V:EKN Tournament Rules update

V:EKN Tournament Rules 2004 Season (Mid-Season Update) Effective July 1, 2004 http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/veknRules200407.html [...] Changes from the January 1, 2004 rules 2.9 Removed maximum number of participants to allow use of Multi-Judge System in most events. 3.1.5 Multi-Deck option added for small tournaments. 3.1.6 Added "No Final Round" option for small tournaments. 2.9. Multi-Judge System The Multi-Judge System may be used at any non-qualifier, non-championship tournament with at least eight participants (i.e., having at least two tables). Organizers choosing this system must announce its use before the tournament begins and identify six judges as head judge, secondary judge, and third, fourth, fifth, and sixth judge. Organizers should use good judgement when selecting the Multi-Judge System and should ensure its use will not disrupt the event. Tournament organizers may only participate in events they sanction if they are using the Multi-Judge System. These types of events are the only ones in which judges and/or tournament organizers are allowed to participate. When using the Multi-Judge System, the head judge makes all rulings, except when a decision is needed in a game in which the head judge is participating. If a ruling is needed in a head judge's game, the secondary judge makes the call, except in games in which both the head judge and secondary judge are both participating, and so on. The only time the sixth judge makes a ruling is when the head judge, the secondary judge, and the third, fourth, and fifth judges are playing a game. 3.1.5 Multi-Deck System Players are prohibited from making modifications to their decks between rounds unless the tournament uses the following multi-deck rules. The multi-deck system can be used at any tournament with fewer than 12 players (i.e., fewer than three tables). Organizers choosing to use this system must announce its use in advance of the tournament date. Players may choose to bring any number of tournament-legal decks to the tournament and/or extra cards to exchange with cards in their decks (also known as a sideboard in some games). Between rounds, players may freely switch decks (or cards in their decks). A tournament begun with the multi-deck system cannot admit more players between rounds if doing so would create a round with 12 or more players. 3.1.6 Tournament Without Final In a very small tournament, one with fewer than 8 players (i.e., fewer than two tables), the organizer may choose to omit the final round altogether or may choose to run an additional "preliminary" round in place of the final. This decision must be made and announced to all the players prior to the start of the first round. With no final, the results of the preliminary rounds (including the additional preliminary round, if any) are used to determine final standings in the same manner as described in 3.1 above. The no-final rules can be used in conjunction with or without the multi-deck system above, at the organizer's option. A tournament begun under the no-final arrangement cannot admit more players between rounds if doing so would create a round with 8 or more players. Greetings, Damnans

On Tue, 1 Jun 2004 22:44:53 +0200, "Damnans" <bel...@ono.com> scrawled: >V:EKN Tournament Rules >2004 Season (Mid-Season Update) >Effective July 1, 2004 > >http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/veknRules200407.html > >[...] > >Changes from the January 1, 2004 rules > >2.9 Removed maximum number of participants to allow use of Multi-Judge >System in most events. [snip] >2.9. Multi-Judge System > >The Multi-Judge System may be used at any non-qualifier, >non-championship tournament with at least eight participants >(i.e., having at least two tables). i found this most interesting. no more multi-judge qualifier events. adds a sense of 'seriousness', i feel. salem domain:canberra http://www.geocities.com/salem_christ.geo/vtes.htm (replace "hotmail" with "yahoo" to email) "I like to play the field"-LSJ

Damnans wrote: > Players may choose > to bring any number of tournament-legal decks to the tournament > and/or extra cards to exchange with cards in their decks (also > known as a sideboard in some games). This is just wacky! For years, people have advocated for a "sideboard" option, usually being argued down that it is mostly pointless, as you never know what you are gonna be sitting next to. Now that there is a possibility for "sideboarding", I still think it is mostly pointless, as you still never know what you are going to be sitting next to (especially as the"sideboard" option comes along with a "use a completely different deck" option). But on the other hand, you can always tweak your questionable deck between rounds, evolving it as you play, which is kinda cool. Peter D Bakija pd...@lightlink.com http://www.lightlink.com/pdb6 "Mr. President, ask not what your rest home can do for you. Ask what you can do for your rest home." -Elvis

Peter D Bakija wrote: > This is just wacky! For years, people have advocated for a "sideboard" > option, usually being argued down that it is mostly pointless, as you never > know what you are gonna be sitting next to. > > Now that there is a possibility for "sideboarding", I still think it is > mostly pointless, as you still never know what you are going to be sitting > next to (especially as the"sideboard" option comes along with a "use a > completely different deck" option). But on the other hand, you can always > tweak your questionable deck between rounds, evolving it as you play, which > is kinda cool. Given the "only usable in tournaments up to a certain size" restriction, I think the idea isn't so much sideboarding as, "Well, there's only 8 people here, most of which you'll end up playing 2-3 times." --Colin McGuigan

