Greets. I have results for only 3 of the 4 events since I came back
early 'cause I have to work (or should I say "be at my desk") today.
The first constructed event had only about 25 or so players. Curiously
small by recent measures. The finalists were Niki Stewart, John
"Giovanni" Knowles, Paul Johnson, Alex Harmon, and David Tatu. Seating
was clockwise like this:
Niki * Dan * John * David * Paul
Very exciting last 10 minutes of this final. Niki was near death and
John was nearer. Alex was going to take down John but Paul had a
Golconda to give John a bunch of pool from. But, Paul knew John had a
Life Boon and he was afraid that John would play the Life Boon to save
Niki. With little pool John couldn't effectively do that so Paul was
reluctant to give play the Golconda on John. They worked out a deal
and Paul played the Golconda. Alex, obviously unhappy with the
arrangement, played a Sudden Reversal. Fortunately for John, in the
first moments of the game he called a Rumors of Gehenna and gave the
benefit to "everyone but Alex". With his second Master Phase Action,
Paul played a *second* Golconda on John, putting John's pool out of
reach of Alex's final assault. So, with moments remaining, Paul
launched his assault on the top-seeded Niki. Paul got her down low
and needed one more turn. Niki drew into the wakes she needed to
live. Tatu made a last ditch effort to oust Paul which came up just a
pool shy. IIRC. Niki had 1 untapped minion--as did Paul. I saw a
Govern and Day Op in his hand and was sure he'd throw them down ASAP
since there were only *seconds* to go in the game. But *HE DIDN'T*
play them!!! He played a Rapid Heal to get a second minion from
Torpor. He played the first Day Op'd Govern and Niki deflected it to
Alex. As it turned out, Paul was correct in his guess that Niki would
have a deflection and his Rapid Heal was much more necessary than it
looked to me at the time. Paul went to do his second action when time
ran out. Wow. Niki won from prior round seeding.
Second tournament (>30 players?) had Ben Peal and Stuart Smith and
youngster Brian McGreal (his first final), and uh, Alex Harmon and
another person fighting it out. I didn't watch the whole thing.
Stuart got two quick VPs then fell to Brian. Ben eventually got
through Brian's massive pool gain but Stuart had the better prior
round seeding with his small cap-presence bleed/anarch deck and took
first place.
The storyline tournament had 38 players, including about 6 I had never
met before. We were even visited by the infamous Semsith himself
(pics soon to be on the vtesinla.org website). It seems he took time
out from his busy schedule messing with Baltimore kindred and
preparing for his annual delivery of xmas gifts to children around the
world. Several players came in costume and that added a lot to the
event.
The most highly represented clans were the Lasombra (6), Brujah (5),
and Nosf. (4). All Cam and Sabbat clans were represented save for the
Brujah-Anti and Gangrel-Anti. Keith Thompson played an Ally-only
(using Wendel to start the process) deck (thought the crypt was
Tremere-Anti).
Semsith first meddled to put newlyweds, David an Robyn Tatu as
Predator and Prey in the second round. And, in a strange
role-reversal for the couple, David was this time the Prey instead of
the Predator. Robyn played Semsith on David and was able to keep it
going for a while. The Lasombra struggled with infighting as 3 of the
6 decks appeared together in the first round.
The finals were odd. Paul Johnson was playing some mean Brujah that
were trying the counter-clockwise rush combat tactic (going backwards
all the way around for 2 VP). He had success with this in the prelim
rounds and was the 2nd highest seed in the finals. He first whacked
Dan Harting who was always just a bit away from launching his Palla
Grande assault on Paul but Paul weakened Dan too much and Dan fell--to
Tatu's benefit. Paul successfully ended Tatu's game as well--to
Szilan Fodor's benefit. Marcos and Szilan and Paul fought for a while
but with time and Paul's library running out it was clear that Paul
couldn't close the deal. Time ended, Szilan won with 1.5 VPs. He
played essentially the same Tremere deck he won the PAcific
Championships (N.A. Qualifier) 2001 with.
Ben Peal actually sat in a visiting judge for the 4th and final event
Sunday night. I don't know how it turned out though. I'm sure we'll
see some additional info later.
On 18 Feb 2002 09:50:50 -0800, Robert Goudie wrote:
>Ben Peal actually sat in a visiting judge for the 4th and final event
>Sunday night. I don't know how it turned out though. I'm sure we'll
>see some additional info later.
I saw the closing moments in which Robyn ousted Dan Harting to win the
event. Well done.
Andrew
> Keith Thompson played an Ally-only
> (using Wendel to start the process) deck (thought the crypt was
> Tremere-Anti).
Actually, the ally that serves as the catalyst for the deck is Jake
Washington (Hunter). Since Jake is both a Master Card and an ally, he
can come into play in the Master Phase, and then recruit any ally that
has no specific skill or clan requirement (like a Rafastio Ghoul).
For the LA Storyline Tournament my goal was to not influence any
vampires and play strictly with allies. If I get Jake in my opening
hand, I am golden. In my first Storyline game, I failed to get Jake
and so I died after 45 minutes to a Lasombra vote/bloat deck played by
the incomparable Lasombra himself (Jeff Thompson). Before the game
even started I announced I had no intention of ever bringing out a
vampire provided no one would interfere with my deck (i.e. Sudden
Reversal on Jake). Sadly, I never saw Jake the entire game despite 6
of them and 2 Deal with the Devils. When I finally realized it was
hopeless I influenced to my "best" vampire in my uncontrolled region,
Richard Tauber, only to discover, to my sheer horror, that he has -1
intercept against Lasombra. (Thanks for pointing that out, Jeff!)
Oh, well. I now had 1 hour 15 min to stretch, eat, and wander
aimlessly about the room!
In the second game, I had Jake in my opening hand, and I was going
first, so I knew I didn't have to influence any vampires if I didn't
want to. However, I was a little gun shy from game #1, and I also had
Nephandus (Mage)--the best ally ever, in my opinion--in my opening
hand, so I influenced out Brooke (Tremere Anti-Tribu) and next turn
recruited Nephandus (Mage). Later, I also influenced out Heinrick
Schlempt (Tremere Anti-Tribu) for an extra blocker. I never brought
out any other vampires. (As a point of information, on my fourth turn
I had 6 minions!) Eventually, however, I died to Lasombra stealth
bleed (What?!?, a Lasombra predator again!), but I was quite happy
with Talaq, the Immortal: at the end of the game he had a Gas-Powered
Chainsaw, a Flak Jacket, a Sport Bike, and Mr. Winthrop. Sadly,
though, he was tapped, and I, of course, being an all ally deck (or
nearly so) had no untaps. I also had two Burst of Sunlight in hand,
but that didn't matter much. Also, Nephandus (Mage) #1 had a Sport
Bike and an Ivory Bow, and Nephandus (Mage) #2 had a Flak Jacket and a
Sengir Dagger. Suffice to say, I was very happen with my development
despite 0 VP. I'll work on the deck, trim it down, beef it up, and
play it again. I think the deck can be made into a tournament deck
worthy of the "ALL MASTER CARD DECK", but it needs a massive overhaul.
I may also need to play with more than 6 Memories of Mortality, but
I'll figure it out. At least I tried something different!
As an aside, it is too bad Meddling of Smesith is a vote card because
none of my poor, misunderstood allies could call it.
Keith M. Thompson
Prince of Las Vegas
P.S. Hey, Dan Harting, one of these days I'll get you. And I'll do
it with this deck! You've got some nerve: In response to a
clarification of what "minion" means you said, "What else is there?"
I was mortified. I looked you straight in the face and said very
coldly, "Allies." Someday, Dan, someday . . .
> P.S. Hey, Dan Harting, one of these days I'll get you.
> And I'll do it with this deck! You've got some nerve: In response to a
> clarification of what "minion" means you said, "What else is there?"
> I was mortified. I looked you straight in the face and said very
> coldly, "Allies." Someday, Dan, someday . . .
Could you put this in context? I don't remember it. I am keenly aware
of
most of the differences between Allies and Vampires - for example that
Nephandus with Sengir Dagger that you intimidated poor Gary with deals
0 agg with each dagger strike - and that {Allies} U {Vampires} =
{Minions}.
I know you can't draw out an ally's beast, pull it's fangs, or make it
obey.
I don't keep track of whether they can vote or which retainers they
can employ.
*shrug*
I knew allies have their little advantages, but there's a reason the
game isn't
named "Ally: The Eternal Struggle." I feel they were meant to be a
side-show
only. I'm even offended by the gross efficacy of Far Mastery becuase
I don't
think allies need hosing.
As for any hostility that you may sense from me: I don't dislike you.
Maybe I go too far sometimes regarding VTES opponents as enemies;
maybe our styles conflict.
- Dan
On 19 Feb 2002 14:23:03 -0800, Keith Thompson wrote:
>For the LA Storyline Tournament my goal was to not influence any
>vampires and play strictly with allies.
