Tournament rules for 2007

The new tournament rules which go into effect on January 1, 2007 are up: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/index.php?line=veknRules

3.7.2 (Formerly 3.8.2) Reduce VP award for withdrawal to a half VP. CLAP ! CLAP !! CLAP !!! -- Orpheus Nearly made it to LSJ's Killfile !!

Solid move, LSJ Regards, [ quoted text not captured ]

LSJ wrote: > The new tournament rules which go into effect on January 1, 2007 are up: > > http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/index.php?line=veknRules Oooh! Lots of good stuff here. Check out the new limited format rules! ... and check out... 4.8. Play to Win .... Exception: when only two Methuselahs remain, the tournament rules no longer acknowledge any deals. Prior deals are voided, even if they were play to win when made. When only two Methuselahs remain, both Methuselahs must play to win based only on game state, without regard to any deals. Thank you LSJ. -Ben Swainbank

LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > The new tournament rules which go into effect on January 1, 2007 are up: > http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/index.php?line=veknRules Hooray for Sanctioned Internal Recursion Draft!

On Dec 1, 1:44 pm, "Ben Swainbank" <bswainb...@hotmail.com> wrote: > LSJ wrote: > > The new tournament rules which go into effect on January 1, 2007 are up: > > >http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/index.php?line=veknRulesOooh! Lots of good stuff here. Check out the new limited format rules! > > ... and check out... > > 4.8. Play to Win > .... > > Exception: when only two Methuselahs remain, the tournament rules no > longer acknowledge any deals. Prior deals are voided, even if they were > play to win when made. When only two Methuselahs remain, both > Methuselahs must play to win based only on game state, without regard > to any deals. So the closest thing you can make to a table split is now - we both play as partners until heads up and then each try to kill each other? (I guess you could set yourself up to lose the heads up as part of the deal before you got to 1v1) I always hated deals, even if recently I started to use the necessary evil, I am glad to see them go, or at least nurfed. Later, ~Rehlow

[ quoted text not captured ] I'm actually a little worried that this can be abused with an excessive number of tournaments. With deck minimums listed for 1 booster, what's to keep people from having half a dozen limited tournaments (with 1 booster pack) all in the course of a single night?

On 1 Dec 2006 12:30:46 -0800, "echia...@yahoo.com" <echia...@yahoo.com> wrote: >With deck minimums listed for 1 booster, what's to keep people from having half a dozen limited tournaments (with 1 booster pack) all in the course of a single night? Boredom. No greater discouragement is required.

Ben Swainbank wrote: > LSJ wrote: > > ... and check out... > > 4.8. Play to Win > .... > > Exception: when only two Methuselahs remain, the tournament rules no > longer acknowledge any deals. Prior deals are voided, even if they were > play to win when made. When only two Methuselahs remain, both > Methuselahs must play to win based only on game state, without regard > to any deals. > This is the first time deal-making has been explicity mentioned in the rules, I think. I am not sure that is a path to start to tread down. Of course, I could be wrong (usually am). best - chris

[ quoted text not captured ] Logistics. Laws of physics. etc. You still have to play cards and get through 30 pool per oust.

echia...@yahoo.com <echia...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > Hooray for Sanctioned Internal Recursion Draft! > I'm actually a little worried that this can be abused with an excessive > number of tournaments. With deck minimums listed for 1 booster, what's > to keep people from having half a dozen limited tournaments (with 1 > booster pack) all in the course of a single night? Try 1-pack, 30-pool, limited-transfers, 3-round draft, and see if you ever want to try it again. Long live unsanctioned Duffin Draft!

echia...@yahoo.com schreef: [ quoted text not captured ] 30 pool, boredom, temporal limitations, I'd assume. ;)

librarian wrote: > This is the first time deal-making has been explicity mentioned in the > rules, I think. I am not sure that is a path to start to tread down. > Of course, I could be wrong (usually am). The rules now just echo the official ruling that has been explicitly stated for many years. Not a new path at all.

Perhaps I'm just a natural born skeptic, but I personally don't think either the Withdrawal --> 0.5 VP or the deal nullification rule was either needed or will be especially helpful, IMHO, people will simply modify their deal-making to incorporate such effects. Instead of making a deal where the other player concedes when it's down to 2 players, instead you make a deal where the other player will put himself in a position where he is unable to provide effective opposition when it's down to 2 players. (Previously when it was down to A --> B --> C, A could make a deal that he helps kill C and then B concedes. Now, A makes the deal that he helps kill C, but B must bring his own pool down to 1 and get his minions burned so that when it's down to 2 players then A will almost certainly win,) Similarly, the change to the withdrawal rule makes it less likely to table split with your predator/prey, but instead people are likely to just table split cross-table instead. Even then, you can still table split if you're willing to take 0.5 VP's instead (if you think you're going to get 0, 0.5 is still better than nothing). Alternatively, instead of 4-1 VP splits, it may be more common to see 3-2 VP splits instead. One final concern is that with the change to the withdrawal rule, it becomes significantly harder to get a Game Win on a 4-player table. Wtih an imperfect Archon (in that it has problems with adds and drops), I imagine there are going to be significantly more complaints when some players end up at 4-player tables while others are only at 5-player tables. I am willing to give the changes a chance, and look forward to seeing how they impact the tournament environment in 2007. I am hesitant about their efficacy however, and if they do not significantly address the problems that they were intended to solve, I hope that the ineffective portions are rescinded in 2008.

echia...@yahoo.com wrote: > Perhaps I'm just a natural born skeptic, but I personally don't think > either the Withdrawal --> 0.5 VP or the deal nullification rule was > either needed or will be especially helpful, That's why I had invited discussion. > IMHO, people will simply modify their deal-making to incorporate such > effects. Yes. > Instead of making a deal where the other player concedes when > it's down to 2 players, instead you make a deal where the other player > will put himself in a position where he is unable to provide effective > opposition when it's down to 2 players. (Previously when it was down to > A --> B --> C, A could make a deal that he helps kill C and then B > concedes. Now, A makes the deal that he helps kill C, but B must bring > his own pool down to 1 and get his minions burned so that when it's > down to > 2 players then A will almost certainly win,) Much riskier (or much harder to do without being riskier). > Similarly, the change to the withdrawal rule makes it less likely to > table split with your predator/prey, but instead people are likely to > just table split cross-table instead. OK. As stated this is a step. If there is a better step out there, I welcome it. > Even then, you can still table > split if you're willing to take 0.5 VP's instead (if you think you're > going to get 0, 0.5 is still better than nothing). Alternatively, > instead of 4-1 VP splits, it may be more common to see 3-2 VP splits > instead. OK. It's still a reduction of deals and an increase in the underlying game. > One final concern is that with the change to the withdrawal rule, it > becomes significantly harder to get a Game Win on a 4-player table. Not true, except in an elimination of the withdraw-instead-of-time-out cases, which is a plus, not a minus. > Wtih an imperfect Archon (in that it has problems with adds and drops), It has no problems with adds and drops. The organizer is free to enter in the optimal seating for the new/absent player situation. Not automating what is impossible to automate while still allowing it to be done manually is not properly labeled "having a problem"). > I imagine there are going to be significantly more complaints when some > players end up at 4-player tables while others are only at 5-player > tables. That would be a fault of the organizer, if it was avoidable, or a simple fact of life unrelated to the Archon or the new rules, if unavoidable. The table sizes should be as balanced as possible.

echia...@yahoo.com wrote: > > IMHO, people will simply modify their deal-making to incorporate such > effects. Instead of making a deal where the other player concedes when > it's down to 2 players, instead you make a deal where the other player > will put himself in a position where he is unable to provide effective > opposition when it's down to 2 players. (Previously when it was down to > A --> B --> C, A could make a deal that he helps kill C and then B > concedes. Now, A makes the deal that he helps kill C, but B must bring > his own pool down to 1 and get his minions burned so that when it's > down to > 2 players then A will almost certainly win,) Eric, let's say you are A in in this little scenario. Let's say I'm C. You're saying that you, my prey, are going to burn all your minions and go down to 1 pool, BEFORE we oust B? Sure. I'll take that deal. I'm sure that'll work out great. You try that :-) > Even then, you can still table > split if you're willing to take 0.5 VP's instead How? By withdrawing when there only 2 players left? Umm.. I think you predator is going be ousting you seeing as you've exausted your library and all. > One final concern is that with the change to the withdrawal rule, it > becomes significantly harder to get a Game Win on a 4-player table. Harder how? You can't oust one prey and agree to mutually withdraw. And that's a bad thing? -Ben Swainbank

LSJ wrote: > The new tournament rules which go into effect on January 1, 2007 are up: > > http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/index.php?line=veknRules Nits: 2.4 sentence #1 reads: "A spectator of a game is defined as any person other than a judge or an organizer who not playing in that game." I think you mean "... organizer who IS not playing in that game." 4.8, second paragraph, sentence #2, towards the end reads: "even when the normal play to win rule would indicate the a deal should be broken." I bet you meant: "...would indicate THAT a deal should be broken." 7.2.1 Didn't Ancient Hearts boosters have 11 cards? best - chris

LSJ wrote: > The new tournament rules which go into effect on January 1, 2007 are up: > > http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/index.php?line=veknRules I'm trying to figure out the intracacies of this one: 4.9. Infinite Loops When a loop is detected (meaning game state has been completely restored to a previous state and could be repeated without limit except for the round's time limit), the activity cannot be begun again (until and unless game state changes). This includes actions, sequences of combats, rounds of combat, and everything else. Note that game state includes all players' hands, ash heaps, and libraries, as well as available maneuvers and presses from cards in play, and master: out-of-turn plays. Right. I have a minion with a Saturday Night Special and CEL. My opponent has a minion with a Flak Jacket. Does playing Psyche! to start combat over circumvent this "identical game state" situation, as it changes the cards in my hand and the cards in my ash heap? So I can continue to manuver to long, shoot for 1, do no damage, and Psyche! as long as my Psyches hold out (presumably to cycle to find a ammo card ot a Blur or something)? Thanks, -Peter

[ quoted text not captured ] No, that's not an infinite loop (because your hand and library are changing). An infinite loop might be Henry Taylor with PRO trying to do something like hunt. When he gets blocked by a Magaji with No Secrets, he plays Earth Meld to untap (and you have another in your hand). So you could keep hunting getting blocked and Earth Melding infinitely.

LSJ wrote: > > Perhaps I'm just a natural born skeptic, but I personally don't think > > either the Withdrawal --> 0.5 VP or the deal nullification rule was > > either needed or will be especially helpful, > > That's why I had invited discussion. I hadn't been following the NAC thread too closely, but I thought you had only formally asked for discussion starting on Wednesday, November 29th: << While the withdrawal rules serve a purpose for the game in general (see the link above for more on that), the time limit in tournament games could be argued to address much of the same purpose. So how's this for a fix (applied only to VEKN tournaments -- leaving the basic gamne rules alone): award just 0.5 VPs for a withdrawal rather than the full VP. "Last Methuselah Standing" would still get a full VP, making "mutual withdrawal" not quite the same as going to time. Either that or eliminate withdrawal (and ban Brinksmanship), like ante was eliminated for tournaments back in 1995. To allow for players to agree to a stalemate, treat a mutual agreement of stalemate as going to the time limit: 0.5 VPs for all remaining players. Discuss. >> > > Instead of making a deal where the other player concedes when > > it's down to 2 players, instead you make a deal where the other player > > will put himself in a position where he is unable to provide effective > > opposition when it's down to 2 players. (Previously when it was down to > > A --> B --> C, A could make a deal that he helps kill C and then B > > concedes. Now, A makes the deal that he helps kill C, but B must bring > > his own pool down to 1 and get his minions burned so that when it's > > down to > > 2 players then A will almost certainly win,) > > Much riskier (or much harder to do without being riskier). Actually, isn't a 3-2 VP with a concession at the end still possible under the proposed rules? I make a deal with my prey so he ousts the 3 other players. Now it's down to 2 players. Although the new rule requires us each to "play to win" the game has already been won (by my prey). He's already won so no matter how he plays (besides possibly Gambit Accepted), he is already playing to win. So he should be able to concede to me and let me have 2 VP then?

LSJ schreef: > The new tournament rules which go into effect on January 1, 2007 are up: > > http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/index.php?line=veknRules I like it, I honestly do. I hope it can be changed still, I think for the intended effect you want with the addition of the 'heads up - all deals are off, play to win' rule, the added rulechange should be: If you have the gamewin, you must play to maximize your victory points. Which basically means: You have to play as well as you can, which I think would be a beneficial thing to start with. As the rules are, a 3/2 table split is perfectly legal between predator and prey, as the prey goes into heads-up with the gamewin, he isn't violating PTW when conceding. Cheers, Bram

echia...@yahoo.com wrote: > An infinite loop might be Henry Taylor with PRO trying to do something > like hunt. When he gets blocked by a Magaji with No Secrets, he plays > Earth Meld to untap (and you have another in your hand). So you could > keep hunting getting blocked and Earth Melding infinitely. But isn't that not actually an infinite loop, as you are exchanging Earth Melds between your hand and the top of your deck? They are different cards in some sense. -Peter

On Dec 1, 1:26 pm, "echiang...@yahoo.com" <echiang...@yahoo.com> wrote: > Peter D Bakija wrote: > > 4.9. Infinite Loops > > > Right. I have a minion with a Saturday Night Special and CEL. My > > opponent has a minion with a Flak Jacket. Does playing Psyche! to start > > combat over circumvent this "identical game state" situation, as it > > changes the cards in my hand and the cards in my ash heap? So I can > > continue to manuver to long, shoot for 1, do no damage, and Psyche! as > > long as my Psyches hold out (presumably to cycle to find a ammo card ot > > a Blur or something)? > > No, that's not an infinite loop (because your hand and library are > changing). > I believe Eric means "Yes, that's not an infinite loop" :-)

[ quoted text not captured ] You're right. I think the wording needs to be tightened up a bit. Unless we're all missing something....

[ quoted text not captured ] Even if the copies of Earth Meld are distinct, it's still an infinite loop. After the second time Henry acts, the first copy of Earth Meld is back in your hand again. The loop just covers two iterations of the action rather than one. Marc G.

