EC?

How goes the EC? best - chris

[ quoted text not captured ] And how went the Last Chance Qualifier? Is there no guy left to care for the Internet and the VEKN-community? C'mon guys! Give us food :o).

Joscha ha scritto: [ quoted text not captured ] Ultra-brief update before I collapse and go to sleep. BOTH the last chance qualifier (120+ players) AND the EC day 1 (100+ players) have the same winner: Ruben Feldman (from Ireland/Switzerland) If I'm not mistaken, he was playing a Giovanni bleed deck at the LCQ, and a Ventrue group 2-3 tap'n'bleed at the day 1 of the EC. And if you're still not impressed enough, I can add that he had also entered both finals as first seed. Quite amazing, huh? Cheers, Emiliano

Hello, RUBEN is a Great player, is from the Swiss Academy, we were trained by Stephan Lavrut and Amiel Feldman. I'm really happy for Ruben he deserve to be in the top 10.... and he will soon be. I'm so sorry that I didn't manage to go to Turin... I will not be number one before at least 3 month know.... (currently number 2). Ruben I wish you the best for today.... PLZ be the first to do 3x1!

On Nov 26, 5:09 am, "Miriadel" <miria...@hotmail.com> wrote: >-snip- is from the Swiss Academy, -snip- What is the Swiss academy?

Blooded Sand a écrit : > On Nov 26, 5:09 am, "Miriadel" <miria...@hotmail.com> wrote: > >-snip- is from the Swiss Academy, -snip- > What is the Swiss academy? It's a kind of joke that was developped in the french forums to describe how Amiel developped his playgroup, trying to make the better decks ever, and to train them to win tourneys. Amiel is a former Magic the gathering player who was one of the first French/swiss player to play in a pro tour and so on... So he actually reproduced what he has done with magic in V:TES. What characterises this "Academy" is the deckbuilding. Lots of very straightforward decks, between 60 and 70 cards, never bigger (the only exception is a Schambling horde/liquidation deck) to focus on a good cardflow and to have the good cards soon. The second rule is, get rid of the defense if it's not really useful all the time, especially for combat defense. And the most important rule is, never play a deck which hasn't won several tourneys. The only one who allows himself not to respect that rule is Amiel, but he is a fucking good deckbuilder. The other thing is that they talk a LOT, to try to get some help when they're stuck by a prey or a predator. Not trying to find help in the cards, but in the other players. The result is that they're dealing a lot of VPs very often, which is something that European people tend to like I think, Especially in big tourneys like that. But this academy is just a joke in the sens that lots of people are playing this way in Strasbourg, and that this way of deckbuilding comes from Julien Moisi, another Strasbourg guy, who actually became a friend of Amiel and corresponded together about deckbuilding a lot. I did with them too. So lots of people began joking about this academy saying that these guys were just nice, but were playing really badly (which was the case at the beginning) and won just because their decks were really good, but still were so straightforward that each time they had an intercept or a rush deck as a prey or predator, they just couldn't win. And lots of good players from Sabbat in France did, I actually come from this "academy" lol. I think that's all, cheers ! Arthur, missing the time when he was killing his Swiss predator...

"swiss academy" is a reference to "pop idole". The French name is: Star Academy. We process the same way to improve. We invite stars (Stephane Lavrut / Kamel Senni /Juline M) and we make them teach new things to the play group.

[ quoted text not captured ] Training sessions on monday. Personnal Coaching.

Huruem wrote: > And the most important rule is, never play a deck which > hasn't won several tourneys. The only one who allows himself not to > respect that rule is Amiel, but he is a fucking good deckbuilder. Pardon me if I seem a little dense, but allow me to ask about the "most important rule". Do you not ever make and play with your own decks? This does not seem fun at all. Rob Grau rfg...@eos.ncsu.edu

[ quoted text not captured ] Presumably in non-tournament play they build their own decks and experiment. For tournament play, I can totally understand this method helping them, particularly if they're a younger playgroup. I always advise newer players to try out the tried-and-true decks first before trying to experiment, because it's far easier to build esoteric decks (and counter- strategies to the tried-and-true) once you've gotten a handle on what's known to be effective. Also, from a tournament perspective, there's certainly something to be said for making sure you're always playing a top-tier deck. You'll generally have a better chance of winning if you bring a top-tier deck than if you bring something non-standard and less tested. Whether or not this is _fun_ is entirely subjective. I can certainly understand someone enjoying the challenge of trying to win tournaments and trying to be the best player out there. I can also appreciate wanting to try other ideas and other cards, be it for maximizing the utilzation of your collection, exploring the possibilities of the game, or just for fun's sake. - Ben Peal

[ quoted text not captured ] Hey M, Strange, some people never get invited.. BOOHOOHOOHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO (crying and sniffling at heartbreaking level) ;-) seriously:How are you doing? Any news on yesterday's result yet? And I like Ruben winning 2 days, I bet some money on him winning at least 1 day :-))) BCingU, jo

Rob Grau a écrit : [ quoted text not captured ] Well, the myth is that Amiel would build the deck around a concept that the player would have chosen, a concept which would have won at least one tourney. What actually happens is that these guys are either building their own decks and Amiel have a look at it with them, or the guys ask Amiel for a decklist. Which is what Olivier Perez did for the last two years. In the French Championship, there was something like 8 swiss player, and there only one guy who had a deck which was not built by Amiel. I don't have any opinion on the subject, honestly, but it's clearly unusual in Vtes and nonetheless very interresting. The Swiss and the Strasbourg players completly overwhelmed deckbuilding in France. And I think that these guys might change the VTES scene in the rest of the world...

