That nutty collusion again...

Bernie wrote: >>I'm wondering if Succubus Club may be banned after the Nationals, considering the new interest in deal making with SC often borders on collusion.>> Right. Collusion. Could someone please accurately define "collusion", and what it means in relation to VTES? For years, people have throwm around the word "collusion", and I have always taken it to mean, effectively, two or more people organizing before a tournament to make one of them win by working together, regardless of the table dynamic. Thus, if I go to a tournament with Jason and Eric, and before hand we all agree that I will get into the finals, and the other two will give up their own games to make me win, and during the tournament, the other two do things that are specifically bad for them just to help me (like, say, when Jason is my prey, he ousts himself quickly, never blocks me, and in no way tries to defend himself, just so I get the 6 pool and VP for ousting him), that is collusion. On the other hand, making deals in the middle of a tournament with people you have had no discussion with before hand, regardless of the deal, cannot be collusion, by defenition. If you don't discuss the collusion before the game, and you don't plan from the outset to throw your game to make someone else win, that isn't collusion. Collusion, as I understand it, specifically deals with out of game discussion and pre-meditated game throwing. People from the same playgroup driving to a convention, all of whom agree to do everything they can to get player X into the finals, and then all doing stupid things in a game to help player X, even if player X is their predator or prey. That is collusion. Making a deal with some guy across the table you just met to split the table 2/3, even if it is not such a good deal for you, cannot be considered collusion, as there was no pre-meditation on the subject. Am I off base here? Peter D Bakija PD...@aol.com http://www.geocities.com/bakija6 "She's a hero you see. She's not like us." -Giles

"Peter D Bakija" <pd...@aol.comANTISPAM> wrote in message [clip] > On the other hand, making deals in the middle of a tournament with people you > have had no discussion with before hand, regardless of the deal, cannot be > collusion, by defenition. If you don't discuss the collusion before the game, > and you don't plan from the outset to throw your game to make someone else win, > that isn't collusion. > > Collusion, as I understand it, specifically deals with out of game discussion > and pre-meditated game throwing. People from the same playgroup driving to a > convention, all of whom agree to do everything they can to get player X into > the finals, and then all doing stupid things in a game to help player X, even > if player X is their predator or prey. That is collusion. Making a deal with > some guy across the table you just met to split the table 2/3, even if it is > not such a good deal for you, cannot be considered collusion, as there was no > pre-meditation on the subject. > > Am I off base here? No. -Robert

Robert Goudie wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] Ok.. hows this for an example. I build my deck around the following premise: I get out a succubus club turn 1, and tell my prey that I'll help him get 3 vp if he gives me 2. So, on turn one, before anyone has done anything, I make this deal. Is this illegal? By Peter's definiton, how could it be? There's no collusion going on. By the VEKN Tourney rules yes it is. So having the Chairman of VEKN subscribing to Peter's definition of Collusion, does that not require a change in the VEKN tourney rules? (See recent posts by LSJ which support my claim that the above scenario would be ruled illegal by a judge) Where does this fall in the whole collusion argument. The situations described by Peter are clearly illegal. So is mine, but for different reasons I think. If you are arguing against the use of the word "collusion" Peter then ok, I understand. But how do you tell when a deal is pre-meditated and when it is not? In the situation I describe, really, how DO you tell? Matt

>Collusion, as I understand it, specifically deals with out of game discussion >and pre-meditated game throwing. People from the same playgroup driving to a >convention, all of whom agree to do everything they can to get player X into >the finals, and then all doing stupid things in a game to help player X, even >if player X is their predator or prey. That is collusion. Making a deal with >some guy across the table you just met to split the table 2/3, even if it is >not such a good deal for you, cannot be considered collusion, as there was no >pre-meditation on the subject. > >Am I off base here? I'd say you're dead on Pete. The question then, how are the other players in a given round supposed to respond to two methuselahs that cut a deal to split table VP's? How are said players to know that you've never met the person you'd just made a deal with? As much fun as I had with you at Origins deciding how we'd split the VP's (which is moot as our tables were then uprooted and re-seated) if I were a new/inexperienced player it would be a rather unsavory experience watching such deals take place. Bernie Bresnahan Prince o' Lansing, MI Apprenticed to the Potentate of Combat

In message <3B672494...@chartermi.net>, Matt Latham <sv...@chartermi.net> writes >Ok.. hows this for an example. I build my deck around the following >premise: I get >out a succubus club turn 1, and tell my prey that I'll help him get 3 vp if he >gives me 2. So, on turn one, before anyone has done anything, I make this deal. > >Is this illegal? By Peter's definiton, how could it be? Because there are rules other than collusion to be applied here. The rules of loss-making deals would apply here. Neither player should be able to confidently decide that they couldn't sweep the table on turn 1. >Where does this fall in the whole collusion argument. Outside of it. -- James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D EBD690ECD7A1F HEY, MOM! I FOUND SOME OF THOSE PEOPLE ON THE INTERNET B457CA213D7E6 YOU WERE TELLING ME TO NOT TALK TO! 68C3695D623D5D

