EC 2004 reports??

Isn't anyone going to weblog the European Championships? We need on-the-ground reporting! :-) Josh (if someone is and I just haven't realized it, please point me to where...)

"Joshua Duffin" <jtdu...@yahoo.com> escribió en el mensaje news:c825e53.04112...@posting.google.com... [ quoted text not captured ] Ruben Vidaña, known as "the infamous" in Barcelona, has won the Ring with a Warghoul Deck BTW, no vamp has changed in the Anniversary Set, except camille deveraux/the raven, who is now the same vampire.

Smiling Tom wrote: > BTW, no vamp has changed in the Anniversary Set, except camille deveraux/the > raven, who is now the same vampire. What does this mean? Peter D Bakija pd...@lightlink.com http://www.lightlink.com/pdb6 "How does this end?" "In fire." Emperor Turhan and Kosh

"Peter D Bakija" <pd...@lightlink.com> escribió en el mensaje news:BDCFCA64.1B27D%pd...@lightlink.com... > Smiling Tom wrote: > > > BTW, no vamp has changed in the Anniversary Set, except camille deveraux/the > > raven, who is now the same vampire. > > What does this mean? > > For what I've been told, it seems that all crypt 1 vamps are in the set, 15 of each clan, plus all sabbat/AH/DS vamps that weren't reprinted in other sets. The 5 cap gangrel with FOR PRO ani has a brand new name on it: "Camille Deveraux, The Raven". It seems that from now on (well, once the Aniversary Set becomes torunament legal) both camille deveraux and the raven will be treated as THE SAME vamp, thus contesting, et al. [ quoted text not captured ]

Smiling Tom wrote: > For what I've been told, it seems that all crypt 1 vamps are in the set, 15 > of each clan, plus all sabbat/AH/DS vamps that weren't reprinted in other > sets. That is my understanding as well. > > The 5 cap gangrel with FOR PRO ani has a brand new name on it: "Camille > Deveraux, The Raven". It seems that from now on (well, once the Aniversary > Set becomes torunament legal) both camille deveraux and the raven will be > treated as THE SAME vamp, thus contesting, et al. That is very strange. We've survived this long with them being 2 different vampires. Why change that now? [ quoted text not captured ]

Peter D Bakija <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote: > Smiling Tom wrote: >> The 5 cap gangrel with FOR PRO ani has a brand new name on it: >> "Camille Deveraux, The Raven". It seems that from now on (well, >> once the Aniversary Set becomes torunament legal) both camille >> deveraux and the raven will be treated as THE SAME vamp, thus >> contesting, et al. > > That is very strange. We've survived this long with them being 2 > different vampires. Why change that now? And what about those two Giovanni POWERHOUSES, Cristofero and Mario?!?! I mean, Mario was reprinted in FN, but is Cristofero now in the TAS, thereby giving the Giovanni a HUGE ADVANTAGE(TM)??? ;) > Peter D Bakija Kevin M., Prince of Henderson, NV (USA) "Know your enemy, and know yourself; in one-thousand battles you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, *The Art of War* "Contentment... Complacency... Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier

I will put up the results from all tournaments this evening ... -- Johannes Walch

>Who else made the finals? I couldn´t see all decks clearly, so for some I am not that sure what they actually played, but here´s my best guess. The Ruben who won the German Qualifier (no VP), Martin from Austria (Malks)(no VP), a guy I didn´t know (Arika)(no VP) and the always infamous BEN PEAL (Malkav bleed)(2VP), who grapped the vice European Champion Title. At the start of the game there was a lot of talk of Ruben convinving the spanish Ruben to attack Martin, who had a lot of intercept. To help the War Ghouls Ruben called a Dramatic Upheaval to get the Warghouls as his prey, Ben Peal as his grand prey, Martin as his Grand Predator and the Arika Deck as his predator. The War Ghouls attacked Martin, Ben bled a lot and so eventually Martin was gone. After that the War Ghouls went for Rubens predator as he diablerized a high cap vampire of Ruben and so posed a high threat to him. That left him no options and Ben Peal bled the hell out of him. Until that time the War Ghouls had a peace treaty with their predator (Ruben). Well, as I said, until then: Ben playing with a lot of small caps left all the minion who were gone to torpor in their state the whole game, so a few rushes disposed him of ready vampires and a dragon bound ousted him. Shortly after that Ruben was ousted. So we have a worthy european European Champion! Again Congrats to Ruben Vidaña (sorry for using your name so scarcely for making clearer who is who) Simon BTW TheLasombra has made a video of the game.

[ quoted text not captured ] saturday 128 people finalists kamel senni ravnos carnival MASS embrace week of nightmares stefan ferenci (me)ravnos carnival sens dep embrace week of nightmares damnans ventrue bleed/vote group3/4 anthony coleman some crappy war ghoul deck ;-) frank from holland (he was originally 7th place but jay kristoff and some one else got a game loss for wrong decklists) stefan ferenci won with 1.5 vps ousting frank then table times out with stefan one the verge of beeing ousted by anthony almost no table talk ;-) sunday 112 players (i think donßt stake me if i am wrong) ruben from belgium malk vote some guy called ben peal or something like that ;-) playing cheese stealth bleed ruben from spain war ghoul martin "frankel" weinmayer playing tre/tor prince wall a guy from finnland whose name i forgot playing broken arika + mind rape ruben from spain gets 3 vps ben 2 vps i got hit by the parisian mafia (i am just joking my friends from france) for beating kamel in the finals before. (i got crosstable ousted by players from paris the first 2 rounds with kindred spirits/parity shift) it was a nice event with even nicer people thanks to all players and organizers/judges especially orpheus (thanks for the game, it´s always fun meeting you) the tatus, ben, jay, mark, eric, attila, gabor, lsj, steve w., anthony, matt morgan, joscha, frank , kamel , (that list could go on forever) see you all in budapest stefan

> kamel senni ravnos carnival MASS embrace week of nightmares > stefan ferenci (me)ravnos carnival sens dep embrace week of nightmares > damnans ventrue bleed/vote group3/4 > anthony coleman some crappy war ghoul deck ;-) > frank from holland (he was originally 7th place but jay kristoff and > some one else got a game loss for wrong decklists) He is from Belgium. Frank Vandeput. > sunday > 112 players (i think donßt stake me if i am wrong) 117 Players. > ruben from belgium malk vote > some guy called ben peal or something like that ;-) playing cheese > stealth bleed > ruben from spain war ghoul > martin "frankel" weinmayer playing tre/tor prince wall > a guy from finnland whose name i forgot playing broken arika + mind rape Tuomas Vuokko. He didn´t make any VPs so Arika can´t be that broken I guess. -- Johannes Walch

"Smiling Tom" <tma...@almadrava.net> wrote in message news:<30uvbqF...@uni-berlin.de>... > "Joshua Duffin" <jtdu...@yahoo.com> escribió en el mensaje > news:c825e53.04112...@posting.google.com... > > > Isn't anyone going to weblog the European Championships? We need > > on-the-ground reporting! :-) > Ruben Vidaña, known as "the infamous" in Barcelona, has won the Ring with a > Warghoul Deck You rock! Thanks Tom! :-) And congratulations, Ruben! Josh awaits further reportage

"Smiling Tom" <tma...@almadrava.net> wrote in message news:<30vdbjF...@uni-berlin.de>... > "Peter D Bakija" <pd...@lightlink.com> escribió en el mensaje > news:BDCFCA64.1B27D%pd...@lightlink.com... > For what I've been told, it seems that all crypt 1 vamps are in the set, 15 > of each clan, plus all sabbat/AH/DS vamps that weren't reprinted in other > sets. I can confirm that. This includes, btw, all Gangrel antitribu from the original Sabbat set that had not been reprinted - I was a little bit surprised about that, since I expected them to arrive next year with the KMW !Gangrel starter, not now. > The 5 cap gangrel with FOR PRO ani has a brand new name on it: "Camille > Deveraux, The Raven". And this I can confirm, too. > It seems that from now on (well, once the Aniversary > Set becomes torunament legal) both camille deveraux and the raven will be > treated as THE SAME vamp, thus contesting, et al. That is the general opinion amongst the players I talked to, yes. Otherwise, this would introduce the third Gangrel with the same abilities, and that seems unlikely... As for the library cards that have been reprinted in the Anniversary set, there have been some subtle text changes in some cases, most noteworthy for the political actions that make the four original independent clans members of the Camarilla. Regards, Hardy Range Prince of Bochum, Germany http://www.vekn.de

"DJ Feng Shui" <dj feng sh...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<1101698615....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>... > Smiling Tom wrote: > > Ruben Vida a, known as "the infamous" in Barcelona, has won the Ring > with a > > Warghoul Deck > > > > BTW, no vamp has changed in the Anniversary Set, except camille > deveraux/the > > raven, who is now the same vampire. > > Who else made the finals? Martin Weinmayer (Tor/Tre Princes Wall) > Guy from Finland (?) (Arika/Gratiano) > Ruben from Belgium (Old School Malk Vote) > Ben Peal (!Malk S&B) > Ruben from Spain (Warghoul) Ruben/Spain switched seats with Ben Peal after a vote from Ruben/Belgium. Ben oustet Martin and finnish guy and so got 2nd place (after winning the draft torunament on Saturday). Ruben/Spain oustet Ben and Ruben/Belgium, who got 3rd place because he had the most GWs/VPs at the start. The best finals (national qualifiers and ECs) i have so far watched. Thats mostly because the other finals were all boring. (Including the final on saturday of the last-chance-qualifier, won by Stefan Ferenci. That was the biggest tournament in VTES history with over 120 players.)

>From the pathofblood.com forums... "2 players I know of in the Last Chance Qualifier on Saturday, one of them Jay Kristof. They were qualified for the finals, but when the deck lists were checked, some cards were found in the decks that those players had forgotten to list. So they were not allowed to play the finals on that day. Dr Jester wrote: - in The Anniversary set there'll be for sure the Nephandus and Jimmy Dunn Correct. The sets contain every group 1 vampire, and every Vampire from DS, AH and Sabbat that White Wolf had not reprinted in other sets. This includes all !Gangrel from Sabbat that were still missing, which I had not expected to arrive that early - I would have thought they would wait for KMW's !Gangrel starter to reprint them. Dr Jester wrote: - - 2 of the new cards sucks (as they explained to me) 1 let burn all of your location for 1 pool each and the other one let you discard the first 7 cards form your deck to gain 3 pools... The first is "Insurance Fraud" and has a cool title and a cool pic, but that's it... IIRC: It is a master card you put in play. You can tap it to burn X locations you control to get X pool. The other one is "Liquidation", a master card that indeed allows you to discard the top 7 cards from your library to gain 3 pool. First reaction of people I talked to was that they saw a possible use with the Giovanni." There you have it. While I'm online, I'll keep updating the news as I find it.

Peter D Bakija <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote in message news:<BDCFF79B.1B289%pd...@lightlink.com>... > That is very strange. We've survived this long with them being 2 different > vampires. Why change that now? The answer from LSJ to the same question was: Because it should have been from the beginning.

"Kevin M." <you...@imaspammer.org> wrote in message news:<l4zqd.178862$hj.175170@fed1read07>... > > And what about those two Giovanni POWERHOUSES, Cristofero and Mario?!?! I > mean, Mario was reprinted in FN, but is Cristofero now in the TAS, thereby > giving the Giovanni a HUGE ADVANTAGE(TM)??? ;) > A) Cristofero is included in TAS. B) No, this does not give the Giovanni an advantage. ;-) [ quoted text not captured ]

Decebalus wrote: [...] > The best finals (national qualifiers and ECs) i have so far watched. > Thats mostly because the other finals were all boring. (Including the > final on saturday of the last-chance-qualifier, won by Stefan Ferenci. > That was the biggest tournament in VTES history with over 120 > players.) The biggest tournament in V:TES history was the Spanish Qualifier 2003 with 171 players ;-) Greetings, Damnans -- http://www.almadrava.net/damnans http://www.vtes.net

"DJ Feng Shui" <dj feng sh...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<1101698615....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>... > Smiling Tom wrote: > > Ruben Vida a, known as "the infamous" in Barcelona, has won the Ring > with a > > Warghoul Deck > > > > BTW, no vamp has changed in the Anniversary Set, except camille > deveraux/the > > raven, who is now the same vampire. > > Who else made the finals? - Ruben van Cauwenberghe from Belgium (German and Belgium ECQ-Winner) with an oldschool Malkavian vote - Ben Peal with a Neomalk/!Malk-S&B - Martin Weinmayer (Austria) with a Tremere/Toreador Prince Interceptdeck - a guy from Finland afaIk with an Arika & friends Mindrapedeck. Good final, strange Kindred Restructure (in my opinion), two VPs as a gift to Ben (go Ben ;o) ) and a Warghouldeck in a lost position preying on a I-deck, which was given a second start and which used that to win the finals. Well done, Ruben Vidana!