[ quoted text not captured ] The canonical example that seems to have prompted the rule in the first place has Henry Taylor with no library and less than a full hand, so that Earth Meld is instantly drawn back into hand, so it isn't actually distinct. Marc's concept also fits. It's not clear to me that distinct copies of the card constitute a different "game state," but then it's exponentially more difficult to find a situation where you could manage two, three, or four iterations without getting back to the same original copies of the cards in the same places anyway. The use of the term "activity" in the rule is a little vague to me. Is the "Activity" Henry hunting, or Magaji blocking, or the playing of the Earth Meld, or the recycling of the Earth Meld? You're penalizing one of the players (by making Henry be bloodless or by letting him hunt when he could otherwise be blocked), and it's not clear to me which one is "at fault." If activity == "action," that's a fine bright-line although maybe it will be unfair from time to time. Logically I would consider the recycling of the card to be the "activity" that restores the game state, since every step before that each player can say - well, if he doesn't block it's not a loop; well, if he doesn't play Earth Meld it's not a loop; well, as long as I don't recycle it's not a loop. It also prevents you from prospectively saying: you can't do this, even if something else might happen so it turns out differently. You let people play, and only at the ultimate step when the player says "now I do this" do you say, "that will close the loop, so you can't." It's certainly a queer stance to take, though, and I'd wager that Taylor would prefer to be forbidden from hunting, and so be able to stay up with Earth Meld in hand, then be forbidden from recycilng. But that's not within his discretion. Unless someone can think up of another example where this could happen, I don't think it's worth any more thought.

LSJ wrote: > The new tournament rules which go into effect on January 1, 2007 are up: > > http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/index.php?line=veknRules Looks pretty good to me. Now all I need is some donations to fly me back from Wellington to Sweden and / or LA next year ;-)

echia...@yahoo.com wrote: > You're right. I think the wording needs to be tightened up a bit. > Unless we're all missing something.... See, that's what I thought. The wording for this rule seems a tad vague-er than the previously proposed "you can only do the same thing 20 times in a row" idea. -Peter

Marc Gabriele wrote: > Even if the copies of Earth Meld are distinct, it's still an > infinite loop. After the second time Henry acts, the first copy of Earth > Meld is back in your hand again. The loop just covers two iterations of > the action rather than one. Sure, but the rule as written doesn't necessarily prevent this--assuming that each of the two Earth Melds constitute different cards for purposes of "game state", the "no infinite loop" rule doesn't care what happens in two iterations, just the next one. I'm not here arguing that this is how the rule *should* work, mind you, just that I think the rule needs a bit of tightening up. -Peter

echia...@yahoo.com schreef: [ quoted text not captured ] You are, the loop is 2 actions until gamestate is exactly the same. it's a loop nonetheless.

LSJ wrote: > The new tournament rules which go into effect on January 1, 2007 are up: > http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/index.php?line=veknRules Overall, looks great! New draft rules are especially exciting! I'm a bit confused why you asked for discussion on the two PTW-related rules but gave such little time to respond. Of course, there's no reason why you have to listen to us at all. :) Since you previously expressed interest in feedback, I'd like to provide it now. What problem are we trying to address with the 0.5 VPs for Withdrawl and no-deals-heads-up rule? It seems like the problem is table splitting deals, primarily the 3-2 deals. A->B->C->D->E I (player A) can still make a table split deal with my prey (B) no problem. I help him oust two preys (or one prey if he's already ousted C), and then he dies to me and I kill E. This deal doesn't happen very much, because it's hard to trust that B will roll-over, and E might self-oust anyway out of spite. Nonetheless, the point is that the new rules don't stop this type of table split at all. I can still make a table split deal with my grand-prey (C). I say to my grand-prey, "I help you oust your two preys, and then you concede to me." Everyone else at the table cries, "No, that's not legal!" I say, "I realize, according to the tournament rules, the deal won't bind us once we're heads up, but will you agree to the deal?" And C says sure. Then, when we get to heads up, C manages to lose to me. Perhaps some people in C's position wouldn't abide by the deal due to the tournament rules, but I think quite a lot of people would manage to lose in C's position. Proving that C wasn't PTW when he lost will be difficult, though the most obvious cases can be stopped. LSJ, I assume this is a reversal of your previous comment to me that, as a judge, you would never stop a player from conceding? I can still make a table split deal with my grand-predator (D), though I only get 2.5 VPs. When it gets heads up, D lets me withdraw, I get the GW at 2.5 VPs, and he gets 2 VPs. Based on risk analysis, the guaranteed 1 VP will almost always allow D to grant the withdrawl. Given the difference of only 0.5 VPs, I think the current amount of table splits may actually GO UP for splits with grand-predators. I can still make a table split deal with my predator (E). I oust three preys, and then concede since I've already gotten the GW (conceding is PTW if I already have the GW.) As far as I can tell, these rules don't stop table splits at all. It's a little fishy when dealing with your grand-prey, but anyone who wants to lose a game can lose a game. In addition, the 0.5 VP Withdrawl rule hurts the situations where you have no hope to oust your prey, and only want to get the 1 VP from withdrawing at the end. Now, it's only 0.5 VPs. Therefore, you have an incentive to stall the game. And what's 0.5 VP anyway? You might as well kamikazi into your prey and then self-oust, so that maybe your prey doesn't get the GW. I'm willing to try it, but my predicition is that: 1) The number of table splits with your grand-prey won't decrease significantly 2) Table splits with your grand-predator will actually increase (because accepting the losing end of 2.5 - 2 is more appealing than 3-2.) 3) More people will stall, kamikazi, or self-oust in the situation where they can't oust their prey, instead of waiting around as a wall and hoping for a pity VP. #1 is good, if it actually reduces the table splits significantly. #2 and #3 are bad. Ira

ira...@gmail.com wrote: [snip analysis] > I'm willing to try it, but my predicition is that: > 1) The number of table splits with your grand-prey won't decrease > significantly > 2) Table splits with your grand-predator will actually increase > (because accepting the losing end of 2.5 - 2 is more appealing than > 3-2.) > 3) More people will stall, kamikazi, or self-oust in the situation > where they can't oust their prey, instead of waiting around as a wall > and hoping for a pity VP. > > #1 is good, if it actually reduces the table splits significantly. #2 > and #3 are bad. We'll find out I guess but I would disagree a little bit with 3 because; - I don't like being ousted so I'll fight for a 1/2 as much as I would fight for a mutual withdrawl at the end and I'm sure a lot of other players will do the same. I like it that if I've fought till the end I know get as many VPs as people that stalled / played cautiously and then withdrew. - People can die how they choose once they think they're going to be ousted so if they won't fight till the end and oust themselves better sooner rather than later as it moves the game along. I also like the fact that if you oust your prey you get more VPs than someone that withdraws at the end which has always been something that annoyed me personally. But let's give it a try and see what happens :-) Simon

LSJ: You are da man!!! Thanks for the withdrawal modification, it is definitely a big leap in the right direction To all else: If a table is being dealed to a 3-2 split, then logically it means there are 3 players being excluded from this deal, yes? So what is stopping those players from actively, vehemently and with all force available ousting the deal makers first? if I am on a table, where my prey and grandprey are table splitting, i would rather end the game with 1 or even zero VP's than allow them to get their deal through. And to all who are going to go"But that's not PTW". Yes, it is. If am already being excluded from any possible VP's due to a table split, I could quite easily argue that I have already lost the game, and as such am free to take any action I deem necessary to promote my standings in the game. if that means annihilating the dealmakers, so as to allow a free standing game after the are ousted, great Remember, this game has the built in mechanic of pred player prey for ver good reason, very few, if any (excluding prince nergally madness) can withstand a continous and combined assault from 3 other decks. So essentially you could oust the deal makers, or even just one of them, then get on with (gotto love Ankur) Play. The. Game!!!

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> ha scritto nel messaggio news:45707D5...@white-wolf.com... > The new tournament rules which go into effect on January 1, 2007 are up: > > http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/index.php?line=veknRules I really appreciate the effort - My question are: Considering the new rule: "ls. Prior deals are voided, even if they were play to win when made. When only two Methuselahs remain, both Methuselahs must play to win based only on game state, without regard to any deals." Question #1 : with the new text about deal above , is a 3/2 table split deal to be considered illegal, to be honored, from the start ? Question #2: in respect of the text above, it's legal at the beginning of a round say, for two players, to have a 2/1 deals so that they try to end up fighting for the last 2 VPS in a given round? (something like : "....ok, i help you to make 2 VP, you help me to make 1 VP, then when we're two left at the table we fight for the last VPS...."). thanks in advance and keep up the good work. Emiliano , v:ekn Prince of Rome

librarian wrote: > LSJ wrote: >> The new tournament rules which go into effect on January 1, 2007 are up: >> >> http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/index.php?line=veknRules > > Nits: > > 2.4 sentence #1 reads: "A spectator of a game is defined as any person > other than a judge or an organizer who not playing in that game." I > think you mean "... organizer who IS not playing in that game." > > 4.8, second paragraph, sentence #2, towards the end reads: "even when > the normal play to win rule would indicate the a deal should be > broken." I bet you meant: "...would indicate THAT a deal should be > broken." Thanks. > 7.2.1 Didn't Ancient Hearts boosters have 11 cards? My records indicate 12.

excellent... I would prefer that VP deal would simply be banish but it's allready better than nothing.

[ quoted text not captured ] The game state is the same: same cards in hand and same cards (in same order) in deck. The two Earth Melds are not different cards in that sense, but even if they were, the loop would then just be expanded to two swaps (swap out and swap back).

crispyfloss wrote: > The use of the term "activity" in the rule is a little vague to me. Is > the "Activity" Henry hunting, or Magaji blocking, or the playing of the > Earth Meld, or the recycling of the Earth Meld? You're penalizing one > of the players (by making Henry be bloodless or by letting him hunt > when he could otherwise be blocked), and it's not clear to me which one > is "at fault." The activity is the first thing that happens after game state is restored. The event, if you prefer. No fault is assigned. For Henry's case, it is abundantly clear which comes first, the hunt or the block attempt. In other cases, it should be clear as well. > If activity == "action," that's a fine bright-line although maybe it > will be unfair from time to time. activity = any event; a fine bright-line. > Logically I would consider the recycling of the card to be the > "activity" that restores the game state, since every step before that > each player can say - well, if he doesn't block it's not a loop; well, > if he doesn't play Earth Meld it's not a loop; well, as long as I don't > recycle it's not a loop. But the rule doesn't prohibit the restoration of game state. It only prevents the same event after game state is restored. > It also prevents you from prospectively saying: you can't do this, even > if something else might happen so it turns out differently. You let > people play, and only at the ultimate step when the player says "now I > do this" do you say, "that will close the loop, so you can't." You allow that ultimate step (to close the loop), then when the player says "now I do this" where "this" is the same "this" from the loop, then you say "that will continue the loop, so you can't". > It's certainly a queer stance to take, though, and I'd wager that > Taylor would prefer to be forbidden from hunting, and so be able to > stay up with Earth Meld in hand, then be forbidden from recycilng. But > that's not within his discretion. No discretion, no. That is simply what the rule effects. > Unless someone can think up of another example where this could happen, > I don't think it's worth any more thought. Certainly no more now than the what it should have received when first proposed. :-)

echia...@yahoo.com wrote: > LSJ wrote: >>> Perhaps I'm just a natural born skeptic, but I personally don't think >>> either the Withdrawal --> 0.5 VP or the deal nullification rule was >>> either needed or will be especially helpful, >> That's why I had invited discussion. > > > I hadn't been following the NAC thread too closely, but I thought you > had only formally asked for discussion starting on Wednesday, November > 29th: Correct. > Actually, isn't a 3-2 VP with a concession at the end still possible > under the proposed rules? I make a deal with my prey so he ousts the 3 > other players. Now it's down to 2 players. Although the new rule > requires us each to "play to win" the game has already been won (by my > prey). He's already won so no matter how he plays (besides possibly > Gambit Accepted), he is already playing to win. So he should be able to > concede to me and let me have 2 VP then? Yes.

Bram Vink wrote: > LSJ schreef: > >> The new tournament rules which go into effect on January 1, 2007 are up: >> >> http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/index.php?line=veknRules > > I like it, I honestly do. > > I hope it can be changed still, I think for the intended effect you > want with the addition of the 'heads up - all deals are off, play to > win' rule, the added rulechange should be: If you have the gamewin, you > must play to maximize your victory points. Why? > Which basically means: You have to play as well as you can, which I > think would be a beneficial thing to start with. > > As the rules are, a 3/2 table split is perfectly legal between predator > and prey, as the prey goes into heads-up with the gamewin, he isn't > violating PTW when conceding. Correct.

ira...@gmail.com wrote: > LSJ wrote: >> The new tournament rules which go into effect on January 1, 2007 are up: >> http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/index.php?line=veknRules > > Overall, looks great! New draft rules are especially exciting! > > I'm a bit confused why you asked for discussion on the two PTW-related > rules but gave such little time to respond. Because I don't control when Dec. 1 comes. 2007 tournament rules are to be posted by Dec. 1 > Of course, there's no > reason why you have to listen to us at all. :) Since you previously > expressed interest in feedback, I'd like to provide it now. With the understanding that the next window is the mid-term update on July 1, OK. > What problem are we trying to address with the 0.5 VPs for Withdrawl > and no-deals-heads-up rule? It seems like the problem is table > splitting deals, primarily the 3-2 deals. > > A->B->C->D->E > > I (player A) can still make a table split deal with my prey (B) no > problem. I help him oust two preys (or one prey if he's already ousted > C), and then he dies to me and I kill E. This deal doesn't happen very > much, because it's hard to trust that B will roll-over, and E might > self-oust anyway out of spite. Nonetheless, the point is that the new > rules don't stop this type of table split at all. Correct, it doesn't stop every split. It allows some of the ones that were allowable before, but stops some others. > I'm willing to try it, but my predicition is that: > 1) The number of table splits with your grand-prey won't decrease > significantly > 2) Table splits with your grand-predator will actually increase > (because accepting the losing end of 2.5 - 2 is more appealing than > 3-2.) > 3) More people will stall, kamikazi, or self-oust in the situation > where they can't oust their prey, instead of waiting around as a wall > and hoping for a pity VP. > > #1 is good, if it actually reduces the table splits significantly. #2 > and #3 are bad. #1 is bad, you mean it would be good if #1 weren't true (that, instead, the rule actually reduces the table splits significantly). Why would a player self-oust instead of trying to hang on and see if the situation improves unexpectedly (or see if he can get a pity "go to time" help from his grand predator)?

