2005 VTES Tasmanian Qualifier:
So for the first time the Vampire players of Hobart turned out to do
battle, to determine who would be worthy enough to go onto the VTES
Australian Championship. The Hobart Tournament was graced with the
presence of four Melbourne players, which brought with them an
interesting array of different styles and ideas. So twelve Methuselah
settled down to do battle and determine who would be unworthy.
Players: Deck Concept:
Stewart MacLeod Bali Unblockable Bleed
Merrick Hughes Euro Brujah Toolbox
Michael Watt Gangrel-Anti, Enduki Takes the World
Steven Bergmann Black Hand Toolbox
Dan Bondeson Gangrel Toolbox
Martin Ryan Tremere-Anti Toolbox
Richard Aumann Toreador Toolbox
Chris Cook Giovanni Recycle and Re-use
Sam Mazur Nosferatu Toolbox
Steve VanNus Assamite Intercept/Swarm
Damien Hennessy Weenie Obf Bleed with Coolers
Andrew Blesson Brujah-Anti, Bruise/Bleed
I'm only able to comment on the tables I played at, as all my games
nearly ran to time.
I'm Damien Hennessy, the only player to take cheese.
Table 3: Round 1:
Sam Mazur (Nossie Toolbox) >
Steve VanNus (Assamite Intercept/Swarm)>
(Me) Damien Hennessy (Weenie Obf Bleed with Coolers)>
Andrew Blesson (Brujah-Anti, Bruise/Bleed)>
Bless started with his steam-roller tactics and rolled in Sam who bleed
forward a little but mainly defended against the !Brujah. I slowly
brought out vampires and bleed into Bless, Steve seemed content to sit
and watch during the early. I mistakenly thought Steve said he used
some cool looking skull counters for his "Week of Nightmares" where
he said "Web of Knives". I suddenly seemed to think I had a weenie
Ravonos Bleed deck behind me, so I brought out more minions and bloatd
via Coolers/Blood Doll.
Everyone bleed forward, with some combat between Bless and Sam, which
saw Sam's vampire being decapitated. Steve was able to talk the
others into identifying me as the table threat, something to do with
the growing horde of weenie Obf vampires and my large pool supply. I
ousted Bless before he could take Sam and simply rolled through Sam the
following turn, mostly thanks to Bless's efforts. Steve held me off
with a combination of intercept locations and Tariq rushing vampires. I
decked out as I brought Steve down to 2 pool, but my final eight cards
were all Blood Dolls :(
One more stealth card would have seen me eliminate Steve. I conceded as
I didn't have enough vampires to swarm past his defenses and a handful
of Blood Dolls.
Me 2VPs, Steve VanNus 2VPs.
Amusing moments:
Steve and his quote "As an act of Good Will...."
Table 1: Round 2:
Damien Hennessy (Weenie Obf Bleed with Coolers) >
Stewart MacLeod (Bali Unblockable Bleed) >
Chris Cook (Giovanni Recycle and Re-use) >
Merrick Hughes (Euro-Brujah Toolbox) >
I started off slowly, not wishing to be identified as a table threat
early in the game. I only ended up bringing out a single vampire and
slowly bleed away at Stewart's pool, while pulling vampires from my
crypt. I kept the vampires one blood off from coming out, deciding
I'd attempt to swarm Stewart once he was down to about ten pool.
Merrick went backwards and pounded Chris' Giovanni into torpor till he
had no pressure. I tried to swarm Stewart in one turn but discovered
Ahrimetes?, the Immortal. That effectively stopped my deck and allowed
Stewart to oust Chris.
Unable to really roll forward, I simply walled up as Merrick attacked.
Through I did continue to peck away at Stewart's pool with the odd
computer hacking.
Merrick was talked into killing me by Stewart as my offer of a deal,
get rid of Arhtemtes and let me oust Stewart was snupped by Merrick. So
I simply walled up, used Cooler/Blood Dolls to bloat and threw
everything I had spare backwards against his Brujah. Many vampires went
to torpor that day as the Brujah stomped the living crap out of the
Cooler deck. Merrick ended up decking out and was left with seven cards
in his hand when he finally killed me.
Stewart nearly managed to take down Merrick towards the end in a very
close game.
Merrick 1GW, 3VPs, Stewart 1VP
Amusing moments:
- Chris pissing Merrick off and getting everything stopped into torpor.
-Merrick becoming incedibly agitated because I wouldn't roll over.
-Stewart nearly pulling out a victory.
