LSJ: 5 man mutual Wihtdrawal under time limit?

IN a TOURNEY: All 5 had no way to oust. there were 4 minutes left. we all agreed to "withdraw" and take our 1 vp vs the .5 vp we would have if time woudl have expired. All of use had libraries left. Is this legal? I.e. do we get .5 or 1vp? Thanks, Tobin -tpl

[ quoted text not captured ] Not legal to withdraw with "libraries left" .5 VP each. -- That is my story, be it bitter or be it sweet. Keep a little and let a little come back to me. LSJ (vtesr...@TRAPwhite-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep (remove spam trap to reply) http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/

LSJ <vtesr...@trapwhite-wolf.com> wrote: > tobinator wrote: > > IN a TOURNEY: > > All 5 had no way to oust. there were 4 minutes left. we all agreed to > > "withdraw" and take our 1 vp vs the .5 vp we would have if time woudl > > have expired. All of use had libraries left. > > > > Is this legal? I.e. do we get .5 or 1vp? > Not legal to withdraw with "libraries left" > .5 VP each. It's legal to make a deal if you play through each turn of "discard, go! discard, go! discard, go!" until the conditions of withdrawal are met. But then again, it's also perfectly legal for a player to break that deal in the meanwhile and attempt to oust his prey (or at least stop the withdrawal from succeeding).

[ quoted text not captured ] It may seem kind of strange that you can't "mutually concede", but you all need to *actually* withdraw before time runs out. The fastest method for this is to slap a card out of your hand, say "Done", and replace while the next player is taking his turn. If you start your turn with less than a full hand, then say "I Withdraw - Done". If you get to your next turn with no funny business, go buy yourself a soda while everyone else tries to get to where you were - and hopes you don't accidentally win the tournament for getting your 1 VP while they all timeout and get .5. Be sure to take into account all mandatory effects, but try to avoid any optional effects. Also, be sure to stack your hand with defensive cards (especially the 0-cost bounces and Obedience/Bloodstorm of Chorazin) in case your predator decides to break the deal. -- - Gregory Stuart Pettigrew

> The fastest method for this is to slap a card out of your hand, say > "Done", and replace while the next player is taking his turn. I'm again forced to wonder why time limits are so helpful. Jyhad is not slapjack. -Dave Clooney

On Sun, 6 Nov 2005, quickbeam wrote: > I'm again forced to wonder why time limits are so helpful. Jyhad is > not slapjack. > It prevents players from warilying eying each other during Withdrawals and ridiculously-slow-playing just to mess with each other's heads. [ quoted text not captured ]

"Jozxyqk" <jfeu...@eecs.tufts.edu> schreef in bericht news:prWdnScCf7V...@comcast.com... [ quoted text not captured ] or play a quick Brinksmanship :-)

>It prevents players from warilying eying each other during Withdrawals and >ridiculously-slow-playing just to mess with each other's heads. So instead we get ridiculously slow playing to force time outs. Awesome trade off.

[ quoted text not captured ] Good or bad, time limits are a necessity for running tournaments. -Robert

Robert Goudie wrote: > > Good or bad, time limits are a necessity for running tournaments. > > -Robert I've heard some horror stories of tournaments going until dawn, so I understand this argument in its broad strokes. However, I still think it is worth thinking about and discussing the effects that time limits have on the game, because it isn't a value neutral proposition. As an aside, as long as changing fonts and layouts is so common, the design team could stop calling it the Eternal Struggle, and start calling it the Two Hour Struggle. Now, I don't feel that time limits unduly impair my enjoyment of the game, I just find them irksome, and worth discussing. Many times I've been told of the problems created by games that go on too long, often with regards to the outside world, and players having demands on their time besides VTES, which is fine. If I am not mistaken, though, the upcoming prerelease in Boston (which I am excited about and plan on attending - thanks for running it, Josh) is going to be three preliminary rounds followed by a final, each of which has a two hour time limit. I think 8 hours of VTES destroys any outside world arguments (at least for one day), and I'm interested in why it is three 2 hour prelims instead of two 3 hour prelims. In the larger scheme of things, it isn't a huge deal. I don't think it is "bad for the game." Obviously, the core player base and design team embrace this state of affairs and it works well enough, but it has an impact. The option of table timeouts is extremely distasteful to me personally, as it skews overall victory to decks that show early promise but lack staying power. I am more interested in the discussion (if others believe it is worth their time to discuss) of how time limits and time outs affect metagame and deck choice. -Dave Clooney, wishing everything could be just a tad more eternal.

