MY SIDE of the Succubus story...What happened in LA!

Let me first state that ANY use of the word "Collusion" regarding the afore mentioned tournament round is a COMPLETE TRAVISTY AND UTTERLY BEWILDERING!!!!! This word "Collusion" is thrown around, often flipantly, by bitter and badly beaten Methusalas on the wrong side of a devestating deal. Lets get one one thing perfectly straight, I WAS DEAD IN THAT ROUND! By Brad (my pred), or Paul (my NEW pred through Kindred Restucture) both had VERY good stops to my deck and neither even knew it. To be sure, I KNEW I was dead. To make a long story short, I don't care what ANYBODY says, Brad made a deal with Paul without FULLY outlining the terms of the deal. As anyone who's ever played with our group knows, it was a GREVIOUS ERROR! Paul played Brad like a $2 Fiddle! I saw it coming THE WHOLE TIME! Brad to his unsettled dismay did not! He then wanted to go back in the turn sequence and re-block the vote that he had already declined to block. Only after a Judge's Final ruling did he reluctantly conceed to the failed, out of sequence block. Not to mention the Wake that he clearly played, of his own free will, yet it was the Judge again forcing him to declare the card played, after decietfully insisting to the judge the card "fell out of my hand". I was truly disappointed by this display of player sportsmanship here. He was just bitter at being suckered and he had no one to blame except himself. At any rate Paul's dupe had suceeded and the Methuselas switched places. It was Paul's intention to kill me and continue with the game, scribing the most victory points he could take. But the argument between Paul and Brad continued. Not only did it continue but it escallated with unsportsmanlike comments flying from both sides, while the rest of the table just waited and I myself waited for my eventual death from Paul. The argument between Brad and Paul crescendoed with Paul's realization that the only way for Paul to secure any victory points from a table that had just ganged up on him, was to create an unholy alliance with the controller of the Succubus Club. Me. Before I showed up to this convention, I had purchased my tickets for Gencon and it was my intention to qualify, using any legal means available to me via the tournament rules of VTES. I got what I came for. By the skin of my teeth, using all the legal resources afforded by my deck, out of 41 players, in what I would gather was the largest single tournament ever attended by anyone in the Western US, I managed to qualify 10th. I am proud of my play! Do I like the Succubus Club? No. Do I think it should be banned from tournaments? Yes. Why then, you may ask, did I play with the Succubus Club? Because it helped me achieve my victory points. Brad stated that he would put Succubus Clubs in every one of his decks in hopes of proving the card broken. I wish him success. I also will continue to prove that this card should be banned from tournament play. In the meantime, Arson is a fairly good card. I currently don't like Weenie Decks either, but I also accept that it's part of the game and I am responsable for making adjustments as needed. I'll conclude with this: The thing I love most about VTES are the friends that I meet along the way. I just met a wonderful player from France.(Hi, Renya!)He is now a friend. That's worth 1,000 Victory Points. We have to remember what we are doing here. It's just a game. A fairly intense game at times, but nonetheless, just a game. I hope to see all of you continuing to come to our conventions in LA. It really is a lot of fun. Thanks for your time, Mike

Mike Courtois wrote: > Do I like the Succubus Club? No. Do I think it should be banned from > tournaments? Yes. Could you expand on this? I think I get your dislike of the card, but I haven't been able to pull your "Why this card should banned" argument from the post. > Why then, you may ask, did I play with the Succubus > Club? Because it helped me achieve my victory points. Brad stated that > he would put Succubus Clubs in every one of his decks in hopes of > proving the card broken. I wish him success. He will probably prove his point better if he designs a deck to abuse the card, rather than just stick it in every deck in hopes that the right situation will present itself. > I also will continue to > prove that this card should be banned from tournament play. In the > meantime, Arson is a fairly good card. Unrelated Thought: Arson is a very good card. People often rely heavily on locations and don't have a plan B. I'm guilty of this because I don't see enough Arson to force me to change. > I'll conclude with this: The thing I love most about VTES are the > friends that I meet along the way. I just met a wonderful player from > France.(Hi, Renya!)He is now a friend. That's worth 1,000 Victory > Points. We have to remember what we are doing here. It's just a game. > A fairly intense game at times, but nonetheless, just a game. I hope > to see all of you continuing to come to our conventions in LA. It > really is a lot of fun. Point taken. I think many people say it's a combination of succeeding in gameplay and being surrounded by fun people. It seems like your beef with the card stems from the fact that people agree to really stupid terms in deals. (I'm sure the nitty gritty is debatable, this is a generalization) Since you can make deals at any time, (usually of the I'll help you if you help me variety) you don't really need the Succubus Club to "dupe" people, if you will. People just aren't terribly familiar with this card, and then will go overboard or not pay attention when making a deal. It's sort of like Stu Pieloch embodied in a card. You're certainly welcome to dislike a card, but you need to fill me in on the argument I'm missing for the "broken" aspect of the Succubus Club. Rob Grau rfg...@eos.ncsu.edu

"Rob Grau" <rfg...@eos.ncsu.edu> wrote in message news:3B1C5C92...@eos.ncsu.edu... > Mike Courtois wrote: > > > Do I like the Succubus Club? No. Do I think it should be banned from > > tournaments? Yes. > > Could you expand on this? I think I get your dislike of the card, but I > haven't been able to pull your "Why this card should banned" argument from > the post. The argument is missing from the post for good reason. Nothing that happened in the round had too much to do with the SC. Historically, the big problems we had in L.A. were with one player who played a weenie deck who would try to get you to make some kind of deal. It was rarely a good deal. Sometimes along the lines of a 4-1, or 3/2 VP split. If you refuse it he asks your predator for the same thing--maybe even with better terms. He then just gives his 8 or so minions to your predator and you are almost certainly bled out. My recollections aren't that it was necessarily a game winner--but rather a big king-maker thing. -Robert rob...@vtesinla.org

Robert Goudie wrote: > > "Rob Grau" <rfg...@eos.ncsu.edu> wrote in message > news:3B1C5C92...@eos.ncsu.edu... > > Mike Courtois wrote: > > > > > Do I like the Succubus Club? No. Do I think it should be banned from > > > tournaments? Yes. > > > > Could you expand on this? I think I get your dislike of the card, but I > > haven't been able to pull your "Why this card should banned" argument from > > the post. > > The argument is missing from the post for good reason. Nothing that > happened in the round had too much to do with the SC. Yes and no. It was rather unfortunate and completely unnecessary for Mike to make any comments about what transpired in that particular game which caused Mike and Paul to ally. I don't believe Brad did so I don't understand the need to tell anyone's "side of the story" other than what side of the Succubus Club they happened to be sitting on when the alliance happened. But Mike's Succubus Club had an undeniable influence on the game. The _point_ is that once the tightly-woven alliance came into being, it was the Succubus Club that went a long ways towards making it an unstoppable alliance. I was Mike's first prey after the Restructure (and before for that matter) and while I got stuck very badly due to the restructure happening at all - which was a legitimate tactic IMO - Mike having some of Paul's minions at essentially no cost to himself was what truly made made my position hopeless, probably would have made it hopeless even had I not been screwed out of all my bleed work up to the point of the restructure. So say what you want about alliances for victory point being OK or bad, the fact is that they're _much_ easier to work with the Succubus Club. So much so that, IMHO - and apparently in Mike's opinion as well - that it detracts from the game the way any unbalanced card or tactic that's too easy win with detracts from a strategy game. Fred

On 4 Jun 2001 20:27:07 -0700, Mike Courtois wrote: >At any rate Paul's dupe had suceeded and the Methuselas switched >places. It was Paul's intention to kill me and continue with the game, >scribing the most victory points he could take. But the argument >between Paul and Brad continued. Not only did it continue but it >escallated with unsportsmanlike comments flying from both sides, while >the rest of the table just waited and I myself waited for my eventual >death from Paul. The argument between Brad and Paul crescendoed with >Paul's realization that the only way for Paul to secure any victory >points from a table that had just ganged up on him, was to create an >unholy alliance with the controller of the Succubus Club. Me. I don't understand this yet. Paul had just done a Kindred Restructure to make you his prey and, from what you say, was almost certain to get a VP and 6 pool by ousting you. Instead of doing this, the deal was that he give all his stuff to you, you get 3 VP and then he would depend upon your good will to gain 2 VP at the end. If one assumes that there was no collusion designed mainly to help you win, this only makes sense if he felt certain that he would not gain any more than the 1 VP for ousting you. I don't understand why this would be so certain that he'd go for the wrong end of a 3-2 split instead. From the way you tell it, it was because the rest of the table sided with Brad over the earlier deal and would have cooperated to screw Paul. Were the other three players friends of Brad's or what? I hear that the final of the recent UK tournament was dominated by recriminations over a deal which went sour - a player played Fame on another after agreeing to leave him alone for four turns. I have the impression that unpleasantness of this kind is routine in VTES and it sounds awful. It's not Succubus Club which is the problem but the whole deal-making, my-word-is-my-bond culture. Andrew

"Frederick Scott" <fre...@netcom.com> wrote in message news:3B1C8138...@netcom.com... > Robert Goudie wrote: [clip] > Yes and no. It was rather unfortunate and completely unnecessary for Mike to > make any comments about what transpired in that particular game which caused > Mike and Paul to ally. I don't believe Brad did so I don't understand the need > to tell anyone's "side of the story" other than what side of the Succubus Club > they happened to be sitting on when the alliance happened. I think Mike's "side of the story" comments are coming from the "collusion" term being tossed about freely (and acusingly) by some people at the event. He seems to be trying to clear his name in that regard. -Robert

Mike Courtois wrote: > > > Do I like the Succubus Club? No. Do I think it should be banned from > > tournaments? Yes. I think it's a bit broken too, because many people use it for sharing the table and the Victoru Points. I like doing deals when i play, but i never do them to share the table between me and another player. those kind of deal are not very interesting for the game itself. Better fight like a man than being the poor guy who willingly gives 3 VP to another player in hope for going to the finals. Hey Mike, next time pack a couple of Arson ! reyda ;)

[ quoted text not captured ] Perhaps I'm missing something then. I read all of Brad's posts that arrived at my news server under the "Succubus Club Use in Tournaments" thread and there's certainly no such accusations in those posts. As I'm sure Paul would not post such things, that only leaves the 5th player (forgot his name), myself, and people who weren't there. Maybe I just missed something. Brad's points about The Succubus Club and victory point splitting communicate the exact same misgivings that I had about these issues, with respect to our game in particular and many tournament games in general: if two players happen to know and trust one another from prior experience playing together, they have a distinct and arguably unfair advantage when it comes to forming alliances. This is not an accusation of evil intent. Only an observation about human nature. It doesn't matter what caused Paul to feel the need to shift gears and settle for 2 VP. The question is that given that it happened, would Paul have as readily been prepared to work with myself or the fifth player (who he didn't seem to have met previously) had one of us had a Succubus Club out? (There might have been other factors, such as using the same clan and same general strategies that helped facilitate the alliance as well. Just assume for sake of argument that these existed with one of us as well.) I don't know that he would have. Fred

>> I also will continue to prove that this card should be banned from tournament >> play. In the meantime, Arson is a fairly good card. > > Unrelated Thought: Arson is a very good card. People often rely heavily on > locations and don't have a plan B. I'm guilty of this because I don't see > enough Arson to force me to change. Actually, I'm a bigger fan of Kine Dominance and Disputed Territory. Why destroy what you can steal? In fact, and my local play groups will back me up, about 1/3 of my decks steal anything that isn't nailed down...and most of them aren't Setite decks. Regards, Noal

"Frederick Scott" <fre...@netcom.com> wrote in message > Robert Goudie wrote: > > "Frederick Scott" <fre...@netcom.com> wrote in message > > [clip] > > > Yes and no. It was rather unfortunate and completely unnecessary for Mike > > > to make any comments about what transpired in that particular game which > > > caused Mike and Paul to ally. I don't believe Brad did so I don't understand the > > > need to tell anyone's "side of the story" other than what side of the Succubus > > > Club they happened to be sitting on when the alliance happened. > > > > I think Mike's "side of the story" comments are coming from the "collusion" > > term being tossed about freely (and acusingly) by some people at the event. > > He seems to be trying to clear his name in that regard. > > Perhaps I'm missing something then. I read all of Brad's posts that arrived at my > news server under the "Succubus Club Use in Tournaments" thread and there's certainly > no such accusations in those posts. As I'm sure Paul would not post such things, > that only leaves the 5th player (forgot his name), myself, and people who weren't there. > Maybe I just missed something. Here's a couple of tidbits Brad posted to our local discussion board: "I'm sure some of you heard about the mess that happened in the LA qualifier which involved the succubus club. Paul had given Mike his minions and access to anything in his hand, in return that mike would roll over for Paul when it was just the 2 of them. This appeared like blatent cheating and irritated one player to the extent that he declared to leave if he saw another succubus club played in the other rounds. My question is if this collusion or was it a fair "in game only" deal? Irritating as it was, at the time I thought it was "legal" and that succubus was just a crappy card that should be banned from tourney play. However after putting more thought into it I realize that it was a case of collusion between Paul and Mike." -Robert

Robert Goudie wrote: > > "Frederick Scott" <fre...@netcom.com> wrote in message > > Robert Goudie wrote: > > > "Frederick Scott" <fre...@netcom.com> wrote in message > > > [clip] > > > > Yes and no. It was rather unfortunate and completely unnecessary for > > > > Mike to make any comments about what transpired in that particular game > > > > which caused Mike and Paul to ally. I don't believe Brad did so I don't > > > > understand the need to tell anyone's "side of the story" other than what > > > > side of the Succubus Club they happened to be sitting on when the > > > > alliance happened. > > > > > > I think Mike's "side of the story" comments are coming from the > > > "collusion" term being tossed about freely (and acusingly) by some people > > > at the event. He seems to be trying to clear his name in that regard. > > > > Perhaps I'm missing something then. I read all of Brad's posts that > > arrived at my news server under the "Succubus Club Use in Tournaments" > > thread and there's certainly no such accusations in those posts. > > Here's a couple of tidbits Brad posted to our local discussion board: (snipped almost identical version of beginning of "Succubus Club Use in Tournaments".) Ah, the Usenet version was slightly modified from the that, removing the use of the loaded word. Otherwise, it's the same. It's unfortunate all this was presented as a hypothetical game, removing the names of the players and the context of the game. As I said, whether you call it 'collusion' or not, the issue is about whether it's proper or not given that the players involved can _arguably_ only create such a deal given how well they know one another. And arguably can only create such an unstoppable deal given the use of the Succubus Club. It's an interesting issue, IMO, without bothering to stop and worry about how things came to that point. I didn't hear anyone accusing Paul & Mike of coming into the game with the intent to ally. (Perhaps Steve colluded with them to get them at the same table. :-) :-) :-) ) So it's accepted that what happened happened and Paul decided he was in a much better position to play kingmaker and get 2 VPs than to try and win the game on his own. The question is, should he have had such a strong option to do so? Fred

"Mike Courtois" <Jedi...@rebelscum.net> wrote in message news:c5a0b763.01060...@posting.google.com... [snip] > To make a long story short, I don't care what ANYBODY says, Brad made > a deal with Paul without FULLY outlining the terms of the deal. As > anyone who's ever played with our group knows, it was a GREVIOUS > ERROR! Paul played Brad like a $2 Fiddle! I saw it coming THE WHOLE > TIME! Brad to his unsettled dismay did not! He then wanted to go back > in the turn sequence and re-block the vote that he had already > declined to block. Only after a Judge's Final ruling did he > reluctantly conceed to the failed, out of sequence block. Not to > mention the Wake that he clearly played, of his own free will, yet it > was the Judge again forcing him to declare the card played, after > decietfully insisting to the judge the card "fell out of my hand". I > was truly disappointed by this display of player sportsmanship here. > He was just bitter at being suckered and he had no one to blame except > himself. That is some spooky, twilight zone action. In the London tourney on Saturday the carbon copy of this happened and resulted in an hour long argument that turned into a pitched battle. Pretty much the only real differences i can see are that there was only 3 players left when it kicked off and the people were different. As I said the deal was VERY similar to the above but the vote was Banishment which was declared on my prey first (before blocking was announced - VERY IMPORTANT) Nicky (prey) threatened to block and I made a deal to sink one of Barn's (pred.) minions of Nicky's choice with the Vote instead in return for him not blocking. Naturally Nicky ate up the deal as it would have made his job very easy with his Fame on Gilbert and Barn down to 5/6 pool with Curse of Nitocris on him. Barn understandably went mad accusing me of all sorts of shit, but the vote proceeded. I asked if the vote had gone through on the chosen target (Zebulon if I recall) and Nicky said "OK" (2nd VERY IMPORTANT POINT). Of course I then changed the vote target to Nicky's Beast when the referendum had been called and HE then went mad, trying to block the vote after it had sucessfully been played. What followed was a gruesome, solid hour of agitation and arguing to try and resolve this. Nicky was super-pissed at being shafted and he turned his arguement to not being given a chance to block. Mike Nudd (Judge 1 in the multi Judge system and tourney organiser) had a battle on his hands. I must admit, I was getting really f*****g worked up at being accused of cheating and would rather have eaten my own feet than conceded something I knew that I was not guilty of. Anyway, the vote went through and Beast was Banished but the argument did get way out of hand as it was really the fulcrum of the game. Earlier points were raised again and all sorts of nasties flew around. To be completely objective, I could have probably phrased the block question better and gone for the Queen's English but hey after no sleep and 11 hours of VTES I was a little tired. Nicky knew that he was on dodgy ground (it's all in the eyes you know :o) and he eventually conceded. Interesting though that the same thing happened on the same day ? Rob.

