Declaration of minion tap [LSJ]

A methuselah plays minion tap choosing Leandro and declaring 11 (Leandro has 11 blood). Before redrawing the minon tap, the methuselah counts the blood on Leandro and then declares, "I mean 10." Is it legal to force the Methuselah to hold to the original declaration of 11? Vegas gNat...at the L.A. Palatial Estate

***JediMike*** wrote: > A methuselah plays minion tap choosing Leandro and declaring 11 > (Leandro has 11 blood). Before redrawing the minon tap, the > methuselah counts the blood on Leandro and then declares, "I mean 10." > > Is it legal to force the Methuselah to hold to the original > declaration of 11? Depends on what happened. If the "I mean 10" is part of the declaration, then it is part of the declaration. If not, then it isn't. And, really, why is this important? What advantage is imagined to be gained by the mis-speaking Methuselah by mis-speaking?

[ quoted text not captured ] The guys in LA play really tight. The advantage to be gained is by the mis-speaker's prey, who will say, "Ha! I heard 11! You have to hunt!" If you rule that the declaration is everything that the player who declares it says in order to describe the action before he says he's done or asks for a sudden, then that means you'd be ruling that nobody can jump down your throat for saying it wrong. It would really piss off LA, I think, but everyone else would probably be fine with it. New players especially don't like to be punished for trying to declare something. -- Brian

I think if someone forces the other person to go with the 11 that's very unsportsmanlike. If he declares 11 does it and replaces his card then that's fine. But if he hasn't drawn to replace or moved any counters what's the bid deal? LSJ- When have you offical "taken your hand off the piece"?

On Jan 27, 7:19 am, Name.Luckynum...@gmail.com wrote: > On Jan 26, 5:19 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > > > ***JediMike*** wrote: > > > A methuselah plays minion tap choosing Leandro and declaring 11 > > > (Leandro has 11 blood). Before redrawing the minon tap, the > > > methuselah counts the blood on Leandro and then declares, "I mean 10." > > > > Is it legal to force the Methuselah to hold to the original > > > declaration of 11? > > > Depends on what happened. If the "I mean 10" is part of the declaration, then it > > is part of the declaration. If not, then it isn't. > > > And, really, why is this important? What advantage is imagined to be gained by > > the mis-speaking Methuselah by mis-speaking? > > The guys in LA play really tight. If by playing "tight" you mean that we don't let players make a second declaration. That's true, we don't. On the other hand, there probably are a few locals might think that "tight" play is holding someone to a slip of the tongue that occurred during a single declaration. In fact, that's not "tight" play, it's "loose" since it violates the rules. Our goal for tournament judging is to encourage tight play...the real kind of tight play, and not the pseudo tight play that we've been known for in the past. > the mis-speaker's prey, who will say, "Ha! I heard 11! You have to > hunt!" Your whole post inserts the words "mis-speak" and assumes "11" was a slip of the tongue and not a new declaration. (I don't know...I wasn't there) Scott's advice makes the most sense. If it was one declaration, "I minion tap for 11...no...make that 10" then it would be wrong to hold the player to 11 (and a fine example of "loose play" by the way). If it is two declarations then the judge could hold them to their first declaration. Let the judge decide. > If you rule that the declaration is everything that the player who > declares it says in order to describe the action before he says he's > done or asks for a sudden, then that means you'd be ruling that nobody > can jump down your throat for saying it wrong. I once had a player (not from LA) play a Mind Numb on another player's vampire (he physically place the card on that player's vamp). The other player complained and they argued/negotiated for 5 minutes and then the acting player picked-up the Mind Numb and played it on my vampire. I complained that the acting player had already played the Mind Numb and couldn't re-play it. He responded with "but I didn't *say* it was on his vampire and it just fell out of my hand earlier and coincidentally landed on his vampire." It was obviously dis- ingenuous. My preference would be to avoid a hard and fast rule that requires everybody to announce "I have now finished the declaration of my Mind Numb" or to check with each player after each card play "do you DI? or do you Eagle's Sight?" Just let the judge work it out. > It would really piss off LA, I think, but everyone else would probably > be fine with it. New players especially don't like to be punished for > trying to declare something. Ugh. I know this lingering reputation is our own fault (mine included) but I suspect there are few people in LA who would be pissed off by having to follow the rules. -Robert