[ quoted text not captured ] Hiya, It's not thàt unusual. There used to be a time when some of us Belgian players built our decks together, and I can think of many occasions when there were 3 or 4 decks built by the same person on the same tournament (both belgians, and other nationalities). Thing is, it may seem a bit "not fun" to people whp haven't xpreienced this, and prefere biulding iyt all themselves, because if you just hear about it, it just looks like they don't have influence on the deck they ge, even though in reality that's not the case. As for the changing the scene, I think this type of deckbuilding is just taking the concept of "focussed decks" that one step further. But I have to admit, I kinda like it (would nevr play that type of deck myself, but I like the stye) greetz Jo

Wolflord a écrit : > > Hiya, > It's not thàt unusual. > There used to be a time when some of us Belgian players built our decks > together, and I can think of many occasions when there were 3 or 4 > decks built by the same person on the same tournament (both belgians, > and other nationalities). > Thing is, it may seem a bit "not fun" to people whp haven't xpreienced > this, and prefere biulding iyt all themselves, because if you just hear > about it, it just looks like they don't have influence on the deck they > ge, even though in reality that's not the case. > As for the changing the scene, I think this type of deckbuilding is > just taking the concept of "focussed decks" that one step further. > But I have to admit, I kinda like it (would nevr play that type of deck > myself, but I like the stye) > greetz > Jo I presume there are some low cost beetween Bruxelles and Geneva. You are welcome, Jo. Loïc.

ben...@gmail.com wrote: > Rob Grau wrote: >> Huruem wrote: >> > And the most important rule is, never play a deck which >> > hasn't won several tourneys. The only one who allows himself not to >> > respect that rule is Amiel, but he is a fucking good deckbuilder. >> >> Pardon me if I seem a little dense, but allow me to ask about the "most >> important rule". Do you not ever make and play with your own decks? >> This does not seem fun at all. > > Presumably in non-tournament play they build their own decks and > experiment. For tournament play, I can totally understand this > method > helping them, particularly if they're a younger playgroup. I always > advise > newer players to try out the tried-and-true decks first before trying > to > experiment, because it's far easier to build esoteric decks (and > counter- > strategies to the tried-and-true) once you've gotten a handle on > what's > known to be effective. I guess it must be a new rule, and does in fact involve borrowing decks. because if you can't play in a tournament a deck that has never won in a tournament, how did the first tournament winning deck get played in a tournament for it's first win if it had never been played in a tournament before? you've broken your own rule! If maybe there's some nuance to the rule that we're missing here, that might explain things. Like don't play a deck that's not *similar* to a deck that has won several tournies, or something.... -- salem http://users.tpg.com.au/adsltqna/vtes/ (replace 'hotmail' with 'yahoo' to email)

Huruem is not complitly right. When Huruem say that I play deck I didn't build he's wrong. We are all building are on deck, but we are all helping each other to improve the deck. Amiel give usually the last touch. We all try the deck of other players, and when we see a deck winning a big tournament we try it, to understand he's strength and how it work. And it's not that we only play deck that has already won, it's that we creat deck thinking it must won tournament. We are not interested in deck that are not design to do 2GW8 minimum... Remember it's been only 2 year's we are playing so we didn't invent anything, we just maximize the power of existing deck. We talk about it and try to make it work better. The party of roses was created by Amiel, but he didn't like it so much and he give it to me saying it was the kind of deck I love. I was really septic about it but I try. And I like it so much I worked on it for 3 months changing proportion and trying options... So I have a part in it too.. I hope I'm clrear. Sorry for my bad english, I'll try to improve. Hope to see you guys in Swiss event.

ben...@gmail.com wrote: > Rob Grau wrote: > > Huruem wrote: > > > And the most important rule is, never play a deck which > > > hasn't won several tourneys. The only one who allows himself not to > > > respect that rule is Amiel, but he is a fucking good deckbuilder. > > > > Pardon me if I seem a little dense, but allow me to ask about the "most > > important rule". Do you not ever make and play with your own decks? > > This does not seem fun at all. > > Whether or not this is _fun_ is entirely subjective. I can certainly > understand someone enjoying the challenge of trying to win > tournaments > and trying to be the best player out there. I can also appreciate > wanting > to try other ideas and other cards, be it for maximizing the > utilzation of > your collection, exploring the possibilities of the game, or just for > fun's > sake. Agreed. I might have better expressed my feelings by saying the rule was 'absolute' instead of 'not fun'. For me, one would lead to the other. Y(fun)MMV. I've certainly had fun playing decks that other people constructed, so I understand where they're coming from. Rob Grau rfg...@eos.ncsu.edu

Miriadel a écrit : [ quoted text not captured ] Sorry man, I was just presenting the "myth" Can I have my Irish spanking? <Running far far away>

Anyway, here are some pics from the EC: http://reg.imageshack.us/v_images.php?viewvar=2&page=1 Spotlight on Jay Kristoff Tech: http://img439.imageshack.us/img439/355/dscn0754bz9.jpg The 3 days were really very funny, I played a lot, on third day I bet on my Turbo Baron deck, but on 2 rounds the combo stopped at 4-6 vampires in play and in the remaining one round my baron was stolen by the rush/conceal/saturday/dragon's breath/graverob deck that made the final...sad game...really saaad. See You next year (I hope)!

Vragozakas a écrit : [ quoted text not captured ] The first link doesn't work :(

On Nov 28, 7:17 am, "Huruem" <Huruem_cate...@hotmail.com> wrote: >The first link doesn't work :( My bad, try with this: http://profile.imageshack.us/user/vragozakas

Miriadel schrieb: > I'm so sorry that I didn't manage to go to Turin... I will not be > number one before at least 3 month know.... (currently number 2). I heard about your job rearrangement, was really sorry that we didn´t meet again. Looking forward to the FC Qualifier in Strasbourg. Do I have to dance or sing when I want to participate in the Swiss Academy? :)) -- johannes walch

Yes you do have do dance my freind... Tell me when is the next tournement in Germany and I'll com to play with you.

> > I'm so sorry that I didn't manage to go to Turin... I will not be > > number one before at least 3 month know.... (currently number 2). You will have to wait, my friend ! First, Reuben has got to take your place, he's much better than you. ;-) And then, I won't make it easy for you, I might want to play Tier1 too and then you'll just be severely outclassed. B-) (for those not knowing us, I would never make such egotist remarks to anyone but Miriadel, but with him I just can't help him, it's so fun to fight with his own weapons, adding mine : the truth, lol). -- Orpheus ----------------------- I'm dead serious ! Well, mostly dead...

