Red herring question

hi there ! okay i'm leaving my personal crusade against table split for the moment. Just a question to ask... if LSJ or James Coupe (yes, he became the second authority for me ;] ) can answer, i'll be violently happy ! This case occured when the meth controlling Anson had no wakes and was low on pool... Joaquina plays Sensory dep on Anson. Anson Blocks. Joaquina adds 1 stealth. Ansons follows with +1 intercept. Joaquina meth's said okay, you blocked me. Then starts to think for a while but plays no cards. Ansons' meth says "since i blocked you, combat will start, heh ?" Joaquina's meth doesn't reply. Then ansons says : "i play inf. obedience, and we both stay untapped". At this point, Joaquina's meth says "*you* stay tapped because i play red herring now : i take back my action card". The players at the table couldn't agree on this being legal. Of course i was on the contesting side ;) my argument was : Red herring is supposed to be played by acting vampire. If it hasn't been played, then reacting vamp should play his card : obedience can be played and cancels the combat and the block is resolved, so at this point you cannot play red herring anymore. (I base my thoughts on how Change of target work, but it sounds stupide to play change of target after obedience so chances are nobody ever did) so is red herring played Immediatly after the block is successful, or can it be played at any time, even after obedience ? reyda

Reyda wrote: > This case occured when the meth controlling Anson had no wakes and was low > on pool... > > Joaquina plays Sensory dep on Anson. Anson Blocks. Joaquina adds 1 stealth. > Ansons follows with +1 intercept. Joaquina meth's said okay, you blocked me. > Then starts to think for a while but plays no cards. Ansons' meth says > "since i blocked you, combat will start, heh ?" Joaquina's meth doesn't > reply. Then ansons says : "i play inf. obedience, and we both stay > untapped". At this point, Joaquina's meth says "*you* stay tapped because i > play red herring now : i take back my action card". The players at the table > couldn't agree on this being legal. Depends on the situation. If Joaquina's meth was trying to stall in order to see if Anson would play Obedience, this is unsportsmanlike. If she was just using silence to acknowledge that she wished to play no effects, then she cannot change her mind after seeing the obedience. If she was thinking about her answer when Anson's controller jumped the gun, then she is free to do as she did. It's good to get into the habit of declaring (and waiting for the declaration) of each event or pass. A: Joaquina attempts to Sensory Dep. Anson B: Anson blocks A: +1 stealth B: +1 intercept A: I'm blocked, we're going to combat (indicating no modifiers) B: Obedience or A: I'm blocked. I play Red Herring. If, in this case, A says: A: I'm blocked. B should just respond "yes, you're blocked" and wait for A to proceed. > Of course i was on the contesting side ;) my argument was : Red herring is > supposed to be played by acting vampire. If it hasn't been played, then > reacting vamp should play his card : obedience can be played and cancels the > combat and the block is resolved, so at this point you cannot play red > herring anymore. (I base my thoughts on how Change of target work, but it > sounds stupide to play change of target after obedience so chances are > nobody ever did) True, but Anson can't rush the acting player or skip the acting player's phase in order to play Obedience before Red Herring. > so is red herring played Immediatly after the block is successful, or can it > be played at any time, even after obedience ? No. -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and tournament rules: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/

> Depends on the situation. If Joaquina's meth was trying to stall in order to see > if Anson would play Obedience, this is unsportsmanlike. If she was just > using silence to acknowledge that she wished to play no effects, then she > cannot change her mind after seeing the obedience. If she was thinking about > her answer when Anson's controller jumped the gun, then she is free to do > as she did. > > It's good to get into the habit of declaring (and waiting for the declaration) > of each event or pass. > > A: Joaquina attempts to Sensory Dep. Anson > B: Anson blocks > A: +1 stealth > B: +1 intercept > A: I'm blocked, we're going to combat (indicating no modifiers) > B: Obedience > > or > > A: I'm blocked. I play Red Herring. > > > If, in this case, A says: > > A: I'm blocked. > > B should just respond "yes, you're blocked" and wait for A to proceed. How much is mandatory to announce? An example came up this weekend, when getting some practice in for GenCon. The names and faces have been changed to protect all those involved: John: "Well, looks like all your vampires are tapped! I'm attempting a computer hacking on you with Lucretia, Cess Queen" Rick: "Haha, too bad I will play forced awakening on smudge the ignored with my sniper rifle!" John: "okay, you may attempt to block." Rick: "Any stealth?" John: "+1, from her inate power" Rick: "what? you didn't tell me she has stealth on every action, how can I remember that she is one of only 3 vampires that always have +1 stealth! You should have declared that you are bleeding me with computer hacking at stealth!" John: "Why didn't you ask? I wasn't hiding anything from you." Rick: "Well, I'm playing the wake on Lambach instead, because he has the sports bike" John: "sorry, card laid is a card played!" Anyway, point is how much of your action need to be stated? Do you have to read the entire text on every card you play, or is just the name sufficient until someone asks?

