Under 5.1 of the tournament rules "Cheating"
"Cheating includes, but is not limited to, the following intentional
activities:
* Receiving outside assistance or coaching
* Looking at opponents' card faces while shuffling or cutting
their decks
* Collusion to alter the results of a game
* Misrepresenting rules or card texts or errata
* Using marked cards/sleeves (see section 4.6)
* Drawing extra cards
* Manipulating which cards are drawn from your deck or from an
opponent's deck
* Stalling to take advantage of a time limit
* Misrepresenting or obscuring public information (pool totals,
number of cards in deck, and so on)"
One thing that seems to come up in tournaments is where you will be
approaching the 2 hour mark and someone or some group of players in
the game will try to say you have to play fast, presumably so that
they have time to win. At times like this, is it appropriate to say,
"if you didn't want to run out of time, you should have played faster
earlier in the game," and play as normal, or is there some obligation
to hustle through my turn? What exactly is considered stalling?
I think that stalling is partly about what you do and partly what
you're thinking when you do it. It can take people a while to figure
out what they should do, but this isn't stalling because the intent is
to play the game properly. Trying to see if there's part of the game
they're not aware of(and being rushed into) could take a while.
Deciding on what you need to play during a master phase, discard, etc
is important, especially when you're down to the end game.
When you are in a winning position, or at least looking to pick up
that 1/2 vp, why feel pressured to make someone's game easier? Short
of having turn time limits, I don't see the "stalling" provision as
being that enforceable.
Brandon
On May 10, 5:45 pm, brandonsantacruz <brandonsantac...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
> One thing that seems to come up in tournaments is where you will be
> approaching the 2 hour mark and someone or some group of players in
> the game will try to say you have to play fast, presumably so that
> they have time to win. At times like this, is it appropriate to say,
> "if you didn't want to run out of time, you should have played faster
> earlier in the game," and play as normal, or is there some obligation
> to hustle through my turn? What exactly is considered stalling?
Well, to be fair, most of the time that someone is slow in the end of
the game, that same person has been slow the whole game. And if
someone is near ousting their prey, and excessively slow play is
likely to prevent that, it seems reasonable to ask people to play
faster. 'Cause they probably have been asking these people to play
faster the whole game already anyway.
I've very rarely been in a game where someone played at a reasonable
rate, and then suddenly got slow near the end of the time limit. I've
been in *plenty* of games where someone played slow, and then
continued to play slow near the end of the time limit. So saying "if
you didn't want to run out of time, you should have played faster
earlier in the game" is likely to get someone pissed off at you if
they are complaining that you are playing slowly. As if they are
complaining about you playing slowly at the end of the game, you were
probably playing slowly earlier in the game.
-Peter
> As if they are
> complaining about you playing slowly at the end of the game, you were
> probably playing slowly earlier in the game.
I could see where this would be frustrating. Some players/decks play
very slow and it does hamper the speed of play. If this were happening
at a tournament, I would suggest that a player mention it early on in
order to have enough turns to play the game, plus it would set a good
example for the rest of the game(tournament?).
I consider myself at least an average player in terms of speed. If I
get to the end of a game and am being pushed to power through turns,
my attitude is that there is nothing wrong with the speed I'm playing
at. Suddenly having to play faster does not correlate to better play,
but the opposite. Players are generally given a wide dearth when it
comes to accidental violation of rules. With this rule, it would seem
hard to establish when it's being violated in the first place. If it's
an issue of "common sense," then the fair way to approach it would be
to say the person is doing fine until proven otherwise.
Brandon
> I consider myself at least an average player in terms of speed. If I
> get to the end of a game and am being pushed to power through turns,
> my attitude is that there is nothing wrong with the speed I'm playing
> at. Suddenly having to play faster does not correlate to better play,
> but the opposite. Players are generally given a wide dearth when it
> comes to accidental violation of rules. With this rule, it would seem
> hard to establish when it's being violated in the first place. If it's
> an issue of "common sense," then the fair way to approach it would be
> to say the person is doing fine until proven otherwise.
