[Tournament Report] Dutch ECQ - 2 days

This is a report of both the draft tournament played last saturday, and the Dutch ECQ and Open National Championships of yesterday. SATURDAY: DRAFT On saturday, only 6 players showed up for the 5 SW, 1 CE and 2 BH boosters-draft. Judges Emile and Tobias decided to play to allow for 2 tables of 4, playing a 2R + F. The final table was composed of Emile -> Tobias (me) -> Mark Kolmershlag -> Peter Bouwman -> Paul Wiggers. Mark had managed to draft a beast, and I had a fairly bad opening crypt. I brought out Jacko and 2 small-cap !Brujah, but couldn't bring out Rigby because Emile had already brought her out. I did manage a non-bleed deal from Emile because I would otherwise contest Rigby with him, leaving him in a bad spot against Paul. Mark brought out Beast and back-rushed the weenies into torpor. After a while, I managed to get out Jost (i think) and managed to oust Mark. Emile couldn't convince the table I was the threat as I started to work on Peter, but Peter wasn't going down fast enough, and my minions went down to Emile, who bled me out. The game then timed out. 1. Emile, 1.5 VP 2. Tobias 1 VP 3-5 0,5 VP. Decklists may be posted in this thread - I know I will post mine, as soon as I retrieve my deck from where I left it. SUNDAY: ECQ / Dutch National Championships CONSTRUCTED After eliminating the mysterious double-counts in the Archon, 56 players were discovered to have shown up for the 1st Dutch ECQ/NC (43 of them had pre-registered). This made for 12 tables, so 2 extra tables were moved into the location and the prelimenary round were underway without any significant problems. In the prelimenary rounds, 26 GWs were earned out of a possible 36, with 9 tables timing out in various rounds (of which 7 without GW). After the first three rounds, the finalists were: jo herroelen 2 GW 8.5 VP (!Tor CoT/Anthelios/Parthenon) alexander schrijvers 2 GW 8 VP (Howler / Setites) dieter arhweiler 2 GW 5.5 VP (Tor Bigcap Vote / TGB) peter bouwman 1 GW 8 VP (Weenie aus w. concealed guns) yuri nuyten 1 GW 6.5 VP (Xaviar) Original seating: Peter -> Jo -> Dieter -> Yuri-> Alexander Alexander doesn't get a Howler until he's bought his 8th vampire, and transfers no vampires before that (possibly afraid of Yuri's combat?). Before howler gets a chance to act for the first time, she's hit by Pentex Subversion. Ouch for Alexander. 1st tableswitch (by Dieter): Peter -> Jo -> Dieter -> Alexander -> Yuri Alexander and Yuriare ousted by Dieter with help from Jo after Jo's proposed a 3-2 split in Dieter's favor. 2nd Tableswitch (by Dieter, made possible by master-cycling for TGB with Jo's Anthelios) Jo -> Peter -> Dieter Dieter is at a ton of pool, Jo has very barely escaped with his life. At this point the players look around, decide that #1 and #2 are decided already anyway and that Peter deserves a 3rd place, so they all withdraw. A bizarre game, possibly again calling for some changes in the nature of the game (I could explain, but you had to be there). Further comments by the players/spectators in this thread are very welcome!! The final standings are therefore: Name GW VPs Fi/VP TP dieter arhweiler P 2 5,5 3 132 jo herroelen P 2 8,5 1 168 peter bouwman P D 1 8 1 162 alexander schrijvers 2 8 0 168 yuri nuyten P D 1 6,5 0 156 rene de wolf P D 1 6 144 johannes walsch P D 1 6 126 matthias pasdziorek P D 1 5,5 144 roel de coninck P D 1 5,5 132 greggory gardin P D 1 5,5 124 frank moeller P D 1 5 156 sebastian zielinski P 1 5 144 dimitrios kotsis P 1 5 138 izaak havelaar D P 1 5 132 bram thibault p D 1 4,5 144 emiliano imeroni P D 1 4,5 144 markus HiBnauer P D 1 4 120 alexander kiok P 1 4 108 paul wiggers P D 1 4 102 martin schumacher P D 1 3,5 126 ruben van cauwenberghe 1 3,5 124 luk de ron P 1 3,5 120 arjan eggels P D 1 3 102 guido polle P D 0 4 138 stefan monnoijer P 0 3 132 prim ramsaroep P D 0 2,5 120 mark kolmershlag D 0 2,5 114 dietmar range P 0 2,5 114 bas van vegchel P 0 2 114 manuel nieman P D 0 2 112 frank reidel P D 0 2 106 thomas kouwenhoven P 0 2 90 gerhard range P 0 2 90 michael bartsch P 0 1,5 108 bart lagcher P D 0 1 100 erik ferweda P D 0 1 96 michael jakobi P 0 1 84 jeroen rombouts P D 0 1 78 michael christiansen P 0 0,5 88 herman jacobs D P 0 0,5 84 lukas nitsch P D 0 0,5 82 ralf lammert P D 0 0,5 78 sjoerd t hart P D 0 0,5 78 jeroen van oort P D 0 0,5 72 robert camphuysen P D 0 0 82 danny beerens D P 0 0 82 christopher meisinger 0 0 82 arvid waldrich P D 0 0 78 sascha muller P D 0 0 72 erol ongun P 0 0 70 mark huyser P D 0 0 66 alex faust P D 0 0 66 kim smal P D 0 0 66 christel stommels P D 0 0 66 bas van de biggelaar 0 0 64 debby van den broek 0 0 60 A list of qualifier players to follow, as well as link(s) to the pictures made during the tournament and the finalists' decklists. Thanks all for attending! Tobias Deventer

In message <8aa6db00.0410...@posting.google.com>, tobiasop...@hotmail.com (Tobias) mumbled something about: >1st tableswitch (by Dieter): > >Peter -> Jo -> Dieter -> Alexander -> Yuri > >Alexander and Yuriare ousted by Dieter with help from Jo after Jo's >proposed a 3-2 split in Dieter's favor. You know, this type of deal is supposed to be stopped. It seems clear at this point that we cannot rely on the judges to enforce the rules as written. Call for change? >2nd Tableswitch (by Dieter, made possible by master-cycling for TGB >with Jo's Anthelios) > >Jo -> Peter -> Dieter > >Dieter is at a ton of pool, Jo has very barely escaped with his life. >At this point the players look around, decide that #1 and #2 are >decided already anyway and that Peter deserves a 3rd place, so they >all withdraw. And Dieter, by this non-action, successfully fails to seize the opportunity to change the nature of the Dutch game... all he has to do here is break his deal and oust Jo, and the number of table-split deals the Dutch see would go WAY down in the future. A great shame, really. -- Derek a host is a host from coast to coast and no one will talk to a host that's close unless the host that isn't close is busy, hung, or dead

