Tournament name : Walk through Arcadia (sanctioned, multijudge, co-organized
by Sebastien Rouillard, Prince of Paris, and myself ; 3round+1 final with 2h
time limit)
Where : Paris, shop Troll2Jeux
When : september 8th, 2007
Dudes : 19 players
Finals : Orian (Julio Martinez) -> Kamel (Setite Venenation/M1KF) -> Nikolaj
(Prince with potence) -> Margaux (Malk 94) -> meh (weenie animalism)
Margaux basically rapes me with heavy bleeds (it took 1h due to help from
Orian and Nikolaj), but her vamps are either low on blood or in torpor, so
Nikolaj easily ousts her with bleeds for 1 some 15min later. He didn't have
any predator, as Kamel had been in blood doll/hunt mode the whole time (he
was scared of heavy bleeds from Julio Martinez and other !Nos with dominate
and was rather clearly going for 2nd place anyway).
Then the final gets kinda boring, as Orian and Kamel are struggling for 2nd
place. Kamel had tried to deal a 2/2/1 with Nikolaj, but Nikolaj didn't
really go forward after ousting Margaux, having secured 1st place anyway (he
was top seed or something and there wasn't going to be enough time to get to
'one man standing'). So he simply gained pool with blood doll/hunt, while
Kamel was cycling useless actions (bleed/mask/majesty etc.) to fetch
deflections. Orian ousted Kamel a few seconds before the time limit.
Final rank : 1/ Nikolaj (1.5VP) 2/ Orian (1.5VP) 3/ Margaux (1VP) 4/ Kamel
(0VP) 5/ meh (0VP)
Finalists get 4-6 boosters and 6 promo cards ; each non-finalist got 1 3rd
Ed. booster and 6 promo cards (Victor Pelletier, Angelo etc.)
As a side note, this tournament was the first for Orian's girlfriend,
Sabrina who got her very first VP in first round.
Additional note from the Prince : since this tournament was organized more
or less on the fly (basically an unsanctioned tournament was cancelled so we
took the opportunity to use this schedule slot), so it should be entered
properly on WW's site after the NAC or something (in other words, it's not
possible to check for results at the moment, for TWD).
Congrats to Nikolak for his victory.
Thanks to the players for an overall friendly tournament ; to the multijudge
volunteers (Orian, Margaux, Reyda, Mumra, Killerbee, Ankha) and thanks to
Troll2Jeux for their hospitality, as always.
And the winner's deck :
Deck Name: PPP - Princes, Parities and Potence
Created By: Nikolaj Wendt
Description:
Crypt: (12 cards, Min: 24, Max: 39, Avg: 8.08)
----------------------------------------------
1 Calebros obf pot ANI 5 Nosferatu
1 Volker pot CEL 5 Brujah
1 Murat ser OBF POT 7 Nosferatu
1 Nikolaus Vermeulen ani for obf POT 7 Nosferatu
1 Donal O`Connor CEL DOM POT 8 Brujah
1 Constanza Vinti CEL DOM POT 8 Brujah
2 Casino Reeds cel dem ANI OBF POT9 Nosferatu
1 Spiridonas pot pre DOM THA 9 Tremere
1 Cock Robin aus for ANI OBF POT 10 Nosferatu
Toreador
1 Francois Villon chi obf pot AUS CEL PRE10
Toreador
1 Jaroslav Pascek for obf CEL POT PRE10 Brujah
Library: (90 cards)
-------------------
Master (14 cards)
3 Minion Tap
2 Dreams of the Sphinx
2 Specialization
1 Giants Blood
2 Information Highway
3 Blood Doll
1 Direct Intervention
Action (10 cards)
10 Fourth Tradition: The Accounting, The
Political Action (8 cards)
8 Parity Shift
Reaction (14 cards)
14 Second Tradition: Domain, The
Combat (44 cards)
2 Decapitate
6 Disarm
8 Thrown Gate
10 Immortal Grapple
10 Torn Signpost
8 Taste of Vitae
See you guys at the french championship.