Aaron wrote: > > > Depends on the situation. If Joaquina's meth was trying to stall in order to see > > if Anson would play Obedience, this is unsportsmanlike. If she was just > > using silence to acknowledge that she wished to play no effects, then she > > cannot change her mind after seeing the obedience. If she was thinking about > > her answer when Anson's controller jumped the gun, then she is free to do > > as she did. > > > > It's good to get into the habit of declaring (and waiting for the declaration) > > of each event or pass. > > > > A: Joaquina attempts to Sensory Dep. Anson > > B: Anson blocks > > A: +1 stealth > > B: +1 intercept > > A: I'm blocked, we're going to combat (indicating no modifiers) > > B: Obedience > > > > or > > > > A: I'm blocked. I play Red Herring. > > > > > > If, in this case, A says: > > > > A: I'm blocked. > > > > B should just respond "yes, you're blocked" and wait for A to proceed. > > How much is mandatory to announce? An example came up this weekend, > when getting some practice in for GenCon. Mandatory? None. Note I said: "a good habit to get into". If you want to rely on some timing, it would be wise to have that timing clearly stated. > > The names and faces have been changed to protect all those involved: > > John: "Well, looks like all your vampires are tapped! I'm attempting > a computer hacking on you with Lucretia, Cess Queen" > > Rick: "Haha, too bad I will play forced awakening on smudge the > ignored with my sniper rifle!" > > John: "okay, you may attempt to block." > > Rick: "Any stealth?" > > John: "+1, from her inate power" > > Rick: "what? you didn't tell me she has stealth on every action, how > can I remember that she is one of only 3 vampires that always have +1 > stealth! You should have declared that you are bleeding me with > computer hacking at stealth!" > > John: "Why didn't you ask? I wasn't hiding anything from you." > > Rick: "Well, I'm playing the wake on Lambach instead, because he has > the sports bike" > > John: "sorry, card laid is a card played!" > > Anyway, point is how much of your action need to be stated? Do you > have to read the entire text on every card you play, or is just the > name sufficient until someone asks? Play styles differ. [ quoted text not captured ]

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote > > The names and faces have been changed to protect all those involved: > > > > John: "Well, looks like all your vampires are tapped! I'm attempting > > a computer hacking on you with Lucretia, Cess Queen" > > > > Rick: "Haha, too bad I will play forced awakening on smudge the > > ignored with my sniper rifle!" > > > > John: "okay, you may attempt to block." > > > > Rick: "Any stealth?" > > > > John: "+1, from her inate power" > > > > Rick: "what? you didn't tell me she has stealth on every action, how > > can I remember that she is one of only 3 vampires that always have +1 > > stealth! You should have declared that you are bleeding me with > > computer hacking at stealth!" > > > > John: "Why didn't you ask? I wasn't hiding anything from you." > > > > Rick: "Well, I'm playing the wake on Lambach instead, because he has > > the sports bike" > > > > John: "sorry, card laid is a card played!" > > > > Anyway, point is how much of your action need to be stated? Do you > > have to read the entire text on every card you play, or is just the > > name sufficient until someone asks? > > Play styles differ. I'm going to jump in here since *I am* the Rick of this Aaron's inane little post. Aaron obviously plays the part of John if that wasn't made clear from the biased telling of the strory... My beef is that it should be at the very least polite and probably good sportsmanship for the acting player to make clear all conditions regarding an action. If I take an action that is at +1 stealth, I should *declare explicitly* that there is +1 stealth, unless it is immediately obvious. If it is *not* immediately obvious (such as in this particular case) then common courtesy would dictate that the acting player do their best to make sure their opponent knows what is happening. So, when Aaron declares a bleed with a minion, in this case Muaziz, I believe that he should also declare that the bleed is at +1 stealth. He should not rely on Wes to read the 'Muaziz gets +1 stealth on all her actions' at the bottom of the card, *regardless* of how Wes really should know Muaziz has that ability. Cards upside down look different, blah, blah, blah... it's just common courtesy and good sportsmanship to make sure your opponent knows what is happening and obfuscating (no pun intended) the terms smacks of the kind of play I don't particularly like seeing. So, what Aaron did was technically legal--I won't bother to argue that point. It was also cheezy and deceptive IMHO. In my experience, were I in his position I would have made sure that he knew the action was at +1 stealth and declared my action thus 'Muaziz will bleed at +1 stealth' rather than just tapping a minion and saying 'Bleeds.' Actions such as equipping or hiring a retainer etc should most of the time be obvious as far as stealth if one has read the rules, but may need to be declared if the opposing player is not sure. Specific cards or special effects of vampires are *not* always obvious, so should be declared. A player new to the game should not have to compete with the encyclopaedic knowledge of a veteran player and it is extremely cheezy for a veteran to take advantage of another player's inexperience with certain cards. They should explain the cards clearly to the other player, *regardless* of whether it benefits them to do so or not. With all due respect to LSJ, this is not a 'rules' question... it is a question of playing-style, courtesy and sportsmanship. It may however interest others to see how two individuals differ on opinions on this kind of thing. *shrug* Cheers, WES

