, but I'll answer anyway. > Final round of national tournament. I don't know why it matters if it is the final round of a national tournament, a 10 person weeekend tournament, or a casual game. It should work the same. > You control Ossian. He's been in play for over an hour, doing his > thing. > Your prey controls Isabelle. He is on 3 pool. Isabelle has a Fame on > her. > You announce a Rush action on Isabelle with your Ossian. > Prey declares a block with Isabelle using Enhanced Senses. > > Do you > > a) Ask if he's sure if he wants to do that. > b) Acknowledge the block and proceed to combat. > c) Other. You say "You are aware that you don't get to strike if you play an Auspex card, right?" as that is currently very relevant information. If they say "Oh, uh, no. Forgot about that." you rewind a bit and fix it. No other aspect of the game state has changed. Nothing at all will be impacted. VTES is not a game of memory. VTES is not a game of "Aha! You forgot something important about the line of text buried in 5 point text on a very dense card half way across the table! Advantage: Me!" > If b) and the player realises that Isabelle can't strike once the > combat commences, do you allow a take-back? If the player blocked based on a lack of necessary information, yes. > Ossian's text is part of the effect of the rush. It *must* be > announced if playing by the letter, if not the spirit of the rules. Or, you could just announce things when they become important and fix things as necessary. If someone wants to block Ossian with Auspex? It is very important that his special text about people using Auspex is reiterated. > Understand I'm in no way advocating anybody having to read out the > text of every card they play/use. I'm just saying that by the rules, > and as per LSJ's statements in this thread, in the above example if > you DIDN'T read Ossian's text aloud when you declared the Rush on > Isabelle, your prey would be perfectly within his rights to put up his > hand, call over a judge and demand a take-back of the block once he > was in combat and realised he couldn't strike. Or, the person playing Ossian can say "You realize that you can't strike if you play an Auspex card, right?" when Isabel attempts to block. Which will result in either: A) Your opponent saying "Yup. Come and get me." or B) Your opponent saying "Crap. I forgot about that. Lemme not do that." and putting the Enhanced Senses back in their hand. If they do this every time anyone does anything? They are probably intentionally cheating. Call a judge. As that is what judges are for. If they do this once? It is likely an honset mistake. > This concerns me deeply. Only 'cause you apparently see fixing honest errors as tantamount to opening the door to eating babies and kittens. -Peter