Colin McGuigan wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] Yes. The "sideboard" verbiage was merely to stave off questions about whether cards from one deck could be used in the subsequent "different" deck. When all players can "sideboard" 180 cards, there's no way to predict any sort of environment (above the standard "guess the metagame" sort of predictions) - each round is basically a new "game night" where people show up - with the same decks you saw them play last, maybe tweaked, maybe rebuilt, or maybe with new decks. -- 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/

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote > Yes. The "sideboard" verbiage was merely to stave off questions about > whether cards from one deck could be used in the subsequent "different" > deck. When all players can "sideboard" 180 cards, there's no way to > predict any sort of environment (above the standard "guess the metagame" > sort of predictions) - each round is basically a new "game night" where > people show up - with the same decks you saw them play last, maybe > tweaked, maybe rebuilt, or maybe with new decks. actually, a sideboard maybe a fine addition to the standard v:tes tournament rules. sometime you just feel you are not playing your game right : it may be the environnment, but also the need you have today to be more agressive (without posting on usenet ;) ) and want to exchange defense for offense and so on. Even in friendly games, i always adjust the content of my deck before seating, because sometime you want to play the same deck with a different optic or a different state of mind. It also helps you to refine a deck and make it really really better since by swapping stuff you can realize how much the are (would) be helpful in the current situation. The side of a sideboard, of course, cannot be of 180 cards, especially since it takes then huge amount of time for some people to then tweak their decks. (Better bring Two different decks in that case ;p ) now if i try to find a number for this sideboard, some people will call it arbitrary, but hey, you have to draw a limit somewhere. I'd say you can side board 25% of the crypt (which means 3 vamps out of 12, a number which can make a real difference) and 15 % of the Deck (which means 14 cards out of 90) that would be a good idea. It allows you to change some "premaid" modules, like swap out 5 skin of steel for 5 obedience, 4 GtU for 4 conditioning, 4 Spirit's touch for 4 telepathic counter, and 1 fame for 1 dragounbound. The core of the deck (here, a toolboxy !ventrue) would stay untouched. And it seems reasonable in terms of time consumption. for a 60 card decks (supposedly fine tuned already) that would leave 5 replaceable cards... what do you think ?

Reyda wrote: > what do you think ? Major sideboard issue: hoser cards, and possessing information about other decks. If you hear that deck X is doing well in a tournament, then you can put in the hosers that'll shut down deck X, or at the very least pack more defense against whatever X does. --Colin McGuigan

>actually, a sideboard maybe a fine addition to the standard v:tes tournament >rules. >what do you think ? That a sideboard as usually meant for CCGs is pointless. Okay, you get to change your deck. So does everyone else. Has some really unpleasant effects, for instance giving massive (additional) advantage to scouting other people's decks. Either you go "infinite" - allow people to change decks at will - or you don't bother.

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > Yes. The "sideboard" verbiage was merely to stave off questions about > whether cards from one deck could be used in the subsequent "different" > deck. When all players can "sideboard" 180 cards, there's no way to > predict any sort of environment (above the standard "guess the metagame" > sort of predictions) - each round is basically a new "game night" where > people show up - with the same decks you saw them play last, maybe > tweaked, maybe rebuilt, or maybe with new decks. How would you deck register that? List your starting deck and all cards you have with you that you intend to switch in and out? Or is there even a point since you can change whatever you want after any round? -- The Nosferatu Stuff

Reyda wrote: > what do you think ? I think in a tournament with people playing one deck the whole time (i.e. a standard tournament), it is a bad idea, as it: -Makes overpowered hoser cards too attractive (if you know that someone is doing really well with a Malkavian deck, you put a whole bunch of Dementias in your deck). -Makes scouting too attractive (if you know what everyone else is playing, you can change your deck as necessary, so having extra information becomes huge). -Is useless in most cases anyway, as you have zero way to know what you are going tobe sitting next to (unless you are suggesting that you get to "sideboard" *after* you see where you are at a table. Which is insane.) In the situation it exists in now, where people can play completely different decks between rounds, it is hardly an issue, as there will tend to be very little consistiently between rounds. Mostly it'll be good for tweaking a deck you are working on as you play, and making it work better in general after playing it a few times. [ quoted text not captured ]