quickbeam wrote: > As an > aside, as long as changing fonts and layouts is so common, the design > team could stop calling it the Eternal Struggle, and start calling it > the Two Hour Struggle. ? I can't follow the logic above. What does layout have to do with time limits? Or what does layout have to do with the name of the game? > Now, I don't feel that time limits unduly impair my enjoyment of the > game, I just find them irksome, and worth discussing. Many times I've > been told of the problems created by games that go on too long, often > with regards to the outside world, and players having demands on their > time besides VTES, which is fine. If I am not mistaken, though, the > upcoming prerelease in Boston (which I am excited about and plan on > attending - thanks for running it, Josh) is going to be three > preliminary rounds followed by a final, each of which has a two hour > time limit. I think 8 hours of VTES destroys any outside world > arguments (at least for one day), and I'm interested in why it is three > 2 hour prelims instead of two 3 hour prelims. Both are valid choices -- the organizer is free to run whichever one he or she chooses, hopefully based on the desires of the intended audience. The VEKN rules do not mandate a 2 hour time limit. They simply set 2 hours as the shortest allowable time limit.

quickbeam wrote: > Robert Goudie wrote: > > > > Good or bad, time limits are a necessity for running tournaments. > > I've heard some horror stories of tournaments going until dawn, so I > understand this argument in its broad strokes. However, I still think > it is worth thinking about and discussing the effects that time limits > have on the game, because it isn't a value neutral proposition. Sure. There's lots to discuss about the effect of time limits. However, I was responding to a query something along the lines of "why are time limits helpful?" The reasons for time limits and their helpfulness are well known (you list many yourself). > -Dave Clooney, wishing everything could be just a tad more eternal. At GenCon So Cal, there will be a Daring the Dawn event on Friday night. The evening tournament's final round ends at sunrise. :-) -Robert

"quickbeam" <dcqui...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1131307589....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com... [ quoted text not captured ] For one thing, some people tend to build decks that defy being ousted but have no offense, either. Time limits give those people the crappy results they so justly deserve. Besides, when you trapped in a game like that, you...JUST...WANT.... *OUT*....!!! Fred

quickbeam wrote: > I've heard some horror stories of tournaments going until dawn, so I > understand this argument in its broad strokes. However, I still think > it is worth thinking about and discussing the effects that time limits > have on the game, because it isn't a value neutral proposition. The effect that time limits has is that it makes people do stuff. This being said, I am rarely in tournament games that go to time, and in tournaments that I judge, the vast majority of games finish before time is up. Yeah, occasionally, a game times out due to an extreme parity, but mostly they end in a timely manner. So in reality, what time limits do is force people to play the game in a timely manner as opposed to dicking around for 4 hours. As *most* games, likely, get finished in 2 hours or less, it seems reasonable to expect that games get done in 2 hours. This being said, I'm perfectly in favor of adding an extra half hour on to the final rounds of big tournaments, if for no other reason than to see if it helps games end, as big tournaments tend to time out a lot. But it is arguable that adding time to the game wouldn't really help, as finals tend to time out as one of the players has all the incentive in the world to make it time out (if no one is ousted, 1st seed wins in a time out...) > Now, I don't feel that time limits unduly impair my enjoyment of the > game, I just find them irksome, and worth discussing. Many times I've > been told of the problems created by games that go on too long, often > with regards to the outside world, and players having demands on their > time besides VTES, which is fine. If I am not mistaken, though, the > upcoming prerelease in Boston (which I am excited about and plan on > attending - thanks for running it, Josh) is going to be three > preliminary rounds followed by a final, each of which has a two hour > time limit. I think 8 hours of VTES destroys any outside world > arguments (at least for one day), and I'm interested in why it is three > 2 hour prelims instead of two 3 hour prelims. 'Cause most games end in 2 hours or less anyway. And three hour games tend to really only benefit a small number of players (the people winning) and hurt a larger number of people (the people ousted early who have to sit around for an extra hour doing nothing). And three games gives more room for error and more room for more people to do well than two games. And I suspect, in reality, that most folks don't want to play a single game of VTES for that long. > In the larger scheme of things, it isn't a huge deal. I don't think it > is "bad for the game." Obviously, the core player base and design team > embrace this state of affairs and it works well enough, but it has an > impact. The option of table timeouts is extremely distasteful to me > personally, as it skews overall victory to decks that show early > promise but lack staying power. I am more interested in the > discussion (if others believe it is worth their time to discuss) of how > time limits and time outs affect metagame and deck choice. I honestly don't think that it makes *that* much of a difference in terms of deck choice--I mean, yeah, ok, knowing a game has to end in 2 hours might disuade you from playing a really slow wall deck, but again, as it is likely that most games end in 2 hours or less anyway, what you have is people playing decks with forward momentum. Which I'd argue is good for the game in any case. -Peter

