6/24 7pm miniqualifier
43 players
winner: Robyn Tatu
vote/bleed deck with THA/DOM
6/25 11am constructed
32 players
winner: Robyn Tatu
for/dom Anarch combat
6/25 5pm
30ish players?
winner: Ben Swainbank
FoS Spell of life Mummy attack
Great times are being had.
US Championship later today.
Jay Kristoff
V:EKN Prince of Columbus, Ohio USA
On Jun 26, 12:04 pm, Johannes Walch <johannes.wa...@vekn.de> wrote:
> Seems Robyn realized that she has to create success for women in V:TES
> quite singlehandedly ;-)
There are so few of us. Though I should look at the bright side,
there wouldn't be much competition to be the best women in Vtes.
All I have to do is beat Robyn more! ...Crap...
-D
> > On Jun 26, 7:43 am, Jay Kristoff <jaykrist...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> 6/24 7pm miniqualifier
> >> 43 players
> >> winner: Robyn Tatu
> >> vote/bleed deck with THA/DOM
>
> >> 6/25 11am constructed
> >> 32 players
> >> winner: Robyn Tatu
> >> for/dom Anarch combat
Yay! Congrats, Robyn!
> On 26 Juni, 18:04, Johannes Walch <johannes.wa...@vekn.de> wrote:
> Seems Robyn realized that she has to create success for women in V:TES
> quite singlehandedly ;-)
Women have success in VTES all the time, Johannes. Finalist positions
and wins in tournaments too small to be recorded in the TWDA. Gamewins
in casual games. Though it is of course extra fun when Robyn and
others make it visible on a global scale :)
On Sun, 28 June 2009 16:15:14 -0400, The Lasombra wrote:
>6/26 US Championship
>49 players
>winner: Jesse Cross-Nickerson
>Black Hand obfuscate Guarded Rubrics / Heidelburg / House of Sorrows>6/27 Regional Qualifier
>41 players
>winner: Mark Merlin Petersen
>Rodolfo / Persephone Tar-Anis / Kindred Spirits bleed, 4 vps in finals
12-13 Hall of Fame players were in attendance during each of these two
tournaments.
http://www.thelasombra.com/hall_of_fame.htm
Ben Peal
Hugh Angseesing
Jay Kristoff
Matt Morgan
Robyn Tatu
Jeffrey Thompson
Mark Loughman
James Messer
John Bell
David Tatu
Ben Swainbank
Brad Cashdollar
Peter Bakija
http://columbusvtes.tripod.com/tournaments.htm
Hyllan schrieb:
[ quoted text not captured ]
I know, I was rather referring to the low number of women players and
not to any quality of their play. No offense intended!
On Jun 28, 10:15 pm, The Lasombra <TheLasom...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> 6/26 US Championship
> 49 players
> winner: Jesse Cross-Nickerson
> Black Hand obfuscate Guarded Rubrics / Heidelburg / House of Sorrows
decklist possibly please?
On Jun 26, 6:43 am, Jay Kristoff <jaykrist...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 6/25 5pm
> 30ish players?
> winner: Ben Swainbank
> FoS Spell of life Mummy attack
>
Me, I'm most interested in this one.... Ben? I have a Spell of Life
deck that is pretty nasty when it goes off, but it's a little
unreliable even with 10 Spells in a 60 card deck, and not very robust
against a voting predator, bloating prey, or anyone with even 1
reliable maneuver per combat (and it doesn't do so well with getting
it's FoS rushed either, because they all have dominate instead of
presence for weak-ass combat defense). I probably wouldn't even try
playing it in a tournament, much less hope to win one... =)
Congrats, Ben!
On Jun 28, 4:15 pm, The Lasombra <TheLasom...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> 6/26 US Championship
> 49 players
> winner: Jesse Cross-Nickerson
> Black Hand obfuscate Guarded Rubrics / Heidelburg / House of Sorrows
I'm pretty sure the finals of this one were:
-Jesse (as above)
-Jay (Fighty Imbued)
-Karl (I can't recall what he was playing)
-Hugh (!Ventrue)
-Eno (the same !Ventrue as Hugh)
I played weenie POT flung junk, and did, unsurprisingly, not great--I
got 2VPs for the day (I *almost* got a 4VP win, but ended up splitting
2/2 with Hugh, as I forgot that Joseph O'grady has +1 strength.
Twice.) Once again, the fact that rush decks get too easily derailed
by a prey's sideline of 10 or so fortitude cards or Carrion Crows was
reinforced over a couple of games.
> 6/27 Regional Qualifier
> 41 players
> winner: Mark Merlin Petersen
> Rodolfo / Persephone Tar-Anis / Kindred Spirits bleed, 4 vps in finals
This final table was:
-Me (G1/2 Nosferatu Breed/Boon)
-Rodd (Malk '94)
-John Flournoy (big Lasombra S+B)
-Dave L (the exact same deck as me)
-Mark (!Malk S+B)
Dave and I could have been contenders and worked together to make sure
that one of us won and one of the S+B decks *didn't* win, but Dave
didn't seem like he felt very mutual, so when he had the chance to
help me oust Rodd, he didn't. So Rodd whacked John, I failed to kill
Rodd due to his pool gain, Mark killed me and Rodd in the same turn,
and then Dave and Mark went back and forth for a few turns, but Mark
inevitably ran him into the ground. I came incredibly close to killing
Rodd multiple times, but couldn't ever seal the deal, primarily 'cause
Rodd had Laurent Valois in play, and the 6 or 7 pool he gained from
the Nosferatu Con Boons over the game just kept keeping him out of my
reach.
-Peter
On Jun 29, 10:42 am, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote:
> On Jun 28, 4:15 pm, The Lasombra <TheLasom...@hotmail.com> wrote:> -Me (G1/2 Nosferatu Breed/Boon)
> -Rodd (Malk '94)
> -John Flournoy (big Lasombra S+B)
Not entirely accurate, as my deck was built around Servius Marius
Pustula, who's a Nos Anti. It was a OBT/DOM/CHI bleeder using Will-of-
the-Wisp for unblockable/unbouncable power bleeds. I was using midcap
Lasombra as the support vamps, and happened to draw the lone copy of
Saul Meira instead of Pustula in the final.
> -Dave L (the exact same deck as me)
> -Mark (!Malk S+B)
Going into the final, the standing was Rodd (3GW), Dave (2 GW and 8 or
so VP), Peter (2 and 7.5, I think), Mark (1 and 6) and me (1 and 6.)
Lots of folks were suriprised that the cut-off was that low, it was a
tough tournament.
> Dave and I could have been contenders and worked together to make sure
> that one of us won and one of the S+B decks *didn't* win, but Dave
> didn't seem like he felt very mutual, so when he had the chance to
> help me oust Rodd, he didn't. So Rodd whacked John, I failed to kill
> Rodd due to his pool gain, Mark killed me and Rodd in the same turn,
> and then Dave and Mark went back and forth for a few turns, but Mark
> inevitably ran him into the ground. I came incredibly close to killing
> Rodd multiple times, but couldn't ever seal the deal, primarily 'cause
> Rodd had Laurent Valois in play, and the 6 or 7 pool he gained from
> the Nosferatu Con Boons over the game just kept keeping him out of my
> reach.
Seating was Karl -> Mark-> Peter-> Rodd -> John.
Rodd had sat as my predator in a previous round and didn't like taking
unbouncable bleeds of 7 or 8, so he opted to sit as my predator in the
final as I expected. I slowed him down for a while by stealing his
Fragment, Sense Dep'ing one of his minions and trying to keep him
jammed on things that wouldn't oust me.
But I totally blame Oscar for me not ousting Karl, or more
specifically the fact that Paolo de Castille has no obtenebration; I
really shouldn't have included him in the deck at all. If he had even
[obt], I'd have likely ousted Karl on my next-to-last turn... and then
been ousted by Rodd's bleeds anyway, since I saw zero wakes through
the first thirty cards of my library (and checking after I was ousted,
there were none in the top _fifty_ cards.)
> -Peter
-John Flournoy
On Jun 29, 12:23 pm, John Flournoy <carne...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Not entirely accurate, as my deck was built around Servius Marius
> Pustula, who's a Nos Anti. It was a OBT/DOM/CHI bleeder using Will-of-
> the-Wisp for unblockable/unbouncable power bleeds. I was using midcap
> Lasombra as the support vamps, and happened to draw the lone copy of
> Saul Meira instead of Pustula in the final.
Oh, ok. That makes sense. Yeah, I remeber the wacky CHI tech happening
at some point. I'm currently wondering if, when I called that Con Boon
to give you 2 pool, I instead called it on me instead to give me 4
pool, if I would have survived. Like, the 2 pool I gave you certainly
didn't help. But I don't think the 4 pool would have helped me much,
either. But ya know what would have helped me? 8 pool. If only someone
hadn't DI'ed one of my Con Boons cross table, after which I tried to
save him anyway...
:-)
One of the things that totally made me suck that game was,
unsurprisingly, choking on stealth--Rodd and Mark were totally not
even thinking about ever blocking anything I did. By the end of the
game, my hand was, like, 6 stealth cards and a Behind You or
something.
> Seating was Karl -> Mark-> Peter-> Rodd -> John.
By "Karl", you mean "Dave Litwin (I think)", right?
-Peter
On Jun 29, 4:11 pm, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote:
> On Jun 29, 12:23 pm, John Flournoy <carne...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Not entirely accurate, as my deck was built around Servius Marius
> > Pustula, who's a Nos Anti. It was a OBT/DOM/CHI bleeder using Will-of-
> > the-Wisp for unblockable/unbouncable power bleeds. I was using midcap
> > Lasombra as the support vamps, and happened to draw the lone copy of
> > Saul Meira instead of Pustula in the final.
>
> Oh, ok. That makes sense. Yeah, I remeber the wacky CHI tech happening
> at some point. I'm currently wondering if, when I called that Con Boon
> to give you 2 pool, I instead called it on me instead to give me 4
> pool, if I would have survived. Like, the 2 pool I gave you certainly
> didn't help. But I don't think the 4 pool would have helped me much,
> either. But ya know what would have helped me? 8 pool. If only someone
> hadn't DI'ed one of my Con Boons cross table, after which I tried to
> save him anyway...
