rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad

every year the same crap

4 messages from 4 participants · 03 September 2003
original thread on Google Groups

Proc_F

irst of all in a multiplayer game that involves politics, crosstable actions, effects that affect all players (anarch revolts, smiling jack etc) and more tehn one vp deals are an integral part of such a game. if you don´t like deals don ´t play a multiplayer game (especially this game). i dislike the judging criteria for the ec. like last year the organizers of the ec announce prior to the ec that the judges disapprove certain parts of vtes! this might be okay in local playgroups but certainly not at an international tournament. if you don´t like the vekn rules don´t organize the ec. A judge should be at a tourney to clarify questions that arise during play. that means he has to have knowledge of the rules. Does that mean he has to be a good player? will a judge be able to tell if there are factual reason for a certain deal. maybe the judge is not smart enough to comprehend the situation at a table, or simply does not know have the insight because he has not seen all of the game, or maybe he knows to much (i don´t allow this losing deal i know your predator will oust you next turn but you can oust your prey this turn , he already played all his wakes; deflections etc). maybe i am not smart or brave enough to earn the gamewin (allthough i might be able to). dear damnans will a judge explain why he denies the deal request, if so will he tell me how i will be able to do better. whats next will the judges tell me what card to play, because not playing a certain cards will not maximize my vps. how will the judge reach his/her verdict if a deal is legal or not. will he sit down with all the decklist of all the players and then decide (will he have the time to do so), will i have to explain in front of all players why i agree to a losing deal, therefore exposing the weakness in the current situation dear judge my pred will be able to oust me because i lack ..... in my hand right now). a judge will never be able to judge the rightness of a deal, therefore should only try to prevent obvious collusion not a losing deal made by a bad or chicken player. but damnans maybe i am just getting you wrong, how would you judge the following situation: 1) i have a 20 percent chance of making a gamewin but if i agree to a certain deal i have a 95% chance of a)giving me 2 vps, and another player a gamewin b) giving me and another player 2 vps and no GW on the table are both illegal only A or none? 2) i play a weenie vote deck (no combat cards, no stealth) only 4 players at the table. my grandprey has a vamp with an atonement and a guardian angle. so once i oust my prey i won´t be able to pass a single other action. am i allowed to make a losing deal or do i have to try to oust my prey and grandprey with the same vote (which is almost impposible to do) and the clear the rest of the table in order to maximse my VP´s? (this situation already occured). damnans as an organizer of the ec you should not disapprove deals. or try to prevent them. just play by vekn rules. thank god i have not booked my flight already, because i am not sure i will enjoy a toruney with such shitty judging criteria!!!!!!! a judge that disapproves a legal part of the game should not be allowend to judge such a large event. maybe damnans you should step down as head judge!!!!!!! Stefan P.S.: I hope that vp deals will occure at all the tables and the judges won´t have the time to answer all the request for judgement. stupid rules deserve punishment!

Henrik Isaksson

> 1) i have a 20 percent chance of making a gamewin but if i agree to a > certain deal i have a 95% chance of > a)giving me 2 vps, and another player a gamewin b) giving me and another > player 2 vps and no GW on the > table are both illegal only A or none? both illegal of course! Don't make loosing deals if you have a chance to get a GW! > 2) i play a weenie vote deck (no combat cards, no stealth) only 4 players at > the table. my grandprey has a vamp with an > atonement and a guardian angle. so once i oust my prey i won´t be able to > pass a single other action. am i allowed to > make a losing deal or do i have to try to oust my prey and grandprey with > the same vote (which is almost impposible to > do) and the clear the rest of the table in order to maximse my VP´s? (this > situation already occured). illegal make a losing deal of course... the vamp with atonement could end up in trouble from his prey's minions or something else could happen... Also, you could allow your prey to oust your grand-prey if he bothers you that much and you think it's impossible to oust them both with the same vote. All you whiners, stop whining about bad seating and stuff and play the game to win! /Henrik Isaksson