"Reyda" <true_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<40bf3809$0$24888$79c1...@nan-newsreader-07.noos.net>... > actually, a sideboard maybe a fine addition to the standard v:tes tournament > rules. > sometime you just feel you are not playing your game right : it may be the > environnment, but also the need you have today to be more agressive (without > posting on usenet ;) ) and want to exchange defense for offense and so on. > Even in friendly games, i always adjust the content of my deck before > seating, because sometime you want to play the same deck with a different > optic or a different state of mind. It also helps you to refine a deck and > make it really really better since by swapping stuff you can realize how > much the are (would) be helpful in the current situation. > I'd say you can side board 25% of the crypt (which means 3 vamps out of 12, > a number which can make a real difference) and 15 % of the Deck (which means > 14 cards out of 90) that would be a good idea. > It allows you to change some "premaid" modules, like swap out 5 skin of > steel for 5 obedience, 4 GtU for 4 conditioning, 4 Spirit's touch for 4 > telepathic counter, and 1 fame for 1 dragounbound. The core of the deck > (here, a toolboxy !ventrue) would stay untouched. And it seems reasonable in > terms of time consumption. > for a 60 card decks (supposedly fine tuned already) that would leave 5 > replaceable cards... > > > what do you think ? Personally, I'd be very much against this. One of the biggest challenges in deckbuilding is the limited amount of cards you have to include in the deck - the 90-card limit forces you to make decisions about what to include, because you can't include everything to cover every contingency. It also would give a HUGE advantage to players who either a) finish their games really fast or b) have friends helping them scout other decks. Players whose games were timing out would be at a distinct disadvantage in knowing what cards would be ideal to sideboard for their next game as opposed to the player whose game finished in an hour and spent the rest walking around observing games and decks. Based on what I've observed from other CCG's tournaments, sideboarding would not be an issue of 'my deck isn't playing right for the environment' or thoughts of 'today I feel like being more agressive'. Instead, it's much much much more likely to be specifically used to swap in and out cards to combat the decks you're about to immediately face. For instance, you might swap in 3 weenie DOM vamps and 10 deflections if you know a weenie bleed deck is about to be at your table, or swap out PTOs from your vote deck if you're going to be at an all-Cam table, or swap in a couple of Anachronisms or Illegal Search+Seizures if you know an Assault Rifle deck's coming. Non-combat decks coming? Quick, swap in the War Ghouls. (Plus, fourteen cards is a LOT. Other games have had very, very small sideboards, to prevent people from playing what is effectively a very different deck each round - I'd bet with a fourteen-of-ninety swap, you could build some decks that played VERY differently, like swapping an entire discipline's worth of cards through your deck.) And while letting everybody sideboard is certainly something that players can feasibly do, it's not what I would personally want to see as the official default tournament rule. I _like_ getting to play the meta-game of figuring out in advance what sorts of decks I'm likely to see at a tourney and whether/how to account for them in my deckbuilding, because I won't be able to swap things in and out once the tourney starts. It could make for an interesting alternate format, certainly - it's just not one I'd want to play as the default, at all. -John Flournoy

"Damnans" <bel...@ono.com> wrote in message news:<2i4863F...@uni-berlin.de>... > 3.1.5 Multi-Deck System > > Players are prohibited from making modifications to their > decks between rounds unless the tournament uses the following > multi-deck rules. The multi-deck system can be used at any > tournament with fewer than 12 players (i.e., fewer than three > tables). Organizers choosing to use this system must announce > its use in advance of the tournament date. I suppose in some areas you can regularly expect fewer than 12 players to participate. What if 12 or more show up when it has been advertised as multi-deck? Is the event instantly transformed into a standard constructed event? Are the players who were looking forward to a multi-deck event just out of luck? It strikes me as a bit odd that 10-11 player tournaments form a gray zone where Multi-Deck tournament results will make their way into the ratings system. Was this done to prevent "pollution" of the ratings system by a more or less experimental tournament type? > Players may choose > to bring any number of tournament-legal decks to the tournament > and/or extra cards to exchange with cards in their decks (also > known as a sideboard in some games). Between rounds, players > may freely switch decks (or cards in their decks). It shouldn't really matter too much because these are small events, but when does "between rounds" end? Is it when the players have taken their seats? Once you are sitting at the table and know the predator/prey relationship, can you sideboard then? Must all sideboarding be completed before you even know who will be seated at your next table? I am trying to be a little nitpicky, because I know some people will want to know the answers. I also don't think we need to go the route of detailing decklists right now. That would just be wrong. Jeff

John Flournoy wrote: > Based on what I've observed from other CCG's tournaments, sideboarding > would not be an issue of 'my deck isn't playing right for the > environment' or thoughts of 'today I feel like being more agressive'. > Instead, it's much much much more likely to be specifically used to > swap in and out cards to combat the decks you're about to immediately > face. Frome what I understand, in Magic, you have a "base" deck that you always play your first game against a given opponent in a given match of 3 games with, and then after the first game, you can sideboard in cards, resetting your deck to "base" after the three game match. This makes perfect sense--you play one game against one player, see what you are playing against, and adjust accordingly. VTES does not have this system even remotely, and as such, sideboarding is both totally random and likely pointless. Again, in the "multi deck" format, you aren't so much "sideboarding" between rounds as you are just using a different deck every round. Which works fine, as everyone is doing the same thing, theoretically. Having a "sideboard" for a single deck in a single tournament has the possibility of being preposterously overpowered, and at the same time, mostly pointless. [ quoted text not captured ]

> VTES does not have this system even remotely, and as such, sideboarding is > both totally random and likely pointless. > I might be in the mood to experiment with sideboarding, as long as the sideboard counted towards your 90 Library cards.