That's an amusing idea which did not come across at the time. Perhaps
you could have gained some useful PR spin by claiming that you were
trying to win control of Baltimore for humanity and the hunters,
cleansing it of all kindred. This would have made me regard you quite
favourably. As it was, you came across as a veteran player setting up
to rip us all to pieces with a well-honed, evil, rush/intercept deck.
Having been on the receiving end of War Ghouls in both rounds of the
London event which also featured lots of Shambling Hordes, I went into
this one regarding allies as a serious threat than an entertaining
novelty. I was therefore feeling quite righteous when I played Far
Mastery to steal one of yours.
>Suffice to say, I was very happen with my development despite 0 VP.
>I'll work on the deck, trim it down, beef it up, and play it again.
You may need to work on the deck's pool gain as you can't count on
Pranks to fund you as they did in our game. The Pentex Subversion
didn't do you much good - removing it became the focus of my play and
so helped Dan win. Perhaps a Powerbase would be better card for your
allies to defend.
>Prince of Las Vegas
Someone suggested that I should come to the GAMA trade show in March.
I'd quite like to visit Vegas anyway but it would help if I knew that
there would be some VTES action at this event. Will there?
Andrew
> Could you put this in context? I don't remember it.
It was during a pick-up game on Friday night. You were playing your
Followers of Set deck with a Bloodlines guy that kicks ass (white and
red striped background). (Sorry, I don't have Bloodlines committed to
memory yet.) You know: more stealth bleed crap that takes little
skill to put together. ;-) (i.e. sarcasm). You were my predator.
> I am keenly aware of most of the differences between Allies and Vampires -
> for example that Nephandus with Sengir Dagger that you intimidated poor Gary > with deals 0 agg with each dagger strike
OK, you got me there. I forgot that Nephandus has 0 STRENGTH and that
Sengir Dagger requires strength to inflict aggravated damage. Of
course, if you were so "offended" by this you could have pointed this
out to ol' Gary. Still, unless Gary's got Majesty in hand, which he
obviously didn't since he didn't block Nephandus with the "useless"
Sengir Dagger, Nephandus would have shaved off two blood from his
blocking vampire without breaking a sweat. Given enough time, all of
Gary's vampires would be reduced to hunting fools! Sometimes one pool
loss is easier to handle than two blood loss from a vampire.
Situations, Dan, situations . . .
> As for any hostility that you may sense from me: I don't dislike you.
> Maybe I go too far sometimes regarding VTES opponents as enemies;
> maybe our styles conflict.
I wasn't being hostile; I was being sarcastic. Of course, sarcasm is
much harder to convey in writing than in person, so I apologize for
not being clearer with my meanings. However, I do agree with you that
you *often* regard VTES opponents as enemies, sometimes to your own
detriment. I must say dealing with you (in the context of the game)
is like trying to get a rock to do push ups, but as you say, perhaps
it's a style conflict. However, I feel that in "friendly" pick-up
games, you could be more forthcoming and less serious with your fellow
Methuselahs. It is a "friendly" pick-up game, after all. Perhaps a
beer or two would help. Until next time . . .
[ quoted text not captured ]
Robert Goudie wrote:
> Ben Peal actually sat in a visiting judge for the 4th and final event
> Sunday night. I don't know how it turned out though. I'm sure we'll
> see some additional info later.
There's my cue! :)
The finals of the 4th tournament consisted of:
Robyn Tatu - fun with superior Presence
Dan Harting - that damn !Toreador deck of his
Dennis Lien - Anarch Revolts + Anson
Stephen Fazio - something with Arika and other large vamps
Szilan Fodor - Salubri + Baali
Robyn scored 4 VP and the win after the table was pummelled by Dennis'
Anarch Revolt barrage. Dan put Dennis out of everyone's misery for his
lone VP.
Robyn, you got a decklist to post?
- Ben Peal, Prince of Boston
fu...@mindstorm.com
> Robert Goudie wrote:
> > Ben Peal actually sat in a visiting judge for the 4th and final event
> > Sunday night. I don't know how it turned out though. I'm sure we'll
> > see some additional info later.
>
Ben Wrote>
> Robyn scored 4 VP and the win after the table was pummelled by Dennis'
> Anarch Revolt barrage. Dan put Dennis out of everyone's misery for his
> lone VP.
>
> Robyn, you got a decklist to post?
>
>
> - Ben Peal, Prince of Boston
> fu...@mindstorm.com
ORCON 2002 #4 & The deck
After having endured no table wins and VP ties all weekend, I decided
to create and play some Presence crypt machine cheese.
On my first table were :
Me – presence/weenie bleed
Steve Bucy – Kaisid bleed horror
Dennis Lien – Anson/Anarch Revolt
Steven Fazio – Titled vampires that Golconda a lot.
Alex Harmon – Free State Rant/Setites
There were only about 20 minutes of solid play in this round and at
least 45 minutes of negotiation, table rearranging, debate, and some
begging.
The highlight was a deal made where Alex would help Dennis cycle
Delaying Tactics by calling votes to remove Anarchs. Who ever falls
to the Anarchs will set that predator up for a sweep so the
negotiation is pretty heavy.
Alex has just helped Dennis cycle the Delay’s and has two new
actions to take. He chunks in a Charming Lobby and offers to take the
damage from the FreeSR on his own vampires. Fazio expresses concerns
that the second vote will be a restructure and so everyone who can,
votes against. Alex drops a BO and the vote passes. Sure enough, the
second vote that no one can block is a Dramatic upheaval and Alex and
I switch places.
I lost a turn because of the Dramatic Upheaval and am tapped out as
Fazio untaps Arika. I have 10 pool. We all hold our breath waiting
for the unblockable bleed of 90. Arika bleeds. I take it.
He discards!
My turn. All I have to do it discard and let the Anarchs do their
stuff.
What follows is another long discussion about whether Dennis should
life boon Alex now…Or take his chances one on one with me.
Fazio has 6 pool and can survive 4 Anarchs, but we all know Dennis has
2 more in hand. At some point I lost interest in the discussion
because I had nothing to add, nothing to offer and needed to go to the
bathroom. Dennis decides NOT to Life Boon Alex and Alex falls to the
Anarchs, and Bucy falls on his untap. I collect 12 pool.
Dennis takes his turn, drops one more Anarch. Bleeds Fazio for one
– who doesn’t wake ‘er NOTHin’ (!)…..
and secures a VP.
My turn. I have a one TPCounter, one TPMisdirection and 5
friggin’ Majesties.
Yes, Dennis has the edge, but I still had the pool advantage. I opt
to sit there with my little intercept and counter – and wait for
the Anarchs to finish him off.
Next round.
Paul Johnson – Tzi/ Warghoul fighter
Robert Acevedo – True Brujah
Me – cheese
Daniel Walker – Malkavi…..died before we really got a
taste of it.
Paul was not behaving like Paul. Paul did not hold forth. Paul did
not begin a long campaign of ways to bring down the great evil. Paul
did not rush my vamps across the table. Paul began to quietly
influence vamps against a coming no-stealth hoard. A few turns later,
Daniel brings up Lucien. Paul DID attempt to discuss with Daniel how
long he might be able to hold me off. Daniel has deflections. Paul
indicates it might be a good idea if Daniel not deflect to him.
Robert takes great offense to this and displays his displeasure by
grilling Daniel on his intentions. With much bravado, Robert
threatened to come across the table and burn Lucien outright if he
thinks that deflecting to him was an option.
Good times for Daniel.
Daniel said, calmly, that “….he doesn’t respond to
threats” and this, I suppose, was sufficient enough for Robert
to bear his teeth and declare that I had “free reign”.
Me? Awesome!.
Nu the Pillar warped into Lucien and toasted him with 9 ag.
Paul said. “Jesus. How do these Acevedo brothers consistently
get their 4 card combo’s to work? I’ll be lucky to get
off this bleed!”
Daniel died and Paul spent the rest of the game fending off my bleeds
and Roberts bravado.
Robert's Nu deck is pretty great. I spent all week wondering who to
put the TBrujah with in a deck and then here comes Robert Acevedo who
shows us that Nu can take care of things all by himself.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Finals.
Dennis Lien – Anarch/Anson
Me – Cheese
Szilan Fodor – Salubri/Spirit Marionette
Steven Fazio – Titled Vamps who Golconda a lot
Dan Harting – Tor!- bleeder
Having had no control over my destiny in the first two rounds I
actually get an opportunity to make a choice about something that
might effect the outcome:
Sit in front of Dennis’s Anarch Revolts or behind?
Once I saw the field, I chose to sit as his prey and hope his Anarchs
would turbo me thru the table.
The round was quick. Szilan never had a chance to get going but did
get one shot to swipe Lucien from Fazio with a Spirit Marionette, rake
off 10 blood with a Heidelberg, and return Lucien to Fazio much
thinner on blood. Pretty neat. Fazio Golconda’s Lucien.