"Vragozakas" <vrago...@yahoo.it> a écrit dans le message de news: 1164704040.5...@l12g2000cwl.googlegroups.com... [ quoted text not captured ] We obviously met, who were you IRL ? And that concert, what was it ? -- Orpheus ------------------------- "You'll regret being so damn abusive when the electric UFO gods transphase in from dimension ten to appoint me manager of the universe". The Drummer, in Planetary.

"Rob Grau" <rfg...@eos.ncsu.edu> wrote in message news:1164596077....@j44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > > Huruem wrote: > >> And the most important rule is, never play a deck which >> hasn't won several tourneys. The only one who allows himself not to >> respect that rule is Amiel, but he is a fucking good deckbuilder. > > Pardon me if I seem a little dense, but allow me to ask about the "most > important rule". Do you not ever make and play with your own decks? So what's the "most important rule" to which you made reference? Fred

[ quoted text not captured ] Victory through Net-Decking is the parable of wisdom as I understood it. Sad really.... Comments Welcome, Norman S. Brown, Jr XZealot Archon of the Swamp

XZealot schreef: [ quoted text not captured ] I think the idea is more.. using concepts that have been shown to work, as they do build decks together. But you're right that it's not the pinnacle of creativity. If you want to, and play to win, it's sound strategy. Cheers, B

XZealot wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] Yeah. I can understand it, for some people winning is the only important thing. Winning with a "pre-constructed" deck not of your own making would seem like a cheap victory to me. Matter of taste -- and of course, no deck plays itself, the player skill is a big factor. In any case, the above way of playing it pretty much anathema to the way I play it. I'd rather lose with an interesting deck than win with cheese. Especially if it's someone else's cheese. Again, of course, purely a matter of taste. Of course, that does result in me losing most of the time. :) EC was an interesting experience. I now understand why the other Finnish players have been saying that French players can be a problem, and that "you can't play the game if more than one French guy is at the table, they will play in collusion no matter what the game situation is". Apologies to the French players who don't do that, but I have yet to meet them, sadly enough. They're fine if there's only one at the table. Two or more, and it's a done deal that they'll team up. It's just the way the game is apparently played with them, but sadly it steps over the line into illegal collusion way too often. Proving collusion is always a bitch, of course, even when it's blatant. I guess it's the reason some of those guys get away with it. That, and the fact that the worst offenders are the "well known" players, so the judges apparently tend to look the other way a lot. Oh well. Sucks, but what can you do. For example, one French player (playing a Shambling Horde deck) actively gave his prey (another French player) an Assault Rifle. What's the worst enemy of a SH deck? That's right, an Assault Rifle. This in addition to doing *nothing* offensive towards his prey, until a judge was called in.. after which he started doing token "bleed for 1s" until the judge left, then the circus started again. Disclaimer: this is an account from players at that game who I trust (who were totally pissed off, once again), didn't see it personally. Saw a lot of stuff like that myself, elsewhere. As a second disclaimer: the French players weren't the only ones that were guilty of this. They were just the most consistent at it (and apparently have been on previous years, too). Collusion with someone just because they are your friend, or have the same nationality as you, seriously sucks. I wish there was a way to get warnings and game bans for the worst offenders, but that would require lots of judges who are on the ball -- and this tournament didn't have those. If the above offends someone, then it does. I'm just calling things the way I see them. *As people* almost everyone at the EC was nice. What I have issue with it the playing style of some of them, nothing more nothing less. That said, most of the games were fun, some were *very* fun. Maybe too many VP deals for my liking, ones made ridiculously early in the game ("let's split the table 3-2" on round 4, give me a break...). I'll have to make a t-shirt that says "shut the fuck up and play the game", if I attend EC again :}. On the other hand, some of the dealmaking was fun and most of the players were very cool and (mostly) friendly. The pressure got to some, I guess, and some tried to vent their frustrations on the other players. Most didn't. Met a lot of cool people I had previously only met online (the Tatus, Paolo, etc etc). Good times. Got lots of ideas, deck tips, and strategy tips. My Laibon Harbringer/!Salubri deck didn't really work on the last chance qualifier game (I was already qualified and was playing more a "fun" deck), but the anarch Daughters of Cacophony deck I was playing on EC first day did ok for such a "low-power" deck (2 VPs). Still needs tuning, but I like the thing; when it worked it generated Echo votes like crazy. When it didn't work was when I was sandwiched between a total of 12 static votes on (I think) round 3. Yikes. Should have made a deal with my prey, but the table situation kept shifting. :). On day 3 I played an Ahrimanes rush deck which in the end only got 0.5 VPs from a stalled game, but was *really* close to a lot more on the 2 other rounds (one was a matter of one missing press, the other a matter of a cross-table rescue of Nergal who turbo-chewed through the table after that). One of the guys on the stalled game gave me some attitude about playing too slowly, which was imho *mostly* unjustified -- yes, I was seriously sleep-lagged and probably played a bit slower than usual, but otoh I was still playing a lot faster than the guys who were interrupting each action with a table VP deal proposition. Oh well, I guess he was just frustrated about the game stalling, turns out all his 3 games had timed out. None of my other games had, so I'd personally also lay blame on his deck; he was playing a Gangrel intercept/earth meld deck, with very little forward pressure. Nice deck, but decks like that tend to result in longer games. His bitching left a slightly bad taste in my mouth, but he seemed like a nice guy otherwise. So... yeah, was worth the trip. I'm not wild about the style of playing that seems to be dominant in central Europe, but most of the time it doesn't bother the game too much and you can just (try to) tell the worst motormouths to shut up and play the game. I'm not sure what the tournament play style is like in the U.S., but by playing with Eric, David Tatu and other U.S. guys I got the feeling it would be more to my liking. Those games felt a lot more relaxed and pleasant to me, even though everyone *was* playing to win. It's a difference in player attitudes, I guess. Oh, and we made the plane back home with only minutes to spare. But that's another story. :) //Petri