The Nosferatu Stuff wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] If you need deck lists in a tournament that small, then have the players submit each one just prior to the round in which it will be played. [ quoted text not captured ]

"Damnans" <bel...@ono.com> wrote in message news:<2i4863F...@uni-berlin.de>... > V:EKN Tournament Rules > 2004 Season (Mid-Season Update) > Effective July 1, 2004 > > http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/veknRules200407.html > > [...] > > Changes from the January 1, 2004 rules > > > 2.9. Multi-Judge System > I think that this version of "multi-judge" system is very good. The Head judge is the only person who can know if he can handle the tournment "playing" or "not playing" in it. It's not the size that matters but the behaviuor of the other players, the experience of the judge, the number of newby... I like this change. > > 3.1.5 Multi-Deck System > > Players are prohibited from making modifications to their > decks between rounds unless the tournament uses the following > multi-deck rules. The multi-deck system can be used at any > tournament with fewer than 12 players (i.e., fewer than three > tables). Organizers choosing to use this system must announce > its use in advance of the tournament date. Players may choose > to bring any number of tournament-legal decks to the tournament > and/or extra cards to exchange with cards in their decks (also > known as a sideboard in some games). Between rounds, players > may freely switch decks (or cards in their decks). A tournament > begun with the multi-deck system cannot admit more players > between rounds if doing so would create a round with 12 or more > players. > This is the weird new rule I've seen in years (and I'm a Malkavian...) Sideboard or deck swapping? I think it's ok but with limitations. It' not good to have player who behaves in the following way: "I've 12 decks ready and I'll take all my card collection to the tournment..." It will be preposterous (what amazing word come's out from my hat...)! Instead I think that a "limited" sideboard (say as 20 card and a maximum of 5 vamps to exchange 1:1 in the deck) is a good choice and also a "second deck"... no more. > 3.1.6 Tournament Without Final > > In a very small tournament, one with fewer than 8 players > (i.e., fewer than two tables), the organizer may choose to omit > the final round altogether or may choose to run an additional > "preliminary" round in place of the final. Agreed, it make non sense to have a final... Last month I've attended a tournment with 5 players + judge. A single round will be enough! > Greetings, > Damnans Best deranges! RavATwoFaces

Colin McGuigan expounded: [ quoted text not captured ] It would be different but would it necessarily be bad? I think it could add interest. I don't think people would sidboard that many hosers though and if they put them in they might not face the deck in question and the deck in question could have extra DIs/Suddens etc.

John Flournoy expounded: > For instance, you might swap in 3 weenie DOM vamps and 10 deflections > if you know a weenie bleed deck is about to be at your table, or swap > out PTOs from your vote deck if you're going to be at an all-Cam > table, or swap in a couple of Anachronisms or Illegal Search+Seizures > if you know an Assault Rifle deck's coming. Non-combat decks coming? > Quick, swap in the War Ghouls. (Plus, fourteen cards is a LOT. Other > games have had very, very small sideboards, to prevent people from > playing what is effectively a very different deck each round - I'd bet > with a fourteen-of-ninety swap, you could build some decks that played > VERY differently, like swapping an entire discipline's worth of cards > through your deck.) minimum tournament size?

Timlagor wrote: > It would be different but would it necessarily be bad? I think it could > add interest. I don't think people would sidboard that many hosers > though and if they put them in they might not face the deck in question > and the deck in question could have extra DIs/Suddens etc. I don't think it'd matter so much in the preliminaries as the finals, where, if you've scouted, you know what your opponents are going to be playing ahead of time. --Colin McGuigan

>It' not good to have player who behaves in the following way: >"I've 12 decks ready and I'll take all my card collection to the >tournment..." > >It will be preposterous (what amazing word come's out from my hat...)! Why? I usually take 15-20 decks with me when I go to play, most of them suck mightily. I'd think some people would be happy to see some of them get played. >Instead I think that a "limited" sideboard (say as 20 card and a >maximum of 5 vamps to exchange 1:1 in the deck) is a good choice and >also a "second deck"... no more. I'd much prefer that players completely switch decks that fiddle around with tuning decks between rounds. For one thing, it should be much faster. Actually, given how long tournaments drag with people running out to grab food and whatnot, there should be low time limits on between round deck changes. >> 3.1.6 Tournament Without Final >> >> In a very small tournament, one with fewer than 8 players >> (i.e., fewer than two tables), the organizer may choose to omit >> the final round altogether or may choose to run an additional >> "preliminary" round in place of the final. > >Agreed, it make non sense to have a final... >Last month I've attended a tournment with 5 players + judge. >A single round will be enough! It would.

