VTES 3E news from Gencon...

I'm not actually at Gencon. But I've been told that they're drafting Third Edition, as we speak. But this comes with some news. According to a post on vtes.livejournal.com, ============= THIRD EDITION CARDS ARE PRINTED WITH UPSIDE DOWN BACKS. Just thought you should know. ============= I hope this is a joke.

[ quoted text not captured ] Ssh! They'll think it's some sort of Boston V:tES conspiracy. Let Bakija or Fluornoy reply. -- - Gregory Stuart Pettigrew

"Jozxyqk" <jfeu...@eecs.tufts.edu> wrote in message news:xqWdnehKrKNzXUHZ...@comcast.com... > According to a post on vtes.livejournal.com, > > ============= > THIRD EDITION CARDS ARE PRINTED WITH UPSIDE DOWN BACKS. > > Just thought you should know. Cool. Now we have to play hanging upside down from the chandelier. Fred

Fred Scott wrote: > Cool. Now we have to play hanging upside down from > the chandelier. Uh, I guess I don't see why it matters that much. I mean, you're looking at the other side most of the time, right? I guess it might allow for you to get tricky with only putting Deflections in from 3E or whatever, but it seems like a long way to go just to get a slight advantage. Xian wrong side up?

[ quoted text not captured ] If i arrange my library so that all the card backs are aligned the same way, and then place it off to the right where i can reach it easy when i draw a card, and then sometimes when i draw a card and out it in my hand it's upside down instead of the right way up, it's just going to irk me. It won't, like, break the game or anything. But, um, shouldn't someone have been checking these things? The next question would be (if true), if third ed gets reprinted, should they fix it to make it the same as all the other cards, or leave it so that all your third ed cards are the same? My apologies if anyone else has posted this question in the last 15 mins that I am not aware of. apparently that upsets some people. -- salem http://users.tpg.com.au/adsltqna/vtes/ (replace 'hotmail' with 'yahoo' to email)

Salem wrote: > If i arrange my library so that all the card backs are aligned the same > way, and then place it off to the right where i can reach it easy when i > draw a card, and then sometimes when i draw a card and out it in my hand > it's upside down instead of the right way up, it's just going to irk me. Yeah, see, that's not going to bug me too much, because I'm "one of those people" (as Ben would have it) where I frequently mix up my card orientation while shuffling, or collecting my deck after the game or whatever. > The next question would be (if true), if third ed gets reprinted, should > they fix it to make it the same as all the other cards, or leave it so > that all your third ed cards are the same? I would think that it will probably be fixed, based on past experience. Xian not very experienced

Xian wrote: > Yeah, see, that's not going to bug me too much, because I'm "one of > those people" (as Ben would have it) where I frequently mix up my card > orientation while shuffling, or collecting my deck after the game or > whatever. > But we can still tell which cards are which based on their orientation. This is just a conspiracy to let White Wolf to sell card sleeves. > > The next question would be (if true), if third ed gets reprinted, should > > they fix it to make it the same as all the other cards, or leave it so > > that all your third ed cards are the same? > > I would think that it will probably be fixed, based on past experience. Making life amusing for us collectors. Maybe they just made them upside down for use at GenCon as a promotional item. Now *that* would be obnoxious to collectors. [ quoted text not captured ]

"Xian" <xi...@visi.com> wrote in message news:1155320922.2...@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com... > Fred Scott wrote: > >> Cool. Now we have to play hanging upside down from >> the chandelier. > > Uh, I guess I don't see why it matters that much. > > I mean, you're looking at the other side most of the time, right? Were it true - and I really have no idea, but just for the sake of argument - then it would cause a certain problem when not playing with card sleeves. I think most people play with cards aligned such that they can read text right side up. This would show 3E cards from other cards by looking at the back - the only cards whose card backs were oriented upside down. It would be nearly as aggravating as the card back change, actually. Except I would never think White Wolf would do such a thing on purpose, unlike WotC. If they even did it, of course. And there would exist the mitigation, irritating though it would be, that you could orient your 3E cards upside down in your hand so as not to give them away. And the standing mitigation of using opaque card sleeves, which didn't exist at the time Jyhad was reprinted. Fred speculations running rampant

Gregory Stuart Pettigrew wrote: > Ssh! They'll think it's some sort of Boston V:tES conspiracy. Let > Bakija or Fluornoy reply. Heh. If, in fact, the cards are upsidedown, I can't really see how it'll make much different, nor really upset that many people. -Peter

Fred Scott wrote: > "Xian" wruote: > > I mean, you're looking at the other side most of the time, right? > > Were it true - and I really have no idea, but just for the sake > of argument - then it would cause a certain problem when not > playing with card sleeves. [lapses into Peter-isms] Yeah, see, I'm aware of the problems that it could cause, but I really don't see them as being anything other than minor irritations. If you "know" your opponent is playing with 3rd Edition cards because they're oriented upside-down, then maybe you know that he doesn't have a PTO in his hand or something, but in general, it seems like the amount of information you could gain from that is pretty limited. Now, if someone is cheating, by using all 3E versions of card X (and nothing else), then sure, that's a problem, but it's not necessarily unique to 3E. It's just easier to spot. There are plenty of people (apparently...I'm not one of them) that can tell exactly what set a card is from just by looking at the back. That needs to be addressed under the general cheating rules, rather than by declaring that the world is ending because there's a problem with 3E, you know? Xian

Fred Scott wrote: > This would show 3E cards from other cards by looking at the back - the only > cards whose card backs were oriented upside down. Sort of. How many cards can you see the faces of (and by "faces" I mean "back faces") when your opponent is holding a hand of cards? You can see most of the back of the topmost one, and of the rest, you can only see the green edge, which doesn't give away any information. So as long as you don't have an upsidedown 3rd ed card as you top card in your fan, your opponents don't get any information. And if you are forced to make the topmost card of your fan a 3rd ed card, that means your hand is full of 3rd ed cards, and no information is given away. A minor inconvinience in that you have to keep track of what your top most fanned card is. But other than that, hardly strikes me as an issue. -Peter

"Xian" <xi...@visi.com> wrote in message news:1155324627.8...@74g2000cwt.googlegroups.com... > Fred Scott wrote: >> "Xian" wruote: >> > I mean, you're looking at the other side most of the time, right? >> >> Were it true - and I really have no idea, but just for the sake >> of argument - then it would cause a certain problem when not >> playing with card sleeves. > > [lapses into Peter-isms] > > Yeah, see, I'm aware of the problems that it could cause, but I really > don't see them as being anything other than minor irritations. Ah, I can't really work up a good, healthy case of nerd rage about it either. (I *love* that term by the way! It's my new motto: "Nerd raging about life's unfair aggravations!") I got pretty outraged about the changed card back thing between Jyhad and V:tES editions because it was deliberate and done in the name of politically correct values of (IMHO) dubious validity. But something like this...eh, the most I could see putting out is a few deranged mumblings about incompetent people not keeping track of what they were doing. Anyway, I don't understand why they'd be drafting 3E at Gencon anyway. Special pre-pre-releases don't strike me as very disciplined marketing. Just as likely folks are pulling the legs of us poor disadvantaged non-attendees so they can have something to chuckle about over their beers at dinner. Who knows? Fred

pd...@lightlink.com wrote: > > Heh. If, in fact, the cards are upsidedown, I can't really see how > it'll make much different, nor really upset that many people. Nor really upset that many people? Haven't you _seen_ an internet before? ;) [ quoted text not captured ]

Fred Scott wrote: > I got pretty outraged > about the changed card back thing between Jyhad and V:tES editions > because it was deliberate and done in the name of politically correct > values of (IMHO) dubious validity. From memory, the 'official' line post-implementation was so that it could be more readily identifiable as a game about vampires. Personally, I didn't like it much either, or believe that line to be the major reason (more just one minor reason among several they had, which was chosen as seemingly being the most 'palatable' by the masses). Of course, we are talking something like 10+ years ago, so my memory could be fairly fallible. [ quoted text not captured ]

Salem <salem_ch...@hotmail.com> wrote in news:44dce2ad$1 @dnews.tpgi.com.au: > Fred Scott wrote: >> I got pretty outraged >> about the changed card back thing between Jyhad and V:tES editions >> because it was deliberate and done in the name of politically correct >> values of (IMHO) dubious validity. > > From memory, the 'official' line post-implementation was so that it > could be more readily identifiable as a game about vampires. Personally, > I didn't like it much either, or believe that line to be the major > reason (more just one minor reason among several they had, which was > chosen as seemingly being the most 'palatable' by the masses). > It turns out, that card back change was an Incredibly Smart Move(tm), regardless of the reasons. Can you imagine trying to play this game and/or recruit new players Post-9/11, if the cards had Jyhad backs, display boxes with Jyhad all over them, Jyhad advertisements in Scrye etc etc? The game would have disappeared in a puff of public outrage, before you could even have said *boo* in defense of it... DZ AW

This just in off the BostonVTES newswire... A War Ghoul has been sighted in the Tzimisce Starter deck!!! ...more wind of the news, as it breaks DZ AW

"Salem" <salem_ch...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:44dce2ad$1...@dnews.tpgi.com.au... > Fred Scott wrote: >> I got pretty outraged >> about the changed card back thing between Jyhad and V:tES editions >> because it was deliberate and done in the name of politically correct >> values of (IMHO) dubious validity. > > From memory, the 'official' line post-implementation was so that it could be more readily identifiable as a game about vampires. That got said at one point in time. The obious flaw in that reasoning was that changing the card backs from reading "Jyhad" to "V:tES" in no way supported that goal, or supported it very obliquely at best. Certainly not enough to justify screwing up the game in that way. Eventually, Peter Adkison did announce that, in fact, the card back change had to do with the idea that the word "Jyhad" offended people from the Middle East. > Of course, we are talking something like 10+ years ago, so my memory could be fairly fallible. You can still find "the letter", posted in this case by Tom Wylie, Wizard's netrep to this group at the time, on Google. http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/browse_thread/thread/818889e332ca81f7/eafabaafe23ae628?lnk=st&q=&rnum=1&hl=en#eafabaafe23ae628 Fred don't get me started...

"atomweaver" <atomw...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:Xns981CA86F29...@207.115.17.102... > It turns out, that card back change was an Incredibly Smart Move(tm), > regardless of the reasons. Sure. By any "destroy-this-village-to-save-it" standards, I'm sure it qualifies. Maybe it did do _one_ positive thing: the bad will created probably was a huge factor in the WotC eventually dropping the game. Which, as we know, was the best thing in the world for it - eventually. > Can you imagine trying to play this game and/or > recruit new players Post-9/11, if the cards had Jyhad backs, display boxes > with Jyhad all over them, Jyhad advertisements in Scrye etc etc? Sure I can. It might have garnered a few back page newspaper articles but I really don't see what you're talking about. It's a *game*, for crying out loud! > The game > would have disappeared in a puff of public outrage, before you could even > have said *boo* in defense of it... Bah! I totally disagree. In the long run, if the name was considered controversial at all, I think it would have helped by drawing attention to it. A few more Christian groups "banning" it from their churches for being demonic probably couldn't have hurt, either. Fred

> > Heh. If, in fact, the cards are upsidedown, I can't really see how > > it'll make much different, nor really upset that many people. > > Nor really upset that many people? Haven't you _seen_ an internet before? ;) NoR upset many people ? Gniark gniark... B) -- Orpheus Nearly made it to LSJ's Killfile !!