Wes wrote: > LSJ wrote: > > Play styles differ. > My beef is that it should be at the very least polite and probably good > sportsmanship for the acting player to make clear all conditions regarding > an action. If I take an action that is at +1 stealth, I should *declare > explicitly* that there is +1 stealth, unless it is immediately obvious. If > it is *not* immediately obvious (such as in this particular case) then > common courtesy would dictate that the acting player do their best to make > sure their opponent knows what is happening. I agree. But it still isn't mandatory for all card plays. For the limited case of declaring an action (as opposed to playing any random card), it should be considered part of the "all details are declared when the action is announced." [6.2.1] [ quoted text not captured ]

> So, when Aaron declares a bleed with a minion, in this case Muaziz, I > believe that he should also declare that the bleed is at +1 stealth. He > should not rely on Wes to read the 'Muaziz gets +1 stealth on all her > actions' at the bottom of the card, *regardless* of how Wes really should > know Muaziz has that ability. Cards upside down look different, blah, blah, > blah... it's just common courtesy and good sportsmanship to make sure your > opponent knows what is happening and obfuscating (no pun intended) the terms > smacks of the kind of play I don't particularly like seeing. Personally I wouldn't enjoy these kind of games so much: -Muaziz here takes an action to employ an retainer, note that she have +1 stealth on everything she does so that makes it +2 stealth. She also have a Skill card Fortitude so that makes her 8 in capacity, you should consider that before blocking with Justine because she wouldn't be able to use Obediance. Also Muaziz have five blood and is fully capable to play "Kiss of Ra" at superiour, and if she succeeds she could play a "Freak Drive" at superiour and diablerize Justine, and she wouldn't burn for it even if you have vote superiority, because she is immune to Blood Hunts, it says so on her card. > A player new to the game should not have to compete with the encyclopaedic > knowledge of a veteran player and it is extremely cheezy for a veteran to > take advantage of another player's inexperience with certain cards. They > should explain the cards clearly to the other player, *regardless* of > whether it benefits them to do so or not. People I play with should say I'm quite helpful and forgiving. Some newbies really tries to read the cards careful, ask questions and so on, while others don't. The second category, I have noticed, often only learn it the hard way, so first after have lost Gilbert Duane due to careless playing, and not are allowed to change he's mind ("Yes, Raven still have FOR and can play "Kiss of Ra", but this is the third time you do this mistake. And now you have to stand up for the consequences."), he will do little better analysis of situations. > With all due respect to LSJ, this is not a 'rules' question... it is a > question of playing-style, courtesy and sportsmanship. It may however > interest others to see how two individuals differ on opinions on this kind > of thing. *shrug* > > Cheers, > WES Well this is my opinion. Cheers, Robert

