This is an economical post containing two hypotheses/questions [1-2] and
one anecdote [3].
[1] Scouting is going about, or getting someone else to go about, to
find out what other people in a tourney are playing deck-wise. It's not
illegal, and information gained by scouting can often be INCREDIBLY
useful. Ignoring/misunderstanding information of this kind probably cost
me the Ausgust Lisbon tournament. Obviously, it is easier to scout if
your deck is a quickie, because you will either win quickly or lose
quickly and you will get more time to scout. i'm not suggesting we try
to DO something about this, just pointing out there may be an issue.
Views, anyone?
[2] i just finished a game in which all my opening-uncontrolled had even
capacities - 4, 6, 8 and 10. Although i won it was an unusually-tough
fight, and it's my impression that an all-even opening-uncontrolled draw
is usually VERY bad news, compared to Odds/Evens or all Odds. i have no
explanation for this but i wonder if anyone else either shares my
superstitious dread of the all-even crypt or can explain rationally why
it should in reality be bad [or good].
[3] This game i just played finished 2 to me [Lasombra HF], 1 to Sarah
[!Brujah HF] [self-oust by Michael [!Tremere HF] after i deflected his
bleed for 4]. The following conversation took place after it was over.
The views expressed here by other speakers neither represent those of
Legbiter, nor are endorsed by him.
Sarah: "We have to gang up on Daddy, Michael. It's the only way"
Me: "That's collusion, that is - expressly forbidden by VTES rules"
Sarah: "Why? If two weaker players gang up against a stronger one, that
makes for a better game. That's good, isn't it?"
Me: "Um ... good point ....."
Buffer line to prevent message tailing
Buffer line to prevent message tailing
Buffer line to prevent message tailing
Buffer line to pre
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
On Sat, 16 Sep 2000 21:55:50 GMT, legb...@my-deja.com wrote:
>[2] i just finished a game in which all my opening-uncontrolled had even
>capacities - 4, 6, 8 and 10. Although i won it was an unusually-tough
>fight, and it's my impression that an all-even opening-uncontrolled draw
>is usually VERY bad news, compared to Odds/Evens or all Odds. i have no
>explanation for this but i wonder if anyone else either shares my
>superstitious dread of the all-even crypt or can explain rationally why
>it should in reality be bad [or good].
Mathematical simplicity, my obstrep'rous friend. Nothing
superstitious about it.
An odd number and an even number added together make an odd number.
One odd number, taken by itself, makes an odd number.
One even number makes an even number.
Two odd numbers make an even number.
Two even numbers ALSO make an even number.
Three odd numbers make an odd number.
Three even numbers still only make an even number.
As you see, you CANNOT produce an odd number from only even numbers -
meaning that if the only total you can produce from two or more
vampires is even, then you are GEFUCT (sophisticated Celtic-Dane
technical-verb-speak) if you are sitting in an 'odd' spot, ie. with 1
or 3 transfers - you will either be one transfer "light" when you want
it, or one transfer "heavy" that you will have to not use - or that
won't be of any benefit for you. For example, you sit in position 3,
and you have two 4's and two 6's in your crypt. You can gain no speed
benefit whatsoever from juggling transfers around, as:
- you can't get any vampire faster than turn 2 (no big deal)
- you can't get two vampires faster than turn 3
- you can't get both your 6's on turn 3
- you have only one way to get 3 vamps by turn 5 - (4, 4, 6)
- it will take 6 turns to influence out all your vampires, and your
last transfer will be only 1 - 3 transfers go 'wasted.'
The last is the one that really starts to matter. Whereas, if you had
two 4's, a 5, and a 6 in the same position...
- you still can't get anything before turn 2 (again, no biggie)
- you still can't get two vampires quicker than turn 3
- you CAN get your 5 and your 6 by turn 3, if you want
- you CAN get a 4, 5, and 6 by turn 4
- you CAN get that last 4 anytime you like, turn 5 if you must
Notice the speed increase - much more than would normally matter from
just having one vampire one notch cheaper.
On the other hand, if you have all-odd, or even-and-odd, then you can
produce both even *and* odd numbers in any given fashion - and are
much less likely to be GEFUCT(tm).
This is why Sheldon and Donatien kick SO much ass. They are the only
natural 3-vote vampires at an odd capacity (9). (I temporarily rule
out Prisci here because their votes can potentially be compromised.)
Anyway - as such, there are MANY more combinations of transfers that
can be arranged in order to get one of those two out a little bit
"early".
