Here I am bringing up this card again. But after coming from a
storyline tournament, and sitting at a table where this card let two
players become one to split the table.
My question is: Why is this card not banned in tournament play?
The only comments I hear are about how two players, who know each
other, use it to team up and decide how they want to split the table.
I come from a small town, and it hard to get players to play. Now one
person will not play again because he was on the receiving end of the
Succubus Club.
I just want to start right this instant a campaign to ban this card
from tournaments. My vote is to ban it. Playing in tournaments is
fun, and when I get some people together and go out-of-town to play
with other groups, I don't want to travel home with them after
watching Succubus Club do its dirty work to them.
Lets get together and ban it NOW.
"Jack Ryan" <jack...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:37066938.02021...@posting.google.com...
> My question is: Why is this card not banned in tournament play?
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO !
not again !!
> I just want to start right this instant a campaign to ban this card
> from tournaments.
You mean you want to restart something useless ?
OKAY PEOPLE ! LET'S PLAY WITH CARD LIMITS !!
to be more serious, those split deals are worthless now that the victory
points are tallied in a new way => Table win rule, as you may know...
Jack Ryan wrote:
>
> Here I am bringing up this card again. But after coming from a
> storyline tournament, and sitting at a table where this card let two
> players become one to split the table.
>
> My question is: Why is this card not banned in tournament play?
>
> The only comments I hear are about how two players, who know each
> other, use it to team up and decide how they want to split the table.
So, just out of curiosity, how did they split the table? Which player
got the game win? And what was wrong with the other player's position,
to give up his chance at getting a game win?
You, er, WERE using the new game win rules, weren't you?
Fred
In article <a4cipt$9k$1...@neon.noos.net>, Reyda <re...@noos.fr> wrote:
>
> You mean you want to restart something useless ?
>
> OKAY PEOPLE ! LET'S PLAY WITH CARD LIMITS !!
Has it been 6 months already? ; )
Hey Jeff! Another candidate for FOCS! ;)
"Jack Ryan" <jack...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:37066938.02021...@posting.google.com...
> Here I am bringing up this card again.
>> My question is: Why is this card not banned in tournament play?
[snip why SC should be banned]
--
Kevin M., Prince of Madison, WI (USA)
"Know your enemy, and know yourself; in one-thousand battles
you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, *The Art of War*
"Contentment... Complacency... Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier
In message <37066938.02021...@posting.google.com>, Jack Ryan
<jack...@yahoo.com> writes:
>I come from a small town, and it hard to get players to play. Now one
>person will not play again because he was on the receiving end of the
>Succubus Club.
If the case was as you describe - with two players ganging up on one,
ignoring the game wins rule with prior knowledge - I fear that the
problem is one more with your judge not enforcing the rules. A player
must always play for a game win, unless that's basically impossible.
This occurs with or without Succubus Club, and judges have to enforce
this (and collusion) with or without Succubus Club.
--
James Coupe but I lust after the raw pow0r of c.
PGP 0x5D623D5D together with the humping great
EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 elephant arse of gnome.
13D7E668C3695D623D5D - Vashti
> > I just want to start right this instant a campaign to ban this card
> > from tournaments.
>
> You mean you want to restart something useless ?
>
> OKAY PEOPLE ! LET'S PLAY WITH CARD LIMITS !!
I just want the VEKN to ban it.....I want it out of tournaments.
> to be more serious, those split deals are worthless now that the victory
> points are tallied in a new way => Table win rule, as you may know...
I am not sure how the judge was calling wins....I believe the
gentlemen knew each other and that made their decision on the
breakdown. I didn't hear them discuss it as part of the deal.
> So, just out of curiosity, how did they split the table? Which player
> got the game win? And what was wrong with the other player's position,
> to give up his chance at getting a game win?
>
> You, er, WERE using the new game win rules, weren't you?
>
Good question....I thought we were, but it was up to the judge. And I
just got up and left the tournament at the end of this game.
> If the case was as you describe - with two players ganging up on one,
> ignoring the game wins rule with prior knowledge - I fear that the
> problem is one more with your judge not enforcing the rules. A player
> must always play for a game win, unless that's basically impossible.
I believe the one player was getting swindled by the other. And since
they knew each other, he just let it happen. Even with others telling
him he was the power, it just didn't occur to him to finish off the
other guy.
>
> This occurs with or without Succubus Club, and judges have to enforce
> this (and collusion) with or without Succubus Club.
Thats right. But I still believe it would be a lot easier without
having the judge spend so much time dealing with this one
card............