LSJ schreef: > Bram Vink wrote: > > LSJ schreef: > > > >> The new tournament rules which go into effect on January 1, 2007 are up: > >> > >> http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/index.php?line=veknRules > > > > I like it, I honestly do. > > > > I hope it can be changed still, I think for the intended effect you > > want with the addition of the 'heads up - all deals are off, play to > > win' rule, the added rulechange should be: If you have the gamewin, you > > must play to maximize your victory points. > > Why? I think, since I believe the intention is to let deals govern a smaller bit of the outcome of the game than they do now, carving up tables et al, this change would improve upon the intention I see behind the "deals cannot be kept heads-up if the residual effect is against PTW"-rules change, as it would (when incorporating the proposed change) then translate to: in the last heads up match, you have to try to oust the other. Instead of: if you do not have the game win, and can within reasonable limits expect to be able to oust your opponent, you have to try. > > Which basically means: You have to play as well as you can, which I > > think would be a beneficial thing to start with. > > > > As the rules are, a 3/2 table split is perfectly legal between predator > > and prey, as the prey goes into heads-up with the gamewin, he isn't > > violating PTW when conceding. > > Correct. I thought the intention of the ruleschange with regards to deals with 2 players left in the game, was to reduce those kinds of deals, mostly. Cheers, B

Tetragrammaton schreef: > "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> ha scritto nel messaggio > news:45707D5...@white-wolf.com... > > The new tournament rules which go into effect on January 1, 2007 are up: > > > > http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/index.php?line=veknRules > > I really appreciate the effort - > My question are: > > Considering the new rule: > "ls. Prior deals are voided, even if they were play to win when made. When > only two Methuselahs remain, both Methuselahs must play to win based only on > game state, without regard to any deals." > > Question #1 : with the new text about deal above , is a 3/2 table split deal > to be considered > illegal, to be honored, from the start ? Hey Emiliano, Depends. If the deal is means going into the heads-up match with: 3 versus 0 victory points, honoring the 3/2 split is not against play to win. If you go into the heads-up match with: 1 versus 2 victory points, both people must attempt to play to win. - so the person going into the final matchup has to break his deal if it meant him rolling over. > Question #2: in respect of the text above, it's legal at the beginning of a > round say, for two players, > to have a 2/1 deals so that they try to end up fighting for the last 2 VPS > in a given round? > (something like : "....ok, i help you to make 2 VP, you help me to make 1 > VP, then when we're two left at the table we fight for the last VPS...."). Sounds good to me > thanks in advance and keep up the good work. > > Emiliano , v:ekn Prince of Rome B

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:FXech.2943$Py2....@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net... [ quoted text not captured ] Interesting... so the "pity VP" remains available. Aka the "meat shield" VP, where you have the GW and allow your VP-less original predator to withdraw for a single VP at the end of the game, in return for not self-ousting in an otherwise hopeless situation. That's a good thing, I think, because it encourages that player to stay alive as long as possible and not self-oust out of boredom, frustration, etc. - Pat

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:FXech.2943$Py2....@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net... > echia...@yahoo.com wrote: >> LSJ wrote: >>>> Perhaps I'm just a natural born skeptic, but I personally don't think >>>> either the Withdrawal --> 0.5 VP or the deal nullification rule was >>>> either needed or will be especially helpful, >>> That's why I had invited discussion. >> >> I hadn't been following the NAC thread too closely, but I thought you >> had only formally asked for discussion starting on Wednesday, November >> 29th: > > Correct. It would be nice, in the future, to get a little more time to discuss a thing before it comes up against a deadline where action must be taken (or not). Anyone not able to participate between Nov. 29th and Dec. 1st for whatever reasons (on vacation away from the net, computer's down, work project overwhelming, kidnapped by wiener dogs, etc.) has been muzzled. More importantly, sometimes discussion takes a turn only after the first few days and someone points out something that wasn't apparent about a proposed change only after some more thought. Just a suggestion. Doesn't look to me like anything bad has come from the rule changes in this case. The discussion that did happen looked like it was pretty good. Fred

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:VGech.2906$Py2....@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net... > librarian wrote: >> 7.2.1 Didn't Ancient Hearts boosters have 11 cards? > > My records indicate 12. Ancient Hearts boosters had 12 cards: 2 slots, rare and uncommon cards 4 slots, overwhelmingly vampire cards 6 slots common cards. Fred

LSJ schrieb: > echia...@yahoo.com wrote: >> Perhaps I'm just a natural born skeptic, but I personally don't think >> either the Withdrawal --> 0.5 VP or the deal nullification rule was >> either needed or will be especially helpful, > > That's why I had invited discussion. Are you talking of this thread? A statement of new rules that go into effect at 01.01.2007 is not exactly what a call discussion. Or are you talking of the hugely confusing "Fixing Day1 of NAC" thread that was very hard to follow when you haven´t got several spare hours per week to read the newsgroup. And did you ask in the french, italian, spanish, german ... forum? Don´t these people have a voice and opinion? Are they excluded because a lot of them can´t write english so well that they can participate here? I don´t think the newsgroup+ww forum are very representative of the broad player base. -- johannes walch

echia...@yahoo.com schrieb: > Perhaps I'm just a natural born skeptic, but I personally don't think > either the Withdrawal --> 0.5 VP or the deal nullification rule was > either needed or will be especially helpful, > > IMHO, people will simply modify their deal-making to incorporate such > effects. Instead of making a deal where the other player concedes when > it's down to 2 players, instead you make a deal where the other player > will put himself in a position where he is unable to provide effective > opposition when it's down to 2 players. (Previously when it was down to > A --> B --> C, A could make a deal that he helps kill C and then B > concedes. Now, A makes the deal that he helps kill C, but B must bring > his own pool down to 1 and get his minions burned so that when it's > down to > 2 players then A will almost certainly win,) > > Similarly, the change to the withdrawal rule makes it less likely to > table split with your predator/prey, but instead people are likely to > just table split cross-table instead. Even then, you can still table > split if you're willing to take 0.5 VP's instead (if you think you're > going to get 0, 0.5 is still better than nothing). Alternatively, > instead of 4-1 VP splits, it may be more common to see 3-2 VP splits > instead. > > One final concern is that with the change to the withdrawal rule, it > becomes significantly harder to get a Game Win on a 4-player table. > Wtih an imperfect Archon (in that it has problems with adds and drops), > I imagine there are going to be significantly more complaints when some > players end up at 4-player tables while others are only at 5-player > tables. Very good points you make here Eric, basically showing that the new set of ruling (allready sure to go into effect) aren´t refined to the point they need to be. I have one more concern: Who is going to check that the people are going to follow through if the "You have to break your deal in 1-1" situations? Like Eric said one can just loose by "accident" or if the other 2-3 people go away from the table after being ousted (a common practice) they can just seal it w/o playing. Regular and valid now being severely hampered that encourages now collusion where you still can get the same results "unter the table". -- johannes walch

LSJ schrieb: > ira...@gmail.com wrote: >> LSJ wrote: >>> The new tournament rules which go into effect on January 1, 2007 are up: >>> http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/index.php?line=veknRules >> >> Overall, looks great! New draft rules are especially exciting! >> >> I'm a bit confused why you asked for discussion on the two PTW-related >> rules but gave such little time to respond. > > Because I don't control when Dec. 1 comes. > > 2007 tournament rules are to be posted by Dec. 1 But there was no need to change this for 01.01.2007. It could have been changed at the mid of the year or something. If you felt that this needed a change for 2007 you should have started the discussion earlier. Jump starts are not a good idea for such important changes. -- johannes walch

Bram Vink schrieb: > Depends. If the deal is means going into the heads-up match with: > > 3 versus 0 victory points, honoring the 3/2 split is not against play > to win. > > If you go into the heads-up match with: > > 1 versus 2 victory points, both people must attempt to play to win. - > so the person going into the final matchup has to break his deal if it > meant him rolling over. Where is the logic in that? It "fixes" some problems (well, it wants to fix basically) only under some specific circumstances. Useless. -- johannes walch

On Sat, 2 Dec 2006, Pat wrote: > Interesting... so the "pity VP" remains available. If you mean 2 VPs, yes. > Aka the "meat shield" VP, where you have the GW and allow your VP-less > original predator to withdraw for a single VP at the end of the game, in > return for not self-ousting in an otherwise hopeless situation. No, withdrawal is worth .5 VPs now. The winning player could withdraw herself to give her meatshield predator a full VP for last man standing. Although this means the winning player is only getting 2.5 or 3.5 VPs rather than 3 or 4. That might matter to some people. Eric's example was that the winning player ousts 3 people, then self-ousts (or concedes) to give her predator 2 VPs. That's a lot of pity. :) > That's a good thing, I think, because it encourages that player to stay > alive as long as possible and not self-oust out of boredom, frustration, > etc. This was my concern as well with the change. We might start seeing more kingmaking where a player, unwilling to settle for a .5 VP withdrawal, self-ousts, swinging the balance of the game away from the dominant player to one who perhaps hasn't been as active in the game. To give kind of a stupid example, imagine if Stefan had said to himself "well, I'm never going to get Pat" at this year's NAC and self-ousted. His predator probably would've wound up the NAC champ, despite never having actually made any good progress against his prey. It's stupid example because Stefan would've been denying himself second place and that's probably not his play style anyway, but I think you can still find the point in there. Time will tell, I suppose. Matt Morgan

In message <eks9c5$kgq$4...@news01.versatel.de>, Johannes Walch <johanne...@vekn.de> writes: >Where is the logic in that? It "fixes" some problems (well, it wants to >fix basically) only under some specific circumstances. Useless. If it fixes some problems under specific circumstances, that's just fine. It doesn't fix everything. Oh no, the sky is falling. When there's a concrete proposal to fix some things, why not fix those and fix the other things later? -- James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D YOU ARE IN ERROR. EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 NO-ONE IS SCREAMING. 13D7E668C3695D623D5D THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.

"James Coupe" <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> ha scritto nel messaggio news:zfODNrLB...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk... > In message <eks9c5$kgq$4...@news01.versatel.de>, Johannes Walch > <johanne...@vekn.de> writes: >>Where is the logic in that? It "fixes" some problems (well, it wants to >>fix basically) only under some specific circumstances. Useless. > > If it fixes some problems under specific circumstances, that's just > fine. It doesn't fix everything. Oh no, the sky is falling. > > When there's a concrete proposal to fix some things, why not fix those > and fix the other things later? > To me another great step would be the self-oust (actively self-transfer out of pool) banned altogether from tournament play. Emiliano

James Coupe wrote: > In message <eks9c5$kgq$4...@news01.versatel.de>, Johannes Walch > <johanne...@vekn.de> writes: > >Where is the logic in that? It "fixes" some problems (well, it wants to > >fix basically) only under some specific circumstances. Useless. > > If it fixes some problems under specific circumstances, that's just > fine. And creates new ones...like proving play-to-win at the 2 player level. There is nothing to stop the players when its down to the 2 player from doing whatever they want. Or is the judge now going to tell people how they HAVE to play? "NO, you CAN'T tap out hunting when you are down to 1 pool cause that is not playing to win." > When there's a concrete proposal to fix some things, why not fix those > and fix the other things later? I played at the NAC and did not see any more table deals than in games I've played in years past. It's part of the game. I made table deals and was a victim of them. That is the way Jyhad was intended to be played. I think all the whiners should find a new game, since VTES obviously isn't a game they can handle. As you can tell, I am not a fan of the rules changes. I think they were shoved out way to quick and without enough games using them to prove their worth in words. Vegas gNat

"Matthew T. Morgan" <far...@io.com> wrote in message news:2006120211...@fnord.io.com... > On Sat, 2 Dec 2006, Pat wrote: > >> Interesting... so the "pity VP" remains available. > > If you mean 2 VPs, yes. > >> Aka the "meat shield" VP, where you have the GW and allow your VP-less >> original predator to withdraw for a single VP at the end of the game, in >> return for not self-ousting in an otherwise hopeless situation. > > No, withdrawal is worth .5 VPs now. > > The winning player could withdraw herself to give her meatshield predator > a full VP for last man standing. Although this means the winning player > is only getting 2.5 or 3.5 VPs rather than 3 or 4. That might matter to > some people. Eric's example was that the winning player ousts 3 people, > then self-ousts (or concedes) to give her predator 2 VPs. That's a lot of > pity. :) > I realized after I posted that the winning player would have to be the one who withdraws, so it'd be 2.5 VP & GW (in a four player, or in a 5-player where somebody else got a VP) or 3.5 VP & GW, but giving up the 0.5 VP would be worth it to ensure that the GW is preserved. I can't think of a real-life example where this has occurred, but in a JOL game [*] where my Sens Dep'ing grand-prey destabilized the table, I gave Wes a meatshield VP. Under the new rules, I would have been glad to take 3.5 instead of 4, to ensure that he didn't self-oust from frustration. (I was playing Ben Swainbank's Demdemeh deck and had beaten him up pretty badly, so it could be argued that frustrating me would have been a reasonable action on his part.) I wasn't responding to Eric's specific 3-2 scenario so much as I was to LSJ's confirmation that once a player has sealed the GW, he is free to allow the other guy to achieve a VP. >> That's a good thing, I think, because it encourages that player to stay >> alive as long as possible and not self-oust out of boredom, frustration, >> etc. > > This was my concern as well with the change. We might start seeing more > kingmaking where a player, unwilling to settle for a .5 VP withdrawal, > self-ousts, swinging the balance of the game away from the dominant player > to one who perhaps hasn't been as active in the game. > > To give kind of a stupid example, imagine if Stefan had said to himself > "well, I'm never going to get Pat" at this year's NAC and self-ousted. His > predator probably would've wound up the NAC champ, despite never having > actually made any good progress against his prey. It's stupid example > because Stefan would've been denying himself second place and that's > probably not his play style anyway, but I think you can still find the > point in there. > I'd have certainly been sad. :) But leaving that aside, yeah, I get your point. - Pat [*] http://deckserver.net/jol3/league274, for what it's worth

"Tetragrammaton" <nos...@none.com> schreef in bericht news:1bjch.7696$P04....@tornado.fastwebnet.it... [ quoted text not captured ] no offence, but what would that achieve? Instead of transfering out, you transfer to 1 and tap out. For practical game-play, the only thing that changes is that it happens in your predator's turn.