On Jan 27, 7:49 am, devil_in_the_pale_moon_li...@yahoo.com wrote: > I think if someone forces the other person to go with the 11 that's > very unsportsmanlike. If he declares 11 does it and replaces his card > then that's fine. But if he hasn't drawn to replace or moved any > counters what's the bid deal? From the way the post reads to me, it sounds like the adjustment was almost immediately and they made 10 their declaration. That would be my ruling too (from the facts presented). > LSJ- When have you offical "taken your hand off the piece"? Let me give a vague answer that Scott might give: "When you've completed your declaration." or possibly: "When your hand is no longer touching the piece." I think that might be the heart of the issue in the original post. (Mixing metaphors but here goes) Was the hand off the piece when "10" was announced or was the hand still on the piece? If the hand was on the piece then then "10" is allowed. If the hand was off the piece then "11" is allowed. Let the judge decide. -Robert

<devil_in_the_p...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:cfbbf47d-7b4c-4ce5...@q21g2000hsa.googlegroups.com... [ quoted text not captured ] This is a question that's come up in tournaments a couple times and unfortunately it seems that the most vocal players rule whether something can be taken back or not. One time I remember in a draft a guy played (I believe) "Enrage" with one of his vampires, intending to do the superior version ("Put this card on any vampire. This vampire must burn 2 blood to attempt any action except for hunting and actions to enter combat. Burn this card after resolving this vampire's action.) he then realized that his minion only had inferior presence, but others at the table said that he had played the card so he had to continue with the minor action ("Put this card on a vampire you control. This vampire has +1 strength and may enter combat with another minion as a (D) action. Burn this card at the end of this turn.). Afterwards, I realized that was probably not fair. Neil

> One time I remember in a draft a guy played (I believe) "Enrage" with one of > his vampires, intending to do the superior version ("Put this card on any > vampire. This vampire must burn 2 blood to attempt any action except for > hunting and actions to enter combat. Burn this card after resolving this > vampire's action.) he then realized that his minion only had inferior > presence, but others at the table said that he had played the card so he had > to continue with the minor action ("Put this card on a vampire you control. > This vampire has +1 strength and may enter combat with another minion as a > (D) action. Burn this card at the end of this turn.). Afterwards, I realized > that was probably not fair. For me this is a fine line (not the situation, but the spirit of it). I know in competitive play you need a strict interpretation of the rules, but I feel there can be an over zealous enforcement of a rule. I know this is why we have judges. I'm probably one of the few people who believe this, but don't you want to win because you built the better deck, had a better strategy, and/or made the better plays? I don't want to win because I caught someone on a slip that worked to my advantage.

In message <3eba31a7-10b7-4f8e...@h11g2000prf.googlegroup s.com>, devil_in_the_p...@yahoo.com writes: >I'm probably one of the few people who believe this, but don't you >want to win because you built the better deck, had a better strategy, >and/or made the better plays? I don't want to win because I caught >someone on a slip that worked to my advantage. A player making a declaration and then changing it can also be trying to use a slip to their advantage, however. For example, you may deduce from someone's reaction or body language something that you didn't know, and then wish you'd declared the action differently, for example. Similarly, you can get into problems when a player says "Unnatural Disaster on your KRCG." "Sudden Reversal." "No wait, I meant his Alamut." -- James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D YOU ARE IN ERROR. EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 NO-ONE IS SCREAMING. 13D7E668C3695D623D5D THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.