> Fred Scott wrote: > > This would show 3E cards from other cards by looking at the back - the only > > cards whose card backs were oriented upside down. Seriously, don't we all play with opaque sleeves ? Since this was asked of us in tournaments if we had Jyhad cards in certain proportions, we all took to the habitude, and so if this - probably a joke - thing is true, it only would be bothersome while sleeving the cards, to some (very negligible IMO) extent... Now, of course, such a mistake wouldn't be a show of professional excellence, but then there have been other issues over the years... [ quoted text not captured ]

I wrote: > A minor inconvinience in that you have to keep track of what your top > most fanned card is. But other than that, hardly strikes me as an > issue. Heh. I just went and checked out the actual card backs, and due to the stupid "deckmaster" label on the cards, you can, in fact, see which cards are upsidedown when fanned out in someone's hand. Stupid card back design. -Peter

Orpheus wrote: > Seriously, don't we all play with opaque sleeves ? Goodness no. Of my local group, maybe one guy regularly plays with sleeves on his library (pretty much everyone uses sleeves on the crypt, though). I can't stand having sleeves on my library--too hard to shuffle, the deck falls over a lot, just all around inconvinient. -Peter

[ quoted text not captured ] It falls with some sleeves when they're new ; some actually make them fall less. But even when I didn't invest much in the game and we didn't know about those Jyhad tournament issues (for a good reason : there were no tournaments lol) I used transparent sleeves for a good reason : protection ! You pay a lot for these cards, they might as well survive lots of shufflings ! Not to mention whatever sort of food or beverage bits might end on a game table... -- Orpheus ----------------------- I'm dead serious ! Well, mostly dead...

Orpheus wrote: > > > This would show 3E cards from other cards by looking at the back - the > > > only cards whose card backs were oriented upside down. > > Seriously, don't we all play with opaque sleeves ? Since this was asked of > us in tournaments if we had Jyhad cards in certain proportions, we all took > to the habitude, and so if this - probably a joke - thing is true, it only > would be bothersome while sleeving the cards, to some (very negligible IMO) > extent... Actually, I started dismantling a few decks that were lying around, and discovered that inconsistently sided backs will also be an annoyance when I'm putting cards away in horizontal card boxes or laying large stacks out sideways. It would also drive me slightly nuts that it would be impossible to get all the cards facing the same way(s). Really, I have to wonder just how this sort of error could have come about. Who has been checking these cards for quality? [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] O_O cant believe it, anymore news?

> Seriously, don't we all play with opaque sleeves ? No.

[ quoted text not captured ] See update on http://vtes.livejournal.com/ for additional info about cards in the precons, and info about draftferior effects... Hardy Range

In France, Sleeves are mandatory to participate to any tournement so it won't change anything for us. Olivier Perez

I play TruMalk. Not Malkavians as most would think, but cards could be uopside down, back to front, on their sides, stuck to my forehead, hey, whatever really. So who cares if they are printesd upside down. Does that mean the effect would be upside down as well?

olivier...@gmail.com wrote: > In France, Sleeves are mandatory to participate to any tournement so it > won't change anything for us. wait, what? I don't believe that's part of the VEKN rules to be able to make that restriction in sanctioned tournaments, is it? Unless the cards would be otherwise marked, or something (eg: when mixing in just a few Jyhad backed cards in a deck made up with mostly VTES backed ones)...which wouldn't always be the case... [ quoted text not captured ]

<olivier...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1155384514....@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com... > > In France, Sleeves are mandatory to participate to any tournement so it > won't change anything for us. Huh? I don't think they can be at a sanctioned tournament. VEKN Tournament rules _allow_ players to use sleeves, if they like. They say nothing about permitting judges or tournament organizers to disqualify a player who isn't using sleeves. Fred

"Fred Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote in message news:zSlDg.992$0F5.440@fed1read04... [ quoted text not captured ] If you stretch 4.5 to its logical limit (and perhaps just a bit beyond), this might be within the judge's authority. All he has to do is rule that every player currently playing without sleeves has at least one damaged or worn card in his library and his crypt. - Pat 4.5. Proxy Cards The use of proxy cards is not permitted, unless a judge provides these cards. If a card becomes excessively worn through play or accidentally damaged in the current sanctioned tournament, or if the owner of the card must leave prior to the conclusion of a game, the judge may provide a proxy replacement card or (in the case of damaged or worn cards) require the player to sleeve all of his or her cards before play continues.

"Pat" <patric...@NOSPAMcomcast.net> wrote in message news:55udnYZnfJDibUDZ...@comcast.com... > "Fred Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote in message news:zSlDg.992$0F5.440@fed1read04... >> <olivier...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1155384514....@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com... >>> >>> In France, Sleeves are mandatory to participate to any tournement so it >>> won't change anything for us. >> >> Huh? I don't think they can be at a sanctioned tournament. VEKN >> Tournament rules _allow_ players to use sleeves, if they like. They >> say nothing about permitting judges or tournament organizers to >> disqualify a player who isn't using sleeves. >> >> Fred > > If you stretch 4.5 to its logical limit (and perhaps just a bit beyond), this might be within the judge's authority. All he has to > do is rule that every player currently playing without sleeves has at least one damaged or worn card in his library and his crypt. Um, before they even show up to play? I guess I'm kind of a believer in sticking to the intent of a rule; not just using it to justify something completely different. If you start playing around with loose semantics, you can justify pretty much anything. Fred

[ quoted text not captured ] Yup. Gonna justify that everyone has to play with a live chicken on their heads from now on. If the chicken jumps off, lays an egg, or clucks, they gain a pool. HAH!

[ quoted text not captured ] Why not ? Tournament Rules. 1.2. Necessary Tournament Materials Players must bring the following items to a tournament in order to participate: * Any materials specifically required [....] by the tournament organizer. playing with opaque sleeve is mandatorry in most of french tournaments. tournament organizer often have extra sleeves.

xpmaster wrote: > 1.2. Necessary Tournament Materials > > Players must bring the following items to a tournament in order to > participate: > > * Any materials specifically required [....] by the tournament > organizer. > > playing with opaque sleeve is mandatorry in most of french tournaments. > tournament organizer often have extra sleeves. I've tried looking at several French tournament announcements. None specified sleeves as a requirement. [ quoted text not captured ]

"xpmaster" <kya...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:1155400516.5...@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com... [ quoted text not captured ] I do not believe the last clause is intended to mandate that tournament organizers can force players to use card sleeves. If you're going to get super-picky about it, this allows the tournament organizer to require that players *BRING* card sleeves - but not that he can force them to use them. If that seems silly to you, keep in mind that it seems outrageously silly to take that rule to mean organizers can require players bring card sleeves. I don't know what that rule is there for but I'd have to guess that it has to do with sealed deck or draft tournaments requiring players bring booster or starter packs, etc. where the tournament can't provide them. > tournament organizer often have extra sleeves. Doesn't matter; he has no authority to force players to use them unless the state of their cards warrant it. Fred

> In France, Sleeves are mandatory to participate to any tournement so it > won't change anything for us. That's stupid. Grow up.

One thing I'd like clarified since the concept of backings has come up ... The current rule regarding Jyhad vs. Vampire backings has a "hole" in it. Section 4.1 of the tournament rules states: If Jyhad and Vampire: The Eternal Struggle cards are both used, in order to prevent a significant advantage, all 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). This means that if I decided to "cheat" I could choose 3 card types in my deck and have them all Jyhad thus knowing when a critical reaction/master/or modifier might be appearing. Or I could just use Jyhad backs for my masters (all the minion taps for example) and the rest of the masters from Vampire. Since the rule only states what backs I must use I am able to thus play with an effectively marked deck. Now something is whacky here unless I've read it incorrectly.

CthuluKitty a écrit : > > In France, Sleeves are mandatory to participate to any tournement so it > > won't change anything for us. > > That's stupid. Grow up. Tell that to the guys who had jyhad cards for all their votes, and VTES cards for the others. This is just an example, but it really happened and it's for these kind of people that they have these rules. So, who has to grow up in the end?

"Huruem" <Huruem_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:1155448357....@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com... [ quoted text not captured ] That is precise the situation tournament rule 4.1, second paragraph, was written to address. You don't need to "create" a rule mandating card sleeves out of thin air. If you feel there's some kind of hole in rule 4.1, then the thing to do would be raise the issue with VEKN. Fred

quetzalcoatl wrote: > One thing I'd like clarified since the concept of backings has come up > .... [ quoted text not captured ] In that instance the judge could, using their judgement, declare that it is not 'sufficiently mixed', and require the use of opaque sleeves, or modification of the deck to make the card backs 'sufficiently mixed'. The judge could also declare it 'marked' and that the player is cheating, if they felt it was intentional. I would recommend any judge have a manual look-through of any player's deck that is using mixed backs with one back in a small proportion of the total deck size. [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] At least you'd know they weren't playing with PTO.... :) [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] However I don't believe a judge can do that in this situation since the rules allow for it. But no matter ... was just a query because its there in them rules.

[ quoted text not captured ] We don't force players to play with sleeves, we ask them to do it as we ask them to make a decklist. That's available for many of french tournaments and there's no problem. I think that's the most important. Loïc, NC France.

"xpmaster" <kya...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:1155458330.2...@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com... > > > tournament organizer often have extra sleeves. > > > > Doesn't matter; he has no authority to force players to use them unless > > the state of their cards warrant it. > > We don't force players to play with sleeves, we ask them to do it as we > ask them to make a decklist. I'm not sure what you mean by that. If playing with sleeves is voluntary, fine. Somebody stated that playing with sleeves in these tournaments was "mandatory", which means "force". Fred

"xpmaster" <kya...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:1155458330.2...@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com... > > > tournament organizer often have extra sleeves. > > > > Doesn't matter; he has no authority to force players to use them unless > > the state of their cards warrant it. > > We don't force players to play with sleeves, we ask them to do it as we > ask them to make a decklist. I'm not sure what you mean by that. If playing with sleeves is voluntary, [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] All hail Fred, Master of Temporis

> > That's stupid. Grow up. > > Tell that to the guys who had jyhad cards for all their votes, and VTES > cards for the others. This is just an example, but it really happened > and it's for these kind of people that they have these rules. So, who > has to grow up in the end? Enforcing a rule that requires people to do something that's only necessary if people are cheating is stupid. Cheating at a game with prizes as insubstantial as tend to be given at VTES tournaments is even stupider. Seriously. People who get their underwear tied up in knots over this kind of stuff do need to grow up. It's just a game, and not even one associated with substantial sums of cash or street cred. Your response to people who cheat at VTES should be to laugh at them, not make additional rules banning cheating.

[ quoted text not captured ] What you're saying is fine for friendly games : cheaters usually are spotted in their playgroups and get invited less often. The only person they really hurt is themselves and I pity them if they feel they have to cheat to win. But we're talking big events here. The organizers don't want some players to have an advantage over some others ; if they use that rule for everyone, they reduce enormously the chances of anyone cheating with marked cards (or more precisely with Jyhad-backed cards). If they don't, a few individuals will use that flaw in the system against honest players ; so the rule is the same for everyone and it's very well that way. Those rules have been established and enforced by many experienced players and organisers. Among them, there was the one-time best player in the world (who played in tournaments around the world) and who was also one of the most acomplished VEKN event organiser ever : Stéphane Lavrut (a.k.a. Victor Pelletier). Those tournament rules weren't enforced by chance or by whim, but because the need for it had been observed by Stéphane and many others in tournaments all over the world. So, it was botherseome when first we came to such tournaments unaware, sure, but I'm glad and proud that these measures considerably reduced the possibilities of the cheaters. And I don't think some countries have more cheating than others, but I prefer the places where you can play a Championship without having to worry too much about those problems because the organisation took care of it already. -- Orpheus ----------------------- I'm dead serious ! Well, mostly dead...

> What you're saying is fine for friendly games : cheaters usually are spotted > in their playgroups and get invited less often. The only person they really > hurt is themselves and I pity them if they feel they have to cheat to win. > > But we're talking big events here.... The original post said that sleeves were required at all French tournaments. Maybe it's the case that all French tournaments are "big events". Otherwise the debate is over a moving target. > And I don't think some countries have more cheating than others, but I > prefer the places where you can play a Championship without having to worry > too much about those problems because the organisation took care of it > already. I would guess that places (be they countries, localities, or whatever) where competition is valued over enjoyment would probably have more cheating. The problem that leads to cheating is the same problem that leads to more or less trivial rules such as sleeving requirements: people taking the game too seriously. I mean really. If you want to play a competitive game play Poker. Or Chess. Or Football. Or warfare. VTES just isn't up there with those games in terms of competitive rigor, which is probably good.