Decebalus wrote: > The answer from LSJ to the same question was: Because it should have > been from the beginning. While certainly true (they easily could have kept the vampire named Cammille Deveraux and just given her the new picture...), this didn't happen, and making it happen now, what, 7 years later (?) seems unecessary, at best. And kind of confusing. But, ya know, whatever. [ quoted text not captured ]

On 27 Nov 2004 13:03:13 -0800, jtdu...@yahoo.com (Joshua Duffin) wrote: >Isn't anyone going to weblog the European Championships? We need >on-the-ground reporting! :-) European Championship 2004 Heidelburg, Germany November 28, 2004 24 tables worth of players 3R + F Cut off to get into the finals was ~2g/7vp. First round there were only 11 game wins. Second round saw 12 more. I don't know how the third round went for game wins. Very few time outs, but a few. Quite a few 2-2-1 tables. Deck Name: War Ghouls Created By: Ruben Vidana Ramos Description: European Championship 2004 Heidelburg, Germany November 28, 2004 24 tables worth of players 3R + F Tournament Winning Deck by Ruben Vidana Ramos Crypt: (12 cards, Min: 9, Max: 22, Avg: 4.08) --------------------------------------------- 1 Corine Marcon ani AUS VIC 6, Tzimisce:2 1 Caliban ANI AUS VIC 6, Tzimisce:2 1 Rose aus PRE VIC 5, Tzimisce:3 1 Elizabeth Westcott ani cel vic AUS 5, Tzimisce:3 1 Devin Bisley ANI AUS vic 5, Tzimisce:2 1 Ana Rita Montana aus dom obf VIC 5, Tzimisce:3 2 Lolita Houston aus VIC 4, Tzimisce:2 1 Wendy Wade ani aus 3, Tzimisce:2 1 Piotr Andreikov aus 2, Tzimisce:3 2 Horatio vic 2, Tzimisce:2 Library: (70 cards) ------------------- Master (12 cards) 4 Blood Doll 1 Charisma 1 Creepshow Casino 2 Direct Intervention 4 Jake Washington (Hunter) Action Modifier (5 cards) 5 Changeling Reaction (11 cards) 2 Delaying Tactics 4 Forced Awakening 5 Telepathic Misdirection Combat (12 cards) 4 Breath of the Dragon 4 Fake Out 4 Trap Ally (11 cards) 1 Vagabond Mystic 10 War Ghoul Retainer (11 cards) 4 Corpse Balloon 1 J. S. Simmons, Esq. 1 Mr. Winthrop 4 Revenant 1 Tasha Morgan Equipment (1 cards) 1 Ivory Bow Combo (5 cards) 5 Plasmic Form Events (2 cards) 1 Dragonbound 1 The Unmasking

On 27 Nov 2004 13:03:13 -0800, jtdu...@yahoo.com (Joshua Duffin) wrote: >Isn't anyone going to weblog the European Championships? We need >on-the-ground reporting! :-) This is how my rounds looked. Last Chance Qualifier http://www.thelasombra.com/decks/School_of_Bakija.htm Round 1 Legacy of Pander / Anarch Revolt / Events (2vp) Lasombra's School of Bakija Malkavian / Malkavian Antitribu Kindred Spirits (3vp) Beatrice During's Auspex semi-weenie with Concealed Deer Rifles Lasombra bleed? (I was forced to spend this entire game rushing backwards to stay in. I would have easily destroyed the Kindred Spirits vampires of my prey if I could have relaxed for even a moment. My Fame and 2 Havens went backwards, as did multiple rush actions.) Round 2 Arika / Queen Anne / Leandro stealth vote Lasombra's School of Bakija (1.5 vp) Helena - Smiling Jack with .44 Magnum (.5vp) Aisling Sturbridge's Gargoyles (.5vp) Daneel's Ventrue Antitribu Auspex Fortitude (.5vp) (I got the Succubus Club, and had to trade it to my Grand-Predator as Arika was my predator's first vampire in play. Arika's first action was Protect Thine Own on my Banjoko. Arika immediately became Famous and had her Haven Uncovered. Arika and Crew eventually Dramatic Upheavaled to become the predator of the Gargoyles deck, and ended up being ousted by a combination of Smiling Jack and my rushes.) Round 3 Jay Kristoff's Nosferatu Antitribu Smiling Jack Lasombra's School of Bakija (1vp) Jeroen Rombouts' Nosferatu princes (group 1) Anson - Anneke Anarch Revolt (3vp) (This round started out very well, Sheldon came into play, and was immediately Famed and Havened. I quickly got Jeroen down to very few pool, then he played Parity Shift to steal 4 pool from Jay. This lead to Jay's ousting by the Toreador's unblockable Reins of Power and Anarch Revolts. I then got Jeroen out, but was unable to cycle my 7 cards of combat to draw into Rush soon enough to be able to vote the Anarchs away once it was down to two players.) Championships http://www.thelasombra.com/decks/A_Sudden_Anarch_Troublemaker.htm Round 1 Wouter Kuyper's Anson / Anneke / Alexandra Toreador Grand Ball (.5vp) Lasombra's A Sudden Anarch Troublemaker (.5vp) Joscha Düll's Ravnos Carnival Embrace (.5vp) Chris Meland's Euro Brujah (.5vp) (Gratiano started me out right by getting Aurora at half price. Then he and Aurora got Sensory Deprived. Ignacio the Black Priest was able to get Joscha down to 2 pool, with a little help from bounced bleeds and _lots_ of backward rushes by the EuroBrujah. Wouter was eventually going to pick up 2 vps from me and the Ravnos, but time worked against him. He had a Domain Challenge being voted on when time was called. This would have ousted me, and he would still have had 4 minions with which to bleed out Joscha.) Round 2 Jo Herroelen's Malkavian / Malkavian Antitribu Kindred Spirits (3vp) Marco's (Spain) Malkavian / Malkavian Antitribu Kindred Spirits Lasombra's A Sudden Anarch Troublemaker (1vp) Nosferatu Antitribu rush / raven spy (1vp) Weenie Tremere - Unlicensed Taxicab - Outcast Mage - The Unmasking (Jo and Marco contested Yorik, and this helped keep the pressure on me to a reasonable minimum. The Tremere basically spent himself out of the game, going down to 3 pool while one of his vampires was Famous with 1 blood. Marco bled the Tremere out to get pressure put on Jo, but Jo was able to talk the Nosferatu Antitribu into going after me instead. Angelica was Archon Investigated when she bled for 4 with Foreshadowing Destruction, and Tobias Smith was rushed by Beast. I was able to bounce enough bleeds and pull enough block denial out to get the Nosferatu antitribu, and then Jo had 4 minions to my 2. Jo then rightfully took the table.) Round 3 Group 1 Ventrue Princes First Tradition Lasombra's A Sudden Anarch Troublemaker (3vp) Archibald Zimonyi's Group 1/2 Ventrue Princes with Arika Anton / Omaya / Hesha intercept with hunting Erik Torstensson's Anson / Rake / Ventrue presence vote / bleed (2vp) (With 3 group 1 Ventrue prince decks at the table, there was some serious talk about contesting, and one of them got contested anyway. The First Tradition deck was unable to cycle to his Parity Shifts while everyone else was passing their turns, and his having to pay to contest plus the pool for the single First Tradition in play put him within 1 pool of being ousted. As soon as the First Tradition was gone, Erik took his turn and ousted the First Tradition player. I offered the intercept deck to take no forward actions against him if he would not block my ousting bleed of Archibald, and he took the deal. I ousted Archibald, and the interceptor bled full steam into Erik, he got him down to 4-5 pool. Erik then cycled votes like mad, and was able to Dramatic Upheaval and oust the intercept deck as it had tapped out with no Wakes and 5-6 intercept cards in hand. I was able to bleed for 7 one last time with Gratiano, and that was all that was necesssary to take Erik.)

On 27 Nov 2004 13:03:13 -0800, Joshua Duffin <jtdu...@yahoo.com> wrote: > Isn't anyone going to weblog the European Championships? We need > on-the-ground reporting! :-) Saturday I was playing Knights, a Ventrue Antitribu AUS FOR deck. Table 1: Temptation + Vampiric Disease deck Jay Kristoff with Nosferatu Antitribu Potence Dominate Rush Bleed Synesios and co. pre obf vote and misc Daneel's Knights Jay controlled the table from round 1. He was a very verbal player (not my preference), and the table eventually reached the point when he was the strongest. I had a bad initial draw, with 6 combat cards and no way to really use them. My prey - thanks to an odd deck concept or Jay's mood control - Tempted each and every vampire on the table *except* for any of Jay's guys. I'm not sure what the master plan was, but it sure didn't work. So I took risks in the hopes of getting at least 1 VP and dropped Dragonbound. My prey then struck a deal with Jay, who offered him 1 VP if he clears the way. He took everyone (except for the PotDom's newly influenced Isabel and my newly influenced Juan Cali) and diablerized his own minions and the minions cross-table. I blocked my Dominique but every other minion got burned. Then Isabel rushed Kephamos, my prey's last minion, and tore his hands off. I bled but I didn't draw any bleed, so Jay ousted two in a sequence. My next turn promised to be the last, and I had my chance as my prey was at 2 and I had 2 minions and Dominique had a Melange in effect. I bled with her in a damned if you block (Dragonbound) and damned if you don't way - except for the fact that Kephamos was playing dominate bounce... ;) After my oust the game ended in a Discard-fest that is so very beautiful about VTES. Ah well, at least Jay kept his word. Table 2: Arika & co. Stealth Vote TheLasombra with Lasombra combat Helena gun block Smiling Jack Zsolt Toth with Gargoyles Daneel's Knights Arika PTOed TheLasombra's Banjoko, who rewarded my prey with Fame and Haven. I however did not have a hand even remotely adequate to beat a full 11-cap, so I reluctantly passed the opportunity. I was bleeding some but then my prey gained pool like hell. My predator drew no Tremere in his opening crypt, so I had a few free turns, but this was not sufficient to ofset my erratic draw. I also knew Zsolt's deck, because I already sat next to it (or its predecessor) during casual games before the EC and each and every time we ended up beating the crap out of eachother. We both knew that once he gets rolling things will get grim for the both of us, so I hoped to oust before that and withstand him by going only forward. The plan fizzled as I was unable to oust my prey, but then Helena got her gun and proved to be a major pain in the ass for the Gargoyles. My prey switched places with the Helena deck and eventually got ousted by TheLasombra just before time. I'm not sure if Jeff is a genius or got lucky, but putting a Fame on Arika ten rounds before she becomes his prey is smooth beyond comprehension. ;) 1,5 to TheLasombra and 0,5 to all but the Arika deck. Table 3: Theo Bell and friends POT rush deck Lasombra fatty vote Martin Major with dom obf stealth bleed Eurobrujah Daneel's Knights I had the least bad draw on the day. I might've won this game if it only lasted two or three more hours. ;P As that was not the case, we ended up in a more or less static stalemate. Martin got ousted by the table wrath but everyone else stayed to time. 1,5 for the Lasombra deck and 0,5 for everyone else. Sunday I was playing an old school Ventrue Law Firm. Table 1: Oko (Tariq) Gangrel "I have 40 copies of Earth Meld" wall Gábor Balázs with Auspex Celerity and Magnums Simona Siracusa with Toreador - !Toreador Stealth Bleed Daneel's Law Firm Now, if I hadn't been the one to advise Gábor, the Prince of Budapest to play his Celerity Guns deck just the day before, because he plays it well, I wouldn't have felt so silly. Or, if the tables hadn't been rearranged in the last minute because of some late arrivals or drops (placing me at Gábor's table). I did not really want to face him, as my combat defences were abysmal, but I still wasn't really worried as Simona was sitting between us. My prey was unlucky, as Gábor used all his sidekicks, so he was left with Zöe and Tariq (while his prey had Aranthebes). I ousted him but then Gábor ousted Simona and myself, and was left in a lockdown with the other wall. They fought for about an hour and then the Gangrel's library got depleted, and they agreed that since it was less than a minute to time, he would withdraw. 3 for Gábor, 1 for me and the Gangrel. Table 2: FOR DOM THA unpreventable prerange aggravated deck Eric Chiang with POT CEL combat EuroBrujah Rush Tibor Holhos with dominate weenies that bleed for 3 at 1 stealth Daneel's Law Firm I was very unSunTzuesque in appearing strong when in reality I was not. I knew I'll get fucked but I had no options to be subtle. I called one Parity Shift on my prey, who then stopped playing and said "I'm not going to help you oust my prey." Great VTES philosophy, especially since I had support cards in my hand but no votes or bleed. I needed to influence out more guys to get more pool via Boons and Voter, but being bled for 6 or so each turn placed a pressure on me that I wasn't equipped to handle from my current hand. I knew that my predator plays a very straight- forward VTES, which I greatly admire, but which is a terrible philosophy for one's predator. So I knew that I will be hammered heavily from round 1 and I was quite right. I was ultimately ousted after Eric rushed my only untapped vampire cross-table. He then proceeded to win the game, with my original prey slipping to my original predator as well. 2 for Tibor and 3 for Eric. The moral of the story is, they no longer play this game for VPs but GWs. Eric knew he had more combat than his prey or Tibor, but feared that if I lunged (which I really hoped to do) I might oust him quickly. Table 3: Francois Morand with Anson Anthelios Master Old School Nosferatu Bruise and Vote Zsolt Cziráki with Nosferatu Antitribu wall Dimitrios Kotsis with DEM OBF stealth bleed Daneel's Law Firm This round gets more attention as there is a deal break involved. Dimitrios started strong and I got bled for quite a lot. I was also extremely far from having vote lock, controlling about a quarter of all the votes at the table. My priority became gaining pool, and I had to make a coupla short term non-aggression packs with my prey. I was preparing my ousting hand in the meantime, knowing that I'm not any better off if Dimitrios gets ousted, because Zsolt will block my actions (no stealth) and I'll be minionless in no time (the only thing worse than being short on pool). So by the time I got back to playing the game after my predator was sufficiently pummeled, I was facing a prey with about 15 pool and three MPAs with Anthelios in play. I started going forward, and Zsolt ousted Dimitrios - who got saved by my prey's Life Boon. My prey seemed pretty strong nevertheless, and I was about at 6 pool with two princes and nothing more. So next round I told my predator that if he ousted my prey, I would make sure he gets at least 1 VP by transfering out if the time limit approached. This way I wold get at least 1 VP myself. We were approaching time, and Dimitrios knew that the Life Boon would steel his VP. The game state at this point was something like: Me: 6 pool, Timothy Crowley and Wilhelm Waldburg, Ventrue HQ Francois Morand: 15 pool, Anson, Democritus, Anthelios, Parthenon Other French guy (sorry, I forgot): 5 pool, Sheldon and Nikolaus Zsolt: 1 pool, Teresita and Ox, Hunting Ground Dimitrios: 5 pool, Rodolfo out, Dolphin Black and Quentin King III in torpor So Dimitrios bled Francois for 2×3 and passed the turn. I called Parity Shift with Waldburg which my prey DI-ed. I then called Conservative Agitation with Timothy, doing 4 damage to my prey and 1 damage to myself, pushed the vote and passed it. I then bled with Waldburg. My prey asked me: "Why do you bleed me?" Well, 'cause you're my prey. I played Daring the Dawn and Conditioning, and the latter got DIed by the other french guy, when Francois promised him not to play Anarch Revolt or bleed during his turn. I passed the turn. Francois played Anarch Revolt and bled with both vampires, so the AR killed his prey (and then Zsolt) when he passed the turn. When Dimitrios started his turn, Francois told him that he should oust me (giving him the VP) and then he'll allow him to withdraw... As if he hadn't broken his promise not one minute ago. The game timed out during my turn and the results were Francois 3 VP (2,5 + 0,5 from Dimitrios) and me 0,5 VP. It was sad how Francois broke his word even though he had no chance of making the finals. He won but he needed to make a deal explicitly in order to break it (as the 1 pool his prey spent on the DI was what allowed him to attempt the oust in the first place). I'm also not sure what the other French guy expected, but he was playing well the whole game so I'm sure there was no collusion involved (he was shocked when Francois broke his word). By the way Francois seemed like a nice guy and it was fun playing with him. However, the bottom line is that he has proven capable of breaking a deal in our game. All in all it was a fun EC and the organizers did a good job. I had more fun than VPs though... ;) I hope to see more interesting ECs. -- Bye, Daneel

On Tue, 30 Nov 2004, Daneel wrote: > It was sad how Francois broke his word even though he > had no chance of making the finals. He won but he Would the deal-break have been more palatable to you if François were likely to make the finals because of it? Wouldn't that be an out-of-game consideration? The goal of each game is to win it. Matt Morgan

> > It was sad how Francois broke his word even though he > > had no chance of making the finals. He won but he > > Would the deal-break have been more palatable to you if François were > likely to make the finals because of it? > > Wouldn't that be an out-of-game consideration? The goal of each game is > to win it. > No, it is not an out-of-game consideration. It is valuable data regarding his play style.