I'll throw in my experience for the day. I was playing a pretty standard !Tor bleed/untap/bloat deck relying mainly on Jost and Gretha. Decklist is at the end of the post. Table was: me -> aus/cel gun deck -> Tzimi eagle's sight block -> howler setite bleed -> g1/2 Gangrel bigcaps The first round started bad. I was seated first, and had three 6-caps and a 4-cap in the Crypt (which is really bad for the deck since it relies a lot on Enchant Kindred at superior). I did have the dreams in hand, but it got suddended by my prey. I just settled for Jost in turn 3 which was a good choice in retrospect since everybody else started getting a fattie as well, except my prey who brought out Remilaird in turn 2. I brought out two more minions and did some art scams and enchanted to the 4 cap with Jost. I also bled into my prey a bit. He responded with totally walling up, not moving forward at all. The Setite bled out the Gangrel deck in five or so turns. This looked bad. My prey was playing mr. Wall, my predator has just gained 6 pool and all I could do was sit and wait, simply by having a hand full of stuff I couldn't play. I was lucky to draw into my single copy of specialization pretty soon after that giving me some more options. All the while, the Tzim had been silently building up, bleed-poking for one or two and happily bloating with three Bdolls and a hunting ground. I exchanged some combat with my predator (who was out of stealth), which got my minions really low on blood. Both my predator and prey were *still* looking at my shiny Sabbat Toreador (you know, I *hate* these people looking to the right all the time). I pointed out that it was the Tzim that was the threat and not me and lucky enough, they agreed. The three of us sealed a two-turn non-agression pact in order to deal with the Tzim. This basically meant I got to rebuild some, while they used resources to deal with my (now former) cross-table buddy. After two turns, I sort-of mentioned to my predator we should be careful not hurting the Tzim too much, since he was quite low on pool. My prey took the bait and went full-forward, thinking he had a chance to oust the Tzim. He almost managed, but left him at four pool. That was my queu. I my own turn I dropped the Palla Grande and bled through my prey with 4 bleeds for 3. The Tzim was just in reach of a social-charm-palla grande-sheila mezarin bleed, but he produced another wake. I got him the next turn and from the on it was a mop-up. 4 point and a GW. Sure a good start for a qualifier. Round two sucked. Simple as that. I had a good crypt and a good hand. But the seating was horrible. It was like this: Me -> Cailean Wall -> Tremere bruise/bleed -> pre/vic/aus with warghouls -> Anneke becomes Alastor Yup, I was sitting between two blocky-combatty decks. As it turned out, my prey blocked every action I ever took, be it undirected (art scam) or directed (bleed for one to get the edge away from my grandprey), triumphantly yelling "WELCOME TO THE WALL" every time he blocked me. What a moron. Whatever he didn't block (like 3 actions the whole game) was blocked by a 2nd tradition Anneke. Lucky for me, my grandpredator played an Anarch Troublemaker pretty early on, making the Alastor deck a non-threat, so I figured I'd settle for half a point. I got Parity Shifted a few times, but I delayed one, and another one got DI'd and from then on I made sure to stay low on pool. I almost managed to make a deal for one point, but the table timed with only the Tremere having gained a VP because of my prey's stupidity. Talk about people that only look left...He didn't take a single action forward and didn't block like 15 equip actions because he feared a Burst of Sunlight.... When he *did* move forward he got deflected thrice in a row, leading to the only oust in the game. Oh and he also rushed Anson for no real good reason. There was some good talking about votes all the while because nobody had vote lock, making the game somewhat enjoyable, but it was clear there were a couple of newer players at the table who didn't really watch table balance and only wanted to survive. Oh well, it got me half a point. In round three my 4-player-table curse caught up on me again, since I have been seated at a 4player table in the last round of every tournament I played. If I wanted a shot at the final, I needed to get 3 VP's at the very least. Seating: Me -> Gangrel temptation -> ventrue vote/bleed/toolboxy -> Lucinde Alastor vote I didn't draw any 7-cap *again* in the crypt and my opening hand consisted of 3 wakes and 4 masters. Great. Fucking great. I did have a dreams again and since I was sitting 4th, I got out my 5 cap first. Stupid mistake, since I should have waited a turn and get Jost out, since he was the only guy with superior presence in the crypt. Nonetheless, the dreams gave me some remarkable buildup speed, so I had my whole crypt out in no time. I bled into my prey quite good, but him having Nadima (+1 intercept) out and me having minions without superior presence (majesty untap, which I need really bad) shut me down until I drew into a Creepshow Casino. The game developed really really slow, with some Parity shifts being thrown around and Horatio Ballard failing to become prince 5 or 6 times. Anyway, I was doing bad. Really bad. I had drawn nothing but reaction cards during the whole game and all my Art Scams and bleed cards were somewhere down in the remaining 50 cards. The table didn't have any really strong decks and I'm sure that if I had drawn a normal selection of cards (and crypt!) I'd swept easily. But as it was, I was just hunting, blood dolling and recovering from a Reins of Power that hurt me for 4 and a KRC for 3 in the same turn until I could get Greta Kircher out. That's when the clock started ticking. With 20 minutes left, I was looking at a good shot at a GW. I had convinced my grandprey it was a good plan to oust my prey together and then I'd help him oust his prey for the 2-2 split. Since he was at 5 pool it looked like a good idea, but he couldn't know I had no intention (and no reason) to keep that deal. So, he started mind numbing gangrels left and right, hit my prey with some KRC, which finally gave me some room (did I mention he walled up for no real good reason?) to move some cards. That's of course when you draw a new dreams and get to move more cards than you really want to, but to make a long stroy short, I hurt him. He, of course, responded by walling up even more, empty his minions to survive, so I slowed down, blocked and delayed my predator some more and I was basically in control of the table. But that fucking clock.... I prepared my minions, finetuned my hand, got rid of an Aranthebes and made sure my prey was out of wakes. I had to move in and get that VP fast. Really fast. The Palla Grande was sitting in my hand, I was pretty sure nobody had a Sudden (my grandprey had been allowed to play Giant's Blood on a 1 blood 9-cap) and I was *sure* I could exactly kill my prey with my 5 minions. My predators turn. He untaps. He thinks. Come on make it quick, boy, we've got 5 minutes left and *I have this table*. Don't stall, I can get you all, I want my final. He smiles.... and puts a Pentex Subversion on Greta..... Fuck. Fuck........... The table timed. Afterwards, I complimented him on the Pentex. It was the exact right card at the exact right minion at the exact right time. Well played, a very close game. The clock got me. I knew I should have asked for extra time when one of the players went to the bathroom :-). Oh well, 5 points and a GW will have to do. Thanks to the organizers for a great day of fun and the good new location. I finished 14th (I think), enough to qualify, but I already did that in Belgium. I'm still not sure if I'll make it to Heidelberg, but we'll see. As promised, here's my decklist: Crypt: (12 cards, Min: 20, Max: 29, Avg: 6,08) ---------------------------------------------- 3 Jost Werner ani AUS PRE 6, Toreador Antitribu:2 2 Greta Kircher AUS CEL obf PRE 7, Toreador Antitribu:2 1 Jessica AUS CEL OBT PRE 7, Toreador Antitribu:2, Bishop 1 Jessica (ADV) AUS CEL OBT PRE 8, Toreador antitribu:2, Bishop 1 Creamy Jade aus cel PRE vic 5, Toreador antitribu:3 1 Sheila Mezarin AUS cel for PRE 6, Toreador Antitribu:2 1 Remilliard AUS pre 4, Toreador Antitribu:2 1 Ian Wallingford aus CEL PRE 6, Toreador Antitribu:2, Bishop 1 Mercy, Knight AUS dom cel pre 5, Toreador antitribu:2 Library: (90 cards) ------------------- Master (16 cards) 3 Blood Doll 1 Creepshow Casino 1 Direct Intervention 2 Dreams of the Sphinx 1 Hungry Coyote, The 4 Palla Grande 1 Specialization 3 Sudden Reversal Action (30 cards) 1 Aranthebes, The Immortal 8 Art Scam 9 Enchant Kindred 1 Entrancement 2 Patronage 9 Social Charm Action Modifier (6 cards) 4 Approximation of Loyalty 2 Crocodile's Tongue Reaction (25 cards) 1 Delaying Tactics 6 Enhanced Senses 1 My Enemy's Enemy 5 Telepathic Counter 5 Telepathic Misdirection 7 Wake with Evening's Freshness Combat (13 cards) 13 Majesty

> > And Dieter, by this non-action, successfully fails to seize the > opportunity to change the nature of the Dutch game... all he has to do > here is break his deal and oust Jo, and the number of table-split deals > the Dutch see would go WAY down in the future. > > A great shame, really. > > -- Derek I don't think so. If Dieter sweeps Jo is #2 anyway. So why should he taking risks? Just to teach somebody a lesson? Jo is a very experienced player, he doesn't have to learn something. I'm with you in not understanding the deal Jo proposed to Dieter. But I wasn't there, he might have had his reasons (sure he had). As much as I know everybody was fine with the judges' work, so let's trust them. I think Dieter doesn't want to clean the game from deals, because once more he won by one ;o).

> Afterwards, I complimented him on the Pentex. It was the exact right > card at the exact right minion at the exact right time. Well played, a > very close game. The clock got me. I knew I should have asked for extra > time when one of the players went to the bathroom :-). Usually there is no extra time given for players goin to the bathroom ... -- johannes walch

"Johannes Walch" <joha...@scram.de> schreef in bericht news:ckepdj$pvb$1...@stu1id2.ip.tesion.net... [ quoted text not captured ] I'm sure you missed the smiley in there. I wasn't being serious and I actually really enjoyed that game :-) <-- look another smiley

"Derek Ray" <lor...@yahoo.com> schreef in bericht news:5bvkm09cic1hoi41g...@4ax.com... > In message <8aa6db00.0410...@posting.google.com>, > tobiasop...@hotmail.com (Tobias) mumbled something about: > >>1st tableswitch (by Dieter): >> >>Peter -> Jo -> Dieter -> Alexander -> Yuri >> >>Alexander and Yuriare ousted by Dieter with help from Jo after Jo's >>proposed a 3-2 split in Dieter's favor. > > You know, this type of deal is supposed to be stopped. unless Jo cannot gain more vp in another way. See below. > > It seems clear at this point that we cannot rely on the judges to > enforce the rules as written. Call for change? I was there, but didn't see it happen. But the problem was that Jo was actually playing with a lot of Embraces. And behind him an auspex weenie with guns deck. He tried but couldn't actually do anything except die or propose the deal to Dieter. Dieter could keep him alive with his votes. > >>2nd Tableswitch (by Dieter, made possible by master-cycling for TGB >>with Jo's Anthelios) >> >>Jo -> Peter -> Dieter >> >>Dieter is at a ton of pool, Jo has very barely escaped with his life. >>At this point the players look around, decide that #1 and #2 are >>decided already anyway and that Peter deserves a 3rd place, so they >>all withdraw. > > And Dieter, by this non-action, successfully fails to seize the > opportunity to change the nature of the Dutch game... all he has to do > here is break his deal and oust Jo, and the number of table-split deals > the Dutch see would go WAY down in the future. > > A great shame, really. It wouldn't matter on the final standing (except for Peter). I guess Jo wouldn't really mind. He would be second if Dieter got all 5 VP too.

Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<5bvkm09cic1hoi41g...@4ax.com>... > In message <8aa6db00.0410...@posting.google.com>, > tobiasop...@hotmail.com (Tobias) mumbled something about: > > >1st tableswitch (by Dieter): > > > >Peter -> Jo -> Dieter -> Alexander -> Yuri > > > >Alexander and Yuriare ousted by Dieter with help from Jo after Jo's > >proposed a 3-2 split in Dieter's favor. > > You know, this type of deal is supposed to be stopped. > > It seems clear at this point that we cannot rely on the judges to > enforce the rules as written. Call for change? I agree Derek but the deal was not illegal for as far as Tobias or I could see it was a crap deal but legal non the less. > >2nd Tableswitch (by Dieter, made possible by master-cycling for TGB > >with Jo's Anthelios) > > > >Jo -> Peter -> Dieter > > > >Dieter is at a ton of pool, Jo has very barely escaped with his life. > >At this point the players look around, decide that #1 and #2 are > >decided already anyway and that Peter deserves a 3rd place, so they > >all withdraw. > > And Dieter, by this non-action, successfully fails to seize the > opportunity to change the nature of the Dutch game... all he has to do > here is break his deal and oust Jo, and the number of table-split deals > the Dutch see would go WAY down in the future. Once again I agree with you, but it is not the Dutch way of playing V:tes Dieter is German and Jo is from Belgium. There is a current tendency here in Europe to divide the final table and make a deal very soon in the game which brings the game down to a level I personally dislike. Dieter had no incentive to break the deal since he got first place in the qualifier which is the best one can get he should however have screwed over Jo at least to give the other players the idea that it still mattered that they were playing. I think the maximizing VP's should still count during finals in stead of the maximizing tournament place. > A great shame, really. Agreed. > -- Derek > > a host is a host from coast to coast > and no one will talk to a host that's close > unless the host that isn't close > is busy, hung, or dead Emile "We are an ape with a symbiotic relationship to a mushroom"

In message <8b87b6c9.04101...@posting.google.com>, joscha...@gmx.de (Joscha Duell) mumbled something about: >> >> And Dieter, by this non-action, successfully fails to seize the >> opportunity to change the nature of the Dutch game... all he has to do >> here is break his deal and oust Jo, and the number of table-split deals >> the Dutch see would go WAY down in the future. >> >> A great shame, really. >> >I don't think so. If Dieter sweeps Jo is #2 anyway. So why should he >taking risks? Just to teach somebody a lesson? Jo is a very >experienced player, he doesn't have to learn something. Don't get me wrong, it's not to teach Jo anything. I (as should be obvious from some other threads) don't hold with that mentality. It's for two reasons. First and foremost, to win: Place #2 can also be restated as "first loser". If I finish second, I want to at least have tried to win. Second, it can serve to demonstrate that placing excessive trust in ANYONE is a bad thing -- thus helping move the game towards "play the game" and away from "talk talk talk". >I'm with you in not understanding the deal Jo proposed to Dieter. But >I wasn't there, he might have had his reasons (sure he had). As much >as I know everybody was fine with the judges' work, so let's trust >them. Yeah, let's not and say we did, huh? There are rules in place intended to prevent that deal from happening, for the very reasons everyone is complaining about in a different thread -- it takes the whole playing-the-game thing out of the game, which is obviously what happened here. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <ltDad.276148$wZ4.14...@phobos.telenet-ops.be>, "Jeroen Rombouts" <jeroen....@NOSPAMpandora.be> mumbled something about: >"Derek Ray" <lor...@yahoo.com> schreef in bericht >news:5bvkm09cic1hoi41g...@4ax.com... >> In message <8aa6db00.0410...@posting.google.com>, >> tobiasop...@hotmail.com (Tobias) mumbled something about: >> >>>1st tableswitch (by Dieter): >>> >>>Peter -> Jo -> Dieter -> Alexander -> Yuri >>> >>>Alexander and Yuriare ousted by Dieter with help from Jo after Jo's >>>proposed a 3-2 split in Dieter's favor. >> > >It wouldn't matter on the final standing (except for Peter). I guess Jo >wouldn't really mind. He would be second if Dieter got all 5 VP too. Oops, I see. It's 3-2 with Dieter winning, not 3-2 with Jo winning. This makes a little more sense why Dieter would so carefully preserve Jo, at least. But it doesn't answer why Jo is allowed to offer the deal. Got a lot of minions, man, gotta try, gotta try. Should be in Dieter's best interest anyway to help him out anyway, huh? [ quoted text not captured ]

I almost forgot, thnx to all the players for attending the first Dutch ECQ the big turn out and the cool atmosphere made all the hours it took to organize it worth my while. But next year I'd like more players to attend the draft event because winning this one was a bit to easy :P [ quoted text not captured ]

Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<5bvkm09cic1hoi41g...@4ax.com>... <comment: I composed this post yesterday as a reply to Derek, but could only post it now through the slowness that is Google. Some points have already been made by others (and replied to by Derek), so my post might be a bit redundant, but I could at least throw out my reasoning. There is no need to answer questions I wrote in the post below again if they've already been answered in the thread.> >>1st tableswitch (by Dieter): >> >>Peter -> Jo -> Dieter -> Alexander -> Yuri >> >>Alexander and Yuriare ousted by Dieter with help from Jo after Jo's >>proposed a 3-2 split in Dieter's favor. > >You know, this type of deal is supposed to be stopped. > >It seems clear at this point that we cannot rely on the judges to >enforce the rules as written. Call for change? Why is this particular deal supposed to be stopped? Could you include the ‘rule as written' (LSJ or RTR rulings on the internet fine as well, also if they are scattered across several posts) that I should have enforced? I will tell you why I 'allowed' the deal to exist. 1. Since it's the finals, each player's goal is to get the highest ranking. This depends on VPs taken at this final table, also taking into account rank on entering the final. 2. Jo and Dieter have broken deals in the past (AFAIK). Therefore, they have proved to be able to pursue a longer-term strategy (including deal-break) while following a shorter-term strategy of following the deal. (I am not sure how my decision would have been modified by the hypothetical knowledge that, until that point, Jo and Dieter had been pathological deal-keepers, but if that discussion is of interest, I suggest we put it in a different thread.) 3. Dieter will get a GW if this deal is succesful, thus gaining first rank, satisfying the ‘play to win' demands for him. Jo will gain 2VP (behind Dieter (if the deal is kept)), thus gaining second place and a chance to still take 1st place if Jo breaks his deal. 4. It is very likely Jo will die to Peter with 0 VP if the deal with Dieter is not made. Even if Jo does not die, he is effectively put in full defense mode, so his fallback-plan could only be to maximally exploit holes in Dieter's defense if they occur (unlikely at that time due to Dieter's pool amount, among other reasons), or hope for the time-out to get a high finishing rank (determined by his #1 rank on entering the final). A time-out without ousts by anyone was unlikely at the time of the deal. A counter-deal involving Jo and Peter, or Jo and other players at the table, is unlikely to have been more beneficial to Jo than the deal with Dieter. Furthermore, it wasn't proposed or discussed with any seriousness. Having total information at that point (like the judge could hope to achieve) might have changed that fact, but as a judge I will not provide a player with an ‘out' based on the information/experience I may have – I will block an illegal deal, but I won't "play his deck for him". I cannot spell out all the details of play and there's no videotape of the final, but I hope you will accept my estimate of the state of play. If you do not, we could collect evidence of the other finalists/bystanders, but I believe this point will stand. 5. Thus, both Dieter and Jo are maximising their (expected) rank, by my reasoning. Once the deal is made, I believe they are allowed to fulfill it. I am ready to stand corrected by valid arguments or examples, BTW. If I was wrong, I will admit it and learn from it. As to the call for change – if I was wrong, there are 2 possible solutions: fix me, or fix the rules around the game to prevent me or people like me from being wrong again. Fixing me is something I'll do myself – fixing the rules around the game depends on your preference for shoe-horning players and/or judges, and is something I would leave to LSJ/the RT. If I was right, your call for change may still be valid, but for different reasons. (We could then also call it my call for change, as I indicated by saying "possibly again calling for some changes in the nature of the game" in my initial post of this thread.) While I am not opposed to VP deals nor breaking them, I would prefer to see the decision power of deals lowered as opposed to hard-fought play of cards. This is a personal preference and (hopefully) has no impact on how I judge games. I do think I see a trend of finals (and games) increasingly decided early by deals, but I've only been playing on a higher level for the past 2 years, so my data is a bit short. Whether this is a phase, a continuous trend, something cyclic – I don't know. >>2nd Tableswitch (by Dieter, made possible by master-cycling for TGB >>with Jo's Anthelios) >> >>Jo -> Peter -> Dieter >> >>Dieter is at a ton of pool, Jo has very barely escaped with his life. >>At this point the players look around, decide that #1 and #2 are >>decided already anyway and that Peter deserves a 3rd place, so they >>all withdraw. > >And Dieter, by this non-action, successfully fails to seize the >opportunity to change the nature of the Dutch game... all he has to >do >here is break his deal and oust Jo, and the number of table-split >deals >the Dutch see would go WAY down in the future. Nit-pick: at this tournament we had many players from The Netherlands, Germany and Belgium, and a few from as far away as France. The result could have as easily happened in some of these countries, I think (although I have never played a tournament in France). I don't really want to argue this point, though – it's just clarification. My thoughts on Dieter breaking his deal: If Dieter had broken his deal with Jo, this would have had some ‘scare' impact on the Dutch (Benelux?) game. However, Dieter, while a very good player, is only one of a number of very good players, who are unlikely to change an effective strategy (table-dealing) in general – but they're likely to change it to a large degree in the specific case of Dieter. Meaning very little general effect (scaring off deal-makers) for a high personal cost to Dieter. I cannot speak for Dieter, but he (and anyone in his situation) may have a different view on tables being decided by deals, so there may be no incentive for him taking that action in the first place. Dieter had already won. While stabbing people in the back to go from a losing position to a winning one is well-defensible (IMHO), stabbing people to go from #1 to #1 AND f*cking someone over is a tough sell. Tobias Deventer

Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<6a2mm05o6bulqupss...@4ax.com>... > In message <8b87b6c9.04101...@posting.google.com>, > joscha...@gmx.de (Joscha Duell) mumbled something about: > > >> > >> And Dieter, by this non-action, successfully fails to seize the > >> opportunity to change the nature of the Dutch game... all he has to do > >> here is break his deal and oust Jo, and the number of table-split deals > >> the Dutch see would go WAY down in the future. > >> > >> A great shame, really. > >> > >I don't think so. If Dieter sweeps Jo is #2 anyway. So why should he > >taking risks? Just to teach somebody a lesson? Jo is a very > >experienced player, he doesn't have to learn something. > > Don't get me wrong, it's not to teach Jo anything. I (as should be > obvious from some other threads) don't hold with that mentality. > > It's for two reasons. First and foremost, to win: Place #2 can also be > restated as "first loser". If I finish second, I want to at least have > tried to win. I'm afraid I do not understand this point. Dieter should sweep not to teach Jo anything, but to win. But Dieter's already winning (whether he does so with 3 or more VP is up to his personal preference). Or are we talking about what Jo should have done, now? > Second, it can serve to demonstrate that placing > excessive trust in ANYONE is a bad thing -- thus helping move the game > towards "play the game" and away from "talk talk talk". I've replied to this in my first reply to your initial post in this thread, so I'll keep it short: while the demonstration is a good reminder to everyone, thus helping the "be wary of the talk" effect, the personal cost to Dieter far outweighs the global benefits. > >I'm with you in not understanding the deal Jo proposed to Dieter. But > >I wasn't there, he might have had his reasons (sure he had). As much > >as I know everybody was fine with the judges' work, so let's trust > >them. Jo had his reasons, as I outline in my first reply to Derek. Emile (and others?) have offered more detailed explanations on the table situation, but I'd rather not go into all those details, because in the end it may then come down to a whole lot of "what-if-ing". In my (judge's) opinion, Jo's deal proposal was valid. Given the possibilty that somone may intend to break that deal, can someone point me to an official post/ruling that says proposing a "losing" deal is illegal, btw? (As opposed to proposing it and keeping it, or the paradox that the deal cannot be proposed with the intent of honoring it, so isn't really proposed in the first place, even if accepted?) ("losing deal" in this case being a deal made and executed where you voluntarily gain less VPs than you would have if you had not (made AND honored) the deal.) > Yeah, let's not and say we did, huh? There are rules in place intended > to prevent that deal from happening, for the very reasons everyone is > complaining about in a different thread -- it takes the whole > playing-the-game thing out of the game, which is obviously what happened > here. Talk and deal power were indeed extremely determining for the final outcome. Card play obviously shaped the situation where deal-making and table talk could shape the final outcome. I personally would also like to decrease the amount of deal-finished tables. I would still like to see the rules in place that intend to prevent this deal from happening. Feel free to answer either here or in my first reply to you, whichever suits you best. Tobias Deventer

Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<qi2mm0lbipjthg4gq...@4ax.com>... > >It wouldn't matter on the final standing (except for Peter). I guess Jo > >wouldn't really mind. He would be second if Dieter got all 5 VP too. > > Oops, I see. It's 3-2 with Dieter winning, not 3-2 with Jo winning. > This makes a little more sense why Dieter would so carefully preserve > Jo, at least. Yeah, having no predator is kind of neat :) > > But it doesn't answer why Jo is allowed to offer the deal. Got a lot of > minions, man, gotta try, gotta try. Should be in Dieter's best interest > anyway to help him out anyway, huh? > The point was exactly that Jo couldn't get a lot of minion out with the auspex weenie behind him. that means: no Enchant Kindred, no Embrace, no cons ag. In my book that spells certain doom. as an aside: jo hates auspex weenies, but spite never entered the equation, i'm sure :)

"Izaak" <i.hav...@SPAMklg.nl> wrote in message news:<ckebdm$gio$1...@reader08.wxs.nl>... > After two turns, I sort-of > mentioned to my predator we should be careful not hurting the Tzim too > much, since he was quite low on pool. My prey took the bait and went > full-forward, thinking he had a chance to oust the Tzim. He almost > managed, but left him at four pool. That was my queu. I my own turn I > dropped the Palla Grande and bled through my prey with 4 bleeds for 3. Sweet move. > That's when the clock started ticking. With 20 minutes left, I was > looking at a good shot at a GW. I had convinced my grandprey it was a > good plan to oust my prey together and then I'd help him oust his prey > for the 2-2 split. Since he was at 5 pool it looked like a good idea, > but he couldn't know I had no intention (and no reason) to keep that > deal. Now if your grandprey would post here to say he had no intention to keep that deal either, we're seeing deal-making as it should be done... :) Tobias Deventer

Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<qi2mm0lbipjthg4gq...@4ax.com>... > In message <ltDad.276148$wZ4.14...@phobos.telenet-ops.be>, > "Jeroen Rombouts" <jeroen....@NOSPAMpandora.be> mumbled something > about: > >It wouldn't matter on the final standing (except for Peter). I guess Jo > >wouldn't really mind. He would be second if Dieter got all 5 VP too. > > Oops, I see. It's 3-2 with Dieter winning, not 3-2 with Jo winning. > This makes a little more sense why Dieter would so carefully preserve > Jo, at least. > > But it doesn't answer why Jo is allowed to offer the deal. Got a lot of > minions, man, gotta try, gotta try. Should be in Dieter's best interest > anyway to help him out anyway, huh? Jo can still break the deal. Given Dieter's pool, Jo cannot oust Dieter at that moment (maybe Jo can share his ousting-power and chances calculations of that moment?), and it's extremely likely he'll die on his predator (Peter's) turn. (Jo didn't have an extreme number of minions, btw, if people are getting that image.) Even in the off-chance case of Life boon or other low-chance occurences, he'll probably just die the turn after that. (I really don't want to play these what-if games, btw. So let's just say Jo will likely die without being able to oust Dieter). It may be in Dieter's best interest to prop up Jo for a short time, but Dieter would be wasting time and effort on it while he could be ousting preys. Jo cannot rely on any serious help from Dieter if he doesn't offer Dieter anything substantial. Tobias Deventer

