Judges Opinions Requested

We've had a couple of instances of time running out at critical points in the middle of actions. One such example was a vote called to effectively oust his prey. There was no block, he (predator) clearly had vote control, however with 30 sec. left, the prey effectively table talked to try to get the table votes (which would not have helped anyway). Needless to say 30 sec. passes very quickly and the game ends. No table win, and more importantly no final! A similar situation: bleed at stealth for the oust. Prey has no intercept on table or in hand (can't prevent or pass the bleed). Five tapped minions' three wakes in hand. Spends the final 30-45 sec. slowly methodically deciding which minions to wake with (and fail to block). Time runs out as the third wake is being played. Again, no game win, no final. I know the judge has the right to add time as needed. Two things I'm contemplating: 1. If time ends in the middle of an action, the action is *always* be completed. 2. If players want to keep time themselves they can, but the judge won't revel the reaming time until the round is complete. I'm more aggressive on #1 and not too sure about #2. Should #1 be a tournament rule? If #1 is used, can/should a lifeboon be allowed? How about a SR after that? Thanks for your comments, ***JediMike***

<Jedi...@rebelscum.net> wrote in message news:1103575902....@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com... > We've had a couple of instances of time running out at critical > points in the middle of actions. One such example was a vote called to > effectively oust his prey. There was no block, he (predator) clearly > had vote control, however with 30 sec. left, the prey effectively table > talked to try to get the table votes (which would not have helped > anyway). Needless to say 30 sec. passes very quickly and the game ends. > No table win, and more importantly no final! If the judge feels that he is stalling to take advantage of the time limit (an illegal activity), then the activity should be corrected. > A similar situation: bleed at stealth for the oust. Prey has no > intercept on table or in hand (can't prevent or pass the bleed). Five > tapped minions' three wakes in hand. Spends the final 30-45 sec. > slowly methodically deciding which minions to wake with (and fail to > block). Time runs out as the third wake is being played. Again, no game > win, no final. Stalling is illegal. > I know the judge has the right to add time as needed. Two things I'm > contemplating: > > 1. If time ends in the middle of an action, the action is *always* be > completed. > 2. If players want to keep time themselves they can, but the judge > won't revel the reaming time until the round is complete. > > I'm more aggressive on #1 and not too sure about #2. > > Should #1 be a tournament rule? > > If #1 is used, can/should a lifeboon be allowed? How about a SR after > that? Solution to not enforcing existing rules is to add more rules? -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. V:TES homepage: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/ Though effective, appear to be ineffective -- Sun Tzu

Jedim...@rebelscum.net wrote: > We've had a couple of instances of time running out at critical > points in the middle of actions. One such example was a vote called to > effectively oust his prey. There was no block, he (predator) clearly > had vote control, however with 30 sec. left, the prey effectively table > talked to try to get the table votes (which would not have helped > anyway). Needless to say 30 sec. passes very quickly and the game ends. > No table win, and more importantly no final! > > A similar situation: bleed at stealth for the oust. Prey has no > intercept on table or in hand (can't prevent or pass the bleed). Five > tapped minions' three wakes in hand. Spends the final 30-45 sec. > slowly methodically deciding which minions to wake with (and fail to > block). Time runs out as the third wake is being played. Again, no game > win, no final. In both cases, I'd have referred to one of the tournament rules (number 5.1, aka "Cheating"), which lists (intentional) "Stalling to take advantage of a time limit" as cheating in a tournament. If you/the judge felt that the player in either case was simply stalling to try to time out, then that player's cheating by the rules. (In this case, #2 is pretty clear-cut if the player acted as you described; #1 less so, in my opinion.) So in case #2, were I judging, I'd have asked that player directly: "Was there any way your play could have prevented him from ousting you with that action other than timing out?" And when he admits no, rule him ousted and award the VP to his predator (as well as determining the penalty for the offending player.) (See also: 5.3, "Slow Play".) > Thanks for your comments, > > ***JediMike*** -John Flournoy

Jedi...@rebelscum.net wrote: > We've had a couple of instances of time running out at critical > points in the middle of actions. One such example was a vote called to > effectively oust his prey. There was no block, he (predator) clearly > had vote control, [clip] ...up through this point it sounds like the game I was judging at GenCon So Cal. I can't tell if your examples are hypothetical or what. At Gencon So. Cal., a player had dropped a vote card on the table and, IIRC, immediately announced how many total votes they had in favor. Another player interupped and just asked the prey if they were blocking. The prey and then predator both announced no block. (all playes were acting swiftly enough in my estimation) The acting player then announced their votes in favor and immediately after that point, "time" was called. There were other votes at the table that had not yet been cast yet, for or against, and no opportunity for reaction cards to be played (delay?). In my estimation, the referedum was not completed before time ran out. > however with 30 sec. left, the prey effectively table > talked to try to get the table votes (which would not have helped > anyway). Needless to say 30 sec. passes very quickly and the game ends. > No table win, and more importantly no final! Sounds like stalling to me. > A similar situation: bleed at stealth for the oust. Prey has no > intercept on table or in hand (can't prevent or pass the bleed). Five > tapped minions' three wakes in hand. Spends the final 30-45 sec. > slowly methodically deciding which minions to wake with (and fail to > block). Time runs out as the third wake is being played. Again, no game > win, no final. That's an easy stalling call. However, I remember years ago someone was not slow playing or stalling but they took a bunch of hunt actions with a swarm of low-cap vampires. That was trickier because the actions didn't really have any big benefit for them. In any event, they were moving the game state and whoever the judge was didn't call it stalling. At another old event, one player was taking some kind of library search action to look for weapons that were no longer in the library...just to take up the remaining time. Again, they weren't playing slowly but were still stalling, IMO. > I know the judge has the right to add time as needed. Two things I'm > contemplating: > > 1. If time ends in the middle of an action, the action is *always* be > completed. While your stalling examples don't suggest that any change to the rules are required, the GenCon So. Cal. experience got me thinking that I'd dodged a bullet and that some very tricky timing issues could occur. What if a player announces a bleed to take their prey's last pool? If the prey says "no block" and then time expires, is the prey ousted? What about deflections or major boon or life boon? Can the judge look and see that the prey has a wake and deflect and then determine that the action wasn't completed? Maybe a judge would ask all the players if they had any other cards that they were intending to play? If so, then the action wasn't completed. On the other other hand you wouldn't want to give players the idea to play a forced awake just to declare the action incomplete-especially if they wouldn't have thought of it on their own. Of course, all of my rambling can simply be covered by the judge's discretion. If the judge says the the action is complete then the prey is ousted! We've had other variations of the rules on how tournament games finish. We inherited "1 minute to finish your turn" but that was no good because that 1 minutes is not your own minute (you don't have sole control of how it is used). Would a change to "finish your current action" be easier for judges to handle? Would it introduce new problems? -Robert Robert Goudie Chairman, V:EKN

Stalling is illegal. What if it is too ambiguous to say *for sure* that it is illegal? Should the predator be unable to conclude the referendum/action? Lets say in the second instance the prey was using Forced Awakes and was attempting to draw into an intercept card. He plays card in such away that it can't for sure be called stalling. Would it be wrong/illegal based on 3.1.1 to say (as the Judge) at the start of a tournament that unresolved actions at time would be able to be completed? Just fishing for the best and most fair outcome to these situations. Thanks, ***JediMike***

rrgou...@earthlink.net wrote: > Would a change to "finish your current action" be easier for judges to > handle? Would it introduce new problems? > -Robert I think it'd potentially make things smoother - if the action had been declared before time was called, you allow it to complete. That way, there's no debate about things like 'well, nobody blocked but we didn't resolve the bleed so it doesn't count' or the like. You'd have to specify 'if time is called during a minion phase', of course, and there would still be problems like this: (Example) 5 players, all with 2 pool; acting Methuselah plays Malkavian Game but time is called before everybody selects their pool. Acting Meth argues that if it were a minion action it'd be allowed to complete; why can't the current master card being resolved finish? That said, I'd be happy to see 'if time is called during an action, resolve the action to completion and end the game.' > Robert Goudie > Chairman, V:EKN -John Flournoy

the GenCon So. Cal. experience got me thinking that I'd dodged a bullet and that some very tricky timing issues could occur. Tricky timing issues is a better way of stating it, thanks Bob! What if a player announces a bleed to take their prey's last pool? If The prey says "no block" and then time expires, is the prey ousted? What about deflections or major boon or life boon? These are the kind of events I'd like to see be able to be handled without the psudo-staller gaining an advantage when stalling can't strictly be called or when time runs out in the middle of a critical action. Can the prey be let off the hook cause time ran out right after the bleed is announced on a Meth with one pool and one tapped minion, but before the block phase is reached? ***JediMike***

think it'd potentially make things smoother - if the action had been declared before time was called, you allow it to complete. That way, there's no debate about things like 'well, nobody blocked but we didn't resolve the bleed so it doesn't count' or the like. Yes John, that exactly what I'm getting at! I still think it would have to be "if time ends during an action on your minion phase" that the action would be alowed to be completed. If I as a judge put this in place in a VKEN tournament would it directly violate 3.1.1? ***JediMike***

[ quoted text not captured ] I don't have access to 3.1.1 from work but I assume that the part about time being called and the round ending immediately. No, judges don't have leeway to interpret "immediately" as "after the action is complete". We'd be looking at this as a possible future modification to the rules rather than something a judge can implement right now. -Robert

> That said, I'd be happy to see 'if time is called during an action, > resolve the action to completion and end the game.' Seconded. This has been an issue in tourneys that I have judged also. An explicit statement of this sort would make some judgement calls easier. But, as echoed in other posts, there would have to be some clear definition of what an "atomic" action actually is for the purpose of this action. Ankur

I understand the intention of these additions, but the judge will still need to be involved at the end of any game where timing is an issue. For instance, someone who wants to stall/play slowly can do so before the last action of the game. Perhaps an additional rule about the final action of the game would help a little, but I suspect problem players will still cause problems. I clearly remember a game where Stuart had the Erceyes Fragments, and with about one minute left and close to being ousted, took the full minute to look through his prey's ash heap. If time is close to running out, should players be expected to play faster? I currently believe the answer is no. Frequently turns last many minutes, so if a player takes their time while the game is close to over, that is their perogative. I rely on players (not Meths) to be good sports; if someone fails at that, I recall that it's a game. :) Perhaps also consider playing with longer time limits (though I understand that's quite difficult.) Ira

ira...@gmail.com wrote: [clip] > If time is close to running out, should players be expected to play > faster? I currently believe the answer is no. Yeah, I agree. If the pace of the game is acceptable for the first 1:50, it doesn't seem appropriate to expect players to change just because someone is close to a VP. > Frequently turns last > many minutes, so if a player takes their time while the game is close > to over, that is their perogative. Just to be safe, I recall speeding up my play in the closing minutes of some games just to avoid the appearance of stalling. That's certainly not required but it helps make sure I can sleep at night. :) -Robert

> What if a player announces a bleed to take their prey's last pool? If > the prey says "no block" and then time expires, is the prey ousted? > Would a change to "finish your current action" be easier for judges to > handle? Would it introduce new problems? I think it would be much easier to handle. I have supported this "fix" before. However, it has a flaw: It does not address non-action ousts. I was in a game once where I had some number of counters on Smiling Jack, and I ended my turn (no actions or transfers) just to get an oust before time ran out. I said "go"; my prey scooped his vampires; the judge said "time"; I said "Good game", in that order. However, since noone had declared him dead and he hadn't moved his pool counters, it was ruled that he was still alive (hadn't finished untap effects.) I think scooping your cards is a declaration of death, but that's in the past and more importantly is not the issue at hand. What I'm looking at here is, let's say he hadn't scooped? Perhaps he had just "thought", instead, and that took 5 seconds? You have hard calls to make, as a judge, under the current system--not to mention, it's frustrating to a player to do what it takes to oust, and then have that oust contingent on how fast your prey decides to process it. For the sake of equal treatment for actions and non-action ousts, I would propose that when time is called, that players play until the next time a player actually has to initiate something--declare a new action, begin a phase, play a master, etc. (Reactions to an existing action or master wouldn't count.) So if you declare a Kine Resources Contested, and then time is called, then you finish that KRC. When it's done, you would normally either take another action or end the phase, so the game's over. In the case of Jack, I had declared the end of my turn, so my prey was already in his untap. He would finish that phase (and die), beginning the next player's turn (and therefore ending the game). In short, this is exactly the same as saying "finish the current action", except it specifies exactly when an action is over (when the next action or phase would begin) and that it handles Anarch Revolt and Dragonbound. Just my two cents. -- Brian

In short, this is exactly the same as saying "finish the current action", except it specifies exactly when an action is over (when the next action or phase would begin) and that it handles Anarch Revolt and Dragonbound. Also Fame ect. Exellent point. This should also be taken into consideration as well. ***JediMMike***

> We've had a couple of instances of time running out at critical > points in the middle of actions. well, im not a judge, but i can tell how we solve this kind of situations. when time is running out, judge says after last player's turn game's over, so everyone has a chance to play the same nr of turns. if that doesnt help, acting/defending player has short time for all decision. waiting for block? 30 sec for decision or decline! waiting for votes? cast any or decline! easy and efficient. sinaath

On 20 Dec 2004 15:00:33 -0800, rrgo...@earthlink.net scrawled: [snip] > No, judges don't >have leeway to interpret "immediately" as "after the action is >complete". We'd be looking at this as a possible future modification >to the rules rather than something a judge can implement right now. wasn't there some famous game somewhere in the UK some time ago where the wheelings and dealings of a referendum took 30 mins or an hour or something? Imagine if that action was started at 2 minutes before time was called. what's the point of having a time limit? you'd need a time limit on the 'finish your action' time, and then you may as well just play a tourney where the round time limit is 2:05 or something instead of bunging up the rules. salem domain:canberra http://www.geocities.com/salem_christ.geo/vtes.htm (replace "hotmail" with "yahoo" to email)

On Tue, 21 Dec 2004 14:09:35 +0100, sinaath <sin...@kill.this.gmail.com> wrote: >> We've had a couple of instances of time running out at critical >> points in the middle of actions. > > well, im not a judge, but i can tell how we solve this kind of > situations. > when time is running out, judge says after last player's turn game's > over, > so everyone has a chance to play the same nr of turns. if that doesnt > help, > acting/defending player has short time for all decision. Not a bad idea. I must ponder it some further. -- Bye, Daneel

The solution can be: When "time" is called during an action... the game is not concluded until this action ends. regards, RavATwoFaces

<RavATw...@vampirethemasquerade.com> wrote in message news:1103634821....@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com... > The solution can be: > > When "time" is called during an action... the game is not concluded > until this action ends. I'm unclear as to how that doesn't merely shift the problem forward a bit -- to the next-to-last action (not to mention the additional problems of deciding just whether an action was started when time was called or not ("I said 'Igo attempts...'" "Yeah, but you didn't tap him yet." or "Yeah but you didn't play the action card yet.")) [ quoted text not captured ]

> wasn't there some famous game somewhere in the UK some time ago where > the wheelings and dealings of a referendum took 30 mins or an hour or > something? Imagine if that action was started at 2 minutes before time > was called. what's the point of having a time limit? > you'd need a time limit on the 'finish your action' time, and then you > may as well just play a tourney where the round time limit is 2:05 or > something instead of bunging up the rules. > Or we could just not tell the players how much time is remaining.