The bulk of this round was Fazio trying to bargain with Szilan NOT to
Spirit Marionette any more of his minions, should he decide to bring
another one out. Szilan is not making any promises, but only because
he needs to cycle those cards to get to wakes…..perhaps.
At the other end of the table Dennis is calculating his effectiveness
and realizes he is dead on the next pass. He drops another Anarch
(the 5th) – Even after some thought I’m not sure why he
did that. Perhaps he thought I would use all 3 minions to call votes
to get rid of the Anarchs? Perhaps he will explain it to us!!
Dennis falls to Dan Harting. It was only during end game that I had
to actually think about what I was doing, but minion advantage won the
day. I managed to wrest the Troublemaker from Dan and was just about
to contest Lolita with him when he declared it was over.
THE DECK
ELDB Deck - Fun with Hastily Built Presence
Created By:Robyn Tatu
Description:Bleed like it's the last tournament and your clever
decks have failed you.
Crypt: (12 cards, Min: 9, Max: 16, Avg: 3.33)
2 Mariana Gilbert cel PRE 4, Toreador
1 Delilah Easton pre 2, Toreador
2 Gideon Fontaine PRE 3, Ventrue
2 Remilliard AUS pre 4, Toreador Antitribu
1 Lolita for pre 3, Toreador Antitribu
1 Demetrius Slater aus cel pre 4, Toreador
1 Igo the Hungry pre pro 1, Caitiff
2 Violette Prentiss dom PRE 4, Ventrue
Library: (90 cards)
Master (9 cards)
2 Aching Beauty
2 Auspex
3 Blood Doll
1 Information Highway
1 Misdirection
Action (24 cards)
10 Enchant Kindred
1 Entrancement
3 Legal Manipulations
2 Media Influence
4 Mind Numb
4 Social Charm
Action Modifier (20 cards)
8 Aire of Elation
12 Change of Target
Reaction (14 cards)
2 Telepathic Counter
5 Telepathic Misdirection
7 Wake with Evening's Freshness
Combat (23 cards)
23 Majesty
This file was last saved at 3:02:40 PM on 2/21/2002
"robyn tatu" <rob...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:56d4bf85.02022...@posting.google.com...
[ quoted text not captured ]
(Best Rodney Dangerfield voice)
No respect. I get no respect. I was in this game you know... Remember me?
They guy you bleed for 5 on the second turn? The guy that Riddle Phantastic
your Violet Prentiss so I survived another 3 turns. The guy that held you
off so you didn't sweep sooner. No respect I tell you...
(Rodney Dangerfield off)
Steve Bucy
--
"The only human commander to survive combat
with the Minbari fleet is behind me. You are in front of me.
If you value your lives be somewhere else!" - Delenn
Check out http://vtesinla.org/ for all V:TES information in Los Angeles
area.
[ quoted text not captured ]
(Best Rodney Dangerfield voice)
>
> No respect. I get no respect. I was in this game you know... Remember me?
> They guy you bleed for 5 on the second turn? The guy that Riddle Phantastic
> your Violet Prentiss so I survived another 3 turns. The guy that held you
> off so you didn't sweep sooner. No respect I tell you...
>
> (Rodney Dangerfield off)
>
> Steve Bucy
>
I'm sorry, Steve.
In the original draft of this I went in to a lot of detail about the
first round .....all about Violet and the Riddle P and how you were
getting pretty dangerous bleeding and deflecting.....but in reading it
over again I thought it was pretty long already and so your bits were
cut. But yes, Steve, as always, you were brilliant! before you died.
with eyes averted,
RobynT
On 21 Feb 2002 13:04:46 -0800, robyn tatu wrote:
>There were only about 20 minutes of solid play in this round and at
>least 45 minutes of negotiation, table rearranging, debate, and some
>begging.
I noticed that the OrcCon program book had some general rules about
this sort of thing:
"Players may communicate with each other at the board if it is allowed
by the game's rules. A player may never play another player's
position or delay the game by trying to persuade a player to take a
specific action."
My games weren't as bad as yours but there was a certain amount of
this. The VTES rules do not allow free-form communication and so this
delay of game should not have been permitted. Most of the storyline
games I've played have run out time and that's not right. Especially
with the clock-watching that seems to be encouraged.
Andrew
"Andrew S. Davidson" wrote:
> The VTES rules do not allow free-form communication and so this
> delay of game should not have been permitted.
Yes, they do. Just as they allow the players to blink and breathe.
--
LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc.
Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and tournament rules:
http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/
On Fri, 22 Feb 2002 07:41:40 -0500, LSJ wrote:
>> The VTES rules do not allow free-form communication and so this
>> delay of game should not have been permitted.>
>Yes, they do. Just as they allow the players to blink and breathe.
The rules have nothing to say about these matters. Without something
specific in the game rules, the overall OrcCon rules explicitly forbid
table-talk which is intended to alter play. One can understand why -
many players of many games come to play the game, not indulge in
lengthy debates, negotiations and displays of puppet-mastery.
Andrew
"Andrew S. Davidson" wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Feb 2002 07:41:40 -0500, LSJ wrote:
Question: why do you snip my attribution of your text that I quote?
> >> The VTES rules do not allow free-form communication and so this
> >> delay of game should not have been permitted.
> >
> >Yes, they do. Just as they allow the players to blink and breathe.
>
> The rules have nothing to say about these matters. Without something
> specific in the game rules, the overall OrcCon rules explicitly forbid
> table-talk which is intended to alter play.
No. You're reading something into the OrcCon rules which isn't there.
The OrcCon rules, as you quoted them earlier, do not say that the
rules must say "something specific". Merely that the activity be
"allowed". And, as has been pointed out to you so many times
before, the rules do allow this, in exactly the same manner that
they allow breathing.
[ quoted text not captured ]
In message <659AA5B784F3288F.EF6903F3...@lp.airnew
s.net>, Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> writes:
>On Fri, 22 Feb 2002 07:41:40 -0500, LSJ wrote:
>>>> The VTES rules do not allow free-form communication and so this
>>> delay of game should not have been permitted.>>
>>Yes, they do. Just as they allow the players to blink and breathe.>
>The rules have nothing to say about these matters.
If you will persist in your blinkered trolling, bear in mind that LSJ
has now given you *repeatedly* official interpretations of the rules.
--
James Coupe but I lust after the raw pow0r of c.
PGP 0x5D623D5D together with the humping great
EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 elephant arse of gnome.
13D7E668C3695D623D5D - Vashti
"Andrew S. Davidson" <a...@csi.com> wrote in message
news:D78072E4BDF7ECEA.F37EF11D...@lp.airnews.net...
> Most of the storyline games I've played have run out time and that's not
right.
Possibly due to a deluge of players that haven't played at a tournament
level before?
Xian
On Fri, 22 Feb 2002 08:33:20 -0500, LSJ wrote:
>Question: why do you snip my attribution of your text that I quote?
I don't normally quote anything more than the last post in a thread.
And I'll prune that heavily too - just keeping the minimum required
for context. People who are not reading this in real time will tend
to be using something like Google and that does a good job of
displaying a discussion thread with articles and responses linked
graphically.
>The OrcCon rules, as you quoted them earlier, do not say that the
>rules must say "something specific". Merely that the activity be
>"allowed". And, as has been pointed out to you so many times
>before, the rules do allow this, in exactly the same manner that
>they allow breathing.
Silence does not imply consent in this way. I've yet to see any games
rules which explicitly forbid this sort of table talk. The OrcCon
house rules would be a dead letter if interpreted in the way you
suggest. Their point is to allow such table talk in games whose rules
explicitly cater for it (e.g. Diplomacy and Illuminati) but otherwise
to forbid it. The VTES rules make no such provision and so such table
talk is forbidden there.
What happens elsewhere is likewise up to the local house rules. The
rules of the game tell you nothing. My inference is that what is not
allowed is therefore forbidden but we've been through all that before.
Andrew
"Andrew S. Davidson" wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Feb 2002 08:33:20 -0500, LSJ wrote:
> >Question: why do you snip my attribution of your text that I quote?
>
> I don't normally quote anything more than the last post in a thread.
> And I'll prune that heavily too - just keeping the minimum required
> for context. People who are not reading this in real time will tend
> to be using something like Google and that does a good job of
> displaying a discussion thread with articles and responses linked
> graphically.
Then, for the same reason, you should snip the quoted text to which
you've snipped the attribution as well. If it's not worth
attributing, it's not worth quoting. :-)
> >The OrcCon rules, as you quoted them earlier, do not say that the
> >rules must say "something specific". Merely that the activity be
> >"allowed". And, as has been pointed out to you so many times
> >before, the rules do allow this, in exactly the same manner that
> >they allow breathing.
>
> Silence does not imply consent in this way.
If you feel that the rules do not allow you to breathe, I don't think
table-talk (or even cross-table rush) is going to be your biggest
problem at tournaments.