Orpheus wrote: > And I don't think some countries have more cheating than others, but I > prefer the places where you can play a Championship without having to worry > too much about those problems because the organisation took care of it > already. Accusing everyone attending a tournament of being a cheater and forcing them to go out of their way to disprove this accusation is not "taking care of it". [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <44dcf150$0$26380$626a...@news.free.fr>, Orpheus <orphe...@DEADSPAMfree.fr> writes: >Seriously, don't we all play with opaque sleeves ? I often don't, because I hate sleeving cards. -- James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D YOU ARE IN ERROR. EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 NO-ONE IS SCREAMING. 13D7E668C3695D623D5D THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.

Orpheus wrote: > It falls with some sleeves when they're new ; some actually make them fall > less. Heh. My unsleeved cards couldn't possibly fall less than they already do :-) > But even when I didn't invest much in the game and we didn't know about > those Jyhad tournament issues (for a good reason : there were no tournaments > lol) I used transparent sleeves for a good reason : protection ! You pay a > lot for these cards, they might as well survive lots of shufflings ! Not to > mention whatever sort of food or beverage bits might end on a game table... Yeah, some folks certainly do that. But a lot of folks don't. Like, I have no hard and fast evidence, but my completely unscientific analysis of the many tournaments I have played in indicates that most folks *don't* sleeve their libraries. -Peter

"Fred Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote > > > > In France, Sleeves are mandatory to participate to any tournement so it > > won't change anything for us. > > Huh? I don't think they can be at a sanctioned tournament. VEKN > Tournament rules _allow_ players to use sleeves, if they like. They > say nothing about permitting judges or tournament organizers to > disqualify a player who isn't using sleeves. Furthermore, does the French National Coordinator (presumably) have the authority to dictate this to individual tourney organisers? If the Canadian coordinator were to tell me that I have to run my tournaments in this way, I would tell him where to go. (Leaving aside the fact that I only run Jyhad Online tournaments, where sleeves are unlikely to become mandatory in the forseeable future.) Cheers, WES

In message <1155448357....@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, Huruem <Huruem_...@hotmail.com> writes: >Tell that to the guys who had jyhad cards for all their votes, and VTES >cards for the others. This is just an example, but it really happened >and it's for these kind of people that they have these rules. So, who >has to grow up in the end? Probably the judge, for inventing new rules rather than enforcing existing ones. Take the marked decks, and apply the penalty guidelines: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/index.php?line=veknjudgesguide 132. Marked Cards - Observable Pattern Penalty: Game loss. You don't think the egregious marking you describe doesn't already fall under that? Jesus H Christ on a bike. Additionally, a judge who was convinced (from, for example, previous tournaments where the players did the same thing) that a given player was deliberately and repeatedly cheating, or where a player refused to correct the deck marking, would pretty easily be able to justify upgrading "Game loss" to "Disqualification", with a report to V:EKN explaining exactly what happened. Why the need to invent new rules, when the existing ones handle this already? [ quoted text not captured ]

> > Fred Scott wrote: > > > This would show 3E cards from other cards by looking at the back - the > only > > > cards whose card backs were oriented upside down. > I'm not really worried about the backs being oriented upside down. I use sleeves in most cases. If the fronts would have been upside down however, that's another matter altogether.. Archie

CthuluKitty wrote: > > I would guess that places (be they countries, localities, or whatever) > where competition is valued over enjoyment These aren't mutually exclusive. > > I mean really. If you want to play a competitive game play Poker. Or > Chess. Or Football. Or warfare. VTES just isn't up there with those > games in terms of competitive rigor, which is probably good. A viewpoint I just cannot share. VTES is very competitive. Each player has the goal of eliminating all other players, starting with his prey. It doesn't get much more competitive than that. G

>> Seriously, don't we all play with opaque sleeves ? > > No. This problem has been present since 1994. If you don't have a solution by this point give it up. You won't find one. If you have a solution, employ that solution. Can we be done now? Ankur

Archibald Zimonyi wrote: > I'm not really worried about the backs being oriented upside down. I > use sleeves in most cases. > > If the fronts would have been upside down however, that's another > matter altogether.. > Yeah. I remember with Final Nights they managed to print some cards where both and the front and back were upside down. That sucked. -Ben Swainbank

"Ben Swainbank" <bswai...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:1155582126.1...@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com... [ quoted text not captured ] No shit. I dropped a bunch of them on the ground with my good FN cards and got them mixed together. You can't tell the good cards from the bad when that happens until sometime later, when you draw one in a game off the top of your deck. Then the whole table knows. Last time I played in France, someone accused me of marking my cards. The judge made me use card sleeves... Fred

[ quoted text not captured ] I got some Anarchs cards where the *backs* were printed on the *front* and vice versa. Fortunately, they were from Anarchs, so I never play with them. [ quoted text not captured ]

> > I would guess that places (be they countries, localities, or whatever) > > where competition is valued over enjoyment > > These aren't mutually exclusive. Of course they aren't, but then again noone ever said they were. It is however the case that individual players or groups thereof can emphasize having fun or being competitive (ie cutthroat) to differing degrees. In cases where the competitive aspect of the game is held up higher than its social and creative aspects (which are IMO far more enjoyable) it is more likely that people will cheat. > > I mean really. If you want to play a competitive game play Poker. Or > > Chess. Or Football. Or warfare. VTES just isn't up there with those > > games in terms of competitive rigor, which is probably good. > > A viewpoint I just cannot share. VTES is very competitive. Each > player has the goal of eliminating all other players, starting with his > prey. It doesn't get much more competitive than that. I'm sorry you don't share my viewpoint, but I'm still pretty convinced that it's correct. I'm not saying that VTES isn't a competive game, or that it can't wind up hurting peoples' feelings. I'm saying that it's just not very rigorous in terms of how much experience and training is necessary to master it, as compared to those other activities. Comparing VTES to Chess, guys like Ben Peal or Matt Morgan presumably don't spend nearly the time and energy researching and innovating VTES strategies as Grand Masters do in Chess. Continuing on the same comparison, I consider myself a good VTES player and a decent Chess player. I can sit down at a table with Ben Peal and win. I can't sit down at a table with Kasparov and win. The difference isn't that I've played more VTES than Chess, or that either of the aforementioned players aren't at the top of their field. The difference is that VTES just isn't as rigorous. So my point is that if people are so crazy about competition that they get upset by the possibility of cheating to the extent of applying totally annoying and unnecessary rules, then they're probably playing the wrong game. Jesse

> So my point is that if people are so crazy about competition that they > get upset by the possibility of cheating to the extent of applying > totally annoying and unnecessary rules, then they're probably playing > the wrong game. Or maybe you don't have a clue and you shouldn't make such stupid assertions. [ quoted text not captured ]

> > So my point is that if people are so crazy about competition that they > > get upset by the possibility of cheating to the extent of applying > > totally annoying and unnecessary rules, then they're probably playing > > the wrong game. > > Or maybe you don't have a clue and you shouldn't make such stupid > assertions. Or maybe you should respond to my points directly rather than simply using epithets (though I'm certainly not innocent of such misconduct myself). Please tell me what I don't have a clue about, and why my "assertions" (which were actually arguments) are stupid.

Orpheus wrote: > > So my point is that if people are so crazy about competition that they > > get upset by the possibility of cheating to the extent of applying > > totally annoying and unnecessary rules, then they're probably playing > > the wrong game. > > Or maybe you don't have a clue and you shouldn't make such stupid > assertions. I think perhaps you should elaborate as there is a vast gap between the attitudes of the European and North American groups. Comments Welcome, Norman S. Brown, Jr XZealot Archon of the Swamp

[ quoted text not captured ] And remember that there is a difference between a desire to compete and a desire to cheat. You can have one without the other, and indeed, those with a stronger desire for one will have less of a desire for the other (realizing that cheating isn't really competing at all). That said, if one's environment has an intolerable level of those with a desire to cheat, then taking measures to thwart them is acceptable and should be appreciated by those with a desire to compete.

[ quoted text not captured ] Thank you LSJ. -- Orpheus (still close to your Killfile ? ;-)

"Orpheus" <orphe...@DEADSPAMfree.fr> wrote in news:44e1c8e5$0$4585$626a...@news.free.fr: > Thank you LSJ. Thank You..? I it me, or did LSJ just call France a big bunch of Dirty Durn non-competin' VTES Cheeturs? ;-) J/K DZ AW

Cthulhu, as you asked nicely for constructive arguments, whi I wasn't sure at all was your goal here (looked more like trolling to me) : > > > I would guess that places (be they countries, localities, or whatever) > > > where competition is valued over enjoyment > > > > These aren't mutually exclusive. > > Of course they aren't, but then again noone ever said they were. It is > however the case that individual players or groups thereof can > emphasize having fun or being competitive (ie cutthroat) to differing > degrees. In cases where the competitive aspect of the game is held up > higher than its social and creative aspects (which are IMO far more > enjoyable) it is more likely that people will cheat. Might be. But it's not an excuse. Some of us like the competition part, but see no interest in cheating (lots of us actually) ; protecting those players from others, including coming from other towns or playgroups, is good. > > > I mean really. If you want to play a competitive game play Poker. Or > > > Chess. Or Football. Or warfare. VTES just isn't up there with those > > > games in terms of competitive rigor, which is probably good. > > > > A viewpoint I just cannot share. VTES is very competitive. Each > > player has the goal of eliminating all other players, starting with his > > prey. It doesn't get much more competitive than that. > > I'm sorry you don't share my viewpoint, but I'm still pretty convinced > that it's correct. I'm convinced that it's not. So let's argue now. > I'm not saying that VTES isn't a competive game, or > that it can't wind up hurting peoples' feelings. I'm saying that it's > just not very rigorous in terms of how much experience and training is > necessary to master it, as compared to those other activities. Thank you. I'm sure that we all wanted to hear how our results, rankings or whatever are due to pure luck. I'm sure that Jay Kristoff, Stefan Ferenci, Stéphane Lavrut etc will be glad to learn that the time spent playing had nothing to do with their victories. > Comparing VTES to Chess, guys like Ben Peal or Matt Morgan presumably > don't spend nearly the time and energy researching and innovating VTES > strategies as Grand Masters do in Chess. It is a ridiculous comparison. Wanna know why ? Well, because Ben Peal is probably better at VTES than Napoleon (reputedly one of the great players in his time) ever was. You cannot compare a centuries-old game with thousands upon thousands of methods and books with a 12-years old game and 1 or 2 worthy "guides", you got that right ; what you didn't get right is that it's the other way around : there exists no sureway "method'" or "overtures" in VTES, and the top players had to learn it all by themselves, therefore they had to throw much time, energy and intelligence in the process. > Continuing on the same > comparison, I consider myself a good VTES player and a decent Chess > player. I can sit down at a table with Ben Peal and win. Have you tried it ? Anyway, you're now comparing 2 totally non-comparable types of games : - 1 includes randomness, one doesn't (you would be closer if comparing with Poker) - 1 is a 2-on-2 game, the other includes 4-5 players, who contrarily topoker can gang up on one another. So, yes, you could theoritically sit down at a table with Ben Peal and kill him (I tried it with Absynth lol), or make more VPs than him ; what you WILL NOT succeed in doing without years of training and a certain talent is : make more VPs than him in a given tournament (if he's not drugged), and even less : make better results than him over a year. So I see no randomness in that (I might see some when Jay Kristoff loses the first place of NAC in a paper-scissors-hand though, lol !!). > I can't sit > down at a table with Kasparov and win. Nor could I. But a computer can, while it is unthinkable to consider that anything short of an Artificial Intelligence could conceive a VTES deck and win playing it.So, what does that prove ? > The difference isn't that I've > played more VTES than Chess, or that either of the aforementioned > players aren't at the top of their field. The difference is that VTES > just isn't as rigorous. What is "rigorous" ? The differences are too many to even dare compare the two, and yes, one includes randomness and one doesn't, but that's about it. You prove absolutely nothing, except maybe that Chess has been studied so thoroughly over the centuries that it's become way to rigid in my book (I much prefer Go anytime, and *that* is a game worthy of playing all your life !!). > So my point is that if people are so crazy about competition that they > get upset by the possibility of cheating to the extent of applying > totally annoying and unnecessary rules, then they're probably playing > the wrong game. LOOOOOOL. Wanna know why I didn't answer to that in the first place ? Because, with all due respect, it doesn't make any sense !! You make arguments that prove only that "Chess is less random that VTES", which is an evidence, you try to prove on the way that "success in VTES is random", which is totally false, and you conclude that "if players want to avoid cheating they're playing the wrong game" !! How you could even think this was a reasonnable proposition is beyond me. To compare what can be compared, the only way in which Poker is more competitive than VTES is because money is involved ; that is the case in Magic (which I despise partly because of that). VTES doesn't involve money, and players have a great spirit, as a community and as individuals for a great part, I've met great people over the years in this game (just like with RPGs before), but it's still very competitive : as already said, you have to make the others lose in order to win. Even the RPGs, which seem like the less competitive game ever, had tournaments ; and I organised more than a few, I can tell U that you have to think of many ways to avoid cheating (players who like each other and cheat in noting) or simply to make a good rating system or the tournament. And yes : the results were often more "random" than in VTES, but still a few names always came on top (and a few on the bottom). If you don't want to play competitive VTES it's your own prerogative and I totally respect that ! Really, I do : it's just a game, after all ! But if some people want to play it competitivly, there should be safeguards against cheating, because a few assholes who don't understand that there is no glory in winning by cheating can ruin the competiting pleasure of many players. Hope that clears some of the fog between us. -- Orpheus ----------------------- My story doesn't happen in the sound of the notes but in the silence between them. That is where the magic happens. Echo