Thoughts:
Ahremes the Immortal screwed me the entire game, I didn't even think
there was a card that did something like that in VTES. I managed to
stall for a long time and had Merrick deck himself out against me. Not
to sure what my plan was in this case, but I wasn't going to roll
over for him after he snupped my deal :-)
Table 2: Round 3
Chris Cook (Giovanni Recycle and Reuse) >
Damien Hennessy (Weenie Obf Bleed with Coolers) >
Steve VanNus (Assaimite Web of Knives/Toolbox) >
Dan Bondeson (Gangrel Toolbox) >
Last chance to actually qualify, I started grinding forward into Steve
slowly and steadily each turn. As his deck looked like it took a little
set-up time. I kept bringing out vampires and steadily increased the
forward pressure, always leaving a couple of minions untapped to block
Chris's bleeds. Chris Goverened down a lot and didn't apply much
pressure during the course of the game. Steve simply walled up and got
overrun by my weenies. Dan and Chris were unable to effectively work
together and my conversation with Dan went something like.
Me: "You've already qualified haven't you Dan".
Dan: "Yeah, what about you?"
Me: "I need to win this game".
Dan: "If you let me oust Chris, I'll roll over to you".
I think Chris attempted to do some sort of deal of the same kind with
me, but I wanted to qaulify.
Somewhere during this time Chris got Dan to burn a large vampire of his
in torpor so he could use the Soul Gem and Minion Tap. Chris then went
against their deal and burnt Dan's vampire in a blood hunt. Dan was not
impressed and then offered to roll over after he killed Chris.
I chilled out and watched Dan block and claw everything Chris attempted
to do. Sloppy card play from Chris saw him receive a warning. I simply
bloated and brought out vampires till we reached the final 10 minute
mark. I then ousted Dan (apologizing because I didn't think he was
going to oust Chris within that time frame). Dan was quite
understandable, and Chris followed the next turn because Dan had pretty
much killed everything except for his pool.
Thoughts:
Chris burned one of Dan's vampires in a blood hunt after he agreed
not to vote, which pissed Dan off and had him simply attack Chris. I
chilled out for about 30 minutes while Dan wailed on Chris but didn't
appear to be making much headway. I rolled through Dan and Chris in the
final ten minutes. I think Chris's table manners were incredibly
pathetic this game, Chris demonstrated some incredibly immature and
unacceptable behavior during this game and especially afterwards in
front of Sam Mazur and myself.
Final Round:
Steve Bergamnn > Martin Ryan > Richard Aumann > Damien Hennessy
Richard 2VPs, Damien 1VP, Steve 1VP.
Thoughts overall:
A pretty tight tournament, only let down towards the end by Chris's
immature behavior. The final was a bit of an anti-climax, especially
after 3 tight rounds previously. The Melbourne players certainly showed
some of the Hobart players (myself included) needed to brush up on
table play.
*feeling lazy*
I will stick my thoughts on the final over the weekend and will
hopefully get hold of the winners deck.
On 4 Aug 2005 20:29:14 -0700, d21...@yahoo.com.au wrote:
>Me: "You've already qualified haven't you Dan".
>Dan: "Yeah, what about you?"
>Me: "I need to win this game".
>Dan: "If you let me oust Chris, I'll roll over to you".
Fucking unsportsmanlike, you think?
d21...@yahoo.com.au wrote:
> 2005 VTES Tasmanian Qualifier:
[snip]
> Last chance to actually qualify...>
> Me: "You've already qualified haven't you Dan". Dan: "Yeah, what
> about you?" Me: "I need to win this game". Dan: "If you let me oust
> Chris, I'll roll over to you".
[snip]
> Somewhere during this time Chris got Dan to burn a large vampire of
> his in torpor so he could use the Soul Gem and Minion Tap. Chris then
> went against their deal and burnt Dan's vampire in a blood hunt. Dan
> was not impressed and then offered to roll over after he killed
> Chris.
[snip]
> Chris burned one of Dan's vampires in a blood hunt after he agreed
> not to vote, which pissed Dan off and had him simply attack Chris. I
> chilled out for about 30 minutes while Dan wailed on Chris but didn't
> appear to be making much headway. I rolled through Dan and Chris in
> the final ten minutes. I think Chris's table manners were incredibly
> pathetic this game, Chris demonstrated some incredibly immature and
> unacceptable behavior during this game and especially afterwards in
> front of Sam Mazur and myself.
[snip]
> A pretty tight tournament, only let down towards the end by Chris's> immature behavior...