At any rate, the rules allow you to table-talk.
> I've yet to see any games
> rules which explicitly forbid this sort of table talk.
As you say.
> The OrcCon
> house rules would be a dead letter if interpreted in the way you
> suggest.
That's up to OrcCon.
The VTES rules allow table-talk.
> The VTES rules make no such provision and so such table
> talk is forbidden there.
Official provisio: table talk is permitted. (Clarification, ruling, errata,
or whatever you need to get this).
[ quoted text not captured ]
In message <890F6AE4C1CED6B0.0F8BEBBA...@lp.airnew
s.net>, Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> writes:
>>>The OrcCon rules, as you quoted them earlier, do not say that the
>>rules must say "something specific". Merely that the activity be
>>"allowed". And, as has been pointed out to you so many times
>>before, the rules do allow this, in exactly the same manner that
>>they allow breathing.>
>Silence does not imply consent in this way.
However, repeated rulings by the official rules authority most certainly
do.
[ quoted text not captured ]
"Andrew S. Davidson" <a...@csi.com> wrote in message
news:D78072E4BDF7ECEA.F37EF11D...@lp.airnews.net...
> Most of the storyline games I've played have run out
> time and that's not right.
Most? I assume you've travelled to some other cities then. We had two rounds
in L.A. In the first round I saw that you had rookie players as your predator
and prey. As you know, you yourself aren't exactly an expert on the rules and
putting 3 of you together slowed things down. Don't forget that you were
playing Malkavian Pranks which slow things down a whole lot. Some deck styles
have that affect.
> Especially
> with the clock-watching that seems to be encouraged.
Encouraged? How do you figure? The time clock wasn't visible. We didn't call
out the time every 10 minutes. We only gave the 5 minute warning as required.
Or were you speaking of an experience in another city?
-Robert
On Fri, 22 Feb 2002 15:17:38 GMT, Robert Goudie wrote:
>> Especially with the clock-watching that seems to be encouraged.>
>Encouraged? How do you figure? The time clock wasn't visible. We didn't call
>out the time every 10 minutes. We only gave the 5 minute warning as required.
>Or were you speaking of an experience in another city?
I had no problem with this myself playing VTES in LA though I believe
that the second game timed out. The main culprit in that game was all
the minions - Keith and Dan each had about a dozen. But altogether 4
out of my 6 storyline games have gone to time and my main point is
that there isn't the time to allow unlimited table talk. Robyn seemed
to be saying something of the sort in her post - more time was spent
talking than playing.
The clock-watching issue is a big one that affects far too many CCG.
When I run tournaments myself, I make some effort to allow adequate
time for games to complete and, where this is not possible, try to
keep players guessing as to when they will actually finish. But most
other events are not run like this. VEKN seems weak in this
department because you have precise time limits for each round,
announce the start time publically and then provide a warning as the
end approaches. This makes it easy for players to track the time
remaining and adjust their play accordingly. This can make a big
difference. At the Cambridge storyline, I was saved by the bell in
the first round - another minute and I'd have lost but instead, I won.
This was reversed in the second round - I lost when I might have won
if I had been clock-watching.
Andrew
[ quoted text not captured ]
Of course this makes any and every game impossible to play. Every word
uttered has the effect of altering play. Thats just life. Now perhaps
if we all had our ears plugged?
Raille
James Coupe wrote:
>
> In message <659AA5B784F3288F.EF6903F3...@lp.airnew
> s.net>, Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> writes:
> >On Fri, 22 Feb 2002 07:41:40 -0500, LSJ wrote:
> >
> >>> The VTES rules do not allow free-form communication and so this
> >>> delay of game should not have been permitted.
> >>
> >>Yes, they do. Just as they allow the players to blink and breathe.
> >
> >The rules have nothing to say about these matters.
>
> If you will persist in your blinkered trolling, bear in mind that LSJ
> has now given you *repeatedly* official interpretations of the rules.
All well and true, but Andrew is not looking for Official
interpretations, he is looking For support of andrews interpretations.
Big difference.
Raille
"Andrew S. Davidson" <a...@csi.com> wrote in message
news:46CDD58E8C3A8115.7B634B5F...@lp.airnews.net...
> On Fri, 22 Feb 2002 15:17:38 GMT, Robert Goudie wrote:
>
> >> Especially with the clock-watching that seems to be encouraged.
> >
> >Encouraged? How do you figure? The time clock wasn't visible. We didn't
call
> >out the time every 10 minutes. We only gave the 5 minute warning as
required.
> >Or were you speaking of an experience in another city?
>
> I had no problem with this myself playing VTES in LA though I believe
> that the second game timed out. The main culprit in that game was all
> the minions - Keith and Dan each had about a dozen. But altogether 4
> out of my 6 storyline games have gone to time and my main point is
> that there isn't the time to allow unlimited table talk.
You're right. There are only 2 hours.
> Robyn seemed to be saying something of the sort in her post - more
> time was spent talking than playing.
Ya, true, about 50% of the games I play, whether for fun or at a tournament,
have "too much talking". 50% of those times, I am the cause. I don't believe
you can have a CCG in which more than 2 players are playing at the same time
that DOESN'T allow table talk, IMHO.
> The clock-watching issue is a big one that affects far too many CCG.
> When I run tournaments myself, I make some effort to allow adequate
> time for games to complete
...i.e. you allow the games to be played until "time" is called?
> and, where this is not possible, try to
> keep players guessing as to when they will actually finish.
Andrew. Buddy.
5. Tournament Violations
5.1. Cheating
Cheating will not be tolerated. The head judge reviews all cheating
allegations, and if he or she determines that a player cheated, the head judge
will issue the appropriate penalty based on the V:EKN Penalty Guidelines. All
disqualifications are subject to later V:EKN review, and further penalties may
be assessed.
Cheating includes, but is not limited to, the following intentional activities:
[snip examples of cheating not relevant to this argument]
* Misrepresenting public information (pool totals, number of cards in deck, and
so on)
So, by keeping people "guessing" as to when they will actually finish, how are
you not in violation of this? I suppose the Head Judge can literally do
whatever he wants, and the only appeal a player would have would be to take it
to LSJ, but jeez man...
> But most other events are not run like this.
I don't know any CCGs where the Head Judge is allowed to misrepresent public
information as you have effectively stated you have been allowed to in the
past.
> VEKN seems weak in this
> department because you have precise time limits for each round,
> announce the start time publically and then provide a warning as the
> end approaches.
Show me ONE ccg's Tournament Rules Set that doesn't have precise time limits
for each round, and a public "timeclock".
> This makes it easy for players to track the time
> remaining and adjust their play accordingly.
...and if a VTES player did this, then they would be in violation of one of
those 5.5.1 examples I snipped, that being:
* Stalling to take advantage of a time limit
So, the (VTES) system already has a built-in "rule", as it were, which
nullifies this aspect of your argument. Also understand that I am not saying
that players DON'T do this, just that they are not ALLOWED to do this. Quality
Judges = Quality Games = Quality Fun.
> This can make a big
> difference. At the Cambridge storyline, I was saved by the bell in
> the first round - another minute and I'd have lost but instead, I won.
By cheating?
> This was reversed in the second round - I lost when I might have won
> if I had been clock-watching.
So, are you now saying that you are WILLING to cheat by violating 5.5.1?
Andrew, Andrew...
>
> Andrew
--
Kevin M., Prince of Madison, WI (USA)
"Know your enemy, and know yourself; in one-thousand battles
you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, *The Art of War*
"Contentment... Complacency... Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier
>Show me ONE ccg's Tournament Rules Set that doesn't have precise time limits
>for each round, and a public "timeclock".
Babylon 5. Judges are encouraged to keep the length of the round secret to
prevent people from stalling.
I find the practice inane as I don't think it solves the problem. Better would
be to just eliminate the last turn that doesn't finish.
In article <20020223163235...@mb-fk.aol.com>,
[ quoted text not captured ]
I should think that giving a judge discretion to extend a game's time
limit by <n> minutes when a player is found stalling (plus appropriate
tracked penalties to the player) would eliminate the incentive to stall.
Why hem and haw for five minutes if you know any of the other players can
call a judge over and get those five minutes added to the game, plus
giving you a tracked warning/game loss/DQ as appropriate?
Of course, VEKN judges have pretty wide latitude as it stands now, and
they could very well do this as it stands, but I'd like to see extending
game time in case of stalling added to the VEKN rules explicitly.
Aside to R. Goudie: If some clever fellow comes up with a new tourney
format, what's the procedure for having it accepted as a new sanctioned
format?
gomi
--
Blood, guts, guns, cuts
Knives, lives, wives, nuns, sluts
In message <20020223163235...@mb-fk.aol.com>, Curevei
<cur...@aol.com> writes:
>>Show me ONE ccg's Tournament Rules Set that doesn't have precise time limits
>>for each round, and a public "timeclock".>
>Babylon 5. Judges are encouraged to keep the length of the round secret to
>prevent people from stalling.