> I'm going to jump in here since *I am* the Rick of this Aaron's inane little > post. Aaron obviously plays the part of John if that wasn't made clear from > the biased telling of the strory... > > My beef is that it should be at the very least polite and probably good > sportsmanship for the acting player to make clear all conditions regarding > an action. If I take an action that is at +1 stealth, I should *declare > explicitly* that there is +1 stealth, unless it is immediately obvious. If > it is *not* immediately obvious (such as in this particular case) then > common courtesy would dictate that the acting player do their best to make > sure their opponent knows what is happening. Me: "I am attempting a computer hacking with Muaziz. This is a directed action, that only you, Wes, can block. She has 4 blood on her and is a 7 capacity. She has +1 stealth on each of her actions. Her disciplines are dom aus for THA. The bleed is currently just for 2 and I am choosing not to play any action modifiers at this point. Wes?" Wes: "no block, no reaction" Me: "anyone else attempting to block or play reaction cards?" Wes: "okay take 2" Me: "Play freak drive at inferior, to untap a vampire after a successful action. Okay, now I am attempting a cryptic mission with Muaziz. This is a directed action, that only you, Wes, can block. She has 3 blood on her and is a 7 capacity. She has +1 stealth on each of her actions. Her disciplines are dom aus for THA. I am choosing not to play any action modifiers at this point. Wes?" [ quoted text not captured ] I just have trouble figuring out why you think it's un-sportsman like to not tell you I have stealth, but not blatently tell you I have fortitude...or 3 blood on the vampire. There are usually 5 or 6 variables during any action. Unless you ask how would I know? Do you think stealth is more game breaking, that it should have to be announced at all times? Our play group is very sloppy. I'm not claiming to be superior...we did have the same follower of set in play for 3 or 4 turns on sunday. I also forget that I've played master out of turns and try to play masters. But the less our group encourages that, the better we will probably all be at getting it right the first time. Aaron

[snip] > A player new to the game should not have to compete with the encyclopaedic > knowledge of a veteran player and it is extremely cheezy for a veteran to > take advantage of another player's inexperience with certain cards. They > should explain the cards clearly to the other player, *regardless* of > whether it benefits them to do so or not. > > With all due respect to LSJ, this is not a 'rules' question... it is a > question of playing-style, courtesy and sportsmanship. It may however > interest others to see how two individuals differ on opinions on this kind > of thing. *shrug* Ok I'll jump in here too. In my opinion you (Wes) should have known Muazziz has an inherent stealth to all of her actions. But I also feel that aaron should have said something about it for the reason stated above. The way I usually put this is: I bleed with Muazziz. Do you block? If so you will need one intercept due to her ability. Having said that this is what I would do in a friendly weekly game. Now in any competative event the move Aaron made is IMO simply beautifull. He not only made you play a FA and made Smudge burn a blood, he also got through a bleed for 2. BUT this is only in a TOURNAMENT and then possibly only in the final round right before time expires and I need the bleed for 2 to oust and take the tourney. It is indeed a question of playing-style, courtesy and sportsmanship. But also one of how one views the game and his/her behaviour therein. Tim

>>> roans...@yahoo.com (Aaron) wrote in message news: >>> How much is mandatory to announce? An example came up this weekend, >>> when getting some practice in for GenCon. >"Wes" <gh...@NOSPAMmnsi.net> wrote: > My beef is that it should be at the very least polite and probably good > sportsmanship for the acting player to make clear all conditions regarding > an action. > > So, what Aaron did was technically legal--I won't bother to argue that > point. It was also cheezy and deceptive IMHO. Wes, you may want to note that Aaron was getting ready for the tournaments at GenCon. Typically, Aaron's play style is much more friendly and forgiving. In this case, however, not only should he be ready for "cheezy and deceptive" behavior, but be ready to combat it with some of his own. During tournament play, the devil is in the details. You have to pay attention to everything, esp. if it's not immediately obvious. > it is a question of playing-style, courtesy and sportsmanship. If you lose a game because you missed a detail and then bitch about the other player for being "deceptive," you are correct. It is a question of courtesy and sportsmanship. Being a good loser is as important as being a good winner. However, I am not making any such allegations regarding you as you did not initiate the topic. It's just a point of view that you may wish to consider when discussing a fairly common occurence in Jyhad. Regards, Noal McDonald VEKN Prince of Metro Detroit