If there is very little time to go, and you have no chance of a VP but
someone else does, I consider it sporting to power through your turn
and allow them their shot at a VP. Faffing about and hoping for that .
5vp is weak.
Wasting time doing transfers or pondering your discards or taking
superfluous actions (such as hunting or bleeding for minimal amounts
when your prey is on insurmountable pool levels) when it is quite
obviously your last turn of the game and none of these actions are
going to influence the outcome, is poor sportsmanship IMO.
jase
On May 10, 6:13 pm, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote:
> Well, to be fair, most of the time that someone is slow in the end of
> the game, that same person has been slow the whole game. And if
> someone is near ousting their prey, and excessively slow play is
> likely to prevent that, it seems reasonable to ask people to play
> faster. 'Cause they probably have been asking these people to play
> faster the whole game already anyway.
This is what I've most commonly seen when it comes to slow play, too.
It seems dickish to keep asking someone to hurry up throughout a game,
and I haven't found any kind of good solution to this.
John Eno
I've seen such play - slow almost whole the game and playing really
fast in the end with pushing other players to play fast as well. It
was during EC in Prague. We had Imbued deck at the table. Almost all
his turns he played really slow but in the end when he got many
minions all with many power cards he started to play fast and
complaining about our speed when playing fast and playing properly was
difference between being ousted or not. It was necessary to check what
powers does each imbued have to decide which one to block and which
one let go.
-Collusion to alter the results of a game
Isn't this the heart of VTES? I mean isn't this what the game is all
about. Cross table allies play a very important role in VTES and quite
often it is to your advantage to collude with your cross table ally to
destroy some other methuselahs game.
This one is very confusing to me. To me collusion the cornerstone of
VTES. Perhaps I am missing something?
simcof
[ quoted text not captured ]
Colluding refers to an agreement made by players outside the game to
work together to achieve a particular result for a game or
tournament. An example of collusion might be a group of players
deciding to try to help one of their number to win a tournament so
that all of them can split the prize. Collusion does not refer to
alliances openly made between players during the course of a game.
As for the OP, I think I have experienced stalling tactics before, but
it is awfully hard to prove. Beware of players trying to hold
pointless political debates during the last forty minutes of a game,
that's all I have to say.
On May 10, 5:45 pm, brandonsantacruz <brandonsantac...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
[ quoted text not captured ]
In my experience I have often tried to calculate my way to victory.
When all I have to rely on is myself I have to be sure the actions I
take are going to be the best actions and in the right order. I missed
my 2nd prey at last year's Origins final table (first major tourney
event) because I failed to play a certain stealth card as opposed to
another which mattered given the disciplines on my vampires taking the
actions and the one more card it would have moved (conditioning) and
would have thus obtained my oust and likely won the day. Due to this
event I made sure that in future tournaments I would not make this
mistake and at times take longer on my turn as it could effect the
game and I would rather not lose a game because I did not take time to
do the math. And I will get chastised at times as if I take too long,
and some could interpret this to be stalling. Yet I know this not to
be true as if it ever happens that I am taking my time on a turn, it
is too figure out how I survive or achieve my GW. Part of my success
it due to just that.
And on the flip side I have seen some of the world's top players
intentionally stall and they will openly admit it afterwards or admit
that they do stall games if it means the game win. To me that is total
BS and you should be a better player than that. The ironic thing is I
see those same players try to rush others and remind them of the time
on the clock if they think they have the GW in hand if enough turns go
by. Karma comes to mind. And to those that intentionally stall out
games I say you are cheating and perhaps stalling should be taken more
seriously by judges.
On May 10, 2:45 pm, brandonsantacruz <brandonsantac...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
[ quoted text not captured ]
I think this is one of the slippery slopes of judging VtES (much like
playing to win) as it is almost total undefinable. Should a player be
given a set time per turn, a set time per turn per minute, no
restriction, should slow players be chastised on turn 1, should all
players take the same amount of time to consider decisions/
alternatives/deals, should bad play be penalized, etc?