> > Thank you LSJ. > > > Thank You..? I it me, or did LSJ just call France a big bunch of Dirty > Durn non-competin' VTES Cheeturs? > > ;-) J/K I think it's just you, you dirty provocating troller !! ;-) In France, we have "tolerance Zero" towards cheating, cheaters are to frenchmen what terrorists are to americans. ;-) But seriously, you know that we have many visitors from all over the world at our tournaments ? Maybe it's because of YOU that these rules had to be enforced. You're unmasked now, AH AH AH !! [ quoted text not captured ]

"Orpheus" <orphe...@DEADSPAMfree.fr> wrote in news:44e1cfb0$0$4555$626a...@news.free.fr: >> > Thank you LSJ. >> >> >> Thank You..? Is it me, or did LSJ just call France a big bunch of >> Dirty Durn non-competin' VTES Cheeturs? >> >> ;-) J/K > > I think it's just you, you dirty provocating troller !! ;-) > > In France, we have "tolerance Zero" towards cheating, cheaters are to > frenchmen what terrorists are to americans. ;-) > > But seriously, you know that we have many visitors from all over the > world at our tournaments ? Maybe it's because of YOU that these rules > had to be enforced. You're unmasked now, AH AH AH !! LOL! So I am... When in Rome, etc. etc. When in France, Cheat. :P DZ AW

> Cthulhu, as you asked nicely for constructive arguments, whi I wasn't sure > at all was your goal here (looked more like trolling to me) : At first sure. Later on I started writing posts with more than 5 words, at which point I tend to be looking for a serious response. > Might be. But it's not an excuse. Some of us like the competition part, but > see no interest in cheating (lots of us actually) ; protecting those players > from others, including coming from other towns or playgroups, is good. Dude, I'm not trying to excuse cheating. I'm mostly just irked by the possibility of being forced to sleeve my decks before I even step into a tournament on the off chance that I might cheat. I don't sleeve my decks, and I don't cheat. Moreover, I have no particular desire to do either (unless playing unsleeved is automatically considered cheating, in which cases I've been cheating up a storm for the past several years). That said, my guess is that players who want to cheat are going to cheat, and the only way to stop them is to catch them in the act and ban them from future events. It seems to me like marking cards is probably the least offensive way that one can cheat (and easily noticed) compared to how easy it is to put counters in the wrong place, which people do by accident all the time. > > I'm not saying that VTES isn't a competive game, or > > that it can't wind up hurting peoples' feelings. I'm saying that it's > > just not very rigorous in terms of how much experience and training is > > necessary to master it, as compared to those other activities. > > Thank you. I'm sure that we all wanted to hear how our results, rankings or > whatever are due to pure luck. I'm sure that Jay Kristoff, Stefan Ferenci, > Stéphane Lavrut etc will be glad to learn that the time spent playing had > nothing to do with their victories. You're making a straw man argument here. I never said that VTES results are random, or that experience and strategy have nothing to do with winning. I've only said that it takes more moxy to be a world champion at Chess (or a top athlete, elite soldier, successful venture capitalist, etc.) than it does to be in the top tier of VTES players. I honestly have trouble seeing how this is a contestable assertion. > It is a ridiculous comparison. Wanna know why ? Well, because Ben Peal is > probably better at VTES than Napoleon (reputedly one of the great players in > his time) ever was. You cannot compare a centuries-old game with thousands > upon thousands of methods and books with a 12-years old game and 1 or 2 > worthy "guides", you got that right ; what you didn't get right is that it's > the other way around : there exists no sureway "method'" or "overtures" in > VTES, and the top players had to learn it all by themselves, therefore they > had to throw much time, energy and intelligence in the process. Why can't I compare them? They're both games in which the object is to win. They both have elite players and world champions whose names we would recognize, and they both have established bodies of theory informing play. While it would be difficult to compare these games in terms of their mechanical structure (apples and oranges) it is reasonable to compare them according to a single rubric: difficulty of mastery. The fact that Chess is far older and has a more greater volume of text written about it supports my argument, rather than deflates it. To be a master at chess you really have to know all that stuff. To be a master at VTES requires quite a bit of knowledge too, but not nearly as much. As far as your argument regarding Ben VS Napolean is concerned I'm not sure what you're saying. I'm sure Ben is better at VTES than Napolean was. Huh? > > Continuing on the same > > comparison, I consider myself a good VTES player and a decent Chess > > player. I can sit down at a table with Ben Peal and win. > > Have you tried it ? Dude, this isn't supposed to be a pissing match, but the answer is yes. In fact I think of won about 50% of the games I've played with Ben, though the sample size is admittedly small. > Anyway, you're now comparing 2 totally non-comparable types of games : > > - 1 includes randomness, one doesn't (you would be closer if comparing with > Poker) Poker would make a better comparison for sure. The trouble with that is that I just don't know very much about it. Let's keep in mind that a very large part of the randomness that makes VTES different from--and for many of us more enjoyable than--Chess is the element of creativity in deck building, which I have highlighted as one aspect of the game that is not purely competitive. I think that many VTES players, possibly even most of us, tend to play decks that we know aren't as good as Malk 94, even at tournaments. Is that because we're not good enough, or don't have the resources to pull of Malk 94? I sure as hell doubt it. I think it's more because the game has aspects that just aren't competetive in nature. None of those other competetive activities have that. > So, yes, you could theoritically sit down at a table with Ben Peal and kill > him (I tried it with Absynth lol), or make more VPs than him ; what you WILL > NOT succeed in doing without years of training and a certain talent is : > make more VPs than him in a given tournament (if he's not drugged), and even > less : make better results than him over a year. So I see no randomness in > that (I might see some when Jay Kristoff loses the first place of NAC in a > paper-scissors-hand though, lol !!). Theoretically and in historical fact I can and have sat down with Ben and won. I've also played in numerous tournaments where someone other than myself or Ben won. I don't think what you're saying is true. > > I can't sit > > down at a table with Kasparov and win. > > Nor could I. But a computer can, while it is unthinkable to consider that > anything short of an Artificial Intelligence could conceive a VTES deck and > win playing it.So, what does that prove ? I think you're overestimating how difficult it would be to program a VTES playing machine. I'm pretty sure it could be done, and it could probably be done very well. Hell, I could probably write a pen and paper algorithm for playing stealth bleed that would work reasonably well. Chess is naturally easier to teach to a computer, given the nature of the game, and people have been doing it for years. I can't see any reason however that VTES couldn't be played by a computer. Anyone with a background in computer theory care to weigh in on this? > What is "rigorous" ? By rigorous I mean that it requires lots of time and energy to be good at it. Something that takes mor time and energy is more rigorous, while something that takes less time and energy is less rigorous. Sorry if that wasn't clear. >The differences are too many to even dare compare the > two, and yes, one includes randomness and one doesn't, but that's about it. > You prove absolutely nothing, except maybe that Chess has been studied so > thoroughly over the centuries that it's become way to rigid in my book (I > much prefer Go anytime, and *that* is a game worthy of playing all your life > !!). Go also has a wide body of established theory and opening combinations if I've heard correctly, but I really don't know anything about it. VTES also has a fair amount of established theory at this point, and there are a number of decks that are known to work very well, and which can be found multiple times with little to no change in the TWDA. The only reason I can see that people continue to play decks other than these is that the game is about more than competition. > > So my point is that if people are so crazy about competition that they > > get upset by the possibility of cheating to the extent of applying > > totally annoying and unnecessary rules, then they're probably playing > > the wrong game. > > LOOOOOOL. Wanna know why I didn't answer to that in the first place ? > Because, with all due respect, it doesn't make any sense !! You make > arguments that prove only that "Chess is less random that VTES", which is an > evidence, you try to prove on the way that "success in VTES is random", > which is totally false, and you conclude that "if players want to avoid > cheating they're playing the wrong game" !! How you could even think this > was a reasonnable proposition is beyond me. Maybe I should restate for clarity: people who are looking for a purely competetive endeavour should probably look elsewhere than VTES. I mean it. But I don't mean to say that VTES isn't, can't be, or shouldn't be competetive. > To compare what can be compared, the only way in which Poker is more > competitive than VTES is because money is involved ; I disagree, but I don't really know the game that well. As far as I can tell, Poker is a lot harder than VTES, and you sure as hell can't give a new player a Kindred Spirits deck and watch him win. >that is the case in > Magic (which I despise partly because of that). VTES doesn't involve money, > and players have a great spirit, as a community and as individuals for a > great part, I've met great people over the years in this game (just like > with RPGs before), but it's still very competitive : as already said, you > have to make the others lose in order to win. We can leave Magic out of most discussions on the grounds that it sucks. Other than that, no problem with anything here. > Even the RPGs, which seem like the less competitive game ever, had > tournaments ; and I organised more than a few, I can tell U that you have to > think of many ways to avoid cheating (players who like each other and cheat > in noting) or simply to make a good rating system or the tournament. And yes > : the results were often more "random" than in VTES, but still a few names > always came on top (and a few on the bottom). RPG tournaments? Seriously? Now I know you people have your heads screwed on crooked about competition. > If you don't want to play competitive VTES it's your own prerogative and I > totally respect that ! Really, I do : it's just a game, after all ! I do play competitive VTES, if by that you mean playing in tournaments. And I do think that winning a tournament is generally a mark of good play. But I'm much more impressed by someone who can win a major Chess tournament than a major VTES tournament. I can imagine myself doing the the latter, but probably not the former. > But if some people want to play it competitivly, there should be safeguards > against cheating, because a few assholes who don't understand that there is > no glory in winning by cheating can ruin the competiting pleasure of many > players. I would look to change the culture of play that makes people think it's worth it to cheat, and vigorously weed out those assholes (who are probably no fun to be around as well). I wouldn't require players to use sleeves. > Hope that clears some of the fog between us. Maybe. I think some of the fog is that you're simply misconstruing what I'm saying, as your responses to me clearly indicate.