[ quoted text not captured ] I meant it would've been an out-of-game consideration for the other player to only break the deal if by doing so he'd have a shot at the finals. If he's willing to break a deal to win a game (which he was and he did), then he should be willing to do so regardless of tournament standing or a chance at the finals. At least that's how I think it works. Matt Morgan

In message <opsiafk2...@news.chello.hu>, Daneel <dan...@eposta.hu> mumbled something about: >It was sad how Francois broke his word even though he >had no chance of making the finals. He won but he From the results page... 10 Morand François 1 6,5 108 71 Dániel Hadik-Barkóczy 0 1,5 114 I think finishing 10th in the European Championships is well worth it. M. Morand: You rock. Keep up the good work, and congratulations on a clever play to save a Game Win. -- Derek a host is a host from coast to coast and no one will talk to a host that's close unless the host that isn't close is busy, hung, or dead

On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 19:14:16 -0500, Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote: > I think finishing 10th in the European Championships is well worth it. Dunno... I see three (plus one) main goals when participating in a tournament. 1. Fun and learning. You get to meet interesting folks and play good games. 2. Prizes. You get promos (regardless of standing) and prizes (if you made the finals). 3. Self-Esteem. You derive pride from achievement. +1: Qualification. This will only allow you to play more tournaments, therefor it does not introduce a new motivation, even if it presents a new cut-off point (25%). #1 is not linked to winning. You can have fun while scoring 0,0. #2 does not differentiate between 6th place and last place. Either make the finals or you might as well be last. #3 Deriving pride from achieving a standing in a luck game by virtue of dishonor? Seems to defeat the point. I mean, there are only so many people who can say "I've no pride and I'm proud of it...". -- Bye, Daneel

In message <opsia1dq...@news.chello.hu>, Daneel <dan...@eposta.hu> mumbled something about: >On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 19:14:16 -0500, Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> I think finishing 10th in the European Championships is well worth it. > >Dunno... I see three (plus one) main goals when participating in a >tournament. You forgot: #0: Trying to win. Casual play is where fun belongs. Tournaments are there to provide a forum, an outlet I daresay?, where "win in a non-fun way" is acceptable, as ideally everyone else is doing the same thing. If the only point is fun, why even hold a tournament? It would be easier just to play a ton of pickup games at the RAM, drink heavily, and enjoy the company of entertaining people. Also, I'd like to point out: >#3 Deriving pride from achieving a standing in a luck game by virtue of What's this "luck game" garbage? Sour grapes? Perhaps it only looks like luck from 71st place. I note Kamel Senni and Ben Peal seem to consistently finish near the top... I see a number of the same names doing this as well, including some Ferenci guy who won the qualifier, was it? Stephane Lavrut came over to the North American Championships and made the finals, so that's people from both sides of the pond who have traveled far out of their accustomed metagame and done well. I am certain luck has nowhere near as much to do with it as you think... probably because all those players I just mentioned build and select decks that minimize the random effects (seating, draw, etc.) as much as possible. [ quoted text not captured ]

[Daneel] > Dunno... I see three (plus one) main goals when > participating in a tournament. The in-game goal is winning the game. > #3 Deriving pride from achieving a standing in > a luck game ... Jyhad has a luck component, true. Good players minimise the effect of "bad luck" and take the opportunity of "good luck". I don't think that the general outcome of a game, or especially the general outcome of a large tournament (say EC 2004), is very much connected to luck, however. If it was, people (probably) wouldn't play jyhad (as much). > ... by virtue of dishonor? Fight a duel and remove yourself from the genepool, if you're so worried about honour. * lehrbuch

"Daneel" <dan...@eposta.hu> wrote in message news:opsia1dq...@news.chello.hu... > On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 19:14:16 -0500, Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > I think finishing 10th in the European Championships is well worth it. > > Dunno... I see three (plus one) main goals when participating in a > tournament. > > 1. Fun and learning. You get to meet interesting folks and play good games. > > 2. Prizes. You get promos (regardless of standing) and prizes (if you made > the finals). You should also get prizes for each game win, IMO. It reinforces the goal of each game, which is to win that game. > 3. Self-Esteem. You derive pride from achievement. > > +1: Qualification. This will only allow you to play more tournaments, > therefor it does not introduce a new motivation, even if it presents a new > cut-off point (25%). > > #1 is not linked to winning. You can have fun while scoring 0,0. But the game is more fun when people (a) play to win, (b) are good at trying to win, and (c) are willing to break deals. :-) Josh thinks deals that are always kept are boring

On Wed, 1 Dec 2004 00:02:21 -0500, Joshua Duffin <jtdu...@yahoo.com> wrote: > You should also get prizes for each game win, IMO. It reinforces the > goal of each game, which is to win that game. Possibly. > But the game is more fun when people (a) play to win, (b) are good at > trying > to win, and (c) are willing to break deals. :-) [...] > thinks deals that are always kept are boring Well, I guess it's a matter of preference. I prefer not to have any deals whatsoever, and let the deck tuning, tactics and luck decide the victor. Deals take away part of the fun, but so do dealbreaks. This is my opinion, of course. I understand that dealbreaks are generally good against deals, so I'm not sure I'd mind if our metagame shifted more towards dealbreaks. I think however that really classy players don't break their deals. -- Bye, Daneel

On 30 Nov 2004 17:47:15 -0800, lehrbuch <lehr...@gmail.com> wrote: > [Daneel] >> Dunno... I see three (plus one) main goals when >> participating in a tournament. > > The in-game goal is winning the game. Which can be arranged by putting spare cards up your sleeves, offering bribes to your prey for ousting himself or pointing a gun at his or her temples. How far are you willing to go, johnny? Are you going to cheat and threaten, or is lying enough? ;P >> #3 Deriving pride from achieving a standing in >> a luck game ... > > Jyhad has a luck component, true. Good players minimise the effect of > "bad luck" and take the opportunity of "good luck". > > I don't think that the general outcome of a game, or especially the > general outcome of a large tournament (say EC 2004), is very much > connected to luck, however. If it was, people (probably) wouldn't play > jyhad (as much). Plese check the results. Find names that did well on one day and scored poorly the other. Then please tell me that they suddenly forgot/learned to play. >> ... by virtue of dishonor? > > Fight a duel and remove yourself from the genepool, if you're so > worried about honour. You snipped it from context. Please feel free to go and fuck yourself if the best you can do is snip the context that lends relevance to my statement and attack it in itself. -- Bye, Daneel

On Wed, 01 Dec 2004 07:36:49 GMT, Daneel <dan...@eposta.hu> scrawled: > I understand that dealbreaks are >generally good against deals, so I'm not sure I'd mind if our >metagame shifted more towards dealbreaks. I think this is a key point. i know a few people who hate vp deals. they loathe them. they also hate deal breaks. they don't seem to understand that if dealbreaks were more 'acceptable' in terms of peer views of people's play style, then vp deals would become less of a problem. > I think however that >really classy players don't break their deals. i think really classy players only break their deals at the right moments. salem domain:canberra http://www.geocities.com/salem_christ.geo/vtes.htm (replace "hotmail" with "yahoo" to email)

On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 20:19:37 -0500, Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote: > You forgot: > > #0: Trying to win. > > Casual play is where fun belongs. Tournaments are there to provide a > forum, an outlet I daresay?, where "win in a non-fun way" is acceptable, > as ideally everyone else is doing the same thing. I partly agree. However, I had lots of fun this EC and still performed below average. Fun, tense games are more memorable to me than the coupla occasions I won a tournament. Also, there is the issue of what "non-fun way" constitutes. I mean, you could beat up your prey literally until he concedes the game. It's not fun, but you can win with it. I'm sure it's only a matter of where you draw the line. I have more respect for "clean" wins, that is wins that don't involve deals. > If the only point is fun, why even hold a tournament? It would be > easier just to play a ton of pickup games at the RAM, drink heavily, and > enjoy the company of entertaining people. Because at the RAM you get to play with the same 20 (?) people. Same case with our Rack, we have the same 50 people around, much of whom are noobies. But if I go to a tournament I meet interesting people who contribute to my definition of play style. Sure there are prizes and all, but I consider tournaments to be like a gaming convention first and foremost. > Also, I'd like to point out: > >> #3 Deriving pride from achieving a standing in a luck game by virtue of > > What's this "luck game" garbage? Sour grapes? You are being sarcastic. Fact, I had terrible to average draws on each day without a single game where either of my decks produced a good flow. But the truth is, I don't mind that. The EC was memorable and the fun I had is far more tangible than a 6th place could've been. > Perhaps it only looks like luck from 71st place. I note Kamel Senni and > Ben Peal seem to consistently finish near the top... I see a number of > the same names doing this as well, including some Ferenci guy who won > the qualifier, was it? Stephane Lavrut came over to the North American > Championships and made the finals, so that's people from both sides of > the pond who have traveled far out of their accustomed metagame and done > well. Oh, please. I'm not THAT green... ;P > I am certain luck has nowhere near as much to do with it as you think... > probably because all those players I just mentioned build and select > decks that minimize the random effects (seating, draw, etc.) as much as > possible. Maybe. Maybe they are just good at table talk? Who knows. They are very good players, unlike you or I. -- Bye, Daneel

On Wed, 01 Dec 2004 18:59:19 +1100, salem <salem_ch...@hotmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, 01 Dec 2004 07:36:49 GMT, Daneel <dan...@eposta.hu> scrawled: > >> I understand that dealbreaks are >> generally good against deals, so I'm not sure I'd mind if our >> metagame shifted more towards dealbreaks. > > I think this is a key point. i know a few people who hate vp deals. > they loathe them. they also hate deal breaks. they don't seem to > understand that if dealbreaks were more 'acceptable' in terms of peer > views of people's play style, then vp deals would become less of a > problem. Note that our local metagame is almost completely dealless. The few deals that get made are kept. The vast majority of the local players would not break a deal. However, table splitting is almost unheared of. here folks build decks and try to win with them. Given that context it is understandably odd that the European tournament scene is dominated by deals with a growing (?) ratio of broken deals. I understand that in the States dealbreaking was the remedy for the excessive dealing phenomenon, but my local metagame does not experience the problem, so the remedy is pointless. ;) >> I think however that >> really classy players don't break their deals. > > i think really classy players only break their deals at the right > moments. This is where I disagree. I think breaking the spirit of a deal is fine as long as the wording is left intact. Like, no bleeds for 2 turns says nothing about calling a political action... ;) Now that's smooth. I usually like it even when it is done to me, because for me that goes well with the mood of this game. -- Bye, Daneel

Well, here is my story, for those interested... I had a whole lot of fun. It was perfectly organised, a big applause again to everyone involved. My games. game 1 ECQ: me: AAA-grandball, with reversal of fortunes-millicent-anthelios fun. prey: a girl (Sophie) playing Sebastian with eathmelding Satyrs. (that was my other option for that day, glad i didn't do that...) grandprey: memory is failing. grandpredator: WarGhouls, but never saw one. predator; something intercepty- with cryptic missions (that is why i never saw ghouls) I was never really in any trouble, but to make it certain i made a deal with my predator for a 3-2 split winning. Otherwise there would have been a deal with the Warghouler to get a ghoul and attack me. I only played obedience for defense, i was expecting a lot of IG-rush. Nothing exciting, i won. Succubus to keep my predator alive if necesary. game 2 ECQ: prey plays dominate weenie grandprey plays don't remember...something votey grandpredator plays don't remember predator plays for-weenie. Janne from Finland, very nice guy, had fun wuth him. I started out rather slow and almost died to computerhacks. dominate weenie almost killed his prey. grandprey dramatics to be my prey and predtaor to the dom-weenie. I oust votey guy, dom weenie ousts his new prey. Then i made the worst mistake ever, not seeing that Janne was at only 1 pool. I accidentily oust him with a KRC, and loose the game because of that. Otherwise i would have had a 1-4 win. (would make 2-7, enough for the finals) Hitting myself on the head. game 3 ECQ Hugh Anseesing as predator, had a lot of fun there. He was palying Ventrue oldschool. my prey was also somethig ventruish i believe. I had no real troubles ousting him. i was keeping my grandpredator (!malk) alive because i wanted to get the 2nd vp soon. Hugh killed his predator instead, and made a deal with the pallagrande player (my initial grandprey) for no bleeds for long. Game timed out before i coudl take the table. Had loads of pool at that point. Game 1 EC 4-player table Jeff as prey, playing Lasombra breed. Josha crosstable, playing ravnos breed-carnival, eurobrujah as predtaor. EuroBrujah had his hands full with Josha, i was trying to oust Jeff numoerous times, but was blocked/delayed and stuff, until i was in my turn to get the gamewin. predator went to the toilet, and i thought the judge said we get extra time, we didn't...game times out. game 2. prey plays Lasombra-breed. grandprey Sacha plays Warghouls grandpredator plays protean something Cristopher Hougton. predator is Ruben the later Champ, with War Ghouls With 2 Warghouls on the table and only obedience for defense i had alot of desperation. I somehow survive and get my prey at 1 pool, Sacha already killed his minions, he transfers out. I THOUGHT i made a deal with Ruben to give me the Gamewin, with 3-2, but apparently some language problems made that different. He though he would help me oust the other Warghouler and then play for it. I would have played diffenrently had i known,... Anyway, with soe well played telepathic misdirections and DI he ousted my prey. and the i though i was there and influenced out Alexandra to bleed my prey out more quickly. Then Ruben let me know he had another deal in mind and ousted me and my prey just before timelimit. Very interestig game, to obad i understood Rubens English wrong. or the other way around. game 3 EC My prey plays Venrtue-bleed his prey play dom-pot Anthony Coleman played Lasombra breed (again? yeah again..) My predator played Ventrue oldschool. and didn't speak ANY English at all. kinda annoying. Anyway, i didn't have votelock with 9 votes. and in the turn i was going to oust my prey this happened: i am at 7 pool Anneke calls Kine, Predator plays elder kindred netwrok. and has 7 votes against. Anthony then either wanted me ousted or played very Bad and discarded a vote against. i had to vote in favor... Ofcourse a kindred coercion follwed to change Ansons and Annekes votes, and this ousted me. Anthonly was ousted short after. Really cool ousting method...Really annoying that it was so hard to discuss anything on that table. Oh well, had A LOT of fun. Budapest is pretty far though... Now who was there that i didn't meet or identify? W