When I am judging, I feel like a player is entitled to take his/her
time on his/her turn. Whether this is minute 1 or minute 117. This
means that a player can make actions that will have 0 effect on the
outcome of the game even in their last turn. If you try to limit
these actions on minute 118 then you should enforce the same stringent
on minute 5 (ie, that hunt is a total waste of time and will not help
you win the game, announcing it and resolving effects is stalling!)
which is impossible to do.
I would say as a rule of thumb, that unless a player's actions/
thoughts/inaction can be verified to be stalling the game out, that
they should not be rushed through their final minutes of the game. In
fact, I find it to be rather poor sportsmanship to rush someone
through their last turns because you "want to win".
Jeff Poole
[ quoted text not captured ]
I don't think 2 minutes per turn should be the case as some turns are
much quicker, esp. earlier in the game, where as some turns take
longer (ie. many of your actions are blocked or a political referendum
that is tight and you need a vote). But, when you have actions that
you take that are pointless and you know you cannot win then don't
jack someone else over.
[ quoted text not captured ]
If you are reminding someone to play more quickly throughout the game
and they have a big problem with it, a judge can rule on whether they
are stalling or not. If they decide in your favor, I think the judge
would probably add more time to the game. If they decide against you,
just play on and don't mention it to the player. It's really hard to
define which actions are "stalling" and under what circumstances. The
surest way to not be thought of as a dick is to not act like one or,
if you find yourself coming across badly, apologize. It costs you
nothing and even if you are a dick, makes you look better ;)
Brandon
[ quoted text not captured ]
What if we had timers and each player was allotted 25 minutes. At the
begining of your turn, you hit the start and at the end you hit the
stop.
If someone else is wasting your time then you ask them to be quiet or
call a judge to silence them.
On May 11, 3:11 pm, XZealot <xzea...@cox.net> wrote:
> What if we had timers and each player was allotted 25 minutes. At the
> begining of your turn, you hit the start and at the end you hit the
> stop.
>
> If someone else is wasting your time then you ask them to be quiet or
> call a judge to silence them.
I don't think you're being serious, but I can't tell because of the
lack of emoticons. Where are you on this, Peter?
Some decks are fast taking their turns(i.e. Spell of Life, Powerbleed,
tap and bleed) and some are slow(i.e. Una, breed/boon). If there is a
set amount of time per turn, some decks become unplayable. While I
would rather not see an Una deck ever ever ever, it's an otherwise
legal deck. Should turn time be kept in mind? Yeah, I'd say so. Do you
want to bore other players to death? How many times will they tolerate
you timing the game out? It seems like there is so much gray area in
this aspect of the game that the best you can do is keep the conflicts
in mind.
Brandon
On May 11, 5:19 pm, brandonsantacruz <brandonsantac...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
> On May 11, 3:11 pm, XZealot <xzea...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > What if we had timers and each player was allotted 25 minutes. At the
> > begining of your turn, you hit the start and at the end you hit the
> > stop.
>
> > If someone else is wasting your time then you ask them to be quiet or
> > call a judge to silence them.
>
> I don't think you're being serious, but I can't tell because of the
> lack of emoticons. Where are you on this, Peter?
>
I'm not sure on the seriousness either, but imagine how cool it would
be to have a 5-way VTES Timer. Similar to a chess timer, but when you
oust your prey, you absorb any time left on his clock. =) It might
be fair to pause the time (on a chess timer, you do it by pressing
both buttons half-way down) during a referendum, or maybe a player who
is doing his thinking on your turn can say "pause" to let you pause
your time while he considers...
What I would actually like to see would be some random amount of
stoppage time added on to the end of the timer. 2 hours + 2d6
minutes, or something - judge warns everyone when the 2 hours are
nearly up and completely up, and then keeps the 2d6 minute timer
secret. I don't know if it would solve anything, but maybe...
What I would really actually like to see would be games going to
completion regardless of time, but with a prevalence of slow-ass bloat
decks that could be forever, and not everyone has 4 x forever to
finish a tournament.
On May 11, 5:19 pm, brandonsantacruz <brandonsantac...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
[ quoted text not captured ]
I would say you get to press stop in combat or during a referendum.