Clearly, I'm missing something in your description as I can't see
anything wrong with the behaviour of Chris as you describe it.
a) By making a deal for an out-of-game-consideration (that is,
qualification) *you and Dan are playing illegally*.
b) Chris lied, Dan believed him. Nothing illegal there, Dan's merely
naive. Maybe this was tactically stupid, on Chris' behalf, as some
players tend to over-react to being lied to, but it's not an illegal move.
c) Dan decides to "revenge attack" Chris. Again, illegal because it's
not a "play to win / gain VPs", unless Dan thinks that he has no chance
of gaining a win / VPs. Although, as it appears, in this case that
Chris is Dan's prey a "revenge attack" is presumably coincident with
actions that are (or can be easily purported to be) "plays to win" so
its not unambiguously illegal. "Revenge attacks" are absolutely the
preserve of immature morons.
So, unless something's missing from your description, or my reading of
it; you and Dan were playing illegally and Dan played incredibly
immaturely by going berserk over being lied to.
--
* lehrbuch (lehr...@gmail.com)
To be honest... this is typical in the Australian Qualifier scene...
When the judges arent their thats when the better players manipulate
the game.
Even if you called the judge over, as a player or an observer, nothing
can be done,
as the judge wasnt present!
Sucks... and I wish the rules would change to stop this!!!
Andrew Daley
Daley wrote:
> To be honest... this is typical in the Australian Qualifier scene...
What "this"? You quote no "this" for context.
> When the judges arent their thats when the better players manipulate
> the game.
Some level of manipulation of the game is expected.
Illegal play is not, including unsportsmanship play, like not playing
to win.
> Even if you called the judge over, as a player or an observer, nothing
> can be done,
> as the judge wasnt present!
That isn't true -- the judge, once called over, can correct the
illegal play. It doesn't matter that he wasn't there. He can
(and should) still enforce the rules.
> Sucks... and I wish the rules would change to stop this!!!
The rules do not need changing. The rules already allow (and
require) the judge to stop illegal play.
--
LSJ (vtesr...@TRAPwhite-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep (remove spam trap to reply)
Links to V:TES news, rules, cards, utilities, and tournament calendar:
http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/
That's what I get for posting my crappy summary :o
I try to avoid posting the more gritty details as I wasn't to sure who
in my playgroup lurked on this forum. I've since recently established
that none of them do.
So here is a more in-depth look at the table:
Table 2: Round 3
Chris Cook (Giovanni Recycle and Reuse) >
Damien Hennessy (Weenie Obf Bleed with Coolers) >
Steve VanNus (Assaimite Web of Knives/Toolbox) >
Dan Bondeson (Gangrel Toolbox) >
This round was basically my last chance to qualify, I didn't really
want to make a trip to Canberra with the addded pressure to qualify. I
had encountered Steve in Round 1 and had good idea on how his Assaimite
deck worked. Since I regulary play Chris I have a good inclination of
his game strategy depending on what vampire he choses to bring out
first for his deck. I hadn't even encountered Dan yet, but he usually
has a solid deck regardless of what he elects to play. I brought out a
couple of vampires, bloated and bleed forward a little. Chris brought
out a large 10 cap Giovanni.
I'm very familiar with Chris deck as it is his absolute favourite to
use, so I can always determine what he will do depending on his opening
vampire. If it was a weenie he would have tried to get in some early
bleeds, a big vampire means he will use Govern/Scoutings to pull
younger vampires and in eight turn attempt to swarm you with Dominate
bleed. The deck lacks any significant stealth, any significant combat
and only operates effectively if a predator applies no pressure and the
prey doesn't go backwards. In other words I think it's a crappy deck.
I basically bleed forward, equiped with coolers and bloated via blood
dolls. I continued to bring out vampires and left a couple each turn to
block any nasty bleeds (at no stealth) Chris might try to sneak
through. I usually only blocked his vampires with superior Dominate, I
could tell that Chris was saving his superior dominate stuff for later
and he was getting slightly annoyed at me absorbing his bleeds for one
and blocking his guys you had DOM. Steve basically walled up and was
overrun by my Obf horde. At that point I could clearly see I was going
to table sweep, Steve made a comment that Chris and Dan will need to
work together otherwise I will sweep the table.
At this point alot of table talk was going on between Dan and Chris.
Dan admitted he lacked the rush and intercept in his deck to stop me
(eight vampires, lots of pool...25 I think). I still had half my deck
left. That turn Dan blocked one of Chris vampires and cycled some
combat and but the vampire into torpor (had the Soul Gem). Since I was
tapped out to oust Steve previously, Chris bleed with several vampires
for a significant amount and brought me down to 12 pool. Since Dan had
a vamp with two raven spies attached untapped and I lacked some
stealth. I spent the turn equipping with coolers and bloating via blood
dolls. I went back up to 20 pool, much to Chris's horror.