On Thu, 5 Mar 2009, jason...@iinet.net.au wrote: > >> It is. Zero stealth is the default. > > +1 stealth is the default for every Equip action. Yet LSJ is saying it > still must be stated. Ergo, nothing can be assumed. Everything must be > stated, regardless of default status. If you feel that way, fine. Go ahead and say "zero stealth." It doesn't take very long. I'm pretty sure I read somewhere else in this thread that stating the default wasn't necessary. >> Nope. We merely need to do our best to make sure players are aware of >> what's going on and what effects are at play. If mistakes happen, they >> can be corrected. > > Indeed. But doesn't "doing our best" logically consist of reading all > text and explaining all effects, everytime we play a card? No. Only when necessary. > If we were playing together, I influenced out Lucita, looked directly > at you and said "Matt me old chum, younger Sabbat vampires have -1 > intercept when attempting to block Lucita's actions. Signal your > understanding of this in a manner you see fit." and you vigorously nod > your head, I would in all fairness say that I have done enough to > ensure you have a full understanding of Lucita and her effects. Agreed. > If at a later point in the game, you are my prey and play a wake with > a younger Sabbat vampire, attempting to block Lucita's action and > don't have any intercept in hand, then I'm sorry, but that is tough > goddamn luck imo. I've told you once, young man, and I shouldn't have > to tell you again. If it's me, then you're probably right. You might cut me some slack if I am jet-lagged from flying to Australia or very drunk (but then only if I've bought a couple rounds). Otherwise, I probably have turned to a life of cheating and am attempting to game the system. I know what Lucita's text says. > But apparently, this is the wrong attitude to have. And that bothers > me as a player because it to my mind leads to awful and unneccesary > hand-holding, but more importantly as a judge because it calls into > question many rulings that I've made in the past that at the time, and > to everyone at the table, seemed absolutely fair. I can see where you're coming from on this. Really. I know I get pretty annoyed when somebody drops a KRC on the table and then asks if there are any table votes. Really? You didn't see me play all those KRCs and pass them five minutes ago, ousting my prey and doing 5 pool damage to you? You totally missed that? But on the other side of it, players have to have all available information to make decisions. Right, you shouldn't have to read Lucita aloud any time anything happens. But players also shouldn't be making decisions without knowing what her text is. The only really important thing is to try to balance the two. Make sure everyone is aware of what the cards being played do. If mistakes happen, call a judge and have them be corrected. >> Every equip action that is at +1 stealth should be announced as being at >> +1 stealth. What if it's Kisha? Then it's at 0 stealth. What if you >> control Carmen? Then it's at +2 stealth. This is part of the action >> declaration. Lucita's special should be mentioned when she's acting and >> there are younger Sabbat vampires around. > > I think if there is an effect in play that alters default setting of > cards (eg, Black Cat equipping), then it should be plainly stated. But > tagging every baseline cardplay with the heads-up that yes, in fact > the default settings still apply, just like the last time and just > like the next time, seems like madness to me. Right. But it doesn't take very long. Kind of like this exchange: A: nothingbeforerange B: nothingbeforerange A: nomaneuver B: nomaneuver A: handsone B: handsone A: nopress B: nopress A: combat ends. I see experienced players going through that all the time when they are pretty sure the combat is going to end in just slaps (maybe it's a bounced bleed or something), but they still go through the steps because it removes any confusion. And it doesn't take very long. I'm pretty sure I can get that done in 10 seconds if my opponent also knows the dance. <snip boring non-argumentative agreement> >> Again, this is what judges are for. If players are abusing the rules, >> then they should be punished accordingly. This argument holds no weight >> with me. > > Well, it's not really about abuse, is my point. The Ossian example I > stated above - if the player controlling Isabelle demands a take-back > after he blocks and realises he cant' strike, would you really > consider this abusive? That's up to the judge. So let's say my Ossian rushes Isabel. Isabel's player declares a block with Enhanced Senses. This could be for one of these reasons (possibly others): 1) Isabel's player (let's call her Isabel) has forgotten about Ossian's special text. In this case I think a rewind is in order. 2) Isabel believes that Isabel can still set range with her Sniper Rifle if she blocks the action, even though she can't strike. Again, I think a rewind is in order. Isabel didn't understand the rules when she made her decision. 3) Isabel knows full well she's in trouble and her Isabel will wind up in torpor. She is hoping to stall for time or see her next card by playing the Enhanced Senses. Or maybe she can convince the judge that she should be able to set range with the Sniper Rifle even though she can't strike. Here, Isabel is a big, stupid cheat and should be punished accordingly. 4) Isabel knows full well she's in trouble, especially since I have just told her that Ossian's text will forbid a strike if she blocks with auspex and furthermore that her Sniper Rifle will not be useful in such an event (I have fully declared my action because I know Isabel is a big, stupid cheat). She played the Enhanced Senses hoping to top deck something great (Glancing Blow?). She didn't get the top deck and now realizes it's better to save the Enhanced Senses for something else and wants to put it back. Matt Morgan

On Feb 25, 10:07 am, Xexyz <xe...@hotmail.com> wrote: > Well if my friends are going to make fun of me for this, why not the > fine people in the interwebs too? > > All right people, now that my stupidity is out in the open, make me > feel better by sharing your blunders. I've done some pretty stupid things in VTES, and I've travelled some pretty good distances to do it at times.... Some of my best: This one is stupid things I've done prior to a vtes game. Once the game started it was out of my hands. 2006 NAC. Knowing that 3rd edition was not legal until Thursday I made decks to play before and after Thursday during the Week of Nightmares. Sometime on Wednesday I was looking at the deck I was going to play that evening and thought "this would be better with mirror walks" and added them. During the game I got a few turns in, wrecked Darby?'s game by graverobbing Eze and then played a mirror walk on some other turn. Instant DQ. (amusingly enough someone else at the table was also later DQed for 3rd ed card in their deck At last year's Origins I tried to concealed weapon/Bundi/forger's Hammer. It was helpfully pointed out to me that Forger's hammer is not a combat card and cannot be used with concealed weapon. But it didn't stick in my head and I'm pretty sure I tried at least once more in the game. At last year's week of nightmares I inadvertently screwed over my grandprey by convincing him to diablerize my famous vampire with Theo Bell before my predator's rushing imbued dunked and ousted me again. He did, but it didn't occur to me or (apparently) him that he didn't have a prince on the table and he lost Theo to the blood hunt. My prey loved that one. I think Eno was my predator at the time. I felt awful about that one. I should really stop traveling to play vtes at this rate. I'm sure I'll have something new to add after this year's Origins. John P Winnipeg

