In the "set-restricted constructed" tournament formats, is
it legal to include copies of allowed cards that were printed
in any set? Or only copies with the appropriate expansion
symbol actually printed on them?
E.G., for a Final Nights-only tournament, can you only play
with Final Nights Temptations? If so, this would be a major
restriction for FN and SW-based events, since there are many
cards that only exist in the set as a few copies in the
starters, and most people wouldn't have as many copies from
those starters as they might like to use.
In other words, I think it would be to the benefit of the
environment for the rule to be that if a card is allowed,
any printing of it may be used.
Second, in limited tournaments: It's never stated in the
limited section of the tournament rules that a player's
deck can't be altered (using the cards received for the
event) between rounds. "7.2.2 Limited Deck Registration"
implies that judges may check players' decks against the
"every card they received" decklist, if such a list is
being used, but doesn't say that, if they make a deck out
of only a subset of those cards, they can't change it
later to a different subset of those cards.
It's implied more strongly in "7.3.1 Deck Construction"
for sealed decks that you have to decide on a play-deck
and stick with it:
"The head judge or tournament organizer may require players
to record on a decklist every card they intend to play in
their decks. Failure to properly record the cards being
played will result in the head judge applying the
appropriate provisions of the V:EKN Penalty Guidelines."
But even that doesn't spell out that decks can't be changed
if decklists *aren't* being used.
I expect that the intent is that decks *are* supposed to be
immutable between rounds in limited events (BTW, the section
on constructed deck registration, 6.3, also fails to spell
out that decks can't be changed even if decklists aren't
being used). But a player at the most recent draft I ran
felt that it would be much more fun to be able to change
one's deck composition in between rounds, as it would allow
you to rework your deck at least somewhat after realizing
that your original plan wasn't working out as well as you'd
hoped. And although the amount of time to allow people to
do this might be an issue, I don't see any other problems
with it (though if it were allowed, it might be wise to
have players record "all cards received" lists to help make
sure nothing accidentally or intentionally slips into a
deck from an outside source).
And third (somewhat incidentally), this part of "7.5.1.
Player Distribution" seems a little excessive to me: "Players
may not talk or communicate to others during a draft."
Sure, you don't want people colluding, but if they were
going to, they could easily have arranged it before they
sit down and start drafting. Half the fun of the drafting
process is trash-talking about the cards you're seeing. :-)
Josh
tournamental
Joshua Duffin wrote:
>
> In the "set-restricted constructed" tournament formats, is
> it legal to include copies of allowed cards that were printed
> in any set? Or only copies with the appropriate expansion
> symbol actually printed on them?
If you play in a tournament that restricts the decks to
"only CE", then you can only use CE cards.
> E.G., for a Final Nights-only tournament, can you only play
> with Final Nights Temptations? If so, this would be a major
> restriction for FN and SW-based events, since there are many
> cards that only exist in the set as a few copies in the
> starters, and most people wouldn't have as many copies from
> those starters as they might like to use.
OK. I think the idea of the restriction is to get a restriction.
If the organizer wants unrestricted access to cards from other
sets, then he or she shouldn't use the restriction.
> In other words, I think it would be to the benefit of the
> environment for the rule to be that if a card is allowed,
> any printing of it may be used.
That would be a different environment. CErtainly suitable,
I suppose, but not necessarily strictly better than the current.
> Second, in limited tournaments: It's never stated in the
> limited section of the tournament rules that a player's
> deck can't be altered (using the cards received for the
> event) between rounds. "7.2.2 Limited Deck Registration"
> implies that judges may check players' decks against the
> "every card they received" decklist, if such a list is
> being used, but doesn't say that, if they make a deck out
> of only a subset of those cards, they can't change it
> later to a different subset of those cards.
The absence of a restriction against changing your deck is
not the same as permission. The idea that "a deck" is a
static collection of cards is inherent already.
> It's implied more strongly in "7.3.1 Deck Construction"
> for sealed decks that you have to decide on a play-deck
> and stick with it:
>
> "The head judge or tournament organizer may require players
> to record on a decklist every card they intend to play in
> their decks. Failure to properly record the cards being
> played will result in the head judge applying the
> appropriate provisions of the V:EKN Penalty Guidelines."