"Noal McDonald" <dhar...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:bb705c59.01080...@posting.google.com... [ quoted text not captured ] (Leaving the whole message above, whether it's good netiquette or not, because I could not figure out what was extraneous. I'm sure James will correct me...) Noal, What if what Wes is saying is that he's hoping for better? What is Wes is hoping that the same courtesy and ettiquette is followed whether its a friendly game or the North American Championships? I read both Aaron and Wes, and I saw both perspectives. Aaron was indeed tooling up for the cutthroat dynamic he has experienced at Major Tourneys. Wes was trying to say that he wished Major Tourneys did not subscribe to such base deception. I personally feel as Wes does. When my Muaziz does stuff I announce that it's at +1 stealth. Even when I equip I say (as a plus 1 stealth action I equip this sportbike). Only when I hunt do I ignore stating stealth. Further, if there is a anti-stealth modifier out (like strained vitae supply) I mention that "at no stealth I hunt". Just as a courtesy. Matt Hoping for a better tomorrow.

>Me: "I am attempting a computer hacking with Muaziz. This is a >directed action, that only you, Wes, can block. She has 4 blood on >her and is a 7 capacity. She has +1 stealth on each of her actions. >Her disciplines are dom aus for THA. The bleed is currently just for >2 and I am choosing not to play any action modifiers at this point. >Wes?" First let me remind people that it was Lucretia doing the bleed, not Muaziz. There are actually 5 vampires (not 3 like someone said) with an inherent +1 stealth. Just about everyone should know about Muaziz and Jost. Rebekka is fairly common as well. I'd forgive Spider Killer since he's new. And I personally think it's perfectly understandable to forget about Lucretia since you pretty much never see her around! As one of the crappy original 10-cap Primogens (who can't do anything very threatening with the stealth bonus due to her discipline selection), I'd say that Lucretia is more Ignored than Smudge is! =) >Me: "Play freak drive at inferior, to untap a vampire after a >successful action. Okay, now I am attempting a cryptic mission with >Muaziz. This is a directed action, that only you, Wes, can block. >She has 3 blood on her and is a 7 capacity. She has +1 stealth on >each of her actions. Her disciplines are dom aus for THA. I am >choosing not to play any action modifiers at this point. Wes?" > I agree that it quickly becomes too tiresome to explain all of the possibly relevant details. Even though this does give a bit of an advantage to the "encyclopedic player," so be it says me. If I bleed with Jacko, should I be obligated to remind everyone that it is possible for me to get stealth with Alacrity and also list the Obtenebration stealth cards to boot so people can know the maximum amount of stealth I can possibly get (even if I'm not playing Obtenebration). Before allowing blockers should I remind people that Jacko gets a free additional (that doesn't count as his additional) and that with superior Celerity I can also play a Quickness which gives me another additional without counting as my source? Or think about the logistical nightmare when you try to do things with Ian Forestal. "Be careful with Ian! Since he can play Fortitude cards you gotta watch out for Kiss of Ra's. And before you decide whether or not to Wake, don't forget that for stealth he can play Mask1K, Cloak the Gathering, Lost in Crowds, Elder Impersonation, Changeling, Blanket of Night, Plasmic Form, Earth Control, and, hold in, let me get the remainder of the list of cards he might possibly play. And if you do block, let me warn you now that he can play Skin of Night + Flesh of Marble, he can Immortal Grapple or Thoughts Betrayed you, and then wallop you with a Torn Signpost + Fists of Death + Fire in the Blood + other Potence hand strike cards. And you gotta watch out b/c please let me remind you that Ian can play Coma. And he can just prevent anything you throw with Skin of Rock or Steel. So I hope I haven't missed any other potentially important details that you should be aware about. Do you want to block Ian?" =) Halcyan 2

"Tim Eijpe" <tim....@mailandnews.com> wrote > > Having said that this is what I would do in a friendly weekly game. > Now in any competative event the move Aaron made is IMO simply > beautifull. He not only made you play a FA and made Smudge burn a > blood, he also got through a bleed for 2. BUT this is only in a > TOURNAMENT and then possibly only in the final round right before time > expires and I need the bleed for 2 to oust and take the tourney. > > It is indeed a question of playing-style, courtesy and sportsmanship. > But also one of how one views the game and his/her behaviour therein. Well, it didn't happen exactly like Aaron's example really... but that's neither here nor there. I really should have known better but after about 5 hours without coffee I start losing my concentration :) And, as I recall there were other, *much* more ridiculous things in that game that threw me off... like my Grand-Prey Sudden Reversing every Master *I* played just to 'cycle cards'. So, yeah... no excuse for *me* to be unaware of Muaziz and her sneaky special but that's also not really what this thread is about. Cheers, WES