"Johannes Walch" <johanne...@vekn.de> schreef in bericht news:eks917$kgq$1...@news01.versatel.de... [ quoted text not captured ] The funny thing is: no-one will accept a 3-2 split anymore with his prey. Because no-one can offer that deal. I mean: "you help me get 3, then you get the last 2" doesn' t mean much when, at the moment he got his 3 VP, he has to play to win. The only viable alternative is dealing cross table, which is more in the spirit of the game and makes deals more of a gamble. The new standard deal will probably be with you grandpredator (in a 5 player game) "i take 2, you take 1 and we duke it out" Me likes :-)

"Jeroen Rombouts" <jeroen.r...@telenet.be> ha scritto nel messaggio news:aukch.216307$lP1.3...@phobos.telenet-ops.be... [ quoted text not captured ] It's a big difference imho - that is, you can't blackmail another player with self-oust threatening, and that, in a way or in another, your predator (or someone for him/her) must actively do something to take your last pool out - sometimes an action more or less can make big difference in this game to achieve the victory. Emiliano

"Jeroen Rombouts" <jeroen.r...@telenet.be> schreef in bericht news:Yzkch.216318$%L6.33...@phobos.telenet-ops.be... >> > The funny thing is: no-one will accept a 3-2 split anymore with his prey. > Because no-one can offer that deal. read some more, seems i'm mistaken... so I'll reply to my own post. > > I mean: "you help me get 3, then you get the last 2" doesn' t mean much > when, at the moment he got his 3 VP, he has to play to win. seems it does. But that means that everything blows right open when he misses a VP down the line. Don't tell me that never happens.... [ quoted text not captured ]

Jeroen Rombouts schreef: [ quoted text not captured ] He has already won, and can honor his deal. PTW doesn't enforce him in any way to strive for the last VPs. > The only viable alternative is dealing cross table, which is more in the > spirit of the game and makes deals more of a gamble. The new standard deal > will probably be with you grandpredator (in a 5 player game) "i take 2, you > take 1 and we duke it out" > > Me likes :-) Or just the regular 3/2 split.

tigernat1 schrieb: > I played at the NAC and did not see any more table deals than in games > I've played in years past. It's part of the game. I made table deals > and was a victim of them. That is the way Jyhad was intended to be > played. I think all the whiners should find a new game, since VTES > obviously isn't a game they can handle. You got balls, man. That was what I was thinking. I found it a bit to arrogant to write it that open, but that´s the point. imho the whole meddling with rules is just a way of some people to get around the fact that they are not willing/able to develop some table talk skills. The game works fine as it is (tournament rules wise) and there were some complaints, but instead of complaining everybody should sit down and think of better decks and try to work on his skills. > As you can tell, I am not a fan of the rules changes. I think they > were shoved out way to quick and without enough games using them to > prove their worth in words. Right to the point. I hope we can have some more supporters in this direction. -- johannes walch

"Bram Vink" <jja....@hccnet.nl> schreef in bericht news:1165090492.2...@73g2000cwn.googlegroups.com... . > > I mean: "you help me get 3, then you get the last 2" doesn' t mean much > when, at the moment he got his 3 VP, he has to play to win. He has already won, and can honor his deal. PTW doesn't enforce him in any way to strive for the last VPs. Yeah, i noticed. See my self-reply. > The only viable alternative is dealing cross table, which is more in the > spirit of the game and makes deals more of a gamble. The new standard deal > will probably be with you grandpredator (in a 5 player game) "i take 2, > you > take 1 and we duke it out" > > Me likes :-) Or just the regular 3/2 split. It's kind of hard for a combat deck to get 3VP in a regular way without the las man standing VP (in time limit, I mean) That's why I prefere the other option.

"Tetragrammaton" <nos...@none.com> schreef in bericht news:zHkch.7864$P04....@tornado.fastwebnet.it... > > "Jeroen Rombouts" <jeroen.r...@telenet.be> ha scritto nel messaggio > news:aukch.216307$lP1.3...@phobos.telenet-ops.be... >> >> "Tetragrammaton" <nos...@none.com> schreef in bericht >> news:1bjch.7696$P04....@tornado.fastwebnet.it... > > It's a big difference imho - that is, you can't blackmail another player > with self-oust threatening, and that, in a way or in another, your > predator > (or someone for him/her) must actively do something to take your > last pool out - sometimes an action more or less can make big difference > in this game to achieve the victory. > But threatening with self oust is IME a good deterent against 3-2 splits.

"Jeroen Rombouts" <jeroen.r...@telenet.be> ha scritto nel messaggio news:QOlch.216431$vP6.3...@phobos.telenet-ops.be... [ quoted text not captured ] But a deal must produce some kind of real effect in the game state putting you in an effective lost position, for allowing you a self-oust state/try however - and at that point it will make not difference if you threaten someone with a self oust: you will be out anyway. I see self oust as a mean to just borrow a vpoint or an half vpoint from a total losing position, yet some kind of position where you can still hurt someone by transferring you out, and blackmailing him/her with this.

"Bram Vink" <jja....@hccnet.nl> ha scritto nel messaggio news:1165068652.2...@l12g2000cwl.googlegroups.com... [ quoted text not captured ] Ok, thanks x the answer, altough i hope lsj will clear my mind about the 2 questions above. ;-)

LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > Why would a player self-oust instead of trying to hang on and see if > the situation improves unexpectedly (or see if he can get a pity "go > to time" help from his grand predator)? Play in L.A. for a while, Scott, and ask those particular players who have fostered play-to-self-oust as a personal philosophy. Maybe they can tell you. :P Kevin M., Prince of Las Vegas "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

Matthew T. Morgan <far...@io.com> wrote: > This was my concern as well with the change. We might start seeing > more kingmaking where a player, unwilling to settle for a .5 VP > withdrawal, self-ousts, swinging the balance of the game away from > the dominant player to one who perhaps hasn't been as active in the > game. Just do what I did twice at Origins 2006, Matt: stop players from self-ousting when they are not playing-to-win. [ quoted text not captured ]

> There is nothing to stop the players when its down to the 2 player from > doing whatever they want. Or is the judge now going to tell people how > they HAVE to play? A judge already has the power to tell someone they have to play to win. How is enforcing this in a 2-player game any harder than enforcing it in a 3+ player game? I personally think it's easier, if anything. This new rule won't need to be enforced--its existence will stop the split deal from being offered in the first place. After Jan 1st, if a player offers me a deal where I give them VPs and then they self-oust, I will not take the deal in the first place. I know that if they are a fair player, they will not be able to carry it out, and if they are not--if they are willing to break the V:EKN tournament rules--then I'm not sure I trust them anyway. > I played at the NAC and did not see any more table deals than in games > I've played in years past. It's part of the game. I made table deals > and was a victim of them. That is the way Jyhad was intended to be > played. I think all the whiners should find a new game, since VTES > obviously isn't a game they can handle. Jyhad was "intended to be played" as a game where the players didn't win because of the cards alone, or because of their table talk alone, but because of both interacting. Ask Richard Garfield. He said he didn't want victory to be entirely about either one of these. And there was a time in Jyhad's past when table-splitting deals were so rampant, that Game Wins were introduced in order to curb how much stronger talking was than playing cards. It seems we may have gotten to a point when that's true again, and these measures are taken to ensure things are balanced again. If you tell me you are against both this new rule and the GW rule, then I will wonder whether your playgroup knows how to use deals to their full potential, since without these rules, table deals are very strong, maybe overwhelmingly strong in many cases. But if you tell me you support the Game Win rule, I will ask you, "Why?" And, "Don't you think these reasons are enough to act now, as well?" > As you can tell, I am not a fan of the rules changes. I think they > were shoved out way to quick and without enough games using them to > prove their worth in words. I do agree that this happened in a blur. However, as LSJ said, this was a step--I don't doubt for a minute that if it proves to be a bit much, or too little, things will be changed appropriately in six months. In the meanwhile, I haven't played an endgame in a tournament, outside of a finals game, for years. Long live the endgame! -- Brian

"Kevin M." <you...@imaspammer.org> wrote in message news:KZrch.4275$B42...@newsfe12.phx... > LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: >> Why would a player self-oust instead of trying to hang on and see if >> the situation improves unexpectedly (or see if he can get a pity "go >> to time" help from his grand predator)? > > Play in L.A. for a while, Scott, and ask those particular players who have > fostered play-to-self-oust as a personal philosophy. Maybe they can tell > you. :P "If my non-negotiable demands are not immediately met, I'm going to totally take out Paul Johnson!!! I'm not kidding!!!" "Shut up, Paul. We're not impressed."

Tetragrammaton schreef: [ quoted text not captured ] That's what I meant. If cross table 2 people are agreeing on a 3-2 split, and you can see that they're probably going to make it. Why not threaten with self ousting? If you let them play out the 3-2 split: you have nothing, if you self oust: you still have nothing either their deal is gone, or they are going for the 2-2-1 split, in which no-one has a GW. And a lost game without another player winning a GW is better than a lost game with someone winning a GW. Please note that I'm referring to tournament play, otherwise the GW doesn't really matter.

islando...@aol.com schrieb: > > There is nothing to stop the players when its down to the 2 player from > > doing whatever they want. Or is the judge now going to tell people how > > they HAVE to play? > > A judge already has the power to tell someone they have to play to win. > How is enforcing this in a 2-player game any harder than enforcing it > in a 3+ player game? I personally think it's easier, if anything. The difference is that until now people were usually playing to win, because they WANT to win. Not there may be situations where they don´t want to win, because they stick to their deal. They "try" to break but don´t manage pitty. I can make up a lot of examples where it is almost impossible for the judge to step in. "Forgot to take the pool for the edge" "Taste. Press. Shit, should have pressed first" ... And you have to consider the fact the judge intervention should be reduced to a minimum AND there are usually not many (enough) judges at hand. > This new rule won't need to be enforced--its existence will stop the > split deal from being offered in the first place. After Jan 1st, if a > player offers me a deal where I give them VPs and then they self-oust, > I will not take the deal in the first place. I know that if they are a > fair player, they will not be able to carry it out, and if they are > not--if they are willing to break the V:EKN tournament rules--then I'm > not sure I trust them anyway. Perhaps you are doing this. But a lot of other people don´t. Or do it like this: "Lets do a 4-1, oh wait it´s forbidden now". And then they just play like it. > > I played at the NAC and did not see any more table deals than in games > > I've played in years past. It's part of the game. I made table deals > > and was a victim of them. That is the way Jyhad was intended to be > > played. I think all the whiners should find a new game, since VTES > > obviously isn't a game they can handle. > > Jyhad was "intended to be played" as a game where the players didn't > win because of the cards alone, or because of their table talk alone, > but because of both interacting. Ask Richard Garfield. He said he > didn't want victory to be entirely about either one of these. And > there was a time in Jyhad's past when table-splitting deals were so > rampant, that Game Wins were introduced in order to curb how much > stronger talking was than playing cards. > > It seems we may have gotten to a point when that's true again, and > these measures are taken to ensure things are balanced again. If you > tell me you are against both this new rule and the GW rule, then I will > wonder whether your playgroup knows how to use deals to their full > potential, since without these rules, table deals are very strong, > maybe overwhelmingly strong in many cases. But if you tell me you > support the Game Win rule, I will ask you, "Why?" And, "Don't you > think these reasons are enough to act now, as well?" That we have gotten to that point is IMHO a huge assumption. There has been no real "survey" if players really feel that this is the case. The only "data" that was acquired was a little whining in the newsgroup and probably WW forums (which I dont read) plus some personal experience of LSJ. Not nearly enough to justify I think. > > As you can tell, I am not a fan of the rules changes. I think they > > were shoved out way to quick and without enough games using them to > > prove their worth in words. > > I do agree that this happened in a blur. However, as LSJ said, this > was a step--I don't doubt for a minute that if it proves to be a bit > much, or too little, things will be changed appropriately in six > months. Why then wasn´t it thought out more thoroughly and then changed in 6 month? The problem (if it exists at all) surely wasn´t so bad since people seemed to enjoy the tournaments a lot as far as I can tell. I am really not against a change and I think the 0,5 for withdrawal is probably a good idea. But I think the "have to break in 1-1" is illogical and unenforceable. -- johannes walch

James Coupe schrieb: > In message <eks9c5$kgq$4...@news01.versatel.de>, Johannes Walch > <johanne...@vekn.de> writes: > >Where is the logic in that? It "fixes" some problems (well, it wants to > >fix basically) only under some specific circumstances. Useless. > > If it fixes some problems under specific circumstances, that's just > fine. It doesn't fix everything. Oh no, the sky is falling. > > When there's a concrete proposal to fix some things, why not fix those > and fix the other things later? Because it doesn´t really fix anything. It creates a practically unenforceable rule that encourages collusion (in my opinion), so instead of fixing anything it just makes things worse. The 0.5 for withdraw is fine with me, by the way. Just the other one were you have to go against your ally in a heads up doesn´t make any sense to me. -- johannes walch

> The new tournament rules which go into effect on January 1, 2007 are up: > > http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/index.php?line=veknRules Small thing: 4.8. "allowble" is misspelled. Otherwise, I love it. I'm totally ready to Play. The. Game. Ankur Play. The. Game.

echia...@yahoo.com wrote: > Similarly, the change to the withdrawal rule makes it less likely to > table split with your predator/prey, but instead people are likely to > just table split cross-table instead. Which is a good thing. Cross-table table splits bolster the normal flow of the game, in which cross-table players are your allies (or at least neutral) and you actively fight against your prey and predator. Prey-predator VP deals go against this, and I see them as much worse than cross-table ones for that very reason- //Petri

"Kevin M." <you...@imaspammer.org> wrote in message news:I8sch.4276$B42...@newsfe12.phx... > Matthew T. Morgan <far...@io.com> wrote: >> This was my concern as well with the change. We might start seeing >> more kingmaking where a player, unwilling to settle for a .5 VP >> withdrawal, self-ousts, swinging the balance of the game away from >> the dominant player to one who perhaps hasn't been as active in the >> game. > > Just do what I did twice at Origins 2006, Matt: stop players from > self-ousting when they are not playing-to-win. > It's correct, isn't it, that a player with no hope of getting a VP is allowed to die in a manner he chooses? So that if these individuals were in a hopeless position, self-ousting would have been allowed. Since you disallowed the self-oust, you must have felt they were not in hopeless position. Could you give us a brief description of game state that caused you to reach this conclusion? (No names needed, I'm just curious about your interpretation of game state vs that of the players'.) Thx, Pat

Powermonger wrote: > Solid move, LSJ > > Regards, > > > Orpheus wrote: >> 3.7.2 (Formerly 3.8.2) Reduce VP award for withdrawal to a half VP. >> >> CLAP ! CLAP !! CLAP !!! >> >> -- >> Orpheus I'll just add a few more "clap clap"'s here :) Even though the new changes will naturally need time to see what the implications are, and even though they naturally won't solve everything, I see this as a big step in the right direction. More small, temporary deals and more cross-table deals + help, more concentrating on prey (and predator), and generally more Playing The Game. One hopes, at least. //Petri

tigernat1 wrote: > James Coupe wrote: >> In message <eks9c5$kgq$4...@news01.versatel.de>, Johannes Walch >> <johanne...@vekn.de> writes: >>> Where is the logic in that? It "fixes" some problems (well, it wants to >>> fix basically) only under some specific circumstances. Useless. >> If it fixes some problems under specific circumstances, that's just >> fine. > > And creates new ones...like proving play-to-win at the 2 player level. > There is nothing to stop the players when its down to the 2 player from > doing whatever they want. Or is the judge now going to tell people how > they HAVE to play? "NO, you CAN'T tap out hunting when you are down to > 1 pool cause that is not playing to win." This. But it is nothing new. The judge has always had to step in whenever illegal play is being deliberately attempted.

joha...@scram.de wrote: > imho the whole > meddling with rules is just a way of some people to get around the fact > that they are not willing/able to develop some table talk skills. It's an affirmation that a bigger emphasis on the game itself rather is desired by the V:EKN rules makers, instead of an emphasis on talking to subvert the underlying game.