> > The effect that time limits has is that it makes people do stuff. This > being said, I am rarely in tournament games that go to time, and in > tournaments that I judge, the vast majority of games finish before time > is up. Yeah, occasionally, a game times out due to an extreme parity, > but mostly they end in a timely manner. So in reality, what time limits > do is force people to play the game in a timely manners My principle concern is that "in a timely manner" manifests most often through extensive use of dominate. >As *most* games, likely, get finished in 2 > hours or less, it seems reasonable to expect that games get done in 2 > hours. I agree with your premise but draw the opposite conclusion. Most of the time, no matter what the limit is, the game will finish in under two hours. I think it is worth extending the time limit beyond two hours because time outs are awful. > > This being said, I'm perfectly in favor of adding an extra half hour on > to the final rounds of big tournaments, if for no other reason than to > see if it helps games end, as big tournaments tend to time out a lot. I am very much with you on this one. The one place where a timeout is supremely unsatisfying is in the final. It stands to reason that timeouts that aren't the result of slowplay (through either ineptitude or stalling) are often the result of a balanced table; a final table is often a balanced table of the best decks, by design of the tournament. No one who didn't make the final needs to sit in the stands and watch it to the end (thanks in large part to the TWD archive and fun to read tournament reports). Someone always has an incentive to time the final table out, and maybe just a half hour or an hour (to a total of three) added on would be enough that no one could deliberately time out the table without visibly stalling. > 'Cause most games end in 2 hours or less anyway. And three hour games > tend to really only benefit a small number of players (the people > winning) and hurt a larger number of people (the people ousted early > who have to sit around for an extra hour doing nothing). They don't have to sit there doing nothing. They can play pick up games and converse about VTES. Tournaments favor people who are winning. The early ousts can play in the loser's bracket with a spare deck. I'll run and get coffee if I'm there (I'm sure I'll be in the loser's bracket plenty of times). >And three > games gives more room for error and more room for more people to do > well than two games. I am not in favor of leaving more room for error. Tournaments should punish error. I want each game I play in to really matter, and I don't want the sneak bleed deck with an early oust in a game that went to time to get a higher seed. Yes, this is a partisan attack on sneak bleed, and a partisan defense of wall decks . >And I suspect, in reality, that most folks don't > want to play a single game of VTES for that long. > That is fine too. As long as there is a bit of thoughtful debate, I'm satisfied whether or not people agree. > > I honestly don't think that it makes *that* much of a difference in > terms of deck choice--I mean, yeah, ok, knowing a game has to end in 2 > hours might disuade you from playing a really slow wall deck, but > again, as it is likely that most games end in 2 hours or less anyway, > what you have is people playing decks with forward momentum. Which I'd > argue is good for the game in any case. > > -Peter I disagree that "forward momentum" is good for the game in any case. I think playing quickly and focusing on winning the table are good for the game, but they aren't the same thing as forward momentum. Turbo Arika will still win games under a three hour time limit, as will weenie dom et al. Having a few more minutes might allow an alternative to riding the table into the ground for folks trying other strategies. I'm arguing that a lot of heavy pool damage dealing capability at the expense of other things can turn the game into a race, instead of a multiplayer game, and I think this is bad. I also think it is possible that the group that plays this game, on the whole, has improved, and that correspondingly tournament play has improved. If there is a nut at a table that is just walling up for no good reason, and shows no signs of working forward, I'm confidant that the rest of the players will crack that nut. I at least want to see if a three hour final makes the sky fall. I've had it said to me more than once that two hours is a minimum, but it appears that the minimum is the maximum in most actual tournaments. Anyway, thanks for the response. -Dave Clooney