>
>I find the practice inane as I don't think it solves the problem.
Surely you just sit there with a watch instead?
Or does it have some sort of insane variable time limit where only the
judge knows (is supposed to know) how long the game lasts, by having a
variable last ten minutes, or something?
[ quoted text not captured ]
a...@csi.com writes:
>I had no problem with this myself playing VTES in LA though I believe
>that the second game timed out. The main culprit in that game was all
>the minions - Keith and Dan each had about a dozen. But altogether 4
>out of my 6 storyline games have gone to time and my main point is
>that there isn't the time to allow unlimited table talk.
I had no problem with timeouts. The only game I was in that timed
out had 4 combat decks, 2 of them quite bloaty, and even that one
would have finished except a) I handjammed on actions and b)
Robyn didn't start going forward until the game was almost over.
Copious table talk was no problem at several other tables.
Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com)
"It is better to be wrong than to be vague" - Freeman Dyson
On Fri, 22 Feb 2002 17:34:34 -0600, Kevin M. wrote:
>> When I run tournaments myself, I make some effort to allow adequate
>> time for games to complete>
>...i.e. you allow the games to be played until "time" is called?
No, I mean I allow the games to complete. I ran a tournament
yesterday and 90% of the games finished properly. 100% would be even
better but perfect is the enemy of good.
>I don't know any CCGs where the Head Judge is allowed to misrepresent public
>information as you have effectively stated you have been allowed to in the>past. Show me ONE ccg's Tournament Rules Set that doesn't have precise time limits>for each round, and a public "timeclock".
Keeping the time secret is not misrepresenting it. From what Robert
Goudie said, I gather that the official time-clock for VTES at OrcCon
was not public.
>> This makes it easy for players to track the time
>> remaining and adjust their play accordingly.>
>...and if a VTES player did this, then they would be in violation of one of
>those 5.5.1 examples I snipped, that being:
>
>* Stalling to take advantage of a time limit
>>> This can make a big
>> difference. At the Cambridge storyline, I was saved by the bell in
>> the first round - another minute and I'd have lost but instead, I won.>
>By cheating?
>>> This was reversed in the second round - I lost when I might have won
>> if I had been clock-watching.>
>So, are you now saying that you are WILLING to cheat by violating 5.5.1?
In the first game, I had 2 VP and the Tremere guy had 1 VP. It looked
looked he was going to oust me but time ran out before this happened.
Another 30 seconds and I'd have lost, 2 VP to 3 VP. As it was, I won
by 2.5 to 1.5.
In the second game, I had 1 VP and no-one else had any. If I'd gone
all out I could have scored another VP but I was cautious and then
time ran out so that I only scored 1.5 VP - not enough for a
table-win.
If I was trying to squeeze every advantage from the system, then I
suppose I should have a 2 hour timer running where I can see it so
that I can adjust my play as appropriate to the time remaining. I'd
rather not play in this way and so would prefer that
a) the time limits were set so that most games finished properly
b) where games have to be timed out, the time limits shouldn't be so
predictable that players can use the information to make split-second
decisions.
A good example of the latter occurred at a recent LotR tournament. I
was mulling over whether to advance my fellowship to the next site in
the face of stiff opposition. The judge called out "5 seconds!" and
so I instantly advanced, knowing that this would win me the tie-break
because the opponent wouldn't have time to beat me up before the game
was halted.
Many CCG games that I've played recently at OrcCon and elsewhere have
been decided by time-outs. It's no fun.
Andrew
On 23 Feb 2002 21:32:35 GMT, Curevei wrote:
>Babylon 5. Judges are encouraged to keep the length of the round secret to
>prevent people from stalling.
>
>I find the practice inane as I don't think it solves the problem. Better would
>be to just eliminate the last turn that doesn't finish.
Are you serious? Roll back all of the last incomplete turn? I can't
see that being popular or practical. And it doesn't solve the problem
- the guy who is winning at the end of the penultimate turn has a big
incentive to drag things out so that another turn doesn't start. He
doesn't care what happens to his position just so long as he can keep
the turn going. I'm not sure about B5 but it would be a farcial
system in many games.
Andrew
On Fri, 22 Feb 2002 09:23:44 -0500, LSJ wrote:
>> I've yet to see any games rules which explicitly forbid this
>> sort of table talk.>
>As you say.
What's your point? Mine is that rules authors don't forbid all sorts
of things which players might do but shouldn't - stealing tokens,
looking at other players' hands, bottom-dealing etc. The list of such
things is infinite and so it's not practical to say that that anything
which is not explicitly forbidden must therefore be allowed. The fact
that no rules forbid table talk but that many gamers (such as the
OrcCon organizers) frown on it, puts it in the same category.
>> The OrcCon house rules would be a dead letter if interpreted in
>> the way you suggest.>
>That's up to OrcCon.
Indeed. And that's why they go to the trouble of spelling out their
policy in the convention booklet. When you do likewise, by putting
something in the rulebook, your preference might then be taken equally
seriously.
Andrew
> I had no problem with timeouts. The only game I was in that timed
> out had 4 combat decks, 2 of them quite bloaty, and even that one
> would have finished except a) I handjammed on actions and b)
> Robyn didn't start going forward until the game was almost over.
> Copious table talk was no problem at several other tables.
>
> Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com)
> "It is better to be wrong than to be vague" - Freeman Dyson
Aww, be fair. I didn't go forward until Beast was in torpor. 1/2 a
VP is still better than none.
To clairify - I was not complaining in any way about the table talk in
the first round. Every word and all the time taken was completely
justified and made the round a heck of a lot of fun. It was
everything a great game of V;tes should be. No one telling anyone
what to do with their turn, no one getting bent out of shape and
acting like an idiot. 5 people trying to get the most out of the game
that they could.
RobynTatu
rob...@mindspring.com writes:
>Aww, be fair. I didn't go forward until Beast was in torpor. 1/2 a
>VP is still better than none.
Actually you went forward the *second* time Beast was in
torpor. I was a little surprised he got out the first time. And
I'm not really critiquing the deck design or play as you would
have had a table win in another 30-45 minutes. (Although
*my* life would have been much easier.)
The point is that the game ran over due to the character
of the decks, and not due to table talk.
>To clairify - I was not complaining in any way about the table talk in
>the first round.
You weren't, but Andrew was. Right?
[ quoted text not captured ]
"robyn tatu" <rob...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:56d4bf85.0202...@posting.google.com...
> (Best Rodney Dangerfield voice)
> >
> > No respect. I get no respect. I was in this game you know... Remember
me?
> > They guy you bleed for 5 on the second turn? The guy that Riddle
Phantastic
> > your Violet Prentiss so I survived another 3 turns. The guy that held
you
> > off so you didn't sweep sooner. No respect I tell you...
> >
> > (Rodney Dangerfield off)
> >
> > Steve Bucy
> >
> I'm sorry, Steve.
> In the original draft of this I went in to a lot of detail about the
> first round .....all about Violet and the Riddle P and how you were
> getting pretty dangerous bleeding and deflecting.....but in reading it
> over again I thought it was pretty long already and so your bits were
> cut.
Ahh, left on the cutting room floor.
> But yes, Steve, as always, you were brilliant! before you died.
Not brilliant, just present. If I was I would not have died... :-P
Steve
> with eyes averted,
> RobynT
"Andrew S. Davidson" <a...@csi.com> wrote in message
news:A4FF629B18A5B9DA.2E0D5861...@lp.airnews.net...
[ quoted text not captured ]
Amen.
I agree with Andrew.
Talking players through their turn, and similar table-talk has no
business in a tournament environment. Want to make a deal on your
turn, fine. Talk during someone else's turn, not fine.
I propose an addendum to the next rulesbook, or next tournament rules
release, specifically disallowing this type of action. Something
similar to the following:
"A player may never play another player's position or delay the
game by trying to persuade a player to take a specific action."
I will certainly lobby every judge in every tournament I enter
to consider this type of play to be un-sportsmanlike, and
inappropriate.
Carpe noctem.
Jeffrey Thompson
Lasombra
http://www.TheLasombra.com[ quoted text not captured ]
Jeff wrote:
> I propose an addendum to the next rulesbook, or next tournament rules
> release, specifically disallowing this type of action. Something
> similar to the following:
>
> "A player may never play another player's position or delay the
> game by trying to persuade a player to take a specific action."
>
>
> I will certainly lobby every judge in every tournament I enter
> to consider this type of play to be un-sportsmanlike, and
> inappropriate.
OK, I'm a little confused about the specifics of how this would
impact the game. Under the proposed rule would I be able to:
-remind my grad-prey to collect for the edge?
-ask someone to rescue one of my vamps from torpor?
-play a harmonica?
just wondering,
Jay
"The Lasombra" <thela...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<675c8a6990b0be0e01a...@mygate.mailgate.org>...