>
> :-)
>
That Dark Influences was cramping my style, since i wanted to DI your
Con Boon with oldDI. But you took it out of play for me by calling it
for Lasombra. Then Rod managed to oust John and i was able to DI the
_next_ Con Boon Nos from Dave. If either boon hit for Nos i think you
and Dave would have been duking it out for the GW.
> One of the things that totally made me suck that game was,
> unsurprisingly, choking on stealth--Rodd and Mark were totally not
> even thinking about ever blocking anything I did. By the end of the
> game, my hand was, like, 6 stealth cards and a Behind You or
> something.
>
> > Seating was Karl -> Mark-> Peter-> Rodd -> John.
>
> By "Karl", you mean "Dave Litwin (I think)", right?
>
> -Peter
I think everyone was choking on stealth. The "no-block defense" was in
full force with four 30+ Obfuscate-havin' decks in the final. I
summoned Carlton without ever intending to block with him. I think
trying to block David in round 2 is what ultimately lost the round for
me, as Carlton helped him cycle like four stealth cards out of his
hand. I didn't make the same mistake in the final, and he said he had
like 4 Obfuscate cards in hand at the end and not enough of the right
votes to win (He had KRCs, but he would have ousted himself and my
prey with side-pool damage through and that would have lost the game
for him).
I assumed you were choking on Stealth, and Rod clearly was in the late
game, though he manage to draw some Dominate every third card or so. I
was a bit choked on stealth as well, but i sort of built the deck to
work around the whole "no-block defense" by including lots of Spying
Mission (responsible and also defers payload if you need to cycle) and
+bleeders.
-Merlin
>but Dave
>didn't seem like he felt very mutual, so when he had the chance to
>help me oust Rodd, he didn't. So Rodd whacked John,
By that time Rodd seemed to have run out of modifiers, and I was
perfectly happy with him staying on the table. I don't remember
voting down anything at that time though either way. I had expressed
concern with it but couldn't have stopped any votes even if I had
voted against.
Aside from my firm belief John needed to just disappear, I was plenty
happy with the current state.
>The "no-block defense" was in full force with four 30+ Obfuscate-havin' decks in the final.
I do have to point out I did attempt to block my grand predators'
Deflected bleed of 5 on the 4th turn, which he gleefully stealthed by
anyway.
I'll post all the pics I got from each day once I find my camera's usb
cable amidst all the mess.
rob...@mindspring.com wrote:
> Does anyone know the outcome of the Sunday Event?
>
> I've got the Archon, I just need the final VP spread.
It's already been sent to you, as I said that I would do.
Kevin M., Prince of Las Vegas
"Know your enemy and know yourself; in one-thousand battles
you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, *The Art of War*
"Contentment...Complacency...Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier
Please visit VTESville daily! http://vtesville.myminicity.com/
Johaness did another thing:
> Seems Robyn realized that she has to create success for women in V:TES
> quite singlehandedly ;-)
Ironically, she could not possibly have won without the help of
another woman, who transferred out to her and sploded my table sweep.
Maybe I sicked Kevin on her too, for gender-based collusion. Then she
would have been DQed and out of a hotel room.
Jesse
Lasombra did a couple things:
> Pictures from this event, here:
>
> http://s720.photobucket.com/albums/ww210/roddifer/?albumview=slideshow
>
> More visual reporting here:
>
> http://vtesintel.blogspot.com/
Huh. Strange that they chose to video record the NAQ and a miniqual
rather than the NC, and sad for me because I don't get to watch myself
win.
Also a little weird that I'm tagged in one picture, but not in another
where I'm more visible.
It's a conspiracy against me!
Jesse
Dave did a thing from the discard pile:
> It is a variant of this deck:
> http://presence.vekn.org/viewtopic.php?t=2073
I wouldn't say that per se. It's much more like the same deck after
more than a year of playing it and improving it with help from others,
and it was renamed to something much more awesome. I completely forgot
about that thread, but I highly recommend reading that thread to
anyone who wants to understand how the deck works. Amazingly enough,
almost all the ideas in that thread were used. The only thing I noted
that never made the cut is Ministry, but DI was used to stop my prey's
only rush in the final. Also, the high stealth count is totally
vindicated (even Peal was shocked by much I had in the NYCQ version
last year) because my 2nd prey kept blocking at 0 intercept in the
Championship final, and almost ran me out of black box cards.
> I'm sure the full decklist will be up soon.
Kevin has it. I imagine he's preparing a full report of the
championship.
Jesse
cthulukitty schrieb:
[ quoted text not captured ]
Sorry but "your table sweep" is when you have 5VP on the result sheet.
Anything less is only a vague assumption what could have happened if
circumstances were different. If you had the feeling that circumstances
were influenced by behaviour which is covered under "cheating" in the
tournament rules you should have called a judge to clarify the situation.
I have seen people transfer out and most of the times they did it for a
reason. Most of the time because they did not see any chance of scoring
VPs and wanted to retaliate against another player. Thats not a good
reason, but still it happens and is not against the rules. And often
(not specifically in your case) the player who was getting the
disadvantage by the self-oust had to blame it on himself. If he would
have been nicer (not game-mechanic wise, socially) it would not have
happened.
I would still like to see a rules change where one cannot transfer
himself out.
Johannes Walch wrote:
> I would still like to see a rules change where one cannot transfer
> himself out.
I would like to see the rules text that would accomplish that in a meaningful way.
"one cannot transfer oneself out" won't do, since it is not meaningfully
different when it still allows a transfer down to one or spending of one's last
pool on a Secret Horde or Assault Rifle.
Not to implement it, of course. Just to see it. It would be quite a feat.
Reason #0 not to implement it: forcing an arbitrary choice of whom a player in a
lost position must help is, well, arbitrary and not useful.
On Jul 1, 8:19 am, Johannes Walch <johannes.wa...@vekn.de> wrote:
> Sorry but "your table sweep" is when you have 5VP on the result sheet.
> Anything less is only a vague assumption what could have happened if
> circumstances were different. If you had the feeling that circumstances
> were influenced by behaviour which is covered under "cheating" in the
> tournament rules you should have called a judge to clarify the situation.
(Jesse's post was, ya know, comedy...)
-Peter
[ quoted text not captured ]
... and, ya know, missing any sort of smilie or other context to avoid the
obvious misinterpretation of the words passed through the tubes.
The response is predictable and not a sign of improper handling on the part of
the reader.
On Jun 30, 11:21 pm, Obtenebration <obtenebrat...@obtenebration.org>
wrote:
> By that time Rodd seemed to have run out of modifiers, and I was
> perfectly happy with him staying on the table. I don't remember
> voting down anything at that time though either way. I had expressed
> concern with it but couldn't have stopped any votes even if I had
> voted against.
Yeah, I don't think you voted down anything either--I had early vote
advantage (well, till you stole Calebros's title, but that was mostly
irrelevant at that point, as I don't think I took another turn after
you took it. It seems likely you could have just convinced me at that
point that I should pass all your votes, as I would have anyway...). I
lost a Con Boon to John's Dark Influenza. And squandered one to
consequently save John from being ousted (which wasn't a good idea,
but wouldn't have saved me in any case if I called it for Nosferatu--
might have saved you, though). I'm pretty sure that there was a KRC or
something you called that could have whacked my prey for me if you
threw another point or two his way, but that didn't happen, so we all
died :-)
Not that I don't understand that you didn't want to oust my prey for
me, but I suspect if you did, one of us (Team Virtually Identical
Nosferatu Breed/Boon) would have won instead of one of them (Team
Bleedzooka S+B).
> I do have to point out I did attempt to block my grand predators'
> Deflected bleed of 5 on the 4th turn, which he gleefully stealthed by
> anyway.
Which is why you should have cross table ousted him! Spite!
:-)
-Peter
On Jul 1, 9:09 am, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
> ... and, ya know, missing any sort of smilie or other context to avoid the
> obvious misinterpretation of the words passed through the tubes.
While true, I understood that it was, at least in the most part,
comedy. So it doesn't strike me as difficult to have gleaned that by
reading it. It wasn't like Jesse was relying on obscure American slang
like "twirling the mongoose" or something.
Remember that time a couple weeks ago that I *completely* missed that
the "We banned all this crap!" post was comedy, and then it spiraled
out of control, and a week later, I *still* didn't get where the
comedy was, 'cause I was really confused? Yeah, just wanted to avoid
that :-)
> The response is predictable and not a sign of improper handling on the part of
> the reader.
Oh, I don't think it was an improper response. I just wanted to point
out that it was, in all likelihood, comedy.
-Peter
Peter D Bakija schrieb:
[ quoted text not captured ]
In fact I was considering if it was comedy or not. But with my level of
understanding of your language I judged it to be not comedy. Please
consider the fact that a lot of non-hardcore vtes players lurk around
here, also from Europe, and they might mis-understand such posts as I
did and get a wrong perspective on the game. Also I have seen people get
very bitter about vtes games so it is not at all unrealistic to have
such a post meant in a non-comedy way. Not that I expected it from
Jesse, that�s why I answered politely, just in case ;-)
As LSJ said, a little smiley or something would go a long way.
On Jul 1, 9:35 am, Johannes Walch <johannes.wa...@vekn.de> wrote:
> In fact I was considering if it was comedy or not.
I was just throwing it out there, as it seems like you missed out on
it being comedy. So rather than have things spiral out of control (not
that *I* have any experience with that...), I considered it a public
service to make a comment.
> But with my level of
> understanding of your language I judged it to be not comedy. Please
> consider the fact that a lot of non-hardcore vtes players lurk around
> here, also from Europe, and they might mis-understand such posts as I
> did and get a wrong perspective on the game.
The language issue is always a factor, true.
> As LSJ said, a little smiley or something would go a long way.
Well, ya know, I figured that the gags about "gender based collusion"
and "then she'd be out a hotel room" were giant flashing neon arrows
pointing to "this is comedy", but that is me :-)
-Peter
LSJ schrieb:
> Johannes Walch wrote:>> I would still like to see a rules change where one cannot transfer
>> himself out.>
> I would like to see the rules text that would accomplish that in a
> meaningful way.
>
> "one cannot transfer oneself out" won't do, since it is not meaningfully
> different when it still allows a transfer down to one
Which would be still a difference. Consider this situation:
3 players on the table:
A) Toreador Wall with Guns, has Anneke ready.
B) Ventrue Bleed Deck w/o serious stealth and 1 ready minion left
C) any deck, 2 pool, 2VP
If C) cannot actively kill himself by transfers B) has no way of ousting
C) since A) will block with Anneke. But it could be C)�s interest to
self-oust since then it will be a 2-2-1 instead of a 2-3, which could
win you a tournament during the finals (given you have better prelim
standing). During rounds it would be illegal I guess, because it is an
out-of-game consideration.