Stone
[ quoted text not captured ]
Thanks for a nice tournament, Stone.
I made the deck a couple of days before, and hadnt had a chance to
test it. I posted it here (there is a discussion somewhere here) and
the general idea was that it wouldnt work. I still thought the idea
would work out, so decided to try it either way.
1st round.
Me, daughters with arts traumatic essence, ishtarri bleed/vote,
lasombra bleed, old school group 1 princes.
It wuickly became clear that this was an optimal table for me. No
combat decks, and a prey/pred with only light stealth. I was able to
torporize a couple of my preys minions while bloating so I had 4
princes. My predator couldnt pass his votes and I blocked the few
bleeds he attempted.
When he was a 5 pool, he was bleed for 5 at 2 stealth (couldnt be
pushed higher) and was about to deflect to me. I told him to deflect
it to my prey instead, who was at 6 pool, and then I would let him
have two points in the end. After a lot of talking he did that, and I
ousted my prey the following turn. My new prey had spent alot of
energy on getting the lasombra really low (a delayed Elders command
undeath can be pretty expensive). I was going slowly forward with my 5
princes and bleeding for 4-5 each round. My predator decided to trust
me fully and threw 2-3 KRCs at my prey and helped me oust both of
them.
When it was down to the two of us, I decided to break the deal. I had
an almost 100% chance of getting a sweep here and decided to go with
it. My seating here was optimal, and I didnt expect to do as well at
the other tables, where I assumed there would be some gun decks and
some weenie ani (which destroys this deck).
1 GW, 5 VP for me (and ended up with 6 princes on the table).
2. round (4 player table).
Me, weenie pot starring lorrie, anti tremere black hand, ishtarri
bleed/vote (from round 1).
I had the choice of influencing out cock robin or jaroslav, and since
I knew my prey had a lot of sabbat POT guys in his crypt, and since I
would need the extra intercept vs the bleed/vote pred, I went with
Jaroslav. My grand prey saw that it was a weenit pot deck and
influenced for the first many rounds so he could bring out 3 vamps at
the same time. When he did, he was down to 6-7 pool and desperately
needed help.
I started out with no combat in my hand at all (which is quite amasing
considering the number of them in the deck) and had to keep low until
I could build a good hand. It did cost my grandprey dearly and he was
eventually ousted. I did manage to torporize lorrie with a torn and
decap, which slowed him down, but not enough. After that the pot and
ishtarri decided to oust me first, and then fight it out.
Fortunately I was able to block almost all his actions, and parity 4-5
times to get pool back for the actions I had to let through, while
defending against the rushes from my prey. I managed to get them both
so low, that my prey had to oust my predator for fear of getting
ousted himself.
I had 7 princes and he had 5-6 potence guys. It was looking good until
a crazy round where 4 of my princes went to torpor and a fame was
played on Spiridonas. I ran out of cards on the following turn, but
due to sacrificing spiridonas in a block and getting him torporized
(taking me down to three pool)
My prey was at two pool.. I had three cards in my hand and only donal
on the table there was a tension, so I bleed with him, played my torn
signpost and immortal grapple and my prey lost a pool to his own
Tension in the ranks, Donal went to torpor, I had one card left in my
hand and no ready vampires, and my prey died in his untap phase due to
the fame.
It was a cool ending.. :)
2 VP (and 7 princes on the table, although all in torpor.. hehe)
3. round
Me, malk anti bleed, anneke, maris/rachel parity deck, pot/pre/obf
vote/bleed deck.
My grandpred started out with 2 or 3 zillahs and then went into Parity
"mode". I allowed some two of them in return for pool, seeing as my
pred minion tapped back to 15 pool, but couldnt stop the later ones
due to a legendary vampire. My prey was bleeding forward and
eventually ousted anneke. The legendary vampire was removed and when
the fourth prince hit the table I had the vote lock. Then I used a
couple of parities to hurt my prey and keep my predator alive. I
ousted my prey with bleeds and parities, and a bit after that my
predator died to the bleeds from his predator. I was relatively
secure, with 5 princes out at the time. We went forth and back a bit
with more parities, but he played no combat cards at all, so any block
he or I made meant a malk in torpor.