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:msYvc.31405$_k3.7...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net... > The Nosferatu Stuff wrote: > > > "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > > > >>Yes. The "sideboard" verbiage was merely to stave off questions about > >>whether cards from one deck could be used in the subsequent "different" > >>deck. When all players can "sideboard" 180 cards, there's no way to > >>predict any sort of environment (above the standard "guess the metagame" > >>sort of predictions) - each round is basically a new "game night" where > >>people show up - with the same decks you saw them play last, maybe > >>tweaked, maybe rebuilt, or maybe with new decks. > > > > > > How would you deck register that? List your starting deck and all cards you > > have with you that you intend to switch in and out? Or is there even a > > point since you can change whatever you want after any round? > > If you need deck lists in a tournament that small, then have the players > submit each one just prior to the round in which it will be played. Well i hope there are no plans to expand this idea to larger tournaments. I can just see if now, someone that has not gotten any VP in the first 2 rounds switching to a deck that does not have any win conditions in the deck just random rush combat or their "funny reseat the table every time its my turn" deck. -- The Nosferatu Stuff

The Nosferatu Stuff wrote: > > "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > > Yes. The "sideboard" verbiage was merely to stave off questions about > > whether cards from one deck could be used in the subsequent "different" > > deck. When all players can "sideboard" 180 cards, there's no way to > > predict any sort of environment (above the standard "guess the metagame" > > sort of predictions) - each round is basically a new "game night" where > > people show up - with the same decks you saw them play last, maybe > > tweaked, maybe rebuilt, or maybe with new decks. > > How would you deck register that? I think it depends on the point of registering decks. Usually, the reason to do so is to prove that a player has played the same deck throughout the tournament - e.g., hasn't added three Malkavian Dementias to his deck just because he's discovered the field is swarming with Malk decks. Obvioiusly, in a tournament with such rules, any need for that becomes obviated. If you simply want to see to it that the decks played are legal, that can be done without registering decks. A simple deck check would suffice. Of course, in a tournament where decks can change each round rather than having one deck for the whole tournament, that would admittedly be more of a pain. Fred

The Nosferatu Stuff wrote: > Well i hope there are no plans to expand this idea to larger tournaments. I > can just see if now, someone that has not gotten any VP in the first 2 > rounds switching to a deck that does not have any win conditions in the deck > just random rush combat or their "funny reseat the table every time its my > turn" deck. That sounds like a bit of a straw man issue to me. I'd never say never, as there are always a few jerks and morons out there. But I don't think that's likely to be much of a problem, if I understand what you mean. What might be more of an issue (and maybe this is more what you were talking about and I'm just misunderstanding), are people playing kinds of "extreme" decks that you'd normally never see in a serious tournament. For instance, I have a deck with a ton of Kiss of Ras in it, built to gamble that there will be little or no fortitude at the table. If I play it and most of the vampires at the table have fortitude, I just basically starve and die. Such a deck would have a very random influence on the game, which other players might find annoying. If this is what you're concerned about, I'd say that I sympathize with the point of view. (No one wants to miss out on the finals because their grandprey "ally" brought out a deck that died horribly to their prey.) But some might see such a rule as a *good* thing - exactly because it would give a player doing poorly an opportunity to use a gadget or extreme deck in the last round. This, in turn, would force others to consider the possibilities when evaluating the metagame. Bottom line: I think it should be the choice of tournament director, not a set rule concerning the size of the tournament. That would also settle questions about knowing whether the multiple-deck rule would be used or not depending on how many people show up. Fred

[ quoted text not captured ] Personally, I'd build a deck to play the preliminaries, and know exactly what would hose my deck. And bring a deck that will hose those hosers and use it in the final :) //Doc. -- "Wees jezelf, er zijn al zoveel anderen" - Loesje begin Your_MS_program_incorrectly_interprets_this_as_an_attachment.txt

RavATwoFaces wrote: > > 3.1.5 Multi-Deck System > > > > Players are prohibited from making modifications to their > > decks between rounds unless the tournament uses the following > > multi-deck rules. The multi-deck system can be used at any > > tournament with fewer than 12 players (i.e., fewer than three > > tables). Organizers choosing to use this system must announce > > its use in advance of the tournament date. Players may choose > > to bring any number of tournament-legal decks to the tournament > > and/or extra cards to exchange with cards in their decks (also > > known as a sideboard in some games). Between rounds, players > > may freely switch decks (or cards in their decks). A tournament > > begun with the multi-deck system cannot admit more players > > between rounds if doing so would create a round with 12 or more > > players. > > > > This is the weird new rule I've seen in years (and I'm a Malkavian...) > Sideboard or deck swapping? > I think it's ok but with limitations. > > It' not good to have player who behaves in the following way: > "I've 12 decks ready and I'll take all my card collection to the > tournment..." You can take every card you own but you can only play three. In this sense, owning more cards or more decks isn't the slightest advantage. You may be able to switch decks - but so can everyone else! So you know nothing about what anyone else can play. Therefore, the ability to switch to large number of different decks is totally meaningless. For the most part, you might as well plan your three (or four or whatever) decks in advance. The only reason not to I can think of is if you want to choose a deck based on your position in the tournament so far (that is, whether you're pretty much in the finals already or haven't scored at all or you're on the cusp of making it into the finals). The other reason I can think of would be if you saw some type or types of decks in abundance that you hadn't expected, for instance a ton of combat decks when you were expecting bleed decks. Even so, basing your choice on that seems very risky to me. The next round may see everyone swap out their combat decks. This is a poor objection to the multi-deck rule, IMHO. > Instead I think that a "limited" sideboard (say as 20 card and a > maximum of 5 vamps to exchange 1:1 in the deck) is a good choice and > also a "second deck"... no more. I agree with the people who think sideboarding is a bad idea. It would encourage scouting, which is a bad thing. The current rule is much better. > > 3.1.6 Tournament Without Final > > > > In a very small tournament, one with fewer than 8 players > > (i.e., fewer than two tables), the organizer may choose to omit > > the final round altogether or may choose to run an additional > > "preliminary" round in place of the final. > > Agreed, it make non sense to have a final... > Last month I've attended a tournment with 5 players + judge. > A single round will be enough! Why not have two or three rounds, if you have time? (And use the multi-deck system, which were included first and foremost for exactly this situation.) This is like saying a single game is enough for a pickup play night. Finals or not, more is better. Fred