"cowfields" <cowf...@hotmail.com> schreef in bericht news:1a6c91db.04101...@posting.google.com... > Tobias i think you forgot about our italian friend who also wa sin teh > draft finals... you never did prey on me in the final round :) > OOPS. Sorry emiliano, I'm sure you'll correct this with your own tournament report, though! Blame it on a LOT of impressions that weekend. Tobias

> > A bizarre game, possibly again calling for some changes in the nature > of the game (I could explain, but you had to be there). Further > comments by the players/spectators in this thread are very welcome!! > Hey there, Finally found the time for it, as I knew our final game was going to provoke a lot of comments. First of all however, thanks to Tobias and Emile for organising, and most all players I met for a nice day of VTES!! and off course, congrats to Dieter, but that he knows already So, to explain what happened in the finals, I think a little explanation about table seatingis is in order: I went into the finals as highest ranked, so at the point where I have to pick my seat it's setup as follows: Dieter=>Yuri=>alexander=>? (sorry, can't remember for the devil of me) I'd played Dieter earlier that day, and knew what he was playing. It wouldn't have been so bad to have him as prey, providing my deck (I was playing palla Grane/Foundation Exhibit Embrace) had the opportunity to get going at least a little bit. I knew what Alexander was playing, and definitely didn't want him as pred or prey (pre/obf bleed, with howler and tons of steady intercept on the table). I was guessing Yuri was playing combat, so next to him wouldn't be a good option either. As it turns out, my pred was playing..AUS weenie :-(( So, during the game, most important factors IMHO were: Alexander not influencing out a single vampire for zillion turns=>no pressure whatsoever on my prey. Not even any necessity for him to even think about maybe there being any actions from his pred he might want to block.. Yuri influenced out Ramona, and after that Xaviar. 2 Vampires with no inherent capability whatsoever to harm or even really hinder Dieter's march foreward. In no time, 5 (or was it 6) minions with concealed magnums at my preds place, who still has not the least shimmer of pressure. Ergo=>I can't get a single bloody Embrace into play, can't bloat, can't even bleed my prey (Eagle sights, and nothing beter to do with them). Basically, we end up in a position where the only deck who can actually do anything real to stop Dieter from a walk over (mine, under normal circumstances)ends up at 6 pool, and no real way of getting out of it.Basically, I will survive for maximum 2 more turns, tops. On one side, I could use my remaining 2 turns (max) to really try and do my very best to screw Dieter's game over big time (Fear of Mekhet for Alexandra, Pentex Subversions, some Delays and DI's..all the goodies in hand), to then just die 100% guaranteed, and virtually hand the table over to my pred just before I get ousted.. Or, I can strike a deal with Dieter not to screw up his game and die for sure afterward, but instead work together to make it a sure thing, and come in second. So, easy choice. With Dieter and myself working together with the decks/positions as they were, it's a 200% guaranteed deal we set up. And on top of that, even if Dieter breaks his deal and sweeps, it's still ok, as nothing then changes the positions. The only danger would be that Dieter breaks the deal which gurantees him the GW, and then loses to the last player standing, the aus weenie.So that's not gonna happen, as Dieter is an intelligent player. Now, my personal view on the situation and what caused this deal: If I'd have known what my pred was playing beforehand, with this deck I'd never pick him for pred.I'd have probably seated myself in between Yuri and Alexander. Anyways, this dealing result is the +/- normal result of an AUS weenie, and players intelligent enough not to suicide on it. Such a deck will very often, providing it has more than 1 bright player (not also playing intercept)at the table, or providing there is no straightforward deck wellplaced (S&B as prey eg), force the table into a deal. Either you strike a deal with it, or you deal with someone else to not be in the situation where they want you, which is: 3 player table leftover, with 2 other players who have already overextended themselves trying to oust the others. In that situation, vey few decks still have what it takes to go by the weni. In any case,this decktype profits tremendously from other players trying to chew each other up, while they don't notice the threat the weenie auspex poses.. Hence, I prefer to deal to consolidate 2nd place, over just getting ousted after trying to chew up my prey. Is that so strange? I agree it doesn't make for very exciting play once the deal is struck (it was more or less only a clean up action after that, rather than surprising/exciting/original play),but I still don't see the issue about dealing in a finals. Personally,2nd place is not "first of the losers", it's "2nd out of 56 players while playing a deck I didn't even expect to get into the finals with". and I don't like screwing up other peoples play in a last attempt at making myself seen anyway. So, that's my idea. Think of it what you like.. Greetz Jo BTW: if anyone would ask me what I'd like to see changed i'd say: forbid people to play auspex intercept weenie decks ;-)

"Emiliano Imeroni" <E.Im...@phys.uu.nl> schreef in bericht news:e5daed00.04101...@posting.google.com... > Tobias wrote: >> SATURDAY: DRAFT >> >> On saturday, only 6 players showed up for the 5 SW, 1 CE and 2 BH >> boosters-draft. Judges Emile and Tobias decided to play to allow for 2 >> tables of 4, playing a 2R + F. >> >> The final table was composed of Emile -> Tobias (me) -> Mark >> Kolmershlag -> Peter Bouwman -> Paul Wiggers. > > Hey Tobias, are you (or your copy of the Archon) drunk? ;-))) Call it information overload. :) You posting a report on the constructed, BTW? > I was in the final (with my embarassing 0 GW 1 VP) instead of Paul. > The order of play was: > > Emile -> Tobias -> Mark -> Emiliano (me) -> Peter > > <snip> > >> Mark brought out Beast and back-rushed the weenies into torpor. After >> a while, I managed to get out Jost (i think) and managed to oust Mark. >> Emile couldn't convince the table I was the threat as I started to >> work on Peter, but Peter wasn't going down fast enough, and my minions >> went down to Emile, who bled me out. The game then timed out. > > Again, you started to work on me, not Peter, and if I remember > correctly I was closer to oust Peter than you were to oust me. > > After you were ousted, a funny last turn occurred. After trying to tap > Emile's minions by deceiving bleeds, Peter called an Anarchist > Uprising, hoping to replace it with a stealth card. The Uprising would > have simultaneously ousted Peter and Emile, giving me the victory of > teh tournament but also maximizing Peter's result, by making him > second. > > Unfortunately for me and Peter, he didn't draw the stealth card (out > of 3 cards remaining in his deck), so Emile blocked, then peacefully > timed out and won the tournament. > > This means the real final results are: > > 1. Emile 1,5 VP > 2. Tobias 1 VP > 3. Peter 0,5 VP > 4. Emiliano 0,5 VP > 5. Mark 0 VP > > Ciao! > Emiliano You're absolutely right. I didn't realise that Anarchist uprising was so important, though. I think it would have made Peter third, though, since both he and I would've had 1 VP, and I was first going into the final. Would still have maximised his result, though. Tobias Deventer

Hi all! Thanks to the organizers and to all of the players for 2 very very nice days of V:TES here in Utrecht!! If I find the time, I will try and post a report of the ECQ from my point of view. For now, just three small points: 1. My warmest congratulations to Peter Bouwman ("cowfields", I think, on this forum)!! In my opinion, he's an extremely good player, and he shows it all the time here in Utrecht in casual play, but for some reason almost never in tournaments. This time he got third in a big event. Go Peter!! (Ok, he was playing weenie auspex, but still... ;-)) ) 2. They are not correctly linked to my website yet, but they are reachable by using the direct url http://www.phys.uu.nl/~imeroni/photos/UtrechtECQ/UtrechtECQ.html . I'm of course talking of the pictures I took during the ECQ. If you are curious, you're very welcome to take a look! 3. Guys, this game needs tweaking... Every time I watch (or, much more rarely, play) a final, I come to think that's the crappiest game I have seen and will ever see. But every time it turns out that there CAN be a more boring and non-played game... I know this has been debated for a while with many proposals, and I have no clear idea of how, but we definitely need SOMETHING to change... Ciao! Emiliano

Tobias wrote: > > Jo can still break the deal. and we all know he would, if he´d had a chance to win.