Matt wrote: >>Ok.. hows this for an example. I build my deck around the following premise: I get out a succubus club turn 1, and tell my prey that I'll help him get 3 vp if he gives me 2. So, on turn one, before anyone has done anything, I make this deal.>> Sounds good to me--you have a deck that is designed to get 2VPs. Just like most intercept decks. >>Is this illegal? By Peter's definiton, how could it be?>> I don't think that it is. >>There's no collusion going on. By the VEKN Tourney rules yes it is.>> How so? You are maximizing your VPs. If you can't reasonably get more than 2VPs in any case with the deck in question, then the 3/2 table split deal you make is an attempt to maximize your VPs, and has no "outside of game considerations" aspect at all. You would make this 3/2 table split with anyone, regardless of who they were, as that is what your deck does. Don't get me wrong here--I think that the Succubus Club *should* be banned from tournament play, but it isn't yet, and that isn't the issue here. >>So having the Chairman of VEKN subscribing to Peter's definition of Collusion, does that not require a change in the VEKN tourney rules?>> I don't see that Goudie's agreement with me is in any way contrary to the VEKN tournament rules. >>Where does this fall in the whole collusion argument. The situations described by Peter are clearly illegal. So is mine, but for different reasons I think.>> But I don't think that the situation you present is illegal. I make 3/2 table split deals all the time. I don't do it because I happen to like the guy I'm sitting next to, or 'cause he is from my play group, I do so because, at the time I make the deal, it seems like the best way to maximize my VPs. Does this occasionally piss someone off who gets screwed by the deal I make? Sure. All the time, actually, but I'm not making the deal due to out of game considerations--I am making the deal to maximize my victory points. The situation you present above (with the SC deck) seems perfectly legal--you are attempting to maximize your VPs, and doing so without pre-game discussion, and without throwing your game position to arbitrarily make someone else win the game with no concern for your own game. >>If you are arguing against the use of the word "collusion" Peter then ok, I understand.>> No, I'm not arguing against it--I'm hoping to get a standard defenition for the term, so that everyone will be talking about the same thing in these conversations. I think that specifically the term "collusion" refers to the situation I presented at the start of this thread. It is being used, however, as a blanket term to indite any sort of play that invloves more than one player and seems in some way questionable, which I don't think it actually should be used for. As the VEKN rules specifically disallow "collusion", we should all know what "collusion" is before we start accusing folks of it, and I don't think that there is currently a consensus as to what the term means yet. >>But how do you tell when a deal is pre-meditated and when it is not?>> You can't. That is why I think the whole concept of legislated "anti-collusion" rules is a questionable concept, at best. However, if it does exist, and actual collusion is actually ocurring, you can usually figure it out (dumb, inappropriate game play among folks from the same play group, for instance). Sure, a couple of total strangers can get together to pull off an elaborate collusion sting operation that can't be traced, but A) that seems highly unlikely and B) this is a goofy card game about pretend vampires, not Vegas. >>In the situation I describe, really, how DO you tell?>> Assuming that game play and the deal in question seems reasonably sound (i.e. I can see the logic in it), I'll assume that the folks I am playing with are on the up and up. It seems *possible* that at some point I could be taken by an elaborate collusion scheeme, but it also seems so unlikely that I'm not going to worry about it. Obvious collusion is obvious. Inobvious collusion is impossible to detect. [ quoted text not captured ]

Bernie wrote: >>The question then, how are the other players in a given round supposed to respond to two methuselahs that cut a deal to split table VP's?>> Well, assuming that the logic of the deal seems sound, they should accept it as part of the game. All multiplayer games have dealmaking in them. >>How are said players to know that you've never met the person you'd just made a deal with?>> They don't, but I think it is reasonable to expect table split deals get made in general, and if one always assumes that a table deal is made due to questionable motives, rather than logical, in game related ones, one is going to be unhappy an awful lot. >>As much fun as I had with you at Origins deciding how we'd split the VP's (which is moot as our tables were then uprooted and re-seated) if I were a new/inexperienced player it would be a rather unsavory experience watching such deals take place.>> True, true. But then I don't think that Aaron (who is neither new or inexperienced) had such a good time when he was at the bad receiving end of a table split deal Imade at Origins, but still, I wasn't colluding--I was making the deal that I thought was best at the time to get the most VPs I could. [ quoted text not captured ]