Curevei wrote: >RavATwoFaces wrote: > >Last month I've attended a tournment with 5 players + judge. > >A single round will be enough! > > It would. I mean, shit, if tournaments are such a pain in the ass that the object is to end them as quickly as possible, I'm confused why you plan them at all. (Hint: many people find having four or five players - even the same four or five players - play more than one game in an afternoon to be fun. As long as they're not stuck having to play the same deck over and over.) Fred

>I mean, shit, if tournaments are such a pain in the ass that the >object is to end them as quickly as possible, I'm confused why >you plan them at all. I can't imagine anyone planning a single table tournament. While I personally like tournaments to go quickly, that has nothing to do with avoiding the pain that is playing the same people more than once with the same decks. (Hint: many people find having four or five >players - even the same four or five players - play more than one >game in an afternoon to be fun. As long as they're not stuck >having to play the same deck over and over.) Until recently, there was a lack of clear rules for switching decks. Since no one plans a one table tournament, what if players don't bring more than one deck? It's exceedingly unfair if everyone else can switch decks knowing what someone is playing. I still don't see the problem of single table tournaments solved. It finally occurred to me talking the issue over with Robyn that the obvious thing to do when there's only 4-5 players (have no idea how a 6-7 tournament goes) is to officially cancel it. Can still play out something to unload prizes, etc. All you really lose is affecting rankings. As for playing more than one game in an afternoon, nothing to stop people from doing that outside of a tournament. BTW, I don't recall ever playing the same people with the same decks in casual play.

Curevei wrote: > > >I mean, shit, if tournaments are such a pain in the ass that the > >object is to end them as quickly as possible, I'm confused why > >you plan them at all. > > I can't imagine anyone planning a single table tournament. ?????? Such odd statements you make at times. Of course people plan single table tournaments. I mean, if you can't hope to attract 8 people in your area, you plan a single table tournament. Otherwise, you play no tournaments. And if we're suffering a difference in value judgements, I'll make it clear: a one-table tournament IS worth spending time doing - in my book, anyway. > While I personally like tournaments to go quickly, that has nothing > to do with avoiding the pain that is playing the same people more than > once with the same decks. Agreed, that's not the best time that can be had with Jyhad. But I've done it more than once and enjoyed the experience. The new rule sure is better, though. The point being, why play one game when you could play two or three with different decks? > > (Hint: many people find having four or five > >players - even the same four or five players - play more than one > >game in an afternoon to be fun. As long as they're not stuck > >having to play the same deck over and over.) > > Until recently, there was a lack of clear rules for switching decks. Correct. But now we have them. Which what this thread is about. Which is why I was confused that the two of you stated flatly that, "A single round will be enough." No. It won't be. > Since no one plans a one table tournament, what if players don't bring > more than one deck? It's exceedingly unfair if everyone else can switch > decks knowing what someone is playing. Aside from the incorrectness of the premise, there's also the point that the tournament may be only one table despite anyone's planning. In any event, the multi-deck rules state that the rule must be announced in advance. (What happens if more than 12 people show up isn't clear to me.) So any players bringing a single deck have only themselves to blame for not noticing the format of the tournament. That's hardly unfair. > It finally occurred to me talking the issue over with Robyn that the > obvious thing to do when there's only 4-5 players (have no idea how > a 6-7 tournament goes) is to officially cancel it. Obviously we disagree about our relative levels of despondency around small tournament. But I'm confused. I'm pretty sure you and I have played two to three games with the same five guys sitting around Gary's table on a number of occasions. You seemed perfectly OK with it. The only difference here is, you're keeping score. Should we shoot the scorekeeper in order to have fun? Make no mistake, I'd rather play a two-table tournament than a one-table, and better still three or more. But if push comes to shove, one table is perfectly fine. Fred