If you play a slow deck then you better be quick about it.
No, I am serious.
These timers could replace the actual round time limits. It would be
much more fair.
[ quoted text not captured ]
It could be like Simon Says. The longer your turn goes, the more
flashing lights you have to remember. At some point you'll mess up and
that's the end of your turn.
On May 11, 5:55 pm, brandonsantacruz <brandonsantac...@yahoo.com>
[ quoted text not captured ]
That is interesting, but really a different idea altogether.
On May 11, 5:55 pm, XZealot <xzea...@cox.net> wrote:
> 120 minutes in a round/ 5 player/ 12 turns average= 2 minutes per
> turn.
>
> Should this be the time limit?
No.
On May 11, 6:11 pm, XZealot <xzea...@cox.net> wrote:
> What if we had timers and each player was allotted 25 minutes. At the
> begining of your turn, you hit the start and at the end you hit the
> stop.
Your turn is not your own. [1.6.1.5]
> If someone else is wasting your time then you ask them to be quiet or
> call a judge to silence them.
This is the current rule.
On May 11, 6:19 pm, brandonsantacruz <brandonsantac...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
> > If someone else is wasting your time then you ask them to be quiet or
> > call a judge to silence them.
>
> I don't think you're being serious, but I can't tell because of the
> lack of emoticons. Where are you on this, Peter?
Heh--I think Norm is being completely serious here, in the sense of
"If someone is wasting time through table talk, call a judge and ask
them to stop". The problem here is that the line between "wasting time
with table talk" and "legitimate play of the game" is a very gray one.
I have certainly been in games where someone spent every possible
opportunity to try and convince someone at the table to do things for
them, even though it was clear that:
A) All of these requests were mostly insane.
and
B) All of these requests were mostly ignored.
But the player just kept trying. Which made their (and everyone else's
turn) move slowly. And unsurprisingly, these games timed out (in at
least one that I can think of like this, I could have conceivably won
had time not run out). I don't think it is at all unreasonable to, in
a situation like this, as a judge to intervene, which I think is what
Norm was talking about.
The problem, again, is that what one person sees as "flagrantly
wasting time with insane table discussion", another sees as "playing
the table", and while the first is illegal, the second is permitted.
To be fair, most games of tournament VTES I play don't time out. And
most of the ones that *do* time out, time out as a result of a locked
down table (i.e. no one can really oust anyone due to table situation,
rather than slow play, and it just grinds along till time runs out).
But once and a while, I have been in a game that did time out and
clearly timed out due to slow play and inordinate amounts of table
talk. But again, these are very few and far between.
-Peter
On May 11, 6:51 pm, XZealot <xzea...@cox.net> wrote:
> If you play a slow deck then you better be quick about it.
>
> No, I am serious.
>
> These timers could replace the actual round time limits. It would be
> much more fair.
You announce an action during your turn, with your clock running. Mr.
Stallingpants takes three minutes deciding whether or not to block.
See the problem?
John Eno
On May 11, 6:09 pm, brandonsantacruz <brandonsantac...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
> If you are reminding someone to play more quickly throughout the game
> and they have a big problem with it, a judge can rule on whether they
> are stalling or not.
I was referring to reducing someone else's fun by implying that
they're mentally slow as much as questions of legality.
John Eno
On Tue, 11 May 2010 14:32:25 -0700 (PDT), Jeff Poole
<Perr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> I would say as a rule of thumb, that unless a player's actions/
> thoughts/inaction can be verified to be stalling the game out, that
> they should not be rushed through their final minutes of the game.
It's very hard to verify this.
> In fact, I find it to be rather poor sportsmanship to rush
> someone through their last turns because you "want to win".
I agree with this. Basically, I feel that everyone should play as if
there was no time limit. Which is impossible unless you make the
time limit somewhat random (e.g. 1:40 - 2:20, determined randomly
after the start of the turn). This would also prevent game end slow
play (e.g. suddenly needing to thoroughly read the cards in your
hand during your master phase before deciding to play the one
master card you hold) and pointless actions (e.g. Eagle Sight
blocking of a hunt, and making sure the combat lasts multiple
rounds without sending the minion to torpor, always carefully
weighing all the options in the meantime, to ensure the time-out
without potential meaningful actions left).