quickbeam wrote: >> but mostly they end in a timely manner. So in reality, what time limits >> do is force people to play the game in a timely manners > > My principle concern is that "in a timely manner" manifests most often > through extensive use of dominate. No. "In a timely manner" manifests itself most often in decks that attempt to oust their prey with little pissing about doing "things that look cool". Sometimes that includes extensive use of Dominate. However, just as frequently it does not. >> As *most* games, likely, get finished in 2 >> hours or less, it seems reasonable to expect that games get done in 2 >> hours. > > I agree with your premise but draw the opposite conclusion. Most of > the time, no matter what the limit is, the game will finish in under > two hours. I think it is worth extending the time limit beyond two > hours because time outs are awful. And the game being too long is the #1 reason V:TES has so few players. Extending the time limit is a step in the wrong direction. There is plenty of offense available in the game, and most of it is NOT Dominate. Use the offense; try to oust your prey. > I am very much with you on this one. The one place where a timeout is > supremely unsatisfying is in the final. It stands to reason that Then the finalists should goddamn well try to win, shouldn't they? I'm sick of all the apologists trying to excuse poor play on the part of the finalists for games timing out. The guy in the #1 seed has every valid reason to make sure nobody gets ousted, sure. But there are four other players who should be pushing in the opposite direction, and you can't tell me that the #1 seed is always SUCH a good player that he can hold off four other people who are trying to win... at least not without causing me to laugh in your face and mock you. > timeouts that aren't the result of slowplay (through either ineptitude > or stalling) are often the result of a balanced table; a final table is No. Timeouts that aren't the result of slow play are the result of a different form of ineptitude -- an overfocus on "table balance" at the expense of "trying to win". As long as the players continue to play scared that someone else will win if they take a risk, finals will continue to time out. I am in favor of letting finals continue to time out until the players improve their game, rather than cater to the inability of those players to step up and, pardon the expression, "GIT R DONE". > Someone always has an incentive to time the final table out, and maybe Only one person has that incentive; the first seed. > just a half hour or an hour (to a total of three) added on would be > enough that no one could deliberately time out the table without > visibly stalling. Alternately, four non-first-seed players all trying to win the game would also be enough that nobody could deliberately time out the table. >> And three >> games gives more room for error and more room for more people to do >> well than two games. > > I am not in favor of leaving more room for error. Tournaments should > punish error. I want each game I play in to really matter, and I don't However, there is an element of luck involved in the shuffle (unless you're one of the cheaters, that is). Enough iterations of a deck's play help to eliminate vagaries of random seating and random shuffle, to provide an accurate indicator of a deck's true performance. > I disagree that "forward momentum" is good for the game in any case. I > think playing quickly and focusing on winning the table are good for > the game, but they aren't the same thing as forward momentum. What do you think "forward momentum" is, then? Because what you just described is an excellent definition of "forward momentum" -- along with offense being stronger than defense, people attempting to oust their prey, etc. etc. > I'm arguing that a lot of heavy pool damage dealing capability at the > expense of other things can turn the game into a race, instead of a > multiplayer game, and I think this is bad. Everyone agrees that having NOTHING but 100% pool-damage decks is bad for the game. But having forward momentum doesn't mean playing nothing but weenie Dominate. > I also think it is possible that the group that plays this game, on > the whole, has improved, and that correspondingly tournament play has > improved. If there is a nut at a table that is just walling up for no > good reason, and shows no signs of working forward, I'm confidant that > the rest of the players will crack that nut. I'm not, because past history has shown enough timeouts to make me not confident. Especially when the player walling up has enough cross-table influence to deal out damage to anyone interfering with him. > I at least want to see if a three hour final makes the sky fall. I've > had it said to me more than once that two hours is a minimum, but it > appears that the minimum is the maximum in most actual tournaments. I think that any step towards longer games is a step further away from gaining new players. -- Derek insert clever quotation here

> > In the larger scheme of things, it isn't a huge deal. I don't think it > is "bad for the game." Obviously, the core player base and design team > embrace this state of affairs and it works well enough, but it has an > impact. The option of table timeouts is extremely distasteful to me > personally, as it skews overall victory to decks that show early > promise but lack staying power. I am more interested in the > discussion (if others believe it is worth their time to discuss) of how > time limits and time outs affect metagame and deck choice. > > -Dave Clooney, wishing everything could be just a tad more eternal. I'm more than happy with the standard two hour limit for a number of reasons. Firstly I would start to lose enjoyment once the clock ticked past the two hour mark, the game would become an endurance test. Secondly I have no problem with timeouts. I don't see why people find them unsatisfying. I actually enjoy timeouts. I prefer a table where there is real struggle compared to a table where one deck dominates (no pun intended). Time limits certainly affect how I design my decks. I have a deck at the moment that is very slow which I know I have to modify if I intend bringing it to a tournament. Some of my decks are designed to time the game out after i've gained two vps. One of my favourite cards is Millicent Smith which is fantastic for slowing down a game. We play two hour time limit in our social games to so that our decks are suited to a tournament environment (as well as to make sure we get enough games in of an evening). You say that timeouts skew victory to decks that lack staying power but that depends on how you define staying power. If you accept the two hour time limit then staying power becomes a deck that can last two hours. Chris.