Frederick Scott wrote: > "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:FXech.2943$Py2....@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net... >> echia...@yahoo.com wrote: >>> LSJ wrote: >>>>> Perhaps I'm just a natural born skeptic, but I personally don't think >>>>> either the Withdrawal --> 0.5 VP or the deal nullification rule was >>>>> either needed or will be especially helpful, >>>> That's why I had invited discussion. >>> I hadn't been following the NAC thread too closely, but I thought you >>> had only formally asked for discussion starting on Wednesday, November >>> 29th: >> Correct. > > It would be nice, in the future, to get a little more time to discuss a > thing before it comes up against a deadline where action must be taken (or > not). Obviously. Just as obviously, it is nicer to get what can be gotten in the 2007 rule into the 2007 rules rather than wait for the 2008 rules.

Johannes Walch wrote: > LSJ schrieb: >> echia...@yahoo.com wrote: >>> Perhaps I'm just a natural born skeptic, but I personally don't think >>> either the Withdrawal --> 0.5 VP or the deal nullification rule was >>> either needed or will be especially helpful, >> >> That's why I had invited discussion. > > Are you talking of this thread? A statement of new rules that go into > effect at 01.01.2007 is not exactly what a call discussion. I'm talking about the posts in which the proposal was made that ended with an invitation for discussion. > Or are you talking of the hugely confusing "Fixing Day1 of NAC" thread > that was very hard to follow when you haven´t got several spare hours > per week to read the newsgroup. Leave the hyperbole out please. > And did you ask in the french, italian, spanish, german ... forum? Don´t > these people have a voice and opinion? Are they excluded because a lot > of them can´t write english so well that they can participate here? I > don´t think the newsgroup+ww forum are very representative of the broad > player base. Time constraints being what they were, the best forum for rapid discussion was used. But, if you want to get picky, no set of web fourms is very representative of the broad player base.

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:erCch.18335$9v5....@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net... [ quoted text not captured ] Well, the obvious suggestion was what I think Johannes said elsewhere: some of these possibly could have waited another six months in order to get more complete discussion. If they couldn't, then perhaps more frequent updates of the tournament rules than every six months should be considered. Granted, these are all judgment calls. Fred

In message <1165082455.6...@j72g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, tigernat1 <tige...@gmail.com> writes: >I played at the NAC and did not see any more table deals than in games >I've played in years past. It's part of the game. I made table deals >and was a victim of them. That is the way Jyhad was intended to be >played. I think all the whiners should find a new game, since VTES >obviously isn't a game they can handle. Actually, Richard Garfield has been quite explicit that one of his desires for V:TES was that each player should have distinct and conflicting goals - that's what the predator-prey relationship is all about. This works pretty well when your emphasis is the current game. When there's only one game to win, there's only one game to win. When you have multiple rounds, the predator-prey/VP goal conflict between players doesn't work so well. Players can afford to throw away details for the greater good - both of them reaching the finals. Once one player has slipped sufficiently that he doesn't think he can win, his goals become the same as another player's goals - let that player win, and let me get the scraps. Having two players have the same goals is NOT what Garfield intended. While it would be great to find a rules change that stepped away from the requirement for judges to intervene, we don't have that. So instead we have a situation where certain play is illegal. Players having the same goal is not the way Jyhad was meant to be played. It's where we are, and it's where we're trying to head away from. -- James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D YOU ARE IN ERROR. EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 NO-ONE IS SCREAMING. 13D7E668C3695D623D5D THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.

LSJ schrieb: [ quoted text not captured ] I was looking on the (WW/V:EKN) website for a specification of the group of people that are the "V:EKN rules makers" but I didn´t find anything. Could you perhaps enlighten me who is in charge of this? Is there a formal procedure how such a rule change is conducted and approved in this group? Thank you. -- johannes walch

> > It seems we may have gotten to a point when that's true again, and > > these measures are taken to ensure things are balanced again. If you > > tell me you are against both this new rule and the GW rule, then I will > > wonder whether your playgroup knows how to use deals to their full > > potential, since without these rules, table deals are very strong, > > maybe overwhelmingly strong in many cases. But if you tell me you > > support the Game Win rule, I will ask you, "Why?" And, "Don't you > > think these reasons are enough to act now, as well?" > > That we have gotten to that point is IMHO a huge assumption. There has > been no real "survey" if players really feel that this is the case. The > only "data" that was acquired was a little whining in the newsgroup and > probably WW forums (which I dont read) plus some personal experience of > LSJ. Not nearly enough to justify I think. Most of the games I played this year ended with either a table split or a mutual withdrawal deal (offered in the last 4 minutes). I don't think my experience is too unusual. Even if this weren't the case, day 1 of the NAC this year was the really big problem that needed addressing. The NAC was a terrific event, of course, but day 1 produced some of the worst games of Jyhad that I've ever played. People didn't need more than like 3VP to advance to day 2, so they all offered the table split deal as soon as they thought they could carry it out. You were there, and I thought you agreed that the 2-day format was terrible for the Americans, due to only having 60-some players? If the rules issued here a few days ago were in place, I don't think it would have happened like that--it would have been nearly impossible. > > I do agree that this happened in a blur. However, as LSJ said, this > > was a step--I don't doubt for a minute that if it proves to be a bit > > much, or too little, things will be changed appropriately in six > > months. > > Why then wasn´t it thought out more thoroughly and then changed in 6 > month? LSJ had to make a decision by December 1st. He could either let us play some (probably better) games with a so-so fix, and then ask us for feedback in six months, or he could leave everything alone--which I can pretty much guarantee wouldn't have made any game any better, or taught us anything. > The problem (if it exists at all) surely wasn´t so bad since > people seemed to enjoy the tournaments a lot as far as I can tell. Not at the NAC day 1, they didn't. Again, I thought you agreed with this. > I am > really not against a change and I think the 0,5 for withdrawal is > probably a good idea. But I think the "have to break in 1-1" is > illogical and unenforceable. I think this could be a good discussion. Let's pretend that we both agree that something should be done about table splits, but that the current rule hasn't been issued yet. What would you have the new rule say? You could say "no offering deals which involve the final state of VPs", or "no ousting yourself (or intentionally weakening yourself) as part of a deal", but I don't think either one of those would be as good as "no honoring a losing deal once the game is 2 players". Any suggestions? I'll give it some thought tomorrow when I wake up. I'm looking forward to this. -- Brian

LSJ schrieb: > Time constraints being what they were, the best forum for rapid discussion was used. But these time constraints were only imposed if we assume an immediate need for a rules change. I can´t see that the situation was so bad that we didn´t have time for another 6 month to refine the changes and get them into the mid-2007 update. -- johannes walch

islando...@aol.com schrieb: > > Even if this weren't the case, day 1 of the NAC this year was the > really big problem that needed addressing. The NAC was a terrific > event, of course, but day 1 produced some of the worst games of Jyhad > that I've ever played. People didn't need more than like 3VP to > advance to day 2, so they all offered the table split deal as soon as > they thought they could carry it out. > > You were there, and I thought you agreed that the 2-day format was > terrible for the Americans, due to only having 60-some players? If the > rules issued here a few days ago were in place, I don't think it would > have happened like that--it would have been nearly impossible. Yes I agreed on the fact that the 2-day format didn´t work out so well for the NAC, basically because the numbers weren´t right. Stéphane and I worked out that proposal under the assumption of a larger player-base on Day-1 (100+ like in the EC). It worked pretty well for the EC, though, you had to have a GW except for a lucky player with 0/5 but you couldn´t count on that so pretty much everyone HAD to play for the GW. And I didn´t see anybody giving a GW away after they had their first, because going to the final of a 100+ player tournament IS a big incentive. > LSJ had to make a decision by December 1st. He could either let us > play some (probably better) games with a so-so fix, and then ask us for > feedback in six months, or he could leave everything alone--which I can > pretty much guarantee wouldn't have made any game any better, or taught > us anything. Well there could have been a partial fix through the 0,5 VP for a withdrawal. Test that and then see if it is good enough. I am really only not-so-happy about the other rule where you have to break the deal (it´s really wicked that you can make the deal, though) in a 1-1. > > The problem (if it exists at all) surely wasn´t so bad since > > people seemed to enjoy the tournaments a lot as far as I can tell. > > Not at the NAC day 1, they didn't. Again, I thought you agreed with > this. Yes I did. But the NAC is not till next October so no need for a hasty change. And it could have been easily fixed by decreasing the number of players for Day-2 (which would automatically increase the fun of those that don´t make it, because they are a good number of players for that side events) > > I am > > really not against a change and I think the 0,5 for withdrawal is > > probably a good idea. But I think the "have to break in 1-1" is > > illogical and unenforceable. > > I think this could be a good discussion. > > Let's pretend that we both agree that something should be done about > table splits, but that the current rule hasn't been issued yet. What > would you have the new rule say? You could say "no offering deals > which involve the final state of VPs", or "no ousting yourself (or > intentionally weakening yourself) as part of a deal", but I don't think > either one of those would be as good as "no honoring a losing deal once > the game is 2 players". > > Any suggestions? I'll give it some thought tomorrow when I wake up. > I'm looking forward to this. Basically I would have sticked to the 0.5 for withdrawal first, because the 3/2 split would have been 2.5 / 1.5 or (3-1-1, 2.5 - 0.5 -0.5) which IS a disadvantage in tournaments because those 0.5 (or more VPs if you do it in several rounds) can really place you in 6th instead of the final. I am also not really of the opinion that there should be done anything about table splits in general, I rather think that we should fix the certain circumstances under which people make "stupid" table splits (like the 1st day NAC). A much bigger problems than table splits are time-outs IMHO. I had a lot more frustration from time-outs this year than I had of table splits going wrong. So if I were in the position to enforce new rules I would have tried to create rules that speed up the game. Funnily table-splits DO speed up the game because after the split everything falls apart quickly AND it´s better than a time-out. Instead of table splits we will see a lot more (than allready) time outs now, I fear. I time-outed game is much worse (in my personal experience) than a game that ended in a split, no matter if I was part of it or not. -- johannes walch

Pat <patric...@NOSPAMcomcast.net> wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] Pat, one got 1VP fairly easily and almost got 2. One got a *GAME WIN*. In my opinion, both were colluding and rolling-over, and I had only come over to the two tables due to other players at the tables asking for a judge and claiming that the players were not playing-to-win. Now, they always could have just scooped, and there wouldn't have been anything I could have done about it, except informed WW, I guess, but the fact that the didn't and then went on to play the game tells me a lot. [ quoted text not captured ]

"Kevin M." <you...@imaspammer.org> wrote in message news:y1Gch.5608$ej3...@newsfe16.phx... > Pat <patric...@NOSPAMcomcast.net> wrote: >> "Kevin M." <you...@imaspammer.org> wrote: >>> Matthew T. Morgan <far...@io.com> wrote: >>>> This was my concern as well with the change. We might start seeing >>>> more kingmaking where a player, unwilling to settle for a .5 VP >>>> withdrawal, self-ousts, swinging the balance of the game away from >>>> the dominant player to one who perhaps hasn't been as active in the >>>> game. >>> >>> Just do what I did twice at Origins 2006, Matt: stop players from >>> self-ousting when they are not playing-to-win. >> >> It's correct, isn't it, that a player with no hope of getting a VP is >> allowed to die in a manner he chooses? So that if these individuals >> were in a hopeless position, self-ousting would have been allowed. >> >> Since you disallowed the self-oust, you must have felt they were not >> in hopeless position. Could you give us a brief description of game >> state that caused you to reach this conclusion? (No names needed, I'm >> just curious about your interpretation of game state vs that of the >> players'.) > > Pat, one got 1VP fairly easily and almost got 2. One got a *GAME WIN*. > In my opinion, both were colluding and rolling-over, and I had only come > over to the two tables due to other players at the tables asking for a > judge and claiming that the players were not playing-to-win. > Wow... don't think I've ever seen that happen. Thanks for the info. - Pat