--
Regards,
Daneel
[ quoted text not captured ]
you have 2 clocks. one is your turn time. one is your response timer.
When i announce an action, i pause my clock. my prey, pred, and anneke
now have to start their cocks or announce no block. if you run out of
response timer time, you cannot respond.... Make up your mind whether
you wanna block.
I find counting down from 5, and then playing on as if every one said
no block or similar usually does the trick.
On May 11, 6:13 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
> On May 11, 6:11 pm, XZealot <xzea...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > What if we had timers and each player was allotted 25 minutes. At the
> > begining of your turn, you hit the start and at the end you hit the
> > stop.
>
> Your turn is not your own. [1.6.1.5]
But it should be, outside of referendums and combat the need for long
drawn out discussions from other players is minimized. If you want to
offer a deal during your turn then it is your time to waste, but if
you are doing it during another players turn then they should be able
to censure you (for example at the Los Angeles NAC finals where Ira
Fay kept offering deals over and over again to Ben Peal and was
censured by Ben. Ben was only able to beat the time limit because he
did).
You should be able to tell someone who is talking during your turn to
please be quiet as they are wasting your turn.
> > If someone else is wasting your time then you ask them to be quiet or
> > call a judge to silence them.
>
> This is the current rule.
It is. How is it enforceable?
On May 12, 2:26 am, Blooded Sand <sandm...@gmail.com> wrote:
[ quoted text not captured ]
That doesn't work unfortunately, and could reduce the game to slaps.
There needs to be a "happy medium"
On May 12, 9:54 am, XZealot <xzea...@cox.net> wrote:
> On May 11, 6:13 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
> > Your turn is not your own. [1.6.1.5]
>
> But it should be,
No. Player interaction is a valuable attribute for this game (among
others).
So I hear.
> outside of referendums and combat the need for long
> drawn out discussions from other players is minimized.
Sure.
But you didn't say that only long drawn-out discussions would be
timed.
> You should be able to tell someone who is talking during your turn to
> please be quiet as they are wasting your turn.
If they're wasting time, you are.
Of course, if they're actually concocting a deal (and not wasting
time), whether it be a deal with you or with another player, or
otherwise playing the game, you are not so empowered. They are free to
play the game just as you are.
> > > If someone else is wasting your time then you ask them to be quiet or
> > > call a judge to silence them.
>
> > This is the current rule.
>
> It is. How is it enforceable?
How is the rule "If someone is wasting time, call a judge"
enforceable?
By calling a judge.
On May 12, 9:46 am, XZealot <xzea...@cox.net> wrote:
> That person gets a judge involved to deal with Mr. Stallingpants.
Alas, Mr. Stallingpants is unfortunately named, because he doesn't
actually stall.
Try this example instead. You announce a political action. Before you
even get to the "as announced" window, your prey and predator get into
a thirty second debate about which one of them, if either, should DI
your action. No stalling involved.
Next, your prey needs to decide whether or not he needs to block this
action. Looking at his hand, he sees that he can only reliably block
one of your actions, and isn't sure if this is the one. After thirty
seconds, he decides not to block.
Next, your predator goes through the same process as your prey, again
taking thirty seconds.
Next, there's a thirty-second debate about whether or not to play
Delaying Tactics on your vote.
Next, there's a thirty-second debate about who, if anyone, should DI
your Voter Cap.
No stalling involved there, just honest debate. But all of that non-
stalling eats up your timer, even though you're not necessarily
involved in the debate.
[ quoted text not captured ]
[ quoted text not captured ]
I think I mentioned that you would turn your timer off for referendums
and combat, but your point is well made.
How do you deal with the "static" or "white-noise" generated by other
players during your turn that delays your action from resolving?
On May 12, 9:03 am, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
> On May 12, 9:54 am, XZealot <xzea...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > On May 11, 6:13 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
> > > Your turn is not your own. [1.6.1.5]
>
> > But it should be,
>
> No. Player interaction is a valuable attribute for this game (among
> others).