> spending of
> one's last pool on a Secret Horde or Assault Rifle.
That could be made illegal too, playing a card which pool costs will
kill you. Just as you cant play a card with a vampire who cant afford
the blood costs. The question is: Do we want to keep accidental
self-oust in the game for humoristic stories? If not this could be easy
to implement.
> Not to implement it, of course. Just to see it. It would be quite a feat.
Suggested rule: You cannot take any transfers that would lower your pool
total to 0. You cannot play cards with a pool cost of X where X>=pool total.
> Reason #0 not to implement it: forcing an arbitrary choice of whom a
> player in a lost position must help is, well, arbitrary and not useful.
Well he should not help anybody and that is done best by doing nothing
and just sitting there. Of course that could be interpreted as helping
player A) from above example, but it is really more helpingB/screwingA
or see how it plays out from my point of view.
Johannes Walch wrote:
> LSJ schrieb:>> Johannes Walch wrote:>>> I would still like to see a rules change where one cannot transfer
>>> himself out.>>
>> I would like to see the rules text that would accomplish that in a
>> meaningful way.
>>
>> "one cannot transfer oneself out" won't do, since it is not
>> meaningfully different when it still allows a transfer down to one>
> Which would be still a difference. Consider this situation:
> 3 players on the table:
...
>> spending of one's last pool on a Secret Horde or Assault Rifle.>
> That could be made illegal too, playing a card which pool costs will
> kill you.
...
> Suggested rule: You cannot take any transfers that would lower your pool
> total to 0. You cannot play cards with a pool cost of X where X>=pool
> total.
Sure. It's a difference. Just not a meaningful one.
Allowing "effective" self-ousting without "actual" self-ousting (like reducing
your pool total to one before engineering the loss of your last one through
non-optional means) is just an added rule without much added effect.
>> Reason #0 not to implement it: forcing an arbitrary choice of whom a
>> player in a lost position must help is, well, arbitrary and not useful.>
> Well he should not help anybody and that is done best by doing nothing
> and just sitting there.
This seems to be the big stumbling block for the previous discussions on this, too.
Just sitting there is not an example of something that does not help anybody.
Every action or inaction affects the table in some way.
Sit there (e.g., wall up): helps prey some, hurts predator
Sit there (e.g., pool sack): helps predator some, hurts prey
Go forward: helps predator a lot, hurts prey
Go backward: helps prey a lot, hurts predator
Go cross-table to grand-prey: helps prey
Bloat: hurts predator
Rescue/bloat cross table: hurts prey
Self-oust (directly or by proxy): helps predator, hurts prey
And so on.
The only constant there is that none of it helps the player in question. Which
is exactly why that player is free to choose among those equal options.
> Of course that could be interpreted as helping
> player A) from above example, but it is really more helpingB/screwingA
> or see how it plays out from my point of view.
Exactly. HelpingB/ScrewingA != help no one. HelpingA != helping no one.
LSJ schrieb:
>> Suggested rule: You cannot take any transfers that would lower your
>> pool total to 0. You cannot play cards with a pool cost of X where
>> X>=pool total.>
> Sure. It's a difference. Just not a meaningful one.
> Allowing "effective" self-ousting without "actual" self-ousting (like
> reducing your pool total to one before engineering the loss of your last
> one through non-optional means) is just an added rule without much added
> effect.
What determines if the difference is meaningful or not? Probably only
sufficient statistical data.
Sure you can make it very easy for your predator to oust you, but he
still has to do *something* for you to die. It will at least not give a
VP to people who are not able to do *anything* because they have 0 ready
minions in play. I do not think they "deserve" a VP in this circumstance.
At least to me the difference would have been meaningful in some cases.
Another example aside from the Anneke one can be a rush deck. In the 3
player situation you have crushed all the minions of your predator and
prey. Usually now you can walk over both. Unless your predator
self-ousts, which happens often. Do you consider the self-oust of the
predator in this situation the good move? Should we not disallow it?
Would you do it (the self-ousting)?
Johannes Walch wrote:
> Another example aside from the Anneke one can be a rush deck. In the 3
> player situation you have crushed all the minions of your predator and
> prey. Usually now you can walk over both. Unless your predator
> self-ousts, which happens often. Do you consider the self-oust of the
> predator in this situation the good move?
Good in that it helps the player making the move?
Obviously not: there are no good moves for that player. Even inaction is not a
good move for that player: xe'll still be ousted with 0 VPs to show.
It's as good as any other option that player has, though.
> Should we not disallow it?
We should not disallow it.
Also, we should not disallow that player the option of futilely bringing out
another minion.
Nor disallow the option of futilely playing a Sudden Reversal or Ascendance.
> Would you do it (the self-ousting)?
Maybe. I would definitely do *something* that didn't help me (since that covers
all of my choices).
LSJ wrote:
> Johannes Walch wrote:>> I would still like to see a rules change where one cannot transfer
>> himself out.>
> I would like to see the rules text that would accomplish that in a
> meaningful way.
I'd suggest putting this into 9.1 as an "EXCEPTION:" paragraph:
"A Methuselah may not take an action where the immediate result
of the successful action or the terms of the referendum would be the
Methuselah reducing herself to zero or less pool, unless the immediate
result of the successful action or the terms of the referendum would be
to gain a Victory Point for that Methuselah."
The goal is to force players at some base level to commit to the social
contract they have chosen by sitting down to play the game. If they
choose not to do that, then they may go down to 1 (or whatever) but
their predator is still forced to take an action to oust them.
[ quoted text not captured ]
Kevin M. wrote:
> LSJ wrote:>> Johannes Walch wrote:>>> I would still like to see a rules change where one cannot transfer
>>> himself out.>> I would like to see the rules text that would accomplish that in a
>> meaningful way.>
> I'd suggest putting this into 9.1 as an "EXCEPTION:" paragraph:
>
> "A Methuselah may not take an action where the immediate result
> of the successful action or the terms of the referendum would be the
> Methuselah reducing herself to zero or less pool, unless the immediate
> result of the successful action or the terms of the referendum would be
> to gain a Victory Point for that Methuselah."
>
> The goal is to force players at some base level to commit to the social
> contract they have chosen by sitting down to play the game. If they
> choose not to do that, then they may go down to 1 (or whatever) but
> their predator is still forced to take an action to oust them.
Headachey. What about terms that would oust the Methuselah but won't after the
Methuselah plays a few more effects before the resolution of the referendum.
And so on.
And, again, point #0 is that it isn't inherently desirable to arbitrarily
restrict a Methuselah to helping a particular opponent over another.
LSJ wrote:
> Kevin M. wrote:>> LSJ wrote:>>> Johannes Walch wrote:>>>> I would still like to see a rules change where one cannot transfer
>>>> himself out.>>> I would like to see the rules text that would accomplish that in a
>>> meaningful way.>>
>> I'd suggest putting this into 9.1 as an "EXCEPTION:" paragraph:
>>
>> "A Methuselah may not take an action where the immediate result
>> of the successful action or the terms of the referendum would be the
>> Methuselah reducing herself to zero or less pool, unless the
>> immediate result of the successful action or the terms of the
>> referendum would be to gain a Victory Point for that Methuselah."
>>
>> The goal is to force players at some base level to commit to the
>> social contract they have chosen by sitting down to play the game. If
>> they choose not to do that, then they may go down to 1 (or
>> whatever) but their predator is still forced to take an action to
>> oust them.>
> Headachey. What about terms that would oust the Methuselah but
> won't after the Methuselah plays a few more effects before the resolution
> of the referendum.
I am more interested in tweaking a proposed rule which forces players
at some base level to commit to the social contract they have chosen by
sitting down to play the game than continuing to allow the occasional
abuse of the players who have chosen to adhere to the contract.
But I understand that's not everyone and that the rare times where
it happens might not cause an additional rule to rise to the level of
necessity, especially from your point-of-view.
[ quoted text not captured ]
[ quoted text not captured ]> restrict a Methuselah to helping a particular opponent over another.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Okay, but how are we going to PRACTICALLY deal with situations where a
player transfers out to "spite" the table because of the position they
find themself in?
Table Situation:
Player A = a few minions with moderate intercept, defendable pool, not
real pressure from predator
Player B = a few minions, chance to bleed out prey in the next turn or
so and good potential to then follow through and take another player
or two
Player C = one ready minion (multi-rush minion), prey has no ready
minions and pool too high to be ousted before they get ousted (based
on what is on the table and in ash heaps)
Player D = no ready minions (one recently banished, one contested)
pool of 4 or less
Player E = one weak ready minion, moderate pool (5-10 total), at least
one minion in torpor
Player B bleeds C down to about 4 pool during turn.
Player C bled D for 1 (reudcing them to about 3) and ends the turn.
Player D complains to table about the futile situation, and self-ousts
over the turn to spite the table (evidenced by what was said).
Table Result: Player C gets a 5VP sweep.
Juggernaut1981 wrote:
> Okay, but how are we going to PRACTICALLY deal with situations where a
> player transfers out to "spite" the table because of the position they
> find themself in?
If the player is in a lost position, allow it.
Otherwise, the rules already prohibit it.
On Wed, 1 Jul 2009 14:58:09 -0700, "Kevin M." <you...@imaspammer.org>
wrote:
>LSJ wrote:>> Johannes Walch wrote:>>> I would still like to see a rules change where one cannot transfer
>>> himself out.>>
>> I would like to see the rules text that would accomplish that in a
>> meaningful way.>
>I'd suggest putting this into 9.1 as an "EXCEPTION:" paragraph:
>
>"A Methuselah may not take an action where the immediate result
> of the successful action or the terms of the referendum would be the
> Methuselah reducing herself to zero or less pool, unless the immediate
> result of the successful action or the terms of the referendum would be
> to gain a Victory Point for that Methuselah."
>
>The goal is to force players at some base level to commit to the social
>contract they have chosen by sitting down to play the game. If they
>choose not to do that, then they may go down to 1 (or whatever) but
>their predator is still forced to take an action to oust them.
While there are obviously problems with intents on all sides, I think
this is the best solution, twofold.
1) It forces the Predator to act.
2) It gives the rest the chance to swoop by being active.