"Matt Latham" <sv...@chartermi.net> wrote in message news:3B672494...@chartermi.net... > Robert Goudie wrote: [clip] > So having the Chairman of VEKN subscribing > to Peter's definition of Collusion, does that not require a change in the VEKN > tourney rules? As has been stated, there are many tournament rules that could be violated. Collusion is mentioned in section 5.1 as an example of "cheating". Peter's definition is the long-standing (used back in the DCI days) definition of collusion. Examples of play for goals other than trying to win the current game are found in section 5.2 This is why so many people get upset when the word "collusion" is tossed about. If someone means to say "I think that deal is illegal" and they recklessly call it "collusion", they are actually acusing the players involved in the deal of some kind of pre-meditated conspiracy to help a friend win. That tends to offend people. :) > Where does this fall in the whole collusion argument. Separate issues. > But how do you tell when a deal is pre-meditated and when it is not? In > the situation I describe, really, how DO you tell? WiI think this has been addressed in other posts but, briefly, the judge will look at all of the information available and see if there are facts to support the accusation that a player is not trying to do the best they can in the current game. Yes, we already know that a judge cannot always tell. Just like a judge won't always catch a player who marks his cards or makes pre-tournament arrangements with friends to help him win. -Robert -- Robert Goudie Chairman, V:EKN rob...@vtesinla.org

Peter D Bakija wrote: > > Bernie wrote: > >>I'm wondering if Succubus Club may be banned after the Nationals, > considering the new interest in deal making with SC often borders > on collusion.>> > > Right. Collusion. Could someone please accurately define "collusion", and what > it means in relation to VTES? > > For years, people have throwm around the word "collusion", and I have always > taken it to mean, effectively, two or more people organizing before a > tournament to make one of them win by working together, regardless of the table > dynamic. ... > On the other hand, making deals in the middle of a tournament with people you > have had no discussion with before hand, regardless of the deal, cannot be > collusion, by defenition. If you don't discuss the collusion before the game, > and you don't plan from the outset to throw your game to make someone else win, > that isn't collusion. > > Collusion, as I understand it, specifically deals with out of game discussion > and pre-meditated game throwing. ... > Am I off base here? I think you're accurately pointing out some potential semantic confusion between two separate issues. But I'd like to point out that this doesn't mean what Bernie was talking about isn't a problem. Never mind the preagreed-apon out-of-tournament deal intended to throw victory points to a single player or even to split tables by working together right from the start, in the absence of any consideration of the existing table dynamics. That *is* illegal, if I understand the rules correctly. So Bernie could not be referring to that kind of behavior. What Bernie is talking about, though not currently illegal (as long as players can credibly make the argument that they have gotten the most out of their position by dealing), is still highly irritating and IMO (and probably in the opinion of a lot of players) wouldn't be missed in the slightest. I think the problem is that, like an overpowered card, if you can make such a deal, there's no incentive not to. Frequently, two players correctly positioned and/or using complimentary decks, can make a deal so powerful as to become unstoppable. I've yet to hear about the guy who said, "Whoops, that was a dumb deal for me to make in retrospect!" about a victory point split like that. (Except perhaps for the LA Qualifier finals, where it wasn't the deal that failed, it was just the players who lost entirely by brain fart.) It's not like someone's ever likely to pull a card out of their ass that punishes the pair for dealing with each other. The problem is is that much though we'd like people to play entirely in their own direct interests at all time, it's just impossible to draw some kind of line that makes this sort of VP splitting illegal. You can suspect it but you can never prove it. Two things I'd like done, though: 1) Adopt the games-won score as the primary method of determine tournament finalist as being currently tested by Robert Goudie. I'd love to see it tweaked, though, so that players splitting a 2-2 score get less than one-half of a game won each. Any tie for victory points fewer than 2 should not grant any games won to any of the players. and 2) Ban Succubus Club. Though there are legitimate uses for this card, it's most noticeable effect on the tournament game is to facilitate this kind of stuff. Highly competitive tournaments will be a lot better off without this card. Take this two steps and I'll bet we hear a lot less about this situation in the future. Fred Fred

"Peter D Bakija" <pd...@aol.comANTISPAM> wrote in message > That is why I think the whole concept of legislated "anti-collusion" > rules is a questionable concept, at best. I know you personally already know this but I think we are either left with having no rules against collusion or we must make it clear that it is illegal and know that it is not perfectly enforcable. All we can do is punish it harshly on the rare occasions when we find hard evidence of it. Again, we also have rules against marked cards, stalling, etc. that are also judgement calls that a judge will have to make. -Robert

Peter D Bakija wrote: > Matt wrote: > >>Ok.. hows this for an example. I build my deck around the following premise: > I get > out a succubus club turn 1, and tell my prey that I'll help him get 3 vp if he > gives me 2. So, on turn one, before anyone has done anything, I make this > deal.>> > > Sounds good to me--you have a deck that is designed to get 2VPs. Just like most > intercept decks. > > >>Is this illegal? By Peter's definiton, how could it be?>> > > I don't think that it is. > > >>There's no collusion going on. By the VEKN Tourney rules yes it is.>> > > How so? You are maximizing your VPs. If you can't reasonably get more than 2VPs > in any case with the deck in question, then the 3/2 table split deal you make > is an attempt to maximize your VPs, and has no "outside of game considerations" > aspect at all. You would make this 3/2 table split with anyone, regardless of > who they were, as that is what your deck does. LSJ said just the opposite; i.e. that the dilemna I posed is illegal by VEKN floor rules. Thats what makes my VEKN chairman comments have some poignancy and validity. I hate the idea that people do what I posed above, and I'd break from my usual "focus on my Prey" and "don't cross the table... it would be bad..." to wreck the SC and then the SC player. But I like even less that these "someone else can tell me when I am maximizing my VP and when I'm not" rules even less. Matt