Orpheus wrote: > Might be. But it's not an excuse. Some of us like the competition part, but > see no interest in cheating (lots of us actually) ; protecting those players > from others, including coming from other towns or playgroups, is good. Yeah, see, here is the crux of the issue--nobody likes cheating. Nobody wants to encourage cheating. Everyone would be happier if there was no cheating. This, however, does not justify draconian* measures to prevent cheating that probably isn't happening in the first place. In the case of card backs, you have two options: A) Force everyone to use opaque card sleeves, which is a pain in the ass, a lot of people don't like using, and kinda hoses folks who show up not knowing they are required to use card sleeves till they get there. B) Just assume that people aren't going to cheat, and in the seldom instance that you run into cheating, deal with it as indicated in the tournament rules (i.e. hand out a game loss). The likelyhood of someone cheating by virtue of abusing the card back differences is very, very small. And if someone is going to cheat in the first place, and they are prevented from cheating in this particular manner, they are still likely to cheat in some other manner (stacking deck, "forgetting" to pay pool for stuff, "accidentally" starting the game with more pool than they are supposed to, whatever). To the point that it isn't really worth punishing everyone (by making them use opaque card sleeves) to try and stop unlikely cheating when it isn't actually going to stop cheating if someone is set on cheating anyway. *Calling required opaque card sleeves "draconian" is certainly hyperbolic. -Peter

<pd...@lightlink.com> wrote in message news:1155662911.5...@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com... > A) Force everyone to use opaque card sleeves, which is a pain in the > ass, a lot of people don't like using, and kinda hoses folks who show > up not knowing they are required to use card sleeves till they get > there. The other downside, besides the good points that Peter made, is that it affects absolutely everybody as a blanket restriction. This means it affects the vast majority of people who had no thought of using card backs as means of gaining advantage. Or at least, I would hope that would be the vast majority of people. > B) Just assume that people aren't going to cheat, and in the seldom > instance that you run into cheating, deal with it as indicated in the > tournament rules (i.e. hand out a game loss). The judge is allowed to force people suspected of marking their cards to use the opaque sleeves. It needn't be a blanket restriction. Fred

Fred Scott wrote: > <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote in message > news:1155662911.5...@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com... > > A) Force everyone to use opaque card sleeves, which is a pain in the > > ass, a lot of people don't like using, and kinda hoses folks who show > > up not knowing they are required to use card sleeves till they get > > there. > > The other downside, besides the good points that Peter made, is that > it affects absolutely everybody as a blanket restriction. This means > it affects the vast majority of people who had no thought of using > card backs as means of gaining advantage. Or at least, I would hope > that would be the vast majority of people. And, for that matter, if someone who would intend to cheat knows going in that the T.O. is using sleeving as a supposed "preventative measure" against cheating, it's not like it's impossible, or even all that difficult, to subtly mark sleeves, if people are going to be lazy about watching for it. In other words, it's not actually a solution to the "problem" at all, as it requires the same vigilance the initial situation did. Heck, it probably requires *more* vigilance, since the marking is necessarily subtler than Jyhad backs. - D.J.

Fred Scott wrote: > The other downside, besides the good points that Peter made, is that > it affects absolutely everybody as a blanket restriction. This means > it affects the vast majority of people who had no thought of using > card backs as means of gaining advantage. Or at least, I would hope > that would be the vast majority of people. Exactly. I mean, like, it is sooo unlikely that more than 1 person at a given VTES event has any intention of cheating*. And if they have said intention, trying to foil them one way is not going to foil them in all the other ways that aren't stopped by opaque card backs. So making *everyone* use opaque card backs, just to cut off one avenue of cheating from an incredible minority (which likely is a non existant minority) of people strikes me as, ya know, madness. -Peter ...only this time, as ALLIES!

> >> > Thank you LSJ. > >> > >> > >> Thank You..? Is it me, or did LSJ just call France a big bunch of > >> Dirty Durn non-competin' VTES Cheeturs? > >> > >> ;-) J/K > > > > I think it's just you, you dirty provocating troller !! ;-) > > > > In France, we have "tolerance Zero" towards cheating, cheaters are to > > frenchmen what terrorists are to americans. ;-) > > > > But seriously, you know that we have many visitors from all over the > > world at our tournaments ? Maybe it's because of YOU that these rules > > had to be enforced. You're unmasked now, AH AH AH !! > > LOL! So I am... > > When in Rome, etc. etc. > > When in France, Cheat. > > :P > > DZ > AW YOU ARE SO DEAD !!! (and compelled ; and dead again ; and compelled ; and... ad lib) [ quoted text not captured ]

> The judge is allowed to force people suspected of marking their cards > to use the opaque sleeves. It needn't be a blanket restriction. > > Fred Maybe I wasn't clear enough. Only players with mixed Jyhad and VTES card backs under certain proportions have to use opaque sleeves ; but as it was the case of most of us we got used to sleeve, period. That doesn't mean you are suspected of cheating. But if another player is suspected and you ask him to sleeve, he will say "why me, *he* doesn't have to !" so everyone does the same and it's good. I'm pretty sure some players in tournaments where this isn't asked cheat in that way, and will use 3rd Ed to the same goals (even maybe unconsciously : "it's upside down so it's 3rd Ed so it isn't a Parity Shift" or whatever). Same as Jyhad backs, see ? So opaque sleeves are good. And sleeves are good for your cards anyway ! ------- Orpheus, commercial for Sleeves'R'U.

"Orpheus" <orphe...@DEADSPAMfree.fr> wrote in message news:44e2489a$0$4559$626a...@news.free.fr... >> The judge is allowed to force people suspected of marking their cards >> to use the opaque sleeves. It needn't be a blanket restriction. > > Maybe I wasn't clear enough. Only players with mixed Jyhad and VTES card > backs under certain proportions have to use opaque sleeves ; but as it was > the case of most of us we got used to sleeve, period. OK, to reitarate: this line of discussion started when someone - apparently from France - stated that there was a blanket restriction against unsleeved card decks at all tournaments in France. If you're not defending such a restriction, I don't know what you're posting to defend. So we are now all aquiver with confusion. > That doesn't mean you are suspected of cheating. But if another player is > suspected and you ask him to sleeve, he will say "why me, *he* doesn't have > to !" Were I a judge answering his question, I would say, "...because you have mixed card backs in suspicious groupings and ratios and he doesn't. End of argument. > so everyone does the same and it's good. But I've responded to that: "Everyone" is a lot of innocent people to make sleeve their cards just to respond to one or two people doing weird things. I'm pretty sure some players in tournaments where this isn't asked cheat in > that way, I don't see mixed card backs on unsleeved decks much and I worry about it very little. Perhaps it happens. If someone seemed like they were getting any real advantage out of it, it's very easy to call a judge over, have him inspect the deck, and mandate sleeving if it looks suspicious. And it also doesn't strike me as being a very effective way to cheat unless you're incredibly obvious about it. I mean, how often are you going to look at the card backs below the one on the top of the deck? Unless you grab your deck and start looking at the card backs below the top one, you've basically got a bad version of Tusk's card text. So if you see someone suspiciously thumbing through his library looking at the card backs and he has mixed backs, that'd be the time to call a judge, I guess. I've never seen it myself. > and will use 3rd Ed to the same goals (even maybe unconsciously : Yea, that's rather unforuntate, I suppose. Still, the same thing applies. > And sleeves are good for your cards anyway ! Yea? Will spinach is good for my digestion, too. But thankfully, no one makes me eat it for every meal. Fred eats very little spinach but always sleeves his cards...I guess that tells you something