Point 1 has been discussed fairly extensively. Haven't seen as much
regarding Point 2, which I feel is valid.
Example, three players involved (either remaining, or in the midst of
a larger game). Prey, Player, Predator. If the Prey self ousts, it
essentially robs the Predator of VP. The Player has done nothing (or
not enough) to the Prey, but the Prey hands the Player 6 pool and a
VP. The Predator has the next chance to act after the Prey. Why
shouldn't he be given the opportunity of the twofer?
Playing for the most part, socially (and so not seeing much
self-ousting), but I'd be pretty annoyed if I did my job as Predator,
and my prey (Player in the above) was given a VP and 6 pool,
potentially giving him the resources to avoid my ousting him for doing
NOTHING, and me not having the opportunity to lunge-oust him first.
Morgan Vening
Peter D Bakija wrote:
> LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote:>> ... and, ya know, missing any sort of smilie or other context to
>> avoid the obvious misinterpretation of the words passed through the
>> tubes.>
> While true, I understood that it was, at least in the most part,
> comedy. So it doesn't strike me as difficult to have gleaned that by
> reading it. It wasn't like Jesse was relying on obscure American slang
> like "twirling the mongoose" or something.
*I* didn't think it was comedy. I've actually been thinking for a few
hours how to properly word an email to Jesse regarding his post(s),
given that I didn't even remotely see them as comedy, since there was
nothing within the text to distinguish them as such.
USE EMOTICONS ON THA INTERWEBS, PEOPLE
[ quoted text not captured ]
Peter D Bakija wrote:
> Johannes Walch <johannes.wa...@vekn.de> wrote:>> In fact I was considering if it was comedy or not.>
> I was just throwing it out there, as it seems like you missed out on
> it being comedy.
So did many of us.
>> As LSJ said, a little smiley or something would go a long way.>
> Well, ya know, I figured that the gags about "gender based collusion"
> and "then she'd be out a hotel room" were giant flashing neon arrows
> pointing to "this is comedy", but that is me :-)
Your inherent bias on the goodness of your fellow-man is showing. ;)
[ quoted text not captured ]
On 2 heinä, 01:03, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
> And, again, point #0 is that it isn't inherently desirable to arbitrarily
> restrict a Methuselah to helping a particular opponent over another.
Nothing really is inherently desirable. However, several players have
expressed the opinion that self ousting makes the game less fun. It
would be desirable for those players to have restrictions on self
ousting. Whether the majority of players agree would, of course, be up
to the design team to guesstimate.
On enforceability:
The restrictions wouldn't have to be fool proof to be effective. Some
form of Kevin M's suggestion would very likely reduce the amount of
self ousting. There would still be loop holes but I doubt that any
significant number of players would purposely include a self ousting
mechanism in their decks.
[ quoted text not captured ]
I have to say, one of the most frustrating experiences is watching
your prey suddenly double their pool for basically no effort. I don't
particularly see what is wrong with a change so that "If you declare
your position to be lost; you become a pool-sack". That person's
predator still needs to act to finish them off, that player's prey has
the same level of pressure on them... so where is there a big
difference??
If a person can't meet the "Play to win" rule or "In a guaranteed
losing position" then have them become a pool sack. They were not
going to be an effective predator for anyone and they were clearly an
ineffective prey. Generally the table dynamic seems to be more
unsettled by people "transferring out from a losing position" than
just leaving X pool there to get ousted by their predator.
On Jul 1, 4:57 pm, suoli <suoliruse...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2 heinä, 01:03, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
> > And, again, point #0 is that it isn't inherently desirable to arbitrarily
> > restrict a Methuselah to helping a particular opponent over another.
>
> Nothing really is inherently desirable. However, several players have
> expressed the opinion that self ousting makes the game less fun. It
> would be desirable for those players to have restrictions on self
> ousting. Whether the majority of players agree would, of course, be up
> to the design team to guesstimate.
Since several people in this thread have expressed a desire to limit a
player's equally-bad options in a lost position, I will say that I'm
very happy with the current rules. Any change that would limit a lost
player's options would be undesirable for me.
If my predator has destroyed all my minions, it might be more fun for
me to self-oust and get some food than sit there as a pool sack
waiting to be killed. Also, it might be more fun for me to sit there
as a pool sack - I'm not sure. But I want to have both options.
From a strategic point of view, the threat of self-oust helps to
minimize cross-table shenanigans. Consider this situation:
A->B->C->D
A is weak. B is very strong. C is very weak and completely
crippled. D is weak.
At the moment, D still has a reasonable chance at more VPs, and
therefore D cannot legally self-oust. B might be tempted to go
crosstable at D, moving D into the "completely crippled" category. At
that point, D no longer has a reasonable chance for more VPs, and
could self-oust. D can say to B, "If you come crosstable at me, I'll
self-oust and give C a VP," which is a credible threat under the
current rules. Therefore, B will be more likely to go forward and
oust his prey instead of going crosstable at D.
Personally, I find crosstable shenanigans more annoying than a self-
oust from a lost position. (Self-ousts from a non-lost position are
really annoying, but also illegal.)
> On enforceability:
> The restrictions wouldn't have to be fool proof to be effective. Some
> form of Kevin M's suggestion would very likely reduce the amount of
> self ousting.
I agree, as seen from the effect on table split deals by changing the
withdraw rule and the nullification of deals in a 2 player game.
That said, I still don't want the current rules on self-ousting to
change, for the reasons I mention above.
Ira
On Jul 1, 5:03 am, cthulukitty <jcrossnicker...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Also, the high stealth count is totally
> vindicated (even Peal was shocked by much I had in the NYCQ version
> last year) because my 2nd prey kept blocking at 0 intercept in the
> Championship final, and almost ran me out of black box cards.
As was the plan. I was pretty sure that there was little extra punch
besides some additional copies of Rubrics or some retainers. I
figured between the large number of Blood Dolls and the bounce if it
held up, I would eventually run you out of those little black cards.
Unfortanely, the Anarch Troublemaker had his way and my On the Qui
Vive was at the top of the deck with no way of getting to it to free
my bounce. I was saddened.
Were you able to make any real progress on Hugh or did John get you to
quickly? Those !Ventrue decks would have really eaten the black
cards.
It was a good game.
Karl, starting to feel like the Susan Lucci of VtES
>
> I agree, as seen from the effect on table split deals by changing the
> withdraw rule and the nullification of deals in a 2 player game.
>
> That said, I still don't want the current rules on self-ousting to
> change, for the reasons I mention above.
>
> Ira
Ira,
My suggestion is closer to replacing an implicit option with an
explicit option
If you are in a "guaranteed loss position" you can:
a) Try to sit it out and see if the loss position improves
b) Try to withdraw
c) Declare to the table that you find yourself in a "guaranteed loss
position" and become a pool-sack (instead of Self-oust and make self-
oust not an option)
The situation you described, where one player has in effect complete
command over a table except for transfers, probably won't just happen
by chance. It will happen because of a number of decisions throughout
the game. So if I was B, and had WORKED to get the table to that
state, I would be actively working to Oust C, keep A a non-threat and
also ensure that you can't get A's VP. That's playing to Win.
More often than not, self-ousts seem to be about spite.
Ira Fay wrote:
> If my predator has destroyed all my minions, it might be more fun
> for me to self-oust and get some food than sit there as a pool sack
> waiting to be killed.
NO ONE is suggesting that you are chained to the table and must play.
Feel free to get up from the table and go get some food and tell the
other players that you don't block any actions. I am 100% all for that.
Just don't be a jerk and self-oust.
> Personally, I find crosstable shenanigans more annoying than a self-
> oust from a lost position. (Self-ousts from a non-lost position are
> really annoying, but also illegal.)
Why is one form of spite and not-playing-the-game-we-all-came-here-
to-play less-irritating than another?
[ quoted text not captured ]
On Wed, 01 Jul 2009 15:45:06 +0200, Johannes Walch
<johanne...@vekn.de> wrote:
> LSJ schrieb:>> Johannes Walch wrote:>>> I would still like to see a rules change where one cannot transfer
>>> himself out.>>
>> I would like to see the rules text that would accomplish that in a
>> meaningful way.
>>
>> "one cannot transfer oneself out" won't do, since it is not
>> meaningfully different when it still allows a transfer down to one>
> Which would be still a difference. Consider this situation:
> 3 players on the table:
>
> A) Toreador Wall with Guns, has Anneke ready.
> B) Ventrue Bleed Deck w/o serious stealth and 1 ready minion left
> C) any deck, 2 pool, 2VP
>
> If C) cannot actively kill himself by transfers B) has no way of ousting
> C) since A) will block with Anneke. But it could be C)´s interest to
> self-oust since then it will be a 2-2-1 instead of a 2-3, which could
> win you a tournament during the finals (given you have better prelim
> standing). During rounds it would be illegal I guess, because it is an
> out-of-game consideration.
Probably. Although, if the player already had 2 VPs, and was in a lost
position in the sense that he could for sure not gain any more VPs,
he could transfer out. I think out of game consideration can only be
distinguished and penalized or corrected if it breaks the rules
(including PTW) - otherwise, if it just means selecting one of the
otherwise equally legal options, it's nothing you would do something
about.
>> Reason #0 not to implement it: forcing an arbitrary choice of whom a
>> player in a lost position must help is, well, arbitrary and not useful.>
> Well he should not help anybody and that is done best by doing nothing
> and just sitting there. Of course that could be interpreted as helping
> player A) from above example, but it is really more helpingB/screwingA
> or see how it plays out from my point of view.
I think Scott is dead on right about this. Inaction is also an action.
If a player is allowed to suicide into his prey, or to wall up and go
upstream, or do some random cross-table kingmaking, then he should
also be allowed to self-oust.
Plus, there is also the practicality - in the 90%+ majority of cases
transferring down to 1 pool and not blocking anything is really equal
to transferring out - there's no need to add another rule to cover one
corner case of the anyway corner case play.
--
Regards,
Daneel
On Wed, 1 Jul 2009 15:44:32 -0700, Kevin M. <you...@imaspammer.org> wrote:
>>> I'd suggest putting this into 9.1 as an "EXCEPTION:" paragraph:
>>>
>>> "A Methuselah may not take an action where the immediate result
>>> of the successful action or the terms of the referendum would be the
>>> Methuselah reducing herself to zero or less pool, unless the
>>> immediate result of the successful action or the terms of the
>>> referendum would be to gain a Victory Point for that Methuselah."