"Matt Latham" <sv...@chartermi.net> wrote in message news:3B674468...@chartermi.net... > LSJ said just the opposite; i.e. that the dilemna I posed is illegal by VEKN floor > rules. Thats what makes my VEKN chairman comments have some poignancy and validity. Please see my other responses. I don't believe I commented on the legality of the situation you posed. I only affirmed Peter's understanding of collusion. -Robert

[ quoted text not captured ] I believe that collusion is broader than what you described. In addition, there is a way of playing that probably doesn't fit under a technical definition but amounts to the same. It is not necessary to form an agreement before a tournament. It is sufficient to enter into a secret, out of game agreement at some point during the tournament which gives you and another player an advantage. Secret being key to the dictionary definition, but I'd also include open agreements if they have a basis in out of game considerations (which, if done correctly, are impossible to prove). Nor is it necessary for there to be an agreement to throw games or to sacrifice one's own position wholely for another player. It is sufficient to advantage your partner in even minor ways (less blatant aid should also make collusion impossible to prove). Now, a very similar tactic to true collusion is to advantage another player using out of game considerations, regardless as to whether that player realizes it, though with no agreement, it probably doesn't qualify as true collusion. One of the reasons I gave up on B5 majors was that I found myself using the last tactic naturally. All I had to do was keep in mind how my actions would affect the scores of my friends and my other opponents (and mine too, of course). Now, B5 has always been far better suited to collusion, but I've read Magic reports with blatant references to helping friends at the expense of others (with it being considered a normal tournament practice), so it isn't even limited to multiplayer CCGs.

Robert wrote: >>I know you personally already know this but I think we are either left with having no rules against collusion or we must make it clear that it is illegal and know that it is not perfectly enforcable.>> Oh, I'm with you. I fully realize that anti-collusion rules are an unfortunate necessity, and a difficult one to impliment. I find them questionable simply for the reasons that you are aware of--the instance that they exist to prevent (collusion) is so difficult to prove that it makes the anti-collusion rule a fangless tiger--in theory, it is something to be feared, but mostly it just makes trouble. >>Again, we also have rules against marked cards, stalling, etc. that are also judgement calls that a judge will have to make.>> At least marked cards and stalling are situations that can, at least in theory, be quantified with some certainty. [ quoted text not captured ]

Matt wrote: >>LSJ said just the opposite; i.e. that the dilemna I posed is illegal by VEKN floor rules.>> Ohh. Weird. I don't understand how one could declare the situation you presented illegal (which is why this whole issue is a problem in the first place :-), but then I didn't read the conversation you are basing this on. I'll take your word for it. [ quoted text not captured ]

"Peter D Bakija" <pd...@aol.comANTISPAM> wrote in message news:20010731182454...@ng-fs1.aol.com... [ quoted text not captured ] Your table split deals made me highly unhappy. I though I was a good sport about it. Gave you hell all the way and never gave in to your fear tactics.(what I believe your deck relied upon?) Luckily I was playing very strong that weekend and even 2 tables of your 2/3 deals against me couldn't keep me down! ;-) But then I would say that if you had been playing a deck with forward power you wouldn't have had to make those kind of deals? It seems like most of the decks that are most offensive tend to *require* some kind of deal to function at all. Imagine that you sit down with your succubus club deck. It's built to give someone else stuff, and block till that other person takes everyone else out and then oust himself. That deck does what it's supposed to, but not what the game intends to. You sit at a table with Matt and myself, you are going no where, because we don't deal.(in the second turn/spite from turning down my 'reasonable' offer-split the table sense of deals) You would have thought you could have swept the table, if you were playing a table sweeping deck.(sorry, on the general rush combat is not a table sweeper just yet) Playing decks that cannot win a lot of VP makes it easy to need deals. Playing decks designed to win means, to me, that if no one else wants to work with you then you are just playing the game the regular way. I know that getting to ignore an entire half of the game is a little too strong not to be considered. By making a 2/3 deal you are taking 2 players and eliminating the entire idea of the game. The one player no longer has a person constantly attacking them, and has free reign to attack their prey. The other player has no person to attack, and can do nothing but defend. Basically I feel cheated, because I wanted to play a game where the idea is a balance of everyone attack left while being attacked right. Because someone makes a deal to ignore the most basic principle of the game they are devaluing the experience. If you don't want to attack left, why not play something where you don't have to?(lunch money, plague and pestilence, settlers of catan) Maybe I just have problems because when I create decks I expect someone's predator(the person who should be trying to kill them) to, you guessed it, try to kill them! I could be wrong...and the number of victory points in a tournament, overall, is probably far more important then the basic principle of the game. Aaron (venting not against Peter, but against the idea that pacifying your predator with 2 VP so you can have 3 would ever be a good idea, and for the people who's game is ruined by someone essentially without a predator)