Daneel <dan...@eposta.hu> writes: > #3 Deriving pride from achieving a standing in a luck game by virtue of > dishonor? Seems to defeat the point. I mean, there are only so many people > who can say "I've no pride and I'm proud of it...". They have pride, honor and admiration. It comes from knowing when to backstab, who to backstab and how to backstab. This *is* a game about ancient, bloodsucking, macchiavellian monsters. Part of the fun comes from fiendishly clever treacheries. -- hg@ "If you can't offend part of your audience, iki.fi there is no point in being an artist at all." -Hakim Bey

Wouter...@yahoo.com (Wouter Kuyper) wrote in message news:<44a2da05.04120...@posting.google.com>... Hey Wouter, I have to hand it to you, you have actually managed to motivate me to post to the general melee that is this newsgroup :O) > game 3 EC > My prey plays Venrtue-bleed > his prey play dom-pot > Anthony Coleman played Lasombra breed (again? yeah again..) > My predator played Ventrue oldschool. and didn't speak ANY English at > all. kinda annoying. Again? I played War Ghouls on Saturday.. and besides that.. ive never played you IRL before this (have played on deckbot a bit though).. im starting to suspect you have it in for me here wout ;) > Anyway, i didn't have votelock with 9 votes. > and in the turn i was going to oust my prey this happened: > i am at 7 pool > Anneke calls Kine, Predator plays elder kindred netwrok. and has 7 > votes against. I feel obliged to mention the terms of your vote and also the position I was in as you apear hesitant to do so :O). I was on 7 pool, with no way of gaining more.. also I have a fame on my banjoko who is on 1 blood and only 1 embrace and hester for support. you call 2 damage on me, cross table. > Anthony then either wanted me ousted or played very Bad and discarded > a vote against. Yes.. im definatly getting the impression you have it in for me here.. all this attention :O) > i had to vote in favor... > Ofcourse a kindred coercion follwed to change Ansons and Annekes > votes, and this ousted me. I dont think it was bad play at all.. as the vote was in the balance when I played my card against, and if you get ousted with a coercion, then so be it.. I was not in a position to consider table balance or VP's dropping over the table. Yes it was likely that he would follow with a coercion, but not 100%.. and i needed that vote to fail. > Anthonly was ousted short after. Yes, thats true, however your demise and my actions in that are utterly irrelevant to this point, i was fubared anyway due to a well played and nice looking POT DOM rush/bleed deck to my right played by a Finnish player whos name escapes me. My only annoyance is that he didnt get the VP he deserved and it was hoovered with a DU. I'm now 100% that your out to get me Wout, you bad man.. or maybe its a crush ;) > Really cool ousting method...Really annoying that it was so hard to > discuss anything on that table. agreed

On 01 Dec 2004 19:38:43 +0200, Janne Hägglund <h...@iki.fi.remove.these.invalid> wrote: > They have pride, honor and admiration. It comes from knowing when to > backstab, who to backstab and how to backstab. > > This *is* a game about ancient, bloodsucking, macchiavellian monsters. > Part of the fun comes from fiendishly clever treacheries. I am still yet to grasp that concept. -- Bye, Daneel

[lehrbuch] > > The in-game goal is winning the game. [Daneel] > Which can be arranged by putting spare cards up > your sleeves, offering bribes to your prey for > ousting himself or pointing a gun at his or her > temples. Maybe, but they're not *in game* methods. Lying is allowed in game (except when it isn't - for example, Monocle of Clarity). > Are you going to cheat and threaten, or is > lying enough? ;P Cheating and threatening are against the rules. Lying is not. > Plese check the results. Find names that did well > on one day and scored poorly the other. Then please > tell me that they suddenly forgot/learned to play. Find names that did well on both days. Are they just very lucky? > You snipped it from context. Please feel free to go > and fuck yourself if the best you can do is snip > the context that lends relevance to my statement > and attack it in itself. What is the relevancy of some ancient, out-dated code of honour to a *card game*? * lehrbuch

In message <3151kkF...@individual.net>, Joshua Duffin <jtdu...@yahoo.com> writes: >"Daneel" <dan...@eposta.hu> wrote in message >news:opsia1dq...@news.chello.hu... >> 2. Prizes. You get promos (regardless of standing) and prizes (if you made >> the finals). > >You should also get prizes for each game win, IMO. It reinforces the goal >of each game, which is to win that game. Interesting thought. For a few quid entrance fee, a twenty player tournament could generate a box[0] (assuming no fees are needed to cover the venue, which is far from certain) and if you could then throw one booster at each table win, of which there are 12 during the day. Still leaves you with a reasonable number of boosters to use as final table goodies. Seems like a useful idea to consider, anyway. [0] One shop I know does two quid a booster, 36 boosters to a box, 72 quid, plus 20% discount =~ 60 quid. Twenty players, three quid each. Alter to fit foreign money to taste. -- James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D Who's ever heard of that, though! EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 Designing a deck that just calls votes. 13D7E668C3695D623D5D That's crazy talk, there.

In message <opsia1dq...@news.chello.hu>, Daneel <dan...@eposta.hu> writes: >#3 Deriving pride from achieving a standing in a luck game by virtue of >dishonor? What is "dishonor" to you is "skilful Machiavellian manipulations, taking years of effort to perfect, designed to exploit the weaknesses of a naive and foolish Methuselah" to others. [ quoted text not captured ]

"James Coupe" <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> escribió en el mensaje news:RqjHEbCe...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk... > In message <3151kkF...@individual.net>, Joshua Duffin > <jtdu...@yahoo.com> writes: > >"Daneel" <dan...@eposta.hu> wrote in message > >news:opsia1dq...@news.chello.hu... > >> 2. Prizes. You get promos (regardless of standing) and prizes (if you made > >> the finals). > > > >You should also get prizes for each game win, IMO. It reinforces the goal > >of each game, which is to win that game. > > Interesting thought. For a few quid entrance fee, a twenty player > tournament could generate a box[0] (assuming no fees are needed to cover > the venue, which is far from certain) and if you could then throw one > booster at each table win, of which there are 12 during the day. Still > leaves you with a reasonable number of boosters to use as final table > goodies. > > Seems like a useful idea to consider, anyway. > > > [0] One shop I know does two quid a booster, 36 boosters to a box, 72 > quid, plus 20% discount =~ 60 quid. Twenty players, three quid each. > > Alter to fit foreign money to taste. > For our summer tournament in Palma, Damnans' uses the following system: 1 booster for each VP earned during the tournament. It works quite well. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <opsiclbv...@news.chello.hu>, Daneel <dan...@eposta.hu> writes: [ quoted text not captured ] In a game with an inherent social element, one can admire skilful manipulation of people just as one can admire skilful manipulation of cards, rules, minions, deck-building and so on. It's just one of the parts of Jyhad that you need to be good at to stand up to top class players. After all, if you leave yourself open to be bled dry because someone said "Oh yeah, I won't bleed you this turn" is it really their fault that you got ousted? Or is it your fault for being too naive? Consider the implications of regarding "allowing yourself to be backstabbed" as "bad play" rather than stigmatising "backstabbing" as "dishonor" and a lot of other possibilities start to flow. [ quoted text not captured ]

Anthony.T...@gmail.com wrote in message news:<574d8f4d.04120...@posting.google.com>... > Wouter...@yahoo.com (Wouter Kuyper) wrote in message news:<44a2da05.04120...@posting.google.com>... > > Hey Wouter, I have to hand it to you, you have actually managed to > motivate me to post to the general melee that is this newsgroup :O) > > > game 3 EC > > My prey plays Venrtue-bleed > > his prey play dom-pot > > Anthony Coleman played Lasombra breed (again? yeah again..) > > My predator played Ventrue oldschool. and didn't speak ANY English at > > all. kinda annoying. > > Again? I played War Ghouls on Saturday.. and besides that.. ive never > played you IRL before this (have played on deckbot a bit though).. im > starting to suspect you have it in for me here wout ;) Heh, no, i didn't mean that you played it again, i meant, i played at three tables, all of them had a lasombra breeder :-) sorry if you took it that way. > > > Anyway, i didn't have votelock with 9 votes. > > and in the turn i was going to oust my prey this happened: > > i am at 7 pool > > Anneke calls Kine, Predator plays elder kindred netwrok. and has 7 > > votes against. > > I feel obliged to mention the terms of your vote and also the position > I was in as you apear hesitant to do so :O). I was on 7 pool, with no > way of gaining more.. also I have a fame on my banjoko who is on 1 > blood and only 1 embrace and hester for support. you call 2 damage on > me, cross table. Yes. It was the only way that i could get it passed. I agree it wasn't a great thing to do, but the way i saw it, after that your predator would have a predator. Even then, There was no point in throwing a vote against, as it would pass even if you voted against, unless a kindred coercion was played (which was VERY logical with an EKN). And in that case your vote would oust me. So, either you wanted me ousted (if so, why?), or you misplayed it. The way i see it. No problem though, i had fun. > > > Anthony then either wanted me ousted or played very Bad and discarded > > a vote against. > > Yes.. im definatly getting the impression you have it in for me here.. > all this attention :O) No not at all. It was just the only thing in all my games i didn't really understand. And i knew you and played a lot against you. It was easy mentioning you :-) > > > i had to vote in favor... > > Ofcourse a kindred coercion follwed to change Ansons and Annekes > > votes, and this ousted me. > > I dont think it was bad play at all.. as the vote was in the balance > when I played my card against, and if you get ousted with a coercion, > then so be it.. I was not in a position to consider table balance or > VP's dropping over the table. Yes it was likely that he would follow > with a coercion, but not 100%.. and i needed that vote to fail. Even if you vote against the vote would fail, UNLESS a coercion was played. > > > Anthonly was ousted short after. > > Yes, thats true, however your demise and my actions in that are > utterly irrelevant to this point, I didn't want to make a relation appear between the two. You are correct, there was no relation between you playing that card and being soon ousted. (besides your prey now having complete votelock) i was fubared anyway due to a well > played and nice looking POT DOM rush/bleed deck to my right played by > a Finnish player whos name escapes me. My only annoyance is that he > didnt get the VP he deserved and it was hoovered with a DU. Yes, that was annoying. Bad card that, DU. :-) > > I'm now 100% that your out to get me Wout, you bad man.. or maybe its > a crush ;) It's a crush, no hard feelings at all. :-) let's play again soon. > > > Really cool ousting method...Really annoying that it was so hard to > > discuss anything on that table. > > agreed At least we agree on something :-) W

On 1 Dec 2004 17:53:08 -0800, Wouter...@yahoo.com (Wouter Kuyper) wrote: >> > game 3 EC >> > My prey plays Venrtue-bleed >> > his prey play dom-pot >> > Anthony Coleman played Lasombra breed (again? yeah again..) >> > My predator played Ventrue oldschool. and didn't speak ANY English at >> > all. kinda annoying. >> Again? I played War Ghouls on Saturday.. and besides that.. ive never >> played you IRL before this (have played on deckbot a bit though).. im >> starting to suspect you have it in for me here wout ;) >Heh, no, i didn't mean that you played it again, i meant, i played at >three tables, all of them had a lasombra breeder >:-) >sorry if you took it that way. There were no Embraces in my deck. It was a tap and bleed deck, see: http://www.thelasombra.com/decks/A_Sudden_Anarch_Troublemaker.htm Carpe noctem. Lasombra http://www.TheLasombra.com

On Wed, 1 Dec 2004 09:03:00 +0000, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: > In message <opsia1dq...@news.chello.hu>, Daneel <dan...@eposta.hu> > writes: >> #3 Deriving pride from achieving a standing in a luck game by virtue of >> dishonor? > > What is "dishonor" to you is "skilful Machiavellian manipulations, > taking years of effort to perfect, designed to exploit the weaknesses of > a naive and foolish Methuselah" to others. Note that I was not trying to discredit Francois in a "Noble crusade against the Eeevil bodysnatchers from planet Dealbreak". I enjoyed the game with him. It's just that I want to experiment with disclosing dealbreakers on international tournaments and observe whether knowledge of their former mischief affects their future games. I bear no grudge towards him even though his behaviour only indirectly contributes to my vision of VTES. -- Bye, Daneel