I thought I might comment. > Round two sucked. Simple as that. I had a good crypt and a good hand. > But the seating was horrible. It was like this: > > Me -> Cailean Wall -> Tremere bruise/bleed -> pre/vic/aus with > warghouls -> Anneke becomes Alastor I saw Cailean Wall and groaned. I've been playing around with various versions of a Cailena Wall deck. While the current one is a wonderful untap, intercept and do nasty things in combat. You still need to do damage to the prey. Intercepting doesn't count. They can just refuse to take any actions and then you'll be in trouble. Mind you, I run Pre/Obf bleed in my Cailean Deck. > Yup, I was sitting between two blocky-combatty decks. As it turned out, > my prey blocked every action I ever took, be it undirected (art scam) or > directed (bleed for one to get the edge away from my grandprey), > triumphantly yelling "WELCOME TO THE WALL" every time he blocked me. > What a moron. Whatever he didn't block (like 3 actions the whole game) I probably would have commented "My prey is a moron". Especially when he does nothing in his turn. "OOooo another spankachu deck". "Huh?" "It sits their and spanks itself while giving the game away to it's prey". Offer your hand. "Let me congratulate you for winning the spankachu award". :-) [ quoted text not captured ] Yes, never surrendor fight to the end. [ quoted text not captured ] What about some those retainers that give you stealth for a presence action? They's work in this deck.

On 12 Oct 2004 05:39:20 -0700, wolflord <jo.her...@sca.com> wrote: > I went into the finals as highest ranked, [...] I was playing palla > Grane/Foundation Exhibit Embrace [...] > Personally,2nd place is not "first of the losers", it's "2nd out of > 56 players while playing a deck I didn't even expect to get into the > finals with". Am I the only one seeing a contradiction between "palla Grane/ Foundation Exhibit Embrace" and "playing a deck I didn't even expect to get into the finals with" ? ;) -- Bye, Daneel

(snippage) > So, during the game, most important factors IMHO were: > Alexander not influencing out a single vampire for zillion turns=>no > pressure whatsoever on my prey. Not even any necessity for him to even > think about maybe there being any actions from his pred he might want > to block.. I think Jo means 'predator' in that 3rd sentence over there. > Yuri influenced out Ramona, and after that Xaviar. 2 Vampires with no > inherent capability whatsoever to harm or even really hinder Dieter's > march foreward. And two vampires that proceeded to do effectively nothing in the game. <snip rest of Jo's view on the final> Thanks for showing us your side of the story, Jo. I'm not sure weenie auspex is the 'core' of tables (increasingly) being dealt out, but I don't want to start that discussion. Tobias Deventer

Stefan Ferenci <a950n...@unet.s.p.a.m.univie.ac.at> wrote in message news:<416ba677$0$12646$3b21...@usenet.univie.ac.at>... > Tobias wrote: > > > > > Jo can still break the deal. > > and we all know he would, if he´d had a chance to win. False. Jo have broke about two deals (and at least one because he was upset, and have let a point to the dude he have broke), at my knowledge, in more than 3 years of competition of hight level. I have personnaly played 5 ou 6 game in international tournaments, and were with him in perhaps ten or twelwe tournaments. He have never broke a deal with me. Second : when you have won a national championship, more than two qualifiers for the EC, more than five big tournaments, and be finalist in an EC, you will not broke a deal just to won another tournament. Why ? Reputation ? Perhaps... But for sure : Victory doesn't have the same taste when you stole it. And you know it when you have tasted it more than a lot. We are some than we share that type of idea, I think : Jo, Stephane Lavrut, Rob Treasure, I suppose (hey, I haven't have an occasion to say that : he's a great player and a nice guy), myself, I hope, a lot of US players, a lot of german players...If you are like us, put your hands up in the air, Stefan (and stop spitting on Jo, please). Kamel Senni, Prince of Paris

>BTW: if anyone would ask me what I'd like to see changed i'd say: >forbid people to play auspex intercept weenie decks ;-) For all of those people pro combat, their existence encourages it. Having played a weenie Auspex netdeck to test the archetype out, I struggle with how they get into the finals of these large tournaments. Sure, they are a terror to quite a few typical tournament decks, but the road to victory is just so slow. I guess we just play slowly. Alternatively, I haven't played it in games where people were inclined to do table collapse deals, and that could speed things up.

Kamel SENNI wrote: > Stefan Ferenci <a950n...@unet.s.p.a.m.univie.ac.at> wrote in message news:<416ba677$0$12646$3b21...@usenet.univie.ac.at>... > >>Tobias wrote: >> >> >>>Jo can still break the deal. >> >>and we all know he would, if he´d had a chance to win. > > False. > Why ? > Reputation ? > Perhaps... > But for sure : Victory doesn't have the same taste when you stole it. > And you know it when you have tasted it more than a lot. > We are some than we share that type of idea, I think : Jo, Stephane > Lavrut, Rob Treasure, I suppose (hey, I haven't have an occasion to > say that : he's a great player and a nice guy), myself, I hope, a lot > of US players, a lot of german players...If you are like us, put your > hands up in the air, Stefan (and stop spitting on Jo, please). > > Kamel Senni, > Prince of Paris first i did not want to spit at jo, but he is known to have broken his share of deals. (take a peek at the german forum). i have never had the chance to play a game with you (i would love to), but from what i heard kamel and keeping a deal where never mentioned in the same sentence ;-)). i understand that you and a lot of other dealbreakers are worried about your reputation, because what deals to break when no one accepts any of your deals. :-(((( stefan

On Mon, 11 Oct 2004 08:38:20 -0400, Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote: >In message <8aa6db00.0410...@posting.google.com>, >tobiasop...@hotmail.com (Tobias) mumbled something about: > >>1st tableswitch (by Dieter): >> >>Peter -> Jo -> Dieter -> Alexander -> Yuri >> >>Alexander and Yuriare ousted by Dieter with help from Jo after Jo's >>proposed a 3-2 split in Dieter's favor. > >You know, this type of deal is supposed to be stopped. > >It seems clear at this point that we cannot rely on the judges to >enforce the rules as written. Call for change? > yup... "Player with most VP's gets GW, everyone else gets 'build a better deck/play more aggressively next time". the solution has been brought to light, we can get off this topic now.

Stefan Ferenci <a950n...@unet.s.p.a.m.univie.ac.at> wrote in message news:<416c352d$0$12130$3b21...@usenet.univie.ac.at>... [ quoted text not captured ] No, you are wrong. It's true that I have broke a lot of deals, probably more than a lot there ;-) (that is for reputation: I suppose if a liar says : "I'm a liar", you will trust him ? interresting test of logic indeed...). It's true too that breaking a deal have effect on the future : There's some deal I will not broke, for that thing (winning deals for me ; deals that I cannot broke (no vamps and so on), deals including life boon, deal including the transfer of vamps via succubus club: far too powerfull to be wasted, even with the winning of a tournament by a broken deal). Making a winning deal is easier thant winning with your the strenght of your own arms... but just that: easier. Don't underestimate the capabilities of a deal breaker : He will often surprise you by his technical skills... And if I was you, I will not trust that is said on the forums (mega supra lol): the dude who said that on german forum is the dude in the bad side of the deal broken... And as I heard, it was more complicated than it was told. Tchuss ! Kamel Senni

[ quoted text not captured ] dear kamel, i never implied that dealbreakers are bad players. i know you and others (like jo) are very fine players. stefan

"Tobias op den Brouw" wrote: > You posting a report on the constructed, BTW? I'm planning to do so, but I don't know when, since I don't have much time now, and I also got sick... :-( > You're absolutely right. I didn't realise that Anarchist uprising was so > important, though. I think it would have made Peter third, though, since > both he and I would've had 1 VP, and I was first going into the final. Would > still have maximised his result, though. I guess you're right, so no changes for you and Peter... only a new winner! But honestly, it would really be quite a joke if I won with my completely odd half-Lasombra-half-Tzimisce deck... ;-) Ciao, Emiliano

Stefan Ferenci <a950n...@unet.s.p.a.m.univie.ac.at> wrote in message news:<416c352d$0$12130$3b21...@usenet.univie.ac.at>... > Kamel SENNI wrote: > > Stefan Ferenci <a950n...@unet.s.p.a.m.univie.ac.at> wrote in message news:<416ba677$0$12646$3b21...@usenet.univie.ac.at>... > i understand that you and a lot of other dealbreakers are worried about > your reputation, because what deals to break when no one accepts any of > your deals. :-(((( > Slander! :) Besides, I threat everyone as a dealbreaker. Your reputation doesn't matter. AFAIK, it's an out of game consideration. Especially since you can only be sure of a reputation if you know someone personally. eg: I made a table splitting deal with kamel. We're both known to have broken deals in the past. And look: we both kept it. Remember that even known dealbreakers (should) only break deals when it gives them the table. So about 95% of deals are actually honored.