Robert Goudie wrote: I suspect there are few people in LA who would be pissed off by > having to follow the rules. > Me! Me! That would mean an end the cheating phase, and we all know what would happen then... best - chris just don't cross the beams -- Super Fun Cards http://stores.ebay.com/superfuncards/ auct...@superfuncards.com

[ quoted text not captured ] As an outsider who has played with the LA playgroup sporadically over the last ~4 years, I have noticed a significant improvement in their playstyle, from overly anal to pleasantly fun. They still follow the rules, of course, but they do it in a way that allows for new players to be welcomed instead of scared. Ira

On Jan 28, 8:56 am, librarian <aucti...@superfuncards.com> wrote: > Robert Goudie wrote: > > I suspect there are few people in LA who would be pissed off by > > > having to follow the rules. > > Me! Me! That would mean an end the cheating phase, and we all know what > would happen then... > The end-of-game 90-card pickup phase??? Followed by the ceremonial booting out the door phase?

On Jan 28, 8:21 am, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: > In message <3eba31a7-10b7-4f8e-bae6-2778b4073...@h11g2000prf.googlegroup > > s.com>, devil_in_the_pale_moon_li...@yahoo.com writes: > >I'm probably one of the few people who believe this, but don't you > >want to win because you built the better deck, had a better strategy, > >and/or made the better plays? I don't want to win because I caught > >someone on a slip that worked to my advantage. > > A player making a declaration and then changing it can also be trying to > use a slip to their advantage, however. This kind of question is why it needs to be the judges call. Something like a poor declaration in a social game by a newbie should be treated quite liberally, whereas an experienced player who has been making multiple declarations in the middle of a Continental Championship should be dealt with harshly. More often then not, in a regular tournament, I'd give the player the benefit of the doubt and let his new declaration stand, and caution him to be more careful with his declarations. If they tried to pull of the same thing twice I wouldn't let them get away with it, and hold them to their first declaration. I'd also be a little more leniant to someone who is obviously thinking out loud, like "I minion tap Marcus for 5, uhm... [looks at hand, minion tap still in other hand],,, hmm... let me see now... no, make that 4... yeah, I minion tap him for 4... [replaces card]" or also in a situation where the declaration isn't really critically important (i.e. early game and no-one would even bother calling a judge to question it). I think it would be difficult to make any really definitive ruling on how this situation should be handled without becoming unnecessarily conservative about it - and that makes it very unfriendly for a newbie trying to learn the game, or even experienced players who just want to sit down and enjoy a game without it getting over-competitive.

Neil wrote: > One time I remember in a draft a guy played (I believe) "Enrage" with one of > his vampires, intending to do the superior version ("Put this card on any > vampire. This vampire must burn 2 blood to attempt any action except for > hunting and actions to enter combat. Burn this card after resolving this > vampire's action.) he then realized that his minion only had inferior > presence, but others at the table said that he had played the card so he had > to continue with the minor action ("Put this card on a vampire you control. > This vampire has +1 strength and may enter combat with another minion as a > (D) action. Burn this card at the end of this turn.). Afterwards, I realized > that was probably not fair. Correct, without the "probably". It is not fair to take an illegal play and use it to remove the player from that choice in the game. The proper way to handle an illegal play when it is caught as it is made is: "That is not legal. Rewind to the pre-illegal state (i.e., pick up the played card) and try again."

> For example, you may deduce from someone's reaction or body language > something that you didn't know, and then wish you'd declared the action > differently, for example. Similarly, you can get into problems when a > player says "Unnatural Disaster on your KRCG." "Sudden Reversal." "No > wait, I meant his Alamut." This is slightly twisting what I'm saying. In the original situation, it's my understanding, no card has been replace, no cards have been played in response, and no counters have been moved. In your situation, it seems obvious the player is trying a new target because he knows one will not fly. I suppose this all plays into you saying this is why we have judges, and that's true. There is a level of sportsmanship that all players should observe in my opinion, but I know there isn't.

>but I know there isn't. That should read "but I know not everyone does." Sorry, it's early morning, and I'm dealing with a crying baby.