Fred seems to have grasped the meaning behind my post. I had incorrectly used the term collusion on the LA website to describe taking in outside considerations (trustworthy friends) to make ingame decisions. When I reposted to the newsgroup forum I had reworded collusion out of it. My train of thought was that it was illegal to use a 4 sided die to help you guess malk prank and therefor it would be illegal to use out of game friendship to make guarenteed deals with the succubus club. Brad Ward Prince of North Las Vegas

"Rob Treasure" <rob.tr...@btinternet.com> wrote in message news:<9fj8eq$2o1$1...@taliesin.netcom.net.uk>... > As the hapless judge of the event: That particular game had little to do with the Succubus Club and everything to do with the personalities of the players. Then add a melding of several different groups from many cities, with their own play culture and lingo……and you get some tension. This crap was happening at ALL the tables. More important than the rancor was my actually getting confused at one point because, among the many, many others, I had to make 8 separate game stopping rulings about THIS simple game mechanic: When is a card played? I am seeking some very specific answers to this question because, believe me, every qualified judge at that tournament had wildly divergent answers to this question. I watched the whole tournament through my fingers. Lemme just get this off my chest……….....horrible things everywhere. Loud cursing. Tears from grown men. Serious card slamming arguments. One guy didn't realize his deck concept didn't work the way he thought it did. His qualifying hopes were dashed in the first 10 minutes! Good players making egregious errors like tapping a brand new, full Etrius and forgetting that Millicent was sitting right there……. Seduction timing arguments. …. People getting REALLY angry because others were taking time to ask what certain cards did…… ….. one of the best players I know actually equipped Moncada with an Eternal Vigilance! I'll also venture to express my disappointment that these various threads overshadow a phenomenal turnout for all FOUR tournaments that weekend. I entered EIGHT new players this morning! EIGHT! I remember 2 years ago when I was running through the halls recruiting anyone at all to play in the Sunday VTES tournaments just so we could GET 8 players!. We had 41 people at the qualifier. 31 people Sunday nite and the final ended long after I'd retired for the evening. This is incredible! The qualifier was a high-stakes event - but 'collusion' is the wrong word for trying to describe your dislike of a persons play style. The game is growing, so get used to it. I mean, if no one can consistently answer a simple thing like "when is a card played"…..I think there are some topics we've missed. ROBYN M

"Bradly Ward" <br...@jakescrane.com> wrote [ quoted text not captured ] Is it actually a tournament rule that you cannot use a 4-side to guess Malkavian Prank? Surely this cannot be true. - Jason Bell

This msg may post twice...sorry. As the hapless judge of the event: That particular game had little to do with the Succubus Club and everything to do with the personalities of the players. Then mix in other players from other cities with different play culture and lingo and ………there is tension. This crap was happening at ALL the tables. More important than the rancor was my actually getting confused at one point because, among the many, many others, I had to make 8 separate game stopping rulings about THIS simple game mechanic: When is a card played? I am seeking some very specific answers to this question because, believe me, every qualified judge at that tournament had wildly divergent answers to this question. I watched the whole tournament through my fingers. Just lemme get this off my chest…….. Loud cursing. Tears from grown men. Serious card slamming arguments. One guy didn't realize his deck concept didn't work the way he thought it did. His qualifying hopes were dashed in the first 10 minutes! Good players making egregious errors like tapping a brand new, full Etrius and forgetting Millicent…... People getting REALLY angry because others were taking time to ask what certain cards did…… one of the best players in Los Angeles actually equipped Moncada with a Eternal Vigilance! Let me also venture to express my disappointment that these various threads overshadow a phenomenal turnout for all FOUR tournaments that weekend. I entered EIGHT new players this morning! EIGHT! I remember 2 cons ago when I was running out in the halls recruiting anyone at all to play in the Sunday Nitto tournament just so we could GET 8 players!. We had 31 people Sunday nite and the final ended long after I'd retired for the evening. This is incredible!! Lastly, ‘collusion' is a pretty strong word when using it to describe your dislike of somebody's play style. The game is growing (If I have anything to do with it) so get used to it. I mean, if no one can consistently answer a simple question like "when is a card played", then there are some topics we've missed. ROBYNM

"Robyn M" <rrme...@earthlink.net> wrote in message [clip] > When is a card played? > > I am seeking some very specific answers to this question because, believe me, > every qualified judge at that tournament had wildly divergent answers to this > question. I just posted a document to the vtesinla.org site that will hopefully at least let players know what to expect and how we'll rule such things. I will, of course, modify this if LSJ has any relevant comments on the subject. Here's that section from the document: ********************** Card Layed Is A Card Played--Well, Sort Of All actions are fully defined upon announcement. If the action cannot be performed in the manner that it was defined then the card may be returned to the hand. Eamples of Fully Defining Actions: You must announce how much blood you wish to take off a minion via minion tap before replacing the card. "I Minion Tap Arika for 8". Carlotta Giovanni must announce with which specific card from your hand will be exchanged for which specific card from your ash heap. Examples of Illegally Defined Actions: If you announce a Govern the Unaligned at Superior and then realize that your minion has inferior dominate, you are not required to play the card in the inferior form. If you accidentally play a Golconda on a minion of 7 capacity and then realize your error, you are not forced to play the Golconda on some other minion at the table of 8 capacity or more. If you drop a deflection to the table and then change your mind *before* fully announcing the card's effect (who you are deflecting to), you may return the card to your hand. ***************** -Robert

[ quoted text not captured ] Well put! I'll always be a mediocre tournament player, because I don't really have the gumption to out and out table deal for VPs. I LOVE to deal for short term benefits, and hash out rescues from torpor for votes and all that, but "I'll wall up now and you roll over later" just leaves a bad taste in my mouth. That isn't the game I got into playing, and I don't think I'll ever be good at it. Even if I *could* get good at it, I wouldn't find it fun, and I wouldn't keep playing for much longer. A word on deal making: We call breaking deals down here "Pulling a Stu," thanks to Stuart Pieloch, who won a tournament with breaking a deal; unheard of in the Southeast before, and vilified since then. Of course, if I saw deals like "I'll give you all my minions and the Club," I'd see where one could break that deal. Heck, *I* might break that deal, just to protest sniveling table-carving deals. Now, that does NOT mean I won't snap the "spirit" of a deal like a twig, so long as I keep the letter of the deal. To me (and, really, the Atlanta playgroup), that's the fun dodging and treachery. Now, I HATE Robert Jordan's novels, but I'll borrow the analogy that we deal like Aes Sedai (sp); never lying, but always deceiving. =) > Hey Mike, next time pack a couple of Arson ! I have to say, I've usually got an Arson or a Rampage in just about every deck. Just too useful for words; glad to know I'm not alone. =) -- Pat Ricochet Soul Jar'rn Fool of Atlanta "You can't make a fact out of an opinion by raising your voice."

Robyn M wrote: > When is a card played? > > I am seeking some very specific answers to this question because, believe me, > every qualified judge at that tournament had wildly divergent answers to this > question. Hmmm. That's a good question. I really felt like it shouldn't have been the issue on that table though. What I'm more interested in is what I perceived happened: that Brad played a Wake clearly perceiving the timing to still be at point he could announce a block attempt. Mike and Paul may have their issues about whether it was too late to block or not and I can't honestly say I know. But I believe (from my always shoddy memory about that situation) that Paul _clearly_ answered a question Brad asked prior to his play of the Wake in a manner that at best could be considered disingenuous and at worst downright deceptive. And I'm pretty sure that was why Brad choose to play the Wake. This is the problem I have with Paul and Mike's position. It's completely acceptable to deceive a player about what in-game agreements you have or don't have with one another on an issue such how to restructure the table. But when someone asks you what phase it is, I *strongly* feel that it's time to stop fiddle-farting around and tell him *exactly* what's on your mind. Because the instant two or more players don't agree what phase it is and one starts making plays based on that misunderstanding, the whole game becomes suspect. At that point, there wasn't a decision you could possibly make that was "correct" or fair to both players. This, in my opinion, is the real lesson of this incident. By the way, I haven't examined the latest tournament rules but if there isn't a section in there about how to resolve such an issue, there should be. In the end, there's no magic formula but it would be nice for LSJ to set down whatever guidelines he can that would help a judge in your position. (In Magic, they at least have a "failure-to-agree- on-reality" rule. Jyhad should have something of the sort.) ... > The game is growing, so get used to it. It is. Resolving how the players and tournament organizations feel about such issues are the growing pains we go through. If this is the worst issue we ever face, I'm personally not worried. > I mean, if no one can consistently answer a simple thing like "when is a > card played"…..I think there are some topics we've missed. Yep. Totally agree. Fred

I have a question about breaking deals. Generally deals aren't borken, we have an unspoken rule in ym playgroups that promises are to be kept. Anyone who'd break that rule would be punished later on by the player who got his deal broken. It's never happened but I know people would revenge the broken deal. But what if this is done at a tournament. Say that Meth A makes a deal with B and then breaks it. Under the rules about in-game consideration B wouldn't be allowed to revenge on A in the next round. Now take this example further and I don't know how this rule is supposed to be interpreted. Say that A wants to deal with B in the next round. Of course B knowing that this guy isn't trustworthy will not accept the deal. Or he'll accept and then break the deal himself as a revenge. Now consider this: * B has never boken a deal before, simply because of the "unspoken rule". * B has always trusted deals before, because they have never been broken. Now if B refuses to make a deal with A that is actually not through in-game considerations. So would A then be allowed to force B to accept a deal he normally would have based on this?? Or what if B breaks a deal on A as a revnge, everybody knows he'd never normally break a deal, so it's obvious it's for revenge purposes. B broke the rules? If he did then he'll never be able to break deals now? What if he just realised that deal breaks are a part of them game and from now on wnats to make use of it, and A happens to be the first victim? Surely nobody can forbid B to ever break deals when playing if he wants to. But also if he's allowed to break the deal then he's revenging for out-of game purposes and not trying to win (say the deal was more or less beneficial to him in that game (naturally since else u don't make deals)). So how is this to be solved?

Rob Grau <rfg...@eos.ncsu.edu> wrote in message news:<3B1C5C92...@eos.ncsu.edu>... > Mike Courtois wrote: > > > Do I like the Succubus Club? No. Do I think it should be banned from > > tournaments? Yes. > > Could you expand on this? I think I get your dislike of the card, but I > haven't been able to pull your "Why this card should banned" argument from > the post. I beleve it's a very powerful kingmaker card. Not unlike RTI. If I have a good deck, and I can manipulate or just out right work a deal where another player with a good deck can carve up the table by trading blood, minions, cards from hand, the rest of the table WILL be hard pressed from stopping it. In the game of VTES wheeling and dealing is VERY MUCH a part of this game, and it can be one of the funist parts as well. Two methusales forced into unwilling ally positions to try to maintain control of ballance in the Jyhad! It's a natural course of this multiplayer game, and adds another deeper demention to the game. However The Club has a reverse function in that it shifts the ballance of the game in the complete opposite direction by facilitating these HUGE power shifts at a moments notice, and at will. Whereas without it everyone at the table is on a much more even playing field and have a greater say in any aliances. Just my opinion, nothing more, nothing less. > > > Why then, you may ask, did I play with the Succubus > > Club? Because it helped me achieve my victory points. Brad stated that > > he would put Succubus Clubs in every one of his decks in hopes of > > proving the card broken. I wish him success. > > He will probably prove his point better if he designs a deck to abuse the > card, rather than just stick it in every deck in hopes that the right > situation will present itself. Agreed! > > > I also will continue to > > prove that this card should be banned from tournament play. In the > > meantime, Arson is a fairly good card. > > Unrelated Thought: Arson is a very good card. People often rely heavily on > locations and don't have a plan B. I'm guilty of this because I don't see > enough Arson to force me to change. Also much agreed! > > > I'll conclude with this: The thing I love most about VTES are the > > friends that I meet along the way. I just met a wonderful player from > > France.(Hi, Renya!)He is now a friend. That's worth 1,000 Victory > > Points. We have to remember what we are doing here. It's just a game. > > A fairly intense game at times, but nonetheless, just a game. I hope > > to see all of you continuing to come to our conventions in LA. It > > really is a lot of fun. > > Point taken. I think many people say it's a combination of succeeding in > gameplay and being surrounded by fun people. > > It seems like your beef with the card stems from the fact that people > agree to really stupid terms in deals. (I'm sure the nitty gritty is > debatable, this is a generalization) > > Since you can make deals at any time, (usually of the I'll help you if you > help me variety) you don't really need the Succubus Club to "dupe" people, > if you will. People just aren't terribly familiar with this card, and > then will go overboard or not pay attention when making a deal. It's sort > of like Stu Pieloch embodied in a card. > > You're certainly welcome to dislike a card, but you need to fill me in on > the argument I'm missing for the "broken" aspect of the Succubus Club. > As stated above it is only my opinion that this card is broken in tourny play. An intresting side note, I only put one in my deck at the last minute " in case I got my back against the wall." Oddly enough two of the three rounds I got it in my opening hand. I just wish you could have been there to see the hornets nest that was stired because of what that card allowed, I hope it dosen't get that out of hand again, for our poor Judge's sake. > Rob Grau > rfg...@eos.ncsu.edu

Frederick Scott <fre...@netcom.com> wrote in message news:<3B1C8138...@netcom.com>... > Robert Goudie wrote: > > > > "Rob Grau" <rfg...@eos.ncsu.edu> wrote in message > > news:3B1C5C92...@eos.ncsu.edu... > > > Mike Courtois wrote: > > > > > > > Do I like the Succubus Club? No. Do I think it should be banned from > > > > tournaments? Yes. > > > > > > Could you expand on this? I think I get your dislike of the card, but I > > > haven't been able to pull your "Why this card should banned" argument from > > > the post. > > > > The argument is missing from the post for good reason. Nothing that > > happened in the round had too much to do with the SC. > > Yes and no. It was rather unfortunate and completely unnecessary for Mike to > make any comments about what transpired in that particular game which caused > Mike and Paul to ally. I don't believe Brad did so I don't understand the need > to tell anyone's "side of the story" other than what side of the Succubus Club > they happened to be sitting on when the alliance happened. But Mike's Succubus Others on this group had inquired what happened so I felt obligated to tell. Not to mention I was rather fummed by the posts from brad on the VTES in LA disscussion group: <snip from Brad Ward> Irritating as it was, at the time I thought it was "legal" and that succubus was just a crappy card that should be banned from tourney play. However after putting more thought into it I realize that it was a case of collusion between Paul and Mike. <in addition> Paul had given Mike his minions and access to anything in his hand, in return that mike would roll over for Paul when it was just the 2 of them. This appeared like blatent cheating and irritated one player to the extent that he declared to leave if he saw another succubus club played in the other rounds. <End Snip> I have been playing this game since Wizards released it and have NEVER been accused of these sort of inproprities. I play this game for fun, not to have crap like this written about me by another player who didn't have things go his way and I'm simply answering his charges while hoping that there is a second thought when flippantly using the words "Cheating and Collusion". I feel these are VERY strong words indeed, and challenges one's integrity. > Club had an undeniable influence on the game. > > The _point_ is that once the tightly-woven alliance came into being, it was > the Succubus Club that went a long ways towards making it an unstoppable alliance. > I was Mike's first prey after the Restructure (and before for that matter) and > while I got stuck very badly due to the restructure happening at all - which was > a legitimate tactic IMO - Mike having some of Paul's minions at essentially no cost > to himself was what truly made made my position hopeless, probably would have made > it hopeless even had I not been screwed out of all my bleed work up to the point of > the restructure. So say what you want about alliances for victory point being OK > or bad, the fact is that they're _much_ easier to work with the Succubus Club. So > much so that, IMHO - and apparently in Mike's opinion as well - that it detracts > from the game the way any unbalanced card or tactic that's too easy win with detracts > from a strategy game. You are correct Fred. > > Fred Mike

Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> wrote in message news:<BB0CCC6B6A86FBAC.4AF375FD...@lp.airnews.net>... > On 4 Jun 2001 20:27:07 -0700, Mike Courtois wrote: > > >At any rate Paul's dupe had suceeded and the Methuselas switched > >places. It was Paul's intention to kill me and continue with the game, > >scribing the most victory points he could take. But the argument > >between Paul and Brad continued. Not only did it continue but it > >escallated with unsportsmanlike comments flying from both sides, while > >the rest of the table just waited and I myself waited for my eventual > >death from Paul. The argument between Brad and Paul crescendoed with > >Paul's realization that the only way for Paul to secure any victory > >points from a table that had just ganged up on him, was to create an > >unholy alliance with the controller of the Succubus Club. Me. > > I don't understand this yet. Paul had just done a Kindred Restructure > to make you his prey and, from what you say, was almost certain to get > a VP and 6 pool by ousting you. Instead of doing this, the deal was > that he give all his stuff to you, you get 3 VP and then he would > depend upon your good will to gain 2 VP at the end. It was to be a 2/2 split since one victory point was all but going to Brad. > > If one assumes that there was no collusion designed mainly to help you > win, this only makes sense if he felt certain that he would not gain > any more than the 1 VP for ousting you. I don't understand why this > would be so certain that he'd go for the wrong end of a 3-2 split > instead. From the way you tell it, it was because the rest of the > table sided with Brad over the earlier deal and would have cooperated > to screw Paul. Were the other three players friends of Brad's or > what? Accually all Brad had to do bite the bullet and continue with the deal he made with Paul, albiet to Pauls favor, but Brad was by NO MEANS in a bad spot. Paul set him as the pred of a guy with 3 pool and few minions to do anything about it. This was the deal presented to Brad and he accepted. Then during the terms of the vote Paul additionaly moved himself as my pred. Brad protested saying that Paul never stated that he would do that. Paul said "I know I didn't" "I said I would move you in front of the weak prey and I will! But you didn't ask if I was going to move anyone else. It IS a Kindred Resructue after all!" Brad lost it and asked Paul if he could attempt to block. (now pay attention) Paul said "sure you can attempt to block." So Brad threw his Wake for the minion w/the Sport Bike. Paul then says "your block fails because you have already declined to block, we are in post block Pre-Refrendem Step." (which was true, he still could have played an eagle sight) At which time Brad picked his Wake up and put it back into his hand. Paul replyed "no I'm sorry that card WAS legally played, and now must be discarded. Thats when Brad hit the roof and insults and threats flew from all sides. Then paul joined the club. Thats how it broke down. > I hear that the final of the recent UK tournament was dominated by > recriminations over a deal which went sour - a player played Fame on > another after agreeing to leave him alone for four turns. I have the > impression that unpleasantness of this kind is routine in VTES and it > sounds awful. It's not Succubus Club which is the problem but the > whole deal-making, my-word-is-my-bond culture. I strongly disagree. > > Andrew

"Robert Goudie" <rrgo...@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:<7z%S6.302$XN6....@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>... [ quoted text not captured ] Correct Bob. Thank you.