I brought out Spiridonas and my prey laughed a bit. I thought he
remebered the special of Spiridonas, but when he later let the bleed
through and I burned all the blood on spiridonas, then he told me that
he forgot about it.. :)
1 GW, 3 VP
So I went into the final first seed with 2 GW, 10 VP.
I only knew that Stone was playing weenie ani, that Kamel was playing
some sort of settite and that Margaux played some sort of malk.
I didnt know what Orian played, so I decided to sit between the two I
expected didnt have any intercept.
Margaux started bleeding right away quite heavily ("Ozmo bleeds for
6"), while I was building up. Kamel was afraid of his predator and
just wanted to bloat and didnt think he could get through me. I got
out my four initial Princes while trying to keep Stone alive with
parities and Orian kept him alive with DIs. I actually wanted Stone to
get ousted, as I would lose princes fast to weenie ani combat, but I
wanted Margaux to be so weak that I could oust her right after. I
managed to get it into a position where Margaux went all out, taking
her only vamp Mariel down to 0 blood in the attempt of getting
through. I had a DI I could use on the last stealth, but decided not
to, and Stone was ousted.
My prey was a 10 pool, with Mariel out with no blood and a blood doll,
and then transfered out Roland.
After that I bled with my 5 princes while keeping the three second
trads in my hand in case Kamel wanted to get sneaky (I was allowing
him to bloat to stay alive, and let bleeds for one through to remove
the edge from my prey. Margaux was ousted a few rounds afterwards and
due to the seeding I was winning at that moment. The amount of talk in
the final meant that I had no way of ousting Orian, so I just secured
my position and bloated. Kamel was ousted in the last minute and I won
with 1,5 VP.
The final was indeed not very interesting to watch. It is the second
final I have played here in Paris, and the other one also timed out
(with no one getting ousted at all).
The paris crew is cool to play with, but they really do talk too
much.. :)
I think my turns combined must have lasted between 10-15 minutes of
the final (I'd say roughly 8-10 turns). The rest was spent on the hour
long discussions about very small details and deals. I think everyone
should try to play with the Danish crew at last once in their life.
More playing there, and less talking! hehe.
(And the argument that deals are needed in order to ensure that games
actually end isnt really true. I have never played a final in Denmark
that actualyl timed out (or that many games for that matter). I think
people should trust in the attrition based mechanics that are in the
game already, and just get on with the game. The talk can definitely
be limited, and it would actually mean that more games come to a
conclusion).
Again, thanks for a cool tournament to Stone and the judges, and I'll
hopefully see (and oust) you in the French Championship.
Nikolaj
On Sep 18, 11:54 am, nikol...@hotmail.com wrote:
> When he was a 5 pool, he was bleed for 5 at 2 stealth (couldnt be
> pushed higher) and was about to deflect to me. I told him to deflect
> it to my prey instead, who was at 6 pool, and then I would let him
> have two points in the end. After a lot of talking he did that, and I
> ousted my prey the following turn.
<snipped other bits of game>
> My predator decided to trust
> me fully and threw 2-3 KRCs at my prey and helped me oust both of
> them.
<snipped other bits of game>
> When it was down to the two of us, I decided to break the deal.
Brutal - I like it.
How did the player take that? Not too well I iamgine :O)
Its an interesting situation this - you have the GW, and can still
honor the deal, or you could go for 2 more VP's and a sweep. Do you
think the 2VP was worth possibly hurting your ability to make future
deals with that player, other players or whoever?
[ quoted text not captured ]
He took it well and said he understood. The seating I had in that game
was perfect, and I was expecting to be going against some ani and gun
decks later on, so I wanted to get as much as I could from this
situation. In a 15 player tournament a sweep will almost for sure
bring you into the final. But I also knew that with a deck like this,
that can be shut down by certain archetypes, the seating in a possible
final is quite important.