On Thu, 5 Mar 2009, jason...@iinet.net.au wrote: > OK, hypothetical for you: > > Final round of national tournament. > You control Ossian. He's been in play for over an hour, doing his > thing. > Your prey controls Isabelle. He is on 3 pool. Isabelle has a Fame on > her. > You announce a Rush action on Isabelle with your Ossian. > Prey declares a block with Isabelle using Enhanced Senses. > > Do you > > a) Ask if he's sure if he wants to do that. > b) Acknowledge the block and proceed to combat. > c) Other. > > If b) and the player realises that Isabelle can't strike once the > combat commences, do you allow a take-back? A. I don't want to win because I know the cards better than someone else. I want to win because I outplayed someone else. As for a takeback if a mistake is made, that's not up to me. That's up to the judge, who should be observing this very important final round. I wouldn't have a problem with it either way. It's just a game after all. >> The rules do not say I need to read every card on the table outloud every >> time anything happens. > > Well, yeah, technically they do. This is what is turning my panties > brown. > > "6.2. All details of the action are declared when the action is > announced, including the target(s), the cost, the effects, etc." > > Ossian's text is part of the effect of the rush. It *must* be > announced if playing by the letter, if not the spirit of the rules. > Understand I'm in no way advocating anybody having to read out the > text of every card they play/use. I'm just saying that by the rules, > and as per LSJ's statements in this thread, in the above example if > you DIDN'T read Ossian's text aloud when you declared the Rush on > Isabelle, your prey would be perfectly within his rights to put up his > hand, call over a judge and demand a take-back of the block once he > was in combat and realised he couldn't strike. Every player has a right to ask for a perceived mistake to be corrected no matter what happens. That's got nothing to do with this case. This is why we have judges who should employ judgment. The judge can go "Matt, why are you keeping your card text secret? For shame! Take back the play and continue as normal." The judge can go "I just heard him warn you about that like 15 times as he's been rushing you with Ossian consistently and we let you take back your Enhanced Senses twice. I think by now you know how this card works and you're just wasting everybody's time. The card is played." I mean, if I want to be a pedantic dick, I can do stuff like this. You: Smudge Computer Hacks you. Me: JUDGE!!! He didn't declare his action correctly! Make him take it back!!! Judge: He's absolutely right. You need to declare the action correctly. (Actually, the judge should give me a warning for wasting time, since I could've just asked you to redeclare the action but let's assume he's not a very good judge). You: Oh fine (put card back on library and put Computer Hacking back in hand). Now then, Smudge Computer Hacks you FOR TWO! See James Coup's post about not being a dick. Then this stuff doesn't happen. > This concerns me deeply. There, there. It'll be okay. Matt Morgan

> This isn't per LSJ's statements in this thread. > > Indeed, LSJ has explicitly pointed at earlier statements where he says > you don't have to clutter the game with tedium out of some desire to > show LSJ how he's wrong. I have no desire to show anyone that they're wrong. I have a desire to understand where the line is being drawn - the conclusion I've reached is that it's being drawn in a totally subjective place. I'm just going to have to muddle on and call each play as I see it, as I do now, and if the line I draw is in a different place than LSJ, then so be it. Case in point was the Lucita example. As the action was announced, Lucita's text was relevant, as no eligible blockers were younger Sabbat vampires (though the arguement could be made that if any younger AUS or Ahrimanes vamps were on the table, her special is always relevant). When the bleed got flicked, her special became relevant. Some people would say her special should be re-iterated at this point. But imo, if the player who controlled Lucita announced her special to the table when she was brought into play, and 90 minutes later somebody has forgotten it, that's too bad, so sad. As long as players are taking reasonable measures to reveal card effects, I'm going to insist that players take responsibility to heeding and remembered those efforts. > The point is that V:TES isn't a game where you get to win by hiding as > much information as possible from other players, and seeing how much you > can get away with it. I agree, but nobody is talking about information being hidden. The confusion seems to lie in what is considered "enough" in terms of making other players aware of what is going on during play. jase