> So... yeah, was worth the trip. I'm not wild about the style of playing that > seems to be dominant in central Europe, but most of the time it doesn't > bother the game too much and you can just (try to) tell the worst > motormouths to shut up and play the game. I'm not sure what the tournament > play style is like in the U.S., but by playing with Eric, David Tatu and > other U.S. guys I got the feeling it would be more to my liking. Those > games felt a lot more relaxed and pleasant to me, even though everyone > *was* playing to win. It's a difference in player attitudes, I guess. > > Oh, and we made the plane back home with only minutes to spare. But that's > another story. :) > > //Petri thats one of the reasons i attended the NAC but did not attend the ec stefan f.

Petri Wessman schrieb: > EC was an interesting experience. I now understand why the other Finnish > players have been saying that French players can be a problem, and > that "you can't play the game if more than one French guy is at the table, > they will play in collusion no matter what the game situation is". > Apologies to the French players who don't do that, but I have yet to meet > them, sadly enough. They're fine if there's only one at the table. Two or > more, and it's a done deal that they'll team up. It's just the way the game > is apparently played with them, but sadly it steps over the line into > illegal collusion way too often. Proving collusion is always a bitch, of > course, even when it's blatant. I guess it's the reason some of those guys > get away with it. That, and the fact that the worst offenders are the "well > known" players, so the judges apparently tend to look the other way a lot. > Oh well. Sucks, but what can you do. That´s really unecessary dicky to accuse the judges of "looking the other way". Unless you can prove it rather keep it to yourself. The people at the EC did not put hundreds of hours in the organization only to be seriously offended in a public forum afterwards. If you want to continue enjoying ECs, you should be more encouraging to the organizers. > For example, one French player (playing a Shambling Horde deck) actively > gave his prey (another French player) an Assault Rifle. What's the worst > enemy of a SH deck? That's right, an Assault Rifle. This in addition to > doing *nothing* offensive towards his prey, until a judge was called in.. > after which he started doing token "bleed for 1s" until the judge left, > then the circus started again. Disclaimer: this is an account from players > at that game who I trust (who were totally pissed off, once again), didn't > see it personally. Saw a lot of stuff like that myself, elsewhere. How did the guy with the Shambling Hordes give his prey an Assault Rifle? I am sure he has none in the deck and then it escapes me how you can *give* somebody an Assault Rifle. And even more interesting I think I know both guys and saw the game and in that game the guy with the Assault Rifles was the predator of the guys with the Shamblings. Nothing is better than second hand experiences spread in public forums :) > As a second disclaimer: the French players weren't the only ones that were > guilty of this. They were just the most consistent at it (and apparently > have been on previous years, too). Collusion with someone just because they > are your friend, or have the same nationality as you, seriously sucks. I > wish there was a way to get warnings and game bans for the worst offenders, > but that would require lots of judges who are on the ball -- and this > tournament didn't have those. > > If the above offends someone, then it does. I'm just calling things the way > I see them. *As people* almost everyone at the EC was nice. What I have > issue with it the playing style of some of them, nothing more nothing less. Do you have any solution for the problem (assuming the fact that the problem is indeed existing as you describe it, which some people might argue)? Or are you just ranting? To my understanding it´s only natural that you ally with the guys you know on a given table, because normally you HAVE to ally with somebody and the people you can judge best (because you played them before and probably know that they usually keep their end of the agreement) are the first choice. Probably it seems worse with the French because they are a really big group so it is more likely to encounter more than one of them at a single table and they have some kind of language barrier. But I am very sure that it isnt worse than with any other country. > I'm not sure what the tournament > play style is like in the U.S., but by playing with Eric, David Tatu > and > other U.S. guys I got the feeling it would be more to my liking. Those > games felt a lot more relaxed and pleasant to me, even though everyone > *was* playing to win. It's a difference in player attitudes, I guess. Those were the "Pack Alphas". I had bad experiences in the US just as in every other place I played. -- johannes walch

> To my understanding it´s only natural that you ally with the guys you > know on a given table, because normally you HAVE to ally with somebody > and the people you can judge best (because you played them before and > probably know that they usually keep their end of the agreement) are the > first choice. Probably it seems worse with the French because they are a > really big group so it is more likely to encounter more than one of them > at a single table and they have some kind of language barrier. But I am > very sure that it isnt worse than with any other country. > johannes walch Guys, come and play in Aust, where we consider it a point of honor to oust our best friends rather than to make deals with them.

sutekh_23 schrieb: >> To my understanding it愀 only natural that you ally with the guys you [ quoted text not captured ] It愀 not about best friends. I regularily crush my best friends :) It愀 about people you know and can judge. I would never deal with my best friends in such a tournament because I don愒 want to stink of collusion. Unfortunately for the french everybody seems to think they are all best friends, but in fact they are not (surprisingly). -- johannes walch

Heya > the other a matter of a cross-table rescue of Nergal who > turbo-chewed through the table after that. Well, to everyones defence, I belive that no one (except me), could see that Nergal was gonna do that. I mean he was a 0 blood I was at 7 pool. And had no other minions in game :) Sadly that was the only game, in 3 tournys he have done it, ppl. seems to target him or me, when ever he gets into play. Wonder why? /Jesper