>
> But even that doesn't spell out that decks can't be changed
> if decklists *aren't* being used.
No need.
There is no permission granted anywhere to change the contents
of a deck either between games or in the middle of a game, so
it cannot be done.
> I expect that the intent is that decks *are* supposed to be
> immutable between rounds in limited events (BTW, the section
> on constructed deck registration, 6.3, also fails to spell
> out that decks can't be changed even if decklists aren't
> being used).
Again because it is inherent in the idea of "a deck".
> But a player at the most recent draft I ran
> felt that it would be much more fun to be able to change
> one's deck composition in between rounds, as it would allow
> you to rework your deck at least somewhat after realizing
> that your original plan wasn't working out as well as you'd
> hoped. And although the amount of time to allow people to
> do this might be an issue, I don't see any other problems
> with it (though if it were allowed, it might be wise to
> have players record "all cards received" lists to help make
> sure nothing accidentally or intentionally slips into a
> deck from an outside source).
>
> And third (somewhat incidentally), this part of "7.5.1.
> Player Distribution" seems a little excessive to me: "Players
> may not talk or communicate to others during a draft."
>
> Sure, you don't want people colluding, but if they were
> going to, they could easily have arranged it before they
> sit down and start drafting. Half the fun of the drafting
> process is trash-talking about the cards you're seeing. :-)
It seems to work well.
--
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/
>And third (somewhat incidentally), this part of "7.5.1.
>Player Distribution" seems a little excessive to me: "Players
>may not talk or communicate to others during a draft."
>
>Sure, you don't want people colluding, but if they were
>going to, they could easily have arranged it before they
>sit down and start drafting. Half the fun of the drafting
>process is trash-talking about the cards you're seeing.
They decide to collude beforehand. They signal during the draft. Harder to
signal nonverbally.
"Curevei" <cur...@aol.commetal> wrote in message news:20030122142339...@mb-cf.aol.com...
[ quoted text not captured ]
I don't know. I doubt that it's enough harder to signal
nonverbally to make it worth forcing *everyone* to not
talk during drafting. I've never played in a draft where
this rule was enforced, but I think it would seem awfully
grim to have everyone just sitting there silently choosing
cards without speaking a word.
It's not even entirely feasible; it's usually necessary
to at least ask whether everyone's ready to move on to
the next pack, and often you have to ask someone something
(eg "Is that pile of cards there the next one you're
passing to me?") during a pack as well.
Josh
girl you know that you need to stop giving me the silent
treatment baby
"Joshua Duffin" <jtdu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:b0mk37$qfrua$1...@ID-121616.news.dfncis.de...
>
> And third (somewhat incidentally), this part of "7.5.1.
> Player Distribution" seems a little excessive to me: "Players
> may not talk or communicate to others during a draft."
>
> Sure, you don't want people colluding, but if they were
> going to, they could easily have arranged it before they
> sit down and start drafting. Half the fun of the drafting
> process is trash-talking about the cards you're seeing. :-)
Having run dozens of booster drafts, the important thing isn't restricting the people talking, it's making sure the seating at each draft table is random. After that, let them talk all they want, who cares, sheesh. :) I mean, the rules of VTES -- and any other CCG, for that matter -- allow you to *talk* all you want about the contents of your hand during the game. It's a pretty big inconsistency that we -- and any other CCG, for that matter -- allow people to "talk and communicate to others" during the game -- with the understanding that they not be allowed to actually SHOW their cards to others -- but not during a draft.
How about changing the second sentence of [7.5.1] to:
"Players must not show any of their cards to any other drafting player before the first round of play. Spectators must remain silent during the draft. Players have the right to request that a spectator not observe their draft. As players draft the cards, they must place their cards in an orderly pile in front of them, or two orderly piles consisting of one for library cards and one for crypt cards. Drafted cards may only be reviewed between the drafting of packs."
Yes, I realize the majority of the VEKN rules were adopted from the WOTC universal rules, but *once again* we're talking about a rule that isn't EVER enforced, so why bother players with such inconsistencies?
>
> Josh
Kevin M., Prince of Henderson, NV (USA)
"Know your enemy, and know yourself; in one-thousand battles
you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, *The Art of War*
"Contentment... Complacency... Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier
"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:3E2EE503...@white-wolf.com...