On Tue, 21 Dec 2004 08:57:29 -0500, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > I'm unclear as to how that doesn't merely shift the problem forward > a bit -- to the next-to-last action (not to mention the additional > problems of deciding just whether an action was started when time > was called or not ("I said 'Igo attempts...'" "Yeah, but you didn't > tap him yet." or "Yeah but you didn't play the action card yet.")) I completely agree with LSJ - I too think that the game needs drastic measures to prevent stalling, even if it is done in a covert fashion. A game does not time out because of the last turn, it times out because of the previous ones that were not conducted in a timely fashion. -- Bye, Daneel

> > I know the judge has the right to add time as needed. Two things I'm > > contemplating: > > > > 1. If time ends in the middle of an action, the action is *always* be > > completed. > > 2. If players want to keep time themselves they can, but the judge > > won't revel the reaming time until the round is complete. > > > > I'm more aggressive on #1 and not too sure about #2. > > > > Should #1 be a tournament rule? > > > > If #1 is used, can/should a lifeboon be allowed? How about a SR after > > that? > > Solution to not enforcing existing rules is to add more rules? The stalling rule is very difficult to handle and judge. It is sometimes practically unenforceable because it is often next to impossible to prove that someone is stalling. I think many people are asking for some clarifications and more specific rules to solve these kind of situations. While it is difficult to find a better way to handle the time-out situation that doesn´t mean that the current situation is satisfactory. I think a rule that the current action (be it minion or master action) is concluded (including life boon etc..) before the game ends would be ok. It is easy to determine when an action has started: the moment the card is on the table. To cover for the AR/SJ ... situations the rule can be further extended to say that the current phase has to end if it is no minion phase (even a master phase with Anson and Parthenon shouldn´t take longer than 1-2 minute, so time is not a problem here). -- johannes walch

"Johannes Walch" <johanne...@vekn.de> wrote in message news:cq9fsh$djl$1...@stu1id2.ip.tesion.net... > I think a rule that the current action (be it minion or master action) is > concluded (including life boon etc..) before the game ends would be ok. It > is easy to determine when an action has started: the moment the card is on > the table. Even for cardless actions? Or actions based on cards in play? What if the action card is played in a rush before the end of the previous action (before the blocker decide to play, or not, his Cats' Guidance, for example). And, again, how does this address the problem and not merely move it to the previous action? [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] As stated when last you suggested this, it is illegal according to [3.1.1.]. Kevin M., Prince of Henderson, NV (USA) "Know your enemy, and know yourself; in one-thousand battles you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, *The Art of War* "Contentment... Complacency... Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier

In message <728gs0teni2lpml0j...@4ax.com>, salem <salem_ch...@hotmail.com> writes: >wasn't there some famous game somewhere in the UK some time ago where >the wheelings and dealings of a referendum took 30 mins or an hour or >something? Imagine if that action was started at 2 minutes before time >was called. what's the point of having a time limit? I've seen similar such things a number of times in the UK - and none of them were stalling, IMHO. When five highly able, thoughtful and social[0] players sit down and try to work out how to get the best out of a given situation, this can require a lot of effort on their parts. Granted, in the specific case you're thinking of, it may have been whittled down under a time limit - but it was an untimed final round so there was no incentive, other than real world pressures, to do so. [0] In the sense of "Use the social element of Jyhad" (diplomacy, threats, deals etc.). -- James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D Who's ever heard of that, though! EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 Designing a deck that just calls votes. 13D7E668C3695D623D5D That's crazy talk, there.

In message <2004122109...@sidehack.sat.gweep.net>, Gregory Stuart Pettigrew <ethe...@sidehack.sat.gweep.net> writes: >Or we could just not tell the players how much time is remaining. And ban players wearing watches? (People invoking V:EKN 1.5 can assume I bring a wind-up watch, or mechanical alarm clock.) [ quoted text not captured ]

> > Or we could just not tell the players how much time is remaining. > > As stated when last you suggested this, it is illegal according to > [3.1.1.]. > Yes, but it is a possible method to resolve some of the stalling issues.

In message <cq972n$2n28$1...@news2.ipartners.pl>, sinaath <sin...@kill.this.gmail.com> writes: >well, im not a judge, but i can tell how we solve this kind of situations. >when time is running out, judge says after last player's turn game's over, >so everyone has a chance to play the same nr of turns. Corner-case nitpick: If "equal number of turns" is the criterion, what do you do when someone plays Reversal of Fortunes or Last Stand? (And in some senses, First Tradition?) Less corner-case nitpick: what if you have several tables timing out and 1 judge? Less corner-case nitpick again: earlier editions of the tournament rules didn't finish immediately, and the "immediate finish" version was considered preferable. What's changed? [ quoted text not captured ]

Gregory Stuart Pettigrew <ethe...@sidehack.sat.gweep.net> wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] And what do you propose to do about players bringing their own clocks, timers, wristwatches, etc? [ quoted text not captured ]

Kevin M. wrote: > Gregory Stuart Pettigrew <ethe...@sidehack.sat.gweep.net> wrote: > >>>>Or we could just not tell the players how much time is remaining. >>> >>>As stated when last you suggested this, it is illegal according to >>>[3.1.1.]. >> >>Yes, but it is a possible method to resolve some of the stalling >>issues. > > > And what do you propose to do about players bringing their own clocks, > timers, wristwatches, etc? The "normal" solution is to use an unspecified time limit. Say 50 minutes plus d20 minutes. Determined by the judge a the start of each round by rolling a d20 but hidden from the players. -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. Links to V:TES news, rules, cards, utilities, and tournament calendar: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag news:32qug6F...@individual.net... > "Johannes Walch" <johanne...@vekn.de> wrote in message > news:cq9fsh$djl$1...@stu1id2.ip.tesion.net... > > I think a rule that the current action (be it minion or master action) is > > concluded (including life boon etc..) before the game ends would be ok. > It > > is easy to determine when an action has started: the moment the card is > on > > the table. > > Even for cardless actions? Or actions based on cards in play? > > What if the action card is played in a rush before the end of the > previous action (before the blocker decide to play, or not, > his Cats' Guidance, for example). > > And, again, how does this address the problem and not merely move it > to the previous action? Well, after a second thought I think you have a point here. Probably the best solution to the timeout/stalling problem is to push the game as much as possible as a player in the game. Also when I am judging I am looking around at the tables and if I encounter some sort of slow play I ask aloud on the table if the pace of the game is ok for everybody or if I should intervene. Probably the judge(s) need to execise this more constantly.... -- johannes walch

> Corner-case nitpick: If "equal number of turns" is the criterion, what > do you do when someone plays Reversal of Fortunes or Last Stand? (And > in some senses, First Tradition?) huh like this one.. i think, the game continues until the moment, when next turn would be played by player who started the game (or first one after him, if he's already ousted) > Less corner-case nitpick: what if you have several tables timing out and > 1 judge? table "takes care" of stalling player.. they grapple him and drink his blood :) seriously, it isnt a problem.. maybe he has little more time, until judge came to scold him.. usually whole table just rushes him > Less corner-case nitpick again: earlier editions of the tournament rules > didn't finish immediately, and the "immediate finish" version was > considered preferable. What's changed? don't know, i'm not veteran player.. yet ;) sinaath

rrgo...@earthlink.net wrote: > ira...@gmail.com wrote: > [clip] > > If time is close to running out, should players be expected to play > > faster? I currently believe the answer is no. > > Yeah, I agree. If the pace of the game is acceptable for the first > 1:50, it doesn't seem appropriate to expect players to change just > because someone is close to a VP. Me too. I totally sympathize with the problem of hitting time when someone is close (sometimes *very* close) to an oust, but in my opinion, this is normally not something that you can pin just on the player who is close to being ousted. If a game is timing out without completing, it's usually because of the play of everyone in the game, and if they wanted the game to finish before time, they *all* would have needed to play faster throughout. > > Frequently turns last > > many minutes, so if a player takes their time while the game is close > > to over, that is their perogative. > > Just to be safe, I recall speeding up my play in the closing minutes of > some games just to avoid the appearance of stalling. That's certainly > not required but it helps make sure I can sleep at night. :) Sure. But it seems to me that no new method of handling the approach of the time limit can eliminate judgement calls. If we want to allow actions (or game phases) to complete instead of ending the game in the middle of them, on the one hand, that can significantly extend the amount of time required for that game (we've all seen actions that take many minutes to play out, I think), and on the other, there may still be judgement calls required as to which action or phase is the one that gets to be completed at the time limit. Josh working on the railway between selby and leeds

> > > If time is close to running out, should players be expected to play > > > faster? I currently believe the answer is no. > > > > Yeah, I agree. If the pace of the game is acceptable for the first > > 1:50, it doesn't seem appropriate to expect players to change just > > because someone is close to a VP. > > Me too. I totally sympathize with the problem of hitting time when > someone is close (sometimes *very* close) to an oust, but in my > opinion, this is normally not something that you can pin just on the > player who is close to being ousted. If a game is timing out without > completing, it's usually because of the play of everyone in the game, > and if they wanted the game to finish before time, they *all* would > have needed to play faster throughout. usually it isn't because of everyone, but because of 2-3 players, who play their turn celebrating every card played. I guess everyone wants to finish the game in time, so there's clear who should, and who shoudn't win. I know, sometimes you just have to esimate your situation, but v:tes isn't a chess game.. you can't predict every move with each card! sometimes you just have to risk to achieve win. besides, i never spotted stalling player who's in win-position.. only those, who are about to lose. > > > Frequently turns last > > > many minutes, so if a player takes their time while the game is > close > > > to over, that is their perogative. > > > > Just to be safe, I recall speeding up my play in the closing minutes > of > > some games just to avoid the appearance of stalling. That's certainly > > not required but it helps make sure I can sleep at night. :) > > Sure. > > But it seems to me that no new method of handling the approach of the > time limit can eliminate judgement calls. If we want to allow actions > (or game phases) to complete instead of ending the game in the middle > of them, on the one hand, that can significantly extend the amount of > time required for that game (we've all seen actions that take many > minutes to play out, I think), and on the other, there may still be > judgement calls required as to which action or phase is the one that > gets to be completed at the time limit. agree, letting player complete his action prevents other from stalling, because they know, that no matter how long it would take, it wont save them from perishing sinaath

LSJ wrote: > > The "normal" solution is to use an unspecified time limit. > > Say 50 minutes plus d20 minutes. Determined by the judge a the > start of each round by rolling a d20 but hidden from the players. in that case the judge should never be allowed to play. Andrea

jtdu...@yahoo.com wrote: > rrgo...@earthlink.net wrote: > > ira...@gmail.com wrote: > > [clip] > > > If time is close to running out, should players be expected to play > > > faster? I currently believe the answer is no. > > > > Yeah, I agree. If the pace of the game is acceptable for the first > > 1:50, it doesn't seem appropriate to expect players to change just > > because someone is close to a VP. > > Me too. I totally sympathize with the problem of hitting time when > someone is close (sometimes *very* close) to an oust, Wait, we're not getting all mixed up are we? My point about hitting time when someone is close to an oust was only about the judgement call of determining when an action is truly completed. I think this thread's drift into stalling discussions has some of us thinking that there's been a proposal to change the way rounds end for the purpose of preventing stalling. > but in my > opinion, this is normally not something that you can pin just on the > player who is close to being ousted. If a game is timing out without > completing, it's usually because of the play of everyone in the game, > and if they wanted the game to finish before time, they *all* would > have needed to play faster throughout. yep. certainly. [clip] > But it seems to me that no new method of handling the approach of the > time limit can eliminate judgement calls. Yep, that's what it sounds like. We can move the judgement call from "when is an action complete" to "when is an action begun". Moving it definitely doesn't remove judgement calls. However, it seems that a judge would have an easier time determining when something is begun as oppossed to when something is complete. Completion typically involves sitting through a protracted silence, waiting for any reactions from the players, and after some time passes, any action costs are paid and any pool is burned. At least beginning an action is the job of a single player. Not a lot better but still better. -Robert

rrgo...@earthlink.net wrote: > jtdu...@yahoo.com wrote: > > Me too. I totally sympathize with the problem of hitting time when > > someone is close (sometimes *very* close) to an oust, > > Wait, we're not getting all mixed up are we? My point about hitting > time when someone is close to an oust was only about the judgement call > of determining when an action is truly completed. I think this > thread's drift into stalling discussions has some of us thinking that > there's been a proposal to change the way rounds end for the purpose of > preventing stalling. Hmm, that is what I thought, yes. Is there not a proposal here to change the way rounds end from "play ends immediately at time" to "when time is called, play ends after the current action (or phase or "event" when it's not the minion phase) is finished"? I took that proposal as being intended to address stalling (even if it only really addresses stalling at the very end of the game). But yeah, there is currently a judgement call (sometimes) when an action is somewhere near completion as time is called, but it's not clear whether it *is* complete. > > But it seems to me that no new method of handling the approach of the > > time limit can eliminate judgement calls. > > Yep, that's what it sounds like. We can move the judgement call from > "when is an action complete" to "when is an action begun". Moving it > definitely doesn't remove judgement calls. However, it seems that a > judge would have an easier time determining when something is begun as > oppossed to when something is complete. Completion typically involves > sitting through a protracted silence, waiting for any reactions from > the players, and after some time passes, any action costs are paid and > any pool is burned. At least beginning an action is the job of a single > player. Not a lot better but still better. I agree that it should be easier to judge that, yes. But I think that having the time limit work this way would sometimes mean a noticeable extension to the time limit. Not all that frequently, probably (only when it's not clear very quickly whether the action is or isn't going to cause an oust). But it does seem like a possibly significant drawback to the concept. - Josh out all night in ibiza by way of san sebastian

<Jedi...@rebelscum.net> a écrit dans le message de news:1103579854....@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com... > Stalling is illegal. > > What if it is too ambiguous to say *for sure* that it is illegal? > Should the predator be unable to conclude the referendum/action? > > Lets say in the second instance the prey was using Forced Awakes and > was attempting to draw into an intercept card. He plays card in such > away that it can't for sure be called stalling. > > Would it be wrong/illegal based on 3.1.1 to say (as the Judge) at the > start of a tournament that unresolved actions at time would be able to > be completed? > > Just fishing for the best and most fair outcome to these situations. > Thanks, > > ***JediMike*** I would second that and ask for the last action to be completed. But is it the right answer ? To illlustate : Last week i saw a player obtaining the time limit in a very clever way by playing inferior pulse of the canaille as his first action. Then, he took a long look at everyone's hand, and during his next actions, had a look again claiming he had the right to do so (which was perfectly true). His last turn took ages and his life booned grand prey (me) was not ousted as expected by everyone there. He then gained a full VP by adding my half vp and his. How clever is that ? ;)

jtdu...@yahoo.com wrote: > rrgo...@earthlink.net wrote: > > jtdu...@yahoo.com wrote: > [clip] > Hmm, that is what I thought, yes. Is there not a proposal here to > change the way rounds end from "play ends immediately at time" to "when > time is called, play ends after the current action (or phase or "event" > when it's not the minion phase) is finished"? I took that proposal as > being intended to address stalling (even if it only really addresses > stalling at the very end of the game). Yes, the proposal exists (in the "finish current action" form) but its intenion had nothing to do with stalling. Unfortunately the first post muddied the waters a bit by including stalling in the example. Check my post #11 (Google groups beta's numbering), my first post in this thread. Ignore stalling discussions. :) When the event that spurred this discussion took place, there was no stalling but there was very nearly a sticky determination of when a vote had or had not passed. > But yeah, there is currently a judgement call (sometimes) when an > action is somewhere near completion as time is called, but it's not > clear whether it *is* complete. [clip] > I agree that it should be easier to judge that, yes. But I think that > having the time limit work this way would sometimes mean a noticeable > extension to the time limit. A rule that let's you complete an action or card play that began before time was called, could extend the time, yes. Especially if it were a vote that was going to oust people. There could be a nearly endless discussion of terms. That's a drawback for sure. -Robert

"Reyda" <true_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:41c9b650$0$31047$79c1...@nan-newsreader-06.noos.net... > To illlustate : Last week i saw a player obtaining the time limit in a very > clever way by playing inferior pulse of the canaille as his first action. > Then, he took a long look at everyone's hand, and during his next actions, > had a look again claiming he had the right to do so (which was perfectly > true). His last turn took ages and his life booned grand prey (me) was not > ousted as expected by everyone there. He then gained a full VP by adding my > half vp and his. How clever is that ? ;) If he was doing so to take advantage of the time limit, then he is in violation of the rules. See section 162. of the judges' guide for more details. -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. [ quoted text not captured ]

Reyda wrote: [clip] > > To illlustate : Last week i saw a player obtaining the time limit in a very > clever way by playing inferior pulse of the canaille as his first action. > Then, he took a long look at everyone's hand, and during his next actions, > had a look again claiming he had the right to do so (which was perfectly > true). Had the other players' hands changed at all? It is up to the judge (no slight intended against their judgement in the matter) but if the player is clearly doing something that isn't changing the game state and the judge determines that the purpose of the action is to gain an advantage by using the time limit, then the judge is free to call it stalling. To say it another way, just because an individual action is legal and no one is playing slowly, doesn't mean that there is no stalling. For example, I would consider using a "search your library for a piece of equipment" action with each of your 10 Embrace--even though you know there is no equipment in the deck--to be stalling. The fact that the Embrace were legally entitled to take the actions and the speed with which the player took the actions do not automatically exempt the player from being in violation of the stalling rules. -Robert