> So I hear.
Player interaction with the player who's turn it is is valuable. Two
players who's turn it is not working out a deal is not. I'm not
saying that a offer to "block this action, if you don't bleed me"
isn't valid. I am saying that "I'll block this action, if you don't
bleed me, tap 2 minions on your turn, help me pass my votes, wall up
so I can get a VP, because can't you see he is the obvious table
threat and no matter what you say I am going to keep repeating this
point ad nauseum, because can't you see he is the obvious table
threat and no matter what you say I am going to keep repeating this
point ad nauseum, because can't you see he is the obvious table threat
and no matter what you say I am going to keep repeating this point ad
nauseum, because can't you see he is the obvious table threat and no
matter what you say I am going to keep repeating this point ad
nauseum, because can't you see he is the obvious table threat and no
matter what you say I am going to keep repeating this point ad
nauseum, because can't you see he is the obvious table threat and no
matter what you say I am going to keep repeating this point ad
nauseum..." is excessive and many, MANY players can't tell the
difference between the two.
> > outside of referendums and combat the need for long
> > drawn out discussions from other players is minimized.
>
> Sure.
>
> But you didn't say that only long drawn-out discussions would be
> timed.
Your turn would be timed. Only during referendums and combat would
the timer be turned off. All discussions would eat up the acting
player's turn, this would at the very least motivate the acting player
to keep most discussions minimal. Any player who can not respond to
the acting player's request for response, should be cited for
stalling.
> > You should be able to tell someone who is talking during your turn to
> > please be quiet as they are wasting your turn.
>
> If they're wasting time, you are.
>
> Of course, if they're actually concocting a deal (and not wasting
> time), whether it be a deal with you or with another player, or
> otherwise playing the game, you are not so empowered. They are free to
> play the game just as you are.
>
> > > > If someone else is wasting your time then you ask them to be quiet or
> > > > call a judge to silence them.
>
> > > This is the current rule.
>
> > It is. How is it enforceable?
>
> How is the rule "If someone is wasting time, call a judge"
> enforceable?
> By calling a judge.
The judge can't be 2 places at once (or 4 or 5). Only one table in a
tournament can get the judge to adjudicate. The others just have to
wait (burning up more time) or deal with it themselves (burning up
more time). Unless you can either say "It's my turn and you are
wasting valuable time here is a rule that says you must respond to the
acting players request for a response, you must respond now" then you
will have players who see strategic value in burning up time to time a
table out. I have witnessed stalling in many forms, I have never
witnessed a judge handle the situation where the stalling was punished
in any significant way to deter it.
On May 12, 2:31 pm, XZealot <xzea...@cox.net> wrote:
> On May 12, 9:03 am, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
> > On May 12, 9:54 am, XZealot <xzea...@cox.net> wrote:
> > > On May 11, 6:13 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
> > > > Your turn is not your own. [1.6.1.5]
>
> > > But it should be,
>
> > No. Player interaction is a valuable attribute for this game (among
> > others).
> > So I hear.
>
> Player interaction with the player who's turn it is is valuable. Two
> players who's turn it is not working out a deal is not.
Player interaction with the player whose impulse it is is valuable.
<snip some example of obvious time wasting>
If the discussion is wasting time, then it's wasting time, yes.
But that hardly means that all discussion is wasting time.
> > > outside of referendums and combat the need for long
> > > drawn out discussions from other players is minimized.
>
> > Sure.
>
> > But you didn't say that only long drawn-out discussions would be
> > timed.
>
> Your turn would be timed. Only during referendums and combat would
> the timer be turned off. All discussions would eat up the acting
> player's turn, this would at the very least motivate the acting player
> to keep most discussions minimal.
But he is not in charge of the discussions.
And the discussion are not the only thing that he is not in charge of
on his own turn. [1.6.1.5]
> Any player who can not respond to
> the acting player's request for response, should be cited for
> stalling.
Any player stalling should be cited for stalling, yes.