Johannes Walch wrote: > That´s really unecessary dicky to accuse the judges of "looking the > other way". Unless you can prove it rather keep it to yourself. The > people at the EC did not put hundreds of hours in the organization only > to be seriously offended in a public forum afterwards. If you want to > continue enjoying ECs, you should be more encouraging to the organizers. True. That came out too strong, and I apologize. I do think there was some small room for improvement on the judge area in that they could have been stricter towards collusion (issued official warnings), and in that the rules knowledge was a bit spotty at times. However, having personally run lots and lots of big tournaments over the years, I know full well how hectic things can get, and it's all to easy to get confused about the various rulings in the heat of things. The "I know this, but there's a hole in my head right now" effect. :) That, and with N players and just a few judges there is no way they can keep an eye on everything. Overall, the organizing was ok. There was some confusion and hassle that could have been avoided (the debacle with the Silence of Death death lists, etc etc), but hassle always happens. I have no real complaints on that score. And again, I've run and organized a *lot* of tournaments, some very big; I know what the realities of that are. Overall, the EC organizers did a good job, and I apologize for partially blaming them for something that's a player problem. I'm just a bit frustrated, is all. >> For example, one French player (playing a Shambling Horde deck) actively >> gave his prey (another French player) an Assault Rifle. What's the worst >> enemy of a SH deck? That's right, an Assault Rifle. This in addition to >> doing *nothing* offensive towards his prey, until a judge was called in.. >> after which he started doing token "bleed for 1s" until the judge left, >> then the circus started again. Disclaimer: this is an account from >> players at that game who I trust (who were totally pissed off, once >> again), didn't see it personally. Saw a lot of stuff like that myself, >> elsewhere. > > How did the guy with the Shambling Hordes give his prey an Assault > Rifle? I am sure he has none in the deck and then it escapes me how you > can *give* somebody an Assault Rifle. And even more interesting I think > I know both guys and saw the game and in that game the guy with the > Assault Rifles was the predator of the guys with the Shamblings. > > Nothing is better than second hand experiences spread in public forums :) True, that. I'll ask one of the players who was there to comment on the details, if he wants to. I think the Swedish girl (damn, don't remember name) was in that game too. I got the impression that he could have blocked with no danger to himself, but didn't, but could be wrong. Remember, this was on top of the predator doing pretty much nothing against his prey during the game. Of course, you could just claim it's some fiendishly clever tactic. That's the problem with game collusion, it's a bitch to actually prove. As a player you know it for what it is when you see it, but *prove* it beyond a shadow of doubt? Hard. When I'm judge I tend to be very hardline about this kind of thing (if the player cannot justify his actions he gets a warning), but that's up to the event judges in every case. >> As a second disclaimer: the French players weren't the only ones that >> were guilty of this. They were just the most consistent at it (and >> apparently have been on previous years, too). Collusion with someone just >> because they are your friend, or have the same nationality as you, >> seriously sucks. I wish there was a way to get warnings and game bans for >> the worst offenders, but that would require lots of judges who are on the >> ball -- and this tournament didn't have those. >> >> If the above offends someone, then it does. I'm just calling things the >> way I see them. *As people* almost everyone at the EC was nice. What I >> have issue with it the playing style of some of them, nothing more >> nothing less. > > Do you have any solution for the problem (assuming the fact that the > problem is indeed existing as you describe it, which some people might > argue)? Or are you just ranting? Well, a general solution is difficult, and to a small extent I am ranting about what I think is an unhealthy direction for the game to go in. But I think the removal or modification of the withdraw rule in VEKN tournaments that LSJ is proposing in another thread is one solution. It's a lot harder to do effective collusion and table VP deals if you can't get VP by withdrawing (or by having it give only 0.5 VP). Lessent the incentive, at least. As for it being a problem... well, dunno. I personally don't like it when people start dividing the table based on real-life friendships and other things instead on in-game stuff, but of course it always happens to some extent. That "some extent" is the thing, here... normally it stays in control, but the EC was the first tournament where I've seen VP dealing and collusion get (in my opinion) a bit out of hand. Basically, it circumvents the designed "predator-prey" mechanic of the game and turns it into "play for a few rounds and then start making deals on how we divide the VPs here". That in itself is just annoying, but when those deals start being made based on real-life friendships it becomes a problem. I'm not the only one who complained about this at the EC, in fact I was *far* from the only one, and I've heard similiar complaints from previous years. Based on the fact that LSJ is proposing rule changes that would hinder VP deals, I gather he finds it a problem too (at least in some cases). I gather there were some related problems at this year's NAC, too. > To my understanding it´s only natural that you ally with the guys you > know on a given table, because normally you HAVE to ally with somebody > and the people you can judge best (because you played them before and > probably know that they usually keep their end of the agreement) are the > first choice. Probably it seems worse with the French because they are a > really big group so it is more likely to encounter more than one of them > at a single table and they have some kind of language barrier. But I am > very sure that it isnt worse than with any other country. That could be. I do think there is a playing culture in France that encourages this type of thing (or maybe some of the better-know players encourage it, because they like to play that way). It's funny, when Finns (or Danes, or...) play with others on the table, if anything they are *more* brutal towards each other than they are to "strangers". With the French it's the opposite. :) But you're right, for players who play mainly by making VP deals, they obviously will prefer friends and people they know, because deals with them feel more trustworthy. It's a thin line between that and illegal collusion, and even if it's crossed I'm not sure the players themselves always realize it. It's not black/white. > > I'm not sure what the tournament > > play style is like in the U.S., but by playing with Eric, David Tatu > > and > > other U.S. guys I got the feeling it would be more to my liking. Those > > games felt a lot more relaxed and pleasant to me, even though everyone > > *was* playing to win. It's a difference in player attitudes, I guess. > > Those were the "Pack Alphas". I had bad experiences in the US just as in > every other place I played. I have no doubt of that. And I'd like to emphasise that most of my play experiences at the EC were very pleasant. Maybe that's why the ones that were not stand out so much. :/ //Petri

sutekh_23 wrote: >> To my understanding it愀 only natural that you ally with the guys you [ quoted text not captured ] Sounds like Finland :). Let's meet up and play. :D //Petri