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:K_Qmj.606$0o7...@newssvr13.news.prodigy.net... [ quoted text not captured ] (Since you asked, here I am: the Devil's Advocate at your service...) It depends on how quickly the mis-speaker declares his eventual intent. The issue with mistaken plays is mostly about fishing for information that could not have been obtained if he'd declared his intent plainly from the start. In this case, a player might be wondering if he could fish out someone's Sudden Reversal if he Minion Tapped for 11, as opposed to just 10. Not having gotten a response, he then restates his play to the one he really wanted to make from the beginning. Advantage: Minion Tapper. It's a little far-fetched and I'll say that I personally like a more easy- going game, even in tournaments. But there you go. Fred

In message <008d1480-8855-49a3...@s12g2000prg.googlegroup s.com>, devil_in_the_p...@yahoo.com writes: >In your situation, it seems obvious the player is trying a new target >because he knows one will not fly. If a player can mis-speak in one situation - "I Unnatural Disaster your KRCG, no wait, I mean that Alamut" - there is little stopping another player jumping the gun and jumping in with an SR the moment it's out of the player's lips. When time is tight and tempers frayed, players can be very quick and snarky. [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] And, depending on the situation, issue penalties (warnings, game losses, etc) as necessary. best - chris [ quoted text not captured ]

devil_in_the_p...@yahoo.com a écrit : > I don't want to win because I caught > someone on a slip that worked to my advantage. Thinking the same thing, but sometime errors are part of the game, especially in the endgame where lack of concentration can lead to big mistakes. Changing your action after it is declared when it was perfectly legal, is bad. Forcing player to play a card when there was something wrong with disciplines is on the thin line, but i'd rather see the card back in hand and correctly played (except of course if the card had a similar effect in inferior or superior, eg Legal manipulations or Earthmeld)

Robert Goudie a écrit : >>The guys in LA play really tight. > > > If by playing "tight" you mean that we don't let players make a second > declaration. That's true, we don't. Sometime, you just push it so far it's incredible. first time i went to LA for a game, there was a scene like this. Dennis L (presence something) bleeds me. I block (with inferior celerity thingy). Nothing before range, close, no cards played yet. Dennis L plays majesty. I say "ok, i guess combat ends then". i added like two second after "wait, let me cycle this sideslip to dodge here" And something in the atmosphere just changed. I felt big stormy clouds gathering outside Paul's house. The air went electric when Deenis took an incredible gaze at me, like if i just insulted his mother twice. His jaw was a bit hanging and his eyes were just immense. "No, no..." he muttered. "You cannot do that ! the combat is over, you can't play your sideslip". Little i know that i have just met the taboo of LA's playground. "but, hey, come on it's just a sideslip !" Robert goudie's head made a quick rotation and i felt his cold stare from the armchair "the... combat... is... over..." At this point my neck was aching. I felt not confortable anymore. I rapidly looked at the other players, hoping some friendly support, waiting for someone to tell me something like "go and play your sideslip, it has absolutely ZERO impact on this combat anway". But instead, i just saw pity in everyone else's eye. I think i read some prophecy "this man here wants to cheat. and he insisted twice to play a combat card outside combat. bring out the hammer, the nails and raise the cross in the back yard." I blinked. "Of course, how silly i am ! playing a dodge after combat, hahaha, must be the jetlag, you know" Outside, the birds started chirping again. The sun came back and shone all day. I was safe from harm. I never played sideslip ever since. ^^