But the acting played can't override other players' opportunities to
"do something" in the sequencing rules. Which would also include
discussing what to do (or who should do what, and for what recompense)
with the other players.
> > How is the rule "If someone is wasting time, call a judge"
> > enforceable?
> > By calling a judge.
>
> The judge can't be 2 places at once (or 4 or 5). Only one table in a
> tournament can get the judge to adjudicate. The others just have to
> wait (burning up more time) or deal with it themselves (burning up
> more time). Unless you can either say "It's my turn and you are
> wasting valuable time here is a rule that says you must respond to the
> acting players request for a response, you must respond now" then you
> will have players who see strategic value in burning up time to time a
> table out.
Hardly. The judge, if overwhelmed by having too many tables to
adjudicate, should get more help (or the organizer should see to it
that there are more judges available, as the case may be). And even
for the occasional overwhelming coincidence of situations, the judge
is free to stop time for a table (or two or all), and even restore
time to a table.
> I have witnessed stalling in many forms, I have never
> witnessed a judge handle the situation where the stalling was punished
> in any significant way to deter it.
Sounds like a need for better judging or better judges.
If the judges aren't enforcing the rules, changing the rules isn't
much of a solution.
[ quoted text not captured ]
And keeping the rules the same don't the time outs which will
inevitably occur with this kind of system, because the judge wasn't
there to witness the stalling because the judge can't be in two places
at the same time.
On May 12, 2:58 pm, XZealot <xzea...@cox.net> wrote:
> On May 12, 1:41 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
[snip copious amounts of unused quoted material]
> > If the judges aren't enforcing the rules, changing the rules isn't
> > much of a solution.
>
> And keeping the rules the same don't the time outs which will
> inevitably occur with this kind of system, because the judge wasn't
> there to witness the stalling because the judge can't be in two places
> at the same time.
Which one are you talking about this time: time-outs from this system
of allowing illegal time-wasting or time-outs from this system of
people playing the game and simply bumping into the time limit?
If the latter, what alternative is there? Individual clocks are
untenable.
On May 12, 2:17 pm, XZealot <xzea...@cox.net> wrote:
> How do you deal with the "static" or "white-noise" generated by other
> players during your turn that delays your action from resolving?
Like, if I'm attempting to resolve an action and another player keeps
talking at me?
If it's not a player with whom I'm having some kind of mechanical
interaction, I tell them that I'll talk to them after my action or
turn, as appropriate.
If it is a player with whom I'm having some kind of mechanical
interaction, and they're refusing to make a decision in lieu of
talking at me, I'll simply adopt a firm tone of voice and tersely
explain that I'm not going to change my mind. "The action has already
been declared. Do you block?" is an example I can recall using, which
hasn't ever failed to move the game along.
It may be that this technique is buttressed by the fact that I don't
do a ton of negotiating myself. It's entirely possible that such a
playstyle results in other players believing me to be less likely to
be swayed by negotiation, though I'm just speculating now (you'd have
to ask them).
It's also just possible that years of playing with Ira in Pittsburgh
is the reason I taught myself these techniques, now that I think of
it... ;)
John Eno
[ quoted text not captured ]
I think players are less conscious of wasting time earlier in round,
and this in conjunction with there being 5 players on the table, all
of whom don't want to be "left out of the deal making" cause the
rounds to time out. The difference between stalling and legitimate,
yet excessive, deal-making is often a matter of perspective. Having
your time right in front of you tends to put things into perspective
prior to the calling of the 1 hour mark, which is usually the first
clear indication to a player as to how much time has elapsed in the
round. You want players to police there own table so that each table
doesn't have to have it's own judge. Keeping it from decending into a
open "he's the table threat. No, he's the table threat, No, he's the
table threat" blabfest would be good for the game.
> If the latter, what alternative is there? Individual clocks are
> untenable.
Has it been tried?
[ quoted text not captured ]
See this thread (and others).
Your turn is not your own. Using a timer on time periods not under
your control is nonsensical.