Dan bleed forward and cycled more damage preventation, which he seemed
to be jamming on against Chris's vampires. They had made a deal where
Dan could cycle his combat, but not kill Chris's vampires. In his turn
Chris bleed me with Gover and Threats (4) and then again with Scoutning
Mission and Threats (2). Chris then proceeded to play a Blood Doll
which I informed him was out of sequence and he couldn't do that. I
believe his response was.
"Don't be a Cheese Dick Moron".
He then put the Blood Doll on his vampire and a blood into his pool. I
said "You can't do that, you've already bleed me for six pool, cycled
cards and picked up".
Chris's response: "So you want to win by being a Cheese Dick".
At this point I called the Judge over who upon asking "What's the
problem?" got Chris's response "Damien's being a Cheese Dick again".
When I explained what had happened the Judge asked Chris and then Dan
what had happened. The Judge told Chris he couldn't play his card and
to pick up the Blood Doll. Chris sullenly complied and then reached
across to the blood bank to "gain one from the edge". The judge then
told Chris he again couldn't do that as it was out of sequence Chris
told him "not to a f...tard" so he received his first warning. The
judge then sat down to watch the table.
Chris somehow convinced Dan after this to eat his vampire with the soul
gem, so he could pull out a full vampire "and oust me". Dan complied
with the understanding that Chris would vote against the blood hunt.
Dan eats the vampire and then Chris, laughing gleefully tossed in the
edge and said "Burn Bitch". Chris had enough votes to burn Dan's
vampire in the bloodhunt. Dan had a moment of shocked disbelief and
then rushed with another Gangrel. Claws and Amarath saw a Gio burnt, I
voted to keep Dan's vampire alive.
Chris: "Maybe I shouldn't have burnt Dan's vampire".
Me: "No, it was a very clever move" *insert sarcasam*.
Chris: "I take it back".
Judje: "It's a bit late for that".
Chris stares sullenly at his cards, Dan torpors more vampires and Chris
starts getting his actions blocked by Dan's vampires. At the start of
my turn I have 12 vampires out, 10 of which have blood dolls and a
combination coolers/perfectionists. I also have about 30 pool. Dan
studied me doing my cooler/blood doll thing and asked if I not bleed
him for a couple of turns while he killed Chris. I was cool with that
and watched as Dan proceeded to murder everthing Chris had on the
table. Vampires, pool, locations nothing was safe from Dan's wrath.
I think Chris realized he made a grave error in burning Dan's vampire.
His attempts to deal with Dan were meet with a very diplomatic "Not
interested" and his negioations with me were meet with an amused smile.
At another point Chris forgot to play a master card and had already
hunted with all his vampires, the card "Minion Tap" was played. At this
I couldn't help but laugh as the judge told Chris again he couldn't do
that, he's played long enough to know the correct sequence of card
play.
Chris: "I want to cycle my f...ing Master Cards".
Me: "That's why we have Master phases and discard phases Chris".
The ten minute mark was called at the start of my turn, at this point I
told Dan I didn't think he could kill Chris with his next turn and Dan
agreed. So I bleed out Dan out that turn. Chris attempted to stall, but
with two vampires on no blood and a handful of masters....how long can
you stall for? I had to call the judge again after two minutes of Chris
sitting still and staring at his hand. I bleed Chris out in my turn.
Chris then pulled out the next fifteen cards in his deck and threw them
across the table.
"My bleed cards are all in a big clump".
More of the deck gets tossed across the table.
Dan made some comment "That's why I don't play with you Chris, your to
immature" and walked off in disgust.
That left me to quietly pack up my stuff and watch Chris throw his deck
all over the table.
I packed up and left the ranting idiot at the table by himself and
asked the new player how he went. We then both watch Chris stand up and
say "The fucking Universe is against me" and then frisbee his deck in
several parts across the room. Sam (new player) was mildly concerned by
the behaviour, it's too bad I see this a little frequently for my
liking.
This little tantrum at the end was done in full view of most of the
playgroup, the store owner and some staff. Too bad the Melbourne
visitors failed to witness this as well, it would have been interesting
to see there reactions.
Chris is also our current Prince.
The "deal" I made with Dan I think was me being slack with my
tournament report and electing to summerise stuff from my point of
view. A discussion with the Judge earlier this week had him refresh my
memory with more details.
Sorry to cause any issues with members, I'll try to be more accurate
with my tournament reports in the future.
:-)
d21...@yahoo.com.au wrote:
> Chris is also our current Prince.
>
I thought there were two princes down there ... you're the second one
right?