In message <1165144306.0...@n67g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>, joha...@scram.de writes: > >James Coupe schrieb: > >> In message <eks9c5$kgq$4...@news01.versatel.de>, Johannes Walch >> <johanne...@vekn.de> writes: >> >Where is the logic in that? It "fixes" some problems (well, it wants to >> >fix basically) only under some specific circumstances. Useless. >> >> If it fixes some problems under specific circumstances, that's just >> fine. It doesn't fix everything. Oh no, the sky is falling. >> >> When there's a concrete proposal to fix some things, why not fix those >> and fix the other things later? > >Because it doesn´t really fix anything. This is simply not true. By stopping a large number (though far from all) of unhelpful deals, it forces players to play the game in a number of circumstances where they currently don't - instead, they play the other players. This is a bonus for the game. Newbies can turn up and not get shafted by the fact that two players who trust each other implicitly are sat next to them, for example. > It creates a practically >unenforceable rule that encourages collusion (in my opinion), so >instead of fixing anything it just makes things worse. Judges still have to adjudicate collusion anyway. This is nothing new. >The 0.5 for >withdraw is fine with me, by the way. Just the other one were you have >to go against your ally in a heads up doesn´t make any sense to me. That's because, as you've said elsewhere[0], it's an "obscure problem" that "only some people seem to have." It is far from an obscure problem limited to only some people. That you think otherwise suggests you don't have enough experience of this to comment with any accuracy. It is not only happening in obscure deals in a backwater playgroup - other people have been bringing up many examples from high profile tournaments. You seem to be in denial about the facts of the matter. Why this is, I'm not sure. However, when you are better able to understand that this isn't an obscure problem occurring only for some people, you may be able to make headway in your arguments. Because it is quite the reverse, action over this sort of thing has been requested by players on many, many occasions, and many would say this action is long overdue. Will it fix everything? No. But it'll fix a hell of a lot more than sitting on our hands and doing nothing about a real problem for many people. [0] Message-ID: <1165089348.4...@80g2000cwy.googlegroups.com> [ quoted text not captured ]

I play the first round in a tournament. I´m player C, and player A gets an optimal draw and ousts B in a couple of rounds. He also damages the whole table with a couple of nasty votes, so all others are pretty weak. I have no chance of ousting D, who has cards in play that are nearly impossible for me to bypass (say tons of votes, demonstration, Quentin and I play a vote deck), but are trumphed by the deck of A. I´m a deck duck, but D has a small chance to oust E if he is given a few turns. In my influence phase, I have 3 pool, no untapped minions and zero untaps in my deck. My predator (A) has many minions with plenty of bleed in play. Isn´t smarter to selfoust here to make sure that A gets a clean sweep? In that case, I´m at an even level with more players and have maximized the number of tournament points that I can get from this table (30 instead of 24 (5-0 compared to 4-1)) Is tournament points a factor when you play to maximize your sucess?

joha...@scram.de wrote: > LSJ schrieb: > >> joha...@scram.de wrote: >>> imho the whole >>> meddling with rules is just a way of some people to get around the fact >>> that they are not willing/able to develop some table talk skills. >> It's an affirmation that a bigger emphasis on the game itself rather is desired >> by the V:EKN rules makers, instead of an emphasis on talking to subvert the >> underlying game. > > I was looking on the (WW/V:EKN) website for a specification of the > group of people that are the "V:EKN rules makers" but I didn´t find > anything. Could you perhaps enlighten me who is in charge of this? I am. > Is > there a formal procedure how such a rule change is conducted and > approved in this group? Not outside of what the VTES-players see, no. Issues are brought up and analyzed, occasionally leading to changes in the rules.

islando...@aol.com wrote: > Even if this weren't the case, day 1 of the NAC this year was the > really big problem that needed addressing. The NAC was a terrific > event, of course, but day 1 produced some of the worst games of Jyhad > that I've ever played. People didn't need more than like 3VP to > advance to day 2, so they all offered the table split deal as soon as > they thought they could carry it out. > > You were there, and I thought you agreed that the 2-day format was > terrible for the Americans, due to only having 60-some players? If the > rules issued here a few days ago were in place, I don't think it would > have happened like that--it would have been nearly impossible. It's not the 2-day format inherently; it's the too-large cut point in th 2-day format that lead to the problems in the NAC.

joha...@scram.de wrote: > islando...@aol.com schrieb: [...] > A much bigger problems than table splits are time-outs IMHO. I had a > lot more frustration from time-outs this year than I had of table > splits going wrong. So if I were in the position to enforce new rules I > would have tried to create rules that speed up the game. Funnily > table-splits DO speed up the game because after the split everything > falls apart quickly AND it´s better than a time-out. Instead of table > splits we will see a lot more (than allready) time outs now, I fear. I > time-outed game is much worse (in my personal experience) than a game > that ended in a split, no matter if I was part of it or not. Time outs are generally due to bad play (i.e., no players willing to break a misunderstood "game balance" by not letting other players die). The fewer the players at a table, the more time the remaining players will have available to play to win; and the lower the chances will be for the game to time out. -- Damnans http://www.almadrava.net/damnans http://www.vtes.net http://es.groups.yahoo.com/group/vteshispania/

joha...@scram.de wrote: > I am really > only not-so-happy about the other rule where you have to break the deal > (it愀 really wicked that you can make the deal, though) in a 1-1. That's no different to previously. It has never ever been illegal to make any deal at all. The only things that were illegal were _honouring_ (ie: going through with) deals that weren't "play to win" deals. The new rule just sort of extends/remodels what is to be considered 'playing to win'. -- salem http://users.tpg.com.au/adsltqna/vtes/ (replace 'hotmail' with 'yahoo' to email)

LSJ wrote: > crispyfloss wrote: > > The use of the term "activity" in the rule is a little vague to me. Is > > the "Activity" Henry hunting, or Magaji blocking, or the playing of the > > Earth Meld, or the recycling of the Earth Meld? You're penalizing one > > of the players (by making Henry be bloodless or by letting him hunt > > when he could otherwise be blocked), and it's not clear to me which one > > is "at fault." > > The activity is the first thing that happens after game state is restored. > The event, if you prefer. > > No fault is assigned. > > For Henry's case, it is abundantly clear which comes first, the hunt or the > block attempt. > > In other cases, it should be clear as well. > > > If activity == "action," that's a fine bright-line although maybe it > > will be unfair from time to time. > > activity = any event; a fine bright-line. > > > Logically I would consider the recycling of the card to be the > > "activity" that restores the game state, since every step before that > > each player can say - well, if he doesn't block it's not a loop; well, > > if he doesn't play Earth Meld it's not a loop; well, as long as I don't > > recycle it's not a loop. > > But the rule doesn't prohibit the restoration of game state. It only prevents > the same event after game state is restored. > > > It also prevents you from prospectively saying: you can't do this, even > > if something else might happen so it turns out differently. You let > > people play, and only at the ultimate step when the player says "now I > > do this" do you say, "that will close the loop, so you can't." > > You allow that ultimate step (to close the loop), then when the player says "now > I do this" where "this" is the same "this" from the loop, then you say "that > will continue the loop, so you can't". > > > It's certainly a queer stance to take, though, and I'd wager that > > Taylor would prefer to be forbidden from hunting, and so be able to > > stay up with Earth Meld in hand, then be forbidden from recycilng. But > > that's not within his discretion. > > No discretion, no. That is simply what the rule effects. > > > Unless someone can think up of another example where this could happen, > > I don't think it's worth any more thought. > > Certainly no more now than the what it should have received when first proposed. :-) That is OK, but what happens if Henry has to hunt as a Mandatory action (i.e. is empty). Unless you have another mandatory action which could be done which might cause a stop in that (someone else must rush the Majagi with No Secrets), the game rules themselves hit an impass (as I am not going to let Henry take a dirt nap if I can Earth Meld). The only exception I can think of is that if you must do this activity, and the outcome is going to be the same, you forfeit your Minion Phase until something else has happened, which kills the game for Henry's Methuselah. Or did I miss the answer to this? Just a thought Andy VEKN Setite Ruler of Cambridge

Blooded Sand wrote: > LSJ: You are da man!!! Thanks for the withdrawal modification, it is > definitely a big leap in the right direction > > To all else: If a table is being dealed to a 3-2 split, then logically > it means there are 3 players being excluded from this deal, yes? So > what is stopping those players from actively, vehemently and with all > force available ousting the deal makers first? if I am on a table, > where my prey and grandprey are table splitting, i would rather end the > game with 1 or even zero VP's than allow them to get their deal > through. And to all who are going to go"But that's not PTW". Yes, it > is. If am already being excluded from any possible VP's due to a table > split, I could quite easily argue that I have already lost the game, > and as such am free to take any action I deem necessary to promote my > standings in the game. if that means annihilating the dealmakers, so as > to allow a free standing game after the are ousted, great > > Remember, this game has the built in mechanic of pred player prey for > ver good reason, very few, if any (excluding prince nergally madness) > can withstand a continous and combined assault from 3 other decks. So > essentially you could oust the deal makers, or even just one of them, > then get on with (gotto love Ankur) > Play. > The. > Game!!! Agreed. In my second ever tournament, (no GW at this time). My pred makes a deal with his pred - let me get 2 vps, I'll roll over and let you get 3vps. His pred agreed, but got ousted by a weenie swarm, so he offered the same deal to his new pred, who agreed. I made a deal with my prey based on this in that this guy has no pressure on him, so let me rush backwards and stuff up his game, just don't do anything to me as the deal he's made wipes you out as well. My Prey agreed with me and just walled up (as he couldn't do much about the weenie swarm). My predator actually had a go at me for not allowing him to get through his deal, and at 15 mintes before tie, his predator (who by this time had about 30+ minions) told him if he didn't hurry up, he'd have to break the deal. It's great making deals, but it is so much better forcing the situation where others deals are going to have to be broken if anyone is to get anything from the game. Andy VEKN Setite Ruler of Cambridge P.S. I got ousted, but the weenie swarm had to go for the jugular in order to actually get anything more the 1.5 and so then swept. In the end, my strategy of losing but breaking the deal made worked.

Slytherin wrote: > That is OK, but what happens if Henry has to hunt as a Mandatory action > (i.e. is empty). Unless you have another mandatory action which could > be done which might cause a stop in that (someone else must rush the > Majagi with No Secrets), the game rules themselves hit an impass (as I > am not going to let Henry take a dirt nap if I can Earth Meld). Much like an empty vampire carrying a Talbot's Chainsaw. The vampire with the mandatory but prohibited action is stuck and cannot perform any action, but that's as "stuck" as it gets -- the other minions controlled by that Methuselah are free to take actions or the Methuselah can end her minion phase as normal.

[ quoted text not captured ] Cool, as long as it just freezes the minion, and allows you to continue with rest of Minion phase as normal. [ quoted text not captured ]

Damnans schrieb: [ quoted text not captured ] Absolutely correct! But, how can it be fixed? Should we include a paragraph in the rules that forbids bad play and if somebody plays bad we just disqualify him? Probably not a good solution :) Seriously: Do you have any idea how this could be addressed, because I think it´s really annyoing. -- johannes walch

James Coupe schrieb: > That's because, as you've said elsewhere[0], it's an "obscure problem" > that "only some people seem to have." It is far from an obscure problem > limited to only some people. Can you point out the post to me where I said that it is an "obscure problem"? And I never said only some people are experiencing this. I said only some people see this as a sufficiently big problem to justify a rules change. And that is certainly true, as there are some people that did back up my point. > That you think otherwise suggests you don't have enough experience of > this to comment with any accuracy. It is not only happening in obscure > deals in a backwater playgroup - other people have been bringing up many > examples from high profile tournaments. I bow to your superior experience that makes you more accurate in commenting on stuff I never actually said. > You seem to be in denial about the facts of the matter. Why this is, > I'm not sure. However, when you are better able to understand that this > isn't an obscure problem occurring only for some people, you may be able > to make headway in your arguments. Because it is quite the reverse, > action over this sort of thing has been requested by players on many, > many occasions, and many would say this action is long overdue. > > Will it fix everything? No. But it'll fix a hell of a lot more than > sitting on our hands and doing nothing about a real problem for many > people. My main concern was that I thought the "fix" was done hastily and should have been different (probably better). I was making the other points not to say that this problem does not exist but that it isn´t so urgent that it didn´t have another 6 month to come up with a refined solution. I am not sure if you got my point. And I was diagreeing with the way and time frame given for discussion of a solution. -- johannes walch

LSJ schrieb: > Not outside of what the VTES-players see, no. > > Issues are brought up and analyzed, occasionally leading to changes in > the rules. Ok I see. Don“t you think that having a "rules team" that comes up with complete and formal proposals, letting players discuss them, probably adjust them and the finalizing a solution could be a good idea? Besides the fact that someone might disagree with the change at all (like me) there were also a lof of clarification needs by people that were generally positive of the change. Those clarifications should have been included in the rules. But people (well, most of them) won“t ask for them unless they see some kind of formal proposal (advertised clearly). That“s why I am suggesting the "rules team". Just to stay clear of unrelated discussion: I am ONLY talking of tournament rules here (associated to the V:EKN and not WW). Card texts, erratas and such are naturally the business of the manufacturer. -- johannes walch

Johannes Walch wrote: [...] > > Time outs are generally due to bad play (i.e., no players willing to > > break a misunderstood "game balance" by not letting other players die). > > The fewer the players at a table, the more time the remaining players > > will have available to play to win; and the lower the chances will be > > for the game to time out. > > Absolutely correct! But, how can it be fixed? > > Should we include a paragraph in the rules that forbids bad play and if > somebody plays bad we just disqualify him? Probably not a good solution :) No, probably not, since bad play is not illegal. > Seriously: Do you have any idea how this could be addressed, because I > think it´s really annyoing. Bad play could be addressed by playing better ;-) -- Damnans http://www.almadrava.net/damnans http://www.vtes.net http://es.groups.yahoo.com/group/vteshispania/