Stefan Ferenci <a950n...@unet.s.p.a.m.univie.ac.at> wrote in message news:<416ba677$0$12646$3b21...@usenet.univie.ac.at>... > Tobias wrote: > > > > > Jo can still break the deal. > > and we all know he would, if he´d had a chance to win. Excuse me? I have broken 2 deals which concerned GW's in the last couple of years : 1 with Walter in Vienna 2 years ago, and 1 with Joscha in Germany, also 2 years ago. I can name tons of deals which I've kept (see for exampe this years ECQ 's finals in Germany). So don't make any assumptions. Especially since you've never even seen me brake a deal in your life. Greetz Jo

> > I went into the finals as highest ranked, [...] I was playing palla > > Grane/Foundation Exhibit Embrace [...] > > > Personally,2nd place is not "first of the losers", it's "2nd out of > > 56 players while playing a deck I didn't even expect to get into the > > finals with". > > Am I the only one seeing a contradiction between "palla Grane/ > Foundation Exhibit Embrace" and "playing a deck I didn't even > expect to get into the finals with" ? ;) Probably..Everybody who knows me, and who saw me in the morning, could have guessed I didn't expect to make it to the finals, especially as my personal (and widely known) opinion of Palla Grande Decks is this: I can basically not remember ever sitting at a table where a PG took the table (apart from myself, since last sunday).And it's not a deck I usually play, and I only put it together in like 15minutes, so the way it's built is not what I expect to make the finals with anyways.. but maybe that's just cause I see the flaws in it more clearly for having played it myself.. greetz Jo

[ quoted text not captured ] Feel free to answer here, or in my first reply to you, whichever suits you best. Tobias Deventer

> BTW: if anyone would ask me what I'd like to see changed i'd say: > forbid people to play auspex intercept weenie decks ;-) Ceterum censeo Auspex Weenie esse delendam :-) -- johannes walch

Wouter Kuyper wrote: > I am not entirely sure, but didn't LSJ say somewhere that any deal in > the final is legal, because whoever makes the deal is playing to win? Not quite. Barring outside considerations (like subsequent rounds, bribes, threats, collusion, spite, boredom, etc.), the players of any round can be assumed to be playing to win. -- 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/

"Wouter Kuyper" <Wouter...@yahoo.com> schreef in bericht news:44a2da05.04101...@posting.google.com... > At the moment of the deal offer: > > What were the judges thoughts about the chances (numberwise, > guesstimate) for Jo to win, considering the game state and everything > that could happen, like Seat switchers? For Jo to win, without the (or any other) deal in place? I cannot give numbers, but extremely low. It would require the continuous active support of his prey with poolgain cards, a sudden stop in forward motion by his predator, or a seat-switch by some other player that would give him an easy prey or ineffective predator. That seat-switch would never happen with Dieter's vote lock (barring an unstopped Dia De los Muertes vote). Even then, the auspex deck would pwn Jo unless Jo got some serious time to build up outside it's blocking range. For Jo to win, with the deal in place (which would mean breaking the deal) - much higher, since the extra pool and the time to play cards to screw Dieter would've bettered his position (but Dieter was still the likely victor). IMHO. Tobias

LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:<bFkbd.696255$Gx4.6...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>... > Wouter Kuyper wrote: > > > I am not entirely sure, but didn't LSJ say somewhere that any deal in > > the final is legal, because whoever makes the deal is playing to win? > > Not quite. > > Barring outside considerations (like subsequent rounds, bribes, threats, > collusion, spite, boredom, etc.), the players of any round can be assumed > to be playing to win. I know there was a thread somewhere (but i cannot find it) in which you said there was a difference in playing the finals or playing another round dealwise. Do you remember? and if so, what was that difference then? W

jo.her...@sca.com (wolflord) wrote in message news:<88f9561d.04101...@posting.google.com>... > BTW: if anyone would ask me what I'd like to see changed i'd say: > forbid people to play auspex intercept weenie decks ;-) Why not try competitive decks that just happens to eat weenie auspex for breakfast? Change of Target + either Aching Beauty or Dominion/Crocodile's Tears turns a blocking deck's strengths against it. Weenie rush leaves it in torpor and jammed on intercept. Toreador Grand Ball vote sidesteps nearly all its defenses. Anarch Revolt punishes it for having little forward momentum. And aus/OBF/dom can tear holes in its bleed defense with Revelations, then bleed for lots and lots.

tobiasop...@hotmail.com (Tobias) wrote in message news:<8aa6db00.0410...@posting.google.com>... > This is a report of both the draft tournament played last saturday, > and the Dutch ECQ and Open National Championships of yesterday. > > SATURDAY: DRAFT <SNIP> > Decklists may be posted in this thread - I know I will post mine, as > soon as I retrieve my deck from where I left it. > > SUNDAY: ECQ / Dutch National Championships CONSTRUCTED <SNIP> Any chance of getting the finalists decklists for the ECQ? TIA ALF ----------------- Ohne Blumen, ohne Träume, ohne grüne Purzelbäume, ohne Butter, ohne Speck, hat das Leben wenig Zweck.

Wouter Kuyper wrote: > LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:<bFkbd.696255$Gx4.6...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>... >>Barring outside considerations (like subsequent rounds, bribes, threats, >>collusion, spite, boredom, etc.), the players of any round can be assumed >>to be playing to win. > > I know there was a thread somewhere (but i cannot find it) in which > you said there was a difference in playing the finals or playing > another round dealwise. Do you remember? and if so, what was that > difference then? The absence of subsequent rounds. [ quoted text not captured ]

LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:<WKNbd.701065$Gx4.2...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>... > Wouter Kuyper wrote: > > LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:<bFkbd.696255$Gx4.6...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>... > >>Barring outside considerations (like subsequent rounds, bribes, threats, > >>collusion, spite, boredom, etc.), the players of any round can be assumed > >>to be playing to win. > > > > I know there was a thread somewhere (but i cannot find it) in which > > you said there was a difference in playing the finals or playing > > another round dealwise. Do you remember? and if so, what was that > > difference then? > > The absence of subsequent rounds. Right, well, i could think of that... But how does that make a diffeence in options (in legalitity of) deals) for the finals itself? W

Wouter Kuyper wrote: > LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:<WKNbd.701065$Gx4.2...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>... >>The absence of subsequent rounds. > > Right, well, i could think of that... But how does that make a > diffeence in options (in legalitity of) deals) for the finals itself? It removes one of the things that would be considered. [ quoted text not captured ]

Wouter...@yahoo.com (Wouter Kuyper) wrote in message news:<44a2da05.04101...@posting.google.com>... [ quoted text not captured ] Sorry for replying to myself. I found the link that i was looking for. It is a thread called Chatter during... If i understood you correct from that thread, you said that any deal can be made at some point, but that the players should be playing to win regardless of that deal, and break the deal if that gets them the tablewin. In that case they are not(!) allowed to keep the deal. If i understood you correct...that is Right? This could be important in this thread. W

LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:<m48cd.704257$Gx4.2...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>... > Wouter Kuyper wrote: > > LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:<WKNbd.701065$Gx4.2...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>... > >>The absence of subsequent rounds. > > > > Right, well, i could think of that... But how does that make a > > diffeence in options (in legalitity of) deals) for the finals itself? > > It removes one of the things that would be considered. which deals would be illegal in finals, but legal in prelim rounds? which deals would be legal in finals, but illegal in prelim rounds? -Bram Vink

Wouter Kuyper wrote: > Sorry for replying to myself. I found the link that i was looking for. > It is a thread called Chatter during... > > If i understood you correct from that thread, you said that any deal > can be made at some point, but that the players should be playing to > win regardless of that deal, and break the deal if that gets them the > tablewin. In that case they are not(!) allowed to keep the deal. > > If i understood you correct...that is > > Right? This could be important in this thread. A deal can be made at any time. If the making the deal with the intention of honoring it is legal within the play-to-win rules at the time it is made, then the player is allowed to keep the deal when it comes time to do so, even if breaking it would be better under the play-to-win rules. If not, if making the deal is not "playing to win", then the rules do not recognize the deal as an excuse to avoid "playing to win" when the time comes to honor it -- that is, it must be broken if honoring it at the time it comes to honor it is not a "playing to win" move. [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] Illegal deals are illegal all the time, regardless of round. Not having subsequent rounds removes subsequent rounds from consideration. [ quoted text not captured ]