>>>
>>> The goal is to force players at some base level to commit to the
>>> social contract they have chosen by sitting down to play the game. If
>>> they choose not to do that, then they may go down to 1 (or
>>> whatever) but their predator is still forced to take an action to
>>> oust them.>>
>> Headachey. What about terms that would oust the Methuselah but
>> won't after the Methuselah plays a few more effects before the
>> resolution
>> of the referendum.>
> I am more interested in tweaking a proposed rule which forces players
> at some base level to commit to the social contract they have chosen by
> sitting down to play the game than continuing to allow the occasional
> abuse of the players who have chosen to adhere to the contract.
I'm not sure how exactly you interpret the social contract in this case,
but I doubt players have a uniform expectation from the game. While it
is certainly possible that for you the only (otherwise legal) violation
of the social contract is transferring out, it is also possible that
other players consider the social contract to cover other things as well.
Assume that your view of the game includes that every player takes
their chance and goes for the game win by trying to oust their prey
and fend off their predator. Then assume that in a particular game your
prey deals with your grandpredator to split the table on turn 2. Assume
that you beleive that they are both in a position that they have a
reasonable chance to win. You call the judge but he won't publicly
comment on the legality of the deal (as he should not). The players
making the deal systematically kill your minions then when you are
reduced to a poolsack proceed to oust your predator.
You might feel that they violated the social contract, because they
ganged up on you, destroying your chance to play. Maybe you feel that
the only way you can "fight back" is to sort of team up with your
predator, and give him a VP, screwing their deal.
V:tES is a game of grey areas. Because of its complexity you can
probably sneak in minor violations of the social contract without
making it blatantly obvious and as such actionable by the judge.
> But I understand that's not everyone and that the rare times where
> it happens might not cause an additional rule to rise to the level of
> necessity, especially from your point-of-view.
...and that also.
--
Regards,
Daneel
Daneel wrote:
> Kevin M. wrote:>> LSJ wrote:>>> Kevin M. wrote:>>>> I'd suggest putting this into 9.1 as an "EXCEPTION:" paragraph:
>>>>
>>>> "A Methuselah may not take an action where the immediate result
>>>> of the successful action or the terms of the referendum would be
>>>> the Methuselah reducing herself to zero or less pool, unless the
>>>> immediate result of the successful action or the terms of the
>>>> referendum would be to gain a Victory Point for that Methuselah."
>>>>
>>>> The goal is to force players at some base level to commit to the
>>>> social contract they have chosen by sitting down to play the game.
>>>> If they choose not to do that, then they may go down to 1 (or
>>>> whatever) but their predator is still forced to take an action to
>>>> oust them.>>>
>>> Headachey. What about terms that would oust the Methuselah but
>>> won't after the Methuselah plays a few more effects before the
>>> resolution of the referendum.>>
>> I am more interested in tweaking a proposed rule which forces players
>> at some base level to commit to the social contract they have chosen
>> by sitting down to play the game than continuing to allow the
>> occasional abuse of the players who have chosen to adhere to the
>> contract.>
> I'm not sure how exactly you interpret the social contract in this
> case,
Playing the game and quitting.
> but I doubt players have a uniform expectation from the game.
Players don't have an expectation that other players won't quit?
> While it is certainly possible that for you the only (otherwise
> legal) violation of the social contract is transferring out, it is
> also possible that other players consider the social contract to
> cover other things as well.
[snip other things involving the playing of the game]
Moot.
[ quoted text not captured ]
Daneel wrote:
> I think Scott is dead on right about this. Inaction is also an action.
> If a player is allowed to suicide into his prey, or to wall up and go
> upstream, or do some random cross-table kingmaking, then he
> should also be allowed to self-oust.
Quitting the game =\= Playing the game via inaction. Sorry.
HOW someone plays the game -- how badly or how randomly or
how slowly or how expertly but closedmindedly -- is not an issue,
since they are PLAYING it, which is the base, fundamental reason
we all sit down at a table in the first place.
If we can't resolve that issue then everything else suffers, as it is now.
> Plus, there is also the practicality - in the 90%+ majority of cases
> transferring down to 1 pool and not blocking anything is really equal
> to transferring out - there's no need to add another rule to cover
> one corner case of the anyway corner case play.
It isn't really equal, since those quitters will have to expend more
brainpower in order not to quit, and thereby leave themselves open
to discussion about how their actions could have been better used.
Or else they act like total and complete jerkoffs, in which case they
aren't invited back to play, since they obviously don't want to.
[ quoted text not captured ]
On Wed, 1 Jul 2009 23:40:25 -0700, Kevin M. <you...@imaspammer.org> wrote:
>>> I am more interested in tweaking a proposed rule which forces players
>>> at some base level to commit to the social contract they have chosen
>>> by sitting down to play the game than continuing to allow the
>>> occasional abuse of the players who have chosen to adhere to the
>>> contract.>>
>> I'm not sure how exactly you interpret the social contract in this
>> case,>
> Playing the game and quitting.
I see. How do you define quitting? I see that self-oust is quitting
for you and violates your interpretation of the social contract.
How would you consider the following non-self-oust scenarios?
A. Player A packs his cards, leaving his pool on the table for his
predator to grind through.
B. Player B is not playing any cards, doing only the mandatory things
(untapping, hunting if empty), not using even the obvious effects he
could.
C. Player C is using the obvious effects (e.g. Barrens, pool gain),
blocking actions, even attempting some, but has a low energy level
and isn't having any fun because he clearly has no hope of ousting
his prey (or surviving to his predator).
D. Player C is - out of spite - spending all of his resources on
killing his predator. There is absolutely no pressure on his prey.
He declares that being in a lost position he can do whatever he wants
and does everything to oust his predator - in a passionate way. He
agitates the whole table to kill the guy who "wrecked his game".
...just curious where you draw the line. You seem to have a very clear
picture of an area that I see as grey.
>> but I doubt players have a uniform expectation from the game.>
> Players don't have an expectation that other players won't quit?
I'm sure that expectation is more or less present in most players.
But I'm not sure it's the primary expectation for everybody.
Playing fairly (in whatever definition of fair the person holds),
or playing according to the genuine rules, for example, is often
ranked higher.
--
Regards,
Daneel
[ quoted text not captured ]
The choice of self-ousting IS playing the game. What act in VTES could
possibly have more influence than to decide who gets a VP? And unlike
Life Boon, it doesn't require a card.
It can be used as a bargaining chip, whether as an explicit ultimatum
or subconscious spite. It's a very subtle element of VTES negotiation,
much like the dynamic of "table hate" of 4 players ganging up on 1.
You might be on the receiving end, or just the opposite, but it can
determine an entire game. You've got to play it.
Give me hara-kiri or give me death! :)
...or if it bothers you that much, you could pack 10 Life Boons in
every deck to make sure nobody ever, ever self-ousts on your watch.
On Wed, 1 Jul 2009 21:50:01 -0700, "Kevin M." <you...@imaspammer.org>
wrote:
>Ira Fay wrote:>> If my predator has destroyed all my minions, it might be more fun
>> for me to self-oust and get some food than sit there as a pool sack
>> waiting to be killed.>
>NO ONE is suggesting that you are chained to the table and must play.
>Feel free to get up from the table and go get some food and tell the
>other players that you don't block any actions. I am 100% all for that.
>
>Just don't be a jerk and self-oust.
>>> Personally, I find crosstable shenanigans more annoying than a self-
>> oust from a lost position. (Self-ousts from a non-lost position are
>> really annoying, but also illegal.)>
>Why is one form of spite and not-playing-the-game-we-all-came-here-
>to-play less-irritating than another?
>
Leaving aside the issue of crosstable meddling (which I also find more
irritating than any form of selfousting) , can somebody explain to me
why they are entitled to the self-oustees Vp?
To elaborate further:
Everytime you sit down at a Table to play, you can see the
predator-prey relationships between players clearly laid out before
you. You always know right from the start where a players VP is most
likely to end, up either because that player is ousted or deceides to
selfoust in a crippled state.
If he`s been crippled by his predator, why shouldn't his predator get
the VP?
If he`s been crippled by another player, why should his grandpredator
(you) have more of a right to his VP than his predator ?
In what way does the selfoust situation differ meaningfully from your
grandprey just being ousted outhright by that other player (Who was
presumably playing to win in either case) ?
If you cripple your own Grandprey and a a result miss out on his VP,
then obviously your strategy was not as good as you thought it was.
Why should the rules change to improve it ?
Pascal
Juggernaut1981 wrote:
> I have to say, one of the most frustrating experiences is watching
> your prey suddenly double their pool for basically no effort.
It takes considerably more than "basically no effort" to get one's prey into a
lost position.
> I don't
> particularly see what is wrong with a change so that "If you declare
> your position to be lost; you become a pool-sack".
It's an arbitrary decision to help one Methuselah over another forced onto the
player in the lost position.
Kevin M. wrote:
> Daneel wrote:>> I think Scott is dead on right about this. Inaction is also an action.
>> If a player is allowed to suicide into his prey, or to wall up and go
>> upstream, or do some random cross-table kingmaking, then he
>> should also be allowed to self-oust.>
> Quitting the game =\= Playing the game via inaction. Sorry.
Non sequitur.
Playing the game by using transfers == playing the game by using other mechanisms.
On Jul 2, 12:50 am, "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote:
> Just don't be a jerk and self-oust.
Don't be a jerk and put people into lost positions when they aren't
your prey.
Don't be a jerk and keep people in lost positions when they aren't
your prey and you have a reasonable power to do something about it.
-witness1
[ quoted text not captured ]
On Jul 1, 10:24 pm, Juggernaut1981 <brasscompo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I have to say, one of the most frustrating experiences is watching
> your prey suddenly double their pool for basically no effort.
If someone is just up and leaving when they are at 12 pool, yeah, ok,
that isn't cool. But if someone is at 2 or 3 pool, and have an
(extremely) limited chance of not getting ousted immediately anyway?
It rarely makes a difference. Yeah, the self spite oust might save
your prey an action or two, but the end result was inevitable anyway.
> I don't
> particularly see what is wrong with a change so that "If you declare
> your position to be lost; you become a pool-sack".
'Cause sometimes you want to oust yourself for a tangible reason.
Spite your prey. Something.
-Peter
On Jul 2, 12:28 am, Juggernaut1981 <brasscompo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> More often than not, self-ousts seem to be about spite.
Sure. Why is it necessary to remove that option?