"Ian Lee" <cur...@aol.com> wrote in message news:20010731215722...@ng-ci1.aol.com... [clip] > I believe that collusion is broader than what you described. I disagree. > In addition, > there is a way of playing that probably doesn't fit under a technical > definition but amounts to the same. If you already understand that it doesn't fit the technical definition of collusion why try to stretch the term to make illegal activities that are already illegal under another part of the tournament rules? > Secret being key > to the dictionary definition, but I'd also include open agreements if they have > a basis in out of game considerations Why not just make the agreement illegal because its based in out of game considerations rather than bend the term collusion to fit your purposes. -Robert

BernieTime wrote: > The question then, how are the other players in a given round supposed > to respond to two methuselahs that cut a deal to split table VP's? If the deal seems illegal (i.e., one of the players is/seems to be sacrificing her ability to get the most VPs, either because of collusion or because of an out-of-game consideration or whatever), then the concerned player should call the judge over for a judgment. -- 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/

>BernieTime wrote: >> The question then, how are the other players in a given round supposed >> to respond to two methuselahs that cut a deal to split table VP's? > >If the deal seems illegal (i.e., one of the players is/seems to be >sacrificing >her ability to get the most VPs, either because of collusion or because of >an out-of-game consideration or whatever), then the concerned player should >call the judge over for a judgment. It seems to me then that if 2 players at a 5 player table that are striking a deal to split Victory Points 2:3, that one player will obviously not be fullfilling their ability to gain the most VP's (as one player will be agreeing to take only 2 of the 3 VP's). While I would agree that deal making & table talk are a stategic piece of V:TES, haggling and cutting deals over VP's strikes me as unsportsmanlike conduct. That being a personal opinion. If you have two "name" players at a table with 3 newbies, it's rather insulting (and arrogant) when the 2 aforementioned players cut a deal splitting a table yet to be won. And odds are that the "name" players will be familiar enough with each others skills/decks to make such a deal pan-out (no disrespect to the newbies). So as far as I'm concerned, Collusion = Cutting deals with other players to net "x" VP's. Not Collusion = Cutting deals to create player advantage What's the difference you ask? Here's an example: 1. Player A to Player C "If I switch places with Player B, it will be in your best interest" 2. Player A to Player C "If you support my switching with Player B, I can take her out and will then roll over to give you my victory point" Please understand that my verbage in the examples are probably not the best, I was simply trying to capture the difference in spirit between two such conversations. At any non-VEKN sponsored tourney I run in the future, I may impliment a house rule that no deals regarding Victory Points may be discussed during a game. If players are trying to cut deals outside of game, why should I care as most seating is randomized so such deals are probably never going to achieve fruition. Bernie B. Prince Of Lansing, MI. >LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com)

In message <20010801113737...@ng-cu1.aol.com>, BernieTime <berni...@aol.com> writes >It seems to me then that if 2 players at a 5 player table that are striking a >deal to split Victory Points 2:3, that one player will obviously not be >fullfilling their ability to gain the most VP's (as one player will be >agreeing to take only 2 of the 3 VP's). This is still a winning deal, however. A player is not required to make or break a deal so that they get the most, theoretically possible VPs - because of the inevitable loops this creates. [ quoted text not captured ]