> Cthulhu, as you asked nicely for constructive arguments, whi I wasn't sure > at all was your goal here (looked more like trolling to me) : > At first sure. Be careful, some people here consider trolling as offensive, you might not want to admit you did some on purpose. > Later on I started writing posts with more than 5 > words, at which point I tend to be looking for a serious response. When someone begins by not saying anything of interest it takes some time for me to give them any credit. > Might be. But it's not an excuse. Some of us like the competition part, but > see no interest in cheating (lots of us actually) ; protecting those players > from others, including coming from other towns or playgroups, is good. > Dude, I'm not trying to excuse cheating. I'm mostly just irked by the possibility of being forced to sleeve my decks before I even step into a tournament on the off chance that I might cheat. I don't sleeve my decks, and I don't cheat. Moreover, I have no particular desire to do either (unless playing unsleeved is automatically considered cheating, in which cases I've been cheating up a storm for the past several years). That said, my guess is that players who want to cheat are going to cheat, and the only way to stop them is to catch them in the act and ban them from future events. It seems to me like marking cards is probably the least offensive way that one can cheat (and easily noticed) Really ? So you'll accuse a player with Jyhad Minion Taps of cheating ? Will you see it ? Will you ask a judge to verify his game ? Wouldn't it be easier if he didn't have access to that info in the first place ? > compared to how easy it is to put counters in the wrong place, > which people do by accident all the time. And which can be seen and remedied quite easily. > > I'm not saying that VTES isn't a competive game, or > > that it can't wind up hurting peoples' feelings. I'm saying that it's > > just not very rigorous in terms of how much experience and training is > > necessary to master it, as compared to those other activities. > > Thank you. I'm sure that we all wanted to hear how our results, rankings or > whatever are due to pure luck. I'm sure that Jay Kristoff, Stefan Ferenci, > Stéphane Lavrut etc will be glad to learn that the time spent playing had > nothing to do with their victories. > You're making a straw man argument here. I never said that VTES results are random, or that experience and strategy have nothing to do with winning. That's what you suggest by what you said above. > I've only said that it takes more moxy to be a world champion at Chess (or a top athlete, elite soldier, successful venture capitalist, etc.) than it does to be in the top tier of VTES players. I honestly have trouble seeing how this is a contestable assertion. There are many more players at Chess so attaining any position is harder, but being top seed in VTES is nothing easy. Believe me, I'm on my way up and still so far from the top !! ;-) > It is a ridiculous comparison. Wanna know why ? Well, because Ben Peal is > probably better at VTES than Napoleon (reputedly one of the great players in > his time) ever was. You cannot compare a centuries-old game with thousands > upon thousands of methods and books with a 12-years old game and 1 or 2 > worthy "guides", you got that right ; what you didn't get right is that it's > the other way around : there exists no sureway "method'" or "overtures" in > VTES, and the top players had to learn it all by themselves, therefore they > had to throw much time, energy and intelligence in the process. > Why can't I compare them? They're both games in which the object is to win. They both have elite players and world champions whose names we would recognize, and they both have established bodies of theory informing play. While it would be difficult to compare these games in terms of their mechanical structure (apples and oranges) it is reasonable to compare them according to a single rubric: difficulty of mastery. The fact that Chess is far older and has a more greater volume of text written about it supports my argument, rather than deflates it. To be a master at chess you really have to know all that stuff. To be a master at VTES requires quite a bit of knowledge too, but not nearly as much. Not true. Chess has much less rules than VTES, and many, many less combinations. The only thing is : in chess they're all mathematical and can be learned by heart, that's all. You're saying it requires less training, I disagree : in 4-10 years one can become very good at chess ; most of the best VTES players have been at it since '94, and have played every week, sometimes many games a week. It might be pleasurable but it's still pretty intense training in my book. > As far as your argument regarding Ben VS Napolean is concerned I'm not sure what you're saying. I'm sure Ben is better at VTES than Napolean was. Huh? Lol. That was fun. And yes, he ought to be. > > Continuing on the same > > comparison, I consider myself a good VTES player and a decent Chess > > player. I can sit down at a table with Ben Peal and win. > > Have you tried it ? > Dude, this isn't supposed to be a pissing match, but the answer is yes. Can you piss higher than him ? > In fact I think of won about 50% of the games I've played with Ben, though the sample size is admittedly small. Well then, you must be ranked quite well ! What is your real name / VEKN number ? I don't want you to go into pissing contests, but I'm saying there is a reason why this guy is number 3 mondial. I have won over better players than me, often, but if they're better ranked it's because they won more games than me overall, period. > Anyway, you're now comparing 2 totally non-comparable types of games : > > - 1 includes randomness, one doesn't (you would be closer if comparing with > Poker) > Poker would make a better comparison for sure. The trouble with that is that I just don't know very much about it. Ok, I hear that. > Let's keep in mind that a very large part of the randomness that makes VTES different from--and for many of us more enjoyable than--Chess is the element of creativity in deck building, which I have highlighted as one aspect of the game that is not purely competitive. Granted. > I think that many VTES players, possibly even most of us, tend to play decks that we know aren't as good as Malk 94, even at tournaments. I disagree. Malk 94 isn't efficient anymore, because players are warned about it and can act against it. !Malk works much better now because it can deal crosstable, and that is very important right now, while it didn't matter 12 years ago. > Is that because we're not good enough, or don't have the resources to pull of Malk 94? I sure as hell doubt it. I think it's more because the game has aspects that just aren't competetive in nature. None of those other competetive activities have that. And it's good for our game. But I've been in quite a few championships or qualifiers now, and I can tell you people play good decks and want to win. I wish there was more inventiveness in high level competition, but the finalists are often the same 15-or-so archetypes (it was only 10 before LoB, might be more after 3rd Ed). That is lame but that's how it is. > So, yes, you could theoritically sit down at a table with Ben Peal and kill > him (I tried it with Absynth lol), or make more VPs than him ; what you WILL > NOT succeed in doing without years of training and a certain talent is : > make more VPs than him in a given tournament (if he's not drugged), and even > less : make better results than him over a year. So I see no randomness in > that (I might see some when Jay Kristoff loses the first place of NAC in a > paper-scissors-hand though, lol !!). > Theoretically and in historical fact I can and have sat down with Ben and won. I've also played in numerous tournaments where someone other than myself or Ben won. I don't think what you're saying is true. You don't think that Ben is 3rd mondial because he's one of the best ? Or that Jay Kistoff, Kamel Senni, Francois Morand, Stefan Ferenci etc. are and have been for years among the best just because they play this game better than the rest ? Well, I don't believe in Fate, so I do believe in skill. > > I can't sit > > down at a table with Kasparov and win. > Nor could I. But a computer can, while it is unthinkable to consider that > anything short of an Artificial Intelligence could conceive a VTES deck and > win playing it.So, what does that prove ? > I think you're overestimating how difficult it would be to program a VTES playing machine. I'm pretty sure it could be done, and it could probably be done very well. Hell, I could probably write a pen and paper algorithm for playing stealth bleed that would work reasonably well. Chess is naturally easier to teach to a computer, given the nature of the game, and people have been doing it for years. I can't see any reason however that VTES couldn't be played by a computer. I see many, but the main one is the importance of the Human Factor in VTES. > Anyone with a background in computer theory care to weigh in on this? It would be interesting. > What is "rigorous" ? > By rigorous I mean that it requires lots of time and energy to be good at it. Something that takes mor time and energy is more rigorous, while something that takes less time and energy is less rigorous. Sorry if that wasn't clear. Ok. Then, seeing the time and energy VTES requires before you can achieve even relative "goodness", I must say it looks pretty rigorous to me !! >The differences are too many to even dare compare the > two, and yes, one includes randomness and one doesn't, but that's about it. > You prove absolutely nothing, except maybe that Chess has been studied so > thoroughly over the centuries that it's become way to rigid in my book (I > much prefer Go anytime, and *that* is a game worthy of playing all your life > !!). > Go also has a wide body of established theory and opening combinations if I've heard correctly, but I really don't know anything about it. It isn't as rigid as chess, in that every situation has its dynamics you have to understand rather than just its follow-ups you have to know by heart. > VTES also has a fair amount of established theory at this point, and there are a number of decks that are known to work very well, and which can be found multiple times with little to no change in the TWDA. The only reason I can see that people continue to play decks other than these is that the game is about more than competition. It is, of course !! I couldn't disagree with that, and wouldn't play it if it was ONLY about competition !! But I'd like you to admit it is ALSO about competition (which seems obvious to me, with the championships, ranking system and all...). As for the decks, there are many other reasons : not being where you are expected, adapting to current / local metagame, etc. But the main concepts are "always" the same in big tournies finals (and I don't like it). > > So my point is that if people are so crazy about competition that they > > get upset by the possibility of cheating to the extent of applying > > totally annoying and unnecessary rules, then they're probably playing > > the wrong game. > > LOOOOOOL. Wanna know why I didn't answer to that in the first place ? > Because, with all due respect, it doesn't make any sense !! You make > arguments that prove only that "Chess is less random that VTES", which is an > evidence, you try to prove on the way that "success in VTES is random", > which is totally false, and you conclude that "if players want to avoid > cheating they're playing the wrong game" !! How you could even think this > was a reasonnable proposition is beyond me. > Maybe I should restate for clarity: people who are looking for a purely competetive endeavour should probably look elsewhere than VTES. I mean it. But I don't mean to say that VTES isn't, can't be, or shouldn't be competetive. It is clearer, and not at all what I understood from your previous statements. This being said, I don't think people do anything just for competition : they have to like the discipline (sport, game, pissing contest, whatever) first !! > To compare what can be compared, the only way in which Poker is more > competitive than VTES is because money is involved ; > I disagree, but I don't really know the game that well. As far as I can tell, Poker is a lot harder than VTES, and you sure as hell can't give a new player a Kindred Spirits deck and watch him win. A new player won't win with a KS deck at a good table. Poker requires skill, that is for sure, but so does VTES. And it seems that some skills are very close concerning bluff, "reading" other players etc. I don't know if this is a part of how you play VTES, but for me it's a very important factor. I've seen players with good decks and a very good teacher "master" not the game but one or two decktypes in 6 months, which was very, very fast ; but then, Poker also has such stories, urban legends etc. This is the exception, the rule takes much, much longer. Also, in both games I believe in "you play as you are", so being an adult with some expertise in human relations helps a lot. >that is the case in > Magic (which I despise partly because of that). VTES doesn't involve money, > and players have a great spirit, as a community and as individuals for a > great part, I've met great people over the years in this game (just like > with RPGs before), but it's still very competitive : as already said, you > have to make the others lose in order to win. > We can leave Magic out of most discussions on the grounds that it sucks. Other than that, no problem with anything here. > Even the RPGs, which seem like the less competitive game ever, had > tournaments ; and I organised more than a few, I can tell U that you have to > think of many ways to avoid cheating (players who like each other and cheat > in noting) or simply to make a good rating system or the tournament. And yes > : the results were often more "random" than in VTES, but still a few names > always came on top (and a few on the bottom). > RPG tournaments? Seriously? Now I know you people have your heads screwed on crooked about competition. looooool. It's been done all over the world, probably beginning in the US, so I wouldn't know what you mean with "you people". > If you don't want to play competitive VTES it's your own prerogative and I > totally respect that ! Really, I do : it's just a game, after all ! > I do play competitive VTES, if by that you mean playing in tournaments. What I mean is going to tournaments, trying to win them, going to big events and do the same. > And I do think that winning a tournament is generally a mark of good play. But I'm much more impressed by someone who can win a major Chess tournament than a major VTES tournament. I can imagine myself doing the latter, but probably not the former. Ok, so it's your own personnal feeling. It doesn't mean much in terms of VTES being "competitive" or not. > But if some people want to play it competitivly, there should be safeguards > against cheating, because a few assholes who don't understand that there is > no glory in winning by cheating can ruin the competiting pleasure of many > players. > I would look to change the culture of play that makes people think it's worth it to cheat, and vigorously weed out those assholes (who are probably no fun to be around as well). Good luck doing that, mate. > I wouldn't require players to use sleeves. OMMV then. > Hope that clears some of the fog between us. > Maybe. I think some of the fog is that you're simply misconstruing what I'm saying, as your responses to me clearly indicate. It looks like we both were. Takes two to communicate. We might be getting there, ever-so-slowly... -- Orpheus ------------------------- "You'll regret being so damn abusive when the electric UFO gods transphase in from dimension ten to appoint me manager of the universe". The Drummer, in Planetary.

> >> The judge is allowed to force people suspected of marking their cards > >> to use the opaque sleeves. It needn't be a blanket restriction. > > > > Maybe I wasn't clear enough. Only players with mixed Jyhad and VTES card > > backs under certain proportions have to use opaque sleeves ; but as it was > > the case of most of us we got used to sleeve, period. > > OK, to reitarate: this line of discussion started when someone - apparently from > France - stated that there was a blanket restriction against unsleeved card > decks at all tournaments in France. If you're not defending such a restriction, > I don't know what you're posting to defend. So we are now all aquiver with > confusion. I'll respond to the rest after a good night's sleep maybe, but to my knowledge that "someone" has slightly stretched the facts : it is the case in Championships, and in cities where competition is the norm, and only for decks with mixed backs ; by extension, some players / organisers apply it irrestrictively. You'll notice my posts have always spoken of championships. But Oliver plays mostly big tournaments, hence the confusion maybe. ;-) Going to sleep now. My bed has an opaque sleeve, of course ! Orpheus, competitive sleeper.

Orpheus wrote: > Maybe I wasn't clear enough. Only players with mixed Jyhad and VTES card > backs under certain proportions have to use opaque sleeves ; but as it was > the case of most of us we got used to sleeve, period. As Fred points out, someone stated that in France, everyone uses opaque sleeves by mandate. And even then, that someone is using mixed backs does not indicate that they are cheating. Or even trying to cheat. If you as the judge are suspicious, look at the deck in question--if there is a noticable pattern to what cards have what backs (i.e. all Masters are VTES or something), then you say "You should sleeve that deck". Otherwise, leave everyone to do what they want. > I'm pretty sure some players in tournaments where this isn't asked cheat in > that way, and will use 3rd Ed to the same goals (even maybe unconsciously : > "it's upside down so it's 3rd Ed so it isn't a Parity Shift" or whatever). How are you sure of this? And if you *are* sure of this, why not DQ them, rather than forcing everyone to behave in manner X to prevent cheat Y? And as mentioned elsewhere, if people are planning on cheating by using the card backs like this, and you foil them by making them use opaque sleeves, how do you foil them from cheating in other ways? Do you shuffle their decks? Do you count their staring pool? Do you pay all of their costs for them? If someone is set on cheating, they will cheat, regardless of opaque card sleeves or not, as the game has countless ways to cheat that aren't easy to foil. Assuming that folks are planning on cheating and trying to stop them is a way of madness, as you *can't* stop someone from cheating if they really want to. So why punish the vast majority of folks who *aren't* planning on cheating? > And sleeves are good for your cards anyway ! I prefer to have cards in not as good condition and no sleeves. Should I use sleeves even though I don't want to? -Peter