In message <37066938.02021...@posting.google.com>, Jack Ryan
<jack...@yahoo.com> writes:
>I just want the VEKN to ban it.....I want it out of tournaments.
Arguments for banning are usually considerably more successful when
based on facts, rather than feelings.
[ quoted text not captured ]
In message <37066938.02021...@posting.google.com>, Jack Ryan
<jack...@yahoo.com> writes:
>> If the case was as you describe - with two players ganging up on one,
>> ignoring the game wins rule with prior knowledge - I fear that the
>> problem is one more with your judge not enforcing the rules. A player
>> must always play for a game win, unless that's basically impossible.>
>I believe the one player was getting swindled by the other.
And when you called the judge over his ruling was...?
[ quoted text not captured ]
James Coupe wrote:
> In message <37066938.02021...@posting.google.com>, Jack Ryan
> <jack...@yahoo.com> writes:
> >I come from a small town, and it hard to get players to play. Now one
> >person will not play again because he was on the receiving end of the
> >Succubus Club.
>
> If the case was as you describe - with two players ganging up on one,
> ignoring the game wins rule with prior knowledge - I fear that the
> problem is one more with your judge not enforcing the rules. A player
> must always play for a game win, unless that's basically impossible.
This isn't just a matter of not going for the win, this is a charge of
straightforward collusion. Someone put SC in their deck with the idea to
team up with friends before the tournament started. It's collusion if it's
true, though the problem is proving that's why the SC is in there.
> This occurs with or without Succubus Club, and judges have to enforce
> this (and collusion) with or without Succubus Club.
Yes, but SC makes it *vastly* harder for others at the table to do anything
if the judge can't find enough evidence to disallow the trades. SC can
also make the judge's call less clear.
SC is a ridiculous kingmaker too. More so than any other reason to ban it,
it is that property that should get it out of the tournament circle. If
you don't have Sudden Reversal or an anti-location card in your hand when
it's played, the game can instantly fall apart as one Meth decides to give
his 5 small caps and all his pool to another player, who now utterly
annhilates his prey with his ill gotten gains. And people will defend SC
saying "well you just have to hit the guy who received everything cross
table" -- look you have maybe 2 turns before the receiver mows down his
prey, so you need to have those bum's rushes or whatever in your hand every
time SC hits the table... and if the receiver gets to take his turn before
you? GG. You can't even hope to cycle into the cross table weapons you're
packing because if you take forward/backward actions you're just weakening
their ability to hit the receiver, and you're going to need more than 1
person hitting that player.
Allowing players to take a dive, by transfering out, or taking a bunch of
clearly suicidal actions, is fine. I've seen people get spited, I've been
spited, etc. etc.. It's annoying, but in no way is it overpowering. With
SC, a player taking a dive is vastly more likely to take the rest of the
table for said swim. How does a card that lets a player in a weak position
decide the winner make for good tournament games? Sure, they won't always
be able to pick the winner, but I'm willing to bet that someone using SC
could play kingmaker with at least 60%... change that to 80% or higher if
they actually tune their deck around SC's kingmaker properties.
[ quoted text not captured ]
Well, actually it really wasn't up to the judge if it was a Storyline
tournament. It was supposed to be played by VEKN rules. That's not one
of the things judges have discretion about.
Fred
[ quoted text not captured ]
So what your implying is that, you have no clue as to whether the game
was played correctly, that is with Table wins, as opposed to most VPs.
You also imply that you failed to even bother asking the judge for how
the tables were won.
You left in the middle of a tourneyment. Glad your not playing around
me!
Raille
In message <3C6B2A37...@mediaone.net>, Shaun McIsaac
<mpm...@mediaone.net> writes:
>> If the case was as you describe - with two players ganging up on one,
>> ignoring the game wins rule with prior knowledge - I fear that the
>> problem is one more with your judge not enforcing the rules. A player
>> must always play for a game win, unless that's basically impossible.>
>This isn't just a matter of not going for the win, this is a charge of
>straightforward collusion.
It could be both.
And the game win may be easier to work with, since one might place this
under Unsportsman Like Conduct - Major, resulting in game loss.
[ quoted text not captured ]
"James Coupe" <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:+pIrBQj2...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk...
> In message <37066938.02021...@posting.google.com>, Jack Ryan
> <jack...@yahoo.com> writes:
<snip>
> This occurs with or without Succubus Club, and judges have to enforce
> this (and collusion) with or without Succubus Club.