Yes, it was worth it. It allowed me to choose exactly where to sit,
and anywhere else on the final table, would have been a quite
different story for me.. :)
On Sep 18, 8:48 am, nikol...@hotmail.com wrote:
> But I also knew that with a deck like this,
> that can be shut down by certain archetypes, the seating in a possible
> final is quite important.
What deck, in your opinion, can not be "shut down by certain
archetypes"?
--
David Cherryholmes
[ quoted text not captured ]
Well, almost every deck can be shut down by one or more types of
decks, but some are obviously more vulnerable to it than others.
Focused and onesided decks often have that downside.
Look at my decklist above and imagine a prey playing tzimisze agg
wall, weenie ani with carrion/aid from bats, or any type of gun/cel
deck, and think about how it would be... not pretty I am sure.. :)
But my answer to the question above must be: "Versatile decks, often
toolbox decks, where you can change between different card strategies,
instead of just trying to talk your way out of trouble". :)
Do you disagree?
On Sep 18, 4:29 am, "Stone" <mc_judge_st...@yahoo.fr> wrote:
>Kamel had been in blood doll/hunt mode the whole time (he
> was scared of heavy bleeds from Julio Martinez and other !Nos with dominate
> and was rather clearly going for 2nd place anyway).
Huh. Why was he clearly going for second place for the entire game?
> Orian ousted Kamel a few seconds before the time limit.
Delicious.
Congrats on winning with an interesting deck, Nikolaj!
John Eno
> When it was down to the two of us, I decided to break the deal.
Apparently, the updated tournament rules are not being enforced.
Comments Welcome,
Norman S. Brown, Jr
XZealot
Archon of the Swamp
>
> The final was indeed not very interesting to watch. It is the second
> final I have played here in Paris, and the other one also timed out
> (with no one getting ousted at all).
> The paris crew is cool to play with, but they really do talk too
> much.. :)
... Nikolaj,
you have allowed your predatot to play in "full bloat" mode starting
from 5 minuts from the start.
Stone was ousted very fast, Margaux and I kept bleeding all game long.
I don't blame you for playing the final like this to ensure winning
the tournament, but this is the way you, as first seed, played the
final, that made it a timeout. If you had stopped Kamel bloating from
the start, then we would have had one hour to make a 1 vs 1 for the
TW. I didn't see many discussions except the one between you and Kamel
to determine which cards he could cycle on you. Again, I don't blame
you for that because it was the safest way to win. But I don't think
the parisian crew is responsible for this one.
all best
orian
In article <1190112842.4...@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
niko...@hotmail.com wrote:
> When he was a 5 pool, he was bleed for 5 at 2 stealth (couldnt be
> pushed higher) and was about to deflect to me. I told him to deflect
> it to my prey instead, who was at 6 pool, and then I would let him
> have two points in the end. After a lot of talking he did that, and I
> ousted my prey the following turn.
I am completely baffled. Why did your *predator* accept a deal to help
you oust your prey? When you are specifically not allowed by the rules
to honor the deal in the end game? If I understand the deal you offered
(don't bounce the 2 stealth bleed of 5 to me, i.e. your prey, and
instead send it to my prey to help me oust him, and when the game comes
down to 2 players, I'll let you have 2VPs), you were basically offering
him an illegal deal that you could not possibly honor. And he accepted
it?
Heck, even if it *wasn't* a basically illegal deal (well, ya know, the
deal was legal to make, but not legal to honor), why accept a deal from
your prey to help him oust his prey? It makes no sense.
Nikolaj, clearly, the Force is strong in you...
Peter D Bakija
pd...@lightlink.com
http://www.lightlink.com/pdb6/vtes.html
"Find hungry samurai."
-The Old Man
"XZealot" <xze...@cox.net> a écrit dans le message de
news:1190144190....@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> > When it was down to the two of us, I decided to break the deal.
>
> Apparently, the updated tournament rules are not being enforced.
>
Apparently, you don't understand the updated tournament rules. If you deal
3/2 with predator, then get 3VP, then you've already won the game, so you
can dispose of the remaining 2VP in whatever manner you choose. It's not
violating the "play to win" rule (which incidentally nominally appeared only
in the 2007 version of the tournament rules), since you have _won_ the game
anyway.