Chris needs to get his head checked and possibly removed from being a
Prince. That behaviour (the swearing, the tantrums, etc) goes against
the tournament rules (sportsmanship, language use, public displays),
and for a Prince to be doing it is an added disgrace.
His behaviour reflects on his playgroup, and Tasmania in general.
Is this the person that was alluded to on Path of Blood??
D
d21...@yahoo.com.au wrote:
> That's what I get for posting my crappy summary :o
[snip]
> So here is a more in-depth look at the table ...
[snip]
Fair enough. On the basis of your revised report, it does sound as if
Chris played in an unsportsmanlike manner, particularly by trying to
repeatedly play out-of-sequence and the ranting tantrum at the end.
Some players are indeed immature and being a 'prince' is meaningless
with regard to maturity, rule-knowledge, etc.
Although, there's nothing wrong with his lying about how he might vote
in a blood hunt. There's nothing intrinsically unsportsmanlike about
lying about your intentions. It's only unsportsmanlike to lie about or
disguise the open elements of the game state, eg your pool total.
--
* lehrbuch (lehr...@gmail.com)
In message <42f978aa$1...@news.maxnet.co.nz>, lehrbuch <lehr...@gmail.com>
writes:
>Although, there's nothing wrong with his lying about how he might vote
>in a blood hunt. There's nothing intrinsically unsportsmanlike about
>lying about your intentions. It's only unsportsmanlike to lie about or
>disguise the open elements of the game state, eg your pool total.
I wouldn't go for unsportsmanlike here, to be honest.
If it's unintentional, I'd use Procedural Error penalties. 111 - Minor
suggests "(A) A player fails to provide a reliable method to track her
pool totals." as an example. Mis-reporting the total is along the same
lines, if it's unintentional.
If it's intentional, unsportsmanlike conduct is probably inappropriate
and I'd go straight for Cheating.
"Cheating - Fraud
Definition:
A player intentionally misrepresents rules, procedures, personal
information, or any other relevant tournament information."
For something like getting your pool total wrong, I'd be wary of going
straight for DW without Prize (the recommended penalty) - though we are
talking about intentional cheating here, not accidental
misrepresentation.
--
James Coupe
PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D YOU ARE IN ERROR.
EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 NO-ONE IS SCREAMING.
13D7E668C3695D623D5D THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.
James Coupe wrote:
> If it's intentional, unsportsmanlike conduct is probably inappropriate
> and I'd go straight for Cheating.
>
> "Cheating - Fraud
> Definition:
> A player intentionally misrepresents rules, procedures, personal
> information, or any other relevant tournament information."
>
> For something like getting your pool total wrong, I'd be wary of going
> straight for DW without Prize (the recommended penalty) - though we are
> talking about intentional cheating here, not accidental
> misrepresentation.
One of the most interesting punishments I have seen for intentional
cheating is the player in question being "Volunteered" as the
centrepice of the dispkly outside for the LARP. Seeing as it was
winter, and the display called for him to be tied to a pole wearing
only a loincloth, it worked rather remarkably well. (this was years
ago, about 1995)
James Coupe wrote:
[lehrbuch]
>> It's ... unsportsmanlike to lie about or disguise the open elements>> of the game state, eg your pool total.>
> I wouldn't go for unsportsmanlike here, to be honest.
>> If it's unintentional, I'd use Procedural Error penalties.... If it's> intentional, unsportsmanlike conduct is probably inappropriate and
> I'd go straight for Cheating.
Yeah, you're probably right.
I was thinking of players who do things like:
- use stackable counters but don't stack the counters, except for one or
two; so, a glance by another player underestimates the pool total by one
or two.
- stack pool behind the library, so that it can't be easily seen.
Neither is really cheating, as the players will give an accurate pool
total if directly asked. They're just making it difficult for other
players to independently assess such things. This seems unsportsmanlike
to me, rather than either a procedural error or full-on cheating.
--
* lehrbuch (lehr...@gmail.com)
lehrbuch wrote:
> I was thinking of players who do things like:
> - use stackable counters but don't stack the counters, except for one or
> two; so, a glance by another player underestimates the pool total by one
> or two.
> - stack pool behind the library, so that it can't be easily seen.
>
> Neither is really cheating, as the players will give an accurate pool
> total if directly asked. They're just making it difficult for other
> players to independently assess such things. This seems unsportsmanlike
> to me, rather than either a procedural error or full-on cheating.
Intentionally camouflaging / obfuscating / disguising public information (making
an untapped vampire look tapped or vice versa, or setting the Edge purposefully
close to the bank so as to appear uncontrolled, etc.) is cheating.