Aaron wrote: >>Your table split deals made me highly unhappy. I though I was a good sport about it.>> I do too--I enjoyed playing with you, in both games. I was just pointing out that you were none too happy about it, and are neither inexperienced or new :-) >>But then I would say that if you had been playing a deck with forward power you wouldn't have had to make those kind of deals?>> I have a deck with forward power, but sometimes I have to make deals to get anywhere. In that first game (vs the guy with the Lasombra bruise/bleed deck when you were my predator), I had every reason to believe that my prey had enough combat to make it not so worth my while to mindlessly attack him (his first 2 or 3 discards were Bum's Rush, Torn Signpost, and some other Pot card). Thus, rather than attacking someone whocould fight back, get myself killed, and then get ousted by you, I made a 3/2 split deal (which worked out as a 2/2 split deal, which was even better). In retrospect, I probably could have killed him (he had less combat than I thought--thos first few discards were either *incredibly* shrewed or a total fluke), but at the time I made the deal, I was convinced it was the best option, and once I made the deal, I wasn't going to break it. In that second game, I didn't make any deals at all for the first half of the game--I was plowing full hog into my prey. Granted, I tried to convince him to oust the Viscisitude deck before I killed him, but he was unwilling to play. But then you switched our seats and stole all my hard work and VP. After that, my job was to kill you (what is the point of making threats that are idle when you can live up to them?), as I assured you would happen before you took my seat. Heck, I even gave you the option of not switching seats with me, just so I wouldn't have to kill you. After that, I made a deal with Robin so that we both ended up with VPs, which worked out to both our benefits. >>It seems like most of the decks that are most offensive tend to *require* some kind of deal to function at all.>> Sure. My Rush deck doesn't require deal making. Sometimes I make them 'cause it benefits me. Most of the time, however, I just kill stuff and get VPs. Just when my prey is some sort of deck that can fight with me (like another Rush deck), there is no percentage at all in fighting--we both lose. Thus, we make a deal, and both benefit. >>That deck does what it's supposed to, but not what the game intends to.>> Perhaps, perhaps not. I agree, however, that the Succubus Club should not be allowed in Tournament play for many reasons, but that is not the issue here. >>You would have thought you could have swept the table, if you were playing a table sweeping deck.(sorry, on the general rush combat is not a table sweeper just yet)>> You are incorrect. I regularly get 4VPs with that deck. It all depends on what decks I sit down with. John Bell got into the finals of the Qualifier on 8VPs. Rush decks are perfectly capable of sweeping (at least 4 VPs) a table. >>Playing decks that cannot win a lot of VP makes it easy to need deals. Playing decks designed to win means, to me, that if no one else wants to work with you then you are just playing the game the regular way.>> I play Rush decks because A) not enough other folks do, and I got something to prove and B) 'cause I can get away with making deals (I have the Smack Talk discipline at superior). Sometimes I have to make deals to get VPs. Sometimes not. >>Basically I feel cheated, because I wanted to play a game where the idea is a balance of everyone attack left while being attacked right.>> But not all decks work that way. Sure, some do. Some very effective ones do. But other decks don't. Intercept decks, for instance, are often completely ineffective at hurting their prey. Rush decks work however they want, and the good ones still win. >>Because someone makes a deal to ignore the most basic principle of the game they are devaluing the experience. If you don't want to attack left, why not play something where you don't have to?>> I'm a big fan of attacking left, but if attacking left is just going to get me killed, why not try another alternative? Say you are playing a Malk S+B deck. Your deck can't do anything but bleed big at stealth. Your prey happens to be a deck, just by sheer luck, with 23 Deflections and 15 Wakes in it. Are you going to mindlessly attempt to bleed them, so you can sweep the table for them? Attack left is how the game works and a good idea, but not if it is going to get you killed. >>Maybe I just have problems because when I create decks I expect someone's predator(the person who should be trying to kill them) to, you guessed it, try to kill them!>> I build decks to kill my prey. Most of the time, I kill my prey. You played with me in two games. In one, I made a table split deal, 'cause if I didn't, I thought I was just going to lose. In the other, I did my very darndest to kill my prey, until you switched seats with me and stole my VP, at which point, the whole game just flew out the window (as I warned you before hand it would) for everyone involved. Do you not see the logic behind what happened in both of these games? >>I could be wrong...and the number of victory points in a tournament, overall, is probably far more important then the basic principle of the game.>> Deal making is a basic principle of the game--it is designed to be multi player, and all interactive multiplayer games are, by defenition, political. >>(venting not against Peter, but against the idea that pacifying your predator with 2 VP so you can have 3 would ever be a good idea, and for the people who's game is ruined by someone essentially without a predator)>> People sit down all the time effectively without a predator. If your predator is a run of the mill intercept deck, what pressure is being put on you if you are playing a full forward deck? If your predator is a horse abuse bloat deck, what kind of pressure are they going to put on you? [ quoted text not captured ]

><berni...@aol.com> writes >>It seems to me then that if 2 players at a 5 player table that are striking >a >>deal to split Victory Points 2:3, that one player will obviously not be >>fullfilling their ability to gain the most VP's (as one player will be >>agreeing to take only 2 of the 3 VP's). > >This is still a winning deal, however. A player is not required to make >or break a deal so that they get the most, theoretically possible VPs - >because of the inevitable loops this creates. > >-- >James Coupe James, Could you please elaborate a bit more. I'm not quite clear on the point you are making. Thanks.. If I was unclear, would it not be collusion if a player at start of game accepts a deal with another player with an intended split which would only result in that player only gaining 2 Vp's? Hence, less than half (which is not maximizing your win). Bernie

In message <20010801161636...@ng-ba1.aol.com>, BernieTime <berni...@aol.com> writes >If I was unclear, would it not be collusion Since this occurs in-game, with in-game considerations, it is *not* collusion. Collusion involves out of game deal making and considerations. Please do not confuse collusion with non-winning deals. The two are *very* different. > if a player at start >of game accepts a deal with another player with an >intended split which would only result in that player >only gaining 2 Vp's? If the judge is of the opinion that this is a winning deal, it would not have to be ruled out under the "winning deal" rules. At the start of a game, it might be difficult to establish that the two players were in a position to know this. [ quoted text not captured ]