> "Andrew S. Davidson" <a...@csi.com> wrote in message
>
> news:A4FF629B18A5B9DA.2E0D5861...@lp.airnews.net...
>
> > On Fri, 22 Feb 2002 09:23:44 -0500, LSJ wrote:
>
> > >> I've yet to see any games rules which explicitly forbid this
> > >> sort of table talk.
>
> > >As you say.
>
> > What's your point? Mine is that rules authors don't forbid all sorts
> > of things which players might do but shouldn't - stealing tokens,
> > looking at other players' hands, bottom-dealing etc. The list of such
> > things is infinite and so it's not practical to say that that anything
> > which is not explicitly forbidden must therefore be allowed. The fact
> > that no rules forbid table talk but that many gamers (such as the
> > OrcCon organizers) frown on it, puts it in the same category.
>
> > >> The OrcCon house rules would be a dead letter if interpreted in
> > >> the way you suggest.
>
> > >That's up to OrcCon.
>
> > Indeed. And that's why they go to the trouble of spelling out their
> > policy in the convention booklet. When you do likewise, by putting
> > something in the rulebook, your preference might then be taken equally
> > seriously.
>
> Amen.
>
> I agree with Andrew.
> Talking players through their turn, and similar table-talk has no
> business in a tournament environment.
Hmmm, i dunno. The trouble is that all VTES tourneys are open, so you
get players of widely-differing experience/ability on the same table.
As a result, most of the "coaching" table-talk we see is directed to
making sure the newbies don't foul up the game for everyone else by
making elementary cock-ups. We also get some of the stuff which angers
you and Andrew, but i don't see how to outlaw this without losing the
"good coaching". Overall i think your proposal would make the judge's
job even worse than it currently is, and i also think it's approaching
things from the wrong direction - tournaments SHOULDN'T be taken that
seriously, they are only window-dressing/promotion for the game, IMO.
Want to make a deal on your
> turn, fine. Talk during someone else's turn, not fine.
WOOOAH Jeff!!! You've GOT to be able to talk on other players' turns.
"i call KRC with Delilah Easton, do you wish to block?" <enforced
silence> "Guess not then, it goes to votes, i do 3 to you, 1 to you,
and i pile on FAR too many extra votes through BO and Awe for you to
be able to think about voting it down". Or are you advocating playing
cards and pointing to indicate what they are meant to do? Even then,
you would have to say whether you were playing cards at inderior or
superior. Do you really think it's wrong for a combat deck to say
"send any of that KRC filth my way and i'll rub out two of your
vampires next chance i get"?
>
> I propose an addendum to the next rulesbook, or next tournament rules
> release, specifically disallowing this type of action. Something
> similar to the following:
>
> "A player may never play another player's position or delay the
> game by trying to persuade a player to take a specific action."
>
>
> I will certainly lobby every judge in every tournament I enter
> to consider this type of play to be un-sportsmanlike, and
> inappropriate.
Fair enough, but i hope most judges will take the view that Hard Cases
make Bad Law, and will deal with inappropriate agitation on a
case-by-case basis.
[ quoted text not captured ]
On 26 Feb 2002 03:45:12 -0800, legbiter wrote:
>> Want to make a deal on your turn, fine.
>> Talk during someone else's turn, not fine.>
>WOOOAH Jeff!!! You've GOT to be able to talk on other players' turns.
>"i call KRC with Delilah Easton, do you wish to block?" <enforced
>silence>
One way of constraining the non-acting players is "speak when you're
spoken to". In other words, the acting player would hold the floor
and need only give way at his discretion or when a response is
necessary.
Andrew
(snip)
> Talking players through their turn, and similar table-talk has no
> business in a tournament environment. Want to make a deal on your
> turn, fine. Talk during someone else's turn, not fine.
i wouldn't quite put it that way myself (inspite of all the respect i
have for the Lasombra)
if a player talks to me during my turn, he might have an interesting
proposition or remark or threat to make, and preventing him from doing
so would IMHO take something away from the game, and turn the
diplomacy aspect into a very rigid (boring) structure
if i don't want his help, or just want to concentrate on what i'm
doing, i'll just ask him to shut up
if he keeps talking, he's obviously disturbing me on purpose, at which
point i call a judge to put him back in line
> I propose an addendum to the next rulesbook, or next tournament rules
> release, specifically disallowing this type of action. Something
> similar to the following:
>
> "A player may never play another player's position or delay the
> game by trying to persuade a player to take a specific action."
>
>
> I will certainly lobby every judge in every tournament I enter
> to consider this type of play to be un-sportsmanlike, and
> inappropriate.
delaying is already covered in the present rulebook, is it not ?
as a sidenote, doesn't coaching only refer to outsiders interfering
with the game ?
JC
"legbiter" <legb...@mailandnews.com> wrote in message
news:22fea992.02022...@posting.google.com...
> "The Lasombra" <thela...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<675c8a6990b0be0e01a...@mygate.mailgate.org>...
>> Want to make a deal on your
> > turn, fine. Talk during someone else's turn, not fine.
>
> WOOOAH Jeff!!! You've GOT to be able to talk on other players' turns.
> "i call KRC with Delilah Easton, do you wish to block?" <enforced
> silence> "Guess not then, it goes to votes, i do 3 to you, 1 to you,
> and i pile on FAR too many extra votes through BO and Awe for you to
> be able to think about voting it down".
>
We'll have to work out a series of blinks and nods. Blink once for yes, twice for
no. Circle your head clockwise for inferior level, counter-clockwise for superior
level. Shake your fist menacingly for, "bleed me and I'll knock you senseless".
"legbiter" <legb...@mailandnews.com> wrote in message
news:22fea992.02022...@posting.google.com...
> > Want to make a deal on your> > turn, fine. Talk during someone else's turn, not fine.
>
> WOOOAH Jeff!!! You've GOT to be able to talk on other players' turns.
Agreed.
I cannot agree to playing against you as both my predator and my prey
with two different decks that are nominally under the control of
two different people.
Once you cross the line from interacting with what the other player
is doing, towards controlling what the other play chooses to do,
unsportsmanlike conduct has occurred.
> "i call KRC with Delilah Easton, do you wish to block?" <enforced
> silence>
Not at all what I am talking about.
> Or are you advocating playing
> cards and pointing to indicate what they are meant to do?
No.
> Do you really think it's wrong for a combat deck to say
> "send any of that KRC filth my way and i'll rub out two of your
> vampires next chance i get"?
No.
There's a piont where it has to stop, and they have to be allowed
to play their game, not the intimidation or follow the leader game.
That's not what makes for a good game.
> > I propose an addendum to the next rulesbook, or next tournament rules
> > release, specifically disallowing this type of action. Something
> > similar to the following:> > "A player may never play another player's position or delay the
> > game by trying to persuade a player to take a specific action."
Carpe noctem.
[ quoted text not captured ]
> I agree with Andrew.
> Talking players through their turn, and similar table-talk has no
> business in a tournament environment. Want to make a deal on your
> turn, fine. Talk during someone else's turn, not fine.
Although in theory this sounds fine, I don't see a need to ENFORCE it.
Others may have reason to, my experience in the tournament scene is
still somewhat limited. I've never had any table-talk or deal-making
truly "disrupt" a game, no matter who was doing the talking or taking
the actions.
> I propose an addendum to the next rulesbook, or next tournament rules
> release, specifically disallowing this type of action. Something
> similar to the following:
>
> "A player may never play another player's position or delay the
> game by trying to persuade a player to take a specific action."
I have a hard time swallowing this as a rule. Again, others'
experience far exceeds my own, but for the most part, people know what
actions they want to take - they don't need someone telling them what
to do. Now - people in the "audience" pointing things out, yeah that
sucks and should not be allowed (unless they are rules infractions).
I guess perhaps I've missed the context that has brought this up as a
desirable change. Anyway, as is, I like the way tournaments currently
run and don't see a need for such a huge change to the rules.
John Bell
Prince of Cincinnati
The Lasombra wrote:
> I propose an addendum to the next rulesbook, or next tournament rules
> release, specifically disallowing this type of action. Something
> similar to the following:
>
> "A player may never play another player's position or delay the
> game by trying to persuade a player to take a specific action."
>
> I will certainly lobby every judge in every tournament I enter
> to consider this type of play to be un-sportsmanlike, and
> inappropriate.
There is no provision for playing another player's position,
so that is already covered. You can suggest a course or action
("don't bleed him for more than two - he'll bounce it and oust
his prey" or "don't forget the Edge"), but you cannot play
his position (move the pool for the Edge from the blood bank
to his pool, tap his minion and announce a bleed, etc.).
There is already a rule against delaying the game.
To be clear: the "active" player (or the player whose turn it
is to perform some action or to play some effect) is free to
play without waiting for the other players to finish talking
about what he (or anyone else) should or shouldn't do (or
anything else, for that matter).
[ quoted text not captured ]
> Amen.