jason...@iinet.net.au wrote: > But imo, if the player who controlled Lucita announced her > special to the table when she was brought into play, and 90 minutes > later somebody has forgotten it, that's too bad, so sad. As long as > players are taking reasonable measures to reveal card effects, I'm > going to insist that players take responsibility to heeding and > remembered those efforts. Also keep in mind that the rules specify that all action are completely announced, every time. Including stealth, cost, etc. >> The point is that V:TES isn't a game where you get to win by hiding as >> much information as possible from other players, and seeing how much you >> can get away with it. > > I agree, but nobody is talking about information being hidden. The > confusion seems to lie in what is considered "enough" in terms of > making other players aware of what is going on during play. If there's confusion, then the solution is to announce more, not assume more.

> I'm not Matt, but I'll answer anyway. That's cool, i'm interested in hearing the opinion of anyone who regularly judges. This effects everyone. > I don't know why it matters if it is the final round of a national > tournament, a 10 person weeekend tournament, or a casual game. It > should work the same. Oobviously most people are more lax on ruling at casual games, hence the term casual. But I was trying to put the question in a high- pressure, high-stakes context, because in terms of being a VTES judge, the example is probably one of the most important calls you'll ever make. > You say "You are aware that you don't get to strike if you play an > Auspex card, right?" as that is currently very relevant information. > If they say "Oh, uh, no. Forgot about that." you rewind a bit and fix > it. No other aspect of the game state has changed. Nothing at all will > be impacted. VTES is not a game of memory. VTES is not a game of "Aha! > You forgot something important about the line of text buried in 5 > point text on a very dense card half way across the table! Advantage: > Me!" If Ossian has been in play for an hour rushing about and slapping vamps around, and his text has previously been clearly stated to the table, and the player of Isabelle has the opportunity at any point before the block to ask for clarification or just plain old pick up the card and read it, that should be enough imo. I agree that VTES shouldn't be a game of "AHA!" but at some point, I believe it is beyond the responsibility of the table, particularly those who are going to be advantaged by you being ousted, to stop holding your hand and allow you to play your own game. At any point, some other guy on the table is free to pipe up and say "Dude, don't block that with Auspex, Ossian will eat your head." But I fail to see why the guy who is going to oust you if that minion gets binned has to wrap you in swaddling as he attempts to do so. If I were judging that particular example, and Isabelle's player asked for a take-back, the conversation would go something like this: "Did Ossian's text get clearly announced when he was brought into play?" "Yes." "Did Ossian's controlled prevent you from reading his card text?" "No." "Did you ask for clarification of Ossian's text and recieve no answer?" "No." "Does anyone at the table think thi splayer can credibly state he had no way of knowing what Ossian's text was?" "No." "Did you tap you minion, declare your block and place your ES on the table?" "Yes." "Block succeeds. Combat begins. Play on." "Oh but I forgot..." "Yep, you did, sorry. Block succeeds. Combat begins. Play on." Maybe that's harsh. Dunno. But it's the way any tournament I've played in or seen has been judged. In the original ivory Bow example, i think Bernird was 100% correct in allowing the player to oust himself with his own Ivory Bow equip action. Obviously, this is just where some people differ I guess, and it's up to individual judges to do the best they can, and try to be as fair as they can. I will continue to do so, but I'm also not going to wrap players in cotton wool. > Only 'cause you apparently see fixing honest errors as tantamount to > opening the door to eating babies and kittens. Mmm, babies. jase