On 1 Dec 2004 13:40:00 -0800, lehrbuch <lehr...@gmail.com> wrote: > [lehrbuch] >> > The in-game goal is winning the game. > [Daneel] >> Which can be arranged by putting spare cards up >> your sleeves, offering bribes to your prey for >> ousting himself or pointing a gun at his or her >> temples. > > Maybe, but they're not *in game* methods. Lying is allowed in game > (except when it isn't - for example, Monocle of Clarity). It might be easy to see how people might get the impression that if you have no moral trouble lying than neither do you have any moral trouble cheating. >> Are you going to cheat and threaten, or is >> lying enough? ;P > > Cheating and threatening are against the rules. Lying is not. Why would you keep the rules of VTES when they stand in your way of winning? I mean, if you can get away with cheating, why not do that? Surely there won't be repercussions if noone finds out. >> Plese check the results. Find names that did well >> on one day and scored poorly the other. Then please >> tell me that they suddenly forgot/learned to play. > > Find names that did well on both days. Are they just very lucky? This is a pointless back-and-forth. Not based on one tournament, not even based on a dozen tournaments can you conclude who is a good player and who is not. I don't consider myself a very win-oriented player but even I won tournaments once in a while. I usually just play to have fun (without trying to ruin other's games doing that). >> You snipped it from context. Please feel free to go >> and fuck yourself if the best you can do is snip >> the context that lends relevance to my statement >> and attack it in itself. > > What is the relevancy of some ancient, out-dated code of honour to a > *card game*? Let me reverse the question (without going into the intricacies of the difference between "out-dated" and "proven"): If you sit down to play cards, do you become a different person? Or do you remain the same person you were when you were kissing your wife goodbye in the morning, going to work or building your enterprise, saving money for your kids, etc. Just curious. -- Bye, Daneel

Daneel <dan...@eposta.hu> writes: > If you sit down to play cards, do you become a different person? > Or do you remain the same person you were when you were kissing > your wife goodbye in the morning, going to work or building your > enterprise, saving money for your kids, etc. Just curious. I thought that was one of the very *points* of gaming. You sit down at the gaming table, and *play being evil*. Lying, manipulating, ruining peoples' lives, ripping their arms off, drinking their blood, killing someone just because it gives you an advantage. And there are no consequences, because the "people", whose lives you ruined in your brutally selfish quest for total domination, are really just pieces of cardboard. You get to go "Bwahahahaha! The world is mine and my enemies lie in ruins at my feet, muahhahhaha!" - but nobody has to suffer the consequences of your actions. [ quoted text not captured ]

in our own game group (casual play, not tourneys), we do follow the letter of the deal (no one broke a deal, becouse we do play with the same players once and again, and they wont deal with you ever if you do broke). HOWEVER..... we do follow the "letter" of the deal ONLY. Our typical deal would be something like " A-i torporize that Arika of your predator who will get a table win if he collects another VP, but only if you dont bleed me next turn, becouse im only at 4 pool. Otherwise i would rush you. B-Ok. Rush him and i wont bleed you. A-bum rush to that (play combat cards and torporize Arika) B-I play anarch revolt and now arika is gone, i play kine resource contested. I win. A-shit.... B- :D I do believe that this make the game funnier, and more "roleplaying". You are a thousand year old bloodsucker trying to control the world, at the very end... You can both honor a deal AND break it at the same time, dont you? [ quoted text not captured ]

"Daneel" <dan...@eposta.hu> wrote in message news:opsidke0...@news.chello.hu... > It might be easy to see how people might get the impression > that if you have no moral trouble lying than neither do you > have any moral trouble cheating. Not reasonable players. I expect my "opponents" in poker to bluff on occassion. I am upset at myself if I fall for it, but I am adult enough to realize that it is a part of the game. I expect my opponents not to cheat, however (deal from the middle of the deck; sneak a peek at the cards dealt to others; etc.). What you attempt to label as morality is actually just honesty, in the "following the rules" sense, not the "tell the truth" sense. An honest player can bluff (lie) but not cheat. -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. V:TES homepage: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/ Though effective, appear to be ineffective -- Sun Tzu

"Daneel" <dan...@eposta.hu> wrote in message news:opsidypm...@news.chello.hu... > I understand you. There is a clear distinction. However, I am still > not sure why you assume "reasonable" players to be honest but not > truthful (or assume that of their opponents)... Because both can be > understood under a broader "honest/morality" kind of umbrella. > > "Bob said he was helping his ma, but I suspect he was with some girl." > "Nae, Bob's an honest guy. He wouldn't tell a lie." Um. Different context/usage. The exitence of one definition does not preclude the existence of another. And besides, the topic at hand is "in a game with rules" (where the rules do not preclude table talk). What is allowed/acceptable in a game is not always what is allowed/acceptbale in standard person-to-person interaction, of course. > Even if Honesty and Truthfulness are indeed separate issues, they > could be characterized as an adherence to a norm (in this case one > socially accepted behavior). Bluffing in a game (and other table talk) *is* socially accepted behavior (provided we're talking about games where it is allowed, of course). > I see. Well, I'm not a big poker guru (never really played it > except with friends on vacation, and we were usually betting in > cigarettes), so I might not be utterly familiar with that. You need not be familiar with poker. VTES is sufficient. "I'll play Second Tradition and block unless you agree <to some particular choice or boundaries for terms of a referendum you're calling>." is a bluff when you don't have a Second Tradition in hand. It is allowed and acceptable. > What I am familiar with is that there is a tangible line between > "lying" by obfuscation and lying by misstatement. That line is > where some players I know place the boundaries of VTES mischief. What is allowed/acceptable in a game is not always what is allowed/acceptbale in standard person-to-person interaction, of course. > By the way, I (and basically all the folks I know) play like that > in all games. Exception is a roleplaying game, where in-character > one can lie with impunity. Good. Understanding that different contexts make for exceptions is the first step. You are free not to bluff in poker as you are free not to in VTES. One will tend to fair better over the long run if one learns when and how to bluff, however. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Thu, 2 Dec 2004 08:02:21 -0500, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > "Daneel" <dan...@eposta.hu> wrote in message > news:opsidke0...@news.chello.hu... >> It might be easy to see how people might get the impression >> that if you have no moral trouble lying than neither do you >> have any moral trouble cheating. > > Not reasonable players. > > I expect my "opponents" in poker to bluff on occassion. > I am upset at myself if I fall for it, but I am adult enough > to realize that it is a part of the game. > I expect my opponents not to cheat, however (deal from the > middle of the deck; sneak a peek at the cards dealt to > others; etc.). > What you attempt to label as morality is actually just > honesty, in the "following the rules" sense, not the > "tell the truth" sense. An honest player can bluff (lie) > but not cheat. I'm not trying to hairsplit or something, I just want to be sure what you mean. Are you saying that there are two (relevant) types of honesty, one being the "follow the rules" honesty and the other being the "tell the truth" honesty? One type of honest person will follow the rules yet still lie, while the other will cheat but tell the truth? Plus there may be absolute dishonest persons and absolute honest ones? I see little point in this, frankly. Bluffing is one thing (you allow your opponent to draw his or her own conclusions from the way you play), but that is not telling falsehood (lying). -- Bye, Daneel

"James Coupe" <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote in message news:RqjHEbCe...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk... > In message <3151kkF...@individual.net>, Joshua Duffin > <jtdu...@yahoo.com> writes: > >You should also get prizes for each game win, IMO. It reinforces the goal > >of each game, which is to win that game. > > Interesting thought. For a few quid entrance fee, a twenty player > tournament could generate a box[0] (assuming no fees are needed to cover > the venue, which is far from certain) and if you could then throw one > booster at each table win, of which there are 12 during the day. Still > leaves you with a reasonable number of boosters to use as final table > goodies. Exactly. I've run a number of tournaments (at game stores that don't charge us for space, and often give a discount on mass booster-pack purchases) with a $5 entry fee, paying for 1 booster per player and then a booster pack for each preliminary game win, and then a few more for winning the finals. (If you do it that way, you also get a nice incentive to try your best to win the finals rather than ever settle for second place, since the prize for second isn't any better than the prize for fifth. Also, your other finalists should already have gotten some prize support by getting game-win packs in the earlier rounds.) Josh prizes prizes everywhere

"Daneel" <dan...@eposta.hu> wrote in message news:opsidvwp...@news.chello.hu... > On Thu, 2 Dec 2004 08:02:21 -0500, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > > I expect my "opponents" in poker to bluff on occassion. > > I am upset at myself if I fall for it, but I am adult enough > > to realize that it is a part of the game. > > I expect my opponents not to cheat, however (deal from the > > middle of the deck; sneak a peek at the cards dealt to > > others; etc.). > > What you attempt to label as morality is actually just > > honesty, in the "following the rules" sense, not the > > "tell the truth" sense. An honest player can bluff (lie) > > but not cheat. > > I'm not trying to hairsplit or something, I just want to be > sure what you mean. > > Are you saying that there are two (relevant) types of honesty, > one being the "follow the rules" honesty and the other being > the "tell the truth" honesty? "Honest" can be used to include "truthful", yes. > One type of honest person will > follow the rules yet still lie, while the other will cheat > but tell the truth? No. Honesty always involves not cheating. You can be truthful and cheat (unless you count lying by omission as a breach of truthfullness), but that is not honest, by any definition. I believe this distinction is used in some RPGs as well, where a character can have the "disadvantage" of honesty (knowlingly breaking the law is either impossible for that character or causes a penalty of some sort) and/or a separate "disdavantage" of truthfullness (lying is impossible or causes a penalty). > Plus there may be absolute dishonest > persons and absolute honest ones? One type of honesty: following the rules/laws. Another thing is called truthfullness: not lying. Honesty: fairness of conduct. Integrity. It often implies a refusal to lie (indeed, one of the definitions of honesty is truthfulness), but not always (as in the case when bluffing is permitted). I'm using "honest" in the former sense -- refusal to break / adherence to the rules/law. > I see little point in this, frankly. Bluffing is one thing > (you allow your opponent to draw his or her own conclusions > from the way you play), but that is not telling falsehood > (lying). I poker, as in VTES, bluffing need not be done solely by the betting/play. You can speak (and lie), give false "tells", etc. as part of your bluff. "So you got your straight, eh?" "Yep." [ quoted text not captured ]

"Daneel" <dan...@eposta.hu> wrote in message news:opsidwsj...@news.chello.hu... > On Thu, 2 Dec 2004 11:12:00 -0000, Gustavo Iglesias > <gustavo....@eresmas.net> wrote: > > > I do believe that this make the game funnier, and more "roleplaying". You > > are a thousand year old bloodsucker trying to control the world, at the > > very > > end... You can both honor a deal AND break it at the same time, dont you? > > Exactly my thoughts. I may be _playing_ a cunning bastard, but > I'm still not one myself. I'm playing a gentleman's sport that > happens to use such a setting for purposes of mood. That doesn't make sense. How are you "playing" the cunning bastard if you don't act the way he would? It sounds like performing the role of Iago but refusing to speak any of the lines where he lies. :-) Have you ever played the game Diplomacy? That game *could* be played without people ever breaking deals, but it would lose a lot of its depth, wouldn't it? To me, VTES is somewhat like that: the game is more interesting, tactically and strategically, if people are willing to lie within the game. A game of strict truth-tellers isn't as much fun. I don't really see the point of the "legalistic" deal-keeping approach either, myself. What, it's honorable to act like an unscrupulous lawyer and break the spirit of a deal, but not to break the letter of the deal? If you've broken the spirit, isn't *that* ungentlemanly? Why yes, yes it is. :-) Josh from a land where the hereditary elite ("gentle" men) have no special standing

On Thu, 2 Dec 2004 11:12:00 -0000, Gustavo Iglesias <gustavo....@eresmas.net> wrote: > I do believe that this make the game funnier, and more "roleplaying". You > are a thousand year old bloodsucker trying to control the world, at the > very > end... You can both honor a deal AND break it at the same time, dont you? Exactly my thoughts. I may be _playing_ a cunning bastard, but I'm still not one myself. I'm playing a gentleman's sport that happens to use such a setting for purposes of mood. -- Bye, Daneel

On Thu, 2 Dec 2004 09:22:01 -0500, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > One type of honesty: following the rules/laws. > Another thing is called truthfullness: not lying. > > Honesty: fairness of conduct. Integrity. > > It often implies a refusal to lie (indeed, one of the definitions > of honesty is truthfulness), but not always (as in the > case when bluffing is permitted). I'm using "honest" in the > former sense -- refusal to break / adherence to the rules/law. I understand you. There is a clear distinction. However, I am still not sure why you assume "reasonable" players to be honest but not truthful (or assume that of their opponents)... Because both can be understood under a broader "honest/morality" kind of umbrella. "Bob said he was helping his ma, but I suspect he was with some girl." "Nae, Bob's an honest guy. He wouldn't tell a lie." Even if Honesty and Truthfulness are indeed separate issues, they could be characterized as an adherence to a norm (in this case one socially accepted behavior). Divergence from that norm in one way does not directly imply a divergence of another sort, but I'm sure there could be a connection. >> I see little point in this, frankly. Bluffing is one thing >> (you allow your opponent to draw his or her own conclusions >> from the way you play), but that is not telling falsehood >> (lying). > > I poker, as in VTES, bluffing need not be done solely by the > betting/play. You can speak (and lie), give false "tells", etc. > as part of your bluff. > > "So you got your straight, eh?" > "Yep." I see. Well, I'm not a big poker guru (never really played it except with friends on vacation, and we were usually betting in cigarettes), so I might not be utterly familiar with that. What I am familiar with is that there is a tangible line between "lying" by obfuscation and lying by misstatement. That line is where some players I know place the boundaries of VTES mischief. By the way, I (and basically all the folks I know) play like that in all games. Exception is a roleplaying game, where in-character one can lie with impunity (but VTES has no real in-character element like that, consider the Malk Kraze d4-Bleed issue). -- Bye, Daneel

"Daneel" <dan...@eposta.hu> wrote in message news:opsidypm...@news.chello.hu... > What I am familiar with is that there is a tangible line between > "lying" by obfuscation and lying by misstatement. That line is > where some players I know place the boundaries of VTES mischief. I don't think that line exists as an ethical boundary, though. Ethically speaking, if you know that someone's walking off a cliff and don't tell them, that is at least nearly as bad (if not the same) as actively encouraging them to walk in that direction. Don't you think? LSJ's explanation of how socially acceptably behavior within games is different from outside of games seems like a good one to me. You wouldn't normally hurt your friends, would you? But in a game of paintball, you might shoot them with a paintball, which does tend to hurt. Josh also likes poker (perhaps not surprisingly)