If you are in a lost position (so it is legal to self oust), someone
put you there. If it was your predator, then self ousting isn't really
spiting them, as you are then just helping them do what they were
already doing. If it was your prey, self ousting is spiting them and
helping your predator, which strikes me as perfectly reasonable
(assuming you were losing anyway). If it was someone else at the
table, you ousting yourself isn't really spiting them all that much,
unless they were your grandpredator. In which case, by ousting
yourself, you are hindering your grandpredator. Which is a reasonable
effect to have on the game when you can't really do anything
otherwise.
Spite is a reasonable motivator a lot of time. Why shouldn't it be?
-Peter
On Jul 1, 7:32 pm, "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote:
> *I* didn't think it was comedy. I've actually been thinking for a few
> hours how to properly word an email to Jesse regarding his post(s),
> given that I didn't even remotely see them as comedy, since there was
> nothing within the text to distinguish them as such.
There was plenty to distinguish them as comedy. The funny parts,
mostly.
I mean, yeah, it was about an actual incident. But I don't for a
second think that Jesse felt that there was actually a "gender based
conspiracy" against him (comedy flag 1) or that someone was going to
lose their hotel room over it (comedy flag 2).
> USE EMOTICONS ON THA INTERWEBS, PEOPLE
Bah. When I read comedy posts, and then totally miss that they are
comedy posts, and then later on it becomes clear that they were comedy
posts? I don't blame them. I blame myself. Every time. 'Cause when I
go back and re-read them comedy posts that I missed were comedy posts
the first time, it becomes obvious that they are comedy posts. And the
reason I missed it the first time around was generally 'cause I wasn't
actually paying attention and just responding off the cuff to a post
that I didn't actually spend enough time thinking about and reading
carefully.
Emoticons are the lazy man's guideposts to comedy (like laugh tracks.
And Adam Sandler.) Don't worry about emoticons. Just read posts
carefully and think before responding to something that might be
comedy. If it might be comedy and is on the interweb? It is probably
comedy.
-Peter
cthulukitty wrote:
> Also a little weird that I'm tagged in one picture, but not in another
> where I'm more visible.
>
> It's a conspiracy against me!
by those darned women-folk?
--
salem
(replace 'hotmail' with 'gmail' to email)
Peter D Bakija wrote:
> Emoticons are the lazy man's guideposts to comedy (like laugh tracks.
> And Adam Sandler.) Don't worry about emoticons. Just read posts
> carefully and think before responding to something that might be
> comedy. If it might be comedy and is on the interweb? It is probably
> comedy.
Good advice, if you want threads to veer wildly off topic and to clutter the
newsgroup with multiple posts explaining the proper use of smilies contrasted
with others explaining why smilies are for the dim instead of, say, something
about a particularly interesting vampire game.
Or just accept that there is such a thing as netiquette, and one would do well
to follow it, smilies and all.
On Jul 2, 9:19 am, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
> Good advice, if you want threads to veer wildly off topic and to clutter the
> newsgroup with multiple posts explaining the proper use of smilies contrasted
> with others explaining why smilies are for the dim instead of, say, something
> about a particularly interesting vampire game.
Well, here is the thing. The topic could have just as easily not
veered wildly off topic if when I posted "it was a gag", it ended
there. But it didn't. And here we are. Things go wildly off topic all
the time. Smilies or no.
> Or just accept that there is such a thing as netiquette, and one would do well
> to follow it, smilies and all.
There are certainly situations where a smilie is completely warranted
and appropriate. For example:
Peter, you suck.
vs
Peter, you suck :-)
Two very different statements. And the punctuation (period vs smiley)
makes the difference.
Completely reasonable and appropriate use of smilie. Expecting people
to use smilies in the context of completely obvious (and mostly
irrelevant) gags, not so much.
Yes, I realize that there is neither expression or inflection on the
internet. But their isn't any of that in the written word in general,
and people have survived an awful long time writing things that are
not necessarily immediately obviously comedy, letting it lose on the
world, and not worrying about making sure people get it via smilies. I
mean, how effective would A Modest Proposal have been if it had a :-)
at the end of every page?
-Peter
Johannes wrote:
> Sorry but "your table sweep" is when you have 5VP on the result sheet.
> Anything less is only a vague assumption what could have happened if
> circumstances were different. If you had the feeling that circumstances
> were influenced by behaviour which is covered under "cheating" in the
> tournament rules you should have called a judge to clarify the situation.
Sorry, but "your understanding of what happened" is limited by the
fact that you weren't in the game or watching it. For one thing, I
would have had to cheat pretty hard to get 5VP, since it was a 4
player table, but my chance at sweeping was by no means a vague
assumption. It was a specific and deterministic fact of game state.
Here's are the relevant details of the position:
Me: Casino Reeds, Nik, and some other guy. Good pool buffer, tons of
permacept on the table. Army of Rats.
Robyn: 2 pool, some other stuff.
Shy: 4 pool. Famous, empty Mukhtar Bey in torpor. No other minions.
Some guy who likes Assamites a lot: 4 pool. Assamite stuff; 'nuff
said.
So at that point the only player who could possibly have done anything
to stop my sweep, other than transferring out, was my predator.
However, he had proven unable to damage me significantly for pretty
much the entire game, and was prepared to pool sack for Robyn, I guess
just to spite me for not wanting to be ousted. Conclusion: I was going
to sweep, so you can keep your snide comments about me just assuming
that result to yourself.
> I have seen people transfer out and most of the times they did it for a
> reason. Most of the time because they did not see any chance of scoring
> VPs and wanted to retaliate against another player. Thats not a good
> reason, but still it happens and is not against the rules. And often
> (not specifically in your case) the player who was getting the
> disadvantage by the self-oust had to blame it on himself. If he would
> have been nicer (not game-mechanic wise, socially) it would not have
> happened.
To be clear, Shy did have reasons to transfer out. She was screwed,
and I had in fact put her last guy down after a bounced bleed to set
up the sweep. Shy is a new player, and I certainly don't hold anything
against her. It would have been nice though if she had threatened to
transfer out (if I nuked her guy) rather than just watch me do it and
*then* make the decision. I'm really more annoyed by the guy who
decided to pool sack, and indicated his decision to do so by scooping
his cards while the game was still going. That was violating play to
win, cheating by removing cards from the game state, and I believe
poor sportsmanship.
> I would still like to see a rules change where one cannot transfer
> himself out.
I agree.
Jesse
LSJ responded to an idea:
> > Suggested rule: You cannot take any transfers that would lower your pool
> > total to 0. You cannot play cards with a pool cost of X where X>=pool
> > total.
>
> Sure. It's a difference. Just not a meaningful one.
> Allowing "effective" self-ousting without "actual" self-ousting (like reducing
> your pool total to one before engineering the loss of your last one through
> non-optional means) is just an added rule without much added effect.
Come on, dude, it's clearly a meaningful difference. Transferring out
in your influence phase is by far the most common way to self oust,
because the option always exists. Banning that alone changes the game
for the better, even if it leaves other options open. In the game I
played, for example, my grandprey transferring down to 1 would have
been totally fine, since I was guaranteed to oust Robyn in her untap
phase, at the very latest.
We're talking about tournament rules that restrict player behavior
here, not rulebook rules or card text that determine game state
behavior. "Play to win" is even more vague in its imperative than
"don't transfer out", so why is it so easy to implement the former,
and impossible to implement the latter? Many, like Kevin, would even
argue with some merit that they are in part the same rule.
I understand that there are potential problems with some suggestions
given here; such as what happens in a 2 player end game when you want
to KRC and play bribes. Or maybe you want to play Anarchist Uprising
(it would oust you, and not your prey) just to cycle, but you plan to
vote it down. These situations are only barely more complicated than
the already somewhat strange back bending needed to make cards like
Ravnos Carnival work. Because of cards like that, the current cost
paying rules are something along the lines are more or less "you can't
pay a cost you can't pay, unless you can for some reason". This
doesn't make much sense at first look, but the implementation of it in
game causes no confusion at all. Why is it so much harder to implement
a rule along the lines of "you can't do anything that would oust you
and not oust your prey, unless you can do something to not be ousted
by it"?
Jesse
> Were you able to make any real progress on Hugh or did John get you to
> quickly? Those !Ventrue decks would have really eaten the black
> cards.
I did make considerable progress on Hugh, for sure, and it took John
several turns after you were ousted to get me. I think I might even
have ousted Hugh had I been ousted on turn later, in which case I
would have already won the game on VP, and there would have been no
need to play it out further.
> It was a good game.
It sure as hell was.
> Karl, starting to feel like the Susan Lucci of VtES
I'm missing something, I think....
Jesse
On Jul 2, 1:35 pm, cthulukitty <jcrossnicker...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Karl, starting to feel like the Susan Lucci of VtES
>
> I'm missing something, I think....
>
> Jesse
Don't know how it applies exactly but Lucci was famous for something
like 19 emmy nominations in a row *without* winning, for best actress/
supporting actress/best nonacting actress for her role on a daytime
soap.
I think Karl is tired of getting to finals and not being able to seal
the deal and win.
John P.
Winnipeg
Pascal wrote:
> In what way does the selfoust situation differ meaningfully from your
> grandprey just being ousted outhright by that other player (Who was
> presumably playing to win in either case) ?
In the self-oust situation, no resources were spent to (immediately)
obtain the oust.
Is it fair that resource(s) which should've been used to oust your prey
can now be (immediately) used to oust your grandprey?
[ quoted text not captured ]
Daneel wrote:
> Kevin M. wrote:>> Daneel wrote:>>> Kevin M. wrote:>>>> I am more interested in tweaking a proposed rule which forces
>>>> players at some base level to commit to the social contract they
>>>> have chosen by sitting down to play the game than continuing to
>>>> allow the occasional abuse of the players who have chosen to
>>>> adhere to the contract.>>>
>>> I'm not sure how exactly you interpret the social contract
>>> in this case,>>
>> Playing the game and quitting.>
> I see. How do you define quitting? I see that self-oust is quitting
> for you and violates your interpretation of the social contract.
> How would you consider the following non-self-oust scenarios?
>
> A. Player A packs his cards, leaving his pool on the table for his
> predator to grind through.
This actually happens sometimes. The *position* hasn't quit, so
I have no issue with this, or with a judge playing the position, or
whatever is appropriate.