> If it's me, then you're probably right. You might cut me some slack if I > am jet-lagged from flying to Australia or very drunk (but then only if > I've bought a couple rounds). Otherwise, I probably have turned to a life > of cheating and am attempting to game the system. I know what Lucita's > text says. And this is all I'm saying. Imo, clearly announcing the special text of a minion, once, as it is brought into play, SHOULD be enough in a tournament situation. Every time I act with Donal O'Connor, I should not have to say "Vampires burn a blood to block". If I announce it once, good enough. If you've burned blood for blocking him on previous attempts, even better. Ditto Lucita. Ditto any minion/card/effect imo. Players can always pause and ask for clarification before declaring action/reaction if they choose. > But on the other side of it, players have to have all available > information to make decisions. Right, you shouldn't have to read Lucita > aloud any time anything happens. But players also shouldn't be making > decisions without knowing what her text is. The only really important > thing is to try to balance the two. Make sure everyone is aware of what > the cards being played do. If mistakes happen, call a judge and have them > be corrected. Yep, I agree. But for consistency's sake, the line I'll be drawing in the sand is "clearly announce the effects of any card/minion you bring into play as you bring it into play, and allow time for clarification from affected players on any card text currently being played/in play." > I see experienced players going through that all the time when they are > pretty sure the combat is going to end in just slaps (maybe it's a bounced > bleed or something), but they still go through the steps because it > removes any confusion. And it doesn't take very long. I'm pretty sure I > can get that done in 10 seconds if my opponent also knows the dance. Yeah, but expand that across a hundred different card plays and a hundred different actions over the course of a game and it starts to take a long time. Hence my desire to clip away that which is not entirely neccessary, such as statements of (D) or Undirected action, baseline stealth, etc. > That's up to the judge. So let's say my Ossian rushes Isabel. Isabel's > player declares a block with Enhanced Senses. This could be for one of > these reasons (possibly others): > > 1) Isabel's player (let's call her Isabel) has forgotten about Ossian's > special text. In this case I think a rewind is in order. Yeah see this is where you and I differ, I'm afraid. If the text has been clearly read previously in the game, if Isabelle has been previously availed of all the facts, her perception has not been muddied by other players and she had ample time to make equiry and seek clarification, and just plain FORGOT, then that's tough imo. If I forget that agg dmg will put my vamp in torpor and block your Ivory bow wielding minon, that's tough. If I forget that my Redirection can only be used on younger vamps and was counting on it for defense against your Imbued bleed rather than a block, that's tough. Forgetting what you've been told over the course of the game is bad play. Bad play is not illegal, it doesn't contravene any rules. It just happens sometimes, and the players who drop the ball should just wear it. it should nto Be up to other players or a judge to correct you and allow you to play on. I f*cked up, I should take responsibility for it. > 2) Isabel believes that Isabel can still set range with her Sniper Rifle > if she blocks the action, even though she can't strike. Again, I think a > rewind is in order. Isabel didn't understand the rules when she made her > decision. Again, these rules are clearly stated and the player is fully able to read them, and seek clarification before a block. If she didn't understand them, I'm sorry, but that is nobody's fault but the player in question. If in doubt, she can always ask before she reacts. Perhaps this makes me a b*stard. Dunno. jase

On Mar 10, 12:42 pm, jasonsv...@iinet.net.au wrote: > > Only 'cause you apparently see fixing honest errors as tantamount to > > opening the door to eating babies and kittens. > > Mmm, babies. > > jase That explains so much about the Newcastle playgroup its astounding. *Feels a moment of Perfect Clarity*

> That explains so much about the Newcastle playgroup its astounding. > *Feels a moment of Perfect Clarity* I'm not from Newie. Perish the thought! :) Melbourne, me.