Matt Latham wrote: > (Leaving the whole message above, whether it's good netiquette or not, > because I could not figure out what was extraneous. I'm sure James will > correct me...) Hopefully not publicly. That would be bad netiquette, too. ;) > What if what Wes is saying is that he's hoping for better? What is Wes is > hoping that the same courtesy and ettiquette is followed whether its a > friendly game or the North American Championships? I certainly understand that hope and I subscribe to it personally. It's one of the reasons that I always look forward to games with Jay Kristoff. Despite our friendly ongoing tournament rivalry, which admittedly he decisively got the upper hand at Origins, we've always been the very model of sportsmanship and courtesy to each other. > Wes was trying to say that he wished Major Tourneys did not subscribe to > such base deception. I wish that society today wasn't so geared towards convenience and immediate gratification, but alas wishing doesn't make it so and you have to learn to cope with it. If the table I'm at is friendly and forgiving of minor errors, than I shall be as well. However, if someone drags out the rule book to show that I cannot take a pool for the Edge after I've taken my master phase even after I've admitted my mistake and moved on, then yes, I'll take a more cut throat attitude as well. Given a choice between the two, I quite prefer the light hearted atmosphere. Regards, Noal

"Matt Latham" <mla...@diamondtoolmfg.com> wrote > > I read both Aaron and Wes, and I saw both perspectives. Aaron was indeed > tooling up for the cutthroat dynamic he has experienced at Major Tourneys. > Wes was trying to say that he wished Major Tourneys did not subscribe to > such base deception. > > I personally feel as Wes does. When my Muaziz does stuff I announce that > it's at +1 stealth. Even when I equip I say (as a plus 1 stealth action I > equip this sportbike). Only when I hunt do I ignore stating stealth. Pretty much. It's not really a big deal and certainly not worth the level of discussion it has inspired. Frankly, in retrospect, I think that I was being a poor sport in that particular game, though I also think that my point has some validity. There were *other* circumstances. I know that what Aaron did was technically within the rules... no beef there. I know that I really should know better... or at least pay better attention. No argument there. I know that I personally subscribe to a different set of ethics in this particular area of the game, regardless of the level of competition. That is not to imply that Aaron is unethical or that there really needs to be a *rule* imposed on any of this. As I said, several times, this is a *style* thing. And obviously, I'm the only player around here with style :) I'd really just as soon not have my laundry aired in public, but that is partly my fault for admitting to being one of the actors in Aaron's original post. As far as I am concerned, I shook hands with Aaron, was ousted with a smile on my face and forgot all about it until he decided to post on the subject. It's not *that* big of a deal... is it? Cheers, WES