> B. Player B is not playing any cards, doing only the mandatory things
> (untapping, hunting if empty), not using even the obvious effects he
> could.
>
> C. Player C is using the obvious effects (e.g. Barrens, pool gain),
> blocking actions, even attempting some, but has a low energy level
> and isn't having any fun because he clearly has no hope of ousting
> his prey (or surviving to his predator).
>
> D. Player C is - out of spite - spending all of his resources on
> killing his predator. There is absolutely no pressure on his prey.
> He declares that being in a lost position he can do whatever he wants
> and does everything to oust his predator - in a passionate way. He
> agitates the whole table to kill the guy who "wrecked his game".
I don't care if players are playing the game "<descriptor>" since in those
cases they are still PLAYING the game.
> ...just curious where you draw the line. You seem to have a very clear
> picture of an area that I see as grey.
"A Methuselah may not take an action where the immediate result
of the successful action or the terms of the referendum would be the
Methuselah reducing herself to zero or less pool, unless the immediate
result of the successful action or the terms of the referendum would be
to gain a Victory Point for that Methuselah."
Or something similar.
>>> but I doubt players have a uniform expectation from the game.>>
>> Players don't have an expectation that other players won't quit?>
> I'm sure that expectation is more or less present in most players.
Good to hear.
> But I'm not sure it's the primary expectation for everybody.
Agreed, and those players have issues which a rule like this helps
to define for them.
> Playing fairly (in whatever definition of fair the person holds),
> or playing according to the genuine rules, for example, is often
> ranked higher.
Playing "<descriptor>" can't be ranked higher than Playing period.
Someone told me today that this is like the abortion debate, where
there can be no agreement between persons with different definitions
and I think that is a valid point. It seems that our division here is
between players who believe -- and I'll try to word this neutrally --
that reducing one's self to zero pool is choosing not to play the game
and players who believe that reducing one's self to zero pool is a
part of playing the game. And with that division, we will continue to
see discussion and debate but we will never reach agreement (or a
new rule).
[ quoted text not captured ]
Kevin resonded to a proposed scenario:
> > A. Player A packs his cards, leaving his pool on the table for his
> > predator to grind through.
>
> This actually happens sometimes. The *position* hasn't quit, so
> I have no issue with this, or with a judge playing the position, or
> whatever is appropriate.
Kevin, I think you're misunderstanding. By "Player A packs his cards",
he means that the position has quit, illegally. If you take cards that
are in play and shuffle them together, or whatever, you are illegally
altering the game state. There are a great number of things that can
happen in VTES that check for cards on the table. What if a player
pool sacks and picks up his cards, but the sacked pool is around for a
while? What if I want to call a ConBoon on the pool sacking player,
but we can't remember how many guys he had? What if he had some allies
or locations or whatever that other players might want to steal, or
even just go burn them down to cycle a card?
Picking up your cards and shuffling your deck before you are ousted is
clearly against the rules of the game. How is modifying game state
without card interactions not cheating, even if it is cheating to
lose?
Jesse
cthulukitty wrote:
> Kevin responded to a proposed scenario:>> Daneel wrote:>>> A. Player A packs his cards, leaving his pool on the table for his
>>> predator to grind through.>>
>> This actually happens sometimes. The *position* hasn't quit, so
>> I have no issue with this, or with a judge playing the position, or
>> whatever is appropriate.>
> Kevin, I think you're misunderstanding. By "Player A packs his cards",
> he means that the position has quit, illegally. If you take cards that
> are in play and shuffle them together, or whatever, you are illegally
> altering the game state. There are a great number of things that can
> happen in VTES that check for cards on the table. What if a player
> pool sacks and picks up his cards, but the sacked pool is around for a
> while? What if I want to call a ConBoon on the pool sacking player,
> but we can't remember how many guys he had? What if he had some allies
> or locations or whatever that other players might want to steal, or
> even just go burn them down to cycle a card?
Well, I have played too many games like this, and what usually
happens is that the players only have to remember that player's
cards in-play for a short time, as that player is quickly ousted.
But "whatever is appropriate" could cover proxying the player's
cards, or whatever is necessary to maintain game integrity.
> Picking up your cards and shuffling your deck before you are ousted
> is clearly against the rules of the game.
You could certainly DQ the player and report them to the VEKN,
if you thought that was appropriate. It has happened to me as a judge
twice and both times the player came back before the next round and
apologized so I didn't make an issue of it.
> How is modifying game state without card interactions not cheating,
> even if it is cheating to lose?
See above.
[ quoted text not captured ]
On Jul 1, 9:50 pm, "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote:
> Ira Fay wrote:
> > If my predator has destroyed all my minions, it might be more fun
> > for me to self-oust and get some food than sit there as a pool sack
> > waiting to be killed.
>
> NO ONE is suggesting that you are chained to the table and must play.
> Feel free to get up from the table and go get some food and tell the
> other players that you don't block any actions. I am 100% all for that.
>
> Just don't be a jerk and self-oust.
IMO, in the situation I described in my previous post (I'm put in a
completely crippled position by actions from someone other than my
predator), there's nothing "jerky" about self-ousting. I see self-
ousting as a valid option in this game (given the condition that
you're in a lost position), which adds strategic depth.
Also, managing other player's opinions of you (and therefore avoiding
spite) is an important part of a political and multiplayer game.
Finally, I think reading other players is an important and strategic
aspect of this game. Some people won't ever self-oust, and that means
you can completely cripple them crosstable or upstream, yet they'll
sit there as a pool sack and die slowly (personally I find that
tenacity impressive and hard to understand.) Other players will
transfer out, and the tactic of crippling someone upstream or
crosstable will be less beneficial. Reading the player correctly is
an interesting part of the game, and if we create rules to limit
player behavior, it makes the game less interesting.
> > Personally, I find crosstable shenanigans more annoying than a self-
> > oust from a lost position. (Self-ousts from a non-lost position are
> > really annoying, but also illegal.)
>
> Why is one form of spite and not-playing-the-game-we-all-came-here-
> to-play less-irritating than another?
In my opinion, if you have resources and you're expending them
crosstable instead of at your prey, that's very different from having
no resources at all and choosing to die quickly vs die slowly.
Certainly crosstable actions can be strategically correct, but
sometimes they are not. On the other hand, self-ousting vs pool
sacking from a lost position are equally strategically correct. Said
in another way: if you do something that hurts me but is strategically
correct, that's less annoying than something that hurts me and is
strategically incorrect.
(mumbles something about a cross table Rock Cat rush when one's prey
is at 15 pool...)
Ira
@LSJ: That particular player had spent the majority of their pool on
minions and other "cards in play" and had suffered a handful of 1 or 2
bleeds. It was not the work of say, regular bleeds, damaging votes or
the like. It was a clash of two combat decks between that player and
his predator (my prey); that player had come out on the worse end once
or twice more than they had come out on top. The biggest
determination for them to "self-oust" was the fact they had no ready
minions (one banished, one contested) and not enough pool to influence
out a second vampire (but enough pool to influence out the contested
one) combined with a perception that the table was actively neutering
this player (not true... I was trying to set him up to get two ousts
in short succession).
@Kevin
Generally the debate does seem to revolve around the idea: Is ousting
part of "playing the game" or not?
Personally, I think that self-ousting is at LEAST "bad sportsmanship"
and most cases of "bad sportsmanship" are also cases of "breaking the
social contract of playing a game".
@Play To Win & Lost Positions
I'm not looking to change the "Play to Win" criteria. What I think
might need changing or defining is "Lost Position" options.
It sounds like there are plenty of people who get, potentially
appropriately angry, at people who declare a "Guaranteed Loss
Position" and then adopt one of the following :
a) The Salmon Method: Going up-stream hard and fast...
b) The Muddle Vampire Hunter Method: Explode yourself on a random
target (say someone you have a grievance with 'in-game' because of a
particular event).
c) The Malkavian Method: Send the table into an insane chaos
deliberately before dying
It's my opinion that all of those (because they aren't aimed at
ousting your prey) break the social contract implied by the Play To
Win rule. "You sit down to win and you're not out of the game until
you're removed from the game". The only time you have NO chance of
winning is when you are not seated at the table.
I can deal with the "Kamikaze Pilot" attack where you throw everything
at your prey in the hopes that you might just somehow come out of it
alive or your predator might "leave you alive so you can cripple the
grandprey" and screw it up so you can get your prey when nobody
expects it.
Kevin M. wrote:
> Pascal wrote:>> In what way does the selfoust situation differ meaningfully from your
>> grandprey just being ousted outhright by that other player (Who was
>> presumably playing to win in either case) ?>
> In the self-oust situation, no resources were spent to (immediately)
> obtain the oust.
>
> Is it fair that resource(s) which should've been used to oust your prey
> can now be (immediately) used to oust your grandprey?
Hmm. I guess you want Fame and Anarch Revolt banned then, since they also fits
that description.
And, more to the point, yeah, it's very fair that that can happen.
On Thu, 2 Jul 2009 13:56:28 -0700, "Kevin M." <you...@imaspammer.org>
wrote:
>Pascal wrote:>> In what way does the selfoust situation differ meaningfully from your
>> grandprey just being ousted outhright by that other player (Who was
>> presumably playing to win in either case) ?>
>In the self-oust situation, no resources were spent to (immediately)
>obtain the oust.
>
>Is it fair that resource(s) which should've been used to oust your prey
>can now be (immediately) used to oust your grandprey?
>
Well, somebody obviously expended resources to cripple that player.
But to answer your question:
Sure, especially since it`s hard to imagine a realistic scenario where
you didn`t at least contribute to your preys sorry state in some way.
It is at least no less fair than you, the grandpredator, benefitting
from that Situation and getting a twofer or the crippled players prey
benefitting from that players ineffectualness.
Throughout a game of Vtes you will constantly either be hurt by or
benefit from the decisions of the other players, why should this case
be any different? Why should that player be made to act according to
your wishes? Why do you have a stronger claim on that Vp than his
predator?
Pascal
On Jul 3, 10:18 am, Pascal <Pasca...@nospam.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 2 Jul 2009 13:56:28 -0700, "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org>[ quoted text not captured ]
Pascal,
I can think of a classic example where one player can spend
considerable resources "up-front" waiting for a big payoff, it not
coming and then considering themselves in a "No VP position".
The Big-Cap Deck.