[Daneel] > It might be easy to see how people might get > the impression that if you have no moral > trouble lying than neither do you have > any moral trouble cheating. Only if they're easily confused. Cheating is against the rules, lying isn't. If, for example, someone asked me a question under the Monocle of Clarity, then I wouldn't lie, as it would be cheating to do so. > Why would you keep the rules of VTES when > they stand in your way of winning? If you win by cheating, then you are not playing jyhad. Winning the game implies playing the game. Playing the game implies following the rules. > Surely there won't be repercussions if > noone finds out. I'll know. I didn't sit down to win any game, I sat down to (try to) win a game of jyhad. Hence I'll follow the rules of jyhad. > If you sit down to play cards, do you become a > different person? No, and I don't hold with any "acting like a Methuselah" crap, either. I'm me. I'm playing a card game. Lying about the game state and my intentions in game are acceptable. I'm expecting the other players might do the same. Part of the game is to distinguish the "true" game state from amongst the other players' obfuscations. I wouldn't lie about the game state or my intentions to a judge and I wouldn't lie about "open" elements of the game state (hide my pool, for example). That would be cheating. After the game I have no reason to lie to the other players, so I probably wouldn't. * lehrbuch

"Daneel" <dan...@eposta.hu> wrote in message news:opsifnd9...@news.chello.hu... > > LSJ's explanation of how socially acceptably behavior within games is > > different from outside of games seems like a good one to me. You > > wouldn't normally hurt your friends, would you? But in a game of > > paintball, you might shoot them with a paintball, which does tend to > > hurt. > > You are assuming that when someone sits down to play VTES they ask to > be lied to. So your argument is pretty self-fulfilling. "You sit down > to play VTES, you expect to be lied to, so don't whine about being lied > to as you sat down to play VTES". I debate the original assumption - > that you ask to be lied to when you sit down to play VTES. I think it's tacitly implied that it can be a possibility in the context of the game. When I ask an opponent a question during play, I don't necessarily expect a straight answer. If I ask him whether he's got any Wakes or any Deflections, I wouldn't expect him to be honest with me. When I strike a deal with someone, I only have their word for it, and it's really my call whether to trust them or not. Usually I only bargain in such a way that it's worth the player's while to stick to their word, but they are by no means forced to. And it's my fault if they catch me out. If you can't handle this level of play then fair enough, but it's something that's going to continue to be enjoyed by many of the rest of us regardless. On a slightly related note however is player deal-making integrity and the associated out-of-game consideration. It's common for many of us to trust (or distrust) a player based on the past experience of their play. If someone has a reputation for not sticking to their word then it's often unlikely that people would count on them in future games. The trouble is, this is clearly out-of-game consideration, so how do you rule in official play when the merits of a deal are being proposed, and any previous behaviour is cited? Regards, Mike Nudd VEKN Prince of London

On Fri, 3 Dec 2004 05:33:55 -0800, Kevin M. <you...@imaspammer.org> wrote: > Daneel <dan...@eposta.hu> wrote: >> If I say I have a 2nd and will block if this or that, then I >> really have it and I really will block it. Simple and effective. > > ...at giving me informationabout your hand. Thanks for letting me know > that. Make sure to tell me who you are next time I sit down at a table > with you. ;) > >> I sometimes enjoy tabletalk but it is mostly pointless >> and just a way to stall for time. > > WHOA. It would be A-mazing to play with you. How do you ever get a vote > deck to work? Daneel: Call KRC. Any blocks? Stealth. More? Good. 3-1. Bewitching oration, Awe, Voter Captivation. ;) No, I'm just kidding. There's really not that much table talk associated with votes. I mean, I just assign the leftover to the prey of whomever has the most votes and it usually just passes. Or I ask who will vote in my favor and for how much damage. But it's not the same as arguing for half an hour on the details of a deal. > Can't you see that certain decks that would take advantage of you because > of these limitations you've crippled yourself with? Why not just play > the > game like everyone else and lie about the cards in your hand once in a > while? It's a GAME, after all, so who gives a damn that you lied about > the 2nd that you didn't have in your hand? Hell, I'd pat you on the back > for it. hehee:) Not limitations. That's what I like in VTES. I like deck tuning, I like tactics, but I somewhat dislike table talk. I do it occasionally, but most of the time I just feel like playing the game and not talking about it. -- Bye, Daneel

"Mike" <mi...@vekn.org.uk> wrote in message news:41b09216$0$9337$ed26...@ptn-nntp-reader02.plus.net... > On a slightly related note however is player deal-making integrity and the > associated out-of-game consideration. It's common for many of us to trust > (or distrust) a player based on the past experience of their play. If > someone has a reputation for not sticking to their word then it's often > unlikely that people would count on them in future games. The trouble is, > this is clearly out-of-game consideration, so how do you rule in official > play when the merits of a deal are being proposed, and any previous > behaviour is cited? Out of game considerations can be used for unregulated activity. You are free to use a player's "tells" (flushed/pale skin, nervous twitches, shifty eyes, etc.) in determining whether or not to make a deal, as well (these are other out-of-game considerations). [ quoted text not captured ]

On 2 Dec 2004 12:24:11 -0800, lehrbuch <lehr...@gmail.com> wrote: > [Daneel] >> It might be easy to see how people might get >> the impression that if you have no moral >> trouble lying than neither do you have >> any moral trouble cheating. [snip] > I'll know. I didn't sit down to win any game, I sat down to (try to) > win a game of jyhad. Hence I'll follow the rules of jyhad. Allow me to ask a question. If the rules of jyhad would not prohibit killing your opponent, yould you kill your prey to gain his or her VP? Just curious, because a strict adherence to the written rules, while admirable, is seldom sufficient IMHO. >> If you sit down to play cards, do you become a >> different person? > > No, and I don't hold with any "acting like a Methuselah" crap, either. > I'm me. I'm playing a card game. Lying about the game state and my > intentions in game are acceptable. I'm expecting the other players > might do the same. Part of the game is to distinguish the "true" game > state from amongst the other players' obfuscations. > > I wouldn't lie about the game state or my intentions to a judge and I > wouldn't lie about "open" elements of the game state (hide my pool, for > example). That would be cheating. After the game I have no reason to > lie to the other players, so I probably wouldn't. Well, that's fair enough anyway. I see where you are coming from, and though I disagree with your POV, I can easily understand how you came to it. I don't think I'll be convincing you, but that's not a problem. ;) -- Bye, Daneel

On Thu, 2 Dec 2004 12:50:57 -0500, Joshua Duffin <duff...@bls.gov> wrote: > "Daneel" <dan...@eposta.hu> wrote in message > news:opsidypm...@news.chello.hu... > >> What I am familiar with is that there is a tangible line between >> "lying" by obfuscation and lying by misstatement. That line is >> where some players I know place the boundaries of VTES mischief. > > I don't think that line exists as an ethical boundary, though. > Ethically speaking, if you know that someone's walking off a cliff and > don't tell them, that is at least nearly as bad (if not the same) as > actively encouraging them to walk in that direction. Don't you think? I think that example is a bit far off. If you look at lying in itself, and not in the shadow of a more serious vice, you get a clear distinction between lying by omission and by misstatement. In fact, the former is not even lying. > LSJ's explanation of how socially acceptably behavior within games is > different from outside of games seems like a good one to me. You > wouldn't normally hurt your friends, would you? But in a game of > paintball, you might shoot them with a paintball, which does tend to > hurt. You are assuming that when someone sits down to play VTES they ask to be lied to. So your argument is pretty self-fulfilling. "You sit down to play VTES, you expect to be lied to, so don't whine about being lied to as you sat down to play VTES". I debate the original assumption - that you ask to be lied to when you sit down to play VTES. -- Bye, Daneel

Daneel <dan...@eposta.hu> wrote: > If I say I have a 2nd and will block if this or that, then I > really have it and I really will block it. Simple and effective. ...at giving me informationabout your hand. Thanks for letting me know that. Make sure to tell me who you are next time I sit down at a table with you. ;) > I sometimes enjoy tabletalk but it is mostly pointless > and just a way to stall for time. WHOA. It would be A-mazing to play with you. How do you ever get a vote deck to work? Can't you see that certain decks that would take advantage of you because of these limitations you've crippled yourself with? Why not just play the game like everyone else and lie about the cards in your hand once in a while? It's a GAME, after all, so who gives a damn that you lied about the 2nd that you didn't have in your hand? Hell, I'd pat you on the back for it. hehee:) > Daneel Kevin M., Prince of Henderson, NV (USA) "Know your enemy, and know yourself; in one-thousand battles you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, *The Art of War* "Contentment... Complacency... Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier

On Thu, 2 Dec 2004 10:30:09 -0500, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > What is allowed/acceptable in a game is not always what is > allowed/acceptbale in standard person-to-person interaction, > of course. You hint at a possible expansion of the socially acceptable. I do not believe in such an expansion. If you view honesty as integrity, and not a behavioural pattern forced onto you by fear of repercussions, you will not be quick to expand your boundaries within a game. >> Even if Honesty and Truthfulness are indeed separate issues, they >> could be characterized as an adherence to a norm (in this case one >> socially accepted behavior). > > Bluffing in a game (and other table talk) *is* socially accepted > behavior (provided we're talking about games where it is allowed, > of course). Bluffing does not imply lying or breaking the word. > You need not be familiar with poker. > VTES is sufficient. > "I'll play Second Tradition and block unless you agree <to > some particular choice or boundaries for terms of a referendum > you're calling>." is a bluff when you don't have a Second > Tradition in hand. It is allowed and acceptable. I don't do that. If I say I have a 2nd and will block if this or that, then I really have it and I really will block it. Simple and effective. >> What I am familiar with is that there is a tangible line between >> "lying" by obfuscation and lying by misstatement. That line is >> where some players I know place the boundaries of VTES mischief. > > What is allowed/acceptable in a game is not always what is > allowed/acceptbale in standard person-to-person interaction, > of course. You hint at a possible expansion of the socially acceptable. I do not believe in such an expansion. If you view honesty as integrity, and not a behavioural pattern forced onto you by fear of repercussions, you will not be quick to expand your boundaries within a game. >> By the way, I (and basically all the folks I know) play like that >> in all games. Exception is a roleplaying game, where in-character >> one can lie with impunity. > > Good. Understanding that different contexts make for exceptions > is the first step. Towards what? VTES has no "in-character" element. It is a game of strategy and tactics. It's not roleplaying. > You are free not to bluff in poker as you are free not to in VTES. > One will tend to fair better over the long run if one learns > when and how to bluff, however. If faring better you mean a polished ranking then possibly. If you mean having fun than I doubt it. Of course, fun is hard to objectively measure, but for me the ultimate fun in VTES is probably linked to the Silence of Death game variant. I sometimes enjoy tabletalk but it is mostly pointless and just a way to stall for time. Rules variant: Once during your turn you may burn the edge to ask a single Yes/No question to another Methuselah (which can be a deal proposal, a probing of intent, etc.). The Methuselah asked can reply with one of the following phrases: "Yes", "No", "I won't tell", "I don't know". Otherwise, your verbal communication is limited to announcing the parameters of actions you take and cards you play. -- Bye, Daneel

"Daneel" <dan...@eposta.hu> wrote in message news:opsifou4...@news.chello.hu... > On Thu, 2 Dec 2004 10:30:09 -0500, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > > > What is allowed/acceptable in a game is not always what is > > allowed/acceptbale in standard person-to-person interaction, > > of course. > > You hint at a possible expansion of the socially acceptable. > > I do not believe in such an expansion. It is not an expansion. If a friend asks to borrow something, I let him. I he asks to see something, I let him. In the game however, I do not let him see my cards nor let him borrow my Wake. Likewise bluffing. It is inherent in most card games. The ones it is not are the ones whose rules exclude it. VTES rules do not exclude it. You are free to tack one whatever house rules expansions you like, of course. > If you view honesty as integrity, and not a behavioural pattern > forced onto you by fear of repercussions, you will not be quick > to expand your boundaries within a game. Um. OK. Honesty == intergrity does not exclude bluffing. > >> Even if Honesty and Truthfulness are indeed separate issues, they > >> could be characterized as an adherence to a norm (in this case one > >> socially accepted behavior). > > > > Bluffing in a game (and other table talk) *is* socially accepted > > behavior (provided we're talking about games where it is allowed, > > of course). > > Bluffing does not imply lying or breaking the word. Bluffing implies lying. Bluffing is deceiving. Do you normally attempt to decieve your friends in social situations? > > > You need not be familiar with poker. > > VTES is sufficient. > > "I'll play Second Tradition and block unless you agree <to > > some particular choice or boundaries for terms of a referendum > > you're calling>." is a bluff when you don't have a Second > > Tradition in hand. It is allowed and acceptable. > > I don't do that. If I say I have a 2nd and will block if this > or that, then I really have it and I really will block it. > Simple and effective. You are free to choose not to bluff, of course. The fact that you can choose not to bluff in no way implies that bluffing is forbidden. > >> What I am familiar with is that there is a tangible line between > >> "lying" by obfuscation and lying by misstatement. That line is > >> where some players I know place the boundaries of VTES mischief. > > > > What is allowed/acceptable in a game is not always what is > > allowed/acceptbale in standard person-to-person interaction, > > of course. > > You hint at a possible expansion of the socially acceptable. > > I do not believe in such an expansion. Back to this again. See above. > If you view honesty as integrity, and not a behavioural pattern > forced onto you by fear of repercussions, you will not be quick > to expand your boundaries within a game. See above, again. > >> By the way, I (and basically all the folks I know) play like that > >> in all games. Exception is a roleplaying game, where in-character > >> one can lie with impunity. > > > > Good. Understanding that different contexts make for exceptions > > is the first step. > > Towards what? Understanding the place bluffing has in card games. > VTES has no "in-character" element. It is a game of strategy and > tactics. It's not roleplaying. Non sequitur. I wasn't talking about roleplaying. > > You are free not to bluff in poker as you are free not to in VTES. > > One will tend to fair better over the long run if one learns > > when and how to bluff, however. > > If faring better you mean a polished ranking then possibly. If you > mean having fun than I doubt it. The voices of experience say otherwise. > Of course, fun is hard to objectively > measure, but for me the ultimate fun in VTES is probably linked to > the Silence of Death game variant. I sometimes enjoy tabletalk but it > is mostly pointless and just a way to stall for time. Ask those who participated in that. > Rules variant: Once during your turn you may burn the edge to ask a > single Yes/No question to another Methuselah (which can be a deal > proposal, a probing of intent, etc.). The Methuselah asked can reply > with one of the following phrases: "Yes", "No", "I won't tell", "I > don't know". Otherwise, your verbal communication is limited to > announcing the parameters of actions you take and cards you play. You are free to add whatever house rules you like, including redefining what is socially acceptable in your house, of course. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Thu, 2 Dec 2004 12:40:32 -0500, Joshua Duffin <duff...@bls.gov> wrote: >> Exactly my thoughts. I may be _playing_ a cunning bastard, but >> I'm still not one myself. I'm playing a gentleman's sport that >> happens to use such a setting for purposes of mood. > > That doesn't make sense. How are you "playing" the cunning bastard if > you don't act the way he would? It sounds like performing the role of > Iago but refusing to speak any of the lines where he lies. :-) Or, like going to play a commando game with your friends and instead of shooting them with real bullets you use paintball bullets. Yeah, it might hurt a bit, but nowhere near the pain that is caused by a real bullet. Same goes for lies. You might tease them with stuff like "You know I might have a 2nd Tradition in my hand and I might block your vote unless you do this and that", but that is still just pondering and pretty harmless bluffing. It is a whole new level to say "I have this and that in my hand" when you indeed do not. Breaking a promise is even worse. > Have you ever played the game Diplomacy? Irrelevant, as VTES is pretty sufficient for our present discussion. > I don't really see the point of the "legalistic" deal-keeping approach > either, myself. What, it's honorable to act like an unscrupulous lawyer > and break the spirit of a deal, but not to break the letter of the deal? > If you've broken the spirit, isn't *that* ungentlemanly? Why yes, yes > it is. :-) Guess that's where the cunning bastard comes in. This is a competitive game. One is assumed to try to win. But not at all costs. -- Bye, Daneel