"Noal McDonald" <dhar...@my-deja.com> wrote > > Wes, you may want to note that Aaron was getting ready for the tournaments > at GenCon. Typically, Aaron's play style is much more friendly and forgiving. Sure. No argument there. I'm not certain why tournament games cannot *also* be freindly and forgiving though... I've participated in two tournaments now and in neither did I see anything like that. Maybe nationals are different? Maybe I'm just not that competitive? Doubt it :) If anything, it would appear that there are more important considerations in the tournament scene in general. I enjoy playing in them but if accusations of 'collusion' or bad feelings about 'VP-table-splits' and such are going to occur as a result of this increased level of competition, I may just decide that 'house league' type games are more to my liking. For me, it is much more important that I am able to shake hands with my opponents and say 'good game' than it is to win or lose. When all is said and done, it's just a fucking game :) In addition, as far as local games go, I've actually been the one advocating being *more* strict about rules around here... things like not grabbing 'optional' pool from the Edge or placing Temptation counters after you've forgotten. So, it's not just a matter of courtesy. No specific player is a problem... we all forget things. We just need to suffer the consequences, like I did in the aforementioned game. This really is something more relevant to local players than *everyone* though I welcome any suggestions from other groups. As far as I am concerned, in any particular game, it should be established whether it is played 'to the letter' or 'laid back. It is not fair to apply one set of rules to one player and then a different set to another. So, if I am to be castigated for 'missing the obvious' in this case, rightly so, but then, if in the same game, someone else makes a similar (but very forgivable) error, then he or she should also be forced to follow the same 'forgivance' rules, agreed? (Again, I'll add the disclaimer that this is *not* a major problem... just throwing it on the floor for debate). I don't mean to sound like a poor sport, though in that particular instance I will admit that I was. I think it's important that we as a group establish a consistent set of rules as far as these sorts of things go so there will be no controversy worthy of posting here on this forum. It's not that bad right now or anything but I think it may be worth talking about this Sunday (when Aaron isn't there teehee). > In this case, however, not only should he be ready for "cheezy and deceptive" > behavior, but be ready to combat it with some of his own. During tournament > play, the devil is in the details. You have to pay attention to everything, esp. > if it's not immediately obvious. Once again, I will freely admit that I was not paying close enough attention. You become cranky without your coffee... I become near catatonic :) > > it is a question of playing-style, courtesy and sportsmanship. > > If you lose a game because you missed a detail and then bitch about the other > player for being "deceptive," you are correct. It is a question of courtesy and > sportsmanship. Being a good loser is as important as being a good winner. True. > However, I am not making any such allegations regarding you as you did not > initiate the topic. It's just a point of view that you may wish to consider when > discussing a fairly common occurence in Jyhad. Fair enough. I somehow feel like I am coming across as either anti-Aaron or just a poor sport in general. I assure you all that neither is the case, but I'll try to prevent any further assholishness from coming through by wishing Aaron and Bernie good luck at Gen Con. You're just lucky I couldn't go :) Cheers, WES

"Halcyan 2" <halc...@aol.com> wrote > > First let me remind people that it was Lucretia doing the bleed, not Muaziz. Actually, it was Muaziz. He changed the names in the original post for some reason, I think to protect me from embarrasment :) <snip true but slightly irrelevant statements> Yes, but the original point was that if you take an action, it should be common courtesy to reveal all the conditions surrounding that action... especially *if* they are not obvious. The fact that Muaziz has had '+1 stealth' for YEARS, only makes Wes look more like an idiot. There are plenty of players around that aren't aware of Muaziz' special, as well as many older players that may not be aware of Spider-Killer's special. That's neither here nor there. So, were our situations reversed, I would have made it clear to Aaron (who probably would not have needed it) that Muaziz is bleeding at +1 stealth. I would certainly do this for a new player, and I would also do it for a veteran. I see no reason why an opponent's level of experience should force me to alter that courtesy. However, it is once again a matter of style. My style is different from Aaron's is different from Matt's is different from yours. Nobody is wrong here. Cheers, WES

"Wes" <gh...@NOSPAMmnsi.net> wrote in message news:9kcla...@enews2.newsguy.com... > And, as I recall > there were other, *much* more ridiculous things in that game that threw me > off... like my Grand-Prey Sudden Reversing every Master *I* played just to > 'cycle cards'. That frustrates the hell out of me. It happens alot in our local game now. A Whole lot!!! Matt

"Wes" <gh...@NOSPAMmnsi.net> wrote in message news: > I've participated in two tournaments now and in neither did > I see anything like that. Maybe nationals are different? Actually, I think it's more the nature of Canadian and Midwestern players (with a few exceptions) to be more forgiving of mistakes. Whether national tournaments are any different, I don't know...not having participated in one. > Maybe I'm just not that competitive? Doubt it :) Wanting to beat someone with a superior strategy is more satisfying than beating them because of a slight oversight. That certainly has no bearing on how competitive you are. > As far as I am concerned, in any particular game, it should be established > whether it is played 'to the letter' or 'laid back. It is not fair to apply one > set of rules to one player and then a different set to another. I agree 100%. It's just not likely that someone is going to announce that sort of thing until someone asks for a "take back". I'm always laid back until some one starts with the "rules lawyer" deal. > I don't mean to sound like a poor sport, though in that particular instance > I will admit that I was. Heh. False admissions will get you nowhere. You didn't cause a fuss about it at the table and you didn't bring it up here. Considering how well you put up with the Canadian jokes (until Ahmed and Aaron, I wasn't aware there were any) and your reactions here, I don't see how you can accused of being anything other than an extremely good sport. > It's not that bad right now or anything but I think it may be worth talking > about this Sunday (when Aaron isn't there teehee). I won't be there either. Julie's parents, sister and her sister's boyfriend are coming up from Ohio and we're all going to the zoo. > You become cranky without your coffee... I become near catatonic > :) *sips coffee* I don't know what you mean. *grin* > I somehow feel like I am coming across as either anti-Aaron or just a poor > sport in general. Not at all. Relax. Nobody thinks ill of you in the slightest. Regards, Noal McDonald VEKN Prince of Metro Detroit p.s. I need a new .sig. I'm trying to choose between the following: What would Miss Manners do? Making the 'Net a Better Place.