[ quoted text not captured ]
"Blooded Sand" <sand...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1123701456.8...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> One of the most interesting punishments I have seen for intentional
> cheating is the player in question being "Volunteered" as the
> centrepice of the dispkly outside for the LARP. Seeing as it was
> winter, and the display called for him to be tied to a pole wearing
> only a loincloth, it worked rather remarkably well. (this was years
> ago, about 1995)
"Interesting"? Sounds overwrought to me. I think it'd be a lot
simpler to just punch the guy in the nose.
Fred
[ quoted text not captured ]
Yar, except it WAS a CoC LARP :)
And the fact that we set his Giants Blood on fire in a little ritual
ceremony.....
Of course one cannot do things like that anymore, but remember, this
guy was completely rehabilitated. So it worked. After I eventually gave
him a new Giants Blood...
LSJ wrote:
> lehrbuch wrote:>> I was thinking of players who do things like:
>> - use stackable counters but don't stack the counters, except for one or
>> two; so, a glance by another player underestimates the pool total by one
>> or two.
>> - stack pool behind the library, so that it can't be easily seen.
>>
>> Neither is really cheating, as the players will give an accurate pool
>> total if directly asked. They're just making it difficult for other
>> players to independently assess such things. This seems unsportsmanlike
>> to me, rather than either a procedural error or full-on cheating.>
> Intentionally camouflaging / obfuscating / disguising public information (making
> an untapped vampire look tapped or vice versa, or setting the Edge purposefully
> close to the bank so as to appear uncontrolled, etc.) is cheating.
Fair enough.
I think it's low grade enough cheating, however, that (unless, of
course, persisted with) it only warrants a "don't do that" comment from
judges. Particularly, as it's difficult for a judge to distinguish
between intentional and unintentional camouflaging behaviour.
--
* lehrbuch (lehr...@gmail.com)
In message <42fa6d71$1...@news.maxnet.co.nz>, lehrbuch <lehr...@gmail.com>
writes:
>I was thinking of players who do things like:
>- use stackable counters but don't stack the counters, except for one or
>two; so, a glance by another player underestimates the pool total by one
>or two.
>- stack pool behind the library, so that it can't be easily seen.
The latter one can be quickly dealt with by asking a player to move it.
I wouldn't really think to issue a penalty here, unless it happened in
multiple games, or somehow moved back there.
For the former, it's extremely difficult to tell if that's intentional
cheating, (possibly) unsportsmanlike attempts to fool other players or
just a player who's a messy sod.
I happily fall into the final category, and am never terribly scientific
about how my pool (or blood on a vampire, powerbase etc.) is arranged.
It's just there. The counters are the right amount. I don't
intentionally move them around to cause issues, but I also don't
intentionally split them up into piles of ten or five. (I tend to at
the start of the game, to make it easier to count 30 and make sure I
really do have 30, but they get out of order fairly easily.)
Again, if it was a problem (for whatever reason), I'd probably just ask
a player to move things around. Or verbally ask for a pool count. That
latter one can be useful anyway, to keep a player on their toes. ("Why
does he want to know? Is he looking to see if he can Parity Shift /
Foreshadowing Destruction?")
Essentially, if it's just not causing a problem, it's unlikely to
actually need anything issuing penalty-wise for it. If it is, I'd just
try to fix the situation and only start getting heavy when it's
repeated.
[ quoted text not captured ]
Daley wrote:
> To be honest... this is typical in the Australian Qualifier scene...
I assume that you are refering to players cutting table split deals.
Can't see a problem with that personally, so long as it is carried out
in accordance with the rules.
You sound as if your are saying that these (bad) things happen in
Australia, and not many other places. I haven't played overseas, but I
am sure that table splitting goes on there too. Maybe you comment
should be, "To be honest...this is typical in the global V:tES
Qualifier scene..."
> When the judges arent their thats when the better players manipulate
> the game.
And the problem with this is? I would say that being able to manipulate
the table is what makes the better players better. If a player is
unable to argue a good case because of poor verbal or social skills, or
an inability to see what is on offer, well that is too bad. These
things are simply elements of the game. Consider them weak points that
need working on.
> Even if you called the judge over, as a player or an observer, nothing
> can be done,
> as the judge wasnt present!
Not so. A judge is always free to make a judgement.
>
> Sucks... and I wish the rules would change to stop this!!!
Stop what? Deals? Don't hold your breath.
Cheers,
-merto
>
> Andrew Daley
James Coupe wrote:
[lehrbuch]
>>I was thinking of players who do things like:
>>- use stackable counters but don't stack the counters, except for one or
>>two; so, a glance by another player underestimates the pool total by one
>>or two.