I suppose you could have a timer and pass it around as per [1.6.1.5],
but that would be tedious in the extreme. (To verify, try playing a
game where you just say "pass" at *all* the times you have the impulse
(and make a hot-potato to pass around to the next person in impulse
order, or to pass back to "A" whenever any activity occurs).
Let me know how your tests go.
XZealot <xze...@cox.net> wrote:
>Player interaction with the player who's turn it is is valuable. Two
>players who's turn it is not working out a deal is not.
That second sentence is crap, I'm afraid.
When you call a Parity Shift that may well cause you to roll the table,
me discussing with another player how to stop that is valuable. When
that player wants to try to block, but wonders if he can borrow my Rumor
Mill to get the intercept? That's valuable. The player asking me pre-
emptively if he can't block, whether we can do anything about the
referendum and whether it might be worth him saving his block for the
next action instead? That's valuable. The cross-table player saying
"Errr... I can Sudden that master card for you. What's it worth?"
That's valuable. The player with an Eagle's Sight in hand saying "Don't
waste your wakes on that if you don't want to, Masika can give it a go
if you'll rescue me from torpor." That's valuable. The whole table
saying "OH CRAP" when it sees a deck pulling repeated Baltimore Purge or
a turbo-X deck, and working out who can block you or rush you or banish
you, with several people discussing this on anyone's turn? That's
valuable. Working out how to gang up on the Nergal deck in the infernal
storyline? That's valuable.
These are all perfectly reasonable plays, within both the rules and
spirit of the game. Ad hoc discussions of short-term and medium-term
goals are a perfectly ordinary facet of the game.
--
James Coupe
PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D YOU ARE IN ERROR.
EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 NO-ONE IS SCREAMING.
13D7E668C3695D623D5D THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.
On May 12, 6:00 pm, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote:
> XZealot <xzea...@cox.net> wrote:
> >Player interaction with the player who's turn it is is valuable. Two
> >players who's turn it is not working out a deal is not.
>
> That second sentence is crap, I'm afraid.
So is your vocabulary, quite frightening.
> When you call a Parity Shift that may well cause you to roll the table,
> me discussing with another player how to stop that is valuable. When
> that player wants to try to block, but wonders if he can borrow my Rumor
> Mill to get the intercept? That's valuable. The player asking me pre-
> emptively if he can't block, whether we can do anything about the
> referendum and whether it might be worth him saving his block for the
> next action instead? That's valuable. The cross-table player saying
> "Errr... I can Sudden that master card for you. What's it worth?"
> That's valuable. The player with an Eagle's Sight in hand saying "Don't
> waste your wakes on that if you don't want to, Masika can give it a go
> if you'll rescue me from torpor." That's valuable. The whole table
> saying "OH CRAP" when it sees a deck pulling repeated Baltimore Purge or
> a turbo-X deck, and working out who can block you or rush you or banish
> you, with several people discussing this on anyone's turn? That's
> valuable. Working out how to gang up on the Nergal deck in the infernal
> storyline? That's valuable.
These are good specific examples of game play that pushes the game's
length.
Not because they are pithy one-liners, but rather once the cross table
action starts in a game the whole game slows down. Instead of the
impulse going back and forth between the acting player and the target
of his action. Each action must pause to pass the impulse to the
players not affected by the current action. The eagle sight is
example is a good one (as well as when Anneke hits the table). Do you
block? The targeted player or predator/prey of the acting player in
question have the impulse passed to them to block. Now there is
another player added to the mix which increases the time taken to
accept or decline blocks by at least 50% if you keep everything else
equal. All this adds time to a normally routine play. On top of that
you add, the associated haggling, bartering and other associated horse-
trading, and you have extended the time taken to play the game
considerably.
> These are all perfectly reasonable plays, within both the rules and
> spirit of the game. Ad hoc discussions of short-term and medium-term
> goals are a perfectly ordinary facet of the game.
If they were limited to pithy phrase that looked like lines out of a
dr suess book then it would add a negligible time to the game. It is
when the haggling and bartering between 3 or more players (such as who
can make me the best offer?) that it really drags the game out.
I am looking for a solution to an apparent problem. If you don't
think it is a problem then no solution is required.