"Reyda" <re...@noos.fr> wrote in message news:<9fib2c$qit$1...@quark.noos.net>... [ quoted text not captured ] Unnatural Disaster's work nice too :) > > reyda ;)

"Mike Courtois" <jedi...@rebelscum.net> wrote in message > Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> wrote in message > > On 4 Jun 2001 20:27:07 -0700, Mike Courtois wrote: > > > Then during the terms of the vote Paul additionaly > moved himself as my pred. Brad protested saying that Paul never stated > that he would do that. Paul said "I know I didn't" "I said I would > move you in front of the weak prey and I will! But you didn't ask if I > was going to move anyone else. It IS a Kindred Resructue after all!" > Brad lost it and asked Paul if he could attempt to block. > (now pay attention) Paul said "sure you can attempt to block." So Brad threw > his Wake for the minion w/the Sport Bike. Paul then says "your block > fails because you have already declined to block, we are in post block > Pre-Refrendem Step." Geez. I hope he didn't say that exactly. It doesn't make any sense! :) If he really did say that I'd let Brad put the Wake back in his hand. :) > (which was true, he still could have played an > eagle sight) OK, so you are saying that Brad declined to block during the regular choose blockers step but that Brad still could have blocked with an Eagle's Sight...and that Paul jumped the gun by announcing the terms of the referendum before seeking "all other block attempts". > At which time Brad picked his Wake up and put it back > into his hand. Paul replyed "no I'm sorry that card WAS legally > played, and now must be discarded. So Paul was saying that Brad's block attempt failed because he didn't play an Eagle's Sight? And Brad had played the Wake so couldn't put it back in his hand. Am I understanding this whole mess correctly? Sounds like a big messy misunderstanding. Brad was under the impression that Paul was letting him go back in time and change his "decline to block" decision from the initial "choose blockers" step and Paul thought Brad was attempting during the "all other block attempts" step. -Robert

In article <9fjrld$uc$1...@taliesin.netcom.net.uk>, Roger Carhult <rogc...@student.luth.se> wrote: >I have a question about breaking deals. [snip] Accepting, declining to accept, and breaking deals are not covered in the rules. Each player is therefore free to make, accept, decline or break deals as he or she chooses. The only global bar to this is prior explicit collusion. Trust, or the lack of it, in the other player is part of your judgement. You use your judgement (based on previous experience) to determine whether or not to attempt to block the Malkavian who's bleeding you. You make that decision based on cards in hand, your knowledge of what's in your deck, the table composition, what cards you've seen your Malkavian predator play to date, and -- emphasis added -- your judgement built up from how things have gone in similar situations from prior games. It would be ludicrous to claim that decisions based on experience gained in prior games are 'acting on outside interests;' player experience is one of the things tested in tournaments. Similarly: -an extremely risk-averse player could refuse to accept any offered deal, regardless of knowledge/trust in the player offering. -an extremely risk-favorable player could accept any offered deal, regardless of past betrayals by the person offering. Given these two extreme (but not inconceivable) possibilities, any response to a non-collusive deal is perfectly acceptable. The only things restricted by the tourney rules in re deals are: Deal terms based on game externals (a round 1 action by person A exchanged for a future round 2 action by person B, or explicitly teaming up to deny a player/decktype VPs to the detriment of one or both deal partner's position in the current game) and Deals based on prior collusion (A and B agree to act in thus-and-such a way when they sit at the same table). While prior knowledge of a person offering you a deal can serve as a metric of whether to accept a deal or not, and I would prefer, ceteris paribus, that people who play together not have such an advantage over people who don't, V:tES is a social game and we're all going to have to be adults about it. I don't believe the advantage to be that large. But I should mention that such a 'home turf advantage' certainly extends well beyond deal acceptance/refusal. It also conveys: -What types of deck a person likes to play. This is how I got ousted first at KublaCon. Ian Lee is a strong player, and all respect to him, but he has a strong penchant for choosing the interesting deck over the effective deck, and I (very mistakenly) did not consider him the strongest threat at the table. This affected how I Restructured the table. -How many copies of what card a person owns. I would be very chary of intercepting Noal McDonald's Kindred Spirits action, for instance, because we all _know_ he's mad for Deranges and I would want to save intercept/untap for that. -Play style. This goes beyond deck type. If I know one of my local players is very risk-averse and distractible, I can tune my play to irritate that player and possibly goad them into making a mistake. gomi -- the direction of the eye so misleading the corruption of the soul nauseously quick

"Roger Carhult" <rogc...@student.luth.se> wrote > I have a question about breaking deals. > > Generally deals aren't borken, we have an unspoken rule in ym playgroups > that promises are to be kept. Anyone who'd break that rule would be punished > later on by the player who got his deal broken. It's never happened but I > know people would revenge the broken deal. > > But what if this is done at a tournament. Say that Meth A makes a deal with > B and then breaks it. Under the rules about in-game consideration B wouldn't > be allowed to revenge on A in the next round. Now take this example further > and I don't know how this rule is supposed to be interpreted. Say that A > wants to deal with B in the next round. Of course B knowing that this guy > isn't trustworthy will not accept the deal. Or he'll accept and then break > the deal himself as a revenge. > > Now consider this: > > * B has never boken a deal before, simply because of the "unspoken rule". > * B has always trusted deals before, because they have never been broken. > > Now if B refuses to make a deal with A that is actually not through in-game > considerations. There seems to be a great deal of confusion between out-of-game considerations and out-of-game knowledge. I would say that B, knowing A to be a bad dealer, is free to use that knowledge to decline or break a deal. Think about it this way, if B faces A in the second game knowing from the first game that A has a combat deck, he surely could not be punished for discarding a deflection at the end of his first turn. He could, I imagine, be punished for coming across the table to take his revenge from the previous outing, with votes and bum's rushes and whatever. But maybe not even then ***. > So would A then be allowed to force B to accept a deal he > normally would have based on this?? This could never be more than a hypothetical question. > Or what if B breaks a deal on A as a > revnge, everybody knows he'd never normally break a deal, so it's obvious > it's for revenge purposes. B broke the rules? If he did then he'll never be > able to break deals now? What if he just realised that deal breaks are a > part of them game and from now on wnats to make use of it, and A happens to > be the first victim? Surely nobody can forbid B to ever break deals when > playing if he wants to. Perhaps B (having never had his deal broken before) now gets to exercise his policy of not honoring deals with people he knows to have broken deals. > But also if he's allowed to break the deal then he's revenging for out-of > game purposes and not trying to win (say the deal was more or less > beneficial to him in that game (naturally since else u don't make deals)). Presumably you make deals to help you win, and if you break them, you break them when doing so increases your chance to win. In that sense, this is not a useful question. *** Here's my take in general. If I see a guy at my table break a deal or deal dishonestly, he has my attention, even from across the table. To some extent this is because I prefer a stable table environment to work from, and if I know a guy will lie, I have to always assume he will do the worst to me. For instance, I have no need to ask a dishonest guy who he might use Banishment on, I have to assume it will be on my vampire, even across the table, and asking him is useless. I have to block if I can, every time. Having to expend resources in this way over the long term is not my easiest path to victory, so I'll do what I can to oust that dishonest guy as soon as I can, even across the table. This play style may be unworkable in a tournament environment, I'll probably never know, but it is a legitimate outlook on the game. And as far as I can conceive, it should not get me into any trouble with judges enforcing the new tournament rules. - Jason Bell

Mike Courtois wrote: > Brad lost it and asked Paul if he could attempt to block. (now pay > attention) Paul said "sure you can attempt to block." So Brad threw > his Wake for the minion w/the Sport Bike. Paul then says "your block > fails because you have already declined to block, we are in post block > Pre-Refrendem Step." (which was true, he still could have played an > eagle sight) At which time Brad picked his Wake up and put it back > into his hand. Paul replyed "no I'm sorry that card WAS legally > played, and now must be discarded. Thats when Brad hit the roof and > insults and threats flew from all sides. Then paul joined the club. > Thats how it broke down. This is the part I have a *huge* bone of contention about. It's perfectly OK for Paul to be disingenuous about his restructure deal with Brad. But you *CAN* *NOT* be disingenuous about what phase the game is in. At this point, Brad and Paul disagree about what part of the turn is happening and there is no way to resolve that disagreement. Robyn was just stuck. You have one player saying one thing and one player saying the other thing. In Magic, Paul and Brad would *BOTH* get warnings. And frankly, Paul deserves it more! At least Brad asked a straight question. Responding, "Yes" in that circumstances knowing the question that Brad was meaning to ask to "fool" him into playing his Wake is not and never should be a legal or legitimate tactic. And frankly, if this works, I don't want to play this game. I don't want to play in a game where people play games about playing a game - if you know what I mean. Brad didn't know if it was acceptable to assume he could still block so he asked. That's the straight up thing to do. Paul answering "Yes" because playing a Wake is technically legal at that moment when he knew damn well (or I sure hope he knew damn well) what Brad was really asking is not a straight up thing to do. And that was a major cause in the game blowing up. Fred

-- "Robert Goudie" <rrgo...@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:LmfT6.348$9m.1...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net... > "Mike Courtois" <jedi...@rebelscum.net> wrote in message > > Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> wrote in message > > > On 4 Jun 2001 20:27:07 -0700, Mike Courtois wrote: > > > > > Then during the terms of the vote Paul additionaly > > moved himself as my pred. Brad protested saying that Paul never stated > > that he would do that. Paul said "I know I didn't" "I said I would > > move you in front of the weak prey and I will! But you didn't ask if I > > was going to move anyone else. It IS a Kindred Resructue after all!" > > Brad lost it and asked Paul if he could attempt to block. > > (now pay attention) Paul said "sure you can attempt to block." So Brad > threw > > his Wake for the minion w/the Sport Bike. Paul then says "your block > > fails because you have already declined to block, we are in post block > > Pre-Refrendem Step." > > Geez. I hope he didn't say that exactly. It doesn't make any sense! :) If > he really did say that I'd let Brad put the Wake back in his hand. :) > > > (which was true, he still could have played an > > eagle sight) Hmm really? > > OK, so you are saying that Brad declined to block during the regular choose > blockers step but that Brad still could have blocked with an Eagle's > Sight...and that Paul jumped the gun by announcing the terms of the > referendum before seeking "all other block attempts". > > > At which time Brad picked his Wake up and put it back > > into his hand. Paul replyed "no I'm sorry that card WAS legally > > played, and now must be discarded. > > So Paul was saying that Brad's block attempt failed because he didn't play > an Eagle's Sight? And Brad had played the Wake so couldn't put it back in > his hand. Am I understanding this whole mess correctly? If yu decline to block can you then still block with Eagel's Sight? *confused*.

"Roger Carhult" <rogc...@student.luth.se> wrote in message news:9fk7j9$b32$1...@taliesin.netcom.net.uk... > > > -- > > > "Robert Goudie" <rrgo...@earthlink.net> wrote in message > news:LmfT6.348$9m.1...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net... > > "Mike Courtois" <jedi...@rebelscum.net> wrote in message [clip] > > So Paul was saying that Brad's block attempt failed because he didn't play > > an Eagle's Sight? And Brad had played the Wake so couldn't put it back in > > his hand. Am I understanding this whole mess correctly? > If yu decline to block can you then still block with Eagel's Sight? > *confused*. From the official rulings: Must be played during the 'choose blockers' stage. It may not be used after the action Methuselah asks for "all other blocking attempts". It may be used after your normal position on the choose blocker list (i.e., Prey - Predator - Prey w/ Eagle's sight). [TOM 19960106] So, as prey you may decline to block a vote, then your predator would get a chance to block, and then when the acting Meth. asks for all other blockers the prey may play the Eagle's Sight. -Robert

"Robert Goudie" <rrgo...@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:<LmfT6.348$9m.1...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>... > "Mike Courtois" <jedi...@rebelscum.net> wrote in message > > Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> wrote in message > > > On 4 Jun 2001 20:27:07 -0700, Mike Courtois wrote: > > > > > Then during the terms of the vote Paul additionaly > > moved himself as my pred. Brad protested saying that Paul never stated > > that he would do that. Paul said "I know I didn't" "I said I would > > move you in front of the weak prey and I will! But you didn't ask if I > > was going to move anyone else. It IS a Kindred Resructue after all!" > > Brad lost it and asked Paul if he could attempt to block. > > (now pay attention) Paul said "sure you can attempt to block." So Brad > threw > > his Wake for the minion w/the Sport Bike. Paul then says "your block > > fails because you have already declined to block, we are in post block > > Pre-Refrendem Step." > > Geez. I hope he didn't say that exactly. It doesn't make any sense! :) If > he really did say that I'd let Brad put the Wake back in his hand. :) > > > (which was true, he still could have played an > > eagle sight) > > OK, so you are saying that Brad declined to block during the regular choose > blockers step but that Brad still could have blocked with an Eagle's > Sight...and that Paul jumped the gun by announcing the terms of the > referendum before seeking "all other block attempts". Yes, Im sorry, I see my mislabling of the situation, beleve me it was this confusing during play as well. You are correct. Predator and Prey HAD DEFINETLY declined to block after Paul had offered and Brad accepted his new seat. This was the terms of the deal for Brad NOT BLOCKING! After which which Paul continued to mentally process how he would define the terms of the referendum. Brad then responded, "What are you thinking about?" Paul said "I'm considering where I'M going to move to." That's where the heated disussion started! Brad dissmayed with the deal asked Paul if he could block, Paul said, "you can try!" Now at this point pread and prey had still declined to block already and the Referendum had not been announced yet, leaving the possability for eagle sight to be still be played. Brad then played his wake, and Paul said he failed to block and the Judge agreed. Brad argued that Paul "said he could block". But what Brad was thinking was let's take the whole deal back and reset the block minion phase so he could re block. But Brad only asked Paul if he could block. Paul only stated the obvious, yes you can attempt to block. Now the real problem is this all happened SO fast that Brad got blindsided by the whole thing. Now is that Paul's fault? Or was Paul just playing it as a veteran experenced player would? Personally I saw it comming the whole time, of course I know Paul's play style and you HAVE to be on top of your game with him. I thought it was a nice mind trick, others perceived it as unsportsmanlike. > > > At which time Brad picked his Wake up and put it back > > into his hand. Paul replyed "no I'm sorry that card WAS legally > > played, and now must be discarded. > > So Paul was saying that Brad's block attempt failed because he didn't play > an Eagle's Sight? And Brad had played the Wake so couldn't put it back in > his hand. Am I understanding this whole mess correctly? Yes, Correct. > > Sounds like a big messy misunderstanding. Brad was under the impression > that Paul was letting him go back in time and change his "decline to block" > decision from the initial "choose blockers" step and Paul thought Brad was > attempting during the "all other block attempts" step. Paul knew EXACTLY what he was doing. Mike > > -Robert

Frederick Scott <fre...@netcom.com> wrote in message news:<3B1D94C7...@netcom.com>... [ quoted text not captured ] Refer to my previous post to Robert for my correction. But yes, I think Brad is a big boy and should have FULLY DEFINED the deal with Paul befor making an agreement. He did not and Paul used that to his advantage, at which point Brad compounded his error by not knowing the table and Paul again took advantage of it. So why exactly is Paul the bad guy here? Mike

Robert Goudie wrote: [snip other good stuff] > > Examples of Illegally Defined Actions: > > If you announce a Govern the Unaligned at Superior and then realize that > your minion has inferior dominate, you are not required to play the card in > the inferior form. > > If you accidentally play a Golconda on a minion of 7 capacity and then > realize your error, you are not forced to play the Golconda on some other > minion at the table of 8 capacity or more. > > If you drop a deflection to the table and then change your mind *before* > fully announcing the card's effect (who you are deflecting to), you may > return the card to your hand. I would like to point out that if you "accidentally" play any card, and then take it back to your hand, you are breaking the tournament rules, to whit: ************ 4.4. Card Elevation and Disposition Players must keep their cards above the level of the playing surface. Revealing cards in your hand or uncontrolled area to an opponent is not allowed. ************ According to the penalty guidelines, this is either a Procedural Error - Minor, or a Procedural Error - Misrepresntation. Both come with a Penalty of a Caution. I would also add (if I were the judge), that this means that a repeat of a similar offence would result in a Warning (tracked), which would then be followed by a Game Loss if the same offence is done. So there isn't *no* penalty to showing the cards in your hand... Best, Chris -- chris shorb <www.vtesinla.org> (A V:TES site in development) prince of torrance, california Ultimate Disc - Hockey - Vampire the Eternal Struggle Ebay page <http://members.ebay.com/aboutme/vtessingles/>