>>- stack pool behind the library, so that it can't be easily seen.
[snip]
> Essentially, if it's just not causing a problem, it's unlikely to
> actually need anything issuing penalty-wise for it. If it is, I'd just
> try to fix the situation and only start getting heavy when it's
> repeated.
I agree.
--
* lehrbuch (lehr...@gmail.com)
scrote wrote:
> Daley wrote:
> > To be honest... this is typical in the Australian Qualifier scene...
>
> I assume that you are refering to players cutting table split deals.
> Can't see a problem with that personally, so long as it is carried out
> in accordance with the rules.
>
> You sound as if your are saying that these (bad) things happen in
> Australia, and not many other places. I haven't played overseas, but I
> am sure that table splitting goes on there too. Maybe you comment
> should be, "To be honest...this is typical in the global V:tES
> Qualifier scene..."
>
I think the issue with the split deals in this scenario was that the
initial post made an implication that the split deal had more to do
with "mates" splitting for each other which is expressly forbidden by
the rules and comes under collusion to predetermine the outcome of the
game.
Here is the quote for context :
>> Me: "You've already qualified haven't you Dan".
>> Dan: "Yeah, what about you?"
>> Me: "I need to win this game".
>> Dan: "If you let me oust Chris, I'll roll over to you".
And I'm sure it happens everywhere, however it is against the rules. In
fact there are a number of Australian players that regularly make deals
with the same person (no matter which table/game) to split tables even
if they're in a Predator/Prey relationship. Repeated behaviour like
this could be deemed collusion. I believe that is what Mr Daley was
referring to.
> > When the judges arent their thats when the better players manipulate
> > the game.
>
> And the problem with this is? I would say that being able to manipulate
> the table is what makes the better players better. If a player is
> unable to argue a good case because of poor verbal or social skills, or
> an inability to see what is on offer, well that is too bad. These
> things are simply elements of the game. Consider them weak points that
> need working on.
>
Table manipulation is perfectly alright. In fact it is part of the
game.
HOWEVER, table manipulation by obfuscation, or misleading, or doing
things that are illegal is not clever play or a show of skill ... it is
cheating. Plain and simple.
In the example from Hobart, doing things out of turn then calling
someone a "dick" to make them let you get away with it is cheating.
Even if his verbal skills had worked and the Blood Doll had been
allowed to be played (with no judge being called), it wasn't skill or
clever verbage ... it was cheating.
> > Even if you called the judge over, as a player or an observer, nothing
> > can be done,
> > as the judge wasnt present!
>
> Not so. A judge is always free to make a judgement.
>
Damn straight! A judge doesn't need to be called over to judge, in fact
the rules explicitly state that if the judge notices anything illegal
he/she goes over there and fixes it.
D
[snip]
>
> And I'm sure it happens everywhere, however it is against the rules. In
> fact there are a number of Australian players that regularly make deals
> with the same person (no matter which table/game) to split tables even
> if they're in a Predator/Prey relationship. Repeated behaviour like
> this could be deemed collusion. I believe that is what Mr Daley was
> referring to.
>
Which players would these be?
Chris.
[ quoted text not captured ]
It should not matter who they are ... but I will put my own hand up as
being guilty of it countless times in social play and 4 occassions in
tournament play before I became a prince/judge (and I read the
tournament rules properly).
D
> > And I'm sure it happens everywhere, however it is against the rules. In
> > fact there are a number of Australian players that regularly make deals
> > with the same person (no matter which table/game) to split tables even
> > if they're in a Predator/Prey relationship. Repeated behaviour like
> > this could be deemed collusion. I believe that is what Mr Daley was
> > referring to.
Granted, I haven't been to as many tournaments as some of you others,
but I've got a pretty good strike rate of getting to the finals (which
means I tend to see the most 'stressful' of games at the tournies I do
attend). I have never seen serial offenders as you've suggested. I
know of players who will never deal with certain players, but that's
because in the past those players have proven untrustworthy.
Perhaps I will have to pay closer attention next time.
Or ignore it and just kick their arse anyway. :D
--> J
Social play I make deals all the time ... its fun ... and that's what
social play is all about.
I've changed my tournament play style recently as an experiment a few
times and its given me good results. It leads to me thinking that the
social aspect and the tournament aspect are completely different things
in this game.
One reason I think that a lot of people avoid tournaments.