"Peter D Bakija" <pd...@aol.comANTISPAM> wrote in message news:20010801160226...@ng-cl1.aol.com... > Aaron wrote: > >>Your table split deals made me highly unhappy. I though I was a good sport > about it.>> > > I do too--I enjoyed playing with you, in both games. I was just pointing out > that you were none too happy about it, and are neither inexperienced or new :-) Guilty as charged. [ quoted text not captured ] You are correct. But there are some decks, some at Origins, that seemed to have little purpose without someone backing them up. If they aren't making deals, well then they aren't winning. And you know I had no chance of getting any VP without switching with you. My intercept predator was doing a tap dance on my vote calling head, and my prey had enough minions to wait me out. :( I tried to give you the choice between only crushing me for revenge, and getting *any* VP at all. I almost succeeded, seems like you only scored 1 VP because of the terror rush decks put into many players.(for good reason! I just choose to ignore it) > >>It seems like most of the decks that are most offensive tend to *require* > some kind of deal to function at all.>> > > Sure. My Rush deck doesn't require deal making. Sometimes I make them 'cause it > benefits me. Most of the time, however, I just kill stuff and get VPs. Just > when my prey is some sort of deck that can fight with me (like another Rush > deck), there is no percentage at all in fighting--we both lose. Thus, we make a > deal, and both benefit. You are a superior player, the same goes for Jason Bell.(in my opinion) You both played well constructed, good combat based decks. There were several poor decks there that ended up getting pushed into deals because they have no chance to win on their own. > >>That deck does what it's supposed to, but not what the game intends to.>> > > Perhaps, perhaps not. I agree, however, that the Succubus Club should not be > allowed in Tournament play for many reasons, but that is not the issue here. I'd say, that the idea behind the SC is well founded. There are reasons, other then table spliting, to trade cards with other players. > >>You would have thought you could have swept the table, if you were playing a > table sweeping deck.(sorry, on the general rush combat is not a table > sweeper just yet)>> > > You are incorrect. I regularly get 4VPs with that deck. It all depends on what > decks I sit down with. John Bell got into the finals of the Qualifier on 8VPs. > Rush decks are perfectly capable of sweeping (at least 4 VPs) a table. See above Mr Super combat. If I was to play a rush combat deck...well just imagine it. It wouldn't be too pretty. I do not think I would be capable of playing rush without more deal making that I am comfortable with. > >>Playing decks that cannot win a lot of VP makes it easy > to need deals. Playing decks designed to win means, to me, that if no one > else wants to work with you then you are just playing the game the regular > way.>> > > I play Rush decks because A) not enough other folks do, and I got something to > prove and B) 'cause I can get away with making deals (I have the Smack Talk > discipline at superior). Sometimes I have to make deals to get VPs. Sometimes > not. A) They are not, as an overall stragety and in my personal experience, not a very strong deck on their own. Certain decks break the norms, like that ones seen at origins. B) You do. I have 'abstract concepts' at superior...but then you probably already know that! ;-) > >>Basically I feel cheated, because I wanted to play a game where the idea is > a balance of everyone attack left while being attacked right.>> > > But not all decks work that way. Sure, some do. Some very effective ones do. > But other decks don't. Intercept decks, for instance, are often completely > ineffective at hurting their prey. Rush decks work however they want, and the > good ones still win. I like intercept. I'm as facinated with intercept as you are with rush combat. Neither are particualry effective on a mass scale but... Just wish you would figure out something to do with Nosferatu.(I'll have to send you my Nosferatu Intercept deck, it can't get VP yet, but it's scary!) > >>Because someone makes a deal to ignore the most basic principle of the game > they are devaluing the experience. If you don't want to attack left, why not > play > something where you don't have to?>> > > I'm a big fan of attacking left, but if attacking left is just going to get me > killed, why not try another alternative? Say you are playing a Malk S+B deck. > Your deck can't do anything but bleed big at stealth. Your prey happens to be a > deck, just by sheer luck, with 23 Deflections and 15 Wakes in it. Are you going > to mindlessly attempt to bleed them, so you can sweep the table for them? > Attack left is how the game works and a good idea, but not if it is going to > get you killed. There are good reasons, to make deals. Making hard/fast deals to oust yourself or ones that effect the entire game are kinda cheap. I seem to remember making plenty of "I won't bleed you 3 TURNS if you don't rush kill all 6 of my !tor THIS TURN" [ quoted text not captured ] I like pressure, it makes things fun. I hate decks/players that include nothing to keep their preys in check. People that don't play to win...but that has nothing to do with the thread. Just my personal peeves.