devil_in_the_p...@yahoo.com wrote: I don't want to win because I caught > someone on a slip that worked to my advantage. You know, philosophically, I agree with this. Sort of like "all people are created equal". However, in terms of VTES/(and other games), some people are better able to concentrate under pressure than others. It seems to me that if we let too many "legal" mistakes slide, it is penalizing those who have a higher level of concentration skills, and unfairly giving benefit to those who can't concentrate as well. In the example given about the declaration of the minion tap, I wouldn't let the person take it back if any other person at the table reacted in *any* way, and certainly not if a card was played. If the change in delcaration was made within microseconds, and no one moved or reacted in such a way to give the declaring player some info, then I would most likely let them take it back. However, I don't like to judge much anymore, and maybe that's why... [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] I can't see how anything was wrong with what you did. In fact, I'd go so far as to say what they did was pretty illegal in terms of the rules, as I can't see where you declared any strike - even though the person plays a combat ends card, it doesn't restrict you from playing any strike card you choose. Firstly, it's not even as if Dennis tried to play a card before you declared a dodge, but even if he did, I would've piped up and said, hey, you know, I still have a strike, (even though it does nothing but cycle a card.) The players cannot simply assume that because the acting minion played a S:CE that you cannot play any cards after that. Then again, if you said something along the lines of, "Ok, I guess combat ends, YOUR GO" or something that denotes that you are passing on playing any further cards (either reaction cards like fast reactions or cat's guidance, or combat cards like your own strike or taste of vitae). There's also a big difference IMO between declaring that combat ends and that a combat is over, given the terminology of the game. Still, I often find that this kind of anality happens when one vocal (and sore) player makes such a hard stance as a desperate ploy, and then the person who felt the brunt of this gets infected with a similar attitude, and when they get caught in a similar situation, they also 'enforce' the rule, and so it spreads until a whole group becomes unnecessarily anal about little finicky rules. I'm glad our playgroup here doesn't stand for such anality, and we joke about people that do. We're very lenient when it comes to that, especially if it's a once/twice-off delay in an inconsequential part of the game. Of course, someone making it a regular habit can expect to be clamped down on (and it does happen), but often we let things fly.

"reyda" <true_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:47a2093e$0$18068$79c1...@nan-newsreader-05.noos.net... > first time i went to LA for a game, there was a scene like this. > > Dennis L (presence something) bleeds me. > I block (with inferior celerity thingy). > Nothing before range, close, no cards played yet. > Dennis L plays majesty. > I say "ok, i guess combat ends then". > i added like two second after "wait, let me cycle this sideslip to dodge here" > And something in the atmosphere just changed. I felt big stormy clouds gathering outside Paul's house. The air went electric when > Deenis took an incredible gaze at me, like if i just insulted his mother twice. His jaw was a bit hanging and his eyes were just > immense. "No, no..." he muttered. "You cannot do that ! the combat is over, you can't play your sideslip". Little i know that i > have just met the taboo of LA's playground. "but, hey, come on it's just a sideslip !" > Robert goudie's head made a quick rotation and i felt his cold stare from the armchair "the... combat... is... over..." > At this point my neck was aching. I felt not confortable anymore. I rapidly looked at the other players, hoping some friendly > support, waiting for someone to tell me something like "go and play your sideslip, it has absolutely ZERO impact on this combat > anway". > But instead, i just saw pity in everyone else's eye. > I think i read some prophecy "this man here wants to cheat. and he insisted twice to play a combat card outside combat. bring out > the hammer, the nails and raise the cross in the back yard." > > I blinked. "Of course, how silly i am ! playing a dodge after combat, hahaha, must be the jetlag, you know" > > Outside, the birds started chirping again. The sun came back and shone all day. I was safe from harm. I never played sideslip ever > since. ^^ I'm pretty sure it was Mike Curtois's house, not Paul's. And those weren't birds - Mike's orange dogs cleared the bird population out of that neighborhood years ago with their incessant baying. I expect what you probably heard was a Pink Floyd CD starting up in Matt Wedge's car; it's an easy mistake to make what with people glaring at you and all. But, yea. That's an accurate description of LA. Fred

In message <f56c17b8-193d-4e5c...@z17g2000hsg.googlegroup s.com>, The Name Forgotten <tex...@telkomsa.net> writes: >Then again, if you said something along the lines of, "Ok, I guess >combat ends, YOUR GO" or something that denotes that you are passing >on playing any further cards (either reaction cards like fast >reactions or cat's guidance, or combat cards like your own strike or >taste of vitae). That implies that if, instead of Reyda changing his mind, someone had started a new action (or tapped Heidelberg, perhaps), everyone would have jumped on them for cheating. Conventionally, people don't shout "YOUR GO" at each other, but still manage to work out when it's their chance to do something. [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] When Reyda used to come to LA for E3, he would stay at Paul's house. And was invited back, because he didn't walk around the house in his underwear in front of Paul's wife and child. All of which is probably waaaay too much information for everyone else on this NG. [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] nice story. But you'd think if those LA guys were such sticklers, it should have gone like this: Nothing before range, close, no cards played yet. Dennis L plays majesty. I say "ok, i guess combat ends then". Dennis says "No. No it is not. I am afraid you must *declare* a strike. We cannot move onto resolving strikes until both combatants have declared a strike. You have not. Declare one. Now." ...or something like that. :) -- salem (replace 'hotmail' with 'yahoo' to email)