Petri Wessman a écrit : > > To my understanding it´s only natural that you ally with the guys you > > know on a given table, because normally you HAVE to ally with somebody > > and the people you can judge best (because you played them before and > > probably know that they usually keep their end of the agreement) are the > > first choice. Probably it seems worse with the French because they are a > > really big group so it is more likely to encounter more than one of them > > at a single table and they have some kind of language barrier. But I am > > very sure that it isnt worse than with any other country. > > That could be. I do think there is a playing culture in France that > encourages this type of thing (or maybe some of the better-know players > encourage it, because they like to play that way). > > It's funny, when Finns (or Danes, or...) play with others on the table, if > anything they are *more* brutal towards each other than they are > to "strangers". With the French it's the opposite. :) > > But you're right, for players who play mainly by making VP deals, they > obviously will prefer friends and people they know, because deals with them > feel more trustworthy. It's a thin line between that and illegal collusion, > and even if it's crossed I'm not sure the players themselves always realize > it. It's not black/white. > > //Petri I have created a topic for the "french problem" here : http://groups.google.fr/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/browse_frm/thread/a694520a62f9623a/d10503c1ba5d270f?hl=fr#d10503c1ba5d270f

Huruem wrote: > I have created a topic for the "french problem" here : > > http://groups.google.fr/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/browse_frm/thread/a694520a62f9623a/d10503c1ba5d270f?hl=fr#d10503c1ba5d270f Probably better to just use standard "Reply" and change the subject as needed, so that things that belong together stay together. See my post on withdrawal rules, for example.

On Nov 28, 3:39 pm, "Orpheus" <orpheus...@DEADSPAMfree.fr> wrote: >We obviously met, who were you IRL ? I'm the necro-fan, we talked a lot about new necro deck (and some wraith tech). You gave me the skull counter, to spread the discipline of necromancy! > And that concert, what was it ? > Orpheus Mastodon + Tool in Jesolo (Italy) and Rumors of Gehenna + SlowmotionApocalypse in Pordenone (Italy)

"Stefan Ferenci" <a950...@unet.univie.ac.at> wrote in news:1164816904.6...@80g2000cwy.googlegroups.com: >> I'm not sure >> what the tournament play style is like in the U.S., but by playing >> with Eric, David Tatu and other U.S. guys I got the feeling it would >> be more to my liking. Those games felt a lot more relaxed and >> pleasant to me, even though everyone *was* playing to win. It's a >> difference in player attitudes, I guess. > > thats one of the reasons i attended the NAC but did not attend the ec > > stefan f. > We love you to, stefan... *smooch* DaveZ Atom Weaver

bubbi...@hotmail.com wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] Heh. Yeah, even I was suprised even though I had a strong suspicion of what that deck could do (that's why I rushed it as soon as I could). Nergal got turbo-mode going much faster than I expected. :) Fun game in any case. I sort of expected my prey to hold out against Nergal a *bit* longer, but those unblockable 7-8 bleeds are deadly if you don't have lots of bounce in your hand. Nice deck, that Nergal one, probably the most efficient version of that deck type I remember seeing. //Petri

Petri Wessman wrote: > Johannes Walch wrote: [...] > As for it being a problem... well, dunno. I personally don't like it when > people start dividing the table based on real-life friendships and other > things instead on in-game stuff, but of course it always happens to some > extent. That "some extent" is the thing, here... normally it stays in > control, but the EC was the first tournament where I've seen VP dealing and > collusion get (in my opinion) a bit out of hand.[...] In the 8 games I have played on Saturday (EC Day 1) and Sunday (EC Day 2), I have seen no collusion. -- Damnans http://www.almadrava.net/damnans http://www.vtes.net http://es.groups.yahoo.com/group/vteshispania/

Damnans wrote: > Petri Wessman wrote: >> Johannes Walch wrote: > > [...] > >> As for it being a problem... well, dunno. I personally don't like it when >> people start dividing the table based on real-life friendships and other >> things instead on in-game stuff, but of course it always happens to some >> extent. That "some extent" is the thing, here... normally it stays in >> control, but the EC was the first tournament where I've seen VP dealing >> and collusion get (in my opinion) a bit out of hand.[...] > > In the 8 games I have played on Saturday (EC Day 1) and Sunday (EC Day > 2), I have seen no collusion. Ok, that's good to know, I'll trust your judgment on this. As noted in another thread, it's very possibly a case of different playstyles (deal-heavy) leading me and others to make slightly wrong conclusions at times. I saw some things that seemed fishy, and heard of many more, but in retrospect... dunno. Could be just a play culture difference (and general "culture difference") thing. I'm happy if I'm totally in the wrong here, tell you the truth. //Petri

[ quoted text not captured ] We love having you come over here. It's always good to see you. [ quoted text not captured ]

"Johannes Walch" <johanne...@vekn.de> wrote > > I would never deal with my best friends in such a tournament because I > don´t want to stink of collusion. That seems wrong to me. You should deal with someone based on what they have to offer you and how it helps you to win the game, not on external factors like friendship (or nationality, of course). Cheers, WES

> >We obviously met, who were you IRL ? > > I'm the necro-fan, we talked a lot about new necro deck (and some > wraith tech). > You gave me the skull counter, to spread the discipline of necromancy! Sure, I know who you are now ! I'll get to update the necrosite one of this day, feel free to remind me this promise from time to time. ;-) > > And that concert, what was it ? > > Orpheus > > Mastodon + Tool in Jesolo (Italy) > and > Rumors of Gehenna + SlowmotionApocalypse in Pordenone (Italy) Any good ?