> Be careful, some people here consider trolling as offensive, you might not > want to admit you did some on purpose. Yeah. I should make a blanket rule for myself about not posting while tired and/or drinking, both of which I happen to be right now. I guess I'll have to be on a little more guard. > When someone begins by not saying anything of interest it takes some time > for me to give them any credit. Reasonable I suppose. But it was *a lot* more than 5 words. > Really ? So you'll accuse a player with Jyhad Minion Taps of cheating ? Will > you see it ? Will you ask a judge to verify his game ? If it were clear that a player did something in order to cheat, then yeah I'd accuse him of cheating. I wouldn't have to call a judge because I'm the prince of my (rather small) playgroup. >Wouldn't it be easier if he didn't have access to that info in the first place ? Sure. But it's been brought up numerous times that cheaters will cheat no matter hard you try to make it for them. I think the best way to make it so that people won't cheat is just to make the game as fun and relaxed as possible, and the l33tness that seems evident when people mandate sleeving flies against that right from the getgo. > And which can be seen and remedied quite easily. I'd figure that this kind of cheating is much harder to catch than using marked cards, and certainly worse for the game, but I could be wrong. > > You're making a straw man argument here. I never said that VTES results > are random, or that experience and strategy have nothing to do with > winning. > > That's what you suggest by what you said above. No. It just isn't. What I've said is that other games are less random and require more experience, which I would translate as being more rigorous. Full stop. > There are many more players at Chess so attaining any position is harder, > but being top seed in VTES is nothing easy. Believe me, I'm on my way up and > still so far from the top !! ;-) Sure. But any argument you make about "Chess is harder because X, Y, or Z" reinforces my point. I never said VTES was easy. Just not as hard. > Not true. Chess has much less rules than VTES, and many, many less > combinations. The only thing is : in chess they're all mathematical and can > be learned by heart, that's all. You're saying it requires less training, I > disagree : in 4-10 years one can become very good at chess ; most of the > best VTES players have been at it since '94, and have played every week, > sometimes many games a week. It might be pleasurable but it's still pretty > intense training in my book. It is not possible to learn Chess by heart. It seems like you've looked into competetive Chess to some degree, and it is certainly that people can and will learn openings up to 10 or even 15 moves by heart, but after that it becomes more or less impossible for a human being to store that information, as the number of possible good moves accrues exponentially. This is a tangent that isn't totally relevent though. > Can you piss higher than him ? I could ask him he'd like to find out..... .... > > In fact I think of won about 50% of the games I've played with Ben, > though the sample size is admittedly small. > > Well then, you must be ranked quite well ! What is your real name / VEKN > number ? Nope. Not ranked well. At all. I've played in 5 constructed tournaments, and for some bizarre reason my results are only entered for the 3 that I didn't make it to the finals. My feeling is that the ranking system probably doesn't correspond as well to actual skill as you think it does, though clearly the people at the top are very good players. > > I think that many VTES players, > possibly even most of us, tend to play decks that we know aren't as > good as Malk 94, even at tournaments. > > I disagree. Malk 94 isn't efficient anymore, because players are warned > about it and can act against it. !Malk works much better now because it can > deal crosstable, and that is very important right now, while it didn't > matter 12 years ago. Ok sure. But the point still stands. Just replace Malk 94 with !Malk 99. > You don't think that Ben is 3rd mondial because he's one of the best ? Or > that Jay Kistoff, Kamel Senni, Francois Morand, Stefan Ferenci etc. are and > have been for years among the best just because they play this game better > than the rest ? Well, I don't believe in Fate, so I do believe in skill. Dude, you're making logical leaps from what I actually said. Ben is a great player for sure. I'm gonna bet that those other guys are too. But the structure of VTES vs. the structure of many other competetive activities makes it much more likely that someone like me can beat those guys, whereas I certainly can't beat a Chess GM. > Ok. Then, seeing the time and energy VTES requires before you can achieve > even relative "goodness", I must say it looks pretty rigorous to me !! Compared to something like Pogs, sure. Compared to those other things I've mentioned, not really. > It isn't as rigid as chess, in that every situation has its dynamics you > have to understand rather than just its follow-ups you have to know by > heart. Again, that just isn't how Chess works. Go is just as much a deterministic game as Chess, so I don't really see why it should be all that different, but I really don't anything about it. > It is, of course !! I couldn't disagree with that, and wouldn't play it if > it was ONLY about competition !! But I'd like you to admit it is ALSO about > competition (which seems obvious to me, with the championships, ranking > system and all...). Right. But I've never said that VTES isn't about competition. My point is that people shouldn't get all worked about ratings and championships to the extent that some seem to, not that they shouldn't exist. My leap from there is that people who get it in their head that winning really matters for some reason are more likely to cheat. > As for the decks, there are many other reasons : not being where you are > expected, adapting to current / local metagame, etc. But the main concepts > are "always" the same in big tournies finals (and I don't like it). I don't think anyone likes it, except for the few people who still feel cool winning with Arika. > > Maybe I should restate for clarity: people who are looking for a purely > competetive endeavour should probably look elsewhere than VTES. I mean > it. But I don't mean to say that VTES isn't, can't be, or shouldn't be > competetive. > > It is clearer, and not at all what I understood from your previous > statements. Perhaps I should review my posts, but I really don't think I said anything too far from the encapsulated point above. > This being said, I don't think people do anything just for competition : > they have to like the discipline (sport, game, pissing contest, whatever) > first !! Yeah sure. But there are still some people who seriously care about winning, and others who just aren't as concerned. Since VTES is so socially and creatively oriented, I'd much rather play with the latter. > A new player won't win with a KS deck at a good table. Poker requires skill, > that is for sure, but so does VTES. And it seems that some skills are very > close concerning bluff, "reading" other players etc. I don't know if this is > a part of how you play VTES, but for me it's a very important factor. Idunno. We gave a Magic player a KS deck the other night and he won twice in a row. He'd never played VTES before. I'll grant that some of us were playing subpar decks, but it is clear that there are available strategies for VTES that would the rough equivalent of riding a motorcycle in the Tour de France. > > RPG tournaments? Seriously? Now I know you people have your heads > screwed on crooked about competition. > > looooool. It's been done all over the world, probably beginning in the US, > so I wouldn't know what you mean with "you people". Wow. I've seriously never heard of such a thing before you mentioned it in this thread, and I've been involved in games for a fair bit of time. I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that I'm surprised about any sort of pointless competition that came from the US. I mean, have you seen the TV we produce? Is it fair to say that "you people" is a totally arbitrary grouping that includes you? > What I mean is going to tournaments, trying to win them, going to big events > and do the same. Yeah sure, though sadly the big events are typically way out of my price range when all the travel and stuff gets added up. > Ok, so it's your own personnal feeling. It doesn't mean much in terms of > VTES being "competitive" or not. Well not quite. I think I've made some arguments that can be evaluated with more solid ground than simple personal feelings, whether they are correct or not.

> > You don't think that Ben is 3rd mondial because he's one of the best ? Or > > that Jay Kistoff, Kamel Senni, Francois Morand, Stefan Ferenci etc. are and > > have been for years among the best just because they play this game better > > than the rest ? Well, I don't believe in Fate, so I do believe in skill. > > Dude, Hurley, I recognized you now ! ,-) > you're making logical leaps from what I actually said. Ben is a > great player for sure. I'm gonna bet that those other guys are too. You can bet ! > But the structure of VTES vs. the structure of many other competetive > activities makes it much more likely that someone like me can beat > those guys, whereas I certainly can't beat a Chess GM. > > > Ok. Then, seeing the time and energy VTES requires before you can achieve > > even relative "goodness", I must say it looks pretty rigorous to me !! > > Compared to something like Pogs, sure. Compared to those other things > I've mentioned, not really. Compared to every other game you can mention including randomness (mostly card games) you can. It avails to nothing comparing games without randomness to games with a random factor. But if what you're really comparing (and it seems that it's your point) is the competitiveness and not the randomness, any game where there are winners and losers and precise rules and that requires some skill can be played competitively, and that's the case for VTES. I mean, to me checkers is the most simplistic game ever, and some people compete with it. There is no point comparing the merits of various games, really (I went into your game just for the sake of logic but it's really out-of-subject). Is Othello / Reversi as complex as Go ? No. But still there are competitions of it. It is also much more recent, and the arguments you made about VTES could have been made about Reversi in the 80's. It's still a pretty good game, and one played competitivly, even if it's much easier to become World Champion at Reversi than at Chess because of the number of players. These 2 games can be compared, and still one doesn't take from the other. So I don't think your comparison is of any use, really. > > It isn't as rigid as chess, in that every situation has its dynamics you > > have to understand rather than just its follow-ups you have to know by > > heart. > > Again, that just isn't how Chess works. We agree that only the, as you said, 10-15 first moves can be learned by heart. It's already waaaaaay too much for me, as I like inventivity over repetitivity anytime (as the decks I play tend to prove). But the very, very good players are mostly the ones who can digest even more combinations and project the situation in the way a computer could, with some inventiveness too but not that much. > Go is just as much a > deterministic game as Chess, so I don't really see why it should be all > that different, but I really don't anything about it. It is more based on inventivity and individuality than Chess, because you are totally free in your moves (although of course some are good and some are bad) and you play accordingly to your character : more or less offensive, defensive, "close or long range" etc. ; it is a very good simulation of a japanese medieval battlefield and exploits tactics and strategy to the fullest ; in both these points : playing what you are and being a good simulation of conflicting interests, it is very close to VTES. Main differences for me would be : no talk to influence the opponent, non-randomness, no deck building (but then that's for every non-TC / figurine game), and a big difference in spirit is that you don't need to "kill" your opponent as in chess or VTES, only to score a little more points than him (as in Reversi) although it's comparable to VTES on a tournament scale (as opposed to eleminating rounds). > > It is, of course !! I couldn't disagree with that, and wouldn't play it if > > it was ONLY about competition !! But I'd like you to admit it is ALSO about > > competition (which seems obvious to me, with the championships, ranking > > system and all...). > > Right. But I've never said that VTES isn't about competition. My > point is that people shouldn't get all worked about ratings and > championships to the extent that some seem to, not that they shouldn't > exist. My leap from there is that people who get it in their head that > winning really matters for some reason are more likely to cheat. No. Only people who think winning no matter what the cost proves something in itself - which it doesn't, if yuo cheat. There are lots of players who love playing competitivly but do not abide cheating. At all. > > As for the decks, there are many other reasons : not being where you are > > expected, adapting to current / local metagame, etc. But the main concepts > > are "always" the same in big tournies finals (and I don't like it). > > I don't think anyone likes it, except for the few people who still feel > cool winning with Arika. I think the VTES players's attitude towards competitiveness can be broken into the following categories : - players who are ready to do anything to win, including cheating (may they rot in Cleveland - I don't believe in Hell) ;-) - players who are ready to do anything to win, with the exclusion of cheating - including playing boring decks that everyone has played before - players who want to win but also want to enjoy playing and create their own decks (I'm among those, although in less important tournaments I fall in the next category) - players who like to win too but before all want to enjoy playing, to the point of trying fun, stupid or very under-optimized decks (me sometimes, you ?) - players who don't care at all about winning (and think the "play to win" rule is stupid) ; those players very soon either drop the tournaments, change their view, or drop the game altogether. Yes ? So the Category 2 feel cool winning with Arika, or Legacy of Pander, or Palla Grande, or TGB, or whatever ; and judging by the results of NAC, EC etc from the past years, there are quite a lot of those around. > > > Maybe I should restate for clarity: people who are looking for a purely > > competetive endeavour should probably look elsewhere than VTES. I mean > > it. But I don't mean to say that VTES isn't, can't be, or shouldn't be > > competetive. > > > > It is clearer, and not at all what I understood from your previous > > statements. > > Perhaps I should review my posts, but I really don't think I said > anything too far from the encapsulated point above. See below. > > This being said, I don't think people do anything just for competition : > > they have to like the discipline (sport, game, pissing contest, whatever) > > first !! > > Yeah sure. But there are still some people who seriously care about > winning, and others who just aren't as concerned. Since VTES is so > socially and creatively oriented, I'd much rather play with the latter. A choice, as I said, that I understand and respect. But not everyone feels as you do (obviously) and you should accept that too. If you feel that "pure competition" doesn't define VTES, maybe we should call it "creative competition", and that part might be what appeals so much to me in this game (and Heroclix, the only other game I practice where you choose what you play with). It is still a form of competition, and a valid one. > > A new player won't win with a KS deck at a good table. Poker requires skill, > > that is for sure, but so does VTES. And it seems that some skills are very > > close concerning bluff, "reading" other players etc. I don't know if this is > > a part of how you play VTES, but for me it's a very important factor. > > Idunno. We gave a Magic player a KS deck the other night and he won > twice in a row. He'd never played VTES before. Ok. We're not talking total beginner here. Magic players have developped tactical skills already, what they will often lack are multi-player skills and dealing / bluffing skills. Give a simple deck to a seasonned poker player and he probably will impress you too. It's like if you get into a new sport and your athlete neighbour does too : he will probably get it better than you (well, surely better than me !). > I'll grant that some > of us were playing subpar decks, While you gave him a good deck. Point taken. > but it is clear that there are > available strategies for VTES that would the rough equivalent of riding > a motorcycle in the Tour de France. lol. Agreed. Trouble is : in big tournies, everyone rides motorcycles, except the ones who want to run in a motocross with a tricycle. ;-) That is my difficulty in every tournament : competing with Arika and co but not playing them. It's very hard, so when I achieve anything I'm twice as proud as I would have been if I'd played the same decks as "everyone" else. But I have to make concessions and try to go for a good, if personnal, deck anyway, because I know that I'm nowhere good enough to win with average decks if players as good as me have better decks. In Go, you can give a handicap to less good players (as if you had some less pawns in Chess, only better included in the rules) ; I consider that it's the same at VTES : a better player can win with an inferior deck, but with equal skill you need equal decks if you want to have a chance. > > > RPG tournaments? Seriously? Now I know you people have your heads > > screwed on crooked about competition. > > > > looooool. It's been done all over the world, probably beginning in the US, > > so I wouldn't know what you mean with "you people". > > Wow. I've seriously never heard of such a thing before you mentioned > it in this thread, and I've been involved in games for a fair bit of > time. I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that I'm surprised about any > sort of pointless competition that came from the US. I mean, have you > seen the TV we produce? LOOOOOOOL. Unfortunately I have, but I mostly watched movies on HBO and such. But what is more competitive than stupid TV games ? And not even a good level of competition for most of them... Back on track, I believe Gen Con has included RPG tournaments for years (it does here, please americans correct me if I'm wrong) ; might not anymore though as the RPG trend faded away. D & D even have a new scenario format that is "made" for playing in events, with short stories that don't leave much time for true roleplaying (well, it's D & D...), has a "reward" program and all, it doesn't get much more competitive than this (and it stinks). Not talking about the shit mentionned above, but RPG tournaments were a way to meet people, play with new players, and try to be the best player / GM you could be, all in all it was very nice and about much more than just competing ; still, in the tournaments with good evaluation systems, the best came on top. And just so you know who's the Chief : I won quite a few prize in RPG tournaments as the best Cthulhu Gamemaster, so who's my kitty now ? ;-) > Is it fair to say that "you people" is a totally arbitrary grouping > that includes you? > > > What I mean is going to tournaments, trying to win them, going to big events > > and do the same. > > Yeah sure, though sadly the big events are typically way out of my > price range when all the travel and stuff gets added up. Tell me about it... :-( > > Ok, so it's your own personnal feeling. It doesn't mean much in terms of > > VTES being "competitive" or not. > > Well not quite. I think I've made some arguments that can be evaluated > with more solid ground than simple personal feelings, whether they are > correct or not. I was referring precisely to the point you didn't quote, not to your general arguments. Anyway, it's weird because we seem to share quite a few viewpoints ; but it seems we disagree on how seriously an organisation should take a big event ; for me, it should be very seriously. And discouraging an obvious way of cheating is good, the less ways there are the better the others can be tracked down. [On an aside, there is a much more important thing in big events : having good judges who know the rules well, and on that account I must say I'm proud of how the FC was handled, comparing to a EC where I was very, very disappointed by many judges, to the point where the - excellent - Head Judge, or LSJ, had to be called every time.] [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] According to the veknfrance, *all* decks are required to use sleeves at the Paris ECQ. babelfish: "Use obligatorily opaque protect-charts (even if your deck is composed at 100% charts with back Jyhad)." raw french: Utilisez obligatoirement des protège-cartes opaques (même si votre deck est composé à 100% de cartes à dos Jyhad). I should also note, it's *easier* to play with a marked deck if you use sleeves, as it enables you to simply mark the sleeves and keep the marks from deck to deck. That's why they used to be banned in all CCG tournaments. [ quoted text not captured ]