On Mar 9, 9:42 pm, jasonsv...@iinet.net.au wrote: > If Ossian has been in play for an hour rushing about and slapping > vamps around, and his text has previously been clearly stated to the > table, and the player of Isabelle has the opportunity at any point > before the block to ask for clarification or just plain old pick up > the card and read it, that should be enough imo. Yeah, see, I don't agree with that concept. VTES is a game where there are lots and lots of little words on lots of little cards all over the place. And expecting that everyone remembers everything that everything says all the time seems unreasonable, especially when it is easy enough just to reiterate important information when it becomes important. With the Ossian example, that an opposing minion doesn't get to strike if they played an auspex card is something that likely, really, doesn't come up that much. So reiterating whenever anyone decides to try and block with auspex strikes me as totally reasonable. > I agree that VTES > shouldn't be a game of "AHA!" but at some point, I believe it is > beyond the responsibility of the table, particularly those who are > going to be advantaged by you being ousted, to stop holding your hand > and allow you to play your own game. No one is being asked to hold anyone's hand. But if we want to avoid reading all cards fully all the time, the best option is simply to accept that once and a while someone is going to act based on a lack of or misunderstanding of readily available information (like the text on Ossian). And rather than punish someone for them not having all available information (that they should, by virtue of the rules) when they need it, it strikes me as completely prudent to accept that once and a while, you'll have to fix things as they come up. > At any point, some other guy on > the table is free to pipe up and say "Dude, don't block that with > Auspex, Ossian will eat your head." At which point, how is that any different at all than what I'm advocating? If someone across the table says "Don't block that with auspex...", the implication is you've tried to block with auspex, and things might need to be rewound and cards put back in hand, just like if the guy running Ossian says that. I'm not arguing that it is the full total responsibility of the acting methuselah to fix all errors (although, technically, it is their responsibility to make sure all necessary information is known), just that if someone makes a decision based on a lack of information and then for whatever reason decide it is a bad idea due to the lack of information (like trying to block Ossian with Auspex 'cause they didn't realize that they would get no strike or playing Aaron's Razor 'cause they didn't realize it cost 1 pool), it isn't at all unreasonable to let them fix it. > If I were judging that particular example, and Isabelle's player asked > for a take-back, the conversation would go something like this: > > "Did Ossian's text get clearly announced when he was brought into > play?" > "Yes." > "Did Ossian's controlled prevent you from reading his card text?" > "No." > "Did you ask for clarification of Ossian's text and recieve no > answer?" > "No." > "Does anyone at the table think thi splayer can credibly state he had > no way of knowing what Ossian's text was?" > "No." > "Did you tap you minion, declare your block and place your ES on the > table?" > "Yes." > "Block succeeds. Combat begins. Play on." > "Oh but I forgot..." > "Yep, you did, sorry. Block succeeds. Combat begins. Play on." > > Maybe that's harsh. Dunno. You forgot "did the acting methuselah announce during the action that Ossian prevents an opponent from striking if they play an auspex card?" If the answer is "no", then they should get to fix their decision if relevant information suddenly becomes relevant. > Mmm, babies. They are tasty, I mean, er, this would never lead to eating babies! -Peter

jason...@iinet.net.au wrote: > Again, these rules are clearly stated and the player is fully able to > read them, and seek clarification before a block. If she didn't > understand them, I'm sorry, but that is nobody's fault but the player > in question. If in doubt, she can always ask before she reacts. No. It's primarily the fault of the player whose responsibility it was to announce the effect (or, when seated with reasonable players, to ensure that everyone knows the effect, whether by announcing it or by some level of understanding and good sportsmanship).

> Also keep in mind that the rules specify that all action are completely > announced, every time. Including stealth, cost, etc. This means that going 100% by the rules, every time I act with, say Dónal O'Connor, I must state "Any vampire blocking Dónal burns 1 blood before combat begins" This also means that, going 100% by the rules, unless I announce the text when I declare an action, even if I have announced the text a dozen times before over the course of the game, a player can call a judge over if he blocks Dónal and ask for a takeback when things are going badly. Going 100% by the rules, the judge must declare the play illegal. Of course, this goes against your points about judges using judgement, and cluttering up the game with "uneccessary" card text. If the player in question pulled this stunt, it would be obvious to most that he is cheating, given the previous dozen statements of Dónal's text. And I take all that on board. All I'm saying is, going by the rules, the player is within his rights to demand a take-back, and by using what most would consider fair judgement, the judge is essentially *ignoring* this rule if he declares the play legal. Exactly where and when a judge chooses to ignore this rule is up to the individual judge. But it's probably going to be ignored at some point. jase

On Mar 10, 1:17 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] I think the biggest difference you are going to find, and we keep whacking up against, is probably a cultural (either as Aussies or because the way our playgroups have grown) difference. I suspect that most of the Australian playgroups have an underlying thread of "It's your fault if you don't ask" that is at least equal to "Its your responsibility to tell me what I needed to know up front". So I think you will find from a lot of Australian players there is the assumption that if Ossian is rushing you Minion X and you intend to throw Isabel de Leon in the way, first thing you'd do is ask if you can read the card or have the card read out. Just to double check more often than not (I do that often, and it gives you a bit more of a window to think). If you didn't ask, then you a) didn't want to know or b) thought you knew what it said... and then you acted accordingly. If that turns out to cause you issues then "sucks to be you".