Petri Wessman wrote: > EC was an interesting experience. I now understand why the other Finnish > players have been saying that French players can be a problem, and > that "you can't play the game if more than one French guy is at the table, > they will play in collusion no matter what the game situation is". I've played with three different French players, including one at the EC (sadly have forgotten his name - round 3 in the EC playing a Ahrimanes deck with a Ventrue prey) and all three have kept their deals. Small sample but it's not all of them... In saying that, in my first game there was some strange play from a couple of Hungarian players playing vote decks, was sitting between them getting hammered from both sides. I think they were scared of Eric all dressed up in his flash suit, or maybe they were scared of Beast ;-) Anyhow gave them a good game but wasn't to be. > the other a matter of a cross-table rescue of Nergal who turbo-chewed through the table > after that). Yeah that was me rescueing - I decided you were a rush deck not a block deck and weren't going to save me so you and my predator needed to die to give me time to draw my Great Beast. Sorry about that... you had to take one for the team. I pretty much thought the two of you were going to die if I did that but wasn't much else I could do without saying anything... Hope you enjoyed it anyhow, my first EC and pretty fun :-) Simon

> > Guys, come and play in Aust, where we consider it a point of honor to > > oust our best friends rather than to make deals with them. > > > > It愀 not about best friends. I regularily crush my best friends :) > It愀 about people you know and can judge. > > I would never deal with my best friends in such a tournament because I > don愒 want to stink of collusion. Unfortunately for the french everybody > seems to think they are all best friends, but in fact they are not > (surprisingly). Just ask poor Arnaud Beygts, he got ousted by frenchmen at least thrice last week-end, and sometimes in a very dirty way ! My last oust in the EC is by a frenchman, who wanted to have nothing with a deal that would have given me more points and possibly a victory for him - where he only made 1,5. All this doesn't look like collusion to me. Also, I do know which frenchmen I can trust or not. On the other hand, the only player with whom I had total trust after day 2 of the EC was Ignacio the spaniard, because he saw me respect a deal in the first day finals and we each respected a deal on day 2 ; we didn't make any on day 3 but he also saw me respect one with his pred. So that's about as far as it goes toward trusting each other, and he certainly was no frenchman ! ;-) -- Orpheus --------------- "When a true genius appears, you can know him by this sign: that all the dunces are in a confederacy against him." Jonathan Swift

Shade wrote: > Yeah that was me rescueing - I decided you were a rush deck not a block > deck and weren't going to save me so you and my predator needed to die > to give me time to draw my Great Beast. Sorry about that... you had to > take one for the team. I pretty much thought the two of you were going > to die if I did that but wasn't much else I could do without saying > anything... Oh, don't apologize. :). Like I told you at the table, what you did made perfect sense, and you were probably right -- I *was* having a hard time doing damage to my predator (damn Ahrimanes inability to counter combat ends). I don't think anyone was expecting that Nergal to get speed quite that fast, but that's the chance you take. It was a fun game. :) > Hope you enjoyed it anyhow, my first EC and pretty fun :-) Likewise. I want to stress that despite some reservations about gaming styles (which I now think were mostly due to misunderstandings and game culture differences), I had a ton of fun and met a lot of creative decks and players. Good times. //Petri

"Orpheus" <orphe...@DEADSPAMfree.fr> schreef in bericht news:456ec38b$0$26073$426a...@news.free.fr... [ quoted text not captured ] I don't know the second one but the first line-up was awesome in Brussels :-)

"Petri Wessman" <nos...@orava.org> wrote in message news:qqhbh.62355$nM1....@reader1.news.jippii.net... >> Victory through Net-Decking is the parable of wisdom as I understood >> it. >> >> Sad really.... > > Yeah. I can understand it, for some people winning is the only important > thing. Winning with a "pre-constructed" deck not of your own making would > seem like a cheap victory to me. I don't know that winning or losing is the point where net-decking is concerned. If you can win through net-decking (or even, as in my case, just do better than you would otherwise) then it certainly behooves you to consider it - at least to the degree that your deck choice reflects your desire to win. A CCG being what it is, everybody has their idea of how much emphasis to put on winning vs. how much to put on their desire to play the type of deck they like. But there has to be some emphasis on winning or there's no point to playing. One thing I particularly like about net-decking: it gives me the opportunity to learn how to play styles I wouldn't normally gravitate torwards in my deck-building. Especially when my skill at building decks torwards those styles are currently lacking. (In my case, read combat-oriented decks. YMMV.) Using a deck built by someone who has considerable skill in those styles is very helpful, both torwards learning to play and build those sorts of deck and learning what their weakness are so that when I go back to my own preferences, I know better how to deal with them. As for whether such a victory is 'cheap' or otherwise, the distinction you make is entirely meaningless to me. As far as I even understand it. It seems like incredibly misplaced pride to worry about who created the deck with which you won. Fred

On Dec 2, 6:28 pm, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: > YMMV > Fred Super blonde question for the day YMMV? wtf?

"Blooded Sand" <sand...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1165077684....@l12g2000cwl.googlegroups.com... [ quoted text not captured ] "Your mileage may vary." Fred

On Dec 2, 6:51 pm, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: > "Blooded Sand" <sandm...@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:1165077684....@l12g2000cwl.googlegroups.com... > > > On Dec 2, 6:28 pm, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: > > >> YMMV > >> Fred > > > Super blonde question for the day YMMV? wtf?"Your mileage may vary." > > Fred Thanks Fred. I repeat, WTF? now even more confused *wanders off shaking head, not sure that learning English was such a good idea in the first place.....* Like, no offence Fred, no I know what the letters are for, but i do not get it

"Blooded Sand" <sand...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1165078428.0...@n67g2000cwd.googlegroups.com... > On Dec 2, 6:51 pm, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: >> "Blooded Sand" <sandm...@gmail.com> wrote in >> messagenews:1165077684....@l12g2000cwl.googlegroups.com... >> > On Dec 2, 6:28 pm, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: >> >> YMMV >> >> Fred >> >> > Super blonde question for the day YMMV? wtf?"Your mileage may vary." > > Thanks Fred. I repeat, WTF? now even more confused *wanders off shaking > head, not sure that learning English was such a good idea in the first > place.....* > > Like, no offence Fred, no I know what the letters are for, but i do not > get it Part of learning a language is accepting that idioms exist and it's probably a good idea to learn the more popular ones. (Like I'm a great authority on learning languages. Much as I would love to, it's another one my great non-skills...) "Your mileage may vary" refers to the fact that each person has a different, very personal experience of certain aspects of life. In my post, it referred to the fact that different people are good or bad at different aspects of V:tES, thus which style of deck it would be beneficial for them to consider net.decking will likewise vary. The term, "Your mileage may vary", has its genesis in a legal requirement for automobile manufacturers to place the estimated urban and freeway gas mileage estimates of each new car on its legally required MSRP sticker which must by law be placed in each new automobile sold in America. Included in that estimate is an inevitable clause which refers to the point that real gas mileage observed is very dependent on the person's driving habits and other factors. In short, even though the MSRP sticker promises that a new car will get 'X' miles per gallon, that person's observed experience may turn out to be different. His mileage will vary. That ubiquitous clause on MSRP stickers has now become an American language idiom. Fred