>Obviously we disagree about our relative levels of despondency around >small tournament. But I'm confused. I'm pretty sure you and I have >played two to three games with the same five guys sitting around Gary's >table on a number of occasions. You seemed perfectly OK with it. The >only difference here is, you're keeping score. Should we shoot the >scorekeeper in order to have fun? How about just not keeping score? I see only one reason to have a tournament - to dole out prizes. Prizes being kind of more general than just material goods. For instance, I place great importance on having at least 10 for a standard constructed tournament as the prize of getting into the TWDA is a substantial one, certainly far better than the current prize support we have to pay for if not maybe as good as former free prize support. If you are into a means to dole out prizes when playing with 4-5 players, okay, whatever, I just see it as a waste of effort to go through the rigmarole of playing as if a tournament, submitting a report, etc. If you think tournaments are more competitive for whatever reason and prefer a more competitive level of play, why can't that be achieved in nontournament play? Some people already have a similarity between the two. Though, what I did say was "officially cancel". Can still run the tournament for the players, just don't have to bother with making sure you follow certain rules or filling out The Archon. While it never came up as to why we believe single rounds are enough in this thread, I've mentioned before, somewhere, how I've played multiround, single table tournaments and just how inane it was. What reason do you have to play more than one round? Do you really think it's any fairer? That people won't pound the crap out of the tournament leader because if they don't, that player will just win based on earlier success?

Curevei wrote: > I see only one reason to have a tournament - to dole out prizes. Yeah, see, that is not even close to my experience. When we have tournaments, no one ever really cares about the prizes. I mean, yeah, everyone likes free stuff, but no one is playing VTES tournaments to get fabulous cash prizes. But we still have tournaments. And usually, it is just with the same people we always play with. But because it is a tournament, with prizes and rankngs and a sense of "event", rather than just getting together to play some pick up games, people show up, people bring decks that are winners, rather than just experimental, and everyone enjoys the eventiness of it. Yeah, someone or someones get prizes. Everyone gets some promo cards. We usually get a big box of coffee for everyone to share. Someone gets a free door prize (like, a booster or somethng that gets chosen randomly). But this would happen with a 5 person tournament just as well as it would with a 12 person tournament. And that there were only 5 people wouldn't make the tournament any less entertaining. > If you are into a means to dole out prizes when playing with 4-5 players, > okay, > whatever, I just see it as a waste of effort to go through the rigmarole of > playing as if a tournament, submitting a report, etc. Yeah, see, something I just don't understand. The whole "I don't want to go through the hassle of filling out a report" that I hear a lot. It takes, like, 5 minutes to send a tournament report to Robin. It takes a bit longer to post a winning deck, but you really only need to that if A) you want to and B) you have 10+ players. If you are getting together to have a tournament, and you get some prizes and you play on having an event, if for whatever reason, you only get 5 people, you still might as well have the event, and it is still going to be a good time. Someone wins some free stuff. Someone gets to mock their opponents with their victory. Everyone gets some rating points. As mentioned before, yeah, 2 tables is better than 1 table, and 3 tables is evern better. But if you have planned an event, and you only got 5 guys, it is good that the tournament rules are now structured to make this work better. 'Cause sometimes it happens. > > If you think tournaments are more competitive for whatever reason and prefer a > more competitive level of play, why can't that be achieved in nontournament > play? Some people already have a similarity between the two. It can. But people still like tournaments, 'cause they are an event where everyone is, by default, trying hard to win. > > Though, what I did say was "officially cancel". Can still run the tournament > for the players, just don't have to bother with making sure you follow certain > rules or filling out The Archon. I've never filled out an Archon in my life. I run sanctioned tournaments all the time. Where is the connection? [ quoted text not captured ]

>I've never filled out an Archon in my life. I run sanctioned tournaments all >the time. Where is the connection? The obvious one. The Archon is the preferred reporting instrument. Since I can use it, I should use it. I just find it tedious to fill out.