>
Well, this has been already debated, however
that (bad) collusion aspect is well powered with the (damn) SC
being around.
Ciao
Emiliano, vekn Prince of Rome
> --
In message <GiNa8.16417$Jo.4...@twister2.libero.it>, tetragrammaton
<nospam_a...@hotmail.com> writes:
>> This occurs with or without Succubus Club, and judges have to enforce
>> this (and collusion) with or without Succubus Club.
>>>
>Well, this has been already debated, however
>that (bad) collusion aspect is well powered with the (damn) SC
>being around.
And judges are "well powered" with the rules being around.
[ quoted text not captured ]
"James Coupe" <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:EavV9FXo...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk...
<snip>
> And judges are "well powered" with the rules being around.
>
Not always: Jack here just reported a judge that didn't enforced
the rules, since, you see, it's controversial and difficult to argue against
the
dealings that SC offers.
Having such a card allowed in tournaments means just lot of trouble, imho.
Emiliano
> --
tetragrammaton wrote:
> Not always: Jack here just reported a judge that didn't enforced
> the rules, since, you see, it's controversial and difficult to argue against
> the dealings that SC offers.
So the judge was called over and found that the rule was not being
violated?
Sounds OK to me.
"Enforcing the rules" doesn't mean handing out penalties to those who
haven't broken them.
--
LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc.
Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and tournament rules:
http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/
"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:3C6BCFB4...@white-wolf.com...
> tetragrammaton wrote:
<snip>
> So the judge was called over and found that the rule was not being
> violated?
>
> Sounds OK to me.
>
> "Enforcing the rules" doesn't mean handing out penalties to those who
> haven't broken them.
>
The point is just that: with the SC dealings around it's very difficult
to focus what can be considered "breaking a rule"....
Emiliano
> --
tetragrammaton wrote:
> "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> ha scritto nel messaggio
> news:3C6BCFB4...@white-wolf.com...
> > tetragrammaton wrote:
> <snip>
Re: <snip> : tetragrammaton asserts that Jack reported that a
judge failed to enforce the rules (quite a stretch from Jack's
actual post, which doesn't indicate that the judge was even
called upon to make a ruling).
> > So the judge was called over and found that the rule was not being
> > violated?
> >
> > Sounds OK to me.
> >
> > "Enforcing the rules" doesn't mean handing out penalties to those who
> > haven't broken them.
>
> The point is just that: with the SC dealings around it's very difficult
> to focus what can be considered "breaking a rule"....
I was referring to your assertion that the judge at Jack's tournament
failed to enforce the rules.
Do you have any facts supporting that assertion?
[ quoted text not captured ]
In message <1QPa8.18111$tv6.4...@twister1.libero.it>, tetragrammaton
<nospam_a...@hotmail.com> writes:
>Not always: Jack here just reported a judge that didn't enforced
>the rules
No, he didn't. But in any event, if rules aren't being enforced, the
game will be significantly problematic anyway.
[ quoted text not captured ]
"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:3C6BD93F...@white-wolf.com...
> tetragrammaton wrote:
> > "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> ha scritto nel messaggio
> > news:3C6BCFB4...@white-wolf.com...
<snip>
> The point is just that: with the SC dealings around it's very difficult
> > to focus what can be considered "breaking a rule"....
>
> I was referring to your assertion that the judge at Jack's tournament
> failed to enforce the rules.
>
I based my assertion reading about the table win rule,
which seemed (at first) to have been ignored by the judge in
making his decision about the SC deals.
Just that.
> Do you have any facts supporting that assertion?
>
Imho, SC can allow (illegal) out-game deals to be bring in-game,
since any deal-term can be set,
and that's means troubles, at least for the tournament enviroments.
Emiliano
> --
tetragrammaton wrote:
>
> "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> ha scritto nel messaggio
> news:3C6BD93F...@white-wolf.com...
> > tetragrammaton wrote:
> > > "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> ha scritto nel messaggio
> > > news:3C6BCFB4...@white-wolf.com...
> <snip>
> > The point is just that: with the SC dealings around it's very difficult
> > > to focus what can be considered "breaking a rule"....
> >
> > I was referring to your assertion that the judge at Jack's tournament
> > failed to enforce the rules.
> >
>
> I based my assertion reading about the table win rule,
> which seemed (at first) to have been ignored by the judge in
> making his decision about the SC deals.
> Just that.
There is no indication that the judge was even called in for
a ruling.
It's always a bad idea to try to judge (or second guess a judge)
based on so little information about the events in question.