"Mike Courtois" <jedi...@rebelscum.net> wrote in message > Frederick Scott <fre...@netcom.com> wrote in message [clip] > Refer to my previous post to Robert for my correction. But yes, I > think Brad is a big boy and should have FULLY DEFINED the deal with > Paul befor making an agreement. He did not and Paul used that to his > advantage, at which point Brad compounded his error by not knowing the > table and Paul again took advantage of it. So why exactly is Paul the > bad guy here? He may or may not have made an error in his play--depending on the exact words that were said. We can only go by what you are posting here. Based on the first post of yours, Paul looked like he may have made an error. -Robert

"Robert Goudie" <rrgo...@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:LmfT6.348$9m.1...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net... [ quoted text not captured ] Thats exactly what happened. Paul gave me the go ahead to make the block if I wanted to. I was thinking... "cool Paul's really not that bad of a guy when he's playing jyhad after all he's gonna let me make the block since there was a misunderstanding about his vote terms. But to my dismay it was a silly trick to catch me up with ruleslaywering loopholes. Brad

[ quoted text not captured ] Depending on his tone (things you can't get in posts), his "Yes," or "sure you can block" or "you can try!" would all be a pretty different answer. It sure *sounded* (at first) like Paul knew what Brad was asking, and gave him a "correct" but misleading answer, and didn't mind that it made Brad drop the Wake. It sounded a *little* like he deliberately "misleaded him with the truth," and then capitalized on it via strict ruling. While I'm NOT saying that's what happened, but IF something like that happens, it could be defended by the "if there is anything I know about the game or it's rules that I can use as an advantage, then it's fair." That kind of conniving and then hiding behind the shield of the rules is nicely categorized as "Passive-aggressive behavior." In everyone else, this inspires rage as the passive-aggressive person takes a "I don't understand what's so wrong" attitude. I personally find that this kind of behavior should be removed from society, the gene pool, etc., and so should be responded to with "aggressive-aggressive behavior," like a punch to the nose. However, I don't think that's tournament legal, so people bitch and shout instead. Guess it has to be that way or people would clock people just for losing, instead of saving their strength for proper realignment of human behavior. [ quoted text not captured ]

On 5 Jun 2001 22:26:21 -0700, jedi...@rebelscum.net (Mike Courtois) wrote: >Refer to my previous post to Robert for my correction. But yes, I >think Brad is a big boy and should have FULLY DEFINED the deal with >Paul befor making an agreement. He did not and Paul used that to his Yep. Brad got fooled, didn't specify all the terms, and declined to block, at which point Paul started producing the "fine print" terms. When you make a deal with the devil, you'd better be sure you've covered ALL the bases. >advantage, at which point Brad compounded his error by not knowing the >table and Paul again took advantage of it. So why exactly is Paul the >bad guy here? Paul lied about the state of the game - something which does NOT need to be happening. The opportunity for Brad to block had already passed earlier. Whether Paul said "yes" or "you can try" in response to the question is irrelevant, as both answers are 100% false: in fact, Brad could NOT try to block, as he'd already refused the opportunity. Brad didn't ask if he could Wake, he asked if he could block. That question deserves an accurate, non-deceptive answer. Claiming that Brad just "didn't know the table" is not sufficient; THAT'S WHY HE ASKED, and players should be ALLOWED to clarify the state of the game by asking! If someone asks you how much pool you have, you are required to reply truthfully. If someone asks you if they are still able to block, you should ALSO be required to reply truthfully. ...Which Paul didn't. Plain and simple. I'd have let Brad put the Wake back in his hand (I wouldn't have let him block, as apparently he DID decline to block earlier). -- Derek Thug of Atlanta

[ quoted text not captured ] > Refer to my previous post to Robert for my correction. But yes, I > think Brad is a big boy and should have FULLY DEFINED the deal with > Paul befor making an agreement. I agree. And I'm totally OK with that. Brad can get the agreement about the *Restructure terms* he can get and if he's not satisfied with what Paul did Restructure terms then he has the option of treating Paul's actions as a betrayal of trust and can go from there. Or not, whatever he likes. That's all part and parcel of valid multiplayer game play. But were that all it was, we have no issues about whether a Wake card got played or not. > He did not and Paul used that to his > advantage, at which point Brad compounded his error by not knowing the > table and Paul again took advantage of it. So why exactly is Paul the > bad guy here? I thought I made myself pretty clear but I'll restate the part I'm not good with and see if I can make it make more sense to you. From your post in response to Robert: # Brad then played his wake, and Paul said he failed to block and the Judge agreed. # Brad argued that Paul 'said he could block'. But what Brad was thinking was let's take # the whole deal back and reset the block minion phase so he could block. But Brad only # asked Paul if he could block. Paul only stated the obvious, yes you can attempt to block. That is not straight answer. You're likely right about Brad was thinking. So "stating the obvious" is not an acceptable answer to this question considering that by "stating the obvious" you mean, "stating the obvious in view of the fact that anyone can wake and block with an Eagle's Sight at this time" - which isn't really all that obvious anyway, IMO. If Paul doesn't think Brad can block as part of the normal prey-blocking part of the action, the straightforward, non-deceptive answer is "Yes, but only with an Eagle's Sight". This is a question about, "What phase of the game are we in?" It is *NOT* acceptable to be deceptive, disingenuous, or sideways in this kind of matter. Do that all you want about what game deals you're gonna make, fine. But all the players must agree what phase of the game it is at all times or, frankly, we don't have a game. Fred

On 5 Jun 2001 17:47:56 -0700, Mike Courtois wrote: >Thats when Brad hit the roof and insults and threats >flew from all sides. Then paul joined the club. >That's how it broke down. It's still not clear how you then arrived at the 2-2 Succubus Club deal. The result of this deal is that Paul goes from certainly getting 1 VP and maybe more, to getting 2 VP if everything works as planned. There's a lot that could have gone wrong with the deal. You might have reneged and swept the table. There might have been another Restructure. And who knows what else? I assume that you sided with Paul in the argument about the Wake which had the effect of polarising the table. Paul then doesn't want to oust his only friend and face Fred and Brad alone because of an expectation that they will cooperate to oust him next. I'm not quite getting how the Succubus Club bit works so well. I can see that you do well out of getting all of Paul's minions. But how is Paul able to survive to collect his reward when he is wide open to bleeds from upstream? Was everyone low on pool so that you were able to oust your way round to Paul immediately? > It's not Succubus Club which is the problem but the >> whole deal-making, my-word-is-my-bond culture. > >I strongly disagree. If players were less trusting then you would be less likely to get deals in which the stronger partner ends up taking a dive. And if deals were broken more often then there would less weeping and wailing when it happens. Andrew

[ quoted text not captured ] It's more than just rules lawyering. It's a huge problem. Given the victim (in this case Brad) can legitimately claim that he believes the game to still be in the prey-block segment and that his opponent did nothing to clear up the misunderstanding, his claim is just as good as his opponent's claim. There's no answer to the problem. The judge ruled how she ruled and you go on, but there's no correct answer. If I'm the judge and I totally understand the circumstances (which is also near impossible given all the anger and claims and counterclaims, but let's say I did for sake of argument), I rule in Brad's favor just because it's Brad who is clearly penalized by what is at least a mutual misunderstanding if not fairly well attributable to the other guy. Fred

"Frederick Scott" <fre...@netcom.com> wrote in message > Given the victim > (in this case Brad) can legitimately claim that he believes the game to still > be in the prey-block segment and that his opponent did nothing to clear up the > misunderstanding, his claim is just as good as his opponent's claim. There's > no answer to the problem. The judge ruled how she ruled and you go on, but there's > no correct answer. > If I'm the judge and I totally understand the circumstances > (which is also near impossible given all the anger and claims and counterclaims, > but let's say I did for sake of argument), I rule in Brad's favor just because > it's Brad who is clearly penalized by what is at least a mutual misunderstanding > if not fairly well attributable to the other guy. A very well reasoned ruling. We may need another judge soon locally Fred. :) -Robert

"Frederick Scott" <fre...@netcom.com> wrote in message > Mike Courtois wrote: [clip] [ quoted text not captured ] A great summary. I was also looking for the "failure to agree on reality" section of the penalty guidelines and it seems to no longer be present. We used to have that back in the DCI days. It will likely make another appearance at some future point. -Robert

On Tue, 5 Jun 2001 23:16:59 -0700, Bradly Ward wrote: >Thats exactly what happened. Paul gave me the go ahead to make the block if >I wanted to. I was thinking... "cool Paul's really not that bad of a guy >when he's playing jyhad after all he's gonna let me make the block since >there was a misunderstanding about his vote terms. But to my dismay it was >a silly trick to catch me up with ruleslaywering loopholes. What's the trick here? Why is it such a big deal whether the Wake was played or not? What's in it for Paul? From what I can see he was only guilty of wanting to play the game in a strict manner. What you were wanting to do was back up and change your blocking decision. Players might informally agree to do such a thing but, for this to happen, you should be asking permission of the whole table, not just one player. Normally I would veto this as stating the terms of a vote clearly comes after blocking. Nasty surprises at this point are to be expected. Andrew

"Noal McDonald" <dhar...@my-deja.com> a écrit dans le message news: bb705c59.01060...@posting.google.com... > >> I also will continue to prove that this card should be banned from tournament > >> play. In the meantime, Arson is a fairly good card. > > > > Unrelated Thought: Arson is a very good card. People often rely heavily on > > locations and don't have a plan B. I'm guilty of this because I don't see > > enough Arson to force me to change. > > Actually, I'm a bigger fan of Kine Dominance and Disputed Territory. > Why destroy what you can steal? Because someother guy can take it back via votes or other cards !! In my early jahd days, i found that stealing locations was uber-fun. We all played with hunting grounds at that time. The problem is that now that the players are better, a lot of location they play are too specific and won't actually be af any use for you. People tend to play things like "Art Museum", "Chantry", "Elysean Field"... so if you steal them, they'll try to get it back or contest it. Burning plain and simple is a good strategy too. I played my Lambach deck with 4 Kind Dominance, now i pack 3 arsons instead : everyone can do this action, even the War Ghoul ! who will try to stop them from arsoning ? And if they play the same location again, i can still burn it again. It's a permanent threat. > In fact, and my local play groups will back me up, about 1/3 of my decks steal > anything that isn't nailed down...and most of them aren't Setite decks. The problems about stealing are 1- it costs you actions to do the stealing thing, and you don't always have a use for what you borrow. You deprive ressource but if you can't use them, better hurt plain and simple. I prefer burning a vampire or a location i won't use myself. so no one can steal it back. 2- it makes you look strong. i hate having other people looking at me as the king of the hill. Cause then i know they will all gang up on me. That's particularly true when you play with experienced players ;) hi to the california people =) > Regards, > Noal just my two pool reyda

> [snip] > -How many copies of what card a person owns. I would be > very chary of intercepting Noal McDonald's Kindred Spirits action, > for instance, because we all _know_ he's mad for Deranges and I would > want to save intercept/untap for that. Don't encourage him.

<snipped comments about the Restructure> [ quoted text not captured ] Also, if Brad didn't have a minion with superior Auspex Paul didn't even state the (dubiously) obvious because he then knew that Brad couldn't even try that and must have asked for soemthing else than a block with Eagle's Sight. However if Brad played an intercept deck which provenly had played Eagle's Sights before then I think it all comes into a different light actually. Roger

Fred Scott & "Mike Courtois" <jedi...@rebelscum.net> wrote ( the double ">>" are Scott post) > > This is the part I have a *huge* bone of contention about. It's perfectly > > OK for Paul to be disingenuous about his restructure deal with Brad. But > > you *CAN* *NOT* be disingenuous about what phase the game is in. At this > > point, Brad and Paul disagree about what part of the turn is happening and > > there is no way to resolve that disagreement. Robyn was just stuck. You > > have one player saying one thing and one player saying the other thing. > > In Magic, Paul and Brad would *BOTH* get warnings. And frankly, Paul deserves > > it more! The guy who wrote this doesn't know that Paul is one of the best jyhad players, in terms of card interaction AND psychological warfare. He knew that the vote was not blocked, he made his opponent play the wake in purpose to get him made (and succeded). The wake has been played, but it is possible to play it during referendum anyway, for surprise influence or delaying tactics. But trying to block at this point is not legal. The wake has been wasted and should have gone to the ash heap instead of sticking in brad's hand. > > At least Brad asked a straight question. Responding, "Yes" in > > that circumstances knowing the question that Brad was meaning to ask to "fool" > > him into playing his Wake is not and never should be a legal or legitimate > > tactic. And frankly, if this works, I don't want to play this game. Let's try another game instead ! you never use deceiving tactics or small trickery when playing ? so you are not actually playing jyhad. A good example : i made a deal with my predator during a tournament, saying "iu'll equipe with a .44 magnum, please don't block so i can put pressure on my prey next turn -i won't intercept you in return". He said "okay, i won't block". When i try to equip, he plays a Direct Intervention on the gun. Yes, i thought "bastard!" at that time, but he didn't break our deal. It was a very reffined play : he removed the gun menace while not breaking his word. He was playing jyhad, and i must say i *enjoyed* being countered in this manner. (Mike's answer) > Refer to my previous post to Robert for my correction. But yes, I > think Brad is a big boy and should have FULLY DEFINED the deal with > Paul befor making an agreement. He did not and Paul used that to his > advantage, at which point Brad compounded his error by not knowing the > table and Paul again took advantage of it. So why exactly is Paul the > bad guy here? > > Mike The clever guy *seems* to be the bad guy. Besides this, what can you expect from a player who doesn't try to negociate when some critical political actions are announced ? I think there's a big gap between Brad and Paul's "level of play". One plays with the cards, the other plays with cards+ words+ psychology. And, Mike this exeperience doesn't dishonor you ! i know you're a good player but Paul is too damn gifted in making deals ;) so i understand your position ! making an alliance with the strongest player at the table is always a good opportunity, but splitting the VP is a thing i personnaly try to avoid. reyda just my 2 life

> > Sounds like a big messy misunderstanding. Brad was under the impression > > that Paul was letting him go back in time and change his "decline to block" > > decision from the initial "choose blockers" step and Paul thought Brad was > > attempting during the "all other block attempts" step. Hey ! it was tournament play ! do you know of any guy who will say you declined to block, but i'll give you an opportunity to ruin my political strategy : let's go back to the point where you could have chosen to block ! Nobody does this, and certainly not in california where nit-pick is the rule. > Paul knew EXACTLY what he was doing. Definetly yes. Whether you like his play style or not, you must grant him that. > Mike reyda

Reyda wrote: > > Fred Scott & > "Mike Courtois" <jedi...@rebelscum.net> wrote > > ( the double ">>" are Scott post) Well, they're from my post, yea. > > > This is the part I have a *huge* bone of contention about. It's perfectly > > > OK for Paul to be disingenuous about his restructure deal with Brad. > > > But you *CAN* *NOT* be disingenuous about what phase the game is in. At > > > this point, Brad and Paul disagree about what part of the turn is happening > > > and there is no way to resolve that disagreement. Robyn was just stuck. > > > You have one player saying one thing and one player saying the other thing. > > > In Magic, Paul and Brad would *BOTH* get warnings. And frankly, Paul > > > deserves it more! > > The guy who wrote this doesn't know that Paul is one of the best jyhad > players, in terms of card interaction AND psychological warfare. Not sure why you would make this statement. I only met Paul at Gamex but I did discover this for myself during this period. He's also obviously a good guy at heart who really likes the game. I just disagree with this one thing he did. > that the vote was not blocked, he made his opponent play the wake in purpose > to get him made (and succeded). The wake has been played, but it is possible > to play it during referendum anyway, for surprise influence or delaying > tactics. But trying to block at this point is not legal. But how do you know what point in this game we are at? The players in the game do not agree on the matter. Brad's claim that we are still at the original block phase is just as good as Paul's claim that that point has past. Better, in fact, in that Brad verbally asked Paul to confirm that for the other players and Paul seemed to agree. Now Brad points at Paul's answer and says, "See - he admitted I could block so why are we now claiming that it's too late for that. In short, you can't play this kind of game. It doesn't work. You can't lie or deceive an opponent about what part of the game you're in because you can't turn around and then uncover the truth and make him hand over his Wake. In essence, your deception *makes* it the truth (that it's still the block phase and Brad is allowed to wake and block). > The wake has been wasted and should have gone to the ash heap instead of > sticking in brad's hand. If you want to go down that road, the Wake has been played and the referendum is blocked. > > > At least Brad asked a straight question. Responding, "Yes" in > > > that circumstances knowing the question that Brad was meaning to ask to > > > "fool" him into playing his Wake is not and never should be a legal or > > > legitimate tactic. And frankly, if this works, I don't want to play this game. > > Let's try another game instead ! you never use deceiving tactics or small > trickery when playing ? so you are not actually playing jyhad. Of course. But there are things you can use trickery about and things you can not. You can trick your opponent into making a game agreement that's not in his best interest. You can not trick your opponent into playing a game with rules he doesn't like. For instance, if your opponents ask you straight out whether you're playing the game under VEKN rules and you reply, "We are playing under official rules." and then get halfway through the game and suddenly say, "Of course I can replace my Wake during my turn, we are playing the game under official NATIONAL JYHAD LEAGUE RULES!", you have a problem. You can't turn around and say, "Ha, ha, I fooled you. I didn't which set of 'official rules' we were using!" What's the point in that? Playing a game requires the participants expressly agree about certain things and don't try to deceive each other about them. Fred