This is the deck I played. Alexander. Deck Name: Howling Setites Crypt: (12 cards, Min: 16, Max: 32, Avg: 6,00) ---------------------------------------------- 1 Lena Rowe aus obf pre 3, Pander 1 Hadrian Garrick obf pre 4, Followers of Set 1 Nepata obf pre ser 4, Followers of Set 1 Count Ormonde dom OBF pre ser 5, Followers of Set 1 Sir Marriot D'Urban aus obf PRE ser 5, Followers of Set 1 Ezekiel obf pot PRE SER 6, Followers of Set 1 Hesha Ruhadze ani obf pre SER 6, Followers of Set 1 Qufur am-Heru cel OBF PRE SER tha 7, Followers of Set 4 Howler ANI obf PRE SPI 8, Ahrimanes Library: (90 cards) ------------------- Master (14 cards) 1 Barrens, The 5 Blood Doll 2 Dreams of the Sphinx 1 Erciyes Fragments, The 1 Giant's Blood 1 Khobar Towers, Al-Khubar 1 Opium Den 2 Sudden Reversal Action (23 cards) 6 Enchant Kindred 3 Engling Fury 2 Enticement 2 Entrancement 6 Legal Manipulations 2 Muricia's Call 2 Temptation Action Modifier (19 cards) 4 Aire of Elation 3 Cloak the Gathering 3 Domain of Evernight 3 Faceless Night 3 Lost in Crowds 3 Spying Mission Reaction (18 cards) 5 Cats' Guidance 2 Delaying Tactics 3 Falcon's Eye 8 Speak with Spirits Combat (8 cards) 8 Majesty Ally (1 cards) 1 Mylan Horseed (Goblin) Retainer (4 cards) 4 Raven Spy Combo (3 cards) 3 Swallowed by the Night

LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:<eAjcd.706987$Gx4.6...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>... > Wouter Kuyper wrote: > > Sorry for replying to myself. I found the link that i was looking for. > > It is a thread called Chatter during... > > > > If i understood you correct from that thread, you said that any deal > > can be made at some point, but that the players should be playing to > > win regardless of that deal, and break the deal if that gets them the > > tablewin. In that case they are not(!) allowed to keep the deal. > > > > If i understood you correct...that is > > > > Right? This could be important in this thread. > > A deal can be made at any time. > If the making the deal with the intention of honoring it is legal > within the play-to-win rules at the time it is made, then the > player is allowed to keep the deal when it comes time to do so, > even if breaking it would be better under the play-to-win rules. > If not, if making the deal is not "playing to win", then the > rules do not recognize the deal as an excuse to avoid "playing > to win" when the time comes to honor it -- that is, it must be > broken if honoring it at the time it comes to honor it is not > a "playing to win" move. Ok, that makes sense to me. Apart from the fact that i would say that the latter case it should be illegal for the losing party to make the deal in the first place. Or am i missing something? And then i still don't understand what you were trying to say in that earlier thread (Chatter during..) W

Wouter Kuyper wrote: > LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:<eAjcd.706987$Gx4.6...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>... >>A deal can be made at any time. >>If the making the deal with the intention of honoring it is legal >>within the play-to-win rules at the time it is made, then the >>player is allowed to keep the deal when it comes time to do so, >>even if breaking it would be better under the play-to-win rules. >>If not, if making the deal is not "playing to win", then the >>rules do not recognize the deal as an excuse to avoid "playing >>to win" when the time comes to honor it -- that is, it must be >>broken if honoring it at the time it comes to honor it is not >>a "playing to win" move. > > Ok, that makes sense to me. Apart from the fact that i would say that > the latter case it should be illegal for the losing party to make the > deal in the first place. Or am i missing something? He can make it, sure (since making a invalid deal is basically just table-talk -- it doesn't affect his game any -- he still has to play to win and he might be able to get better position from the other player's actions in upholding the "deal"). Why wouldn't he be able to? > And then i still don't understand what you were trying to say in that > earlier thread (Chatter during..) Try also the thread beginning here: http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=34fe8a18.0108010235.545dcd37%40posting.google.com [ quoted text not captured ]

LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:<0Yvcd.710599$Gx4.3...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>... > Wouter Kuyper wrote: > > LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:<eAjcd.706987$Gx4.6...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>... > >>A deal can be made at any time. > >>If the making the deal with the intention of honoring it is legal > >>within the play-to-win rules at the time it is made, then the > >>player is allowed to keep the deal when it comes time to do so, > >>even if breaking it would be better under the play-to-win rules. > >>If not, if making the deal is not "playing to win", then the > >>rules do not recognize the deal as an excuse to avoid "playing > >>to win" when the time comes to honor it -- that is, it must be > >>broken if honoring it at the time it comes to honor it is not > >>a "playing to win" move. > > > > Ok, that makes sense to me. Apart from the fact that i would say that > > the latter case it should be illegal for the losing party to make the > > deal in the first place. Or am i missing something? > > He can make it, sure (since making a invalid deal is basically just > table-talk -- it doesn't affect his game any -- he still has to play > to win and he might be able to get better position from the other > player's actions in upholding the "deal"). > > Why wouldn't he be able to? Ok...So, now it gets fuzzy again for me. The way i saw things regarding deals is this: (the winning part of making deals seams logical for me) I can make a losing deal if i get more (or at least as much) VP's out of it as i would get without the deal. And only if the chance of actually winning the game is below reasonable (still uncertain about what reasonable means exactly). If this deal is made, and found legal (or its legality is not questioned) then i am allowed to uphold the deal in a later stadium, even if breaking the deal at that point would win me the game. If the deal is not found legal by the judge players can not make that deal. Now, what i gather from your responses here (and in the other thread you mentioned) is that you can make a deal regardless of the situation you are in, as long as you intend to break it. This means a judge is required twice during the deal-game. Once when the deal is made. (because if the situation stank for the player he is allowed to uphold the deal) and the second time when it comes to upholding the deal. because upholding a legally made deal can be illegal (because you intended to break it when making it). Wouldn't it be simpler to just not allow a losing deal if the losing party could do better. In other words without the option of the intention of dealbreak from the start. THUS that you can uphold your legally made deal, if you want. (and break it if you want). Otherwise it would be so strange... judge: "you can make this deal, and it will be legal, but only if you don't uphold it" W > > > And then i still don't understand what you were trying to say in that > > earlier thread (Chatter during..) > > Try also the thread beginning here: > http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=34fe8a18.0108010235.545dcd37%40posting.google.com I read it, but it didn't help me much... W

Wouter Kuyper wrote: > The way i saw things regarding deals is this: > > (the winning part of making deals seams logical for me) > I can make a losing deal if i get more (or at least as much) VP's out > of it as i would get without the deal. This is what make a "losing deal" and example of "play to win" (and therefore legal), yes. > And only if the chance of > actually winning the game is below reasonable This is a restatement of the set-up given above, yes. > (still uncertain about > what reasonable means exactly). The judge's assessment. It means that the judge doesn't have to factor in things like other players saving you or making questionable plays when determining whether there's "any chance" for you to make more VPs one way than another. The "what ifs" only have to be considered if they are reasonable. > If this deal is made, and found legal (or its legality is not > questioned) then i am allowed to uphold the deal in a later stadium, > even if breaking the deal at that point would win me the game. Correct. > If the deal is not found legal by the judge players can not make that > deal. It isn't that the player cannot make the deal. It is that the deal is nothing more than table talk at that point -- the "illegal" deal has no impact on how the "play to win" rule is used later. > Now, what i gather from your responses here (and in the other thread > you mentioned) is that you can make a deal regardless of the situation > you are in, as long as you intend to break it. This means a judge is > required twice during the deal-game. Once when the deal is made. > (because if the situation stank for the player he is allowed to uphold > the deal) and the second time when it comes to upholding the deal. > because upholding a legally made deal can be illegal (because you > intended to break it when making it). The judge is required throughout the game, deals or no, but yes (where "intend to break it" is replaced by "cannot honor it later unless the activity used to honor it is legal in and of itself"). > Wouldn't it be simpler to just not allow a losing deal if the losing > party could do better. No, as that would then force the judge to give away privileged information (i.e., information that one player knows and that the others do not). > In other words without the option of the > intention of dealbreak from the start. > THUS that you can uphold your > legally made deal, if you want. (and break it if you want). You can do this already and still. > Otherwise it would be so strange... > > judge: "you can make this deal, and it will be legal, but only if you > don't uphold it" That is not so strange. It is equivalent to: The deal doesn't follow the play to win rules, so it (the deal) cannot be used later to circumvent the play to win rules when the time comes to honor it. [ quoted text not captured ]