>Sarah: "We have to gang up on Daddy, Michael. It's the only way"
>Me: "That's collusion, that is - expressly forbidden by VTES rules"
>Sarah: "Why? If two weaker players gang up against a stronger one, that
>makes for a better game. That's good, isn't it?"
>Me: "Um ... good point ....."
You have FLOUNDERED in the face of tail. So to speak. =)
Is it better for multiple weaker players to mob the stronger one, in
the fashion of hyenas bringing down a lion, or is it better for the
weaker players to become stronger and thereby be able to bring down
their own lion, without having to share? Do the weaker players wish
to remain weak always?
ah, the fine edge of logic =)
-- Derek
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge."
- C. Darwin, 1871
In article <k7q8ssgn16rqiavlp...@4ax.com>,
[ quoted text not captured ]
Thanks, Derek. Something which had been troubling me for quite a while
is now completely clear to me. O, and thank you also for that article
you emailed me. VERY interesting.
>
> >Sarah: "We have to gang up on Daddy, Michael. It's the only way"
> >Me: "That's collusion, that is - expressly forbidden by VTES rules"
> >Sarah: "Why? If two weaker players gang up against a stronger one,
that
> >makes for a better game. That's good, isn't it?"
> >Me: "Um ... good point ....."
>
> You have FLOUNDERED in the face of tail. So to speak. =)
Well, the game isn't SOLEly about winning, y'know, and i hope i know my
PLAICE.
>
> Is it better for multiple weaker players to mob the stronger one, in
> the fashion of hyenas bringing down a lion, or is it better for the
> weaker players to become stronger and thereby be able to bring down
> their own lion, without having to share? Do the weaker players wish
> to remain weak always?
Actually this game hinged upon one of Sarah's rush actions. i managed to
persuade her to send it over to Michael instead of crushing my combat
monster which she could have done. Since that same combat monster then
torporised one of Sarah's vamps [another one did the grave-rob] and did
the wake/deflect for 4, she had an unassailable point for that game. i
posted it here without the context as, if you like, the vox populi. What
i'm suggesting is that the non-tourney players [still the VAST majority
of Jyhad punters] couldn't give a stuff about collusion and actually
think it's a legitimate part of the game.
>
> ah, the fine edge of logic =)
>
> -- Derek
>
> "Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge."
> - C.[ quoted text not captured ]
In article <8q21qd$3b$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
legb...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > Is it better for multiple weaker players to mob the stronger one, in
> > the fashion of hyenas bringing down a lion, or is it better for the
> > weaker players to become stronger and thereby be able to bring down
> > their own lion, without having to share? Do the weaker players wish
> > to remain weak always?
>
> Actually this game hinged upon one of Sarah's rush actions. i managed
to
> persuade her to send it over to Michael instead of crushing my combat
> monster which she could have done. Since that same combat monster then
> torporised one of Sarah's vamps [another one did the grave-rob] and
did
> the wake/deflect for 4, she had an unassailable point for that game. i
> posted it here without the context as, if you like, the vox populi.
What
> i'm suggesting is that the non-tourney players [still the VAST
majority
> of Jyhad punters] couldn't give a stuff about collusion and actually
> think it's a legitimate part of the game.
I wouldn't even consider pulling down to the top dog to be collusion.
If you know you can't beat X without help, making an alliance with B to
bring down X is actually in your best intrests. If the weak fight
amongst themselves, X sweeps. If they team against X, they have a
better chance of VP. Just a matter of managing the alliance so that you
are in the best position when X gets ousted. Ideally, you are X's
predator, for example. Or Grand predator, poised for a massive bleed on
your prey the turn after they tap out to bleed X down to 1.
Jedi Mind tricks all around.
[ quoted text not captured ]
In article <8q23sl$200$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
kp...@my-deja.com wrote:
> In article <8q21qd$3b$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> legb...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > > Is it better for multiple weaker players to mob the stronger one, in
> > > the fashion of hyenas bringing down a lion, or is it better for the
> > > weaker players to become stronger and thereby be able to bring down
> > > their own lion, without having to share? Do the weaker players wish
> > > to remain weak always?
> >
> > Actually this game hinged upon one of Sarah's rush actions. i managed
> to
> > persuade her to send it over to Michael instead of crushing my combat
> > monster which she could have done. Since that same combat monster then
> > torporised one of Sarah's vamps [another one did the grave-rob] and
> did
> > the wake/deflect for 4, she had an unassailable point for that game. i
> > posted it here without the context as, if you like, the vox populi.