[ quoted text not captured ] Because a tournament organizer needs to estimate a rough end time and most of the players don´t want 16 hour tournaments. Besides that I think that for every time a time limit kept me from going into the final I was actually going into the final in some other tournament because other people had time limits. Everyone gets their share so it´s ok for me. -- johannes walch

In message <1131422716.3...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, quickbeam <dcqui...@yahoo.com> writes: >>As *most* games, likely, get finished in 2 >> hours or less, it seems reasonable to expect that games get done in 2 >> hours. > >I agree with your premise but draw the opposite conclusion. Most of >the time, no matter what the limit is, the game will finish in under >two hours. I think it is worth extending the time limit beyond two >hours because time outs are awful. If you up the time limit to 3 hours, but most games are finishing within 2 hours, you have most of your players standing around for an hour doing nothing. This is particularly acute when you have games that finish at about an hour in, and it goes up to 2 hours of waiting around. If your tournament is being run at a major convention, or in a shopping area (say), you could let the players run free and do their own thing. This is much harder if you've (for example) rented the local village hall, or are playing somewhere out of the way. -- James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D YOU ARE IN ERROR. EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 NO-ONE IS SCREAMING. 13D7E668C3695D623D5D THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.

In message <1131398923.5...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, pd...@lightlink.com writes: >This being said, I'm perfectly in favor of adding an extra half hour on >to the final rounds of big tournaments, if for no other reason than to >see if it helps games end, as big tournaments tend to time out a lot. >But it is arguable that adding time to the game wouldn't really help, >as finals tend to time out as one of the players has all the incentive >in the world to make it time out (if no one is ousted, 1st seed wins in >a time out...) This could be an argument for altering how the final round win is calculated. For example, earlier rankings split a tie-break on a finished game, but don't do so if the game times out. This does mean that the final is ranked in a different fashion to a round, but it already is anyway (by using earlier rounds to tie-break) so it's not an insurmountable barrier. Though perhaps it might be psychologically. ("But I was first! I should get some reward for that, damnit!") [ quoted text not captured ]

quickbeam wrote: > My principle concern is that "in a timely manner" manifests most often > through extensive use of dominate. That is a flaw with the game as a whole (that Dominate is too good) that has no real bearing on time limits--if games were 3 hours long, people would still use dominate extensively (as dominate is the best discipline for getting VPs) and the decks that one would think would suddenly all be in play due to the extended time limit aren't going to have a measurable effect on stopping that. > I agree with your premise but draw the opposite conclusion. Most of > the time, no matter what the limit is, the game will finish in under > two hours. I think it is worth extending the time limit beyond two > hours because time outs are awful. Sure. But as most games end under 2 hours, it is reasonable to expect that most games end in under 2 hours. And calling time, while arguably awful, is necessary to keep games from going on forever which holds up the whole tournament. > They don't have to sit there doing nothing. They can play pick up > games and converse about VTES. Tournaments favor people who are > winning. The early ousts can play in the loser's bracket with a spare > deck. I'll run and get coffee if I'm there (I'm sure I'll be in the > loser's bracket plenty of times). Sure. But an extra hour of sitting around and getting coffee is a serious disincentive for folks who are already losing. I mean, like, this is likely the result of wildly divergent world view, but given 6 hours, I would *much* rather play 3 games (even if some of them time out) than 2 games. > I am not in favor of leaving more room for error. Tournaments should > punish error. I want each game I play in to really matter, and I don't > want the sneak bleed deck with an early oust in a game that went to > time to get a higher seed. Yes, this is a partisan attack on sneak > bleed, and a partisan defense of wall decks . A) Extra room for error means that the wall deck that gets ousted in 4 minutes due to sitting down next to the dominate weenie deck and had critical deck error isn't totally hosed. B) Wall decks can't win games regardless of the time limits--2 VPs in a 5 player game isn't likely to win. > I disagree that "forward momentum" is good for the game in any case. I > think playing quickly and focusing on winning the table are good for > the game, but they aren't the same thing as forward momentum. ??? Forward momentum means you can go forward. Going forward makes the game work. Again, this is likely the result of wildly divergent world view that is unlikely to be resolved, but personally, I don't think wall decks (i.e. decks that exist solely to defend themselves and maybe oust folks obtusely via Smiling Jack or something) are good for the game much at all as they slow things down and tend to throw the game towards their predator. Like, sure, I don't want ever deck in the game to be a weenie dominate deck, but I vastly prefer to play games where all the decks can, ya know, oust their prey through proactive measure. And if extending the time limit meant that more folks were encouraged to play slow, ponderous wall decks, I'd vote No on Proposition Extend Time Limits in a second. > Turbo Arika will still win games under a three hour time limit, as will > weenie dom et al. Having a few more minutes might allow an alternative > to riding the table into the ground for folks trying other strategies. I don't think an extedned time limit will help. 'Cause turbo Arika and weenie dominate will still win in 20 minutes, and slow wall decks still will only get 2VPs in a 5 player game. Only with a longer time limit, the people who get run over by Turbo Arika and weenie dominate have a lot longer to sit around before they get to play again. > I'm arguing that a lot of heavy pool damage dealing capability at the > expense of other things can turn the game into a race, instead of a > multiplayer game, and I think this is bad. Sure. But extending the time limit isn't going to change this--with a 3 hour game, fast dominate heavy decks *still* will be, ahem, dominant. And the slow, ponderous wall decks *still* aren't going to win that much. This is a factor of the structure of the game, not the time limits. -Peter