On Mar 10, 3:20 am, jasonsv...@iinet.net.au wrote: > > Also keep in mind that the rules specify that all action are completely > > announced, every time. Including stealth, cost, etc. > > This means that going 100% by the rules, every time I act with, say > Dónal O'Connor, I must state "Any vampire blocking Dónal burns 1 blood > before combat begins" Seriously, is that a problem? And yeah, if you forget it one time then you can just take back any blocking attempts made by someone who didn't realise that the acting minion was that particular vampire.

Juggernaut1981 wrote: > I think the biggest difference you are going to find, and we keep > whacking up against, is probably a cultural (either as Aussies or > because the way our playgroups have grown) difference. > > I suspect that most of the Australian playgroups have an underlying > thread of "It's your fault if you don't ask" that is at least equal to > "Its your responsibility to tell me what I needed to know up front". I think a lot of groups are like that, not just Aussies. I know quite a few in America were like that in the past. But the rules are quite clear. If some group had a cultural bias against "cheesy" decks, that still wouldn't make it OK for the judge to judge with a bias against those decks (or to ban them outright, or whatever).

jason...@iinet.net.au wrote: >> Also keep in mind that the rules specify that all action are completely >> announced, every time. Including stealth, cost, etc. > > This means that going 100% by the rules, every time I act with, say > Dónal O'Connor, I must state "Any vampire blocking Dónal burns 1 blood > before combat begins" > > This also means that, going 100% by the rules, unless I announce the > text when I declare an action, even if I have announced the text a > dozen times before over the course of the game, a player can call a > judge over if he blocks Dónal and ask for a takeback when things are > going badly. Going 100% by the rules, the judge must declare the play > illegal. No. The judge can be aware that some things can be declared by mutual understanding. When mutual understanding fails, however, the onus lies with the declarer, not the audience. It's up to the judge to decide if a player's claim is factual or if the player is cheating. For Donal, his ability should be stated every time, because it is so important (well, unless surrounded by Imbued decks). Not just a dozen times. Is it so difficult to say "Donal bleeds you for 1, and blocking costs vampires a blood. Do you block?" ? > Of course, this goes against your points about judges using judgement, > and cluttering up the game with "uneccessary" card text. If the player > in question pulled this stunt, it would be obvious to most that he is > cheating, given the previous dozen statements of Dónal's text. And I > take all that on board. All I'm saying is, going by the rules, the > player is within his rights to demand a take-back, and by using what > most would consider fair judgement, the judge is essentially > *ignoring* this rule if he declares the play legal. The judge is understanding this rule and the ability for some things to be communicated implicitly. It's up to the judge to use judgment to decide what was communicated and what the player didn't successfully communicate. For groups just starting out with the proper rules, especially after years of playing it some other way, I'd suggest getting really meticulous with the announcements, just for practice, and then finding the line of what needs to be declared by backing off (instead of the other way around -- declaring as little as possible as then having to argue about how far to move forward to the line each time). > Exactly where and when a judge chooses to ignore this rule is up to > the individual judge. But it's probably going to be ignored at some > point. Yes, there are bad judgments, occasionally. That's inherent in having judges, unfortunately. And there may be some judges who embrace bad judgments on purpose. That's not very common, but it can happen. Such violations (the latter type) should be reported to the VEKN.