<rrgo...@earthlink.net> a écrit dans le message de news:1103739284.0...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com... > Reyda wrote: > [clip] > > > > To illlustate : Last week i saw a player obtaining the time limit in > a very > > clever way by playing inferior pulse of the canaille as his first > action. > > Then, he took a long look at everyone's hand, and during his next > actions, > > had a look again claiming he had the right to do so (which was > perfectly > > true). > > Had the other players' hands changed at all? It is up to the judge (no > slight intended against their judgement in the matter) but if the > player is clearly doing something that isn't changing the game state > and the judge determines that the purpose of the action is to gain an > advantage by using the time limit, then the judge is free to call it > stalling. yes, but it is also perfectly legal to claim not being able to remember 28 cards the other players have in reserve and can perfectly be combined with permanents in play -like KRCG or Neighbborhood watch command : what if someone decides to untap a blocker, then another gives him +1 intercept while my grand predator attempted a simple hunt action, which could be followed by a force of will ? He told us after the game that he did it on purpose to reach the time limit, but playing slowly in this case is perfectly legal. Having more information does not mean having more confidence (pretty much the opposite ;) )

Reyda wrote: > He told us after the game that he did it on purpose to reach the time limit, > but playing slowly in this case is perfectly legal. Having more information > does not mean having more confidence (pretty much the opposite ;) ) Stalling to reach the time limit is not "perfectly legal". It is a violation of the rules, in fact. The motions involved in collusion are equally permissible under the rules governing the mundane mechanics of the game, but equally illegal, for example. That's why we don't use robots for judges. -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. [ quoted text not captured ]

LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > Kevin M. wrote: >> Gregory Stuart Pettigrew <ethe...@sidehack.sat.gweep.net> wrote: >>>>>Or we could just not tell the players how much time is remaining. >>>> >>>>As stated when last you suggested this, it is illegal according to >>>>[3.1.1.]. >>> >>>Yes, but it is a possible method to resolve some of the stalling >>>issues. >> >> And what do you propose to do about players bringing their own >> clocks, timers, wristwatches, etc? > > The "normal" solution is to use an unspecified time limit. > > Say 50 minutes plus d20 minutes. Determined by the judge a the > start of each round by rolling a d20 but hidden from the players. I can't tell if this is a joke or not, but I'll respond as if you really meant what you said. :) Unfortunately, [3.1.1] states "The time limit must be announced before play begins." and so my question still remains. > LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. > Links to V:TES news, rules, cards, utilities, and tournament calendar: > http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/ Kevin M., Prince of Henderson, NV (USA) [ quoted text not captured ]

Hey Mike - I think something that would prevent this slow play at the end would be to eliminate the half VP for being in the game at the end. This was kicked around recently, did it go anywhere? Robert, you should kick it onto the Conclave and see what Princes think. best- chris Jedi...@rebelscum.net wrote: > We've had a couple of instances of time running out at critical > points in the middle of actions. One such example was a vote called to > effectively oust his prey. There was no block, he (predator) clearly > had vote control, however with 30 sec. left, the prey effectively table > talked to try to get the table votes (which would not have helped > anyway). Needless to say 30 sec. passes very quickly and the game ends. > No table win, and more importantly no final! > > A similar situation: bleed at stealth for the oust. Prey has no > intercept on table or in hand (can't prevent or pass the bleed). Five > tapped minions' three wakes in hand. Spends the final 30-45 sec. > slowly methodically deciding which minions to wake with (and fail to > block). Time runs out as the third wake is being played. Again, no game > win, no final. > > I know the judge has the right to add time as needed. Two things I'm > contemplating: > > 1. If time ends in the middle of an action, the action is *always* be > completed. > 2. If players want to keep time themselves they can, but the judge > won't revel the reaming time until the round is complete. > > I'm more aggressive on #1 and not too sure about #2. > > Should #1 be a tournament rule? > > If #1 is used, can/should a lifeboon be allowed? How about a SR after > that? > > Thanks for your comments, > > ***JediMike*** -- chris shorb

In message <vepyd.33$8e5.9@fed1read07>, Kevin M. <you...@imaspammer.org> writes: >LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: >> Say 50 minutes plus d20 minutes. Determined by the judge a the >> start of each round by rolling a d20 but hidden from the players. > >I can't tell if this is a joke or not, but I'll respond as if you really >meant what you said. :) Some games do that sort of thing - the time limit is "about" an hour (or whatever), but a random element is introduced to stop people dragging things out for the last minute and a half. >Unfortunately, [3.1.1] states "The time limit must be announced before >play begins." and so my question still remains. I think you've rather missed the point. People are wondering if it might be worth changing the rules. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Thu, 23 Dec 2004 00:33:05 GMT, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > Stalling to reach the time limit is not "perfectly legal". > It is a violation of the rules, in fact. > > The motions involved in collusion are equally permissible under the > rules governing the mundane mechanics of the game, but equally > illegal, for example. > > That's why we don't use robots for judges. Beep... -- Bye, Daneel

On Wed, 22 Dec 2004 17:32:05 -0800, Kevin M. <you...@imaspammer.org> wrote: >> Say 50 minutes plus d20 minutes. Determined by the judge a the >> start of each round by rolling a d20 but hidden from the players. > > I can't tell if this is a joke or not, but I'll respond as if you really > meant what you said. :) > > Unfortunately, [3.1.1] states "The time limit must be announced before > play begins." and so my question still remains. Announcing time limit: it will be exactly 110 + 1d20 minutes. Please do not stall. Have a good game. -- Bye, Daneel

On Thu, 23 Dec 2004 04:49:07 GMT, Chris Shorb <chr...@vtesinla.org> wrote: > I think something that would prevent this slow play at the end would be > to > eliminate the half VP for being in the game at the end. This was kicked > around recently, did it go anywhere? Robert, you should kick it onto the > Conclave and see what Princes think. Yeah, but that issue opens its own can of worms. Getting nothing for being unbreakable does not feel right. Reaching the (arbitrary time) limit alive and kicking should rank higher than being torn to pieces in the 10th minute. -- Bye, Daneel

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> a écrit dans le message de news:5noyd.21699$uM5...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net... > Reyda wrote: > > He told us after the game that he did it on purpose to reach the time limit, > > but playing slowly in this case is perfectly legal. Having more information > > does not mean having more confidence (pretty much the opposite ;) ) > > Stalling to reach the time limit is not "perfectly legal". > It is a violation of the rules, in fact. > > The motions involved in collusion are equally permissible under the > rules governing the mundane mechanics of the game, but equally > illegal, for example. > > That's why we don't use robots for judges. if he didn't tell me he used the pulse for stalling, i would have thought otherwise. so where do you draw the line here if you are judging the game ? =)

"Reyda" <true_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:41caea9f$0$32519$79c1...@nan-newsreader-06.noos.net... > "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> a écrit dans le message de > news:5noyd.21699$uM5...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net... > > Stalling to reach the time limit is not "perfectly legal". > > It is a violation of the rules, in fact. > > if he didn't tell me he used the pulse for stalling, i would have thought > otherwise. > so where do you draw the line here if you are judging the game ? =) Where judgment dictates. -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. [ quoted text not captured ]

Chris Shorb wrote: > Hey Mike - > > I think something that would prevent this slow play at the end would be to > eliminate the half VP for being in the game at the end. This was kicked > around recently, did it go anywhere? Robert, you should kick it onto the > Conclave and see what Princes think. > Hey Chris Well, I guess this thread was not really ment as a commentarty on slow play, as far as I'm concerned. Although it does fall into the disscusion. I wanna adress the problem of "the bleed/political action for the last pool is fully anounced but unable to resolve due to the experation of time. ***JediMike***

<Jedi...@rebelscum.net> wrote in message news:1103828581.1...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com... [ quoted text not captured ] Not sure that that's a problem, any more than "the bleed/political action for the last pool is unable to be fully announced due to the expiration of time" or "is unable to begin due to the expiration of time". That's the nature of the expiration of time. [ quoted text not captured ]

I'm unclear as to how that doesn't merely shift the problem forward a bit -- to the next-to-last action (not to mention the additional Problems of deciding just whether an action was started when time was called or not ("I said 'Igo attempts...'" "Yeah, but you didn't tap him yet." or "Yeah but you didn't play the action card yet.")) Couldn't you define it as "cardless actions=action fully announced and carded actions=card played+action fully announced"? If the VKEN determines the definition of "action was started by:" then judges rule accordingly. I don't want to confuse correcting this perceived end game problem with stalling. Stalling is just an advantage a player could covertly (covertly=stalling in a players mind as to not be caught by the judge or the table) gain from if he's going to be ousted when time is close. Stalling is just a side note in this thread. ***JediMike***

So a player states "Igo bleeds for one". "No blocks" are announced. Judge calls TIME. Is the bleed resolved (ousting the prey)? I would guess you would say yes. How about "Queen Ann calls a KRC", "no blocks" are announced. Referendum in sues. Queen Ann has the only votes on the table as well as the Meth holds the Edge. Judge calls TIME before votes are cast. Is KRC damage resolved? I would guess you would say no. In both instances I would judge as stated above. But example #2 it's unfortunate the action cannot be resolved. Players who don't understand why this damage would not be assigned might be soured and incline not to play our game, especially if they are new players who lost an opportunity to go to/win a finals. ***JediMike***

***JediMike*** wrote: > So a player states "Igo bleeds for one". "No blocks" are announced. > Judge calls TIME. Is the bleed resolved (ousting the prey)? > > I would guess you would say yes. Not necessarily. The prey was ousted only if the action is over. For example, if the prey was going to follow-up with a Telepathic Counter then the action was not over. > How about "Queen Ann calls a KRC", "no blocks" are announced. > Referendum in sues. Queen Ann has the only votes on the table as well > as the Meth holds the Edge. Judge calls TIME before votes are cast. Is > KRC damage resolved? > > I would guess you would say no. Action isn't complete. > In both instances I would judge as stated above. But example #2 it's > unfortunate the action cannot be resolved. Players who don't understand > why this damage would not be assigned might be soured and incline not > to play our game, especially if they are new players who lost an > opportunity to go to/win a finals. > > ***JediMike*** "Players who don't understand" are always going to be a problem. If we were to let a player finish their action after time is called, and the result of that is that a prey is ousted and someone *doesn't* make the finals because of that additional oust, couldn't that also sour a new player on the game? If I'd ruled that the action was complete, we'd be having to listen to some other player who didn't make the finals complain about being bumped from the finals over some faulty ruling. -Robert

***JediMike*** wrote: > So a player states "Igo bleeds for one". "No blocks" are announced. > Judge calls TIME. Is the bleed resolved (ousting the prey)? > > I would guess you would say yes. Not necessarily. The prey was ousted only if the action is over. For example, if the prey was going to follow-up with a Telepathic Counter then the action was not over. > How about "Queen Ann calls a KRC", "no blocks" are announced. > Referendum in sues. Queen Ann has the only votes on the table as well > as the Meth holds the Edge. Judge calls TIME before votes are cast. Is > KRC damage resolved? > > I would guess you would say no. Action isn't complete. > In both instances I would judge as stated above. But example #2 it's > unfortunate the action cannot be resolved. Players who don't understand > why this damage would not be assigned might be soured and incline not > to play our game, especially if they are new players who lost an > opportunity to go to/win a finals. > > ***JediMike*** "Players who don't understand" are always going to be a problem. [ quoted text not captured ]

> So a player states "Igo bleeds for one". "No blocks" are announced. > Judge calls TIME. Is the bleed resolved (ousting the prey)? > I would guess you would say yes. Not necessarily. The prey was ousted only if the action is over. For example, if the prey was going to follow-up with a Telepathic Counter then the action was not over. So the correct ruling is no oust? The correct VKEN judges guideline way to rule this situation is "no oust"? Am I the only one that see this as "not the best resolution for our game"? What if there was no TC? (or any way for anyone to stop the bleed) Then what? Because the blood bead was not p'up there's no oust? >Is > KRC damage resolved? > I would guess you would say no. Action isn't complete. Yes, but wouldn't the greater good of the game be served if it was? we'd be having to listen to some other player who didn't make the finals complain about being bumped from the finals over some faulty ruling. If the VKEN rules stated the action could be completed I don't believe the ruling would be faulty, again I think it would better serve the greater good of the game. Of course, thats just my opinion. ***JediMike***

In message <1103843377.1...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, "***JediMike***" <Jedi...@rebelscum.net> mumbled something about: >> So a player states "Igo bleeds for one". "No blocks" are announced. >> Judge calls TIME. Is the bleed resolved (ousting the prey)? > >> I would guess you would say yes. > >Not necessarily. The prey was ousted only if the action is over. For >example, if the prey was going to follow-up with a Telepathic Counter >then the action was not over. > >So the correct ruling is no oust? The correct VKEN judges guideline way >to rule this situation is "no oust"? Depends. Is the Telepathic Counter in the prey's hand or not? If the prey has no TC, Deflection, or other things to do besides "eat the bleed", I'd rule under the current rules that the prey's statement of "no block" is a reasonable conclusion to the action, and therefore, the oust occurred. If the prey has things they can do (TC/Deflect), "no block" is clearly mid-action. >Am I the only one that see this as "not the best resolution for our >game"? Possibly. >What if there was no TC? (or any way for anyone to stop the bleed) Then >what? Because the blood bead was not p'up there's no oust? Not provided to me in the information given. What I know: -- A Methuselah has tapped Igo and said "Bleed for 1". -- Everyone at the table has said "no block". >>Is >> KRC damage resolved? > >> I would guess you would say no. > >Action isn't complete. > >Yes, but wouldn't the greater good of the game be served if it was? No. It just draws the line in a different place. Personally, I think the 'greater good' of the game is best served by using a random time limit (1:50 + d20 minutes) and the official time being known only to the judge. This removes any incentive to try to hit the time limit perfectly, and should encourage rapid play on the part of ALL players once the 1:50 mark is reached (players will certainly use their own watches; this is fine, as the judge may add on additional time for rulings/explanations/etc. as he chooses). This would of course require changing the current rules. Fortunately, that's possible. -- "There's no gray. There's just white that's got grubby." -- T.P.

> If the prey has no TC, Deflection, or other things to do besides "eat > the bleed", I'd rule under the current rules that the prey's statement > of "no block" is a reasonable conclusion to the action, and therefore, > the oust occurred. > Semantically, you could argue that until everyone has declared "no further effects," the action can be considered to be incomplete. What about the case of a cross-table player with a Wake and a Folderol? He has the capability of stopping the oust during the action. If he has those cards in hand, is the action considered complete? Does it depend on whether or not he would have played them?