In message <1131459774.5...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, pd...@lightlink.com writes: >I mean, like, this is likely the result of wildly divergent world view, >but given 6 hours, I would *much* rather play 3 games (even if some of >them time out) than 2 games. It's probably also worth noting that while the example tournament brought up was three two-hour rounds, then a final, many tournaments can happily run as two two-hour rounds, then a final. If you start reasonably early in the morning, that can give you most of the afternoon to go off and do other things if you don't get into the final. Or it can mean you run a tournament from mid afternoon into the evening. 8 hour tournaments block off a lot of time, which means that some people will be less likely to play in them. I'd be loathe to alter the flexibility that tournament organisers have now to run shorter tournaments which don't eat up people's entire day off, whilst still having the capacity to run five round, two day, super- sized tournaments when they want to. [ quoted text not captured ]

>>>Sure. But as most games end under 2 hours, it is reasonable to expect that most games end in under 2 hours. And calling time, while arguably awful, is necessary to keep games from going on forever which holds up the whole tournament. I hadn't thought this through well enough. I had in mind a smaller tournament, with two or three tables, thinking "well, mostly they'll all finish in less than 120 minutes, and the second round can just start early." Then I thought about one wall player at a ten table tournament (is there such an animal? Obviously I haven't been to any big tournaments) forcing every game he was in to time. 5 people waiting a few minutes is one thing, but I guess in a bigger setup it would rapidly become unfeasible. As far as wall decks, I guess that is also a difference in outlook. I was thinking of a situation where permanents would matter more, perhaps the way they can in draft, in crafting an offense. Even if such a thing is possible, it could be done in less than two hours. I appreciate the posts. I'll quiet down about the time limit and just encourage folks to move through their turns a little quicker. -Dave Clooney

>I appreciate the posts. I'll quiet down about the time limit and just >encourage folks to move through their turns a little quicker. I think is one of the most important things that causes the time limit to be a problem in some instances. Ideally, a time limit should uniformly encourage players to play faster, but the way the time limit is implemented in VTES it does not. In fact, it often gives players a very good reason to play slower, which is technically cheating but nearly impossible to rule on. In chess, time control is not a problem because each player has a seperate clock that only ticks when it's your turn. Obviously this would be nearly impossible to implement in a multi-player, action/reaction based game like VTES. However, it would be interesting to establish some kind of rubric for deciding how long is too long in making certain kinds of decisions. For example, how long is it acceptable to tolerate a player staring at their hand deciding whether or not to block an action, or which vampire to hunt with first, or repeatedly varifying that they are still holding 7 cards despite not having done anything? At the moment, such decisions are entirely up to a judge's discretion, with no guidelines suggested by the VEKN rules, and it's my general impression that slow play is almost never penalized unless a player is flagrantly stalling. Other considerations here are players engaging in excessive table talk (whether relevant or external to the game) and/or not paying attention to what's going on when it's not their turn. These things have a high potential of slowing the game down, which often ends up penalizing other players instead of those actually responsible for the delay.