On 02 Dec 2004 12:43:04 +0200, Janne Hägglund <h...@iki.fi.remove.these.invalid> wrote: > Daneel <dan...@eposta.hu> writes: > >> If you sit down to play cards, do you become a different person? >> Or do you remain the same person you were when you were kissing >> your wife goodbye in the morning, going to work or building your >> enterprise, saving money for your kids, etc. Just curious. > > I thought that was one of the very *points* of gaming. The point of gaming is to be entertained. > You sit down at the gaming table, and *play being evil*. Lying, > manipulating, ruining peoples' lives, ripping their arms off, drinking > their > blood, killing someone just because it gives you an advantage. > > And there are no consequences, because the "people", whose lives you > ruined > in your brutally selfish quest for total domination, are really just > pieces > of cardboard. > > You get to go "Bwahahahaha! The world is mine and my enemies lie in > ruins > at my feet, muahhahhaha!" - but nobody has to suffer the consequences of > your > actions. Interesting concept. I never really had any desire to lie. Nor did I have any problems with it, by the way. It is really about keeping promises. A Deal is kind of like that to me. But I know not everyone is honorable/truthful (as long as they are not caught cheating, notorious liars are as eligible to play the game as normal folk are). What really bugs me is the lack of style. Lying is dumb. Masterfully crafting a deal that will earn you the win without being apparent in doing so is admirable. I play this game to have fun, and I find clever players to be awesome and liars to be disappointing. For me not lying in VTES is not directly related to an imported ethic code (even though I feel warm and fuzzy when someone goes through with a tough promise). It is, however, directly related to my degree of fun. Not lying/breaking deals is my sacrafice to make the game fun for the others, and I am disappointed when that favor is not returned. -- Bye, Daneel

In message <opsifnn9...@news.chello.hu>, Daneel <dan...@eposta.hu> mumbled something about: >On Thu, 2 Dec 2004 12:40:32 -0500, Joshua Duffin <duff...@bls.gov> wrote: > >>> Exactly my thoughts. I may be _playing_ a cunning bastard, but >>> I'm still not one myself. I'm playing a gentleman's sport that >>> happens to use such a setting for purposes of mood. Wait, I'm sorry. Gentleman's Sport? What world do you live in, dude? This is a game, not a sport. And that Victorian code of honor you keep advocating went out with the Victorian era, largely because all that code REALLY did was make it easier for people to cheat -- because it removed everyone else's expectations and awareness and turned them into naive little buggers without a smidgen of clue. I do not consider increasing the world's naivete to be a good thing. That said, I also cannot consider anyone adhering to a Victorian-era code of honor in the 21st century to be living in the real world. And if that person attempts to force others to live to that code of honor, then that's even worse; it's like you're trying to force everyone else to pick up for your own flawed perceptions, instead of simply acknowledging that your own attitude may be at fault. >Same goes for lies. You might tease them with stuff like "You know I >might have a 2nd Tradition in my hand and I might block your vote >unless you do this and that", but that is still just pondering and >pretty harmless bluffing. It is a whole new level to say "I have >this and that in my hand" when you indeed do not. Breaking a promise >is even worse. No, really, it's not a whole new level at all. The in-game difference between saying "I MIGHT have a 2nd Tradition" and "I have a 2nd Tradition" is completely meaningless. Both are identical; the intent is to portray that you have a 2nd tradition and create a threat. The rest is merely semantic foolishness bolstered by that Victorian-era code of honor which, as we've demonstrated previously, went away for very, very good reasons. >> Have you ever played the game Diplomacy? > >Irrelevant, as VTES is pretty sufficient for our present discussion. No, not at all irrelevant. Diplomacy is a game very similar to V:TES, where each player is portrayed as a scheming, manipulative leader of a country. While it is possible to win by outright tactics if you are much better than your opponents (as in V:TES), most games are not against inferior opponent and you will be forced to deal well for position (as in V:TES) and possibly even break those deals (as in V:TES). You can adhere to a Victorian code of honor in Diplomacy too, but you'll lose, much like doing so in V:TES will cause you to lose. The game is not solely about tactics. >> I don't really see the point of the "legalistic" deal-keeping approach >> either, myself. What, it's honorable to act like an unscrupulous lawyer >> and break the spirit of a deal, but not to break the letter of the deal? >> If you've broken the spirit, isn't *that* ungentlemanly? Why yes, yes >> it is. :-) > >Guess that's where the cunning bastard comes in. This is a competitive >game. One is assumed to try to win. But not at all costs. Again, you are trying to force your own code of honor (a code that died centuries ago) on other people. This is simply an attempt to compensate for your own flawed perceptions. Deceit is deceit. If you break the spirit of a deal without breaking the letter, then you have deceived your opponent. According to that same Victorian code of honor, you have done a BAD THING (and you would've gotten a VERY bad reputation for it back then, too). If you want to claim that honesty equates directly to absolute truthfulness, then you also must admit that honesty means "NO DECEPTION" -- and you must never break the spirit of any deal, ever. This means that if you agree to not bleed your prey, then you know the spirit of the deal was for "no pool damage", and you must not drop Anarch Revolts and call a Parity Shift. I will expect you to adhere to this in all future games, by the way. So now what we see is that there's no real difference between breaking the spirit and breaking the letter; it's just that some people's misperceptions of reality are, well, misperceptions conjured up to support an idealistic, unrealistic code of honor that was abandoned because of exactly those reasons; it was idealistic and unrealistic. Attempting to force your misperception on others is never going to work; it's much better to just change your perception to conform with reality. -- Derek a host is a host from coast to coast and no one will talk to a host that's close unless the host that isn't close is busy, hung, or dead

Daneel <dan...@eposta.hu> wrote in message news:<opsifnn9...@news.chello.hu>... > On Thu, 2 Dec 2004 12:40:32 -0500, Joshua Duffin <duff...@bls.gov> wrote: > > Guess that's where the cunning bastard comes in. This is a competitive > game. One is assumed to try to win. But not at all costs. You're right. Players are assumed to try to win in the methods allowed by the rules - I never assume a player is trying to cheat by breaking the rules, for an 'all costs' example. However, given that there have been specific statements _from the people who oversee the game as a whole_ about when you are and are not required to honor a deal, and that there are common circumstances which deal-breaking is definitely allowed, I (and most rational people) would assume that the possibility of someone breaking a deal is therefore an accepted part of the game and not unthinkably dishonest like cheating. With regards to lying (as opposed to cheating): Consider the Monocle of Clarity: if the average player was assumed to be honest about something like whether or not they currently have a 2nd tradition in their hand, a card that forces that honesty as a game mechanic would never have been created in the first place - and if insuring that honesty were universally important to the creators of the game, that mechanic would have been stated universally instead of only conditionally on a piece of equipment. Consider that the tournament rules (i.e. stricter than casual play) PROHIBIT you from proving to another player that your statement about the content of your hand is true or not - you are not allowed to show hidden information (like a card in your hand) to other players unless they have a mechanic that allows them to make you do so. Consider that the game developer has directly stated 'yes you can lie' about a variety of topics, even as to whether or not a player has lied in the past! Consider that there ARE things that you are specifically not allowed to lie about - such as the relative capacity of the target of a Govern, even though in a tournament you cannot show the other players the card, only a judge. Note that the rules are thus 'you cannot lie about things X, Y, Z' not 'you cannot lie', So, given that there are some things that the game prohibits you from lying about, and there are other things that the game _specifically permits_ you to lie about, why would you assume that lying about those permitted things is an 'at all costs' method of winning to be avoided and chastised, as opposed to a widely accepted, deliberately included part of the game and its strategy? (Completely sarcastically I'll add: if lying about something like 'do you have a 2nd' is so bad, why not just insist on everybody playing the game with every card face-up? Cause if you are going to be scrupulously honest at all times, I'll gladly, continually ask questions about everything I want to know about your deck, your hand, and your game, secure in the knowledge that you'd never, ever 'stoop' to lying or being less than completely honest to me in response, and there won't be any need for any game information to ever be hidden. :P) -John Flournoy

[Daneel] > If the rules of jyhad would not prohibit killing > your opponent, yould you kill your prey to gain > his or her VP? The rules of the society I live in prohibit this, so no. If jyhad encouraged physical violence then jyhad would be a game that I wouldn't play. Much like rugby, for example. I'll ask you a question: We're playing jyhad and I say to you: "Do you have a deflection in your hand? Failure to respond with 'yes' is a 'no' response." Would you lie? * lehrbuch

"lehrbuch" <lehr...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1022d6ec.04120...@posting.google.com... > I'll ask you a question: > > We're playing jyhad and I say to you: > "Do you have a deflection in your hand? Failure to respond with 'yes' > is a 'no' response." > > Would you lie? I'm not sure what the comparison what all this is about (coming in from the side, not reading the history because $#*&! Outlook Express makes it hard to locate the rest of the thread in certain situations) but are you suggesting that an equivalent situation isn't the same in real life? If I were to ask you, say, details about your medical status or financial status or whatever and stated, "Failure to respond is a statement that you have cancer (or are bankrupt/in debt, etc.)... would you lie?", I would expect the same answer: "None of your damn busisness and I don't care how you SAY you'll take this answer. The REAL meaning of the answer IS, 'None of your damn business'." In short, if you think you can provide a 'default answer' for someone in Jyhad and thus force him to answer something when he simply doesn't choose to answer, that's your problem - not his 'lie'. If he fails to answer and the true information is that he does happen to have a Deflection in hand, it's you who suggested he was 'lying'. He probably wouldn't agree with that. Thus the point you seem to be trying make here - if I've properly guessed what it is - strikes me as being bogus. (Not that I necessarily agree with Daneel's overall philosophy or disagree. I just thought it was kind of interesting to point that out, for what it's worth.) Fred

On Fri, 3 Dec 2004 16:11:36 -0700, Frederick Scott <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: > If I were to ask you, say, details about your medical status or > financial status or whatever and stated, "Failure to respond is a > statement that you have cancer (or are bankrupt/in debt, etc.)... > would you lie?", I would expect the same answer: "None of your damn > busisness and I don't care how you SAY you'll take this answer. The > REAL meaning of the answer IS, 'None of your damn business'." In > short, if you think you can provide a 'default answer' for someone in > Jyhad and thus force him to answer something when he simply doesn't > choose to answer, that's your problem - not his 'lie'. If he fails > to answer and the true information is that he does happen to have a > Deflection in hand, it's you who suggested he was 'lying'. He probably > wouldn't agree with that. Thus the point you seem to be trying make > here - if I've properly guessed what it is - strikes me as being bogus. This says it rather well. No point repeating. > (Not that I necessarily agree with Daneel's overall philosophy or > disagree. I just thought it was kind of interesting to point that > out, for what it's worth.) Are we getting politically correct here? ;) -- Bye, Daneel

On 3 Dec 2004 14:17:50 -0800, John Flournoy <carn...@gmail.com> wrote: > (Completely sarcastically I'll add: if lying about something like 'do > you have a 2nd' is so bad, why not just insist on everybody playing > the game with every card face-up? Cause if you are going to be "That is not public information." is a good answer when inquired about non-public information. Being compelled to tell everyone everything truthfully is not equal to not breaking deals or not speaking falsehood. Being completely truthful would detract from the fun of the game, whereas not actually speaking falsehood or breaking the wording of the deal adds to the enjoyment. For people who have style and good enough decks, anyway. -- Bye, Daneel

In message <opsig6nq...@news.chello.hu>, Daneel <dan...@eposta.hu> writes: >Being completely truthful would detract from the fun of the >game, whereas not actually speaking falsehood or breaking the wording >of the deal adds to Daneel's > enjoyment. Please don't confuse how you like to play with something that will add to the enjoyment for all. -- James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D Who's ever heard of that, though! EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 Designing a deck that just calls votes. 13D7E668C3695D623D5D That's crazy talk, there.