"Pat Ricochet" <sp...@socrates.gatech.edu> > It sure *sounded* (at first) like Paul knew what Brad was asking, and > gave him a "correct" but misleading answer, and didn't mind that it made > Brad drop the Wake. It sounded a *little* like he deliberately "misleaded > him with the truth," and then capitalized on it via strict ruling. so what ? it seems to annoy you. > While I'm NOT saying that's what happened, but IF something like that > happens, it could be defended by the "if there is anything I know about the > game or it's rules that I can use as an advantage, then it's fair." That's the truth for ALL games in the whole world. It's often the rules of real life too. consider the opposite : "If there is anything i don't know about the game or it's rules, it is a disadvantage for me". Information, and correct use of disinformation is what people use in gamers AND in everyday's life. > That kind of conniving and then hiding behind the shield of the rules is > nicely categorized as "Passive-aggressive behavior." hiding behind the shield of rules... pfffff.... there are rules. there are laws. If you don't understand them, you will be abused by people who knows them more than you. > In everyone else, this > inspires rage as the passive-aggressive person takes a "I don't understand > what's so wrong" attitude. I personally find that this kind of behavior > should be removed from society, the gene pool, etc., and so should be > responded to with "aggressive-aggressive behavior," like a punch to the > nose. Yes ! you're so right Patrick ! let's break all this rules and go back to stone age where brute force was the only mean of communication and interaction betwen people.... *No way.* try to beat them at their own game instead ! it's far more gratifying. > However, I don't think that's tournament legal, so people bitch and > shout instead. Guess it has to be that way or people would clock people > just for losing, instead of saving their strength for proper realignment of > human behavior. Wether it's game or life, i can see no one there trying to "realignate human behavior". Go to alt.politics.utopist.punch-in-the-nose ;) > -- > Pat Ricochet > Soul Jar'rn Fool of Atlanta Just my two pool, please don't take it personnaly Pat, i just want to open the eyes of players who think jyhad is a gentle and pacific game. reyda

Roger Carhult wrote: > I have a question about breaking deals. > > Generally deals aren't borken, we have an unspoken rule in ym playgroups > that promises are to be kept. Anyone who'd break that rule would be punished > later on by the player who got his deal broken. It's never happened but I > know people would revenge the broken deal. > > But what if this is done at a tournament. Say that Meth A makes a deal with > B and then breaks it. Under the rules about in-game consideration B wouldn't > be allowed to revenge on A in the next round. Now take this example further Correct. > and I don't know how this rule is supposed to be interpreted. Say that A > wants to deal with B in the next round. Of course B knowing that this guy > isn't trustworthy will not accept the deal. Or he'll accept and then break > the deal himself as a revenge. OK. > Now consider this: > > * B has never boken a deal before, simply because of the "unspoken rule". > * B has always trusted deals before, because they have never been broken. > > Now if B refuses to make a deal with A that is actually not through in-game > considerations. So would A then be allowed to force B to accept a deal he > normally would have based on this?? Or what if B breaks a deal on A as a > revnge, everybody knows he'd never normally break a deal, so it's obvious > it's for revenge purposes. B broke the rules? If he did then he'll never be Moot. You qualify that with a series of non-in-game parameters. You can't restrict someone based on non-in-game parameters any more than you can enable action based on non-in-game parameters. > able to break deals now? What if he just realised that deal breaks are a > part of them game and from now on wnats to make use of it, and A happens to > be the first victim? Surely nobody can forbid B to ever break deals when > playing if he wants to. > > But also if he's allowed to break the deal then he's revenging for out-of > game purposes and not trying to win (say the deal was more or less > beneficial to him in that game (naturally since else u don't make deals)). If you "break" a deal and your in-game position suffers for it, then you've got a *really* strange idea of "revenge" :-) -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and tournament rules: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/

On Tue, 5 Jun 2001 19:23:34 +0100, Rob Treasure wrote: >As I said the deal was VERY similar to the above but the vote was Banishment >which was declared on my prey first (before blocking was announced - VERY >IMPORTANT) Nicky (prey) threatened to block and I made a deal to sink one of >Barn's (pred.) minions of Nicky's choice with the Vote instead in return for >him not blocking. Naturally Nicky ate up the deal as it would have made his >job very easy with his Fame on Gilbert and Barn down to 5/6 pool with Curse >of Nitocris on him. > >Barn understandably went mad accusing me of all sorts of shit, but the vote >proceeded. I asked if the vote had gone through on the chosen target >(Zebulon if I recall) and Nicky said "OK" (2nd VERY IMPORTANT POINT). Of >course I then changed the vote target to Nicky's Beast when the referendum >had been called and HE then went mad, trying to block the vote after it had >sucessfully been played. What followed was a gruesome, solid hour of >agitation and arguing to try and resolve this. I don't understand how you could take ten seconds over this, let alone an hour. The specific terms of the referundum are decided after the action is successful (not blocked). It's obvious that you're in a position to make the terms something other than was discussed prior to blocking. Why are people not getting this? Maybe it's because the actual yeah or nay to blocking is getting muddled up with the negotiations which make it seem conditional. There should always be a clear Q&A drill every time you call a referendum - "Are you blocking?" to which the response is a clear "Yes" or "No". And another thing. Tom tells me that you routinely double-cross people as you did here. How do you manage to keep getting away with it? <grin> Andrew

In article <9flcgc$kin$1...@neon.noos.net>, Reyda <re...@noos.fr> wrote: >Hey ! it was tournament play ! do you know of any guy who will say you >declined to block, but i'll give you an opportunity to ruin my political >strategy : let's go back to the point where you could have chosen to block ! >Nobody does this, and certainly not in california where nit-pick is the >rule. That's actually spelled as one word, 'nitpick.' <snort> HAW HAW I'M FUNNY MA!!11!!!!11!! Anyway, I am _so_ getting this turned into a license plate frame for my car: California (top) where nit-pick is the rule (bottom). >Definetly yes. Whether you like his play style or not, you must grant him >that. Yeap. Both the wake-question flap and the restructure-deal flap are well within the bounds of what I've seen in tourney play. The Wake-thing misunderstanding is unfortunate, but wholly due to the Wake-player's inexperience in tourneys, at least serious ones. Since both predator and prey had passed, it was Eagle's Sight or bust -- and any backing up to previously passed phases would have (a) required explicit consent of all players at the table and (b) probably been illegal even then. Tournament play doesn't allow for do-overs. I didn't let someone back up to Hunting Ground use in the middle of his minion phase, and had to call it on myself the very next turn when I forgot to take Edge pool until the middle of my master phase. In both cases, sorry, no do-overs. The Restructure misdeal was just bad deal-making -- he should _expect_ that areas left undefined (i.e. where the Restructure was going to place players not covered by the deal) were completely open to the Restructuring player's whim. gomi -- the direction of the eye so misleading the corruption of the soul nauseously quick

> On Tue, 5 Jun 2001 19:23:34 +0100, Rob Treasure wrote: > >> As I said the deal was VERY similar to the above but the vote was Banishment >> which was declared on my prey first (before blocking was announced - VERY >> IMPORTANT) Nicky (prey) threatened to block and I made a deal to sink one of >> Barn's (pred.) minions of Nicky's choice with the Vote instead in return for >> him not blocking. Naturally Nicky ate up the deal as it would have made his >> job very easy with his Fame on Gilbert and Barn down to 5/6 pool with Curse >> of Nitocris on him. >> >> Barn understandably went mad accusing me of all sorts of shit, but the vote >> proceeded. I asked if the vote had gone through on the chosen target >> (Zebulon if I recall) and Nicky said "OK" (2nd VERY IMPORTANT POINT). Of >> course I then changed the vote target to Nicky's Beast when the referendum >> had been called and HE then went mad, trying to block the vote after it had >> sucessfully been played. What followed was a gruesome, solid hour of >> agitation and arguing to try and resolve this. > > I don't understand how you could take ten seconds over this, let alone > an hour. The specific terms of the referundum are decided after the > action is successful (not blocked). Correct. > It's obvious that you're in a > position to make the terms something other than was discussed prior to > blocking. Incorrect. > Why are people not getting this? Because it is COMMON to discuss what the terms of the referendum WILL be before block attempts. The person calling the vote is not required to do so, but an deck capable of intercepting a vote often asks "Before I block that, how's it going to go?" Now, the person calling the vote doesn't have to say, and even if they do, those aren't the terms; those are stated when the referendum is actually called, so you are free to say "You'll only take one from the KRC," and then, once blocks are declined, call the terms "Three over THERE, and one on me." > Maybe it's because the actual yeah or nay to blocking is getting > muddled up with the negotiations which make it seem conditional. > There should always be a clear Q&A drill every time you call a > referendum - "Are you blocking?" to which the response is a clear > "Yes" or "No". Actually, the answer is almost always "How's it gonna go?" -- Pat Ricochet Soul Jar'rn Fool of Atlanta "You can't make a fact out of an opinion by raising your voice."

>> On Tue, 5 Jun 2001 19:23:34 +0100, Rob Treasure wrote: >> >>> As I said the deal was VERY similar to the above but the vote was Banishment >>> which was declared on my prey first (before blocking was announced - VERY >>> IMPORTANT) Nicky (prey) threatened to block and I made a deal to sink one of >>> Barn's (pred.) minions of Nicky's choice with the Vote instead in return for >>> him not blocking. Naturally Nicky ate up the deal as it would have made his >>> job very easy with his Fame on Gilbert and Barn down to 5/6 pool with Curse >>> of Nitocris on him. >>> >>> Barn understandably went mad accusing me of all sorts of shit, but the vote >>> proceeded. I asked if the vote had gone through on the chosen target >>> (Zebulon if I recall) and Nicky said "OK" (2nd VERY IMPORTANT POINT). Of >>> course I then changed the vote target to Nicky's Beast when the referendum >>> had been called and HE then went mad, trying to block the vote after it had >>> sucessfully been played. What followed was a gruesome, solid hour of >>> agitation and arguing to try and resolve this. >> >> I don't understand how you could take ten seconds over this, let alone >> an hour. The specific terms of the referundum are decided after the >> action is successful (not blocked). > Correct. > >> It's obvious that you're in a >> position to make the terms something other than was discussed prior to >> blocking. > Incorrect. Boy, I'm getting good at this. I see I'm repeating, not refuting what you're saying. Sorry. Ignore the previous message. >> Maybe it's because the actual yeah or nay to blocking is getting >> muddled up with the negotiations which make it seem conditional. >> There should always be a clear Q&A drill every time you call a >> referendum - "Are you blocking?" to which the response is a clear >> "Yes" or "No". > > Actually, the answer is almost always "How's it gonna go?" Well, keep that part of the message. That won't, and shouldn't, change. People will always deal before the block. [ quoted text not captured ]

> "Pat Ricochet" <sp...@socrates.gatech.edu> > > >> It sure *sounded* (at first) like Paul knew what Brad was asking, and >> gave him a "correct" but misleading answer, and didn't mind that it made >> Brad drop the Wake. It sounded a *little* like he deliberately "misleaded >> him with the truth," and then capitalized on it via strict ruling. > > so what ? it seems to annoy you. Since I'm not speaking too clearly today, I'll refer you to Fred's post with the "official rules" example. Deception within the game is encouraged. Deception ABOUT the game needs a punch in the nose. (or, a Boot to the Head =) [snip] >> In everyone else, this >> inspires rage as the passive-aggressive person takes a "I don't understand >> what's so wrong" attitude. I personally find that this kind of behavior >> should be removed from society, the gene pool, etc., and so should be >> responded to with "aggressive-aggressive behavior," like a punch to the >> nose. > > Yes ! you're so right Patrick ! let's break all this rules and go back to > stone age where brute force was the only mean of communication and > interaction betwen people.... *No way.* No, no. Not the only way. Just a supplement to the usual range of tools. =) > try to beat them at their own game instead ! it's far more gratifying. For me, it's not. I can rules laywer with the best of them, believe me. I just recognize that this is the pure antithesis of fun for MANY people. It's the not the rules-laywering that bugs me. It's the attitude of not understanding why anyone would mind it. Of COURSE it's going to piss people off! There are plenty of VTES players that want to play the game, and play it by the rules, but losing because of a simple misunderstanding of the rules does NOT encourage everyone to learn the rules. For many people, it encourages them to QUIT. If that kind of behavior continues and dominates, then it's going to limit VTES tournaments to a subset of the players it could have been, and that's BAD for the game. The "baby with the bathwater" tossing of common sense out to keep ultra-strict rulings bothered me, but I can't really argue against it. If people start USING it (Paul not here to defend himself so far, I'm not accusing him of having already done it) to win games, as a deliberately deceptive tool, they're ruining the game and pissing people off. And to say "I don't see what the problem is," after acting like that is the Boot-to-the-Head inducing kind. >> However, I don't think that's tournament legal, so people bitch and >> shout instead. Guess it has to be that way or people would clock people >> just for losing, instead of saving their strength for proper realignment > of >> human behavior. > > Wether it's game or life, i can see no one there trying to "realignate human > behavior". > Go to alt.politics.utopist.punch-in-the-nose ;) Well, or alt.politics.bonk.bonk.bonk. =) > Just my two pool, please don't take it personnaly Pat, i just want to open > the eyes of players who think jyhad is a gentle and pacific game. No problem. I would just rather people win by playing the game instead of the rules. Example: The DI of the equip action you mentioned (a pretty good move, too! =) is playing the game. Telling a guy his transfer phase is over because he put 2 pool on a guy and flipped him up before the other 2 pool in his other hand dropped on the second guy...Boot to the Head. Derek's mentioned this before, but the analogy in pool is something like: "You can either beat me from the chair, or you can try to beat me at the table." If I win a game on a technicality of an obvious** misunderstanding, ("from my chair") I don't really think I've won. I'd rather beat them at the game itself ("at the table"). ** Words like "obvious" is why we have judges. -- Pat Ricochet Soul Jar'rn Fool of Atlanta "You can't make a fact out of an opinion by raising your voice."

In message <B287D18DA8B0453E.0611E097...@lp.airnews.net>, Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> writes >Tom tells me that you routinely double-cross >people as you did here. By virtue of the fact that he generally keeps his deals. He'll then stab you in the back *afterwards*. -- James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D "You reinstall Dial-Up Networking. The Elf screams and becomes EBD690ECD7A1F an icon. *** CONGRATULATIONS! *** You completed the BT Internet B457CA213D7E6 Helpdesk training course in 15 out of a possible 9000 moves." 68C3695D623D5D

Gomi no Sensei wrote: > Yeap. Both the wake-question flap and the restructure-deal flap are > well within the bounds of what I've seen in tourney play. The > Wake-thing misunderstanding is unfortunate, but wholly due to the Wake-player's > inexperience in tourneys, at least serious ones. Since both predator > and prey had passed, I don't understand. How would you know that both predator and prey had passed? The only way to know if for all the players to agree on it. So if player 1 agrees with player 2 that prey hasn't passed the block phase, how can he backtrack later and tell player 2 that he *had* in fact already passed and that his Wake is now pointless without an Eagle's Sight? I don't get how this is "within the bounds of tourney play"? It happens, obviously. I was there. But it's not right. Fred

In message <3B1E63BE...@netcom.com>, Frederick Scott <fre...@netcom.com> writes >I don't understand. How would you know that both predator and prey had >passed? When they say so. [ quoted text not captured ]

>Since both predator > and prey had passed, I don't understand. How would you know that both predator and prey had passed? The only way to know if for all the players to agree on it. So if player 1 agrees with player 2 that prey hasn't passed the block phase, how can he backtrack later and tell player 2 that he *had* in fact already passed and that his Wake is now pointless without an Eagle's Sight? exactly, what if Brad was conniving Paul into announcing his restructure intentions before the block phase was over?