> Joshua Duffin wrote:
[re "set-restricted" constructed tournaments]
> > E.G., for a Final Nights-only tournament, can you only play
> > with Final Nights Temptations? If so, this would be a major
> > restriction for FN and SW-based events, since there are many
> > cards that only exist in the set as a few copies in the
> > starters, and most people wouldn't have as many copies from
> > those starters as they might like to use.
>
> OK. I think the idea of the restriction is to get a restriction.
> If the organizer wants unrestricted access to cards from other
> sets, then he or she shouldn't use the restriction.
But this is the only sanctionable constructed variant.
Sure, an organizer can make up any number of other special-
rules formats. But only this one can be sanctioned. For
that to be the case, I'd hope that it would be "better" or
"more reflective of normal constructed play" than the others.
:-)
Under the "by expansion symbol" interpretation (as opposed
to the "by name" interpretation), only stand-alone sets are
really suitable for this format. The given example, Dark
Sovereigns + Final Nights, would be unsatisfying for most
players, since there would be only a very few cards available
for Fortitude, Animalism, Potence, or Dominate (for the DS
clans; this would be even more true of Obfuscate, Presence,
Celerity for the non-DS clans in FN) - and most of them
would have been "starter-only" cards, so unless you could
afford to buy lots of the starters, you wouldn't be able to
make decks nearly as effective as someone who did.
Making the system only work well if it includes at least
one stand-alone set does mean that set-restricted tourneys
would be fairly similar to standard constructed ones... but
only if the organizers actually choose to run them that way.
Since there's no restriction on what sets can be chosen,
there's nothing preventing the organizers from (not
necessarily intentionally) turning VTES into a "money" game,
by running a FN-only event or something like that.
> > In other words, I think it would be to the benefit of the
> > environment for the rule to be that if a card is allowed,
> > any printing of it may be used.
>
> That would be a different environment. CErtainly suitable,
> I suppose, but not necessarily strictly better than the current.
No, not strictly better I guess, but easier to create a good
environment for more players, I think. :-) I mean, I don't
think that many people bought enough Followers of Set starters
to make a decent FoS deck using only the FN copies of their
cards.
> > Second, in limited tournaments: It's never stated in the
> > limited section of the tournament rules that a player's
> > deck can't be altered (using the cards received for the
> > event) between rounds. "7.2.2 Limited Deck Registration"
> > implies that judges may check players' decks against the
> > "every card they received" decklist, if such a list is
> > being used, but doesn't say that, if they make a deck out
> > of only a subset of those cards, they can't change it
> > later to a different subset of those cards.
>
> The absence of a restriction against changing your deck is
> not the same as permission. The idea that "a deck" is a
> static collection of cards is inherent already.
Inherent in "common sense"? Sure, I guess. But it doesn't
seem to be written in the rulebook or tournament rules, and
given the mutable nature of "decks" in CCGs, it seems like
something that should be spelled out. Especially since
usually the absence of prohibition *is* the same as permission.
(e.g. the ability of players to make and keep deals.)
[the "no talking during drafts" rule]
> It seems to work well.
Not to me... I haven't yet played in a draft tournament where
the "no talking" rule was enforced, but if/when I do, I'm sure
it will be much less fun.
Josh
"sit down and shut up!"
"Kevin M." <you...@imaspammer.org> wrote in message news:zyCX9.51$LA4....@news1.west.cox.net...
>
> Having run dozens of booster drafts, the important thing isn't
> restricting the people talking, it's making sure the seating at
> each draft table is random. After that, let them talk all they> want, who cares, sheesh. :) [...]>
> How about changing the second sentence of [7.5.1] to:
> "Players must not show any of their cards to any other drafting
> player before the first round of play. Spectators must remain
> silent during the draft. Players have the right to request that
> a spectator not observe their draft. As players draft the cards,
> they must place their cards in an orderly pile in front of them,
> or two orderly piles consisting of one for library cards and one
> for crypt cards. Drafted cards may only be reviewed between the
> drafting of packs."