>
> I agree with Andrew.
> Talking players through their turn, and similar table-talk has no
> business in a tournament environment. Want to make a deal on your
> turn, fine. Talk during someone else's turn, not fine.
>
> I propose an addendum to the next rulesbook, or next tournament rules
> release, specifically disallowing this type of action. Something
> similar to the following:
>
> "A player may never play another player's position or delay the
> game by trying to persuade a player to take a specific action."
>
>
> I will certainly lobby every judge in every tournament I enter
> to consider this type of play to be un-sportsmanlike, and
> inappropriate.
>
>
> Carpe noctem.
>
> Jeffrey Thompson
> Lasombra
>
> http://www.TheLasombra.com
IMHO, This sort of table talk is what makes V:tes one of the greatest games
ever. If someone quickly tries to guide someone down a path that would be
good for them, then that's just part of the game. To continue to make such
suggestions when the current player has said "No" to them is another point.
It is very common (especially during votes) for other players to suggest how
best to continue the current action. i.e. "Hey Mr. Predator. If you don't
bleed me for then 2 this turn I can get rid of that KRCG that your Predator
is stopping you with.". To me making pacts like this even if temporary is
part of the game and very necessary for it as well. If everyone plays their
turn and has no interaction with the other players that's very boring. If I
wanted to do that I would still be playing Magic.
Of course this is just an opinion take it with a grain of salt and call me
in the AM. ;>
sea ya l8er
KM²
Jeff Thompson said:
"A player may never play another player's position or delay the
game by trying to persuade a player to take a specific action."
End quoth:
I tried to speak out on just this topic months ago on this forum. I
saw a player, at multiple tables, take up the entire table's time
berating other players to act as he/she wished. I saw downturned faces
as they were forced to listen to this longwinded speaches, generally
on other players turns.
I was told that "those are just mind tricks and there is nothing you
can do because it's a legitimate part of the game."
Good luck with this line of argument Jeff. I hope you succeed. Deal
making is one thing. Browbeating in an effort "to persuade a player to
take a specific action." specifically when it is "delaying the game"
is definately something that makes this game a smidgen less fun, and
definately would turn off potential players who happened to walk by
and witness the game ground to a halt.
"The Lasombra" <thela...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<675c8a6990b0be0e01a...@mygate.mailgate.org>...
> I propose an addendum to the next rulesbook, or next tournament rules
> release, specifically disallowing this type of action. Something
> similar to the following:
>
> "A player may never play another player's position or delay the
> game by trying to persuade a player to take a specific action."
What about comments like:
"Look over there, you want to rush your predator, not me. She's a
bigger threat."
and
"Why don't you burn that vampire to get rid of the Antediluvian
Awakening? Go on, take one for the team!"
and
"Don't bleed him, he's got a deflection, you'll only oust me."
and
"Don't listen to him. He's untrustworthy."
and
"If the referendum is ... then I'll vote for it."
This sort of "advice" is an important part of the game. It would be a
very dry and boring game without it.
* lehrbuch
Matt Latham wrote:
> Good luck with this line of argument Jeff. I hope you succeed. Deal
> making is one thing. Browbeating in an effort "to persuade a player to
> take a specific action." specifically when it is "delaying the game"
> is definately something that makes this game a smidgen less fun, and
> definately would turn off potential players who happened to walk by
> and witness the game ground to a halt.
It's only delaying the game if the player who's turn it is to
do something (or pass on the opportunity) doesn't do something
(or pass) - that player is free to ignore the ranting player
and go on about the game. The ranting player cannot force the
game to a halt (except by stalling when it is his turn to
do something, in which case he's in violation of the existsing
rules and the judge should be called).
[ quoted text not captured ]
LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:<3C7BA604...@white-wolf.com>...
> JC wrote:
> > as a sidenote, doesn't coaching only refer to outsiders interfering
> > with the game ?
>
> Yes.
I think the tabletalk is all part of the stretegy and fun that VTES
incoporates. Of course, if some conversation of debate goes on to
long, there is probably some delay of game that the rest of the
players might point out. In non-tourney play with good friends, the
backstabbing, dealcutting can be most of the fun!
But even during tourneys I've experienced outward "ganging up on" when
playing with those that are friends together.
DJ Monet wrote:
> But even during tourneys I've experienced outward "ganging up on" when
> playing with those that are friends together.
If it's because they're "friends" (and not because of the game
dynamics alone), then it is collusion (and illegal). No need to
resort to some table-talk or delay-of-game ruling there.
[ quoted text not captured ]
"Matt Latham" <sv...@chartermi.net> wrote
>
> I tried to speak out on just this topic months ago on this forum. I
> saw a player, at multiple tables, take up the entire table's time
> berating other players to act as he/she wished. I saw downturned faces
> as they were forced to listen to this longwinded speaches, generally
> on other players turns.
>
> I was told that "those are just mind tricks and there is nothing you
> can do because it's a legitimate part of the game."
This works both ways though...
I'm not sure if I was at the games you are speaking about, but I have a fair
idea about who you are referring to. The same kind of 'mind tricks' were
attempted at the storyline this past weekend in Detroit and for the most
part... failed.
Now, I actually enjoy this aspect of the game, *as long* as it stays polite
and respectful. For the most part, it has been. Intense, yes... but
disrespectful? Not in my experience.
Additionally, I have been able to counter many 'mind trick' attempts simply
by remaining calm and just smiling and nodding, as well as the occasional
act of benevolence towards my allies cross-table... which often ends up
complementing my own, more subtle, mind-tricks, if truth be told.
The player in question can berate other Methuselahs all they want, but
people generally don't enjoy being berated and far more often than not they
will resent this behaviour and refuse to comply with offers and threats...
at least from my experience.
I firmly believe that I am targeted less in such situations by virtue of
being calm, logical and gregarious.
(Not that I am calm, logical or gregarious... I just pretend to be to make
it easier to stab them in the back when it suits my purposes :)
Cheers,
WES
"Andrew S. Davidson" wrote:
>
> On Fri, 22 Feb 2002 09:23:44 -0500, LSJ wrote:
>
> >> I've yet to see any games rules which explicitly forbid this
> >> sort of table talk.
> >
> >As you say.
>
> What's your point? Mine is that rules authors don't forbid all sorts
> of things which players might do but shouldn't - stealing tokens,
> looking at other players' hands, bottom-dealing etc. The list of such
> things is infinite and so it's not practical to say that that anything
> which is not explicitly forbidden must therefore be allowed. The fact
> that no rules forbid table talk but that many gamers (such as the
> OrcCon organizers) frown on it, puts it in the same category.
The OrcCon organizers can write whatever the hell they want. They still
have no authority over official VEKN rules nor any mandate to interpret
V:tES game rules. In point of fact, they do not make the slightest
attempt to do so. I've never noticed the passage in the OrcCon program
to which you refer in part because I would never, in a million years,
expect to find something like that there. Convention organizers have no
bearing in determining what rules should be used in a specific game (how
would they even know what's appropriate unless they actually play the
game?), let alone taking it upon themselves to kick in a blanket rule of
a controversial nature and of questionable benefit to games not specifically
stating otherwise. If the whole thing wasn't too ludicrous to take
seriously, I would suggest the VEKN tournament organizers in LA have a
polite word with whoever's responsible for that work.
As for the logic expressed above, if you're trying to suggest that the
_lack_ of a specific reference to (some form of) a no-table-talk rule
implies that players shouldn't do it - which is as much of a justification
for the notion as I can see expressed in the paragraph, that clearly
doesn't follow. Things not forbidden by the rules might be acceptable
or they might not but you can infer nothing from silence. Otherwise, I'd
suggest that the _lack_ of table talk is also not mentioned in the rules
and must therefore be likewise frowned upon - which leads to contradiction.
Fred
Wes wrote:
> act of benevolence towards my allies cross-table... which often ends up
> complementing my own, more subtle, mind-tricks, if truth be told.
>
I was not under the control of your evil mind tricks. I was however
under the control of your evil intecept and beat me up deck.
Raille
On Tue, 26 Feb 2002 15:45:18 -0500, LSJ wrote:
>It's only delaying the game if the player who's turn it is to
>do something (or pass on the opportunity) doesn't do something
>(or pass) - that player is free to ignore the ranting player
>and go on about the game. The ranting player cannot force the
>game to a halt (except by stalling when it is his turn to
>do something, in which case he's in violation of the existsing
>rules and the judge should be called).
It doesn't work like that in my experience. For example, I called
some Malkavian Pranks in LA. Most players were content to just do
what the card said. But one chap saw this as the occasion for a deal
every time I played one. He wanted a free ride (2 pool) but didn't
seem to offer much in return, just a mix of begging and intimidation.
The Prank couldn't proceed until he'd made his choice and, in any
case, I didn't want to offend him by cutting him off too abruptly. I
let him say his piece, responded with "no deal" and we continued.