Personally, I think the 'greater good' of the game is best served by using a random time limit (1:50 + d20 minutes) and the official time being known only to the judge. This removes any incentive to try to hit the time limit perfectly, and should encourage rapid play on the part of ALL players once the 1:50 mark is reached (players will certainly use their own watches; this is fine, as the judge may add on additional time for rulings/explanations/etc. as he chooses). This is fine for a reply to stalling, however this thread is intended to adress actions that can't be resolved when the judge calls "time". Stalling is just one possable affect that can occur in various time out scenarios. To steal an opinion from a friend of mine, in boxing when a boxer is knocked down and the 10 count begins, and the bell rings (signifying the end of the round) the boxer cannot be saved by the bell. I don't feel a prey who is in the middle of being killed should be able to be "saved by the bell". That's really what my point is on this thread. ***JediMike***

[ quoted text not captured ] What if the bell rings before the final blow that falls him lands? What if it rings after the vulnerability is set up but just before the punch is "launched"? And so on. Again, it's in the nature of the expiration of time, without regard to stalling. -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. [ quoted text not captured ]

My scenario refers to after the killing blow has been delivered.(ie:action is *fully declaired*) It's VERY simple. Was the action fully announced before time was called? If yes do X if not do Y. X= complete the action. Round ends. Y= Round ends. I'm not sure why this concept is so hard to grasp. ***JediMike***

***JediMike*** wrote: > So a player states "Igo bleeds for one". "No blocks" are announced. > Judge calls TIME. Is the bleed resolved (ousting the prey)? > > I would guess you would say yes. > > How about "Queen Ann calls a KRC", "no blocks" are announced. > Referendum in sues. Queen Ann has the only votes on the table as well > as the Meth holds the Edge. Judge calls TIME before votes are cast. Is > KRC damage resolved? > > I would guess you would say no. Yes, but this situation is fairly clear. What if Queen Ann casts her votes, and then the Judge calls TIME? Is the referendum over or not? Did the vote resolve or not? Does it matter if any of the other players had any votes in hand they could play, even if they didn't intend to do so? > In both instances I would judge as stated above. But example #2 it's > unfortunate the action cannot be resolved. Players who don't understand > why this damage would not be assigned might be soured and incline not > to play our game, especially if they are new players who lost an > opportunity to go to/win a finals. Often the end of an action/referendum is preceded by a short wait to give other players the opportunity to declare any further effects. What if TIME is called then? Does it matter if someone expresses intent to play one more effect or not? What if a Methuselah is reduced to 0 pool and TIME is called as another player intends to play a Life Boon on the oust? Flux

On Tue, 21 Dec 2004 22:46:07 +0000, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> scrawled: >In message <728gs0teni2lpml0j...@4ax.com>, salem ><salem_ch...@hotmail.com> writes: >>wasn't there some famous game somewhere in the UK some time ago where >>the wheelings and dealings of a referendum took 30 mins or an hour or >>something? Imagine if that action was started at 2 minutes before time >>was called. what's the point of having a time limit? > >I've seen similar such things a number of times in the UK - and none of >them were stalling, IMHO. exactly. i see nothing wrong with referendums taking a long time to discuss, if the situation warrants it. and if you allowed the 'current action' to be concluded before calling time, your games have the potential to go on for ever. and when some people are counting on a game actually finishing so they can get home to partners on time, or catch buses, or whatever else they may have planned thinking the event would be over by a certain time, then you'll end up with people having to leave mid-game, which i think is far far worse than having to enforce a time-limit on the dot. i really hate it when people leave mid game. salem domain:canberra http://www.geocities.com/salem_christ.geo/vtes.htm (replace "hotmail" with "yahoo" to email)

LSJ wrote: > ***JediMike*** wrote: >> To steal an opinion from a friend of mine, in boxing when a boxer is >> knocked down and the 10 count begins, and the bell rings (signifying >> the end of the round) the boxer cannot be saved by the bell. I don't >> feel a prey who is in the middle of being killed should be able to be >> "saved by the bell". That's really what my point is on this thread. >> ***JediMike*** > > > What if the bell rings before the final blow that falls him lands? > What if it rings after the vulnerability is set up but just before > the punch is "launched"? As I understand from the text above, you can't be 'saved by the bell' once the count begins, an event that can be clearly identified. In VtES the case is not that clear, most often the end of an action is not announced and so cannot be clearly identified. Flux

"Greger Anderson Govern bleeds for 3!"Player produces the card. Judge calls "time". Action announced and clearly identified. Do X. X= complete the action. Round ends. ***JediMike***

[ quoted text not captured ] It isn't. I have grasped it. Which is why I give the parallels I give. Your "i.e." above is not "i.e.". It is a different thing than what you put before. The declaration of an action is not the resolution of the action. It's VERY simple. You wish to move an arbitrary line to a different, more artificial yet still arbitrary, place. Was the action fully resolved when time was called? If yes, then it was resolved. Time is up. If no, then it wasn't and, since time it up, it never will be. I'm not sure why this concept is so hard to grasp. (Feel free to leave out the rhetoric for more productive exchanges.) [ quoted text not captured ]

Flux wrote: > As I understand from the text above, you can't be 'saved by the bell' > once the count begins, an event that can be clearly identified. > In VtES the case is not that clear, most often the end of an action is > not announced and so cannot be clearly identified. In VtES, the case is clear. Boxing KO = oust, not action resolution. The ousting "moment" is as clear as the KO moment. [ quoted text not captured ]

I'm not sure why this concept is so hard to grasp. (Feel free to leave out the rhetoric for more productive exchanges.) Sorry, no insult intended. I'm just getting the feeling I'M not stating my point clear enough to be understood. The declaration of an action is not the resolution of the action. I would like to see the rules reflect that the (full) declaration of an action, before time is called, be allowed the resolution of that action if time is called after the declaration. This idea seems cleaner and easier to define from a judging standpoint, and fair from a players standpoint. I believe it would better the tournament enviorment. Perhaps you disagree. It's mearly my opinion. Robert may take it in consideration if there is contemplation of a rule change....or not. I've judged these situations before and ruled based on current guidlines. I can leave a bad taste with everyone involved. If I had used my proposed guidelines I do not believe that would have been the case. Your "i.e." above is not "i.e.". It is a different thing than what you put before Right, sorry. But I'm sure you get my point. ***JediMike***

[ quoted text not captured ] The situation you describe above is a clear one and easily resolved. It is easily resolved because you state that the action has been "announced". Scenarios in which an action's end is announced or clearly identified can also be created. The current rules and the "play till action completes" proposal both work fine when the details are clear. However, both have gray areas as well... Just like it is sometimes unclear (and requires a judge to use his or her judgement) exactly when an action ends, it is sometimes unclear (and requires a judge to use judgement) when an action has been announced or begun. Why change the rules to just move the judgement from when an action ends to when an action begins? There has to be some benefit. There could be some benefit to it because I think it may be easier to judge when an action begins. On the other hand, you kinda have to "be there" to determine if an action has begun. Players may dispute what words were actually said or not said at the never moment time is announced. It may be impossible for the judge to figure out exactly what was or wasn't announced before "time" was called. On the other other hand, it might be easier for a judge to look at the game state using the current rules to determine if an action is complete (cards in players' hands, etc.). -Robert

I can leave a bad taste with everyone involved. If I had used my proposed guidelines I do not believe that would have been the case. "It can leave" Although I'm sure I have before! :) ***JediMike***

However, both have gray areas as well... Just like it is sometimes unclear (and requires a judge to use his or her judgement) exactly when an action ends, it is sometimes unclear (and requires a judge to use judgement) when an action has been announced or begun. I absolultly believe it's easier to judge when an action has been announced or begun. Really it's my belief basis in this thread. I also understand that a judge still may have to "judge" a situation by listen to the table present it's case. But whenever the situation arises, it should be easier to determine on a "allowed to compleate the action" basis. IMO. > "Greger Anderson Govern bleeds for 3!"Player produces the card. Judge > calls "time". Action announced and clearly identified. Do X. > X= complete the action. Round ends. The situation you describe above is a clear one and easily resolved. It is easily resolved because you state that the action has been "announced" Yes announced, but the current rules does not allow for the action to be resolved. The "call for blockers" stage was not reached. Therefor no sucsessful bleed and no oust. ***JediMike***

In message <2004122320...@sidehack.sat.gweep.net>, Gregory Stuart Pettigrew <ethe...@sidehack.sat.gweep.net> mumbled something about: >> If the prey has no TC, Deflection, or other things to do besides "eat >> the bleed", I'd rule under the current rules that the prey's statement >> of "no block" is a reasonable conclusion to the action, and therefore, >> the oust occurred. > >Semantically, you could argue that until everyone has declared "no further >effects," the action can be considered to be incomplete. Not to me, you couldn't. Although honestly, we HAVE bothered to consider in the assumptions that "no blocks" have been declared all around. You know the best thing about being a judge? You get to use your judgement. My judgement often is that players who present semantics to me as the foundation for an argument need to come up with something concrete before wasting my time. >What about the case of a cross-table player with a Wake and a Folderol? He >has the capability of stopping the oust during the action. If he has those Circumstances of a sufficiently unusual nature would dictate other rulings. I feel that we're now far enough out into corner-case land that I don't mind saying "If he shows me the cards, then the action is not complete." Note that this is not the same as allowing the action to complete; it's simply verifying that more parts to the action existed. (Playing a Forced and hoping to draw into something wouldn't cut it, either; that's a tactic clearly based on information not previously available (that time was about to expire), and therefore in my judgement would not be sufficient reason to consider the action not complete.) >cards in hand, is the action considered complete? Does it depend on >whether or not he would have played them? "would have" is probably not a suitable thing to get into, because who can truly tell what someone WOULD have done before he obtained the additional information that time would expire? In this case, if he bothers to show me the cards and draw attention to it, I am willing to believe that he was not interested in that player being ousted at that time. Again, we are now so far out into corner-case land that I am just not worried about this happening -- and if it does, I won't lose any sleep over it. Someone has to be unhappy in this scenario -- either the oust happens or it doesn't, and there's no way around that, and that will make someone unhappy. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <1103853392.0...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, "***JediMike***" <Jedi...@rebelscum.net> mumbled something about: >Personally, I think the 'greater good' of the game is best served by >using a random time limit (1:50 + d20 minutes) and the official time >being known only to the judge. This removes any incentive to try to hit >the time limit perfectly, and should encourage rapid play on the part >of >ALL players once the 1:50 mark is reached (players will certainly use >their own watches; this is fine, as the judge may add on additional >time >for rulings/explanations/etc. as he chooses). > > >This is fine for a reply to stalling, however this thread is intended >to adress actions that can't be resolved when the judge calls "time". Incomplete actions remain incomplete. >Stalling is just one possable affect that can occur in various time out >scenarios. Stalling is the only way a player can take advantage of "time" being called. There is no way to make everyone happy in these scenarios; the only thing we can do here is try to make sure nobody can make use of it. >To steal an opinion from a friend of mine, in boxing when a boxer is >knocked down and the 10 count begins, and the bell rings (signifying >the end of the round) the boxer cannot be saved by the bell. I don't >feel a prey who is in the middle of being killed should be able to be >"saved by the bell". That's really what my point is on this thread. So in short, you feel that the action should be completed. What about when the prey is at 2 pool and the predator has 3 more minions? Igo's bleed completes, and now the prey is at 1 pool. By your logic, we must now allow the predator to take a second action. What about when the grandpredator has an Anarch Revolt on the table and the edge, and the prey is at 1 pool, and the grandpredator has just finished making his transfers, but hasn't said "Done" yet? By your logic, we must allow the predator to enter his untap and immediately say "Done". So what if we revert to the old way, where someone got to finish their turn when time was called? Well, THAT wasn't fair for a number of reasons: -- Additional information received allows you to tap out all your minions bleeding or take other extremely-risky actions, since you no longer need to defend -- Stalling is actually MORE prevalent, since if your turns take a long time, it is more likely the game will end on your turn and you'll have One Last Go -- ...and thousands more. The above two are more than sufficient to remove the "finish your turn" rule from consideration, though. All of the above just serve to point out that "time" is a line in the sand that has to be drawn somewhere. "TIME MEANS NOW" is the simplest option, and the "random time" idea mentioned above prevents anyone from making effective use/abuse of it. And many times, simplest is best. One final point: Look at the NHL. If the puck is not in the net when the buzzer sounds, the goal doesn't count. That's a "time means now" rule that has stood the test of nearly a hundred years... and you NEVER hear the players complain about it, because it's as concrete as it gets. The goalie could've been lying on the ice out by one of the faceoff circles, but if that puck didn't get in, it's no goal... and all the players accept it. So here you go; If you don't get that last pool by the time "time" is called, build a faster deck next time, get the players at your table to play quicker, call a judge if you think they're stalling, do whatever... but get that last pool sooner next time, and you won't have to worry about it. (Can you tell I have little sympathy for a game that takes too long as it is? 2 hours is way too much for this type of game, honestly. The game's primary failing is its length; anything that has the potential to make the game longer I'm completely against.) [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <1103860358....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, "***JediMike***" <Jedi...@rebelscum.net> mumbled something about: >"Greger Anderson Govern bleeds for 3!"Player produces the card. Judge >calls "time". Action announced and clearly identified. Do X. >X= complete the action. Round ends. What if I had tapped Greger, put the Govern on the table, and just hadn't said the words yet? Action announced? What if I put the Govern on the table and said the words, but didn't tap Greger? Action announced? What if I tapped Greger, put the Govern on the table along with Sleeping Mind, said the words, but hadn't moved the blood for Sleeping Mind yet? Action announced? Any line you put down can be subdivided infinitely, and will require a judge to do that evil, evil thing: use judgement. And then, it will make someone unhappy. There's no way around it. [ quoted text not captured ]

What if I had tapped Greger, put the Govern on the table, and just hadn't said the words yet? Action announced? No. What if I put the Govern on the table and said the words, but didn't tap Greger? Action announced? Yes. What if I tapped Greger, put the Govern on the table along with Sleeping Mind, said the words, but hadn't moved the blood for Sleeping Mind yet? Action announced? Yes. Any line you put down can be subdivided infinitely, and will require a judge to do that evil, evil thing: use judgement. And then, it will make someone unhappy. There's no way around it. I disagree. The VKEN can state the rules so the definition is complete. Minion announced, action announced, card played (if nessasary).If those 3 requirements are met the announcment is complete. It's that easy. ***JediMike***

So in short, you feel that the action should be completed. Yes. What about when the prey is at 2 pool and the predator has 3 more minions? Igo's bleed completes, and now the prey is at 1 pool. By your logic, we must now allow the predator to take a second action Incorrect. If time ends in the middle of Igo's bleed, and the bleed is resolved then the round ends. If the preys pool goes from 3 to 2 or 20 to 19 or 1 to oust it does not matter. The only action that should be completed is the one the was announced (in full) before time ran out but was unable to bee completed after time ran out. What about when the grandpredator has an Anarch Revolt on the table and the edge, and the prey is at 1 pool, and the grandpredator has just finished making his transfers, but hasn't said "Done" yet? By your logic, we must allow the predator to enter his untap and immediately say "Done". Incorrect. If time ends during your transfer phase the rounds ends. So what if we revert to the old way, where someone got to finish their turn when time was called? Well, THAT wasn't fair for a number of reasons: I'm not advocating such a thing. The above two are more than sufficient to remove the "finish your turn" rule from consideration, though. I'm not saying "finish your turn" I'm saying if an action has been *fully* declaired before time runs out -then- time runs out, only that *current action* would be resolved. One final point: Look at the NHL. If the puck is not in the net when the buzzer sounds, the goal doesn't count. In the NBA if the shot leaves the players hand before time runs out but sinks the bucket after time runs out it counts. Similar in the NFL ala Hail Mary. (Can you tell I have little sympathy for a game that takes too long as it is? 2 hours is way too much for this type of game, honestly. The game's primary failing is its length; anything that has the potential to make the game longer I'm completely against.) Agreed, however 99% of the time the lenght of a single action should only take 1 to 5 min at most. ***JediMike***

***JediMike*** wrote: >> Any line you put down can be subdivided infinitely, and will require a >> judge to do that evil, evil thing: use judgement. And then, it will >> make someone unhappy. There's no way around it. > > I disagree. The VKEN can state the rules so the definition is complete. > Minion announced, action announced, card played (if nessasary).If those > 3 requirements are met the announcment is complete. It's that easy. You can make a complete definition but the *determination* of whether the criteria was or was not met is the sticky part and will exist with the current and proposed rules. Really, we already have a simpler definition/rule with only 1 requirement (time ends immediately requires you to sometimes judge whether an action was completed). Your proposal lists 2-3 requirements which, as was mentioned above, can each be subdivided infinitely. "Ozmo bleeds with govern [time called] card dropped"; "Ozmo bleeds with govern card being [time called] dropped"; "Ozmo bleeds with govern card being [time] dropped [being called]"; and so on and so on. Worse yet, if you aren't at the table then the only thing you can do is ask everyone else what they think happend. Ugh. (I wouldn't mind making the determination using the proposed rule if I were there to watch time run out in every case!) Imagine trying to figure out whether the last shot of an NBA game should count (did it leave the hand before time expired) without replay and without even seeing it for yourself. You are only allowed to ask the players whether the shot got off in time. Ugh again. :) At least the existing rule can allow the judge to use some empirical data to make their ruling--check hands of cards...check pool levels, cards in play, etc. As a judge, I'd lean toward an action not being complete unless it was *clearly completed*. The start of the next action is the best criteria as to whether the prior action was complete. Anything short of that should require obvious agreement (pool removed, edge moved, voter capitivation, freak drive played, and so on). -Robert

***JediMike*** wrote: >> So in short, you feel that the action should be completed. > > Yes. Why? Since judgement is required for both why change it? Since new players can be harmed or helped by both the proposed rule and the existing rule, why change? >> One final point: Look at the NHL. If the puck is not in the net when >> the buzzer sounds, the goal doesn't count. > > In the NBA if the shot leaves the players hand before time runs out but > sinks the bucket after time runs out it counts. Similar in the NFL ala > Hail Mary. We have a line now. Moving the line is easy. The line you wish to draw would work. It would, however, require judgement--like the existing rule. Why move the line? Your NBA example presupposes that the shot did leave the hand before time ran out. Same with the hail mary. However, if the NBA shot doesn't get off in time or if the QB doesn't take the snap in time then there is no final shot or last hail mary. The judgement comes in when you have to decide whether the play did or did not start in time (or did or did not end in time--the current v:tes rule). -Robert