Curevei wrote: > > >Obviously we disagree about our relative levels of despondency around > >small tournament. But I'm confused. I'm pretty sure you and I have > >played two to three games with the same five guys sitting around Gary's > >table on a number of occasions. You seemed perfectly OK with it. The > >only difference here is, you're keeping score. Should we shoot the > >scorekeeper in order to have fun? > > How about just not keeping score? > > I see only one reason to have a tournament - to dole out prizes. No, I'm not all that interested in prizes. ... > If you think tournaments are more competitive for whatever reason and > prefer a more competitive level of play, why can't that be achieved in > nontournament play? Some people already have a similarity between the > two. It's just not the same thing. And as I say this, I will say that I certainly think both ways of playing a set of games (keeping score and calling it a "tournament" or not) have merit. But most people will not treat it the same way - and I'm one of them. It's like the difference between playing a single hand of hearts and keeping score up to 100, or 200, or 500, or whatever. The objective is no longer a single hand but a result that represent an entire afternoon. I also think there'a a shared expectation amongst most participants that the competition level is higher during a tournament, that people should care more whether they win or not. Like you, I don't exactly agree with attitude. But then, like most people I need chances to try my experimental decks so I'll generally do it at other times besides tournaments. By the same token, I also find it good to have the tournament times because then I know the competition will be tougher and I can get better information about how good a deck really is that's done well in pick-up play. If I can win with a deck in a tournament, it's less likely that it only happened because my prey was playing some whack deck and all of it's flaws came out at the critical moments and made him fall over for me. > Though, what I did say was "officially cancel". Can still run the > tournament for the players, just don't have to bother with making > sure you follow certain rules or filling out The Archon. When you call a tournament, I find it - and I think others find it - disappointing not to have an event that follows that particular format. That's what people showed up for. Of course, you can keep tournament scoring without the Archon, but why? I agree with Peter - it's trivial stuff. And if I'm correct that not having a tournament when you've scheduled one disappoints people, then a corollary would be that those people will be less like to show up at the next tournament, thus possibly causing the next one to fall through too. I have a friend who teaches private classes in something she happens to be good at. She advertises the classes and if even one student shows up, she'll hold the class even though it's just a one-on-one tutoring session. It's a terrible deal for her but I guess she feels that the intergrity of it is important to her ability to attract future students. I suspect the same is probably true for tournaments, too. > While it never came up as to why we believe single rounds are enough > in this thread, I've mentioned before, somewhere, how I've played > multiround, single table tournaments and just how inane it was. What > reason do you have to play more than one round? You're the one who's positing that it's inane to play them. You tell me. For my part, I see people playing more games of Jyhad than one, which is the same reason I try to play as many games of Jyhad during a pickup night as I can. What reason do you have to play only one round? For that matter, what's different about a multi-table Jyhad tournament that we can't also call it "inane" to play more than one round of THAT also? Bottom: you've failed to state why you think it's "inane" to play more than one round in a single-table tournament. Clarify that and I'll give my reason(s) for disagreeing with it (assuming I do, of course). > Do you really think it's any fairer? That people won't pound the crap > out of the tournament leader because if they don't, that player will > just win based on earlier success? I guess I don't think it's that easy to necessarily do. I mean, why don't they pound the crap out of the guy who's winning the first game DURING the first game, for that matter? And if they do it later, what of it? Pounding the crap out of the leader is part of the charm of multiplayer gaming. Again, consider the comparison with Hearts. Someone wins the first hand, you play others. You pound the crap out the early leader if and when you can. Sometimes he wins anyway. It's a system that seems to work well enough. I just don't see the issue you're raising. Fred

>Clarify that and I'll give my reason(s) for >disagreeing with it (assuming I do, of course). Um, no. This is the sort of discussion I find pointless. You are making the assumption that your view is the default one when it isn't. I feel no burden to explain why I think something is inane when someone else won't explain why it isn't. If you want an argument, though, for why we should be allowed to have one round tournaments, there's a very simple one. It gives the players more options. If your group wants multiple rounds, you could still play them. If a group doesn't, they aren't given that choice.

Curevei wrote: > > >Clarify that and I'll give my reason(s) for > >disagreeing with it (assuming I do, of course). > > Um, no. This is the sort of discussion I find pointless. You are > making the assumption that your view is the default one when it isn't. > I feel no burden to explain why I think something is inane when > someone else won't explain why it isn't. Hmmm. Well, I guess it seems justified to me that my position be the default one because it seems more reasonable (to me, at least) and in event, I've given my main reason for liking tournaments having more than one round: a tournament game of Jyhad is fun and if some is good, more is better (to a point). It seems more of a situation where you're making a flat statement and then not advancing any justification for it. You may do that if you like but if you won't cough up justification when demanded, then it leaves the debate at an impasse. So be it. > If you want an argument, though, for why we should be allowed to have > one round tournaments, there's a very simple one. It gives the players > more options. If your group wants multiple rounds, you could still > play them. If a group doesn't, they aren't given that choice. This is a subtle change in position or what I believed was under dispute. Sure, if you want a one-round tournament, go for it. It does have the benefit of being something you can complete in a little over 2 hours, if that's a priority. But I thought we were debating the relative merits of a one-round one-table tournament vs. a multi-round one-table tournament. And your position seemed to be, "Why would anyone EVER prefer the latter?" Different issue. Fred

On Tue, 1 Jun 2004 22:44:53 +0200, Damnans wrote: >3.1.5 Multi-Deck System > >Between rounds, players may freely switch decks... A factor for me would be knowing how many players were going to be in the game. Would you expect this information to be supplied to the players before they chose their deck? Andrew

"Andrew S. Davidson" <a...@csi.com> wrote in message news:7amgc0tnucg4d9dd1...@4ax.com... [ quoted text not captured ] Not in general. Also, you would not expect to have this information in a regular (non-multi-deck) tournament before choosing which deck to play. [ quoted text not captured ]

"Andrew S. Davidson" <a...@csi.com> wrote in message news:7amgc0tnucg4d9dd1...@4ax.com... [ quoted text not captured ] It can't be used for tournaments of more than 11 players, right? So you can make a pretty good guess at how many players will be in your game. (If there are 10 in the tournament, there will be 5. If it's 8, 4. If it's 6, it'll be 4; for 7, 5 the first and third rounds, 4 the second; for 9, a 5 and a 4 each round; for 11, first round is 5 and 4, second round is 5, third round is 4 and 4; if it's 4 or 5 you know the answer for every round. :-) Josh seated by herman miller