Stone
On Sep 18, 6:24 pm, "Stone" <mc_judge_st...@yahoo.fr> wrote:
> "XZealot" <xzea...@cox.net> a écrit dans le message denews:1190144190....@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com...[ quoted text not captured ]
"# 4.8 Made "play to win" explicit. Added explanation of handling
deals vs. play to win, and added DIRECTIVE TO IGNORE DEALS WHEN ONLY
TWO PLAYERS REMAIN
4.8. Play to Win
One aspect of sportsmanlike conduct is that players must not play
toward goals that conflict with the goal of the game as stated in the
V:TES rulebook (e.g., attacking certain players on the basis of their
V:EKN ratings or overall tournament standing, etc.). For tournaments,
playing to win means playing to get a Game Win if it is reasonably
possible, and when a Game Win is not reasonably possible, then playing
to get as many Victory Points as possible.
Neither the basic game rules nor the tournament rules enforce or
regulate deals made between players. The tournament rules acknowledge
deals, however, in that a deal which represents the best interests of
the players involved at the time the deal is made is allowed to be
honored, even when the normal play to win rule would indicate that a
deal should be broken. This only applies to deal that are in the best
interests of the players involved at the time the deal is made. That
is, it applies only when making the deal is playing to win. (It is
also allowable to break such a deal, of course).
Exception: when only two Methuselahs remain, the tournament rules no
longer acknowledge any deals. PRIOR DEALS ARE VOIDED, even if they
were play to win when made. When only two Methuselahs remain, both
Methuselahs must play to win based only on game state, WITHOUT REGARD
TO ANY DEALS."
There can be no decision to break a deal that has been voided. Any
recognition of a voided deal is a violation of V:KEN 4.8.
[ quoted text not captured ]
> I am completely baffled. Why did your *predator* accept a deal to help
> you oust your prey? When you are specifically not allowed by the rules
> to honor the deal in the end game?
The word "retarded" springs to mind.
dude, quoting with caps is nice and all.
But in a 5-player game, when you have 3VP, you have more VPs than anyone
else.
So it means you won. It's in the rulebook, section 9.1 "At the end of the
game, the winner is the player with the most victory points, even if she has
been ousted.". I believe it was the same in jyhad 94 old school times, so I
won't bother with caps (too lazy for that anyway).
See ? It's "play to win". Not "play to sweep".
Stone
[ quoted text not captured ]
Okay, he won. That's not the point. And if you think it was, then you
are not reading what I wrote.
What I wrote is that he broke a deal that was void. How do you break
a deal that was void? Do explain.
Also the deal was entered into with the intent of honoring a deal in
the two player game, where you clearly can not by V:KEN 4.8.
The whole reason for V:KEN 4.8 is to get rid of table splits, which is
exactly what this deal was. So it violated not only the letter of the
rules, but the spirit as well.
[ quoted text not captured ]
[ quoted text not captured ]
Ok, it looks like you two are not agreeing, so maybe we need an
official guy to jump in.. :)
You are saying that the deal was impossible to uphold in the first
place, and Stone is saying that it isnt (and that is also how I
understand it btw).
You quote it above actually:
"For tournaments, playing to win means playing to get a Game Win if it
is reasonably possible, and when a Game Win is not reasonably
possible, then playing to get as many Victory Points as possible. "
"Exception: when only two Methuselahs remain, the tournament rules no
longer acknowledge any deals. Prior deals are voided, even if they
were play to win when made. When only two Methuselahs remain, both
Methuselahs MUST PLAY TO WIN based only on game state, without regards
to any deals made..".
At the time when the deal was made, my predator was looking at getting
ousted the same turn, or the following turn at the latest. Therefore
getting 0 VPs.
The offer I gave him would let him get 2 VP.
Our argument is that if, when its down to 2 players, if one player has
3 VPs he has won already, no matter the outcome of the endgame.
As you quote above, both Methuselahs must play to win. The player with
3 VP has already won the game and therefore follows the rule above,
the player with 2 VPs cannot win the game.