Robert Goudie wrote: > ***JediMike*** wrote: > >>>Any line you put down can be subdivided infinitely, and will require a >>>judge to do that evil, evil thing: use judgement. And then, it will >>>make someone unhappy. There's no way around it. >> >>I disagree. The VKEN can state the rules so the definition is complete. >>Minion announced, action announced, card played (if nessasary).If those >>3 requirements are met the announcment is complete. It's that easy. > > > You can make a complete definition but the *determination* of whether > the criteria was or was not met is the sticky part and will exist with > the current and proposed rules. Really, we already have a simpler > definition/rule with only 1 requirement (time ends immediately requires > you to sometimes judge whether an action was completed). But that judgement can be hard to do. I agree with Mike that (currently) it is easier to judge whether an action has started or not. I'm not sure I agree with allowing the action to finish after TIME has been called though. > Your proposal lists 2-3 requirements which, as was mentioned above, can > each be subdivided infinitely. "Ozmo bleeds with govern [time called] > card dropped"; "Ozmo bleeds with govern card being [time called] > dropped"; "Ozmo bleeds with govern card being [time] dropped [being > called]"; and so on and so on. Worse yet, if you aren't at the table > then the only thing you can do is ask everyone else what they think > happend. Ugh. (I wouldn't mind making the determination using the > proposed rule if I were there to watch time run out in every case!) > Imagine trying to figure out whether the last shot of an NBA game > should count (did it leave the hand before time expired) without replay > and without even seeing it for yourself. You are only allowed to ask > the players whether the shot got off in time. Ugh again. :) > > At least the existing rule can allow the judge to use some empirical > data to make their ruling--check hands of cards...check pool levels, > cards in play, etc. As a judge, I'd lean toward an action not being > complete unless it was *clearly completed*. - Player A is reduced to 0 pool by a bleed. TIME is called. Is the action complete? Is A ousted or not? -> Player B presents a Life Boon that he intends to play. Is the action complete? Is A ousted or not? -> Player C presents a Sudden Reversal that he would play on the Life Boon. Is the action complete? Is A ousted or not? -> Player B knew about C's SR (Revelations/etc), and knew of C's intention to play it, so he wouldn't bother to play the LB anyway. Is the action complete? Is A ousted or not? And at this point, wouldn't it be easier and fairer to just let them play it out, instead of trying to guess what would/could happen? > The start of the next > action is the best criteria as to whether the prior action was > complete. Anything short of that should require obvious agreement (pool > removed, edge moved, voter capitivation, freak drive played, and so > on). ?! So you claim that ruling whether an action has started is just as hard as ruling when it has ended, but then say you think the easiest way to rule whether an action has ended is to rule whether the next action has started...? :) What I would like see are a few guidelines for determining if an effect affects the game state or not. Something like this: - An effect's resolution must be entered into the game state once the effect is 'DONE', even if TIME is called before the game state is altered. - If the effect is not an action, it is 'DONE' once it has been declared and the required card (if any) put on the table [note: paying for a card's cost is not required to consider it 'DONE', but it must be done before any other effect of the card is entered into the game state] - An action is 'DONE' if, after the acting player has called DONE, no other player uses further effects (that are part of the action - ie, reaction cards or OoT Master cards) for 20 seconds. If TIME is called before the end of this time limit, a single effect may still be declared by any player (within the time limit). In that case the judge may still declare the action 'DONE' if that single effect is deemed to be inconsequential to the action's resolution (ie, a WWEF declared by a player unable to affect the outcome of the action). Well, something like that in any case: some specific guidelines to help judges make consistent rulings. A judge would still be required to rule on complicated cases, but I think this would help a lot. Flux

In message <1103869506.0...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, "***JediMike***" <Jedi...@rebelscum.net> mumbled something about: >What if I had tapped Greger, put the Govern on the table, and just >hadn't said the words yet? Action announced? > >No. Why not? I only can do one thing at a time. My prey was saved by the bell because I didn't have time to say "bleed for 3". >What if I put the Govern on the table and said the words, but didn't >tap >Greger? Action announced? > >Yes. Why? I can only do one thing at a time. Minions must tap to take an action; an untapped minion isn't taking an action yet. >What if I tapped Greger, put the Govern on the table along with >Sleeping >Mind, said the words, but hadn't moved the blood for Sleeping Mind yet? >Action announced? > >Yes. But action modifiers must be paid for, or they're not played. >Any line you put down can be subdivided infinitely, and will require a >judge to do that evil, evil thing: use judgement. And then, it will >make someone unhappy. There's no way around it. > >I disagree. The VKEN can state the rules so the definition is complete. And because there are multiple parts to that definition, you allow someone to be "saved by the bell" -- because someone can only do one thing at a time. >Minion announced, action announced, card played (if nessasary).If those >3 requirements are met the announcment is complete. It's that easy. What if I announce the minion and the action and don't get the card on the table in time? My prey was just saved by the bell! [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <1103871444.9...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>, "***JediMike***" <Jedi...@rebelscum.net> mumbled something about: >So in short, you feel that the action should be completed. > >Yes. > >What about when the prey is at 2 pool and the predator has 3 more >minions? Igo's bleed completes, and now the prey is at 1 pool. By your >logic, we must now allow the predator to take a second action > >Incorrect. If time ends in the middle of Igo's bleed, and the bleed is >resolved then the round ends. If the preys pool goes from 3 to 2 or 20 >to 19 or 1 to oust it does not matter. The only action that should be >completed is the one the was announced (in full) before time ran out >but was unable to bee completed after time ran out. But my prey was just saved by the bell. You're being inconsistent. My prey would obviously have been dead if I'd been allowed to take that second action. >What about when the grandpredator has an Anarch Revolt on the table and >the edge, and the prey is at 1 pool, and the grandpredator has just >finished making his transfers, but hasn't said "Done" yet? By your >logic, we must allow the predator to enter his untap and immediately >say >"Done". > >Incorrect. >If time ends during your transfer phase the rounds ends. But my prey was totally dead. My predator was just making transfers slowly so I wouldn't get my turn. My prey was saved by the bell! >So what if we revert to the old way, where someone got to finish their >turn when time was called? Well, THAT wasn't fair for a number of >reasons: > >I'm not advocating such a thing. That's fine; just want to make sure anyone reading doesn't get the bright idea to try to argue that point. I have a few stalkers who like to chime into threads with irrelevant crap. >The above two are more than sufficient to >remove the "finish your turn" rule from consideration, though. > >I'm not saying "finish your turn" I'm saying if an action has been >*fully* declaired before time runs out -then- time runs out, only that >*current action* would be resolved. But there are multiple parts to declaring an action. We're just moving the line around here, not making any progress. =/ If we could identify ONE THING about an action, and hook it all to that ONE THING, then this would work. What if it were JUST tapping the minion? Consider this new rule: "When you tap a minion, that minion has begun an action and must take an action of some sort." I don't have time at the moment to word it correctly, but this solves an awful lot of problems, because it's not something that can happen by accident, and it doesn't rely on words and other people hearing those words. When you tap the minion, the action has begun. Nothing else matters. See how that would work better? >One final point: Look at the NHL. If the puck is not in the net when >the buzzer sounds, the goal doesn't count. > >In the NBA if the shot leaves the players hand before time runs out but >sinks the bucket after time runs out it counts. Similar in the NFL ala >Hail Mary. The NBA's method is also concrete. Either the ball is touching his hand, or it's not -- and there is only ONE thing that needs to be determined, whether or not the ball is touching his hand. In the NFL, when the center snaps the ball, the play has started. Again, only ONE thing that needs to be determined. >(Can you tell I have little sympathy for a game that takes too long as >it is? 2 hours is way too much for this type of game, honestly. The >game's primary failing is its length; anything that has the potential >to >make the game longer I'm completely against.) > >Agreed, however 99% of the time the lenght of a single action should >only take 1 to 5 min at most. Yep. But I'd rather see all the mental energy spent in trying to make the game shorter so the time limit never gets reached in the vast majority of cases. So I'm being a bit of a devil's advocate here, just pointing out how someone can and will whine even with the proposed suggestions. Honestly, I stand by "someone's always going to be unhappy about the time rule; it sucks, but that happens in games sometimes". =/ [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] I've said that as well in various places in this thread. I've more recently been thinking that this is only true if you are there to see the action or card play begin. It is easier to walk up to a table with no prior knowledge and look at the game state to determine whether an action ended before time than it is to determine if an action began before time. > > The start of the next > > action is the best criteria as to whether the prior action was > > complete. Anything short of that should require obvious agreement (pool > > removed, edge moved, voter capitivation, freak drive played, and so > > on). > > So you claim that ruling whether an action has started is just as hard as ruling when it > has ended, but then say you think the easiest way to rule whether an action has ended is > to rule whether the next action has started...? :) What I'm saying is that, when I judge, I'll lean towards looking for clear proof and agreement that an action is complete. While it can be fuzzy when we are trying to determine whether or not we're in the middle of an action, one thing's for sure, the last action is over. :) And I'm even more certain that the action before that is really really complete! :) > What I would like see are a few guidelines for determining if an effect affects the game > state or not. Something like this: > > - An effect's resolution must be entered into the game state once the effect is 'DONE', > even if TIME is called before the game state is altered. Meaning a bleed that isn't blocked and is agreed to be successful is not effective if the pool hasn't been moved to the blood bank? > - If the effect is not an action, it is 'DONE' once it has been declared and the required > card (if any) put on the table [note: paying for a card's cost is not required to consider > it 'DONE', but it must be done before any other effect of the card is entered into the > game state] How do we know if it is 'DONE' before/as/after time expired. > - An action is 'DONE' if, after the acting player has called DONE, no other player uses > further effects (that are part of the action - ie, reaction cards or OoT Master cards) for > 20 seconds. If TIME is called before the end of this time limit, a single effect may still > be declared by any player (within the time limit). In that case the judge may still > declare the action 'DONE' if that single effect is deemed to be inconsequential to the > action's resolution (ie, a WWEF declared by a player unable to affect the outcome of the > action). Oy. I think I'd better go pour myself a cup of coffee before I try to read that again. :) > Well, something like that in any case: some specific guidelines to help judges make > consistent rulings. A judge would still be required to rule on complicated cases, but I > think this would help a lot. I think judge's rarely have to rule on this corner case issue already. In fact, I've only ruled on it once and it wasn't a difficult ruling (action was clearly not over). Adding rules to resolve such an unusual occurrence doesn't sound like a good idea--especially ones that are only meant to assist with the easier cases and still require a judge to rule on complicated cases. -Robert

>What if I had tapped Greger, put the Govern on the table, and just >hadn't said the words yet? Action announced? >No. Why not? I only can do one thing at a time. My prey was saved by the bell because I didn't have time to say "bleed for 3". If "bleed for 3" wasn't announced then the action was'nt full announced. >What if I put the Govern on the table and said the words, but didn't >tap >Greger? Action announced? >Yes. Why? I can only do one thing at a time. Minions must tap to take an action; an untapped minion isn't taking an action yet. My proposed definition for a fully announced action is: Name acting minion, play card (if needed), state the action. If those three things happen before time is called the player would be able to finish his action. Pay all cost, reactions, out of turn masters, combat cards, action mods ect. IMO this prevents saved by the bell. ***JediMike***

In message <1103910773.9...@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, "***JediMike***" <Jedi...@rebelscum.net> mumbled something about: >>What if I had tapped Greger, put the Govern on the table, and just >>hadn't said the words yet? Action announced? > >>No. > >Why not? I only can do one thing at a time. > >My prey was saved by the bell because I didn't have time to say "bleed >for 3". > >If "bleed for 3" wasn't announced then the action was'nt full >announced. Saved by the bell! You do see that this is just drawing the line in a different place, right? Instead of drawing it at "they hadn't said 'no block' yet, so they weren't totally ousted", you're now drawing it at "they hadn't said 'bleed for 3' yet." The two situations are identical. The line is just in a different place. >>What if I put the Govern on the table and said the words, but didn't >>tap >>Greger? Action announced? > >>Yes. > >Why? I can only do one thing at a time. Minions must tap to take an >action; an untapped minion isn't taking an action yet. > >My proposed definition for a fully announced action is: Name acting >minion, play card (if needed), state the action. If those three things >happen before time is called the player would be able to finish his >action. Pay all cost, reactions, out of turn masters, combat cards, >action mods ect. IMO this prevents saved by the bell. But it just draws the line in a different place. [ quoted text not captured ]

>If "bleed for 3" wasn't announced then the action was'nt full >announced. Saved by the bell! No. Time ended before the action was fully announced. (according to my proposed change) But it just draws the line in a different place. Yes, I understand that. My point *still* is that the line needs to be redefined, and redrawn in a different place than it is now for the better of the game. But thats just IMO. ***JediMike***

> In this case, if he bothers to show me the cards and draw attention to > it, I am willing to believe that he was not interested in that player > being ousted at that time. Not necessarily. Traveling further out into cornercase land, suppose the player being bled had a Dragonbound that would have ousted Mr. Folderol. Eliminating that player before time is called helps Mr. Folderol. Eliminating that player when time is called hurts Mr. Folderol due to the extra VP for another player. > Again, we are now so far out into corner-case land that I am just not > worried about this happening -- and if it does, I won't lose any sleep > over it. Someone has to be unhappy in this scenario -- either the oust > happens or it doesn't, and there's no way around that, and that will > make someone unhappy. > I agree. But they should be screwed because time ran out in the middle of an action, not because they know for a fact that the game will be over after the action resolves.

On 23 Dec 2004 20:52:10 -0800, "***JediMike***" <Jedi...@rebelscum.net> scrawled: >>> "Greger Anderson Govern bleeds for 3!"Player produces the card. Judge >>> calls "time". Action announced and clearly identified. Do X. >>> X= complete the action. Round ends. > > >>The situation you describe above is a clear one and easily resolved. It >>is easily resolved because you state that the action has been >>"announced" > >Yes announced, but the current rules does not allow for the action to >be resolved. The "call for blockers" stage was not reached. Therefor no >sucsessful bleed and no oust. but, say you'd moved to an 'if declared, then resolve' rule. player taps, say, Gilbert. Plays a Govern the Unaligned. "Gilbert Governs.." "TIME!" was that action announced? and if so, was it a bleed or moving 3 to a younger? if you allowed it to continue, do you think even if it _was_ going to be move 3 to a younger, that the acting meth wouldn't now, knowing time is up, change it to a bleed for 3 in the hopes they'll oust their prey? [ quoted text not captured ]

On Fri, 24 Dec 2004 00:36:03 -0500, Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> scrawled: >In message <1103860358....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, >"***JediMike***" <Jedi...@rebelscum.net> mumbled something about: > >>"Greger Anderson Govern bleeds for 3!"Player produces the card. Judge >>calls "time". Action announced and clearly identified. Do X. >>X= complete the action. Round ends. > >What if I had tapped Greger, put the Govern on the table, and just >hadn't said the words yet? Action announced? > >What if I put the Govern on the table and said the words, but didn't tap >Greger? Action announced? > >What if I tapped Greger, put the Govern on the table along with Sleeping >Mind, said the words, but hadn't moved the blood for Sleeping Mind yet? >Action announced? i must read full thread before posting....i just sent a post asking a similar question, too. [ quoted text not captured ]

"Robert Goudie" <rob...@vtesinla.org> wrote in message news:1103904214....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com... > > Flux wrote: >> Robert Goudie wrote: >> >> What I would like see are a few guidelines for determining if an effect >> affects the game >> state or not. Something like this: >> >> - An effect's resolution must be entered into the game state once the >> effect is 'DONE', >> even if TIME is called before the game state is altered. > > Meaning a bleed that isn't blocked and is agreed to be successful is > not effective if the pool hasn't been moved to the blood bank? No, meaning the opposite: once an effect is declared 'DONE' it's effects must be accounted for, even if TIME is called before they were fully resolved. I must appologise for messing up the ordering, this point would make more sense if read after the other two (where I defined when an effect is considered 'DONE'). :P >> - If the effect is not an action, it is 'DONE' once it has been declared >> and the required >> card (if any) put on the table [note: paying for a card's cost is not >> required to consider >> it 'DONE', but it must be done before any other effect of the card is >> entered into the >> game state] > > How do we know if it is 'DONE' before/as/after time expired. Once it is declared and the card put on the table, it is 'DONE'. If TIME is called before any of those steps are complete, it is not 'DONE' and its effects should not enter into the game state. >> - An action is 'DONE' if, after the acting player has called DONE, no >> other player uses >> further effects (that are part of the action - ie, reaction cards or OoT >> Master cards) for >> 20 seconds. If TIME is called before the end of this time limit, a single >> effect may still >> be declared by any player (within the time limit). In that case the judge >> may still >> declare the action 'DONE' if that single effect is deemed to be >> inconsequential to the >> action's resolution (ie, a WWEF declared by a player unable to affect the >> outcome of the >> action). > > Oy. I think I'd better go pour myself a cup of coffee before I try to > read that again. :) I tried to make it fairly clear, but let me break it down a bit :) - The end of an action ('DONE') is reached when the acting player declares it done and no-one else reacts for a certain time limit (20 seconds) - If TIME is called while waiting for any replies, the waiting period must be completed: > if no-one replies, the action is 'DONE' and the game state must be altered according to the action's resolution > if someone replies, the action is not 'DONE', so the game state remains as it was when TIME is called The last sentence above is redundantly giving the judge final say in any case, just ignore it. >> Well, something like that in any case: some specific guidelines to help >> judges make >> consistent rulings. A judge would still be required to rule on >> complicated cases, but I >> think this would help a lot. > > I think judge's rarely have to rule on this corner case issue already. > In fact, I've only ruled on it once and it wasn't a difficult ruling > (action was clearly not over). Adding rules to resolve such an unusual > occurrence doesn't sound like a good idea--especially ones that are > only meant to assist with the easier cases and still require a judge to > rule on complicated cases. Well, hopefully these guidelines would make a number of currently complicated cases very easy to rule on :) I just don't think that any set of guidelines would eliminate the need for judgement calls completely. Flux