> > In the meanwhile, I haven't played an endgame in a tournament, outside > of a finals game, for years. Long live the endgame! > > -- Brian Hey Brian! When we discussed this at the EC in Turin last month, I had no idea this way underway! I hope this leads to a better endgame. Long live the Endgame! Nikolaj

joha...@scram.de wrote: > I agreed on the fact that the 2-day format didn´t work out so well > for the NAC, basically because the numbers weren´t right. Stéphane > and I worked out that proposal under the assumption of a larger > player-base on Day-1 (100+ like in the EC). It worked pretty well for > the EC, though, you had to have a GW except for a lucky player with 0/5 > but you couldn´t count on that so pretty much everyone HAD to play for > the GW. And I didn´t see anybody giving a GW away after they had their > first, because going to the final of a 100+ player tournament IS a big > incentive. I agree that it worked out for the EC. But back to smaller tournaments, like every tournament held outside Europe: What's going to stop players from splitting the table? I think a rule against deliberately losing in the 2-player will achieve this goal. > > LSJ had to make a decision by December 1st. He could either let us > > play some (probably better) games with a so-so fix, and then ask us for > > feedback in six months, or he could leave everything alone--which I can > > pretty much guarantee wouldn't have made any game any better, or taught > > us anything. > > Well there could have been a partial fix through the 0,5 VP for a > withdrawal. Test that and then see if it is good enough. I am really > only not-so-happy about the other rule where you have to break the deal > (it´s really wicked that you can make the deal, though) in a 1-1. Originally, when LSJ proposed withdrawals be worth 0,5 VP, I thought that fix might address both withdrawal and table-splitting, though I admit I hadn't given it much thought. Someone then posted that you can still split 3/2 with anyone at the table except your grandpredator, who can still give you 2,5 VPs and take 2 for himself. So I don't think it needed testing to see if it was good enough--use your reason and examine it logically. If it allows any player to split the table with any other, where one gets a GW and the other gets 2vp, then it's not good enough. If you're convinced, I'll stop. I would have agreed with you until I read that guy's explanation. > > > The problem (if it exists at all) surely wasn´t so bad since > > > people seemed to enjoy the tournaments a lot as far as I can tell. > > > > Not at the NAC day 1, they didn't. Again, I thought you agreed with > > this. > > Yes I did. But the NAC is not till next October so no need for a hasty > change. This is the first version of the rule. I'd rather we be exposed to it now, and leave time to change it before October, than that there was no change right now, and a rough draft of a rule in October. > And it could have been easily fixed by decreasing the number of > players for Day-2 (which would automatically increase the fun of those > that don´t make it, because they are a good number of players for that > side events) Hmm. Not being able to play in the tournament that I paid hundreds of dollars to travel to does not increase my "fun" at all. > > Let's pretend that we both agree that something should be done about > > table splits, but that the current rule hasn't been issued yet. What > > would you have the new rule say? You could say "no offering deals > > which involve the final state of VPs", or "no ousting yourself (or > > intentionally weakening yourself) as part of a deal", but I don't think > > either one of those would be as good as "no honoring a losing deal once > > the game is 2 players". > > > > Any suggestions? I'll give it some thought tomorrow when I wake up. > > I'm looking forward to this. > > Basically I would have sticked to the 0.5 for withdrawal first, because > the 3/2 split would have been 2.5 / 1.5 or (3-1-1, 2.5 - 0.5 -0.5) > which IS a disadvantage in tournaments because those 0.5 (or more VPs > if you do it in several rounds) can really place you in 6th instead of > the final. But not all people have to withdraw in order for a table to be split--only one of them does. One of the last two players alive. I want 3vps. I help my prey oust two people, then he rolls and I oust the last two. No withdraw. I want 3vps. I help my grandprey oust two people, he helps me oust my prey, then he rolls. No withdraw. I want 3vps. I help my grandpredator oust his prey, he helps me oust two people, then we withdraw. 3/2. I want 3vps. My prey helps me oust three people, then I roll to him. No withdraw. There are all 4 of the traditional 3/2 table splits, and only one of them requires a withdraw to happen at all. The first one of these will be possible under the new rules, but probably harder to do. The second one will be much harder to set up. The third and fourth will be something like impossible. Yes, there are ways for people to get a GW when more than one person withdraws, but I don't think it happens very often and I don't think just eliminating those will go far enough to tackle the problem because the problems are the 3/2 splits and the 4/1 splits. > I am also not really of the opinion that there should be done anything > about table splits in general, I rather think that we should fix the > certain circumstances under which people make "stupid" table splits > (like the 1st day NAC). OK. If we disagree about whether there's a problem, then maybe there's no point in arguing about what should be done about it. Although, for the record, I always said the NAC didn't need a 2-day format. > A much bigger problems than table splits are time-outs IMHO. I had a > lot more frustration from time-outs this year than I had of table > splits going wrong. Stop playing Intercept. :) > So if I were in the position to enforce new rules I > would have tried to create rules that speed up the game. Why make rules that speed things up when you can just stop making cards that slow things down? If your table has 3 different people playing permanent intercept at it, then it's going to go to time. And it doesn't matter what kind of intercept, either. Carna + Bowl, Howler + Raven Spies, Carlton + weenies with AUS, Imbued + Unmasking. Doesn't matter, game's going to be dumb. Now, imagine Bowl and Carlton hadn't been printed, and Unmasking gave +1 intercept to all non-Imbued allies--there's the world if I was in charge. > Funnily > table-splits DO speed up the game because after the split everything > falls apart quickly AND it´s better than a time-out. Instead of table > splits we will see a lot more (than allready) time outs now, I fear. I > time-outed game is much worse (in my personal experience) than a game > that ended in a split, no matter if I was part of it or not. I also find time outs to be worse than splits. Sadly, the game is powering up intercept right now. There was a debate going all week long at the EC this year about whether time outs make people need to split the table, or whether the offering and counter-offering involved with deals make tables go to time. I think both happen, but I heard the finals of the Silence of Death tournament timed out, so I think it's possible that something else times out games (other than talk). -- Brian

Slytherin wrote: > LSJ wrote: >> Slytherin wrote: >> > That is OK, but what happens if Henry has to hunt as a Mandatory action >> > (i.e. is empty). Unless you have another mandatory action which could >> > be done which might cause a stop in that (someone else must rush the >> > Majagi with No Secrets), the game rules themselves hit an impass (as I >> > am not going to let Henry take a dirt nap if I can Earth Meld). >> >> Much like an empty vampire carrying a Talbot's Chainsaw. >> >> The vampire with the mandatory but prohibited action is stuck and cannot perform >> any action, but that's as "stuck" as it gets -- the other minions controlled by >> that Methuselah are free to take actions or the Methuselah can end her minion >> phase as normal. > > Cool, as long as it just freezes the minion, and allows you to continue > with rest of Minion phase as normal. > > Andy > VEKN Setite Ruler of Cambridge But surely as soon as one of your other vampires takes an action, the game-state is no longer the same as when 'loop-mode' was engaged, and thus once that action is over, you must return to your 'stuck' minion who can now act again? Of course, unless something with the other minion was interesting, you're likely to get back into a loop again on that, and then go around once and get stuck again. Then eventually you'll run out of other minions you want to act with, and I guess you can end your minion phase.... -- salem http://users.tpg.com.au/adsltqna/vtes/ (replace 'hotmail' with 'yahoo' to email)

[ quoted text not captured ] Yes. > Of course, unless something with the other minion was interesting, > you're likely to get back into a loop again on that, and then go around > once and get stuck again. Then eventually you'll run out of other > minions you want to act with, and I guess you can end your minion phase.... Yes.

"Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote in news:7JDch.55540$4Z1....@newsfe09.phx: > "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message > news:erCch.18335$9v5....@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net... >> Just as obviously, it is nicer to get what can be gotten in the 2007 >> rule into the 2007 rules rather than wait for the 2008 rules. > > Well, the obvious suggestion was what I think Johannes said elsewhere: > some of these possibly could have waited another six months in order > to get more complete discussion. If they couldn't, then perhaps more > frequent updates of the tournament rules than every six months should > be considered. > > Granted, these are all judgment calls. Yeah, and I woud add, no amount of conversation is going to be as relevant as tournament reports in determining the effect of the new rules. No, changes to the tourney rules greater than twice a year would be counter-productive, IMO. You need time to gauge reponses to change. DaveZ Atom Weaver ...empirical data Rules!

Pat <patric...@NOSPAMcomcast.net> wrote: > "Kevin M." <you...@imaspammer.org> wrote: >> Pat <patric...@NOSPAMcomcast.net> wrote: >>> "Kevin M." <you...@imaspammer.org> wrote: >>>> Matthew T. Morgan <far...@io.com> wrote: >>>>> This was my concern as well with the change. We might start >>>>> seeing more kingmaking where a player, unwilling to settle for a >>>>> .5 VP withdrawal, self-ousts, swinging the balance of the game >>>>> away from the dominant player to one who perhaps hasn't been as >>>>> active in the game. >>>> >>>> Just do what I did twice at Origins 2006, Matt: stop players from >>>> self-ousting when they are not playing-to-win. >>> >>> It's correct, isn't it, that a player with no hope of getting a VP >>> is allowed to die in a manner he chooses? So that if these >>> individuals were in a hopeless position, self-ousting would have >>> been allowed. >>> >>> Since you disallowed the self-oust, you must have felt they were not >>> in hopeless position. Could you give us a brief description of game >>> state that caused you to reach this conclusion? (No names needed, >>> I'm just curious about your interpretation of game state vs that of >>> the players'.) >> >> Pat, one got 1VP fairly easily and almost got 2. One got a *GAME >> WIN*. In my opinion, both were colluding and rolling-over, and I had >> only come over to the two tables due to other players at the tables >> asking for a judge and claiming that the players were not >> playing-to-win. > > Wow... don't think I've ever seen that happen. Thanks for the info. Yep. At the NAC, several players from this country and a few from around the world even told me that they wouldn't play in a tournament where I was the head judge, due to this enforcement of the play-to-win rule. *That* also tell sme a lot. :) Kevin M., Prince of Las Vegas "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'm a bit confused why you asked for discussion on the two PTW-related > > rules but gave such little time to respond. > > Because I don't control when Dec. 1 comes. > 2007 tournament rules are to be posted by Dec. 1 Hmm. You controlled when the discussion started, though. For the future, perhaps you would consider including something like, "I'm inviting this discussion for consideration into the 1/1/07 rules update, and therefore I will be making a decision by Dec 1. I recognize that this discussion won't include everyone (it never will), but hopefully it will still be meaningful." That way, you set the expectations up front, and anyone who reads it knows the timeline and understands your constraints, while still appreciating your outreach. Of course, the ideal situation in the future would be to start the discussion sooner, but perhaps you intentionally started it late to minimize discussion, or the idea came to you close to Nov 29. > Correct, it doesn't stop every split. It allows some of the ones that were > allowable before, but stops some others. What table split deals do you believe these rule changes will stop? > #1 is bad, you mean it would be good if #1 weren't true (that, instead, the rule > actually reduces the table splits significantly). Good correction. Thanks. > Why would a player self-oust instead of trying to hang on and see if the > situation improves unexpectedly (or see if he can get a pity "go to time" help LSJ, maybe your playgroup is made up of Vulcans, but I play this game with humans. :) In my experience, players generally self-oust out of frustration. Who wants to stick around for another 90 minutes, just to possibly get 0.5 VPs, when it's much more likely that I'll be ousted before the game ends? It's not fun for many people to play the game like that. As a player, I try to capitalize on some players' willingness to give up, because it is pretty much always better to stay in the game and hope something changes. As a maker of tournament rules, I wouldn't implement any changes that reduce the incentive to stay alive, and possibly encourage kamikazi or self-ousting behavior. Ira

In message <el1fab$h14$1...@news01.versatel.de>, Johannes Walch <johanne...@vekn.de> writes: >LSJ schrieb: >> Not outside of what the VTES-players see, no. >> Issues are brought up and analyzed, occasionally leading to changes >>in the rules. > >Ok I see. Don´t you think that having a "rules team" that comes up with >complete and formal proposals, letting players discuss them, probably >adjust them and the finalizing a solution could be a good idea? How do you know there isn't a team discussing it and balancing it? LSJ is the only point of public contact, but there is no reason to think he doesn't ask other people - either a formal team, or ad hoc discussions. Given LSJ's strong history on discussing things with different people at different times, it seems bizarre to assume that he doesn't discuss these things with a whole bunch of other people. And players are discussing what goes on now. It's just that LSJ has taken the decision that we should go with the current solution for now. As when other issues potentially affecting the tournament rules have come up, if people come up with a fabulous solution to a given problem, it's pretty likely LSJ will consider it for the next rules re-vamp. See, for example, players discussing new drafting formats (which are now sanctioned), or players discussing how to deal with 3/2 VP splits several years ago (which lead to the Game Win rules) - discussed by players, implemented in the tournament rules. Why do you think that your "good idea" isn't actually already happening, when all the evidence suggests that it very probably is? -- James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D YOU ARE IN ERROR. EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 NO-ONE IS SCREAMING. 13D7E668C3695D623D5D THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.

[ quoted text not captured ] You would be suprised at who is on the fabulous rules team TM. It is so secretive that the members of the fabulous rules team TM don't even know they are on the rules team. <back to your regualarly scheduled programming> Comments Welcome, Norman S. Brown, Jr XZealot Archon of the Swamp

James Coupe schrieb: > In message <el1fab$h14$1...@news01.versatel.de>, Johannes Walch > <johanne...@vekn.de> writes: >> LSJ schrieb: >>> Not outside of what the VTES-players see, no. >>> Issues are brought up and analyzed, occasionally leading to changes >>> in the rules. >> Ok I see. Don´t you think that having a "rules team" that comes up with >> complete and formal proposals, letting players discuss them, probably >> adjust them and the finalizing a solution could be a good idea? > > How do you know there isn't a team discussing it and balancing it? His very own answer to my question was suggesting that to me (see below) Probably I didn´t understand him correctly. If you have a better understanding of his posts please enlighten me. If you haven´t probably better read all the posts before replying. [snip] LSJ wrote: > Johannes Walch wrote: >> I was looking on the (WW/V:EKN) website for a specification of the >> group of people that are the "V:EKN rules makers" but I didn´t find >> anything. Could you perhaps enlighten me who is in charge of this? I am. [/snip] -- johannes walch