The assumption here, and I guess this is where we need an official
clarification, is that the "play to win" still follows the "get as
many VPs as possible" in the respect that when you cannot get any more
VPs (or if you either cannot win or you have won already), then you
can choose to get those VPs (or choose to win or lose) in whatever way
you choose.
So we both believed that I had the option of upholding the deal, and
that is obviously what my predator believed I would.
That is how it has been played, at least here in Paris, since the
introduction of those rules. I have been against VP deals all together
up until this tournament, where I decided to see how big a difference
it makes to how I play, so I am not the most experienced in the
intrigate system of VP deals. (I am just very convincing).
[ quoted text not captured ]
in the original thread about 'Tournement rules for 2007' (exact name
if you want to google it) this was brought up
Actually, isn't a 3-2 VP with a concession at the end still possible
under the proposed rules? I make a deal with my prey so he ousts the 3
other players. Now it's down to 2 players. Although the new rule
requires us each to "play to win" the game has already been won (by my
prey). He's already won so no matter how he plays (besides possibly
Gambit Accepted), he is already playing to win. So he should be able
to concede to me and let me have 2 VP then?
Yes.
I agree with you that it shouldn't be like this, but it is.
[ quoted text not captured ]
You managed to put it in fewer words than me, and more clear. :)
> Yes.
>
> I agree with you that it shouldn't be like this, but it is.
I guarantee you that I think so even more.
[ quoted text not captured ]> I guarantee you that I think so even more.- Masquer le texte des messages précédents -
>
> - Afficher le texte des messages précédents -
BTW, I seem to be stuck in Paris for the next 6 weeks (weekdays only,
and must attend a wedding on the 29th so no championship) for work. If
you guys are planning any get togethers, please email me at jeroen dot
rombouts at telenet dot be
I'm not as argumentative in real life as I've been here lately, so
don't worry there ;)
Note: I don't have any cards with me at the moment.
J wrote:
> Player A and Player B had a deal in a game I was in. They had dealt
> to split the table 3/2. When it got down to the 2 of them, Player A
> already had the 3VP and thus the GW. The deal was that he would
> concede the final 2VP to Player B.
>
> I asked LSJ if this was legal given the new updated rules and he said
> yes, as GW had already been achieved. He went on to say that if the
> deal had been to give Player A all 5 VP, that this deal would be ruled
> forefeit, as Player B had not attained GW and must therefore fight to
> maximise his VP's.
>
> In the game in question is was moot anyway, because Player A stabbed
> Player B and took the sweep. But I asked LSJ for confirmation that
> the table split deal could be maintained.
Well, the deal is gone, but the activity is stil PTW without the deal, so the
activity (which is the same as would be done if the deal were in place and was
honored) is legal.
> LSJ - can you please confirm or deny this.
Confirmed.
I've been waiting since yesterday for Google Groups to allow me to
read Stone's reply to my post. Could someone who can see it repost it
or email me with it? I'm very curious why Kamel was playing for second
place.
John Eno
> Actually, isn't a 3-2 VP with a concession at the end still possible
> under the proposed rules?
As I understand it no, it is not still possible. By definition, you
can not concede a game and still be declared the winner. Conceding,
in this definition, would be to yield the game win to the opposing
player. This can not occur as the player yielding has 3 VP's and by
rules must play for the game win.
You don't concede victory points. You concede a game win.
[ quoted text not captured ]
XZealot wrote:
>> Actually, isn't a 3-2 VP with a concession at the end still possible
>> under the proposed rules?>
> As I understand it no, it is not still possible. By definition, you
> can not concede a game and still be declared the winner. Conceding,
> in this definition, would be to yield the game win to the opposing
> player. This can not occur as the player yielding has 3 VP's and by
> rules must play for the game win.
>
> You don't concede victory points. You concede a game win.
V:EKN 3.5 "Conceding Games" explains it explicitly.
[ quoted text not captured ]
Yes, it explains the mechanics of a table agreeing to concede.