On Wed, 06 Jun 2001 02:14:47 -0400, Derek Ray wrote: >Paul lied about the state of the game - something which does NOT need >to be happening. The opportunity for Brad to block had already passed >earlier. Whether Paul said "yes" or "you can try" in response to the >question is irrelevant, as both answers are 100% false: in fact, Brad >could NOT try to block, as he'd already refused the opportunity. Isn't Eagle's Sight usable in this case, as others are saying? I certainly couldn't anticipate every trick and nuance which might be possible. The onus is on Brad to explain exactly what he wants to do. He can't expect the other players to know what's in his mind. Paul was the acting player but does that make it his job to be the MC for that turn or is this is a collective responsibility which Brad shared? It's a weakness of the game system that there's no mechanical way of tracking the sequence of play, e.g. moving a token along a track. If this is done verbally and with penalties for screw-ups then the rules should spell out the procedure. When we were discussing Madness of the Bard, I said that the ordinary play of the game was just as fuzzy. Given recent events, I claim a "told you so". Andrew

James Coupe wrote: > > In message <3B1E63BE...@netcom.com>, Frederick Scott > <fre...@netcom.com> writes > >I don't understand. How would you know that both predator and prey had > >passed? > > When they say so. But apparently Brad didn't agree he had "said so" or he wouldn't have asked Paul whether he could block. So that isn't really an answer to the question. At least, not in this case. Fred

Mike Courtois wrote in message <96580b43.01060...@posting.google.com>... >"Robert Goudie" <rrgo...@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:<LmfT6.348$9m.1...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>... >> "Mike Courtois" <jedi...@rebelscum.net> wrote in message >> > Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> wrote in message >> > > On 4 Jun 2001 20:27:07 -0700, Mike Courtois wrote: >> > > >> > Then during the terms of the vote Paul additionaly >> > moved himself as my pred. Brad protested saying that Paul never stated >> > that he would do that. Paul said "I know I didn't" "I said I would >> > move you in front of the weak prey and I will! But you didn't ask if I >> > was going to move anyone else. It IS a Kindred Resructue after all!" >> > Brad lost it and asked Paul if he could attempt to block. >> > (now pay attention) Paul said "sure you can attempt to block." So Brad >> threw >> > his Wake for the minion w/the Sport Bike. Paul then says "your block >> > fails because you have already declined to block, we are in post block >> > Pre-Refrendem Step." >> >> Geez. I hope he didn't say that exactly. It doesn't make any sense! :) If >> he really did say that I'd let Brad put the Wake back in his hand. :) >> >> > (which was true, he still could have played an >> > eagle sight) >> >> OK, so you are saying that Brad declined to block during the regular choose >> blockers step but that Brad still could have blocked with an Eagle's >> Sight...and that Paul jumped the gun by announcing the terms of the >> referendum before seeking "all other block attempts". > >Yes, Im sorry, I see my mislabling of the situation, beleve me it was >this confusing during play as well. You are correct. Predator and Prey >HAD DEFINETLY declined to block after Paul had offered and Brad >accepted his new seat. This was the terms of the deal for Brad NOT >BLOCKING! After which which Paul continued to mentally process how he >would define the terms of the referendum. Brad then responded, "What >are you thinking about?" Paul said "I'm considering where I'M going to >move to." That's where the heated disussion started! Brad dissmayed >with the deal asked Paul if he could block, Paul said, "you can try!" >Now at this point pread and prey had still declined to block already >and the Referendum had not been announced yet, leaving the possability >for eagle sight to be still be played. Brad then played his wake, and >Paul said he failed to block and the Judge agreed. Brad argued that >Paul "said he could block". But what Brad was thinking was let's take >the whole deal back and reset the block minion phase so he could re >block. But Brad only asked Paul if he could block. Paul only stated >the obvious, yes you can attempt to block. Now the real problem is >this all happened SO fast that Brad got blindsided by the whole thing. >Now is that Paul's fault? Or was Paul just playing it as a veteran >experenced player would? Personally I saw it comming the whole time, >of course I know Paul's play style and you HAVE to be on top of your >game with him. I thought it was a nice mind trick, others perceived it >as unsportsmanlike. Ahhhhh. This makes things much more clear. Brad got duped by not finding out the "rest of the story" and declined to block. When he found out their was more to the vote he then decided to block. Paul made his mistake by saying Brad could try. Brad then played his wake only to be informed he then needed the Eagle's Sight. What a mess... At any rate I would say Brad was mislead by Paul (being very smart and tricky) into playing his wake. The question is should Brad have to lose the wake due to the trickery or should this be considered mis-information on the state of the game (mis-communication) so then Brad can take back the wake and be told he can't block because he already declined . Interesting situation. Steve Bucy "The only human commander to survive combat with the Minbari fleet is behind me. You are in front of me. If you value your lives be somewhere else!" - Delenn Check out http://vtesinla.org/ for all V:TES information in Los Angeles area.

" Andrew S. Davidson wrote in message <74162BBB2A8F192C.DDFA198F...@lp.airnews.net>... >On Tue, 5 Jun 2001 23:16:59 -0700, Bradly Ward wrote: > >>Thats exactly what happened. Paul gave me the go ahead to make the block if >>I wanted to. I was thinking... "cool Paul's really not that bad of a guy >>when he's playing jyhad after all he's gonna let me make the block since >>there was a misunderstanding about his vote terms. But to my dismay it was >>a silly trick to catch me up with ruleslaywering loopholes. > >What's the trick here? Why is it such a big deal whether the Wake was >played or not? What's in it for Paul? From what I can see he was >only guilty of wanting to play the game in a strict manner. I'm surprised you would ask what the big deal is. It's obviously getting the untap out of Brad's hand to help set him up for future actions by Paul (if the vote fails or is delayed) or to set him up for his next preditor. It was a slick way of trying to weaken Brad's position in the future. >What you were wanting to do was back up and change your blocking >decision. Players might informally agree to do such a thing but, for >this to happen, you should be asking permission of the whole table, >not just one player. Normally I would veto this as stating the terms >of a vote clearly comes after blocking. Nasty surprises at this point >are to be expected. True. Brad obviously made a mistake in tossing the wake down too quickly. Once again he didn't get the entire picture for acting. Steve Bucy The only human commander to survive combat with the Minbari fleet is behind me. You are in front of me. If you value your lives be somewhere else!" - Delenn Check out http://vtesinla.org/ for all V:TES information in Los Angeles area. >Andrew

Frederick Scott wrote in message <3B1DD3EA...@netcom.com>... >Pat Ricochet wrote: >> (snip) [ quoted text not captured ] Agreed. This seems the most resonable ruling. Of course after witnessing some of the aftermath it was almost impossible to determine what had happened at all. I got even more confused when Brad started the "I didn't play the wake, it dropped out of my hand bit". The entire situation was near impossible to rule on. Steve Bucy -- [ quoted text not captured ]

"Andrew S. Davidson" wrote: > > On Wed, 06 Jun 2001 02:14:47 -0400, Derek Ray wrote: > > >Paul lied about the state of the game - something which does NOT need > >to be happening. The opportunity for Brad to block had already passed > >earlier. Whether Paul said "yes" or "you can try" in response to the > >question is irrelevant, as both answers are 100% false: in fact, Brad > >could NOT try to block, as he'd already refused the opportunity. > > Isn't Eagle's Sight usable in this case, as others are saying? I > certainly couldn't anticipate every trick and nuance which might be > possible. The onus is on Brad to explain exactly what he wants to do. > He can't expect the other players to know what's in his mind. > > Paul was the acting player but does that make it his job to be the MC > for that turn or is this is a collective responsibility which Brad > shared? It's a collective responsibility, absolutely. But it's one I kind of expect everyone to participate in whole-heartedly. In this case, I suppose Paul could have misunderstood Brad's question and truly expected him to be asking if he could still block with an Eagle's Sight. But don't you think that would be kind of a dumb question, if so? Don't you think Paul would realize that such a question would be pretty pointless and therefore think to clarify the question? You do have point, though, if not so much in this case. Sometimes misunderstandings can be mutual and someone does something they didn't mean to do had they known what the other person was thinking. I think you usually go back to the point where that misunderstanding made a difference and replay from there; but there's can't be a fixed answer. Someone may well get screwed no matter what you do. > When we were discussing > Madness of the Bard, I said that the ordinary play of the game was > just as fuzzy. Given recent events, I claim a "told you so". I don't think "ordinary play of the game" is *just as* fuzzy, if that's what you were trying to claim. It can be fuzzy at times but Madness of the Bard can be more fuzzy, causing many more problems compared to the amount of play it gets. Fred

"Steve Bucy" <tb...@lainet.com> wrote in message news:9flp3...@enews2.newsguy.com... [clip] > Ahhhhh. This makes things much more clear. Brad got duped by not finding out > the "rest of the story" and declined to block. When he found out their was > more to the vote he then decided to block. Paul made his mistake by saying > Brad could try. Brad then played his wake only to be informed he then needed > the Eagle's Sight. What a mess... At any rate I would say Brad was mislead > by Paul (being very smart and tricky) into playing his wake. > > The question is should Brad have to lose the wake due to the trickery or > should this be considered mis-information on the state of the game > (mis-communication) so then Brad can take back the wake and be told he > can't block because he already declined . I heard another version of the situation that said that Paul didn't say "you can try" but rather said "you can do whatever you want to do". If this is true, then Paul was not giving any information at all about the phase and Brad thought Paul was offering a do-over on the choose blockers step. I'd sure love to have that whole thing on tape. :) -Robert

In article <20010606135156...@ng-mq1.aol.com>, GymNat1 <gym...@aol.com> wrote: >>Since both predator >> and prey had passed, >I don't understand. How would you know that both predator and prey had >passed? The only way to know if for all the players to agree on it. So >if player 1 agrees with player 2 that prey hasn't passed the block phase, >how can he backtrack later and tell player 2 that he *had* in fact already >passed and that his Wake is now pointless without an Eagle's Sight? I'm not sure I understand. I had thought 'predator and prey had declined to block' was a given in the statement of the original problem. Was it in question? I'd assumed it to be a fact. But Fred was there, and says it was in question, in which case (obviously) what I said was incorrect, since it relied on a false assumption. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Wed, 06 Jun 2001 19:15:37 +0100, Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> wrote: >On Wed, 06 Jun 2001 02:14:47 -0400, Derek Ray wrote: > >>Paul lied about the state of the game - something which does NOT need >>to be happening. The opportunity for Brad to block had already passed >>earlier. Whether Paul said "yes" or "you can try" in response to the >>question is irrelevant, as both answers are 100% false: in fact, Brad >>could NOT try to block, as he'd already refused the opportunity. > >Isn't Eagle's Sight usable in this case, as others are saying? I >certainly couldn't anticipate every trick and nuance which might be >possible. The onus is on Brad to explain exactly what he wants to do. >He can't expect the other players to know what's in his mind. IMO, until Paul says "no other blockers?" and nobody speaks up, Eagle's Sight would be usable by anyone to block. If nobody has superior Auspex at the table, it's probably safe to only ask your predator and prey if they block. But Paul doesn't know what's in Brad's hand; all he knows is that Brad has declined to block. He must tell Brad "No, you can't, you already declined to", at which point Brad can produce an Eagle's Sight and say "I regain the opportunity to block." >Paul was the acting player but does that make it his job to be the MC >for that turn or is this is a collective responsibility which Brad >shared? It's a weakness of the game system that there's no mechanical The common terminology around here is "you're driving", meaning it's all on the acting player, in this case Paul. It is, in fact, HIS responsibility -- since he has the capability to play a number of effects in a row (Seduction, Day Op, etc), he has to signal when he is done playing effects in some way. Normally, he does this by asking for blockers. In this situation, it looks like that point was reached, and then deals ensued as to whether or not blocks would be happening. A deal was reached, and the normal blockers (predator and prey) declined to block. USUALLY, this is the signal for the referendum to begin; technically, Paul IS supposed to call for any cross-table blockers and be refused prior to announcing the terms. (Generally, this step is skipped for brevity unless there is a known Eagle's Sight intercept deck sitting on the table.) At this point, Brad asking "can I block?" needs to be responded to with "no, you can't, you already declined." Since Paul hadn't announced the terms yet and hadn't called for any cross-table blockers, Brad still could TECHNICALLY block, but he would've had to play Eagle's Sight to do so. >way of tracking the sequence of play, e.g. moving a token along a >track. If this is done verbally and with penalties for screw-ups then >the rules should spell out the procedure. Which they do, I believe. >When we were discussing >Madness of the Bard, I said that the ordinary play of the game was >just as fuzzy. Given recent events, I claim a "told you so". It's only fuzzy if you start going out of your way to mislead people about the gameplay itself; which is wrong. No "told you so" for you, sorry. =) -- Derek Thug of Atlanta

In message <3B1E75DC...@netcom.com>, Frederick Scott <fre...@netcom.com> writes >> >I don't understand. How would you know that both predator and prey had >> >passed? >> >> When they say so. > >But apparently Brad didn't agree he had "said so" or he wouldn't have asked >Paul whether he could block. So that isn't really an answer to the question. >At least, not in this case. This is why you should disambiguate the process: "Are you <prey> blocking?" "Are you <pred> blocking?" [ quoted text not captured ]

On Wed, 06 Jun 2001 15:05:59 -0400, Derek Ray wrote: >The common terminology around here is "you're driving" I use exactly the same phrase to help clarify combat which is often a shapeless mess here. Convergent evolution. >It's only fuzzy if you start going out of your way to mislead people >about the gameplay itself; which is wrong. No "told you so" for you, >sorry. =) Rob Treasure didn't go out of his way to mislead anyone yet had to spend an hour arguing the matter. Whatever you call it, there's a problem here. Daniel, a friend of mine, was in that final too and transferred himself out rather than have to sit through an earlier interminable argument. This was a smart move as he got to go to the bar rather than having to sit through the next one too. What beats me is why the judges are standing for this. When I judge an event, you get a rapid decision and then I expect folk to play on. Anyone who continues to argue will get short shrift. Andrew

"Robert Goudie" <rrgo...@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:xQuT6.3033$1Z3.2...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net... > I heard another version of the situation that said that Paul didn't say "you > can try" but rather said "you can do whatever you want to do". If this is > true, then Paul was not giving any information at all about the phase and > Brad thought Paul was offering a do-over on the choose blockers step. That sounds more like something that Paul would say, assuming I'm recalling the right person. :) Tricky, tricky, tricky. Xian

In message <C3D0AD999DC51296.06802F79...@lp.airnews.net>, Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> writes >Rob Treasure didn't go out of his way to mislead anyone yet had to >spend an hour arguing the matter. Whatever you call it, there's a >problem here. The problems come through the way people play the game, rather than the game itself, in many instances. The game itself is perfectly clear on many matters e.g. stealth vs intercept, maneuvers vs each other, presses vs each other, blocking etc. However, these matters are muddied by ambiguous play. The simple answer is to dis-ambiguate this. In a situation where this becomes difficult, a judge should probably be asking players to delineate the exact nature of any controversial actions. I've done this in a number of games: "Any pre-range?" "Any range?" "Any post-range?" "Strikes?" "Damage Prevention?" "Presses?" etc. It can often help in many ways: - clear, obvious points of play - clarification of the way the game is played, especially useful for people who are unsure/new - keeps the game moving - prompting of players etc. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Wed, 06 Jun 2001 23:19:21 +0100, Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> wrote: >On Wed, 06 Jun 2001 15:05:59 -0400, Derek Ray wrote: > >>The common terminology around here is "you're driving" > >I use exactly the same phrase to help clarify combat which is often a >shapeless mess here. Convergent evolution. Well, it's just simpler to let the acting minion run things. He's the person who acts first every time, so let him act first, then tell you "ok, act second". There are very few cards which don't follow that (Direct Intervention), so there usually isn't much trouble. And then you don't have to worry about all the "which goes first, Cailean's ability or Shadow Step?" stuff, since it happens in the proper order. >Rob Treasure didn't go out of his way to mislead anyone yet had to >spend an hour arguing the matter. Whatever you call it, there's a >problem here. Daniel, a friend of mine, was in that final too and Players who aren't familiar with the rules? I don't understand why he had to sit and argue for so long, myself -- as I understand it, he announced a Banishment, people announced intent to block, they made a deal to Banish someone else in return for a later favor, got agreement to not block, then at the start of the referendum broke the deal and Banished the original guy. That's filthy, sleazy, and VERY like Rob Treasure (HI ROB), but it's also PERFECTLY LEGAL. Nothing said before the referendum is binding. Apparently the argument ensued when the victim somehow thought he wasn't given a chance to block, even though Rob said "does the vote go through?"... which sounds to me like post-screw turnabout, if you want the truth, and just trying in any way possible to salvage the situation. But it could've been an hour soothing ruffled feathers, as opposed to an hour debating the issues. The judge's word is final - I don't understand it myself. >transferred himself out rather than have to sit through an earlier >interminable argument. This was a smart move as he got to go to the >bar rather than having to sit through the next one too. > >What beats me is why the judges are standing for this. When I judge >an event, you get a rapid decision and then I expect folk to play on. >Anyone who continues to argue will get short shrift. Well, that would be my opinion as well in both of these. If I were judging, I'd give a ruling, explain the ruling briefly, then say "if you want to argue, take it up with me after the game; in the meantime, PLAY." And these are relatively simple (if heated) situations, at their core. [ quoted text not captured ]

Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:bjbtht4bhl8o49sqb...@4ax.com... [snip] > That's filthy, sleazy, and VERY like Rob Treasure (HI ROB), but it's > also PERFECTLY LEGAL. Nothing said before the referendum is binding. > Apparently the argument ensued when the victim somehow thought he > wasn't given a chance to block, even though Rob said "does the vote go > through?"... which sounds to me like post-screw turnabout, if you want > the truth, and just trying in any way possible to salvage the > situation. I hate to do this, but I fully agree with Derek on this. If you ask players if the action is successful or if they're going to block, and they say that it is successful or decline the chance to block, then it's a done deal. It sounds like someone is crying because they got what they were asking for. In my normal play group, we're always cut-throat. It's one of the attractions of the game to us. > > But it could've been an hour soothing ruffled feathers, as opposed to > an hour debating the issues. The judge's word is final - I don't > understand it myself. Again, full on agreement. The Judge can be contested after the game, but during the tournament, their words are final. Anything less leads to the strong willed talking a judge out of a correct ruling, which is not part of the game. [snip] > -- Derek > Thug of Atlanta Lee Who's Laughing Now?