But if there's no cost for proposing a deal why not try one at every
opportunity? It's like the male strategy of propositioning every
woman that you meet. Most of the time they will refuse but
occasionally you get lucky so why not? In VTES you won't even get
your face slapped.
To put it another way, if current practise were a card, it would be:
-------------------------------------------------------------
Parley
Master
You may speak with another Methusaleh about the game. Both
Methusalehs may make promises about their future actions, may record
these in any manner and may consider them to be binding.
This card may be played during any phase of any player's turn but does
not count as an out-of-turn master or master phase action. No
physical copy of the card is required to do this - it does not go in
your deck, hand or ash pile.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Compare this with Succubus Club or Monocle of Clarity. Is it
balanced?
Andrew
On Wed, 27 Feb 2002 01:50:26 GMT, Frederick Scott wrote:
>The OrcCon organizers can write whatever the hell they want. They still
>have no authority over official VEKN rules nor any mandate to interpret
>V:tES game rules.
They have authority over everything that takes place at their
convention and ultimately have the power to have players ejected if
they break a convention rule. I can't see it coming to that in VTES
but it's not unheard of for Vampire LARP players to be ejected from a
con.
The house always wins in such matters. At the Cambridge final last
night, we had to have a time limit of slightly under 2 hours because
the public house closed at 11 pm. It would be no good telling the
publican that VEKN rules require a minimum of 2 hours - he wouldn't be
impressed - the terms of his licence to sell alcohol trump that
easily.
But if it came to it at OrcCon, it wouldn't be the convention rules
versus the VEKN rules because, like the VTES rulebook, the VEKN rules
don't say anything about table talk either. If they did then that
convention rule wouldn't apply.
Andrew
LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:<3C7BF3DE...@white-wolf.com>...
> It's only delaying the game if the player who's turn it is to
> do something (or pass on the opportunity) doesn't do something
> (or pass) - that player is free to ignore the ranting player
> and go on about the game. The ranting player cannot force the
> game to a halt (except by stalling when it is his turn to
> do something, in which case he's in violation of the existsing
> rules and the judge should be called).
Agreed to all LSJ. In practice you are right on.
However, what this does is punish the considerate player. Whenever
anyone speaks I give them the benefit of my full attention. I expect
that people will make their point and move on. This doesn't happen all
the time.
People who browbeat others are more interested in themselves than in
others. When I play a game I play to win, but I cannot gain any joy in
winning at the cost of everyone elses good time. This is why I keep my
sanctioned tournament attendance to a minimum. Last year's Origins
qualifier taught me that.
So can a ranting player grind a game to a halt? Absolutely, especially
if they rant on a considerate person's turn. I guess it's two
different points. Jeff is trying to get the floor rules changed, and I
laud him for his lofty aspirations. I am trying, I suppose, to make a
plea to players to consider what impact their ranting has on the
future health of the game. I am certain I am not the only one who got
fed up with how some people treat others at sanctioned events, and I
am certain more than one potential player has been turned off watching
a rant from a player performing "mind tricks".
Matt
"Andrew S. Davidson" wrote:
>
> On Wed, 27 Feb 2002 01:50:26 GMT, Frederick Scott wrote:
>
> >The OrcCon organizers can write whatever the hell they want. They still
> >have no authority over official VEKN rules nor any mandate to interpret
> >V:tES game rules.
>
> They have authority over everything that takes place at their
> convention and ultimately have the power to have players ejected if
> they break a convention rule. I can't see it coming to that in VTES
> but it's not unheard of for Vampire LARP players to be ejected from a
> con.
Well, yea, when it comes to games causing real logistical problems to
the convention organizers, they're going to have a say in how that can
work. But if they were to insist on sticking their noses in how people
sit down and play out a VEKN tournament, the tournament simply won't
get played in that venue. As I said, they have no standing whatsoever
to be making those kinds of rules. If it were some serious thing (e.g.
refusing to allow more than 4 players to a table) and it came right
down to it, I can imagine the tournament getting called off rather
than being played incorrectly.
> The house always wins in such matters. At the Cambridge final last
> night, we had to have a time limit of slightly under 2 hours because
> the public house closed at 11 pm. It would be no good telling the
> publican that VEKN rules require a minimum of 2 hours - he wouldn't be
> impressed - the terms of his licence to sell alcohol trump that
> easily.
Not trumped in every sense, though I agree the game will probably end
prematurely if someone's livelihood is at stake. None the less, any
player could challenge the outcome of such a tournament to VEKN. "Slightly
under 2 hours" is a trivial deviation and not likely to mean much but
again, some more serious problem could void the results of the tournament
(at least for rating purposes), get the sanctioning yanked, and make it
unlikely the same organizer will get sanctioned again unless he makes an
effort to fix it in the future.
> But if it came to it at OrcCon, it wouldn't be the convention rules
> versus the VEKN rules because, like the VTES rulebook, the VEKN rules
> don't say anything about table talk either.
Doesn't matter. The judge's discretion is what counts. And whatever
Scott Johnson says in his posts - which granted is a silly way to
distribute "official" rules and ruling. But it truly is the system we have
now - so forget all thoughts of claiming they don't mean anything. (OrcCon
organizers can do exactly what we're forced to do if they need proof: use
Google.)
Fred
On Tue, 26 Feb 2002 04:58:20 +0000 (UTC), "The Lasombra"
<thela...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>"A player may never play another player's position or delay the
>game by trying to persuade a player to take a specific action."
Agree on the former, absolutely disagree on the latter.
If the acting player doesnt like the deal offered, he can end all
discussion by simply taking whatever action he wants to (and is
capable of).
T
In message <5B43D8117A1DECEF.C8CD9BFF...@lp.airnew
s.net>, Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> writes:
>>WOOOAH Jeff!!! You've GOT to be able to talk on other players' turns.
>>"i call KRC with Delilah Easton, do you wish to block?" <enforced
>>silence>>
>One way of constraining the non-acting players is "speak when you're
>spoken to". In other words, the acting player would hold the floor
>and need only give way at his discretion or when a response is
>necessary.
Which kills cross-table negotiation between two players who are never
spoken to - for instance, if I Banish your Beast cross-table (because
it's about to come and kill me, having just dealt with its prey, so your
my grand predator, say) and you want to arrange some vote support from,
say, my prey, someone needs to be able to deal.
And I just never speak to either of you.
--
James Coupe but I lust after the raw pow0r of c.
PGP 0x5D623D5D together with the humping great
EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 elephant arse of gnome.
13D7E668C3695D623D5D - Vashti
In message <675c8a6990b0be0e01a...@mygate.mailgate.org>,
The Lasombra <thela...@hotmail.com> writes:
>I agree with Andrew.
>Talking players through their turn, and similar table-talk has no
>business in a tournament environment. Want to make a deal on your
>turn, fine. Talk during someone else's turn, not fine.
Screws:
Madness Network - it's not my turn and I need to be able to deal
Intercept decks - a number of situations work extremely well if the two
intercept-capable players (predator and prey) can decide who
blocks the action through table talk. Cross-table Eagle's Sight
finds it necessary
Vote decks - I'm holding the casting votes with Volker. Who do I cast
them for? I'm holding vote cards in my hands. Are any of the
rest of you guys, should I throw this down?
Bounce decks - I've often seen the "Look, he's a big stealth bleeder.
If I bounce him to you, can you mess up a vampire or I'll just
die next turn?"
Out of turn masters - "What can you give me if I suddenly reverse that
Minion Tap? What will you do if I Directly Intervene that
Claw?"
Matt Green - "Folderol"
[ quoted text not captured ]
LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:<3C7BF9DA...@white-wolf.com>...
> DJ Monet wrote:
> > But even during tourneys I've experienced outward "ganging up on" when
> > playing with those that are friends together.
>
> If it's because they're "friends" (and not because of the game
> dynamics alone), then it is collusion (and illegal). No need to
> resort to some table-talk or delay-of-game ruling there.
Well, I'd be hesitant to claim any ~illegal~ collusion. Even though
my predator and prey may be friends, they have every right to 'gang up
on' me, and I certainly don't want to whine about the natural dynamic
of the game. I think the "friends" collusion would be obvious and
easy to call- you can tell when there is an action clearly not int the
interest of one party. Heh! Who cares! I can take them ALL ON!!
Ahh hah hah ha ha!
And there have been times (in non-tourney games with friends) where
the last winner is ganged up on and STILL cleans the table! Goes to
show with this game- what may appear to be in your best interest now
could wind up biting you back later.
In message <c5f82717.02022...@posting.google.com>, DJ Monet
<mjoh...@earthlink.net> writes:
>> If it's because they're "friends" (and not because of the game
>> dynamics alone), then it is collusion (and illegal). No need to
>> resort to some table-talk or delay-of-game ruling there.>
>Well, I'd be hesitant to claim any ~illegal~ collusion.
Collusion is illegal.
If it isn't illegal, it isn't collusion.
[ quoted text not captured ]