In message <2004122417...@sidehack.sat.gweep.net>, Gregory Stuart Pettigrew <ethe...@sidehack.sat.gweep.net> mumbled something about: >> In this case, if he bothers to show me the cards and draw attention to >> it, I am willing to believe that he was not interested in that player >> being ousted at that time. > >Not necessarily. Traveling further out into cornercase land, suppose the >player being bled had a Dragonbound that would have ousted Mr. Folderol. >Eliminating that player before time is called helps Mr. Folderol. >Eliminating that player when time is called hurts Mr. Folderol due to the >extra VP for another player. Yes, we are very far out in cornercase land at this point. Again, though, if he bothers to show me the cards, I can assume that he was not willing to concede a VP. Mr. Folderol is already in possession of extra information (time is expired), so we cannot accurately determine Mr. Folderol's prior motives. And as stated below, I'm just not gonna lose sleep over this one. For example, under the proposed "complete the action" rule, Mr. Folderol comes into the information that the game will be over after the action; so he plays the cards 100% of the time, of course. >> Again, we are now so far out into corner-case land that I am just not >> worried about this happening -- and if it does, I won't lose any sleep >> over it. Someone has to be unhappy in this scenario -- either the oust >> happens or it doesn't, and there's no way around that, and that will >> make someone unhappy. > >I agree. But they should be screwed because time ran out in the middle of >an action, not because they know for a fact that the game will be over >after the action resolves. Agreed. Hence why I have, in prior posts, advocated that "TIME MEANS NOW" and concealing the time limit is likely the best solution. It is as impartial as a judge can be; the time limit is concrete, the time limit is secret, and no accusations of "favoritism" can be leveled. I am still considering whether combining Mike's idea with my own suggestion of "the act of tapping the minion is the only thing that defines an action's beginning" is a workable solution, also. But I'm OK with it staying "TIME MEANS NOW" until we find something _definitely_ better. [ quoted text not captured ]

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:krMyd.1151466$Gx4.2...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net... > Flux wrote: >> As I understand from the text above, you can't be 'saved by the bell' >> once the count begins, an event that can be clearly identified. >> In VtES the case is not that clear, most often the end of an action is >> not announced and so cannot be clearly identified. > > In VtES, the case is clear. > Boxing KO = oust, not action resolution. > The ousting "moment" is as clear as the KO moment. What defines the ousting moment then: -Player moving last pool to the pool bank? -Player saying 'I'm dead'? -Player saying 'I take the bleed'? I think any of these events only 'start the count' (or, possibly, happen 'during the count'), and only after no-one plays any effect to 'stop the count' is the oust complete. But the duration of the count is undefined. Flux

In message <1103918132.4...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>, "***JediMike***" <Jedi...@rebelscum.net> mumbled something about: >>If "bleed for 3" wasn't announced then the action was'nt full >>announced. > > >Saved by the bell! > >No. Time ended before the action was fully announced. (according to my >proposed change) But you've violated the spirit of your own rule. My prey was saved by the bell, when he was clearly dead. >But it just draws the line in a different place. > >Yes, I understand that. > >My point *still* is that the line needs to be redefined, and redrawn in >a different place than it is now for the better of the game. But thats >just IMO. Suggest looking at my definition of where the line should be drawn in a later message, and how it can be labelled concretely. (You gotta get a newsreader that does quoting better, btw. ;) [ quoted text not captured ]

> >Not necessarily. Traveling further out into cornercase land, suppose the > >player being bled had a Dragonbound that would have ousted Mr. Folderol. > >Eliminating that player before time is called helps Mr. Folderol. > >Eliminating that player when time is called hurts Mr. Folderol due to the > >extra VP for another player. > > For example, under the proposed "complete the action" rule, Mr. Folderol > comes into the information that the game will be over after the action; > so he plays the cards 100% of the time, of course. > And therefore acts in a direction 100% opposite of the way he would have if the game were to continue. I thought the point of allowing the action to finish was to let the game resolve NORMALLY.

In message <2004122422...@sidehack.sat.gweep.net>, Gregory Stuart Pettigrew <ethe...@sidehack.sat.gweep.net> mumbled something about: >And therefore acts in a direction 100% opposite of the way he would have >if the game were to continue. I thought the point of allowing the action >to finish was to let the game resolve NORMALLY. I suggest quoting in context if you're going to quote at all. (I have removed the misquoted text). It looks like you agree with me; if you put everything I say in context, you might see this as well =) [ quoted text not captured ]

Flux wrote: > What defines the ousting moment then: When he's ousted. It happens. One should be used to the occurrence by the time one plays in a tournament. -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. Links to V:TES news, rules, cards, utilities, and tournament calendar: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:eKhzd.1161103$Gx4.7...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net... > Flux wrote: >> What defines the ousting moment then: > > When he's ousted. That defines the moment tautologically. It is a useless definition, and doesn't help to identify it in practice. How do you identify that moment? Can you say 'He was ousted right before/at/after X'? Like I said before, think the oust happens the moment every player declines to play any effect that may prevent the oust after a player has reduced to 0 pool. But in practice that is almost never explicitly done, hence the exact timing may be unclear. Flux

Flux wrote: > "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message > news:eKhzd.1161103$Gx4.7...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net... > >>Flux wrote: >> >>>What defines the ousting moment then: >> >>When he's ousted. > > That defines the moment tautologically. It is a useless definition, and > doesn't help to identify it in practice. "In practice" the help isn't necessary. This is just a theoretical exercise. How do players figure out when they get 6 pool for ousting their preys? Whatever the answer, it's the answer you seek. [ quoted text not captured ]

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:MXozd.1163164$Gx4.2...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net... > "In practice" the help isn't necessary. This is just a theoretical > exercise. Not at all, the definition I'm asking about is a practical one. In another post in this thread I presented an example (unlikely though it may be :) ): a player is reduced to 0 pool, then TIME is called. If you look at the game state then, can you tell if the player is ousted or not? In theory, you can look at the state of the player: 'ousted/not ousted'. In practice, you can't just look at the game state, you have to ask the players if someone would play a Life Boon or not. > How do players figure out when they get 6 pool for ousting their > preys? Whatever the answer, it's the answer you seek. Yes, and I already gave my answer (when everybody says 'no more effects' after the player is reduced to 0 pool), but in practice this moment is not well identified. It's not too uncommon for the predator to start taking pool from the pool bank, or announcing his next action, before someone interrupts to announce play of a Life Boon. So it is possible that most players at a table believe that a oust is complete even when it is not. That is why I say the ousting moment is not 'well defined' in VtES. Flux

Flux wrote: > "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message >>How do players figure out when they get 6 pool for ousting their >>preys? Whatever the answer, it's the answer you seek. > > Yes, and I already gave my answer (when everybody says 'no more effects' > after the player is reduced to 0 pool), but in practice this moment is not > well identified. In practice, it is. You handle it naturally. Or, if naturally isn't sufficient for you (i.e., the theoretical case), then you fall back on 1.6.1.6. > It's not too uncommon for the predator to start taking pool from the pool > bank, or announcing his next action, before someone interrupts to announce > play of a Life Boon. So it is possible that most players at a table believe > that a oust is complete even when it is not. That is why I say the ousting > moment is not 'well defined' in VtES. I didn't say "when the player believes he gets 6 pool". I said "when he gets 6 pool". How do you figure that out, even in the presence of Life Boon, etc.? You ask or accept that, even if you "start taking pool", someone can "interrupt" (meaning, call you out for moving through the step in which they could play an effect without getting them to say "pass") to play Life Boon. This isn't rocket science. -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. Links to V:TES news, rules, cards, utilities, and tournament calendar: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/

> I suggest quoting in context if you're going to quote at all. (I have > removed the misquoted text). It looks like you agree with me; if you > put everything I say in context, you might see this as well =) > I am aware that we are in agreement. I was merely finishing my example. If completing the action allows anyone to act 100% opposite of the way they would have normally 100% of the time, we should use a different system.

>I think something that would prevent this slow play at the end would be to >eliminate the half VP for being in the game at the end. This was kicked >around recently, did it go anywhere? Robert, you should kick it onto the >Conclave and see what Princes think. I believe that the constant criticism on the Conclave is that people put up topics that are more appropriately discussed here. Anyway, I'd wonder if players might build more aggressive decks knowing that surviving is meaningless. Maybe there's not much reason to change deckbuilding behavior since half a VP isn't much to shoot for, but perception matters. So, the question becomes whether more forwardly decks are desirable. OTOH, regardless as to changes in deckbuilding behavior, there's a question as to whether more forwardly play is desirable since one expect that at the least. Seems like a number of people are having a problem with too passive play such that more aggressive play might be desirable. Though, losing seatswitching should see some bump in aggression for reasons people have brought up in other threads.

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > Flux wrote: >> "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message >>>How do players figure out when they get 6 pool for ousting their >>>preys? Whatever the answer, it's the answer you seek. >> >> Yes, and I already gave my answer (when everybody says 'no more effects' >> after the player is reduced to 0 pool), but in practice this moment is >> not well identified. > > In practice, it is. > You handle it naturally. Or, if naturally isn't sufficient for you (i.e., > the theoretical case), then you fall back on 1.6.1.6. But we are discussing the case where time runs out, so you can't fall back on 1.6.1.6 because there is no game anymore. In practice the judge will asks the players if they had any other effects to play, following 1.6.1.6, and by doing so he is effectivelly extending the game past the time limit in order to check it's final state. Flux

On Fri, 24 Dec 2004 00:15:16 -0500, Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote: > In message <2004122320...@sidehack.sat.gweep.net>, > Gregory Stuart Pettigrew <ethe...@sidehack.sat.gweep.net> mumbled > something about: >> Semantically, you could argue that until everyone has declared "no >> further >> effects," the action can be considered to be incomplete. [...] > My judgement often is that players who present semantics to me as the > foundation for an argument need to come up with something concrete > before wasting my time. Considering how many rulings tweak logic in favor of semantics (instead of the other way around) I fail to see the merit of this statement. Using a completely different approach for the practice (tournaments rulings) than the theory (netrep rulings) introduces an undesirable ambiguity. >> What about the case of a cross-table player with a Wake and a Folderol? >> He >> has the capability of stopping the oust during the action. If he has >> those > > Circumstances of a sufficiently unusual nature would dictate other > rulings. I feel that we're now far enough out into corner-case land > that I don't mind saying "If he shows me the cards, then the action is > not complete." I think that if you want to be honestly impartial the only option is to make sure the player just being ousted does not stall. In reality, if time means TIME (the way it probably should), the action should end right there. Discouraging, in a way, players from trying to oust on their last actions. Because IMHO if the table does not experience stalling, one action should not matter. -- Bye, Daneel

Flux wrote: > "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: >>You handle it naturally. Or, if naturally isn't sufficient for you (i.e., >>the theoretical case), then you fall back on 1.6.1.6. > > But we are discussing the case where time runs out, so you can't fall back > on 1.6.1.6 because there is no game anymore. Um, no. Either the player was ousted before time was called or he was still in the game when time was called. > In practice the judge will asks the players if they had any other effects to > play, following 1.6.1.6, and by doing so he is effectivelly extending the > game past the time limit in order to check it's final state. No. He's checking to see if the player was ousted when time was called. [ quoted text not captured ]

On 23 Dec 2004 18:29:15 -0800, ***JediMike*** <Jedi...@rebelscum.net> wrote: > My scenario refers to after the killing blow has been > delivered.(ie:action is *fully declaired*) It's VERY simple. Was the > action fully announced before time was called? If yes do X if not do Y. > > X= complete the action. Round ends. > Y= Round ends. > I'm not sure why this concept is so hard to grasp. > > ***JediMike*** I disagree. Your boxing example: if the bell sounds, and after the signal for ending the current round, one fighter delivers a punch, will the judge still count on the opponent? I don't think so. After the bell sounds, no further punches can be delivered. A better parallel could be: Meth B has 1 pool. Meth A announces a bleed with Igo the Hungry and taps him. There are no blocks. The bleed is not bounced, reduced, etb. Meth B throws in his last pool. Meth B now has no pool and will be ousted. Meth C ponders playing a Life Boon (giving pool to a Methuselah with no pool), when time is called. Meth B is now fully ousted, because the option to play Life Boon has passed when time was called. I think this is the closest you can get with your example. What you need to consider is stalling - if Meth B does not throw in his last pool and starts arguing, begging, bullshiting, whatnot, hoping for time to be called while his last pool is still not removed, the judge should make sure this sort of behaviour is not without its repercussions. -- Bye, Daneel

> > I disagree. Your boxing example: if the bell sounds, and after the signal > for ending the current round, one fighter delivers a punch, will the judge > still count on the opponent? I don't think so. After the bell sounds, no > further punches can be delivered. > Ok, right. I guess the boxing parallel is not the best. I guess I like the NBA shot at the buzzer better. My main point is if the actions is started when time is called it should be able to be completed. Plain and simple. If a vote ot oust a prey passes, it should not be able to be stopped based on time running out because someone's saying "I'm thinking about playing a DT." Thinking the final 10 sec, till time runs out. Of infinite number of similar senarios. ***JediMike***

> What if it were JUST tapping the minion? Consider this new rule: > > "When you tap a minion, that minion has begun an action and must take an > action of some sort." I don't have time at the moment to word it > correctly, but this solves an awful lot of problems, because it's not > something that can happen by accident, and it doesn't rely on words and > other people hearing those words. > > When you tap the minion, the action has begun. Nothing else matters. > Great idea Derek! It's simple and easy to judge. Let's do it! ;) ***JediMike***

On 27 Dec 2004, ***JediMike*** wrote: > Ok, right. I guess the boxing parallel is not the best. I guess I like > the NBA shot at the buzzer better. My main point is if the actions is > started when time is called it should be able to be completed. Plain > and simple. If a vote ot oust a prey passes, it should not be able to > be stopped based on time running out because someone's saying "I'm > thinking about playing a DT." Thinking the final 10 sec, till time runs > out. Of infinite number of similar senarios. Given that some actions can take a very long time to complete, wouldn't allowing the started action to complete even though time has been called defeat the purpose of a time limit? For that matter, just let the game play to completion. It's more or less the same idea because when constructing rules, you have no idea how long a given action or a given game will take. Never mind the fact that as that last action resolves, everybody's motivations have changed. For example, if I'm your cross-table voting buddy and my prey is at 5 pool and yours is at 1, I might've been willing to help you pass a KRC that did 1 to your prey and 3 to mine knowing that I can probably pull off 2 pool damage during my turn. Now that I know I'm not going to have a turn, why should I help you with your KRC? But what if I'm at 3 pool and now your prey starts bargaining for my VP, but now I want the .5 victory points and I think he's bluffing about having 2 Surprise Influence anyway...blah, blah, blah, blah.... Potentially long discussion ensues. Better to just let the game end when it's meant to. Matt Morgan

On 27 Dec 2004 11:45:03 -0800, "***JediMike***" <Jedi...@rebelscum.net> scrawled: [ quoted text not captured ] what if you tap a guy and don't say anything? was it a hunt, or a bleed, or what? *tap guy* "TIME!" "oh crap, erm, i guess Hesha was bleeding then..." salem domain:canberra http://www.geocities.com/salem_christ.geo/vtes.htm (replace "hotmail" with "yahoo" to email)