In message <el38rn$alj$1...@news01.versatel.de>, Johannes Walch <johanne...@vekn.de> writes: >James Coupe schrieb: >> How do you know there isn't a team discussing it and balancing it? > >His very own answer to my question was suggesting that to me (see below) Your actual question was "Who is in charge of this?" The answer is that, regardless of how many layers of people he has below him, where zero or every Jyhad player on the planet except you, LSJ is in charge of it. As with other teams of people that LSJ assembles that we know exist because either people themselves have confirmed it or LSJ has - playtesters, the Rules Team, and additional designers for individual sets (constituting a Design Team) who are in , and so on - LSJ is in charge. That's why he's the public contact for the team, so he can co- ordinate internal and external feedback, as appropriate. He has a team, who can bring ideas to him. He's noted in follow-ups to posts before that he'll refer such and such a question to the Rules Team, too. So he can co-ordinate internal and external feedback. You know why he can do that? He's in charge. >Probably I didn´t understand him correctly. >If you have a better understanding of his posts please enlighten me. >If you haven´t probably better read all the posts before replying. Yes, you see, I'm quite capable of reading the question "Could you perhaps enlighten me who is in charge of this?" and LSJ responding "I am" to mean that "LSJ is in charge of this." >LSJ wrote: >> Johannes Walch wrote: >>> I was looking on the (WW/V:EKN) website for a specification of the >>> group of people that are the "V:EKN rules makers" but I didn´t find >>> anything. Could you perhaps enlighten me who is in charge of this? > >I am. You see? LSJ is in charge. That LSJ is in charge *IN NO WAY* contradicts the idea that he may have an ad-hoc team for some discussions. For example, if it were me, I'd probably draft in prominent draft players when I was working on a significant revision to the draft rules (such as the mechanics of how to draft the cards, or how best to handle recursion (when, how much)), even if those players weren't likely to be great at handling tricky questions about how to enforce play-to-win when a new situation comes up. But I'd very probably want to have someone on an effective permanent committee from White Wolf - perhaps Oscar, to make sure that he's aware of changes being proposed so that he can make sure that they go in a mail to new princes, or so that he can ask questions early and often based on things like his "draft tour" round the States, or something like that. That I would also still listen to the complaints of players in the newsgroup, web-forums and any mailing lists I could read would also be a given. And hey, LSJ has a *history* of listening to players in the newsgroup, web-forums and mailing lists. The revisions of the tournament rules he's been involved with have all had feedback from groups of players for pretty much all of the substantial changes, or have been prompted by that feedback in the first place. See, the banning of Return to Innocence, the banning of Succubus Club - widespread calls for those bans. The banning of the seat-switchers was called for by some players (though not all, by any means) and LSJ, being in charge, co-ordinated that feedback into a change. Tinkering with the withdrawal rules? A long term suggestion from a lot of players. Finding some way to address the more unhelpful deals? Calls from quite a lot of players who want to ban openly discussing VP split deals, but that addresses language and not substance. LSJ's proposal addresses substance, where possible. So this exact proposal hasn't been called for by players - though a form closer to Bram's suggestion of "You must play for every VP" has - but it addresses the motivation for the complaints, even if it doesn't use the proposed solution (because of the inherent problems with banning discussion). But LSJ would still be in charge. Which is what he said. And what you asked. You don't have the details of the composition of any formal team and any formal rules (which wouldn't be that helpful, really). But you do know who's in charge - LSJ. [ quoted text not captured ]

islando...@aol.com wrote: >> A much bigger problems than table splits are time-outs IMHO. I had a >> lot more frustration from time-outs this year than I had of table >> splits going wrong. > > Stop playing Intercept. :) Have to agree with this. By far the biggest causes of table time-outs is simply people playing slow decks... and intercept decks are the most common types of "slow decks". I'm not saying that intercept decks are bad, far from it. I'm just saying that if multiple people are playing intercept decks at the table (ones without significant forward pressure), then there is a high chance of the table time-out:ing. Just the way the game works. Don't really have a solution to this. //Petri

XZealot wrote: > It is so secretive that the members of the fabulous rules team TM don't > even know they are on the rules team. "The first rule of Rules Team is..." :) //Petri

Kevin M. wrote: >> Wow... don't think I've ever seen that happen. Thanks for the info. > > Yep. At the NAC, several players from this country and a few from around > the world even told me that they wouldn't play in a tournament where I was > the head judge, due to this enforcement of the play-to-win rule. *That* > also tell sme a lot. :) Wow. Kudos to enforcing the rules; I find it hard to believe some asshats actually objected to you *enforcing the game rules*, but there it is. I'm blessed with very sportsmanlike and pleasant players over here in Helsinki so I've had very little tournament unpleasantness over the years. I can tell you, though, that those same people that complained to you would also have a very, very bad time in tournaments over here ;). I would *love* to hand out warnings and disqualifications to jokers like that. Keep up the good work, I say. //Petri

In message <zBbdh.128$xr6...@reader1.news.saunalahti.fi>, Petri Wessman <nos...@orava.org> writes: >I'm not saying that intercept decks are bad, far from it. I'm just saying >that if multiple people are playing intercept decks at the table (ones >without significant forward pressure), then there is a high chance of the >table time-out:ing. Just the way the game works. Don't really have a >solution to this. Lots of decks without significant forward pressure cause issues, whether intercept or not. And intercept decks can cause significant forward pressure. Extra wake-alikes can give them more bleed actions. Smiling Jack can cause table pressure, and give incentives to players to take actions they can block. Army of Rats can add a tiny amount of pressure. Anneke decks can include small amounts of useful bleed, such as Heart of the City or Aire of Elation. The Tzimisce get Fiendish Tongue so they can bleed and untap, all in one, or even Pulse of the Canaille, as well as Changeling. And so on. There are, of course, going to be some archetypes that don't lend themselves so well to such ideas (a heavy Animalism Nosferatu deck won't usually have quite the same bleed power as some decks, for example) - and those can be addressed by, for example, discussing the issue with other players and LSJ, so that relevant concerns can be taken into account in the design process. The problem isn't "intercept decks" so much as "bad intercept decks". But then "bad <anything> decks" are a problem in their own way. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <5grxSqVS...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk>, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> writes: >and additional designers for individual >sets (constituting a Design Team) who are in , Ack. In my head, this said "in the rulebook or very occasionally LSJ takes design ideas from players". It doesn't alter the substantive point, however. [ quoted text not captured ]

James Coupe schrieb: > The problem isn't "intercept decks" so much as "bad intercept decks". > But then "bad <anything> decks" are a problem in their own way. Problem is usually "bad <anything> decks" die very quickly so they cease being a problem. "bad intercept decks" tend to block a lot but put 0 forward pressure so they continue to be a problem until the 2h limit. -- johannes walch

James Coupe wrote: > And intercept decks can cause significant forward pressure. Oh, agreed. I was just singling out intercept decks here because it's the most common deck type to fall into the "too little forward pressure" trap. > The problem isn't "intercept decks" so much as "bad intercept decks". > But then "bad <anything> decks" are a problem in their own way. Quite :) //Petri

Petri Wessman schreef: > James Coupe wrote: > > > And intercept decks can cause significant forward pressure. > > Oh, agreed. I was just singling out intercept decks here because it's the > most common deck type to fall into the "too little forward pressure" trap. agreed, if you put: ".... and stay around till the end of the game, usually" at the end of your sentence. Which makes them the big nuisance they are now.

"atomweaver" <atomw...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:Xns988FA4FD56...@207.115.17.102... > "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote in > news:7JDch.55540$4Z1....@newsfe09.phx: ... >> some of these possibly could have waited another six months in order >> to get more complete discussion. If they couldn't, then perhaps more >> frequent updates of the tournament rules than every six months should >> be considered. >> >> Granted, these are all judgment calls. > > Yeah, and I woud add, no amount of conversation is going to be as relevant > as tournament reports in determining the effect of the new rules. > > No, changes to the tourney rules greater than twice a year would be > counter-productive, IMO. You need time to gauge reponses to change. I disagree. I mean, I agree that you need time to gauge responses to change and you should certainly take that time. That shouldn't constrain the timing of modifications in terms of what time of year you're allowed to make changes. So the upshot is, if you make a change in - for instance - the play-to-win rule in December of year X; don't change it again until June of year X+1. But that doesn't mean you can't make some other change in March of X+1. Or that you shouldn't make another adjustment of the play-to-win rule in September of X+1 just because you passed up the chance to adjust it in June. I think the value of constraining when new rules are issued is only so that judges and players know when to check to see if there are any changes: "It's December, I should go have a look at the web page." When it's January, you don't have to worry about it. But if LSJ is rushing rules discussions on Nov. 28th for consideration of changes on Dec 1st because he doesn't want to live another full six months with the existing rules, that seems wrong. We can make people look at the web page four times a year instead of two. Fred

"Petri Wessman" <nos...@orava.org> wrote in message news:zBbdh.128$xr6...@reader1.news.saunalahti.fi... > I'm not saying that intercept decks are bad, far from it. I'm just saying > that if multiple people are playing intercept decks at the table (ones > without significant forward pressure), then there is a high chance of the > table time-out:ing. Just the way the game works. Don't really have a > solution to this. I do. Create cards to discourage intercept. "OWWWWW!!!! Master Card Gain one pool as you play this card. It becomes a non-unique permanent. While in play, whenever a Methuselah plays a non-permanent reaction card that increases the intercept of any minion on the board, the Methuselah controlling the acting minion may punch him in the face." Note that "OWWWWW!!!!" is stackable. :-) Fred

[ quoted text not captured ] But, that would make Ascendance wallpaper. :-)

In message <el3kgp$dms$1...@news01.versatel.de>, Johannes Walch [ quoted text not captured ] Not always. I've seen quite a number of decks that don't involve that much intercept[0] which aren't easy to get rid of, or which may be easy to get rid off but you're dying at the same time. Examples include: - excessive bloat, but without too much to do with it (for example, in years gone by, I've played against decks that have amassed 80 pool from a LOT of votes, but were bad decks because they lacked ousting power) - bad combat decks, which have a lot of tools for burning but very few for ousting - but can probably fend off people coming at them - certain table disruption decks, such as the old Anarch Revolt decks that just played a couple of dozen revolts. They might die quickly too BUT the whole table was randomly fucked over by then anyway, which causes a whole heap of trouble. Intercept decks are pretty much certainly the best example of decks that stick around annoyingly, but they're not the only ones. [0] Like, I'm not going to call a deck with a couple of intercept locations, a Sport Bike and 4 Telepathic Misdirections and intercept deck, but lots of plausible decks could include that and block people. [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] Hey! I like Ascendance. [ quoted text not captured ]

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:OSjdh.9767$Py2....@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net... [ quoted text not captured ] Gee, I don't know. If I were looking for basic master pool gain cards for my Tzimisce wall deck, I might want to swap those "OWWWWW!!!!"s for Ascendances. At least until I could find my goalie mask. Fred

James Coupe schrieb: > In message <el3kgp$dms$1...@news01.versatel.de>, Johannes Walch > <johanne...@vekn.de> writes: >> James Coupe schrieb: >>> The problem isn't "intercept decks" so much as "bad intercept decks". >>> But then "bad <anything> decks" are a problem in their own way. >> Problem is usually "bad <anything> decks" die very quickly so they >> cease being a problem. "bad intercept decks" tend to block a lot but >> put 0 forward pressure so they continue to be a problem until the 2h >> limit. > > Not always. I've seen quite a number of decks that don't involve that > much intercept[0] which aren't easy to get rid of, or which may be easy > to get rid off but you're dying at the same time. Examples include: > > - excessive bloat, but without too much to do with it (for example, in > years gone by, I've played against decks that have amassed 80 > pool from a LOT of votes, but were bad decks because they lacked > ousting power) but if you amass 80 pool you should be able to bring out a whole lot of vampires which are an ousting power by themselves. and what kind of votes? most of the votes are able to damage someones pool. i haven愒 really seen the kind of deck you desribe but in theory it愀 possible, i agree. > - certain table disruption decks, such as the old Anarch Revolt decks > that just played a couple of dozen revolts. They might die > quickly too BUT the whole table was randomly fucked over by then > anyway, which causes a whole heap of trouble. i think with the change of anarch revolt that problem is mostly gone. there are still the event galore decks, but i haven愒 seen one of those in a while (e.g during the whole ec weekend). people seem to be scared of table hate. but generally you are right intercept decks are just the prime example, there are others. brings me to the point of banning weenie auspex :) -- johannes walch

In message <el4tpf$vh5$1...@news01.versatel.de>, Johannes Walch <johanne...@vekn.de> writes: >James Coupe schrieb: >> - excessive bloat, but without too much to do with it (for example, >>in >> years gone by, I've played against decks that have amassed 80 >> pool from a LOT of votes, but were bad decks because they lacked >> ousting power) > >but if you amass 80 pool you should be able to bring out a whole lot of >vampires which are an ousting power by themselves. and what kind of >votes? most of the votes are able to damage someones pool. i haven愒 >really seen the kind of deck you desribe but in theory it愀 possible, i >agree. No, you're thinking of how to make a bad deck into a good deck. That's not the point. The point is that this was a horrifically bad deck, but one that had potentially massive staying power. What's the best way to generate pool from your minions in votes? I don't know, probably a combination of Voter Captivation and Consanguineous Boon, if either are appropriate for your deck, or Parity Shift if you can get it. Nice, targeted pool gain. So that goes out the window. What's the right card to be playing? I know! I'll get a pool for EVERY MINION I control. So, Autarkis Persecution for the win. Except this slows down the entire table by generating pool for them too. And you're thinking of including votes that hurt people. Sure, there are probably some. But many people would go for the pool gain using (if possible) Voter Cap off damage votes, or even Bribes, or Parity Shift, so it's damage and pool gain. In the arena of bad deck design, these sensible decisions that are obvious to anyone who's thought about things go out of the window. "Oh, but if I make it Autarkis Persecution then other people will vote for it! And so it'll definitely pass!" with scant regard for the fact that they're out to kill the game they play. I have, in all seriousness, seen players defend repeated Autarkis Persecution with that defence. Similarly, I've seen players with potentially good decks kill games by hitting some significant pool gain votes (despite protests from at least one player on the table) that goes across the whole table, with 15 minutes left in the game - though that's good deck, bad play. If I were printing Jyhad from scratch in 1994 with a crystal ball, I'd probably leave out Autarkis Persecution in all honesty. > >> - certain table disruption decks, such as the old Anarch Revolt decks >> that just played a couple of dozen revolts. They might die >> quickly too BUT the whole table was randomly fucked over by then >> anyway, which causes a whole heap of trouble. > >i think with the change of anarch revolt that problem is mostly gone. >there are still the event galore decks, but i haven愒 seen one of those >in a while (e.g during the whole ec weekend). people seem to be scared >of table hate. There are other similar table disruption decks. Smiling Jack is usually back up by a wall, but it's often not a normal wall (stop every other action that annoys me) but primarily a wall to defend the Jack. And the bad deck version of it doesn't have the necessary though put into it to help it oust your prey properly, with toys to help people cross-table, or the necessary effort to make it hit your prey hardest (e.g. pro- active combat, so they have no blood to burn, or Banishment, so they have no blood to burn). It's still an intercept deck, but not in the same way. The mentality here is "Jack will make me win. Must keep Jack." You can also do some damage akin to Anarch Revolt, but nothing like as egregious, using some cards like Antediluvian Awakening, Judgement: Camarilla Segregation, and similar. These are much slower than Anarch Revolt, thank god. [ quoted text not captured ]

LSJ, I'm curious about this question which remains unanswered: > Correct, it doesn't stop every split. It allows some of the ones that were > allowable before, but stops some others. What table split deals do you believe these rule changes will stop? Thanks, Ira

[ quoted text not captured ] The ones which involve a player honoring the deal over PTW after all but two are ousted.