Conceding is an agreement between players that one player should gain
all the victory points left on the table.
All deals are at their foundation nothing more than agreements between
players.
Deals are not enforcable under the rules.
V:EKN 4.8 specifies that all deals are voided in the end game.
A player who is in a winning position with 3 VPs is not allowed to
concede the game to a player with 0 VPs as it is an agreement to give
another player 2 VPs, and all deals are voided when there are only two
players left.
Therefore, there can be no conceding in a two player game.
[ quoted text not captured ]
[ quoted text not captured ]
Incorrect on so many levels, there's no good place to begin.
Fortunately, I know you know better.
For those with doubts, however, conceding is allowed, as per the explicit rules.
[ quoted text not captured ]
In the big discussion that came from the VP deal issue, Stone didnt
reply to this, but I'll try to explain it. :)
Kamel didnt sit down thinking "Hmm, I think I'll go for second place
today. I dont want to win another tournament.". But he knows his deck
(he told me afterwards that he has about 12 stealth cards in his deck,
6 of which are mask of a thousand faces, and therefore had little to
no chance to pass me if I should have a second trad in my hand. He saw
from watching earlier games that I play alot (14), and therefore had
two choices.
a) He bets everything and tries to go forward, with a high chance of
getting blocked and torporized, as his only defense was majesties,
after which the DOM pred could bleed him out easily.
b) He tries to convince me that I should take the 3 points, which he
will help me do, and then I leave him 2 VPs in the end. Thereby
maximising both his VPs and his final position. He was seeded 4th into
the final afaik.
Also, his allies were in no position to help him, as his grandprey was
going full throttle forward trying to oust her prey, and his
grandpredator very fast went to 4 pool with only a 4 and a 5 cap
vampire out.
So, it was a similar deal to the one that lead to all the other
discussion, and since that has been deemed to be in correspondance
with the rules (although I agree that for the game in a grander
scheme, it does suck), in my eyes he did what he had to do. Or if
nothing else, what he felt he had to do.
I hope that explains it better than " and was rather clearly going for
2nd place anyway". :)
Nikolaj
<niko...@hotmail.com> a écrit dans le message de
news:1190277280.6...@v23g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
> In the big discussion that came from the VP deal issue, Stone didnt
> reply to this, but I'll try to explain it. :)
actually I did, but I don't see it myself on google, even though I do see it
a "number 29" message from me on that left-hand bar thingy...hmm...
anyway, here is the post :
"He didn't believe he could win the game considering the seating, IMO. He
believed (as I did) that Orian had more of a "disguised S&B" deck with Julio
Martinez (according to Orian, there was "only" 6GtU+6 conditioning).
Considering Orian had no predator since I was busy trying to keep my head
out of the water for the better part of an hour, he made peace with his prey
Nikolaj from turn one to the end (and no one could have troubled much
Nikolaj cross-table).
Well, another strategy for him would have been to help me instead of helping
my predator, hoping for a "tuna kill" scenario (i.e. my pred ousted first,
then my next pred, Nikolaj), then a time-out. I guess he didn't think it
realistic. Or something."
Stone
On Sep 20, 4:49 am, "Stone" <mc_judge_st...@yahoo.fr> wrote:
> anyway, here is the post :
> "He didn't believe he could win the game considering the seating, IMO. He
> believed (as I did) that Orian had more of a "disguised S&B" deck with Julio
> Martinez (according to Orian, there was "only" 6GtU+6 conditioning).
> Considering Orian had no predator since I was busy trying to keep my head
> out of the water for the better part of an hour, he made peace with his prey
> Nikolaj from turn one to the end (and no one could have troubled much
> Nikolaj cross-table).
Deciding before you've ever taken an action not to even try to oust
your prey, especially in the finals of a tournament, strikes me as
*incredibly* lame. I'm sad to say that it totally supports Jeroen's
earlier assertion in the "GW only for finals win" thread that this
really is how people play...
Thanks for re-posting, Stone (and for summarizing, Nikolaj).
John Eno