> > what if you tap a guy and don't say anything? was it a hunt, or a > bleed, or what? > *tap guy* > "TIME!" Easy, the action, whatever it is, has begun. That's all that would be required. If he wants it to be a hunt, he mearly says "Igo hunts". In your senario above, after "TIME" is called, any legal action can then be stated and completed. When was the last time you took an action by tapping a minion and saying nothing? ***JediMike***

On 27 Dec 2004 20:24:33 -0800, "***JediMike***" <Jedi...@rebelscum.net> scrawled: > > >> >> what if you tap a guy and don't say anything? was it a hunt, or a >> bleed, or what? >> *tap guy* >> "TIME!" > >Easy, the action, whatever it is, has begun. That's all that would be >required. If he wants it to be a hunt, he mearly says "Igo hunts". In >your senario above, after "TIME" is called, any legal action can then >be stated and completed. and you think this is always going to be the action the controlling methuselah intended when he tapped the minion? >When was the last time you took an action by tapping a minion and >saying nothing? i occasionally point at another methuselah in friendly games to indicate a bleed. :) i clarify if i get blank looks. which is most of the time. however, my point is, the game isn't going to finish 'naturally'. i might have been going to hunt with Hesha, get my 2 blood, and bleed with a different minion. as soon as i hear 'time!', i know i no longer have to defend, and i'm not going to get a chance with my other minion. i tap hesha, hear 'time!', and then change what i was going to do, and instead bleed with him. this is unnatural. also, a 6 hour discussion could ensue where someone cross table is going to Major boon to keep my prey in, say, and i start threatening to play an Aire of Elation on the action if he does and oust _him_, and then they prey tries to convince cross table guy i am unlikely to have one, and we go on and on into the evening until well past the busses have stopped running (for those crap cities like mine where they actually stop at about 10pm on saturdays. 7pm on sundays.) [ quoted text not captured ]

> > and you think this is always going to be the action the controlling > methuselah intended when he tapped the minion? > I think if a Meth is going for an oust he'll always do whatever action is nessasary to complete the task. > i occasionally point at another methuselah in friendly games to > indicate a bleed. :) i clarify if i get blank looks. which is most of > the time. Ya, definitly been there! :) > > however, my point is, the game isn't going to finish 'naturally'. i > might have been going to hunt with Hesha, get my 2 blood, and bleed > with a different minion. > as soon as i hear 'time!', i know i no longer have to defend, and i'm > not going to get a chance with my other minion. i tap hesha, hear > 'time!', and then change what i was going to do, and instead bleed > with him. this is unnatural. also, a 6 hour discussion could ensue > where someone cross table is going to Major boon to keep my prey in, > say, and i start threatening to play an Aire of Elation on the action > if he does and oust _him_, and then they prey tries to convince cross > table guy i am unlikely to have one, and we go on and on into the > evening until well past the busses have stopped running (for those > crap cities like mine where they actually stop at about 10pm on > saturdays. 7pm on sundays.) > Is it better to deny a Meth a VP because someone want's to have a similar(long) conversation during a referendum untill time runs out? Even if he's legaly doing so? Frankly, I'd like to see the final out come. ***JediMike***

"***JediMike***" <Jedi...@rebelscum.net> writes: > Easy, the action, whatever it is, has begun. How do you deal with accusations of considerations changing because you now know that the time limit has changed? > That's all that would be > required. If he wants it to be a hunt, he mearly says "Igo hunts". In > your senario above, after "TIME" is called, any legal action can then > be stated and completed. > > When was the last time you took an action by tapping a minion and > saying nothing? "Igo..." <drops hand by accident> <has a coughing fit> "TIME!" "... oh, was that time?" -- James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D Who's ever heard of that, though! EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 Designing a deck that just calls votes. 13D7E668C3695D623D5D That's crazy talk, there.

Mmm... I see. The problem can be the same as the one for deciding if the action is over. But it will not lead to stalling the last few seconds of play just to remain in game. :) Regards, RavATwoFaces

RavATw...@vampirethemasquerade.com wrote: > Mmm... I see. The problem can be the same as the one for deciding if > the action is over. But it will not lead to stalling the last few > seconds of play just to remain in game. :) Stalling is illegal. How does changing the rule prevent the already-illegal (and therefore assumed to be undetected) stalling from merely moving to an earlier portion of the turn/game? [ quoted text not captured ]

LSJ wrote: > Flux wrote: > >> "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: >> >>> You handle it naturally. Or, if naturally isn't sufficient for you >>> (i.e., >>> the theoretical case), then you fall back on 1.6.1.6. >> >> >> But we are discussing the case where time runs out, so you can't fall >> back on 1.6.1.6 because there is no game anymore. > > Um, no. > > Either the player was ousted before time was called or he was still > in the game when time was called. > >> In practice the judge will asks the players if they had any other >> effects to play, following 1.6.1.6, and by doing so he is effectivelly >> extending the game past the time limit in order to check it's final >> state. > > > No. He's checking to see if the player was ousted when time was > called. If you can't determine the player's state by just looking at the current game state (and possibly game history), whatever you do is going to be an extension of the game, even if it is a very minor one to allow completion of 1.6.1.6. If 1.6.1.6 was not explicitly done before the time limit, why should you assume that it was implicitly done then? If time is called just after a player announces a bleed, would you allow the bleed to complete if there were no possible blockers or any other effects to play during the action? If you do so, you are extending the game past it's time limit. And how is that any different from allowing the window for Life Boon to close and the oust to complete because there were no Life Boons to play? Flux

Flux wrote: > LSJ wrote: >> Flux wrote: >>> But we are discussing the case where time runs out, so you can't fall >>> back on 1.6.1.6 because there is no game anymore. >> >> Um, no. >> >> Either the player was ousted before time was called or he was still >> in the game when time was called. >> >>> In practice the judge will asks the players if they had any other >>> effects to play, following 1.6.1.6, and by doing so he is >>> effectivelly extending the game past the time limit in order to check >>> it's final state. >> >> No. He's checking to see if the player was ousted when time was >> called. > > If you can't determine the player's state by just looking at the current > game state (and possibly game history), You determine the game state by both looking at the state and asking the players what they had done. > whatever you do is going to be > an extension of the game, even if it is a very minor one to allow > completion of 1.6.1.6. No. No extension. Discovery of the state that the game was in at the moment that time was called is the objective. > If 1.6.1.6 was not explicitly done before the time limit, why should you "1.6.1.6 not done" is not possible. It is always done. Usually implicitly. > assume that it was implicitly done then? If time is called just after a Because it is always done. It's the rule. > player announces a bleed, would you allow the bleed to complete if there > were no possible blockers or any other effects to play during the > action? Not if it hadn't completed before time was called. No extensions. > If you do so, you are extending the game past it's time limit. Moot. > And how is that any different from allowing the window for Life Boon to > close and the oust to complete because there were no Life Boons to play? Calling time doesn't close the window. If the player hadn't been ousted, then he isn't ousted. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <qhf1t015o5n6mkjba...@4ax.com>, salem <salem_ch...@hotmail.com> mumbled something about: >On 27 Dec 2004 11:45:03 -0800, "***JediMike***" ><Jedi...@rebelscum.net> scrawled: >>> >>> When you tap the minion, the action has begun. Nothing else matters. >> >>Great idea Derek! It's simple and easy to judge. Let's do it! ;) > >what if you tap a guy and don't say anything? was it a hunt, or a Then you get to finish saying what you were about to say. All the concerns about "what if TIME is called just between tapping the minion and saying the words" go out the window, because the one concrete thing you can identify is the minion being tapped. It's physical, a judge can come over and look and say "the minion is tapped, finish its action". Honestly, every tournament I've ever been to gives you multiple time warnings. Nobody is that clueless that time is close to running out; everyone should be in Full Oust Mode. I do not believe the Hesha bleeds-instead-of-hunts scenario is truly relevant, as Hesha will always be trying to oust his prey if he can -- because everyone knows that time is close. Even with an unknown 'exact' time limit, Hesha will always be trying to oust his prey, not screw around randomly. When players are moving that quickly, (as they should be when time is about to expire), there just isn't enough of a window there to be concerned about. Either one bleed can do it, or one bleed can't. It's not like a whole turn, where you may have the option to blow through Blood Dolls, cycle Freak Drives, etc. -- "There's no gray. There's just white that's got grubby." -- T.P.

Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> writes: > Honestly, every tournament I've ever been to gives you multiple time > warnings. Nobody is that clueless that time is close to running out; > everyone should be in Full Oust Mode. I do not believe the Hesha > bleeds-instead-of-hunts scenario is truly relevant, as Hesha will always > be trying to oust his prey if he can -- because everyone knows that time > is close. Well, at present, you need to announce at 5 minutes anyway. (The rules require it.) Typically, I'd say I was asked at least half a dozen times in any round of a tournament I'm judging. [ quoted text not captured ]

LSJ wrote: > Flux wrote: >> If 1.6.1.6 was not explicitly done before the time limit, why should you > > "1.6.1.6 not done" is not possible. It is always done. Usually > implicitly. > >> assume that it was implicitly done then? If time is called just after a > > Because it is always done. It's the rule. 'Done' as in 'completed'. It is possible for a player to play an effect and then time is called before anyone gets to answer. If some players have effects left to play (even if they don't intend to use them), do you require the players to have passed explicitly? If there are no other possible effects to play, do you assume that all players passed implicitly? >> And how is that any different from allowing the window for Life Boon >> to close and the oust to complete because there were no Life Boons to >> play? > > > Calling time doesn't close the window. If the player hadn't been ousted, > then he isn't ousted. OK, from all the above, I think this is what we get: Judge asks: 'Did all players explicitly allow the oust to complete before time was called?' If the answer is 'Yes', then the oust is complete. Other than the trivial case of there being another event between the oust and time running out, is there any other case where you would consider the player ousted? Flux

Flux wrote: > LSJ wrote: >> Flux wrote: >>> If 1.6.1.6 was not explicitly done before the time limit, why should you >> >> "1.6.1.6 not done" is not possible. It is always done. Usually >> implicitly. >> >>> assume that it was implicitly done then? If time is called just after a >> Because it is always done. It's the rule. > 'Done' as in 'completed'. Not my usage. "Done" as in "adhered to" was my usage. It is the rule. Not following it is illegal. > It is possible for a player to play an effect and then time is called > before anyone gets to answer. If some players have effects left to play > (even if they don't intend to use them), do you require the players to > have passed explicitly? If there are no other possible effects to play, > do you assume that all players passed implicitly? No. and No. You do not force an extension. There is no extension. If the effect had resolved (and the player was ousted) before time is called, then the effect resolved and the player is ousted. If it didn't, then you do not extend the game so that it does. >> Calling time doesn't close the window. If the player hadn't been ousted, >> then he isn't ousted. > > OK, from all the above, I think this is what we get: > > Judge asks: > 'Did all players explicitly allow the oust to complete before time was > called?' > > If the answer is 'Yes', then the oust is complete. Judge determines if the player was ousted before time was called. The judge can determine this by many means (some of which involve his judgment). If the player was ousted, then the oust had been completed. > Other than the trivial case of there being another event between the > oust and time running out, is there any other case where you would > consider the player ousted? Every case in which he was ousted before time was called counts. [ quoted text not captured ]

LSJ wrote: > Flux wrote: >> LSJ wrote: >>> Flux wrote: >>> >>>> If 1.6.1.6 was not explicitly done before the time limit, why should >>>> you >>> >>> >>> "1.6.1.6 not done" is not possible. It is always done. Usually >>> implicitly. >>> >>>> assume that it was implicitly done then? If time is called just after a >>> >>> Because it is always done. It's the rule. >> >> 'Done' as in 'completed'. > > > Not my usage. "Done" as in "adhered to" was my usage. > It is the rule. Not following it is illegal. I know. I meant to clarify that I used the word 'done' as in 'completed' (ie, no more effects left to play) in my sentences above. You obviously interpreted otherwise, hence my clarification (that you misinterpreted again). :P >> It is possible for a player to play an effect and then time is called >> before anyone gets to answer. If some players have effects left to >> play (even if they don't intend to use them), do you require the >> players to have passed explicitly? If there are no other possible >> effects to play, do you assume that all players passed implicitly? > > No. and No. If they didn't pass explicitly and you do not assume they did so implicitly, then you must conclude the effect did not resolve because the window to play Life Boon hadn't ended yet. Then determing if the oust is complete or not can be done with the question I proposed ('Did all players explicitly allow the oust to complete before time was called?') By all the answers you presented in this thread, that is the only logical conclusion AFAIK. > You do not force an extension. There is no extension. I am not discussing an extension here. A couple of posts back I wrote: "If you can't determine the player's state by just looking at the current game state (and possibly game history), whatever you do is going to be an extension of the game..." To that you replied that you must determine the game's state by it's state and history (asking the players what they had done). I only suggested an extension for the cases where the game state could not be determined by its history, if there are no such cases there's no point in discussing an extension. > If the effect had resolved (and the player was ousted) before time > is called, then the effect resolved and the player is ousted. Circular definition. > If it didn't, then you do not extend the game so that it does. > >>> Calling time doesn't close the window. If the player hadn't been ousted, >>> then he isn't ousted. >> >> >> OK, from all the above, I think this is what we get: >> >> Judge asks: >> 'Did all players explicitly allow the oust to complete before time >> was called?' >> >> If the answer is 'Yes', then the oust is complete. > > Judge determines if the player was ousted before time was > called. The judge can determine this by many means (some > of which involve his judgment). According to your posts in this thread, there is only one way: see if the player is ousted. > If the player was ousted, then the oust had been completed. I'm trying to figure out a way to consistently determine if the oust has been completed or not. You're not helping. >> Other than the trivial case of there being another event between the >> oust and time running out, is there any other case where you would >> consider the player ousted? > > > Every case in which he was ousted before time was called > counts. Circular reasoning again. Have you ever considered a career in politics? Flux

Flux wrote: > LSJ wrote: [...] > If they didn't pass explicitly and you do not assume they did so > implicitly, then you must conclude the effect did not resolve because > the window to play Life Boon hadn't ended yet. Said another way: if it didn't reach resolution, then it didn't resolve. Right. > Then determing if the oust is complete or not can be done with the > question I proposed ('Did all players explicitly allow the oust to > complete before time was called?') OK. > By all the answers you presented in this thread, that is the only > logical conclusion AFAIK. OK. >> You do not force an extension. There is no extension. > I am not discussing an extension here. > > A couple of posts back I wrote: > "If you can't determine the player's state by just looking at the > current game state (and possibly game history), whatever you do is going > to be an extension of the game..." > To that you replied that you must determine the game's state by it's > state and history (asking the players what they had done). > I only suggested an extension for the cases where the game state could > not be determined by its history, if there are no such cases there's no > point in discussing an extension. OK. >> If the effect had resolved (and the player was ousted) before time >> is called, then the effect resolved and the player is ousted. > Circular definition. It's the point. When time is called, either the player has been ousted according to the rules or he hasn't. Trying to slip past the rules by omitting portions of 1.6.1.6 or pretending that it cannot be known if the player was ousted or not is not productive. When time is called, play ends. No one gets ousted after play ends. No one gains pool or VPs or plays cards or draws cards or whatever after play ends. That's the point of ending play. >> If the player was ousted, then the oust had been completed. > > I'm trying to figure out a way to consistently determine if the oust has > been completed or not. You're not helping. As before: the determination is made in the same way it is when time isn't called. You follow the rules on ousting and sequencing. >> Every case in which he was ousted before time was called >> counts. > > Circular reasoning again. Question: How can you tell when a card has been played? Answer: by observing when the card is played or asking if the card has been played if you failed to observe it. You don't like that (circular, you say), so you answer: How can you tell if a card has been played (assuming it's in the ash heap)? How can you tell if it was played before time was called? Similarly: How can you tell how much pool a player has? I'd answer that you count how much pool he has. But you seem to find that unsatisfactory. So how do you answer such? How can you tell how much pool a player had when time was called? > Have you ever considered a career in politics? See above. [ quoted text not captured ]