> it is the case > in Championships, and in cities where competition is the norm, and only for > decks with mixed backs ; by extension, some players / organisers apply it > irrestrictively. You'll notice my posts have always spoken of championships. > But Oliver plays mostly big tournaments, hence the confusion maybe. ;-) > According to the veknfrance, *all* decks are required to use sleeves at the Paris ECQ. Ok, well it's a big tournament, and it avoids having to check all decks. It's fine with me. > I should also note, it's *easier* to play with a marked deck if you use sleeves, as it enables you to simply mark the sleeves and keep the marks from deck to deck. That's why they used to be banned in all CCG tournaments. It might be easier to really add marks, but then that is obvious cheating and I think very, very few players would risk that. While one can always pretend he didn't think about which cards were Jyhad or not, and won't risk being banned out of the community. While some people are known for stretching the rules, very few would want to be labelled out as pure cheaters (and as pointed out, there isn't enough money to be made in VTES to justify that : we're not in Magic or Poker). [ quoted text not captured ]

Orpheus wrote: > It might be easier to really add marks, but then that is obvious cheating No, the slightly split card end, slightly discolored sleeve, and slight angled ends are very hard to notice. > While one can always > pretend he didn't think about which cards were Jyhad or not, and won't risk > being banned out of the community. "Oh, sorry, I didn't realize these sleeves were that old." [ quoted text not captured ]

Orpheus wrote: > Ok, well it's a big tournament, and it avoids having to check all decks. It's fine with me. Why would you have to check all the decks? Again, that is assuming that someone intends on cheating. And if they intend on cheating by virtue of card back abuse, and you foil that by forcing sleeves, how do you stop them from cheating in the other ways that it is easy to cheat? If you assume someone is going to cheat, you need to assume that they are going to cheat. Which means that you need to, in addition to making folks sleeve their decks, count their decks, shuffle their decks, count their pool, check their crypts, shuffle their crypts, pay all their costs for them, audit their pool every turn, and so on. Assuming that the only way someone is going to cheat is that they are going to abuse card backs, and trying to combat that, while leaving all other avenues for cheating open (as you *can't* audit everyone's pool use, for example) is pointless. > It might be easier to really add marks, but then that is obvious cheating > and I think very, very few players would risk that. How is it any more obvious than abusing card backs? If anyone flips through their deck at any point, it is very easy to notice that all of their Masters are Jyhad or something. And if you think people won't risk obvious cheating by marking their card sleeves, why do you think they'll risk cheating at all? Cheating tends to be an all or nothing sort of situation--either someone is willing to cheat (and will do so by any means available) or they aren't. Like, I don't know what kind of folks you play cards with, but folks I tend to run into are of the "I'm unwilling to cheat" variety, as it is a fun card game with very little on the line, and their sense of "I'm not a psychotic dick who needs to cheat at a goofy CCG" vastly outweighs their sense "I MUST WIN!" So they don't cheat either by virtue of obvious ways to cheat (i.e. abusing card backs) or by less obvious ways to cheat (pool manipulation and deck stacking). Why is there an assumption that people will cheat in the first place? > While one can always pretend he didn't think about which cards were Jyhad or not, and won't risk > being banned out of the community. One can also pretend he didn't know that the sleeves had those nicks on them. Or they can pretend they accidentally started with 32 pool. Or they can pretend that they accidentally only lost 4 pool to that bleed when it should have been 5. It is *really* reasy to cheat in this game, if you are inclined to do so. And really hard to catch someone cheating (how do you know they stacked their deck? Is someone counting every point of pool that moves in and out of their control? If they "forget" to pass the edge, and "accidentally" collect the pool for posessing it, and no one notices, how do you stop that?) So why bother assuming folks are going to cheat, and then punishing everyone for it? -Peter

CthuluKitty wrote: > > > > I mean really. If you want to play a competitive game play Poker. Or > > > Chess. Or Football. Or warfare. VTES just isn't up there with those > > > games in terms of competitive rigor, which is probably good. > > > > A viewpoint I just cannot share. VTES is very competitive. Each > > player has the goal of eliminating all other players, starting with his > > prey. It doesn't get much more competitive than that. > > I'm sorry you don't share my viewpoint, but I'm still pretty convinced > that it's correct. I'm not saying that VTES isn't a competive game... But that is what you said. "If you want to play a competitive game play <something else>" I'd still like to see how you think a multiplayer game involving the elimination of all players is not as competitive as some other game? You are getting sidetracked by this use of 'rigor' and the like and comparisons of what it takes to adequately learn a game/sport, which is not the same as playing competitively, althought certainly the 2 are entwined. That and you basically admit in a later post that its all about simply saying that you dislike the french sleeves rule, and are therefore apparently casting about for ways to deride it, and this is far from the best choice of demonstation imo. > > So my point is that if people are so crazy about competition that they > get upset by the possibility of cheating to the extent of applying > totally annoying and unnecessary rules, then they're probably playing > the wrong game. > How so? Perhaps these people have good reason to be 'crazy' about this due to past exeperiences? And more importantly, it is not the game that is wrong at all, it is the people that create these experiences, and who therefore would do the same probably no matter what the game was? I think the rule is silly too...but that is based on my experiences, which are different from others. I think the 'vtes is not as competitive as other games' line of thought is very very relative and not helpful at all. G

[ quoted text not captured ] So if I was in Europe for a holiday, and I happen to decide, while I'm in France, to participate in a french tournament, there is then an automatic assumption that I cheat?!?!?!?!?!? And if I did not have sleeves, perhaps because I dont use them, I would be excluded from your tournament, not because I cannot play VtES, or because I dont have cards or a deck, but because I did not spend what I felt to be unnecassary money on SLEEVES!!!? forgive my saying this, but that is ludicrous, elitist, and as has been said, stupid. Plus I would love to see someone tell me I cannnot compete because I did not have sleeves. Really. Go ahead.

Blooded Sand wrote: > So if I was in Europe for a holiday, and I happen to decide, while I'm > in France, to participate in a french tournament, there is then an > automatic assumption that I cheat?!?!?!?!?!? Wouldnt it be nice, to become a liitle bit serious? If i play in an american tournament and they want a decklist, do they assume i am cheating? > And if I did not have > sleeves, perhaps because I dont use them, I would be excluded from your > tournament, not because I cannot play VtES, or because I dont have > cards or a deck, but because I did not spend what I felt to be > unnecassary money on SLEEVES!!!? forgive my saying this, but that is > ludicrous, elitist, and as has been said, stupid. Plus I would love to > see someone tell me I cannnot compete because I did not have sleeves. > Really. Go ahead. I am one of those guys who also think the french judges have too much rules that are not official. Yes, they are something like control freaks. But if i play in a tournament by someone who made all the work to organize a tournament, i will not discuss his rules. If i cannot smoke in the environment, i go outside, if i need a decklist, i write one, if i need sleeves, i buy them or ask someone who has a second sleeved deck, if he borrows them to me. And if i dont like all the rules, i dont play in his tournament. Very simple. Frank

On 20 Aug 2006 06:06:45 -0700, x5m...@gmx.de wrote: >If i play in an american tournament and they want a decklist, do they >assume i am cheating? No. They assume you want your deck in the tournament winning deck archive. -------------------------- Over 600 Tournament Winning Decks are archived here: By date: http://www.thelasombra.com/decks/twd.htm By average capacity: http://www.thelasombra.com/decks/capacity-twd.htm By clan: http://www.thelasombra.com/decks/clan-twd.htm To get your deck added to the archive, do the following: 1) Schedule a standard constructed deck tournament thru the following V:EKN event calendar: http://www.white-wolf.com/events/add.php 2) Notice that storyline tournament winning decks and multi-deck tournament winners are not archived on this page. 3) Type up a tournament report and post it to the Usenet newsgroup: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad 4) Include the following information in your report: a) Name of Event b) location of event c) date of event d) number of players in attendance at event e) the correct full name of the winning player f) the entire correct contents of the deck 5) After reading your report, I will verify that it was on the official schedule, and if it had 10 or more players in attendance, I will add the deck to the archive with no additional work on your part. Claim your 15 minutes of fame.

x5m...@gmx.de wrote: > I am one of those guys who also think the french judges have too much > rules that are not official. Yes, they are something like control > freaks. But if i play in a tournament by someone who made all the work > to organize a tournament, i will not discuss his rules. If i cannot > smoke in the environment, i go outside, if i need a decklist, i write > one, if i need sleeves, i buy them or ask someone who has a second > sleeved deck, if he borrows them to me. And if i dont like all the > rules, i dont play in his tournament. Very simple. > > Frank The point here being that a decklist is a VEKN requirement, as anyone who has ever organised a tournament should know. Requiring sleeves is an arbitrary decision by a local body, not VEKN. That is the problem. Hey, if you play with sleeves great, but what if you dont? And who is going to lend 100+ sleeves to a complete stranger, who happens to be foreign (in France...), at a large tournament?

<x5m...@gmx.de> wrote in message news:1156079205.8...@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com... > If i play in an american tournament and they want a decklist, do they > assume i am cheating? There is an explicit tournament rule permitting organizers to require a decklist (6.3). There is no such rule about sleeves. > I am one of those guys who also think the french judges have too much > rules that are not official. Yes, they are something like control > freaks. But if i play in a tournament by someone who made all the work > to organize a tournament, i will not discuss his rules. If i cannot > smoke in the environment, i go outside, if i need a decklist, i write > one, if i need sleeves, i buy them or ask someone who has a second > sleeved deck, if he borrows them to me. And if i dont like all the > rules, i dont play in his tournament. Very simple. If a tournament is not a VEKN tournament, it is that simple, I agree. For organizers to advertise a VEKN tournament, they need to run it by VEKN standards. If they don't want to use those standards, they shouldn't hold such tournaments. Also very simple. Fred

Blooded Sand wrote: > And who is going to lend 100+ sleeves to a complete stranger, who > happens to be foreign (in France...), at a large tournament? If the Frech are anything like the French players I know - almost all of the them (if they happen to have them around). I regularly carry extra sleeves. Must come from my organiser/judge past. There's a lot of good organisation in France as well. (Of course, if some French player happens to disagree, he's probably more correct than I am). Tobias

[ quoted text not captured ] Cool!!! If you in South Africa, we would even lend you a deck. And we don't care if it's sleeved or not. See, we don't need to to disqualify cheaters. We just feed them to the lions..... ;)