On Mar 9, 10:20 pm, jasonsv...@iinet.net.au wrote: > This means that going 100% by the rules, every time I act with, say > Dónal O'Connor, I must state "Any vampire blocking Dónal burns 1 blood > before combat begins" It does, yes. Or, conversely, you could not announce that every time, and either: A) Point it out if someone tries to block, as it has suddenly become relevant. or B) Declare when it happens, and if someone says "Oh, uh, I didn't know that...", let them back up and fix it if needed. All three of these work. But if you *aren't* going to announce it every time, you need to be willing to fix it if it becomes important, rather than say "Well, you should have known that Donal does that when you block..." and then punish someone for a lack of necessary information. > This also means that, going 100% by the rules, unless I announce the > text when I declare an action, even if I have announced the text a > dozen times before over the course of the game, a player can call a > judge over if he blocks Dónal and ask for a takeback when things are > going badly. Going 100% by the rules, the judge must declare the play > illegal. No, they can't ask for a takeback when things are going badly. If they block, and then you say "Oh, you burn a blood before combat" and they say "I didn't know that. Let me block with someone else", then fixing it is sensical. The game state hasn't changed since the block occured and the effect became known. Nothing has happened. It is perfectly reasonable to fix this. I can't in a million years see a judge agreeing with a situation where someone blocks Donal, burns a blood, gets into the middle of a fight, gets grappled and creamed, and then says "Judge! My opponent didn't announce Donal's special power! I demand a take back!". And that this sort of "slippery slope" argument is one that you seem to be building your argument on makes it all kind of dubious. Judges get to use judgement. Some requests for a takeback are completely reasonable ("Oh, I didn't know I didn't get to strike if I played an Auspex card. I'd rather not block then...") and some are not ("My opponent didn't declare Donal's special before he declared his action, and now that I have been torporized, I demand that the action get undone!"). The Judge gets to decide which is which. But I'd like to think that most judges can see the difference between the two. -Peter

On Mar 4, 11:46 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > > I can't find a rule anywhere about having to declare cost, or inherint > > stealth, or the fact that this action will or will not oust anyone, > > including myself as part of declaring an action. > > for actions, there's > > 6.2.1. Announce the Action > All details of the action are declared when the action is announced, including > the target(s), the cost, the effects, etc. > > and for all cards in general, there's > > 1.6.1.1. Playing Cards > The player completely declares the effect of the card when it is played. Looking through the rules, I couldn't find anything similar about declaring blocks. Let's say that Stanislava is bleeding with Govern the Unaligned (0 stealth), and the targeted methusaleh declares a block attempt with Anton (who's got +1 intercept). Would it be the responsibility of the blocking methusaleh to declare the (for the moment unneeded) intercept? Or is it enough to just state that Anton attempts to block, and hope that the acting played will tap his Backways for no good (assuming xe's got no additional stealth)?

henrik wrote: > On Mar 4, 11:46 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > >>> I can't find a rule anywhere about having to declare cost, or inherint >>> stealth, or the fact that this action will or will not oust anyone, >>> including myself as part of declaring an action. >> for actions, there's >> >> 6.2.1. Announce the Action >> All details of the action are declared when the action is announced, including >> the target(s), the cost, the effects, etc. >> >> and for all cards in general, there's >> >> 1.6.1.1. Playing Cards >> The player completely declares the effect of the card when it is played. > > Looking through the rules, I couldn't find anything similar about > declaring blocks. Nor likely about using cards in play. But it is true for all effects. > Let's say that Stanislava is bleeding with Govern the Unaligned (0 > stealth), and the targeted methusaleh declares a block attempt with > Anton (who's got +1 intercept). > Would it be the responsibility of the blocking methusaleh to declare > the (for the moment unneeded) intercept? Yes: "Anton attempts to block with +1 intercept." > Or is it enough to just state that Anton attempts to block, and hope > that the acting played will tap his Backways for no good (assuming > xe's got no additional stealth)? That second question itself should have made clear the answer to the first question. If not, the reader is directed to my earlier posts in this thread.

[ quoted text not captured ] Yeah, I was fairly sure what the answer would be. But since I've been wrong before, and the rulebook wasn't crystal clear on the subject I thought it was better to make sure. Thanks for the quick answer.

Seem to have gone off topic some but my friends reminded me of my "claim to fame" in this regard. I was playing my Miguel Santo Domingo - Sabbat Pot deck. Now this deck had gone through many many iterations. So many that I lost track. So anyway, one time I was ending my turn and one of my vamps had a vast wealth on him. It was my last action, no one blocked the Vast Wealth action so I told my prey that I only had one type of piece of equipment left in my deck (think it was the Heart or Palatial Estate or something) so he could start his turn as I searched. Turns out I was wrong. I start flipping cards to find equipment and then I flipped over ... Bloodstone. I forgot I put that in a while ago as an attempt at a rush/intercept card. So I basically did a Vast Wealth action and got +2 intercept... against... myself??? Yeah... I rock. :-)