I thoroughly agree, and I like your revised wording. Much less
draconian. :-)
Josh
scaly and cruel, but only during games
Joshua Duffin wrote:
> "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:3E2EE503...@white-wolf.com...> > The absence of a restriction against changing your deck is
> > not the same as permission. The idea that "a deck" is a
> > static collection of cards is inherent already.
>
> Inherent in "common sense"? Sure, I guess. But it doesn't
> seem to be written in the rulebook or tournament rules, and
> given the mutable nature of "decks" in CCGs, it seems like
> something that should be spelled out. Especially since
> usually the absence of prohibition *is* the same as permission.
> (e.g. the ability of players to make and keep deals.)
e.g., the ability of players to move counters to their pool from
the blood bank at any time?
When it comes to the mechanics of the game, the rules specify what
you can do, not what you can't. The absence of a prohibition is
not permission.
When it comes to non-game-mechanics stuff (breathing, table-talk,
etc.), then sure.
[ quoted text not captured ]
"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:3E2EFF4C...@white-wolf.com...
[re deck-changing legality]
> e.g., the ability of players to move counters to their pool from
> the blood bank at any time?
Heh, good point.
> When it comes to the mechanics of the game, the rules specify what
> you can do, not what you can't. The absence of a prohibition is
> not permission.
But between games, you can move 30 pool counters to your pool,
right?
And between "normal" games, you can change everything (or one
card) in your deck. At least, everywhere I've played.
This is a tournament difference; it seems to me like it'd make
sense for it to be clearly indicated in the tournament rules.
And I do think it might be reasonable to remove the restriction
for draft/sealed tournaments. :-)
Josh
one two adrenaline!
Joshua Duffin wrote:
> "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:3E2EFF4C...@white-wolf.com...>>When it comes to the mechanics of the game, the rules specify what
>>you can do, not what you can't. The absence of a prohibition is
>>not permission.>
>
> But between games, you can move 30 pool counters to your pool,
> right?
No. You do that at the start of a game. [2.2]
> And between "normal" games, you can change everything (or one
> card) in your deck. At least, everywhere I've played.
Sure. But that changed/swapped deck isn't the same deck.
And, of course, in a tournament, your "deck" (singular) is
your deck. Not a different deck.
[ quoted text not captured ]
"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:3E2F056D...@white-wolf.com...
> Joshua Duffin wrote:> > But between games, you can move 30 pool counters to your pool,
> > right?
>
> No. You do that at the start of a game. [2.2]
Fine. Between games, you can move pool counters anywhere you
want. :-)
> > And between "normal" games, you can change everything (or one
> > card) in your deck. At least, everywhere I've played.
>
> Sure. But that changed/swapped deck isn't the same deck.
>
> And, of course, in a tournament, your "deck" (singular) is
> your deck. Not a different deck.
I begin to tire of my legalistic arguments, but...
In 1.2 "Necessary Tournament Materials", the tournament rules
say that players must bring:
"Any materials specifically required for a particular
tournament format, as required by the V:EKN Floor Rules or
the tournament organizer.
Example: Players need to bring their assembled decks to
Constructed tournaments."
Presumably the intent is that "decks" is plural because
"players" is plural. But that's not the only way to read
it. :-)
And in the glossary, we see:
"Constructed: A tournament in which players bring their
own decks to the tournament. Decks are built with any cards
the player has available, subject to any restrictions given
in the V:EKN rules regarding allowable cards."
The VEKN rules regarding allowable cards, from 4.1 "Cards
Allowed":
"All cards in a player's deck must be genuine Vampire: The
Eternal Struggle or Jyhad cards.
If Jyhad cards are used, in order to prevent a significant
advantage, all library cards from the Jyhad or Vampire: The
Eternal Struggle card sets must be of sufficiently mixed
card type - that is, Master cards must appear with both
Jyhad and V:TES card backs (or at least three different
card types must have Jyhad backs).
The following cards are banned in all V:EKN tournaments:
Madness of the Bard (Dark Sovereigns)
The Return to Innocence (Ancient Hearts)
Any cards that are usable only when playing for ante, including:
Cunctator Motion (V:TES)
High Stakes (V:TES)
Playing for Keeps (Dark Sovereigns)"
I can't find any place in the tournament rules that it says you
can only use one deck. It's pretty obvious that it's assumed,
but it's not spelled out.
Josh
ad absurdum