Your crypt contains a number of different 9+ cap vampires. Nothing in
your crypt costs below 8. You have spent pool on things other than
vampires and maybe 1 or 2 pool on bleeds. So for 2 vampires + 4 pool
of other stuff + 1 or 2 pool loss in bleeds... this player now has
around 4 to 6 pool. The vast majority of that was their own spending.
If this person loses both minions to torpor (say from a Cel-Gun wall
prey, a Suck you Dry deck or something else that will send those
minions to torpor and leave them stuck there...) or if they are
eaten. This player is probably in a "No VP" position. 6 pool is not
enough to get another minion, you may or may not be able to get a
rescue from your Grandprey (they may just prefer to see you go down),
your Grandpred may your Pred to run into whatever smashed you... so
people may not be that willing to help you.
Who did most of the work for ousting them? The player themselves by
spending 22pool on "stuff" and whomever binned the minions (not
neccesarily the Predator of this player).
So to say their predator has "spent resources" to get them low is a
long bow and to say their predator has a greater claim to the VP than
anyone else is also a bit of a long bow. The VP should go to the
person who ousts the player, if that is the Predator or the Grand
Predator then so be it. If someone else at the table "gives" the VP
to that player's predator (say through a vote), then I'll live with
that if it is also clearly a good way for a the acting player to gain
their own VP.
I still say that transferring out from a "No VP Position" while
legally allowable is potentially "bad sportsmanship".
[ quoted text not captured ]> <snip>>Who did most of the work for ousting them? The player themselves by
>spending 22pool on "stuff" and whomever binned the minions (not
>neccesarily the Predator of this player).
>So to say their predator has "spent resources" to get them low is a
>long bow and to say their predator has a greater claim to the VP than
>anyone else is also a bit of a long bow.
Again, how is this meaningfully different from the player just being
outright back/crosstable-ousted?
In both cases his current predator benefits from the actions of
another by having to spend less resources/take less actions to obtain
the VP.
The predators "claim" is provided by the rules, since he is the
default destination for the VP. Other than that, no player has any
claim to a particular VP thus no rules change to favor one over
another is warranted.
And to go back to your example once more, would the game really be
improved by taking away the big cap players option to threaten
selfoust in hopes of obtaining a rescue?
>The VP should go to the
>person who ousts the player, if that is the Predator or the Grand
>Predator then so be it.
Vtes was explictly designed to not work this way, hence the
predator-prey relationship.
>I still say that transferring out from a "No VP Position" while
>legally allowable is potentially "bad sportsmanship".
Bad Sportsmanship is, in my opinion, more about how something is done
than what is actually done. I`d even go so far as to say that it lies
outside the game rules entirly.
Pascal
On Thu, 2 Jul 2009 14:08:42 -0700, Kevin M. <you...@imaspammer.org> wrote:
>> A. Player A packs his cards, leaving his pool on the table for his
>> predator to grind through.>
> This actually happens sometimes. The *position* hasn't quit, so
> I have no issue with this, or with a judge playing the position, or
> whatever is appropriate.
While I think I now understand your definition of playing the game,
and how you interpret the social contract of sitting down to a table
of V:tES, I probably more disagree than agree with it.
> Playing "<descriptor>" can't be ranked higher than Playing period.
The primary premise is to have fun. I beleive every player is playing
V:tES to have fun. How significant portion of each player's fun is
derived from achievement may vary, but overall the reason to play a
game is to have fun. I'm not saying every single game must be all
jiggles and laughs, but the overall premise must be intact through
the course of multiple games.
If a player is not having fun he will discontinue playing.
The secondary premise is to immerse in the game as perceived by the
player. This may include any combination of rules mechanisms,
thematic components or backstabbing bastardry as needed to reach
the primary premise.
I will rather *not* sit down to play than to sit down and play a
game that is not in line with my interpretation of, say, the
rules of the game. You guys still playing Fame as per the old
text, and have 4 copies of RtI in every deck? Cool, just count
me out. This is an example of how *playing according to the
rules* ranks higher than *playing period*.
Then, sure, adherence to the letter and spirit of sportsmanship
conduct is also something I expect. There will be instances where
I'm totally pissed off by someone transferring out (they still
had a chance to gain VPs, etc.). Then again, there will be
instances where I'm going to be pissed far more by something
else (e.g. going upstream for no real ingame benefit).
I guess, your mileage may vary.
I've always found that someone just leaving the table with no
in-game rationale (e.g. transfering out or being ousted) pisses
me off far more than really getting ousted, because if someone
just stands up, the fabric of the game suffers, whereas if
someone just gets himself ousted, the game proceeds normally.
--
Regards,
Daneel
Daneel wrote:
> Kevin M. you...@imaspammer.org wrote:>> Daneel wrote:>>> A. Player A packs his cards, leaving his pool on the table for
>>> his predator to grind through.>>
>> This actually happens sometimes. The *position* hasn't quit, so
>> I have no issue with this, or with a judge playing the position, or
>> whatever is appropriate.>
> While I think I now understand your definition of playing the game,
> and how you interpret the social contract of sitting down to a table
> of V:tES, I probably more disagree than agree with it.
>>> Playing "<descriptor>" can't be ranked higher than Playing period.>
> The primary premise is to have fun.
You may wish or hope or plan whatever you like, but mechanically
the very first thing that happens is that you Play The Game. All else
follows -- and by definition, must follow -- *after* that.
> I will rather *not* sit down to play than to sit down and play
> a game that is not in line with my interpretation of, say, the
> rules of the game. You guys still playing Fame as per the old
> text, and have 4 copies of RtI in every deck? Cool, just count
> me out. This is an example of how *playing according to the
> rules* ranks higher than *playing period*.
As I said, Playing "<descriptor>" can't be ranked higher than Playing
period. You can't be "playing Fame as per the old text" unless you
are "Playing The Game" in the fisrt place.
You may wish or hope or plan whatever you like, but mechanically
the very first thing that happens is that you Play The Game. All else
follows -- and by definition, must follow -- *after* that.
> Then, sure, adherence to the letter and spirit of sportsmanship
> conduct is also something I expect. There will be instances where
> I'm totally pissed off by someone transferring out (they still
> had a chance to gain VPs, etc.). Then again, there will be
> instances where I'm going to be pissed far more by something
> else (e.g. going upstream for no real ingame benefit).
Pointing to other bad behavior doesn't justify the initial bad behavior.
[ quoted text not captured ]
Peter D Bakija wrote:
> On Jul 1, 7:32 pm, "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote:>> *I* didn't think it was comedy. I've actually been thinking for a few
>> hours how to properly word an email to Jesse regarding his post(s),
>> given that I didn't even remotely see them as comedy, since there was
>> nothing within the text to distinguish them as such.>
> There was plenty to distinguish them as comedy. The funny parts,
> mostly.
>
> I mean, yeah, it was about an actual incident. But I don't for a
> second think that Jesse felt that there was actually a "gender based
> conspiracy" against him (comedy flag 1) or that someone was going to
> lose their hotel room over it (comedy flag 2).
>>>
Sounds like it was only comedy to a few of those who were there.
no smiley.
best -
chris
Peter D Bakija wrote:
> On Jul 1, 8:19 am, Johannes Walch <johannes.wa...@vekn.de> wrote:>> Sorry but "your table sweep" is when you have 5VP on the result sheet.
>> Anything less is only a vague assumption what could have happened if
>> circumstances were different. If you had the feeling that circumstances
>> were influenced by behaviour which is covered under "cheating" in the
>> tournament rules you should have called a judge to clarify the situation.>> (Jesse's post was, ya know, comedy...)
>
> -Peter
Jesse's subsequent responses in this thread have made me feel like he
didn't write that as comedy, although perhaps that section was intended
for laughs (fell flat for me though...)
best -
chris
On 1 Jul., 15:45, Johannes Walch <johannes.wa...@vekn.de> wrote:
> LSJ schrieb:>
> > Johannes Walch wrote:
> >> I would still like to see a rules change where one cannot transfer
> >> himself out.
>> > I would like to see the rules text that would accomplish that in a
> > meaningful way.
>
> > "one cannot transfer oneself out" won't do, since it is not meaningfully
> > different when it still allows a transfer down to one
>
> Which would be still a difference. Consider this situation:
> 3 players on the table:
>
> A) Toreador Wall with Guns, has Anneke ready.
> B) Ventrue Bleed Deck w/o serious stealth and 1 ready minion left
> C) any deck, 2 pool, 2VP
>
> If C) cannot actively kill himself by transfers B) has no way of ousting
> C) since A) will block with Anneke. But it could be C) s interest to
> self-oust since then it will be a 2-2-1 instead of a 2-3, which could
> win you a tournament during the finals (given you have better prelim
> standing). During rounds it would be illegal I guess, because it is an
> out-of-game consideration.
>
> > spending of
> > one's last pool on a Secret Horde or Assault Rifle.
>
> That could be made illegal too, playing a card which pool costs will
> kill you. Just as you cant play a card with a vampire who cant afford
> the blood costs. The question is: Do we want to keep accidental
> self-oust in the game for humoristic stories? If not this could be easy
> to implement.
>
> > Not to implement it, of course. Just to see it. It would be quite a feat.>
> Suggested rule: You cannot take any transfers that would lower your pool
> total to 0. You cannot play cards with a pool cost of X where X>=pool total.
>> > Reason #0 not to implement it: forcing an arbitrary choice of whom a
> > player in a lost position must help is, well, arbitrary and not useful.
>
> Well he should not help anybody and that is done best by doing nothing
> and just sitting there. Of course that could be interpreted as helping
> player A) from above example, but it is really more helpingB/screwingA
> or see how it plays out from my point of view.
I totally agree with Johannes.
Peter vs. Librarian:
> > (Jesse's post was, ya know, comedy...)
>
> > -Peter
>
> Jesse's subsequent responses in this thread have made me feel like he
> didn't write that as comedy, although perhaps that section was intended
> for laughs (fell flat for me though...)
My attempts at intarweb humour frequently don't go very well, in part
because I strongly dislike emoticons. In this case, I'm not sure what
the exact context of my possible joke is. Perhaps I was joking,
indeed.
In any case, your deck sucks.
Jesse
>The VP should go to the
>person who ousts the player, if that is the Predator or the Grand
>Predator then so be it.
Then you remove all point to Predator/Prey and turn V:TES into a
horrible free for all. Everyone jumps on the weakest player for the
VP.
>Hmm. I guess you want Fame and Anarch Revolt banned then, since they also fits
>that description.
No respect for the Antediluvian Awakening.