D
[ quoted text not captured ]
Oh, I see deals, but I was referring to your comment about players
always making deals with other certain players, even if they are
pred-prey. There's nothing wrong with deals, as long as
1) They don't take forever to finalise
2) People don't get upset if the deal targets them
Number 2 is the one that really irks me. If someone gets targeted by
it, suck it up, don't whinge and cry like a baby.... and I should know,
I always get targetted by them... it's like, meh! if you want to make
me the object of the deal, I'll just try and screw you up, like I did
at the NSW qualifier final.
--> J
quetzalcoatl wrote:
> d21...@yahoo.com.au wrote:
>
> > Chris is also our current Prince.
> >
>
> I thought there were two princes down there ... you're the second one
> right?
Yes, mainly because I do have a number of interested players about
around the area in which I live and none of them have any great love
for Chris. So they simply weren't interested in learning how to play
unless I became a "Prince".
> Chris needs to get his head checked and possibly removed from being a
> Prince. That behaviour (the swearing, the tantrums, etc) goes against
> the tournament rules (sportsmanship, language use, public displays),
> and for a Prince to be doing it is an added disgrace.
We did have a crew come down from Melbourne, but none were there to
witness the episode that was had at my table or afterwards. They'd
finished up and gone to get food or something.
That particular situation and the rumblings of utter disgust from the
various memebers of the playgroup.
> His behaviour reflects on his playgroup, and Tasmania in general.
I agree, as a whole I think most of the playgroup have grown quite sick
of Chris' behaviour lately. The above situation usually arises in most
games but the tantrums are usually are lot smaller, time travelling,
playing cards out of sequence and calling players rude names is a usual
format of a game with Chris in it.
Through this has been addressed to Chris in the past, it has had no
effect on his gameplay.
> Is this the person that was alluded to on Path of Blood??
Yes it is. I was at the table when the prince (Chris) and the player
(Merrick) nearly came to blows. If it weren't for the interevention of
myself and another player they would have ended up brawling. Merrick
has since apologized repeatedly for that. Chris on the other hand
didn't bother to apologize to any of the players involved.
After all and I quote "It wasn't my fault Merrick picked the fight with
me".
As a bouncer I've seen people winding each other up in the past. In
that case Chris simply winded Merrick till Merrick cracked.
I don't like slagging people online but I've been listening to the
growing rumblings of the playgroup regarding Chris as the Prince of
Hobart. I got asked after the qualifier by several players if a Prince
can be removed from their position?
And since I'm aleady a Prince, could I please find out?
Thoughts?
You need to talk to our NC. He's without email for now, however, so you
might want to contact White Wolf directly. Check the website for the
current Prince contact.
D
"quetzalcoatl" <da...@vega.id.au> wrote in message
news:1124063713....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> You need to talk to our NC. He's without email for now, however, so you
> might want to contact White Wolf directly. Check the website for the
> current Prince contact.
Er, would that be the generic "you"? Should everybody on this newsgroup -
lurkers included - talk to your NC?
Is he lonely?
Will White Wolf forward our E-mails?
(CLUE: TRY QUOTING!)
(CLUE: TRY QUOTING!)
(CLUE: TRY QUOTING!)
(CLUE: TRY QUOTING!)
(CLUE: TRY QUOTING!)
(CLUE: TRY QUOTING!)
(CLUE: TRY QUOTING!)
(CLUE: TRY QUOTING!)
(CLUE: TRY QUOTING!)
(CLUE: TRY QUOTING!)
Cripes.
Here's how sexy I am, I appear in three of the pictures :D
Cut and Paste the Link.
http://www.area52.com.au/gallery/vtes_q.htm
Top left picture:
Chris Cook (blue shirt), me with glasses and in black, Dan Bondeson is
on the edge after being ousted.
At that point my Weenie/Obf Cooler deck had the entire crypt out, a
couple in torpor and that pile of black counters next to my hand is my
pool supply.
Chris at this point is attempting to convince me not to kill him (2
pool next to the wall) and let him get the game win. I believe this was
at the starting end of his tantrum :D
Bottom Left Picture:
Merrick in the white shirt, me again and Stewart (Prince of Melbourne).
Merrick wanted to punch me in the face because I refused to roll over
and made him deck out against me. Merrick was incredibly frustrated at
taking so long to oust me, Stewart nearly pulled victory out of the
bag. A very close game.
Top Right Picture:
Two Melbourne players that flew down for the Qualifier, they placed
third (Steve on the right) and first (Richard on the left).
Bottom Right Picture:
Steve VanNus and me at the end of the first round (2VPs each). My
Weenie Obf bitches couldn't sneak past his wall of Assimities. I
conceded after I drew six blood dolls as my final esix cards :o
I hope to see Steve agin in the future when I'm not using a large and
smelly piece of cheese :)