> What
> > i'm suggesting is that the non-tourney players [still the VAST
> majority
> > of Jyhad punters] couldn't give a stuff about collusion and actually
> > think it's a legitimate part of the game.
>
> I wouldn't even consider pulling down to the top dog to be collusion.
<snip> i agree with all that you say, However, planning IN ADVANCE of a
game to hit somebody is [or should be] illegal/collusive. In My Opinion,
of course!
[ quoted text not captured ]
In article <k7q8ssgn16rqiavlp...@4ax.com>, Derek Ray
<lor...@yahoo.com> writes
>This is why Sheldon and Donatien kick SO much ass. They are the only
>natural 3-vote vampires at an odd capacity (9). (I temporarily rule
>out Prisci here because their votes can potentially be compromised.)
Which is why Gratiano is just so wonderful, with an almost guaranteed
(since he has two Prisci votes) 3 votes, at only 8 capacity.
Hurrah!
(No, I'm not obsessive about Gratiano. Not at all. All rumours that my
computer's Linux installation is called Gratiano are unfounded. Ahem.)
--
James Coupe | PGP Key 0x5D623D5D | ja...@zephyr.org.uk (New e-mail)
"Who'd have ever predicted the moment would come when I find myself grateful
they've kept women dumb? She's an innocent maiden but then so am I, that's why
it's possible I could get by."
On Mon, 18 Sep 2000 18:29:04 +0100, James Coupe <ve...@zephyr.org.uk>
wrote:
>(No, I'm not obsessive about Gratiano. Not at all. All rumours that my
>computer's Linux installation is called Gratiano are unfounded. Ahem.)
things to do today:
1) hax0r james' computer and change his machine's name to
"rexthenecronomist.frop.org"
-- Derek
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge."
- C. Darwin, 1871
> Which is why Gratiano is just so wonderful, with an almost guaranteed
> (since he has two Prisci votes) 3 votes, at only 8 capacity.
>
Actually, the really nice thing about Gratiano is that you can play
Cardinal Benediction on him and he still keeps his extra Pricus Vote.
Assuming no other Pricus, he would then have 6 votes on top of any
Lasombra specific masters that might exist.
-Justin
[ quoted text not captured ]
In article <8q5rgt$7tn$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, kindred_...@my-deja.com
writes
>Actually, the really nice thing about Gratiano is that you can play
>Cardinal Benediction on him and he still keeps his extra Pricus Vote.
>Assuming no other Pricus, he would then have 6 votes on top of any
>Lasombra specific masters that might exist.
You would still need to control a Priscus to cast that vote.
"Only Methuselahs who control Prisci may vote in the Prisci Vote.
[Sabbat] "
[ quoted text not captured ]
On Sat, 16 Sep 2000 21:55:50 GMT, legb...@my-deja.com wrote:
>Sarah: "We have to gang up on Daddy, Michael. It's the only way"
>Me: "That's collusion, that is - expressly forbidden by VTES rules"
>Sarah: "Why? If two weaker players gang up against a stronger one, that
>makes for a better game. That's good, isn't it?"
>Me: "Um ... good point ....."
You should introduce them to Dragonball Z which has an explicit
"You're Picking On Me!" rule for 3-player games. This caused great
amusement here when we discovered it yesterday as this is already the
catchphrase of my girlfriend.
Andrew
In article <
4A1C6B9D85EC793F.AE4A968F...@lp.airnews.net>,
[ quoted text not captured ]
Yeah, my wife has a similar catchphrase for similar situations ...
"You're Sleeping in the Bath!" Michael just mutters darkly about cheese,
and/or Ousts Himself in Favour of Any Player who is Not Daddy.
>
> Andrew[ quoted text not captured ]
James Coupe wrote:
> kindred_...@my-deja.com writes
> >Actually, the really nice thing about Gratiano is that you can play
> >Cardinal Benediction on him and he still keeps his extra Pricus Vote.
> >Assuming no other Pricus, he would then have 6 votes on top of any
> >Lasombra specific masters that might exist.
>
> You would still need to control a Priscus to cast that vote.
>
> "Only Methuselahs who control Prisci may vote in the Prisci Vote.
> [Sabbat] "
Is that still in there?
Oops.
That was true by the Sabbat Rules sheet, but it is not currently true by
the revised rules. I'll update the rulings list appropriately. Thanks.
--
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/