On Sat, 4 Dec 2004 11:35:54 +0000, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: > In message <opsig6nq...@news.chello.hu>, Daneel <dan...@eposta.hu> > writes: >> Being completely truthful would detract from the fun of the >> game, whereas not actually speaking falsehood or breaking the wording >> of the deal adds to > Daneel's >> enjoyment. > > Please don't confuse how you like to play with something that will add > to the enjoyment for all. Please don't confuse how you like to play with something that will add to the enjoyment for all. Also, please don't mess with quotes. It hurts your credibility (?). -- Bye, Daneel

In message <opsihkg3...@news.chello.hu>, Daneel <dan...@eposta.hu> writes: >On Sat, 4 Dec 2004 11:35:54 +0000, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: >> Please don't confuse how you like to play with something that will add >> to the enjoyment for all. > >Please don't confuse how you like to play with something that will add to >the enjoyment for all. Since I am - and many others who have posted here in favour of deal- breaking possibilities - are part of all, your argument falls at the first hurdle. It may add to it for many - it may add to it for your playgroup, your tournaments etc. But it won't add to it for all, since a lot of us enjoy having it as part of the game as it is right now. >Also, please don't mess with quotes. It hurts your credibility (?). The word "Daneel's" was clearly inserted by me, hence not being marked with > characters. [ quoted text not captured ]

[Fred] > > ... I would expect the same answer: "None of > > your damn busisness and I don't care how you > > SAY you'll take this answer" ... [Daneel] > This says it rather well. No point repeating. If you are serious about wanting to be "honest and truthful" how can you "honourably" make statements that you know will be interpretted incorrectly? * lehrbuch

> After all, if you leave yourself open to be bled dry because someone > said "Oh yeah, I won't bleed you this turn" is it really their fault > that you got ousted? Or is it your fault for being too naive? > Accepting a bad deal is a dumb move, and you do deserve to get boned for it. Breaking a good deal is a dumb move, and you deserve to get boned for it. The fact that "dumb" in the first case usually equates with "you get ousted" and "dumb" in the second usually equates with "No one will ever trust you again" doesn't enter the equation so much. Dumb is dumb.

[ quoted text not captured ] I cannot think for others. But I won't go out of _my_ way to bullshit them. It's a game of imperfect information, and I do little to help others fill in the blanks. I play my game and let others draw their conclusions. I prefer to play with mature people who see the table and know their chances. It's a card game, after all. Years of experience has also refined my tastes so that I am disappointed by lies at a table. I enjoy, however, twisting a deal or arrangement, sticking to the wording. That requires wits and style (as opposed to no wits and no style for lying). Anyone can lie or outright break a deal; that I percieve to be a statement admitting a lack of strategic, tactical and mental prowess. Losing with style is better than winning without it, IMHO. Kind of like how winning by cheating is worse than losing by observing the rules of the game. -- Bye, Daneel

In message <2004120518...@sidehack.sat.gweep.net>, Gregory Stuart Pettigrew <ethe...@sidehack.sat.gweep.net> writes: >Breaking a good deal is a dumb move, and you deserve to get boned for >it. If keeping a deal means you don't win the table - whereas breaking it will mean you can - was it a "good deal"? [ quoted text not captured ]

[Daneel] > Years of experience has also refined my tastes so > that I am disappointed by lies at a table. I enjoy, > however, twisting a deal or arrangement, sticking > to the wording. Hardly "honourable" behaviour? > That requires wits and style (as opposed to no > wits and no style for lying). Anyone can lie or > outright break a deal; that I percieve to be > a statement admitting a lack of strategic, > tactical and mental prowess. It requires just as much wits and style to lie *convincingly* and just as much wits and style to detect a plausible lie. * lehrbuch

"lehrbuch" <lehr...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1102283874.0...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com... [ quoted text not captured ] Well, the answer (to me), is to know that the guy who claims to be doing the "interpreting" isn't truly interpreting what I'm saying at all. He's pretty obviously just setting the "rules" to the exchange how he pleases in a blatant attempt to manipulate me into giving information that I wouldn't choose to give him volutarily. So if he chooses to interpret my response the wrong way for that reason, that's his fault. It has nothing to do with any conscious attempt to lie on my part. Thus I am not lying. I am declining to give information he has no right to demand. I mean, why not just say, "Tell me how many Deflections in hand and NO MATTER HOW YOU RESPOND I'll 'interpret' the answer as 'zero'."? And then when he turns out to have one, you say, "Oh my gosh, YOU LIED TO ME!". How then could Daneel defend himself from the same accusation? (Answer: Sorry, dude - you don't get to set the rules like you're trying to do.) Fred

[Fred] > He's pretty obviously just setting the "rules" to the > exchange how he pleases in a blatant attempt to > manipulate me into giving information that I > wouldn' t choose to give him volutarily. So if he > chooses to interpret my response the wrong > way for that reason, that's his fault. Exactly. Daneel is attempting to manipulate the exchange in this way. He is trying to impose some kind of "no lie" intrepretation to responses, and then complaining when someone lies. It's not the liar's fault that Daneel intrepretted everything as true. * lehrbuch

"lehrbuch" <lehr...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1102298302.0...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com... [ quoted text not captured ] Whoa! Now you're twisting words in the exact *opposite* direction. Nowhere in my (suggested) response to your challenge did I infer that you maybe can't believe what I say. You just have to interpret what I said in the spirit in which it was meant - not making up rules about "interpreting no response as a 'no'" or something else that the person making the inquiry wishes to suggest. Now what you seem to be saying is, if a player tells Daneel anything during a game, it's Daneel's fault if he believed that player when the player misleads Daneel. In a certain sense that's true. I get what people arguing with Daneel are suggesting about games being a different environment from other arenas of life and morality should be judged accordingly. But let's not mince words: if a guy tells me outright he does not have a Deflection in his hand - as opposed to saying, "I'm not telling you whether I have a Deflection or not." - and if he indeed had a Deflection when he said that, then he *lied* to me. No getting around it. That is the common meaning of the word 'lie'. And if Daneel wants to compare lying in a game to lying in other arenas of life, we know what he's talking about. It's only your thought exercise that was twisting the meaning of 'to lie', AFAICS. Fred

On 5 Dec 2004 15:57:17 -0800, lehrbuch <lehr...@gmail.com> wrote: > [Daneel] >> Years of experience has also refined my tastes so >> that I am disappointed by lies at a table. I enjoy, >> however, twisting a deal or arrangement, sticking >> to the wording. > > Hardly "honourable" behaviour? Still not lying. I mean, you're playing a card game based on an RPG about ancient vampires. The card game is about ousting people. How honorable is that? Within the boundaries of such a setup, the upper limit of "honorable" is probably what I described - sticking to the wording. I mean, it's also a test of wits. "Do you have any Deflections in hand?" ... "No." ... "Bleeed!" ... "Redirection." I still can't think for others. >> That requires wits and style (as opposed to no >> wits and no style for lying). Anyone can lie or >> outright break a deal; that I percieve to be >> a statement admitting a lack of strategic, >> tactical and mental prowess. > > It requires just as much wits and style to lie *convincingly* and just > as much wits and style to detect a plausible lie. No. The skill of lying cannot be mastered at a VTES table. People who are skilled liars are probably doing it more than just one weekday afternoon. They are therefor of questionable morality and are potential cheaters. Also, lying skillfully deserves little admiration. You need no brains for that, just a thick skin. I choose brains over thick skin anytime. [offensive sarcasm] If you don't know what I mean, you should try to play with witty people. [/offensive sarcasm] -- Bye, Daneel

[Fred] > You just have to interpret what I said in > the spirit in which it was meant - not > making up rules about "interpreting no > response as a 'no'" or something else that the > person making the inquiry wishes to suggest. Equally, you can't make up rules that any articulated response is not a lie. Which is what Daneel wants to do, and maybe you too. > Now what you seem to be saying is, if a > player tells Daneel anything during a game, > it's Daneel's fault if he believed that > player when the player misleads Daneel. Yes. It's a question of Daneel's lack of "wits and style" relative to the liar's. > But let's not mince words: if a guy tells me > outright he does not have a Deflection in his > hand - as opposed to saying, "I'm not telling > you whether I have a Deflection or not." - and > if he indeed had a Deflection when he said that, > then he *lied* to me. No shit, Sherlock. > It's only your thought exercise that was twisting > the meaning of 'to lie', AFAICS. No, it's Daneel who is trying to invent a rule (or at least engineer a play environment) to prevent lying, which is twisting the meaning of "the rules say nothing about lying". * lehrbuch

"lehrbuch" <lehr...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1102363753.1...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com... > [Fred] >> But let's not mince words: if a guy tells me >> outright he does not have a Deflection in his >> hand - as opposed to saying, "I'm not telling >> you whether I have a Deflection or not." - and >> if he indeed had a Deflection when he said that, >> then he *lied* to me. > > No shit, Sherlock. > >> It's only your thought exercise that was twisting >> the meaning of 'to lie', AFAICS. > > No, it's Daneel who is trying to invent a rule (or at least engineer a > play environment) to prevent lying, which is twisting the meaning of > "the rules say nothing about lying". Well, I suppose it could be a situation like a referee coming in at the last minute and catching the second player throwing the punch (in retalation to getting punched) and flagging the second guy. But it sure _looked_ like Daneel was just calling lying for what it was and the issue was about whether it's a "bad thing" or not. You were the only one I saw twisting the meaning of "to lie" to make your point. My objection to that is that it amounts to semantic argumentation: subtly changing the meaning of something to make it appear you have a point when you don't. Fred

"Daneel" <dan...@eposta.hu> wrote in message news:opsiksbd...@news.chello.hu... > On 5 Dec 2004 15:57:17 -0800, lehrbuch <lehr...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > [Daneel] > >> Years of experience has also refined my tastes so > >> that I am disappointed by lies at a table. I enjoy, > >> however, twisting a deal or arrangement, sticking > >> to the wording. > > > > Hardly "honourable" behaviour? > > Still not lying. I mean, you're playing a card game based on an > RPG about ancient vampires. The card game is about ousting people. > How honorable is that? Within the boundaries of such a setup, the > upper limit of "honorable" is probably what I described - sticking > to the wording. Why do you bring up the "honorability" of the concept of the game now? You denied earlier that it was relevant to how players should behave during the game. The upper limit of "honorable" is obviously not restricted by any particular part of the game backstory, any more than the lower limit is. If you choose some particular points as the most and least amounts of "honor" that you're willing to use while playing VTES, that's totally up to you. But I don't think you have any believable basis for claiming that it's really more "honorable" or "clever" to twist the spirit of a deal while maintaining the letter than it is to set up or break the deal in any other subtle way. > > It requires just as much wits and style to lie *convincingly* and just > > as much wits and style to detect a plausible lie. > > No. The skill of lying cannot be mastered at a VTES table. People who > are skilled liars are probably doing it more than just one weekday > afternoon. They are therefor of questionable morality and are potential > cheaters. Also, lying skillfully deserves little admiration. You need > no brains for that, just a thick skin. I choose brains over thick > skin anytime. Not true. People who are skilled liars may play many games that use the skill (not just VTES), or may play VTES a lot (eg more than one afternoon per week). Beyond that, I don't think it takes as much practice to lie at least reasonably well as you seem to believe it does. Billions of people around the world (including a rather large number of children) have probably managed it in recent years. :-) Josh just ask all the people at the world's intelligence agencies

[Daneel] > Still not lying. I mean, you're playing a card game based > on an RPG about ancient vampires. The card game is > about ousting people. How honorable is that? You're the one trying to hold players to an honour standard. > I mean, it's also a test of wits. "Do you have any > Deflections in hand?" ... "No." ... "Bleeed!" ... > "Redirection." I still can't think for others. You think that is the height of "wits and skill"? Deal making, which seemed earlier to be your central concern, requires much more skill in an environment where everyone could be lying. Your experience may be different. > No. The skill of lying cannot be mastered at a VTES > table. People who are skilled liars are probably doing > it more than just one weekday afternoon. They are > therefor of questionable morality and are potential > cheaters. Bullshit. * lehrbuch

Daneel wrote: > "That is not public information." is a good answer when inquired about > non-public information. Being compelled to tell everyone everything > truthfully is not equal to not breaking deals or not speaking > falsehood. > Being completely truthful would detract from the fun of the > game, I am well aware of that, which is why I noted that particular comment was completely sarcastic. > whereas not actually speaking falsehood or breaking the wording > of the deal adds to the enjoyment. For people who have style and good > enough decks, anyway. Daneel, that is flat-out insulting to the sizable number of players who take enjoyment out of playing games (not just VTES) where verbal subterfuge, lying and sneakiness are an accepted part of the game. If you're unclear as to what I find insulting, your statement is that people who have style and good decks get increased enjoyment when the game excludes lying and deal-breaking; since I (and many players I know) not only do both but enjoy both, we therefore must not have style nor good decks. Since the group of people whose style and deck-making skills you are insulting demonstrably includes some of the best players in the world (at least according to years of V:EKN data), please find a stylish way to get bent. > Daneel -John Flournoy

On 6 Dec 2004 13:13:56 -0800, John Flournoy <carn...@gmail.com> wrote: >> whereas not actually speaking falsehood or breaking the wording >> of the deal adds to the enjoyment. For people who have style and good >> enough decks, anyway. > > Daneel, that is flat-out insulting to the sizable number of players who > take enjoyment out of playing games (not just VTES) where verbal > subterfuge, lying and sneakiness are an accepted part of the game. I am aware. > If you're unclear as to what I find insulting, your statement is that > people who have style and good decks get increased enjoyment when the > game excludes lying and deal-breaking; since I (and many players I > know) not only do both but enjoy both, we therefore must not have style > nor good decks. Partly. I don't honestly think that noone who ever broke a deal can be a good player; I know to the contrary. But since winning without breaking one's word is harder, I value a non-dealbreaker's achievement higher than a deal-breaker's. (Or liars, etc.) By the way, this back-and-forth I find tiring. It is easy to ride the moral high horse when one is being nagged about how lying is good, and I do that too. But that's not the real point; alas, I think I said all that could be said, and there seems to be little point in restating any of my previous points. > Since the group of people whose style and deck-making skills you are > insulting demonstrably includes some of the best players in the world > (at least according to years of V:EKN data), please find a stylish way > to get bent. But you know, that was lame. Disappointing. You are an in-game liar, aren't you? ;P -- Bye, Daneel

> Partly. I don't honestly think that noone who ever broke a deal can be a > good player; I know to the contrary. But since winning without breaking > one's word is harder, I value a non-dealbreaker's achievement higher > than a deal-breaker's. (Or liars, etc.) Sure, I can see that. I even agree with it to a good degree - there's a parallel to saying "I value person A's achievement because they were able to win without using the deception aspect of the game" and saying "I value person A's achievement because they were able to win without using bounce" or "...using Assamites", heh. -John Flournoy

Well actually, François Morand scored 2GW 6. There was a problem with the archon. He's sixth of the tournament after the departure of the wrong deck listed players.