[ quoted text not captured ] Mind you, it's not so much my own attentiveness that causes my to say it was a question. I wouldn't argue with Mike's perception of how things went except insofar as Brad specifically *asked* Paul whether he could block or not. Had Mike and Paul felt the time for that was passed and there was to be no question of it, that was the time to point that out to Brad. Since they didn't, as far as I care, Brad can still block. No one was disagreeing. If it were "fact" that Brad had already declined to block, it officially became UNfact at that point. It might not be correct, but the phase of the turn only exists so far as the players agree upon it. Unless a judge was present to make that determination his or herself. Fred

In message <bjbtht4bhl8o49sqb...@4ax.com>, Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> writes >That's filthy, sleazy, and VERY like Rob Treasure (HI ROB), but it's >also PERFECTLY LEGAL. Nothing said before the referendum is binding. As a rule, Rob doesn't tend to do such things, IME. If he makes a deal, he sticks to it, usually. He's just capable of making many complementary, cleverly set up, well organised deals. It's the old credibility thing. [ quoted text not captured ]

"Robert Goudie" <rrgo...@earthlink.net> wrote > I heard another version of the situation that said that Paul didn't say "you > can try" but rather said "you can do whatever you want to do". If this is > true, then Paul was not giving any information at all about the phase and > Brad thought Paul was offering a do-over on the choose blockers step. > > I'd sure love to have that whole thing on tape. :) This would be vital. It's incredible to me that the judge would rule in the way described here (forcing the loss of the Wake) unless all phases of the political action were clearly followed (and all of us who have played Jyhad know that actions often take on a quick and dirty version of the action phases). It seems highly unlikely that the stages were followed properly if the referendum were described before the referendum step, even before the first blockers step. It is possible that Brad agreed to a *deal* not to block given the referendum promise before the block stage ever started, then decided to reneg after hearing more of Paul's plan. If all players did not agree that the phases had passed, I don't understand how the game could be allowed to move forward. And if Brad thought he could block, all players most assuredly did not agree that the phases had passed. Finally, and most importantly, if Paul, the acting player, in control of calling all the blocking phases for his action, indicated in any way that Brad could block, then either the blocking stage was not over or Paul was engaging in a deception that should have been the focus of the judge's action. From my vantage as a long time Magic competitor, this Paul sounds like a bit of a pile, in the style of the old Magic rules lawyers who would try to win a game with rules instead of with the cards or play skill (before Magic judges got a better handle on how to judge their tournaments). Anyway, if that sort of ruling is how Jyhad tournaments are currently run, it's clear that I won't be playing any such tournaments until the rules evolve to a place where such deceptions about game phases are not the fault of the person who is deceived. Again, the whole thing on tape would *really* help, as much of this is my speculation from reading the players' accounts. - Jason Bell

"Mike Courtois" <jedi...@rebelscum.net> wrote > So why exactly is Paul the > bad guy here? If Paul is calling the action, and misleads another player about what phase the action is in, Paul is the bad guy. Decpetion in deals, deception about cards in hand, deception in alliances, deception about plans, all these things are part of Jyhad, and rightly so. Deception about what phase the game is in is when you are in charge of running the game phases is not a legitimate part of Jyhad. I hope that's not what happened, but it sure sounds like it. - Jason Bell

"Andrew S. Davidson" <a...@csi.com> wrote > Paul was the acting player but does that make it his job to be the MC > for that turn or is this is a collective responsibility which Brad > shared? Absolutely not a collective responsibility. Paul, as the acting player, is in charge of calling the phases of the action. Brad wanted to know what stage they were in, and apparently Paul was deceptive. > When we were discussing > Madness of the Bard, I said that the ordinary play of the game was > just as fuzzy. Given recent events, I claim a "told you so They were even more fuzzy than usual in this case, as discussion of the referendum apparently happened well before the blocking phase. In this sort of fuzzy case, Paul should not be rewarded for being cagey about what phase *his* action was in. - Jason Bell

"Robert Goudie" <rrgo...@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:<xQuT6.3033$1Z3.2...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net>... [ quoted text not captured ] You know I don't remember what was acually said, but I *believe* it was something much closer to your post. Here's my contention even if I'm NOT in the game: Pred and Prey HAD declined to block. The Referendum had NOT begun (Paul was still thinking about the terms). "All other blockers" had NOT been called for. Block attempts COULD STILL BE MADE!!! Brad didn't ask "what phase are we in?", or "well I don't like the terms now so can we back up so I can block?" (which IMO is not allowable) He was flustered and made a snap decision and threw the Wake. Brad and any other players for that matter, need to know there own game! Why should I have to help other Methusulas play their game? I have my own to worry about. I demand strict no error play out of myself, our play group does the same, and our tourny's as well. I still make stupid mistakes, and I accept them and try to learn from it. I beleve this makes me a better player. Our play group NEVER plays loosey goosey rules, it inflicts too much confusion and makes for sloppy players that cry when they make a mistake and can't take it back. Not me, I'd rather be called a Rules Lawyer. That stated, I do like what Fred posted regarding his remedy as judge. (you'd make a fine judge Fred) My above statment may sound a bit Rules Nazi and I don't nessasarlly mean to be. I DO see that we have a problem in this situation that I really am not sure how to solve, but I think I would rather Judge more rules baised than by a non-stated "because I said so" or "because I just don't like the way that looked" type judging. Robert made a nice Judge's Guide on the VTES in LA web site that we will continually look to refine to make all VTES Tourny play in LA a most fun and enjoyable experence for all players. MAKE NO MISTAKE, THIS IS OUR #1 GOAL! I'd like to invite anyone to take a look and send us some thoughts of you own. Maybe tell us how you judge in your area, and how it works for you. Mike

"Jason Bell" <Jason...@mail.com> wrote in message news:EEyT6.9907$e34.3...@typhoon.southeast.rr.com... > Anyway, if that sort of ruling is how Jyhad tournaments > are currently run, it's clear that I won't be playing > any such tournaments until the rules evolve to a place > where such deceptions about game phases are not the > fault of the person who is deceived. I'd go a lot easier on the Judge of the event. Considering the still lingering confusion, it seems unfair to assume the judge ruled in favor of someone who so clearly deceived someone about the game phase. I talked to the judge and she said she walked up to the table and asked Paul's prey if he had been given an opportunity to block and the answer was "yes". She then asked Brad and he said "yes". There was no disagreement that both predator and prey had been given a chance to block. The judge actually heard Paul say "you can do whatever you want" when Brad asked if he could block the action. I think it is likely that Brad was asking "can we ignore the fact that I refused to block and go back and do that part over". The only question in my mind was whether Paul knew Brad was asking for a do-over or whether Paul thought Brad was going to try to block again during the "all other block attempts" step. I should add that Brad tried to say that the "wake just fell out of his hand." If you are the judge and you know the player had a chance to block, refused it, and then is disengenuous about the play of the card, I think it was a completely acceptable ruling. Remeber, the judge is making a spot decision without a week to debate on the usenet. I'm happy we get to discuss the concepts involved but I am not too interested in debating the details of the event since we lack that tape I want. :) -Robert

"Andrew S. Davidson" <a...@csi.com> > Daniel, a friend of mine, was in that final too and > transferred himself out rather than have to sit through an earlier > interminable argument. This was a smart move as he got to go to the > bar rather than having to sit through the next one too. You call transfer out a "smart move" ? come on ! it is almost always a stupid play to transfer out. It's not playing the game, it's king making and it's often rewarding a player who don't deserve it. I must admit that, sometime, you know you have no chance and prefere to advatange one guy over the other -e.g. you'll lose anyway and prefer giving your VP and 6 pool to nice guy instead of dying one turn later trampled by a stealth-bleed granpredator. Darby made this for me during a tournament, and this was a fine play. Of course the other player was just pissed off. I swept the table but i still think he went on king making. I can still understand that. But transferring out *during a final* just to avoid argument is plain wrong. btw, in France, no one transfers out, no one suicides on a ToGP and no ones decline to block when their predator bleeds for their last pool -even if there's no chance. We fight 'til final death. And sometime godess of luck can readjust the balance with an incredible drawing during what we see as last combat before the end. reyda

Robert Goudie wrote: > "Robyn M" <rrme...@earthlink.net> wrote in message [clip] > > When is a card played? > > I just posted a document to the vtesinla.org site that will hopefully at > least let players know what to expect and how we'll rule such things. I > will, of course, modify this if LSJ has any relevant comments on the > subject. Here's that section from the document: > ********************** > Card Layed Is A Card Played--Well, Sort Of > > All actions are fully defined upon announcement. If the action cannot be > performed in the manner that it was defined then the card may be returned to > the hand. More broadly: the effects of a card are fully defined (specified, chosen, named, etc.) when the card is played, as a part of the "play" of a card. This means, for instance, that the target of a Haven Uncovered or the 'X' of a Secret Horde is declared before players decide whether to play a Sudden Reversal or not. If the terms were not a part of the play of a card, then this would not be the case, by card text on Sudden Reversal. If the play is illegal as defined, then the play is illegal. The player is under no obligation to redefine the play to be legal, but is merely subject to whatever penalties are appropriate for a mis-played card (i.e., the improper showing of a card-in-hand to other players and possibly the intentional misrepresentation of a card). > Eamples of Fully Defining Actions: > > You must announce how much blood you wish to take off a minion via minion > tap before replacing the card. "I Minion Tap Arika for 8". Sure, but that's not an "action". :-) Also note that if Arika has only 7 blood, then the play is illegal and you simply take the card back. You are not forced to choose another number nor are you forceed to choose a different vampire you control with 8 or more blood. > Carlotta Giovanni must announce with which specific card from your hand will > be exchanged for which specific card from your ash heap. > > Examples of Illegally Defined Actions: > > If you announce a Govern the Unaligned at Superior and then realize that > your minion has inferior dominate, you are not required to play the card in > the inferior form. > > If you accidentally play a Golconda on a minion of 7 capacity and then > realize your error, you are not forced to play the Golconda on some other > minion at the table of 8 capacity or more. > > If you drop a deflection to the table and then change your mind *before* > fully announcing the card's effect (who you are deflecting to), you may > return the card to your hand. Correct for all, and you would be subject to the penalty for improperly displaying a card from your hand in each case. -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and tournament rules: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/

In message <9fmkoe$s3v$1...@hadron.noos.net>, Reyda <re...@noos.fr> writes >You call transfer out a "smart move" ? come on ! it is almost always a >stupid play to transfer out. It's not playing the game, it's king making and >it's often rewarding a player who don't deserve it. In the old, entire tournament based rules, rather than just the current game, it could be a very sensible thing to do. Get yourself out, prevent a specific person getting the VP from you (say, your grand-predator killing your pred *and* you for two VPs, pipping you into the finals). Under the current system, it might be allowable under making a winning, in-game deal. "Look, we're both going to die if we do this," I say to my pred. "Neither of us will get any VPs. So give me an easy ride, and I'll oust myself, giving us both 2 VPs." Or something. But in all cases it's generally "corner case" or somesuch. [ quoted text not captured ]

> btw, in France, no one transfers out, no one suicides on a ToGP and no ones > decline to block when their predator bleeds for their last pool -even if > there's no chance. We fight 'til final death. And sometime godess of luck > can readjust the balance with an incredible drawing during what we see as > last combat before the end. Man, I gotta get my butt and my cards over there! THAT'S the kind of game I'm talking about! -- Pat Ricochet Soul Jar'rn Fool of Atlanta "You can't make a fact out of an opinion by raising your voice."

Robert Goudie wrote: > I'd go a lot easier on the Judge of the event. Considering the still > lingering confusion, it seems unfair to assume the judge ruled in favor of > someone who so clearly deceived someone about the game phase. My take on it was that this issue wasn't really discussed at all. > I talked to the judge and she said she walked up to the table and asked > Paul's prey if he had been given an opportunity to block and the answer was > "yes". She then asked Brad and he said "yes". There was no disagreement > that both predator and prey had been given a chance to block. Of course, that wasn't really the issue: Brad had been given the chance to block, the issue was whether at the time the Wake was played if Brad did or not *still* have the chance to block. But Brad, angry as he was, didn't really make that point, or at least not that I recall. (And it wasn't up to me to make it for him.) > The judge actually heard Paul say "you can do whatever you want" when Brad > asked if he could block the action. Keep in mind, she was not at the table when Brad asked the question. I heard Paul use this in his explanation to her as to why he answered "Yes" to Brad's "Can I block?" question. I do not believe Paul said that to Brad before Brad actually played the Wake but that's one of those things (like watching an auto accident, you start to question the details in your mind) that I couldn't say for sure. > I think it is likely that Brad was > asking "can we ignore the fact that I refused to block and go back and do > that part over". I suspect he was, yes. It wasn't terribly clear in my mind that the block phase had actually passed but you have to remember I was in very biased place about that. If Brad were allowed to block, I would have gotten to keep my prey. I didn't honestly expect Paul to let him and I almost spit out my coffee when Paul replied, "Yes". (I wasn't actually drinking any coffee at the table but I WOULD have spit out my coffee if I had had any.) > The only question in my mind was whether Paul knew Brad > was asking for a do-over or whether Paul thought Brad was going to try to > block again during the "all other block attempts" step. Yep. That's the question. I really wanted to cross-examine Paul about that because it just seemed so unbelievable for him to explain his answer that way. But it just wasn't my argument to make. Everybody was all pissy and none of this was really going to help me no matter how it turned out. So I kind of tuned out at that point instead of getting involved. > I should add that > Brad tried to say that the "wake just fell out of his hand." If you are the > judge and you know the player had a chance to block, refused it, and then is > disengenuous about the play of the card, I think it was a completely > acceptable ruling. Remeber, the judge is making a spot decision without a > week to debate on the usenet. Yep. After the reseat thing in the first round, I just felt really bad handing her something like this. Fred

>Under the current system, it might be allowable under making a winning, >in-game deal. > >"Look, we're both going to die if we do this," I say to my pred. >"Neither of us will get any VPs. So give me an easy ride, and I'll oust >myself, giving us both 2 VPs." Or something. I'm all for honoring deals (usually) but due to the new rule forcing all players to use only in-game considerations, wouldn't this rule sometimes force players to *break* deals? Let's say you and I make a deal where I get 3 VP and then roll over and die so you get 2 VP. After I oust the first three Methusalehs, I want to transfer myself out but it is also possible that I could easily take you out first (not that I'd want to). Since players are forced to rely on "in-game considerations," going with the deal and transferring out is not allowed since it is not in my best interests (since I can clearly get more VP if I want). Thus to get as many VP as possible, I am forced to break the deal. Any comments? Or maybe I'm just thinking about this the wrong way... Halcyan 2

[ quoted text not captured ] Honoring a deal made in-game is not an "out-of-game" consideration, as I've said. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <20010607053211...@ng-fd1.aol.com>, Halcyan 2 <halc...@aol.com> writes >I'm all for honoring deals (usually) but due to the new rule forcing all >players to use only in-game considerations, wouldn't this rule sometimes force >players to *break* deals? No. Thing is, if it did, no-one could ever make deals. Situation: This deal between A and B will benefit both A and B. But, at some point, A will be forced to double-cross B. B, knowing this, would then be unable to make the deal, knowing he would come out worse. Thus, no deals could ever be made, ever. [ quoted text not captured ]

> able to break deals now? What if he just realised that deal breaks are a > > part of them game and from now on wnats to make use of it, and A happens to > > be the first victim? Surely nobody can forbid B to ever break deals when > > playing if he wants to. > > > > But also if he's allowed to break the deal then he's revenging for out-of > > game purposes and not trying to win (say the deal was more or less > > beneficial to him in that game (naturally since else u don't make deals)). > > If you "break" a deal and your in-game position suffers for it, then you've > got a *really* strange idea of "revenge" :-) Well when is your position considered to be suffering? Does it include breaking a deal that is slightly beneficial to you but that you entered just to be able to break it for revenge? What if you're revengeing a deal break that was made in the same round, but the deal you now break in return was very beneficial to you? You could argue that you think it's more important for you to punish deal-breakers and that in the long term your position should benefit from this more than you lost from breaking the beneficial deal although it cannot really be proven...?