LSJ

Proc_F wrote: > certain deal. maybe the judge is not smart enough to comprehend the The judge is assumed to be "smart enough" to make judgments. That's inherent in the definition of "judge". > situation at a table, or simply does not know have > the insight because he has not seen all of the game, or maybe he knows to > much (i don´t allow this losing deal i know > your predator will oust you next turn but you can oust your prey this turn , > he already played all his wakes; > deflections etc). He need not have seen all of the game - he need only be able to examine the current game state (which he can do). This includes every player's library, as necessary. The judgment of "playing to win" should be based only on the parts of the game state that the player in question could know, of course. > how > will the judge reach his/her verdict if a deal is legal or not. will he sit He will use his judgment. > a judge will never be able to > judge the rightness of a deal, therefore A judge is always able to judge. > should only try to prevent obvious collusion not a losing deal made by a bad > or chicken player. Illegal play, even made out of ignorance, should not be allowed. > 1) i have a 20 percent chance of making a gamewin but if i agree to a > certain deal i have a 95% chance of > a)giving me 2 vps, and another player a gamewin b) giving me and another > player 2 vps and no GW on the > table are both illegal only A or none? Absolute numbers are unknowable, both by players and by judges. In the case above, you have a "reasonable" chance at a game win, so should not be allowed to play for a loss instead, since all players are required to play to win. > 2) i play a weenie vote deck (no combat cards, no stealth) only 4 players at > the table. my grandprey has a vamp with an > atonement and a guardian angle. so once i oust my prey i won´t be able to > pass a single other action. am i allowed to > make a losing deal or do i have to try to oust my prey and grandprey with > the same vote (which is almost impposible to > do) and the clear the rest of the table in order to maximse my VP´s? (this > situation already occured). If you have no reasonable chance of winning the game, as could be the case in the situation you describe above (the complete details are not given, so I couldn't say with more conviction whether it is true or not), so you are obliged to maximize your VP finish. You seem to imply that you have a reasonable chance at 1 VP without the deal, so if the deal results in at least 1 VP for you, then it is fine. It may be a "losing" deal, but it is no more "losing" than not making the deal. > damnans as an organizer of the ec you should not disapprove deals. or try to > prevent them. just play by vekn rules. The V:EKN rules include rules on sportsmanship which encompass "play to win". Illegal deals are to be disallowed and prevented. [snip profanity and snip rant] -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. Links to V:TES news, rules, cards, utilities, and tournament calendar: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/

Derek Ray

In message <3f55cc5f$0$15182$3b21...@usenet.univie.ac.at>, "Proc_F" <a950...@nospammmunet.univie.ac.at> mumbled something about: >but damnans maybe i am just getting you wrong, how would you judge the >following situation: We'll assume that the percentage chances can be accurately estimated, since of course this isn't really possible during the game. >1) i have a 20 percent chance of making a gamewin but if i agree to a >certain deal i have a 95% chance of >a)giving me 2 vps, and another player a gamewin b) giving me and another >player 2 vps and no GW on the >table are both illegal only A or none? I'd rule both illegal as you're giving up your own chance of getting a Game Win. Show some balls, take a chance. >2) i play a weenie vote deck (no combat cards, no stealth) only 4 players at >the table. my grandprey has a vamp with an >atonement and a guardian angle. so once i oust my prey i won´t be able to >pass a single other action. am i allowed to >make a losing deal or do i have to try to oust my prey and grandprey with >the same vote (which is almost impposible to >do) and the clear the rest of the table in order to maximse my VP´s? (this >situation already occured). You're a vote deck; it's not hard to throw damage downstream. And you're a weenie deck; you have plenty of actions to "arrange" it so you hit your prey and grandprey at the same time. I would certainly allow deals if you had already ousted your first prey, as it is obvious that you are not going anywhere, and possibly if you had your prey on the ropes and were just about to oust him, and were trying to plan ahead. However, if you haven't even come close to ousting that first prey you really don't need to be looking that far ahead. Nobody has a crystal ball, and nobody should play like they do. >damnans as an organizer of the ec you should not disapprove deals. or try to >prevent them. just play by vekn rules. How about the one that says "play to win"? >thank god i have not booked my flight already, because i am not sure i will >enjoy a toruney with such shitty judging >criteria!!!!!!! I think perhaps a number of us are just tired of the people who begin carving up tables as of turn 3, and who spend far too much time meddling cross-table and not enough time trying to win the game. >P.S.: I hope that vp deals will occure at all the tables and the judges >won´t have the time to answer all the request >for judgement. stupid rules deserve punishment! The judge can, of course, always freely add time to any table if there has been a delay that was not the fault of the players at the table. So there will always be time to observe. -- Derek "Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge." - C. Darwin, 1871