LSJ wrote: > Flux wrote: >> >> I'm trying to figure out a way to consistently determine if the oust >> has been completed or not. You're not helping. > > > As before: the determination is made in the same way it is when > time isn't called. You follow the rules on ousting and sequencing. When time isn't called, there is an obvious way to see if an effect is over even if the end is not explicitly declared: the existence of another effect afterwards. When time is called this indicator is not present, so you have to look for other indicators. But after all these posts, it looks like there are none: the event must have been explicitly ended, or it isn't ended at all. >>> Every case in which he was ousted before time was called >>> counts. >> >> >> Circular reasoning again. > > > Question: How can you tell when a card has been played? > Answer: by observing when the card is played or asking if the > card has been played if you failed to observe it. > > You don't like that (circular, you say), so you answer: > How can you tell if a card has been played (assuming it's > in the ash heap)? > How can you tell if it was played before time was called? There is a physical event that defines when a card is played (putting the card on the table), that is relatively easy to observe. The moment of the oust, however, is a game event that may not have a single clear physical event to identify it. Consider this: A player is reduced to 0 pool. He moves his pool counters, puts his cards down, several seconds pass. There is no game event while he does this, in fact every other player remains silent while he does this, until time is called. Was he ousted or not? It may look like every player accepted the oust (and they may even say so explicitly afterwards), but none declared it explicitly before the time limit, so the oust could not have happened yet. Correct? Let's say the player was allowed to begin collecting his cards uninterrupted, would that be sufficient evidence to imply a 'pass' from every player? Flux

> > player announces a bleed, would you allow the bleed to complete if there > > were no possible blockers or any other effects to play during the > > action? > > Not if it hadn't completed before time was called. No extensions. > OK then, judging clarification please. Only myself and my prey remain in the game. My prey has no minions, no cards (depleted deck), and one pool. My Igo taps and "bleed" is announced. Simultaneously "time" is called. Is the judge's correct ruling no oust? The bleed is not able to be resolved? (no extentions). ***JediMike***

***JediMike*** wrote: > OK then, judging clarification please. Only myself and my prey remain > in the game. My prey has no minions, no cards (depleted deck), and one > pool. My Igo taps and "bleed" is announced. Simultaneously "time" is > called. Is the judge's correct ruling no oust? The bleed is not able to > be resolved? (no extentions). Correct. If the bleed wasn't resolved before time was called, then it doesn't get to resolve after the end of the game (after time is called), no. [ quoted text not captured ]

Flux wrote: > Consider this: > A player is reduced to 0 pool. He moves his pool counters, puts his > cards down, several seconds pass. There is no game event while he does > this, in fact every other player remains silent while he does this, > until time is called. Was he ousted or not? It may look like every > player accepted the oust (and they may even say so explicitly > afterwards), but none declared it explicitly before the time limit, so > the oust could not have happened yet. Correct? Of course not. If the players implicitly pass and the oust is completed before time is called, then the oust remains completed once time is called. http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/06a68a901d053fcb http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/d93c48838f7e9c52 > Let's say the player was allowed to begin collecting his cards > uninterrupted, would that be sufficient evidence to imply a 'pass' from > every player? Whatever the players find sufficient is sufficient. If there's a disagreement, then it falls to whatever the judge finds sufficient. The situation you describe would be sufficient for most "local understandings", yes (I've not found one where it isn't, that is). [ quoted text not captured ]

LSJ wrote: > Flux wrote: > >> Consider this: >> A player is reduced to 0 pool. He moves his pool counters, puts his >> cards down, several seconds pass. There is no game event while he does >> this, in fact every other player remains silent while he does this, >> until time is called. Was he ousted or not? It may look like every >> player accepted the oust (and they may even say so explicitly >> afterwards), but none declared it explicitly before the time limit, so >> the oust could not have happened yet. Correct? > > Of course not. If the players implicitly pass and the oust is > completed before time is called, then the oust remains completed > once time is called. But then in this exact same situation, if one player says (after time is called, of course) he had not passed and was still pondering playing a Life Boon, would the oust be complete anyway? If the answer is yes, then you are assuming the player's lack of action imply a pass, while in the absence of a time limit a pass would only be assumed for sure once another event was announced. If the answer is no, it could very well be that player changed his mind after time was called, and there's no way to prove it one way or the other. And we don't even have to assume the player was dishonest: he could be considering playing a Life Boon, then time is called. At some point he decides to pass, he is not sure if that decision was made before or after time was called. Since this decision is made only in his mind, the judge would have to be a mind reader to see when it was made, and hence when the 'no pass' became an 'implicit pass'. However, if you say the oust is not complete until everyone explicitly says so or another event comes along to imply it, then you can always rely on physical events to make your judgement. Flux

Flux wrote: > LSJ wrote: >> Flux wrote: >>> Consider this: >>> A player is reduced to 0 pool. He moves his pool counters, puts his >>> cards down, several seconds pass. There is no game event while he >>> does this, in fact every other player remains silent while he does >>> this, until time is called. Was he ousted or not? It may look like >>> every player accepted the oust (and they may even say so explicitly >>> afterwards), but none declared it explicitly before the time limit, >>> so the oust could not have happened yet. Correct? >> >> Of course not. If the players implicitly pass and the oust is >> completed before time is called, then the oust remains completed >> once time is called. > > But then in this exact same situation, if one player says (after time is > called, of course) he had not passed and was still pondering playing a > Life Boon, would the oust be complete anyway? "had not passed and was still pondering playing a Life Boon" leads clearly and unambiguously to the fact that the player is not yet ousted. If time is called when the player is not yet ousted, then the player is not yet ousted. http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/714214b53f2ab6db If the question is: he says so, but how do you tell if he's truthful?, then the answer is: call a judge. http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/0e7a14b3c6303e74 > If the answer is yes, then you are assuming the player's lack of action > imply a pass, while in the absence of a time limit a pass would only be No. You did not say anything about lack of attention. You said it looked like every player accepted the oust, which implies attention. Lack of attention does not equal implicit pass. http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/818917d0eff2c7d7 If a player's attention needs to be gotten, then get it. http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/683236287859589e > assumed for sure once another event was announced. If the answer is no, A pass cannot be assumed in that case, either, for an inattentive player. If a player is unclear as to whether another player (who currently has the option of doing something via 1.6.1.6) is passing or not, then the player should ask. http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/683236287859589e > it could very well be that player changed his mind after time was > called, and there's no way to prove it one way or the other. In reality, we have judges. Judges need judgment, not necessarily proof. http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/2381e99d6af136a8 > And we don't even have to assume the player was dishonest: he could be > considering playing a Life Boon, then time is called. At some point he > decides to pass, he is not sure if that decision was made before or > after time was called. Since this decision is made only in his mind, the > judge would have to be a mind reader to see when it was made, and hence > when the 'no pass' became an 'implicit pass'. He doesn't need to read minds. He needs to apply judgment. http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/0e7a14b3c6303e74 > However, if you say the oust is not complete until everyone explicitly > says so or another event comes along to imply it, then you can always > rely on physical events to make your judgement. Maybe so (it isn't really, if you count inattention as above), but moot, since I do not say that. [ quoted text not captured ]

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:BxxAd.44470$uM5....@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net... > ***JediMike*** wrote: >> OK then, judging clarification please. Only myself and my prey remain >> in the game. My prey has no minions, no cards (depleted deck), and one >> pool. My Igo taps and "bleed" is announced. Simultaneously "time" is >> called. Is the judge's correct ruling no oust? The bleed is not able to >> be resolved? (no extentions). > > Correct. If the bleed wasn't resolved before time was called, then it > doesn't get to resolve after the end of the game (after time is > called), no. > See Kevin, I WAS right in that final round at origins. :( Anyhow water under the bridge. Raille

LSJ wrote: > ***JediMike*** wrote: > > OK then, judging clarification please. Only myself and my prey remain > > in the game. My prey has no minions, no cards (depleted deck), and one > > pool. My Igo taps and "bleed" is announced. Simultaneously "time" is > > called. Is the judge's correct ruling no oust? The bleed is not able to > > be resolved? (no extentions). > > Correct. If the bleed wasn't resolved before time was called, then it > doesn't get to resolve after the end of the game (after time is > called), no. > That's unfortunate. ***JediMike***

"***JediMike***" <Jedi...@rebelscum.net> wrote in message news:1104352875.1...@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com... > That's unfortunate. That a time limit has to be imposed, yes. Once you get past that, you arrive at the conclusion that any where you end the game (prematurely) will be unfortunate for someone, resulting in a balance of fortune. -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. V:TES homepage: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/ Though effective, appear to be ineffective -- Sun Tzu

On Wed, 29 Dec 2004 16:16:17 -0500, "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> scrawled: >"***JediMike***" <Jedi...@rebelscum.net> wrote in message >news:1104352875.1...@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com... >> That's unfortunate. > >That a time limit has to be imposed, yes. > >Once you get past that, you arrive at the conclusion that any >where you end the game (prematurely) will be unfortunate >for someone, resulting in a balance of fortune. i think the unfortunate incident, judging from his prior frowney face that never got quoted, was him being ousted after time was called because it was obvious the bleed _would_ oust him, even though at the time 'time' was called, it hadn't physically been resolved yet. on a side note i have seen sportsmanlike players, close to time,after a gruelling struggle, who are being bled for their final pool call themselves ousted without dithering. something along the lines of: 'bleed' 'no blocks, i'm dead' i appreciate that sort of behaviour in players. keep it up those that do. you know who you are, and you can hold your heads high. even if you backstab. as that's all part of the game, too. :) [ quoted text not captured ]

"salem" <salem_ch...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:uul6t09va2u2qvfe9...@4ax.com... > On Wed, 29 Dec 2004 16:16:17 -0500, "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> > scrawled: > > >"***JediMike***" <Jedi...@rebelscum.net> wrote in message > >news:1104352875.1...@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com... > >> That's unfortunate. > > > >That a time limit has to be imposed, yes. > > > >Once you get past that, you arrive at the conclusion that any > >where you end the game (prematurely) will be unfortunate > >for someone, resulting in a balance of fortune. > > i think the unfortunate incident, judging from his prior frowney face > that never got quoted, was him being ousted after time was called > because it was obvious the bleed _would_ oust him, even though at the > time 'time' was called, it hadn't physically been resolved yet. That is certainly the POV I was addressing, yes. Why is it unfortunate to count as not ousted a player that was not ousted? Because he would possibly have been ousted soon (for various definitions of "soon")? [ quoted text not captured ]

On Wed, 29 Dec 2004 20:48:51 -0500, "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> scrawled: >"salem" <salem_ch...@hotmail.com> wrote in message >news:uul6t09va2u2qvfe9...@4ax.com... >> On Wed, 29 Dec 2004 16:16:17 -0500, "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> >> scrawled: >> >> >"***JediMike***" <Jedi...@rebelscum.net> wrote in message >> >news:1104352875.1...@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com... >> >> That's unfortunate. >> > >> >That a time limit has to be imposed, yes. >> > >> >Once you get past that, you arrive at the conclusion that any >> >where you end the game (prematurely) will be unfortunate >> >for someone, resulting in a balance of fortune. >> >> i think the unfortunate incident, judging from his prior frowney face >> that never got quoted, was him being ousted after time was called >> because it was obvious the bleed _would_ oust him, even though at the >> time 'time' was called, it hadn't physically been resolved yet. > >That is certainly the POV I was addressing, yes. > >Why is it unfortunate to count as not ousted a player that was >not ousted? Because he would possibly have been ousted soon (for >various definitions of "soon")? i think what was called unfortunate was that he WAS counted as ousted, when he should not have been. the unfortunatory bit being the judge's decision to have him ousted. [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] You may be right. I think that it was otherwise based on jedimike's previous posts on the topic, however. -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. [ quoted text not captured ]

> You may be right. I think that it was otherwise based on jedimike's > previous posts on the topic, however. > That's correct. I had nothing to do with Raille's situation. Unfortunate is the fact the rules will not be changed to allow the competition of the final action as the only extension to the time limit. I understand the other side of the argument, however, I still believe that one of the down falls of the current system is the "stealth staller" gain's a huge tactical endgame advantage if he's trying to avoid being ousted near times end. Again, that's just my opinion, and yes, YMMV. I suspect several more actual case studies are needed for such a change. ***JediMike***

***JediMike*** wrote: > Unfortunate is the fact the rules will not be changed to allow the > competition of the final action as the only extension to the time > limit. I understand the other side of the argument, however, I still > believe that one of the down falls of the current system is the > "stealth staller" gain's a huge tactical endgame advantage if he's > trying to avoid being ousted near times end. How is stalling to prevent the next action from starting, significantly different from stalling to prevent the current action from completing? Don't they both manifest themselves in the exact same way--stalling during the current action? For that matter, only with the benefit of hindsight is any action known to be the "last" action. -Robert

In message <1104434995.5...@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, ***JediMike*** <Jedi...@rebelscum.net> writes: >I understand the other side of the argument, however, I still >believe that one of the down falls of the current system is the >"stealth staller" gain's a huge tactical endgame advantage if he's >trying to avoid being ousted near times end. Again, that's just my >opinion, and yes, YMMV. But if he's stalling here to win/not lose as badly/whatever, why (with a rules change) will he not just stall in the relevant timing slot post- change? If the action needs to be announced, he just stalls in the end of the previous action, deliberating over combat cards, hand cycling, tapping cards he has available (which are in the deck with that in mind), and so on. And so the stalling has moved. Why change the rules if all it will do is move where/when cheating occurs? [ quoted text not captured ]

LSJ wrote: > Flux wrote: > >> But then in this exact same situation, if one player says (after time >> is called, of course) he had not passed and was still pondering >> playing a Life Boon, would the oust be complete anyway? (...) > If the question is: he says so, but how do you tell if he's truthful?, > then the answer is: call a judge. Yes, that was the intent of the question. Or, more exactly: 'Does it matter if you believe him or not?' Your answer implies 'yes'. >> If the answer is yes, then you are assuming the player's lack of >> action imply a pass, while in the absence of a time limit a pass would >> only be > > > No. You did not say anything about lack of attention. You said it looked > like every player accepted the oust, which implies attention. > Lack of attention does not equal implicit pass. Please note I wrote lack of _action_, not attention. An implicit pass is usually identified by lack of action. (...) > In reality, we have judges. Judges need judgment, not necessarily proof. (...) > He doesn't need to read minds. > He needs to apply judgment. (...) I've been trying to figure out what are the objective rules that define a oust. You have explained some of the objective criteria, but in cases where the final answer is to call a judge and depend on his judgement, those rules cannot be called objective anymore. In my first post in this thread I claimed that the moment an action is complete is not clear in VtES, and you objected to that statement. I don't believe that if a situation depends on a subjective ruling to be defined it can be said to be 'clearly identified' prior to that ruling. You may disagree, but there's no point in arguing a matter of opinion. Thank you for your time. Flux

***JediMike*** <Jedi...@rebelscum.net> wrote: > I still believe that one of the down falls of the current > system is the "stealth staller" gain's a huge tactical > endgame advantage if he's trying to avoid being ousted > near times end. It's not a downfall at all, Mike. There is a really easy solution to this. Call a judge over. If you feel dirty doing this, take a shower when you get home. ;) I have almost never done myself, but that's what judges are there for! The five year's worth of Origins tournaments (and the several non-Origins tournaments) that I've run are what I use as a baseline for discussions like this, and even granting that the talent pool at those tournaments are *extremely high* (i.e. they rarely act like children that need babysitting), I've had to make maybe two dozen end-of-game rulings total. There's been a few times when I've been asked by players to come over in the final few minutes and "watch the game", and when that happens, I know what they're really asking me to do. Police it. So I do. And a few times within those few times I've *suggested* (as Goudie puts it:) that players speed up their play so that I don't have to call them on stalling, and they almost always do speed up. I've also been asked several times by a player to add time onto their game due to stalling by another player, and I only do this when the stalling is happening RIGHT NOW. So, if playerX calls me over and says playerY is stalling -- and I agree -- I'll tell playerY as nicely as possible that he needs to speed things up to make sure that he isn't called on stalling again, and I'll generally add 1-2 minutes onto that table's clock, or more if a discussion was necessary at that point. But if playerX calls me over and says playerY was stalling 30 minutes ago, blah blah blah, I'll begin to police that table at THAT point, but since I wasn't there 30 minutes ago, I won't give that table any additional time. This really all boils down to doing your best to follow the rules, and following them well (sorry Raille!) but also using your common sense to interpret and "judge" what has happened in a situation and what the proper remedy should be. Also, make sure to get LSJ's cell# before you run your tournament. He's available during normal business hours, for a price, s'what I hear... ;) > ***JediMike*** Kevin M., Prince of Henderson, NV (USA) "Know your enemy, and know yourself; in one-thousand battles you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, *The Art of War* "Contentment... Complacency... Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier

Kevin M. wrote: a bunch of good stuff Yes, that is the way I currently judge, and I will continue to do so. I just needed to get in my yearly post. (time was running out) :) ***JediMike***