Andrew 'Wes' Weston wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] Totally agreed. While dealing with people *just* because they are friends (or whatever) is a bit iffy, so is *not* dealing with people just to avoid all accusations. Make your decisions purely on game state and dynamics, ideally. Of course, people are people and I can fully understand both deals with friends and the avoidance of such. It's not an ideal world :}. //Petri

Frederick Scott wrote: > "Petri Wessman" <nos...@orava.org> wrote in message > news:qqhbh.62355$nM1....@reader1.news.jippii.net... >>> Victory through Net-Decking is the parable of wisdom as I understood >>> it. >>> >>> Sad really.... >> >> Yeah. I can understand it, for some people winning is the only important >> thing. Winning with a "pre-constructed" deck not of your own making would >> seem like a cheap victory to me. > As for whether such a victory is 'cheap' or otherwise, the distinction you > make is entirely meaningless to me. As far as I even understand it. It > seems like incredibly misplaced pride to worry about who created the deck > with which you won. Yeah, well, I would need to stress that "to me" point. It's a *purely* personal thing. I realize that decks don't play themselves, and if you win with a "3rd party" deck you deserve the credit. I'm just saying that it would not give all that much satisfaction *to me*. That said, I often take in ideas from this group (or from friends), so it's a bit of a grey area what "your own deck" means anyway. If you take a tournament winning deck and exchange a few cards, whose design is it? Largely, it doesn't really matter, and just comes down to personal preference: do you like to play with "power decks" (no matter the source), or do you like to play with decks that are (mostly) of your own design? Neither is bad or good as such, it's just a preference. Hope that clarified my opinion a bit :) //Petri

"Petri Wessman" <nos...@orava.org> wrote in message news:4572d0c6$0$24605$39db...@news.song.fi... > Frederick Scott wrote: >> "Petri Wessman" <nos...@orava.org> wrote in message >> news:qqhbh.62355$nM1....@reader1.news.jippii.net... >>> Winning with a "pre-constructed" deck not of your own making would >>> seem like a cheap victory to me. ... >> As for whether such a victory is 'cheap' or otherwise, the distinction you >> make is entirely meaningless to me. As far as I even understand it. It >> seems like incredibly misplaced pride to worry about who created the deck >> with which you won. > > Yeah, well, I would need to stress that "to me" point. It's a *purely* > personal thing. I realize that decks don't play themselves, and if you win > with a "3rd party" deck you deserve the credit. I'm just saying that it > would not give all that much satisfaction *to me*. > > That said, I often take in ideas from this group (or from friends), so it's > a bit of a grey area what "your own deck" means anyway. That was kind of my point. We constantly take ideas about how to play to game - deckbuilding, card playing, making deals...everything - from watching other people and seeing what they do. Using their entire decklists is only another direction and another point on the spectrum. > If you take a > tournament winning deck and exchange a few cards, whose design is it? > Largely, it doesn't really matter, and just comes down to personal > preference: do you like to play with "power decks" (no matter the source), > or do you like to play with decks that are (mostly) of your own design? > Neither is bad or good as such, it's just a preference. > > Hope that clarified my opinion a bit :) Well, that doesn't sound exactly like the "cheap" comment you made above. But OK. Fred

Frederick Scott wrote: > Well, that doesn't sound exactly like the "cheap" comment you made above. > But OK. It would feel like a cheap victory to *me*. I didn't mean to imply that it was a "cheap" victory in any objective sense. //Petri

On Dec 3, 6:15 pm, Petri Wessman <nos...@orava.org> wrote: > Frederick Scott wrote: > > Well, that doesn't sound exactly like the "cheap" comment you made above. > > But OK.It would feel like a cheap victory to *me*. I didn't mean to imply that it > was a "cheap" victory in any objective sense. > > //Petri Winning with Malk94 or anything similar always makes me feel like I need a decontamination shower. Preferably with a rubber ducky.... :P Of course winning with any form of combat deck, however makes me feel like, well, I dunno, PDB? hehehehe

Blooded Sand wrote: > Of course winning with any form of combat deck, however makes me feel > like, well, I dunno, PDB? hehehehe On the up side, you apparently won't have to worry about that anymore, as combat decks can't win without making deals... -Peter

Peter D Bakija schrieb: [ quoted text not captured ] Well I should have elaborated more. Of course I was talking about large (60+), high-profile(championship, qualifier) tournaments. Of course winning a 10-player tournament is possible with about any kind of deck and a little luck. -- johannes walch

Johannes Walch wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] The last big tournament I ran over here (Finland) had 95 players & was also an EC qualifier. One of the decks in the finals was a pure combat deck, with many other combat decks also scoring very highly. And we don't tend to do that VP table deal thing pretty much at all over here. I don't really buy your thesis. //Petri

Johannes Walch wrote: > Well I should have elaborated more. Of course I was talking about large > (60+), high-profile(championship, qualifier) tournaments. Of course > winning a 10-player tournament is possible with about any kind of deck > and a little luck. Large, high profile tournaments have been won by combat decks. Heck, the NERQ was won two years in a row by combat decks. People don't play them a lot in large, high profile tournaments as they are not as easy to win with as, say, S+B decks or whatever. And as a result of not as many people playing them, they are less likely to win across the field. But that doesn't mean that they can't win. And the ability to make table split deals or not is mostly irrelevant to this. -Peter