>
> > Do you have any facts supporting that assertion?
> >
<snip non-sequitur>
Do you have any facts supporting your assertion that the judge
didn't enforce the rules?
[ quoted text not captured ]
"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:3C6C19A8...@white-wolf.com...
> tetragrammaton wrote:
<snip>
> Do you have any facts supporting your assertion that the judge
> didn't enforce the rules?
No in facts, i said he seemed ("at first") not enforcing a rule, actually..
i was not meaning anything bad about that actual judge,
only saying that under the SC deals, a judge can have a very hard
time enforcing rules (and that seemed me the motivation behind jack's post)
Just my two votes
Emiliano
> --
James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote in message news:<Z28SGJCm...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk>...
> In message <37066938.02021...@posting.google.com>, Jack Ryan
> <jack...@yahoo.com> writes:
> >I just want the VEKN to ban it.....I want it out of tournaments.
>
> Arguments for banning are usually considerably more successful when
> based on facts, rather than feelings.
There is the rub....It is the feelings that it leads too that make it
so much trouble.
> >
> > Good question....I thought we were, but it was up to the judge. And I
> > just got up and left the tournament at the end of this game.
>
> So what your implying is that, you have no clue as to whether the game
> was played correctly, that is with Table wins, as opposed to most VPs.
>
> You also imply that you failed to even bother asking the judge for how
> the tables were won.
>
> You left in the middle of a tourneyment. Glad your not playing around
> me!
>
> Raille
I don't think it mattered that I left....It looked like things where
going the way these other players wanted it go. I didn't think they
really needed me for anymore games, since between them and there other
friends, it was worked out for them to continue not me.
LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:<3C6BCFB4...@white-wolf.com>...
> tetragrammaton wrote:
> > Not always: Jack here just reported a judge that didn't enforced
> > the rules, since, you see, it's controversial and difficult to argue against
> > the dealings that SC offers.
>
> So the judge was called over and found that the rule was not being
> violated?
>
> Sounds OK to me.
>
> "Enforcing the rules" doesn't mean handing out penalties to those who
> haven't broken them.
Depends on which party he knows better....And how he wants to appear to them.
In message <37066938.02021...@posting.google.com>, Jack Ryan
<jack...@yahoo.com> writes:
>> Arguments for banning are usually considerably more successful when
>> based on facts, rather than feelings.>
>There is the rub....It is the feelings that it leads too that make it
>so much trouble.
Arguments for banning are usually considerably more successful when
based on facts, rather than feelings.
cf. Many people find Malkavian stealth and bleed cheesy and
objectionable.
[ quoted text not captured ]
LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:<3C6BD93F...@white-wolf.com>...
> tetragrammaton wrote:
> > "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> ha scritto nel messaggio
> > news:3C6BCFB4...@white-wolf.com...
> > > tetragrammaton wrote:
> > <snip>
>
> Re: <snip> : tetragrammaton asserts that Jack reported that a
> judge failed to enforce the rules (quite a stretch from Jack's
> actual post, which doesn't indicate that the judge was even
> called upon to make a ruling).
>
> > > So the judge was called over and found that the rule was not being
> > > violated?
> > >
> > > Sounds OK to me.
> > >
> > > "Enforcing the rules" doesn't mean handing out penalties to those who
> > > haven't broken them.
> >
> > The point is just that: with the SC dealings around it's very difficult
> > to focus what can be considered "breaking a rule"....
>
> I was referring to your assertion that the judge at Jack's tournament
> failed to enforce the rules.
>
> Do you have any facts supporting that assertion?
The judge had nothing to make a ruling on.....the SC was handled
correctly. The trades were legal.
The way the points were split was up to the idiot taking the (2), and
giving away the table win to his pal.
In message <37066938.02021...@posting.google.com>, Jack Ryan
<jack...@yahoo.com> writes:
>> So the judge was called over and found that the rule was not being
>> violated?
>>
>> Sounds OK to me.
>>
>> "Enforcing the rules" doesn't mean handing out penalties to those who
>> haven't broken them.>
>Depends on which party he knows better....And how he wants to appear to them.
Can you actually explain what the judge *did* do when you called him
over?
[ quoted text not captured ]
In message <37066938.0202...@posting.google.com>, Jack Ryan
<jack...@yahoo.com> writes:
>> > The point is just that: with the SC dealings around it's very difficult
>> > to focus what can be considered "breaking a rule"....
>>
>> I was referring to your assertion that the judge at Jack's tournament
>> failed to enforce the rules.