On Jan 31, 10:23 pm, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: > In message <f56c17b8-193d-4e5c-ac03-6f4032cd0...@z17g2000hsg.googlegroup > s.com>, The Name Forgotten <tex...@telkomsa.net> writes: > > >Then again, if you said something along the lines of, "Ok, I guess > >combat ends, YOUR GO" or something that denotes that you are passing > >on playing any further cards (either reaction cards like fast > >reactions or cat's guidance, or combat cards like your own strike or > >taste of vitae). > > That implies that if, instead of Reyda changing his mind, someone had > started a new action (or tapped Heidelberg, perhaps), everyone would > have jumped on them for cheating. My point is, how could someone else on the table really tell the difference in that scenario? I'm not even convinced that Reyda consciously thought, "I'm not going to play a strike". More likely the mistake was made in that he didn't think to play one and then realised a second later that he could just to cycle. The fact that everyone else moved on when the ball was actually still in his court is a mistake they made and Reyda should not have to suffer because of it. I've been in a similar situation plenty of times, where people move on with their turns without fully resolving a combat (or action), and I'm still thinking about whether or not I should use that Telepathic Tracking and hoping to replace with a Walk of Flame, but at the same time, you don't want to go advertising that you could still play a card like Telepathic Tracking or Fast Reactions. > Conventionally, people don't shout "YOUR GO" at each other, but still > manage to work out when it's their chance to do something. Agreed, but people may be wrong as well, such as in the situation above, and that means that there should always be some lee-way in going back. The most typical examples of this is when people play cards that are 'as action is announced' and someone determines/directs the initial action, or, as has happened to me on numerous occasions, when someone is blocked and they immediately start playing cards before range before I even get a chance to play obedience or mental maze. It happens as people often rush things in VTES to speed up play. I'm hoping this is not something that is unique to our various playgroups here, but is something that happens around the world. It certainly seems to be the case from some of the examples I've seen on this newsgroup.

On Jan 31, 11:29 pm, Salem <salem_christ....@hotmail.com> wrote: > Nothing before range, close, no cards played yet. > Dennis L plays majesty. > I say "ok, i guess combat ends then". > Dennis says "No. No it is not. I am afraid you must *declare* a strike. > We cannot move onto resolving strikes until both combatants have > declared a strike. You have not. Declare one. Now." > > ...or something like that. :) After the first time this sort of situation happened, this is how we would of played from that point on in that game (minus the whole explanation). Dennis would've asked for a strike - which is really important when you are playing with new players, as they don't always realise that they get one. Then you might still need to ask to continue your turn, or if any cards still need to be played for that action - usually by asking 'Anything else?'. Not necessary to do in most games, but if you know the person is playing cat's guidance, or fast reaction or whatever, you should ask just to cover your bases.

In message <9031c452-8e11-49c9...@i3g2000hsf.googlegroups .com>, The Name Forgotten <tex...@telkomsa.net> writes: >My point is, how could someone else on the table really tell the >difference in that scenario? The same way they do when someone says "Well, I guess that's 3 pool then" and lifts their pool into the bloodbank, even though the following exchange has not occured: "I am not playing any 'as announced' modifiers on this bleed. YOUR GO." "I am not playing anything. YOUR GO." "I am not playing any other modifiers right now. YOUR GO." "I am asking for blocks. YOUR GO." "I am declining to block. YOUR GO." And so on. [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] If I am the acting methuselah, I usually ask "So the action is over?" before moving on to my next action. Stops them saying 'oops, i meant to play Cat's Guidance (now that i see you're playing Force of Will there....)', but the phrasing also helps to not give then outright prompts, the way asking something like "Any reaction cards at the end of the action?" tends to do. [ quoted text not captured ]