> That stated, I do like what Fred posted regarding his remedy as > judge. (you'd make a fine judge Fred) My above statment may sound a > bit Rules Nazi and I don't nessasarlly mean to be. I DO see that we > have a problem in this situation that I really am not sure how to > solve, but I think I would rather Judge more rules baised than by a > non-stated "because I said so" or "because I just don't like the way > that looked" type judging. Robert made a nice Judge's Guide on the > VTES in LA web site that we will continually look to refine to make > all VTES Tourny play in LA a most fun and enjoyable experence for all > players. MAKE NO MISTAKE, THIS IS OUR #1 GOAL! I'd like to invite > anyone to take a look and send us some thoughts of you own. Maybe tell > us how you judge in your area, and how it works for you. > > Mike I link to the site would be useful =)

On Thu, 7 Jun 2001 18:34:08 +0200, "Roger Carhult" <rogc...@student.luth.se> wrote: >> If you "break" a deal and your in-game position suffers for it, then >you've >> got a *really* strange idea of "revenge" :-) > >Well when is your position considered to be suffering? Does it include >breaking a deal that is slightly beneficial to you but that you entered just >to be able to break it for revenge? What if you're revengeing a deal break if you're going to do that, enter a deal that will give you a significant advantage if you BREAK it, or will suddenly screw him silly. Take all his minions with the Succubus Club, for example, and then refuse to trade the SC back to him on your untap. No matter who eventually ousts him, you -certainly- are in much better shape by breaking that deal, and you've definitely got your revenge. Normally, swatting at someone cross-table is frowned upon because you gain no actual benefit from the situation. In a case such as the above, where you gain 4 of his minions while he is sure to be ousted, things are a wee bit different. Same with cross-table Grave Robbing: you gain a minion, which nobody can argue isn't a substantial benefit to YOUR game... however much your grandprey absolutely, positively NEEDED Arika to survive. >that was made in the same round, but the deal you now break in return was >very beneficial to you? You could argue that you think it's more important >for you to punish deal-breakers and that in the long term your position >should benefit from this more than you lost from breaking the beneficial >deal although it cannot really be proven...? just "breaking a deal" is very, very vague, and as such, can't be answered properly. Such things -must- be dealt with on a case-by-case basis, for example: If you make a deal with your grandprey to rescue his vampire in return for him rescuing yours, and then you don't rescue his, YES, you screw him up, but you also gain a benefit - you don't waste 2 blood and a minion action, and you got your own vamp back for free. This is perfectly within your self-interest. If you make a deal with someone along the lines of "Since you're going to be ousted, I'll Dramatic Upheaval behind your predator and oust him for you, and then I'll let you oust your next two prey as long as you roll over for me at the end of the game: 3-2 split", then things become a bit more complicated. If you then call the Dramatic Upheaval, but don't even make the ATTEMPT to oust (ie. "breaking the deal"), you've just essentially given your NEW prey a VP and 6 pool. This is a really, really stupid action causing notable harm to your own position, and unless you could come up with a VERY good reason, I'd give you a warning for it. See the difference? I don't care how much you want to "punish" deal-breakers... intending to have a "reputation" in the long term is an out-of-game consideration. You should be playing to win the current game. Actually, if you want to "punish" him, you should make the deal, then let him weaken his prey a bit more and break the deal THEN so you could get all the VPs, or just let him die from your cross-table position where it doesn't really matter to you. "I COULD make this deal and save you, but I don't trust you to keep deals, so you're going to just have to die. Sorry." [ quoted text not captured ]

Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> wrote in message [snip] > >Barn understandably went mad accusing me of all sorts of shit, but the vote > >proceeded. I asked if the vote had gone through on the chosen target > >(Zebulon if I recall) and Nicky said "OK" (2nd VERY IMPORTANT POINT). Of > >course I then changed the vote target to Nicky's Beast when the referendum > >had been called and HE then went mad, trying to block the vote after it had > >sucessfully been played. What followed was a gruesome, solid hour of > >agitation and arguing to try and resolve this. > > I don't understand how you could take ten seconds over this, let alone > an hour. Simply put, Judge was not sure - players thought they were = massive argument. Don't get me wrong, I do agree with yourself and the later posters though, a decision should have been made. That is not however degrading Mike excellent judging, it was a REAL bastard to have to call, had to be there and all that. Hopefully Mike will post a tourney report (if he has recovered from the heavy rock club we went to post-tourney). >The specific terms of the referundum are decided after the > action is successful (not blocked). It's obvious that you're in a > position to make the terms something other than was discussed prior to > blocking. Why are people not getting this? They do. That's not really the argument, it is one of timing, judgement and sour grapes. >Maybe it's because the actual yeah or nay to blocking is getting > muddled up with the negotiations which make it seem conditional. > There should always be a clear Q&A drill every time you call a > referendum - "Are you blocking?" to which the response is a clear > "Yes" or "No". > > And another thing. Tom tells me that you routinely double-cross > people as you did here. How do you manage to keep getting away with > it? <grin> Hmmmm does he now, that's pretty damn funny. Interesting that he should say this after only seeing me play twice and never playing in the same game. You live near Watford don't you ? Are you going to the next constructed Watford tourney ? we'll have to get a few games on the go so you can make up your own mind. Rob.

Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:bjbtht4bhl8o49sqb...@4ax.com... On Wed, 06 Jun 2001 23:19:21 +0100, Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> > wrote: [snip combat order] > >On Wed, 06 Jun 2001 15:05:59 -0400, Derek Ray wrote: > > >Rob Treasure didn't go out of his way to mislead anyone yet had to > >spend an hour arguing the matter. Whatever you call it, there's a > >problem here. Daniel, a friend of mine, was in that final too and > > Players who aren't familiar with the rules? I don't understand why he > had to sit and argue for so long, myself -- Nope neither do I, but shit does happen and hats off to Nicky. He was using 'every available means' to stop himself being ousted (which is basically what the vote came down to) in a final he could have won. I have to say I would have possibly done the same had the tables been reversed. For fucks sake he very nearly won the argument !!! I would have really lost it if that had happened, ....which would not have been a pretty thing. > as I understand it, he > announced a Banishment, people announced intent to block, they made a > deal to Banish someone else in return for a later favor, got agreement > to not block, then at the start of the referendum broke the deal and > Banished the original guy. That's pretty much exactly how it went down, but the (understandable) and convincing indignance of the ousted party made the Judge unsure, that and the fact that he didn't really see the whole thing. > That's filthy, sleazy, and VERY like Rob Treasure (HI ROB) Evening Derek, thanks for your comments, you take care now :o) >, but it's > also PERFECTLY LEGAL. Nothing said before the referendum is binding. > Apparently the argument ensued when the victim somehow thought he > wasn't given a chance to block, even though Rob said "does the vote go > through?"... which sounds to me like post-screw turnabout, if you want > the truth, and just trying in any way possible to salvage the > situation. Yep, couldn't agree more but Nicky had laid a really decent obfuscation over the whole deal / block / deal thing. > But it could've been an hour soothing ruffled feathers, as opposed to > an hour debating the issues. The judge's word is final - I don't > understand it myself. > > >transferred himself out rather than have to sit through an earlier > >interminable argument. This was a smart move as he got to go to the > >bar rather than having to sit through the next one too. > > > >What beats me is why the judges are standing for this. When I judge > >an event, you get a rapid decision and then I expect folk to play on. > >Anyone who continues to argue will get short shrift. > > Well, that would be my opinion as well in both of these. If I were > judging, I'd give a ruling, explain the ruling briefly, then say "if > you want to argue, take it up with me after the game; in the meantime, > PLAY." See, this is where I don't agree with the both of you. As JUDGE, you have to take into account all sides of an argument / dispute and sometimes this takes time. Admittedly an hour is way excessive but in the final on a point that decided the game *and* that all parties felt strongly about I don't think a snap decision was the order of the day in this instance at all. Taking your argument up after the game is IMO bloody useless as you have let the event pass. If you have had a bad decision go against you it can completely and unjustly ruin your game. Rob.

"Derek Ray" <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote > See the difference? I don't care how much you want to "punish" > deal-breakers... intending to have a "reputation" in the long term is > an out-of-game consideration. You should be playing to win the > current game. Actually, if you want to "punish" him, you should make > the deal, then let him weaken his prey a bit more and break the deal > THEN so you could get all the VPs, or just let him die from your > cross-table position where it doesn't really matter to you. "I COULD > make this deal and save you, but I don't trust you to keep deals, so > you're going to just have to die. Sorry." This is a little strange to me. Assume I am not allowed to break a deal to punish a bad dealer, since that is an out-of-game consideration. How is it that I am allowed to keep a deal which, If I broke it, I would guarantee myself more victory points in the current game. Isn't honesty and reputation-keeping the same sort of out-of-game consideration as punishing its opposite? Or is the deal itself enough of an in-game consideration to get around this problem? And if that is the answer, I must be allowed to break a deal to punish a bad dealer if bad dealing was done in the current game. Right? - Jason Bell

On Thu, 07 Jun 2001 18:51:17 GMT, "Jason Bell" <Jason...@mail.com> wrote: >"Derek Ray" <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote >> See the difference? I don't care how much you want to "punish" >> deal-breakers... intending to have a "reputation" in the long term is >> an out-of-game consideration. You should be playing to win the >> current game. Actually, if you want to "punish" him, you should make >> the deal, then let him weaken his prey a bit more and break the deal >> THEN so you could get all the VPs, or just let him die from your >> cross-table position where it doesn't really matter to you. "I COULD >> make this deal and save you, but I don't trust you to keep deals, so >> you're going to just have to die. Sorry." > >This is a little strange to me. >Assume I am not allowed to break a deal to punish a bad dealer, >since that is an out-of-game consideration. But the problem is, if you break a deal, generally you are doing YOURSELF some benefit... even if it's only getting something for nothing. I can't ever figure out how you wouldn't be "allowed" to break a deal, myself. Do you have some scenario in mind? >How is it that I am allowed to keep a deal which, If I broke it, >I would guarantee myself more victory points in the current game. Again, the only situation I see where something like that is "guaranteed" is one of those Succubus-Club trading deals where you have all their minions, they're your predator, and you oust everyone else at the table with the extra 6 minions, while giving pool to your predator as necessary to keep him around. Then you could, of course, get 5 VP instead of 3 by just refusing to give the Club back to its original controller and ousting him too. >Or is the deal itself enough of an in-game consideration >to get around this problem? The deal itself is an in-game consideration, as I understand it. >And if that is the answer, I must be allowed to break a >deal to punish a bad dealer if bad dealing was done in the >current game. Right? Um, oookay... you're still describing in-game considerations, and I still cannot figure out a situation where breaking a deal is going to be anything but SOME sort of positive benefit for you. It may not be as much of a positive benefit as KEEPING the deal, but the current "i'll split it with you 3-2" deals fall under the same brush, as you are sacrificing a possible chance at 5 for a more certain chance at 3... both, however, are still wins. [ quoted text not captured ]

"Jason Bell" <Jason...@mail.com> > Assume I am not allowed to break a deal to punish a bad dealer, > since that is an out-of-game consideration. you are allowed to do whetever you want. We won't call the police if you break a deal. Even if the betrayed guy is Gandhi or Mother Theresa. > How is it that I am allowed to keep a deal which, If I broke it, > I would guarantee myself more victory points in the current game. Someone can also lure you into a deal wichi in the end is bad for you. If you promised a guy not to bleed for any reason and your prey then decides to go down to one pool by influencing out a new vampire, just go ahead and try to kill you prey. Honoring deals is cool, being taunted is not. You said you won't bleed but if that can give you the VP and the 6 pool, it would be silly not to do it. Hey, your prey should have stayed on her toes instead of thinking she was safe to the point she could afford to go down to one pool.... > Isn't honesty and reputation-keeping the same sort of > out-of-game consideration as punishing its opposite? You prefer a reputation of plain sucker who don't catch an opportunity to sweep a table ? then people will stop making deals with soemeone who can't win when all the strong cards are in his hands (no pun intended) > Or is the deal itself enough of an in-game consideration > to get around this problem? consider the validity of the deal when events of this size (prey getting down to 1 pool) happen. No experienced player should blame you for winning if victory was yours anyway. > And if that is the answer, I must be allowed to break a > deal to punish a bad dealer if bad dealing was done in the > current game. Right? Again, you're a grown man, you are allowed to do whatever you want. Better honor the deals !! but sometimes it's plain stupide to stick on a deal made "caduque" by reversals of situations. In our playgroup, we often include conditions on deal like "you vote down this for me and if at least two of my vampires are ready next turn, i'll rescue you from torpor". so if something really bad happens to all your vamps but one, you're not bind to do it, and can rescue your own vampires instead without asking permission and without losing face. Maybe it's the way to go ? reyda *disclaimer* again, Jason there's nothing personal with you. i'm not trying to be rude. I'm not trying to insult you. it's usenet here, and i don't have enough time to learn reffined english.

James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: >No. > >Thing is, if it did, no-one could ever make deals. Sure they would. >Situation: > >This deal between A and B will benefit both A and B. But, at some >point, A will be forced to double-cross B. B, knowing this, would then >be unable to make the deal, knowing he would come out worse. Ever played Diplomacy? You know, yes *know*, that the deals you make won't last the game - either you or the other guy will break them. Nevertheless, you make them and hope to come out on top, because not making deals is even worse. >Thus, no deals could ever be made, ever. Anyway, this would only hold true for deal that requires one player to roll over. The deal "If I don't bleed you, you won't rush me this turn" is perfectly normal. Also, since you actually have something to gain, in-game, from keeping the deal (namely a reputation for keeping your deals which might help you get further VPs), it's perfectly OK not to break it. It's only when you're going to roll over and let the last player kill you that you have nothing to gain from keeping the deal. And it would be a good thing if people couldn't make deal like that, IMHO. ----------------------------------------------------------- Johan Lundstrom <jo...@algonet.se> "Knowledge is power. Power corrupts."

LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: >Honoring a deal made in-game is not an "out-of-game" consideration, as I've said. It's also not maximizing your VPs. Why are you allowed not to maximize your VPs in this specific case? (I know I've asked this before, but I got no response that time) ----------------------------------------------------------- Johan Lundstrom <jo...@algonet.se> "Knowledge is power. Power corrupts."

Johan Lundstrom wrote: > > LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > > >Honoring a deal made in-game is not an "out-of-game" consideration, as I've said. > > It's also not maximizing your VPs. Why are you allowed not to maximize > your VPs in this specific case? > > (I know I've asked this before, but I got no response that time) As I've said, if making the deal helped maximize your VPs, then there's no problem in making it. Once made, there's no problem in honoring it. -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and tournament rules: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/

Roger Carhult <rogc...@student.luth.se> wrote in message news:9foc6p$bj$1...@taliesin.netcom.net.uk... > > > Robert made a nice Judge's Guide on the VTES in LA web site > > that we will continually look to refine to make > > all VTES Tourny play in LA a most fun and enjoyable experence for all > > players. MAKE NO MISTAKE, THIS IS OUR #1 GOAL! I'd like to invite > > anyone to take a look and send us some thoughts of you own. Maybe tell > > us how you judge in your area, and how it works for you. > > > > Mike > > I link to the site would be useful =) http://www.vtesinla.org/judgesnotes.htm Also linked to from vtesinla.org. Carpe Noctem. Lasombra http://www.TheLasombra.com

> >Or is the deal itself enough of an in-game consideration > >to get around this problem? > > The deal itself is an in-game consideration, as I understand it. > > >And if that is the answer, I must be allowed to break a > >deal to punish a bad dealer if bad dealing was done in the > >current game. Right? > > Um, oookay... you're still describing in-game considerations, and I > still cannot figure out a situation where breaking a deal is going to > be anything but SOME sort of positive benefit for you. You just came up with a such when you described the Dramtic Upheaval scenario?

In message <3b1f93f3...@news.algonet.se>, Johan Lundstrom <jo...@algonet.se> writes >Ever played Diplomacy? Yes. You can prove[0] you've won this *without* having to double-cross an ally, who can come second. That such an interpretation (in V:TES) would absolutely require you to get most VPs would necessitate a double-cross. [0] One of the standard ways of doing this is to take someone from the top of Russia to the bottom of Russia via ferrying. -- James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D "You reinstall Dial-Up Networking. The Elf screams and becomes EBD690ECD7A1F an icon. *** CONGRATULATIONS! *** You completed the BT Internet B457CA213D7E6 Helpdesk training course in 15 out of a possible 9000 moves." 68C3695D623D5D

James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: >Johan Lundstrom <jo...@algonet.se> writes >>Ever played Diplomacy? > >Yes. > >You can prove[0] you've won this *without* having to double-cross an >ally, who can come second. That such an interpretation (in V:TES) would >absolutely require you to get most VPs would necessitate a double-cross. No. In Dippy, you play for places. First place is first place. Once you've won, you've won, and the game is over. In Vampire (tournament play), you play for VPs, which means that a first place can be of varying worth. *Some* deals in Vampire would require a double-cross (namely the nes where you're supposed to roll over). Others wouldn't. Which was one of the points you snipped from my last post. >[0] One of the standard ways of doing this is to take someone from the >top of Russia to the bottom of Russia via ferrying. I know of this ritual. It's usually used to celebrate a joint victory in PBMs, not a part of the rules. Unless you have some funky house rules. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <3b211602....@news.algonet.se>, Johan Lundstrom <jo...@algonet.se> writes >>You can prove[0] you've won this *without* having to double-cross an >>ally, who can come second. That such an interpretation (in V:TES) would >>absolutely require you to get most VPs would necessitate a double-cross. > >No. In Dippy, you play for places. First place is first place. Once >you've won, you've won, and the game is over. In Vampire (tournament >play), you play for VPs, which means that a first place can be of >varying worth. Exactly. So you can better your position in Diplomacy without having to double-cross the other person in the deal. You just go for the place. [ quoted text not captured ]

James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: >Exactly. So you can better your position in Diplomacy without having to >double-cross the other person in the deal. You just go for the place. Look, when I was talking about breaking deals in Dippy, I wasn't talking about an imposition of the game rules, but of game practice. I thought that was obvious. How often do you see a deal last all game in Dippy? Damn near never, in my experience. But you still make them, because you hope to get out on top, and not making them at all is usually worse. Anyway, I think it probably would be a good rule if people were forbidden to roll over and die. It would only make a certain kind of unwholesome deals difficult to make. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <3b214344...@news.algonet.se>, Johan Lundstrom <jo...@algonet.se> writes >>Exactly. So you can better your position in Diplomacy without having to >>double-cross the other person in the deal. You just go for the place. > >Look, when I was talking about breaking deals in Dippy, I wasn't >talking about an imposition of the game rules, but of game practice. Dippy - you just go for the place, hence breaking deals is not required (but may be useful under some circumstances). V:TES (under the You Must Get All The Victory Points interpretation of the rules, which is not supported by LSJ's official position) - you must get all VPs, hence you must backstab. Difference == obvious. Hence, comparisons to Diplomacy in this instance are irrelevant, since it is a *completely* different set of circumstances. You are *not* required to backstab, whereas under a VP Maximise interpretation you would be, thus creating a paradox around most deals. (Must backstab, therefore can't have made deal.) It is useful if people consider the implications of there "Look, it works this way in Random Other Game" before making them. Diplomacy works in a very different fashion to the proposed interpretation. [ quoted text not captured ]