>>
>> Do you have any facts supporting that assertion?>
>The judge had nothing to make a ruling on.....the SC was handled
>correctly. The trades were legal.
The issue here is not merely the trades. If they were part of
collusion, then they are not legal.
I fear you have /substantially/ missed the point.
[ quoted text not captured ]
Jack Ryan wrote:
> The judge had nothing to make a ruling on.....the SC was handled
> correctly. The trades were legal.
> The way the points were split was up to the idiot taking the (2), and
> giving away the table win to his pal.
If he did so when he could reasonably have done better (getting a GW)
without making the deal, then the deal is illegal. Players must play
to win.
[ quoted text not captured ]
James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote in message news:<CcM0Ml8j...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk>...
> In message <37066938.0202...@posting.google.com>, Jack Ryan
> <jack...@yahoo.com> writes:
> >> > The point is just that: with the SC dealings around it's very difficult
> >> > to focus what can be considered "breaking a rule"....
> >>
> >> I was referring to your assertion that the judge at Jack's tournament
> >> failed to enforce the rules.
> >>
> >> Do you have any facts supporting that assertion?
> >
> >The judge had nothing to make a ruling on.....the SC was handled
> >correctly. The trades were legal.
>
> The issue here is not merely the trades. If they were part of
> collusion, then they are not legal.
>
>
> I fear you have /substantially/ missed the point.
You are absolutely right....Now that I have read the posts as a
follow-up, I can see where/what I needed to question the judge on.
This will definitely help in the future tournaments I see SC
in.....but I can see a long stall in the game for the others playing.
Jack Ryan wrote:
> > I fear you have /substantially/ missed the point.
>
> You are absolutely right....Now that I have read the posts as a
> follow-up, I can see where/what I needed to question the judge on.
> This will definitely help in the future tournaments I see SC
> in.....but I can see a long stall in the game for the others playing.
well if nothing else, the long stall gets your that much closer to a tie
game, and the people you have issues with are a lot farther away from
getting easy win.
Raille
In message <3C6DCA49...@spamcop.net>, Raille <rai...@spamcop.net>
writes:
>> You are absolutely right....Now that I have read the posts as a
>> follow-up, I can see where/what I needed to question the judge on.
>> This will definitely help in the future tournaments I see SC
>> in.....but I can see a long stall in the game for the others playing.>
>well if nothing else, the long stall gets your that much closer to a tie
>game,
Not necessarily true. Any judgement that takes that amount of time to
establish can be compensated for with additional time:
2.8. Lengthy Rulings
If a judge uses more than one minute to make a ruling, he or she may
extend the game time appropriately. The extra time must be clearly
communicated and recorded immediately by the judge.
[ quoted text not captured ]
LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:<3C6C6EEC...@white-wolf.com>...
> Jack Ryan wrote:
> > The judge had nothing to make a ruling on.....the SC was handled
> > correctly. The trades were legal.
> > The way the points were split was up to the idiot taking the (2), and
> > giving away the table win to his pal.
>
> If he did so when he could reasonably have done better (getting a GW)
> without making the deal, then the deal is illegal. Players must play
> to win.
I was involved in this game, in fact I was the one who sat between the
two doing the trading via SC. My predator made a deal with my prey to
split the table (3-2 in favor of my predator). Also for
clarification, it was the 3rd round of preliminaries, so anyone
leaving after the game who wasn't a finalist was moot.
Without my predator's help of a pool donation to my prey would have
been ousted. I didn't see the split as illegal, as my prey wouldn't
have gotten any VPs had he not struck the deal. The deal seemed to be
perfectly legal and honest. I've played with one of the guys involved
in the deal several times, and I think he was honestly just exploiting
a legal but cheesy card to achieve a game win.
I don't like the way the card functions mechanically. It is
completely unlike any other card in the game in that it facilitates
the free sharing of resources to enable table split deals, which I
think is cheesy in the extreme. It makes it too easy for two people
to decide the outcome of the game.
The card enables collusion, and just because there is no evidence of
collusion doesn't mean that there isn't any. Remember that collusion
is by definition secret and therefore extremely hard to prove in a
case such as a tournament like this. (keeping in mind that the
presence of the card does not mean that there _is_ collusion, only
that it enables collusion)
While I'm irritated that the card was involved in the game that was
played (and _really_ irritated I didn't draw into either of the 2
Disputed Territories or the Arson I had in the deck) its use wasn't in
my opinion illegal and didn't require a judge's ruling.
Doug