Aaron wrote: >>You are correct. But there are some decks, some at Origins, that seemed to have little purpose without someone backing them up. If they aren't making deals, well then they aren't winning. And you know I had no chance of getting any VP without switching with you.>> Oh, I know. You made the appropriate move--I would have done the same thing (traded zero VPs for 1VP and certain unplesant death). However, once the switch was made, the whole game went totally wacky (and lives on in infamy as easily the kookiest game of VTES I have ever been involved in. I'm glad you were there to share the moment :-). >>I almost succeeded, seems like you only scored 1 VP because of the terror rush decks put into many players.(for good reason! I just choose to ignore it)>> I got the VP 'cause after all the madness, I made a good deal. I could have ripped into Robin and denied her a VP (leaving you alone), and probably not got any myself, or deal with Robin to help her oust you (which I was gonna do anyways :-) and then have her give me her VP. Had I attacked her full steam, she probably wouldn't have gotten any VPs, and I probably wouldn't have either. Thus, it was in both our best interests to deal, and history was made :-) >>You are a superior player, the same goes for Jason Bell.(in my opinion) You both played well constructed, good combat based decks. There were several poor decks there that ended up getting pushed into deals because they have no chance to win on their own.>> Ahh, see! And I'm there to do that pushing! >>I'd say, that the idea behind the SC is well founded. There are reasons, other then table spliting, to trade cards with other players.>> Oh, I'm with you. I have no problem in theory with the SC--I think it is a very interesting and fun card. This being said, however, in tournament play, I think it opens up *way* too many holes that the "no collusion" and "no outside of game consideration" rules are trying to patch up. >>I like intercept. I'm as facinated with intercept as you are with rush combat. Neither are particualry effective on a mass scale but... Just wish you would figure out something to do with Nosferatu.(I'll have to send you my Nosferatu Intercept deck, it can't get VP yet, but it's scary!)>> I have a good Nosferatu intercept deck (all animalism, mostly !Nos) that just swept the table the other night, actually. I got Smiling Jack up to 7 counters. I have never seen a game where Smiling Jack got up to 5 or more counters where the Smiling Jack player didn't win. [ quoted text not captured ]

On 02 Aug 2001 02:08:11 GMT, pd...@aol.comANTISPAM (Peter D Bakija) wrote: >Aaron wrote: >>>I like intercept. I'm as facinated with intercept as you are with rush >combat. Neither are particualry effective on a mass scale but... Just wish >you would figure out something to do with Nosferatu.(I'll have to send you >my Nosferatu Intercept deck, it can't get VP yet, but it's scary!)>> Heh. Intercept can be highly effective, but it requires a much different style of play than most people approach it with. >I have a good Nosferatu intercept deck (all animalism, mostly !Nos) that just >swept the table the other night, actually. I got Smiling Jack up to 7 counters. >I have never seen a game where Smiling Jack got up to 5 or more counters where >the Smiling Jack player didn't win. I'll agree. Around here, Jack rarely if EVER makes it even to 3 counters, because the table looks at him and says "Oh no. The hell with that", and erases him en masse on the first or second counter. While it's possible to defend against 12-16 minions coming to roast Jack, it ain't exactly easy; fail to draw into your untap, and Jack goes away. -- Derek "Nice girl, but about as sharp as a sack of wet mice." - F. Leghorn

"The Nosferatu Stuff" <roans...@yahoo.com> wrote > > You are a superior player, the same goes for Jason Bell.(in my opinion) You > both played well constructed, good combat based decks. Now you just wait one second there, pal. As far as I know, you've never played a game of Jyhad with me, I haven't posted any of my decks, and I've never played in an organized V:tES tournament. You'd better retract that statement right now. I assume you meant John Bell of Ohio (no relation, though oddly I do have a brother named John Bell), the only other Bell I've seen mentioned around here. - Jason Bell (That's *Jason*)

"Jason Bell" <Jason...@mail.com> wrote in message news:vz7a7.55473$J37.12...@typhoon.southeast.rr.com... [ quoted text not captured ] Opps. In that particular instance, yes I was referencing John. Sorry. You'll just have to come to GenCon so I can post about how great you are at playing, well whatever it is you like to play? Aaron

Frederick Scott <fre...@netcom.com> wrote: >Two things I'd like done, though: >1) Adopt the games-won score as the primary method of determine tournament finalist >as being currently tested by Robert Goudie. I'd love to see it tweaked, though, so that >players splitting a 2-2 score get less than one-half of a game won each. Any tie for >victory points fewer than 2 should not grant any games won to any of the players. >and >2) Ban Succubus Club. Though there are legitimate uses for this card, it's most >noticeable effect on the tournament game is to facilitate this kind of stuff. Highly >competitive tournaments will be a lot better off without this card. >Take this two steps and I'll bet we hear a lot less about this situation in the future. I totally agree. The current tournament rules encourages people to play for the VPs, while the rules *say* they should play for the wins. Having conflicting goals on what the player is supposed to play like and what is actually in his best interest to do is a breeding ground for dishonesty. If players are supposed to play for wins, then the tournament rules should value wins, not VPs. Doing things like your Case 1 would eliminate the 3-2 table split. I agree that a two draws should be valued at less than one win, or there will be an incentive for even table splits. It would also lessen the need for table-sweepers, which is a good thing, IMO. And the Succubus Club has no business in a tournament. It just screams out "Abuse me!" Collusion is easy enough as it is - there's no need to help it along.

On Thu, 2 Aug 2001, The Nosferatu Stuff wrote: > Opps. In that particular instance, yes I was referencing John. Sorry. > You'll just have to come to GenCon so I can post about how great you are at > playing, well whatever it is you like to play? It sure as hell isn't combat decks. =\ David Cherryholmes