"Noal McDonald" <dhar...@my-deja.com> wrote > Heh. False admissions will get you nowhere. You didn't cause a fuss about it > at the table and you didn't bring it up here. Considering how well you put up > with the Canadian jokes (until Ahmed and Aaron, I wasn't aware there were > any) and your reactions here, I don't see how you can accused of being > anything other than an extremely good sport. Bah. I'm fully capable of returning nationality jokes with interest :) I just have to be careful how I do it when I'm literally the only Canadian and surrounded by gun-totin', flag-wavin', unedumacated, red-baitin', imperialistic, Michigan Militia types. Umm... no offense :) Cheers, WES

Wes wrote: > Bah. I'm fully capable of returning nationality jokes with interest :) I > just have to be careful how I do it when I'm literally the only Canadian and > surrounded by gun-totin', flag-wavin', unedumacated, red-baitin', > imperialistic, Michigan Militia types. Umm... no offense :) Why thanks for the wonderful compliment! Raille now where's my flag and gunn

[the topic was about Wes trying to change his awakning vampire to another after noticing certain conditions that he had previously missed] I've had the habit of allowing a player to change his mind before any new plays or effects are played in the game. For instance in the original situation nothing else would have been changed from the situation where Wes had originally played Forced Awakening to the other minion (was it some old evil Tzimisce with sportsbike?). But if the bleeding minion had played a new card (for instance it didn't have the inherent +1 stealth and would have played an action modified to acqurie it after the Smudge's FA) or someone tapped something the situation wouldn't have been identical to the scenario where Wes would have waked with the other minion. I hope you understand what I am trying to tell. Of course there's a limit to patience - but otherwise it does not and should not matter to anyone if someone changes his mind in such a situation (was it a tournament or otherwise) - atleast when playing with newbies. J.L -- Happy, happy, joy, joy

"Wes" <gh...@NOSPAMmnsi.net> wrote in message news:9kcla...@enews2.newsguy.com... [ quoted text not captured ] Right, I really didn't want to pick on you. Honestly, I don't think anyone that wasn't at that table would have known who it was. I'd rather wonder about the future of our group then if Aaron or Wes was right or wrong? I don't want any hard feelings. And there is a point where take backs are okay in casual play. I figure that at some point we had to have someone force the other guy to keep a bad play and I thought you would take it better then most. I'm trying to make you a better player. So when you go to Toronto you don't embarrass us with your countrymen. =) Aaron.

"Wes" <gh...@NOSPAMmnsi.net> wrote in message news:9kcnn...@enews2.newsguy.com... > I somehow feel like I am coming across as either anti-Aaron or just a poor > sport in general. I assure you all that neither is the case, but I'll try to > prevent any further assholishness from coming through by wishing Aaron and > Bernie good luck at Gen Con. You're just lucky I couldn't go :) So are you saying you've changed your affiliation and are now pro-Aaron? Cool now...well I had a neat Canadian joke but seeing how this is a public/international forum I will save those for when I see you in person.(then you can make fun of me for losing the nationals and all will be right with the world) Actually I did get a chance to see some of your Canadian people in action this weekend, congrats to team Canada for getting someone into the big game! I cut up on this issue. 1/2 of me wants everyone to play by the rules, and if you make a mistake you will learn quicker if you are punished for it. The other 1/2 wants(as stated before) that I want you to always make the best moves so that I know you are playing the best opponent. I do hate to feel like I can only win by making you untap the wrong minions when I know that playing someone with skill I would have gotten my butt handed to me! ;) I'll learn you yet, Mr. Weston. Why I remember when we couldn't get you to keep your hot little fingers off your deck after playing those Wake's. I think I've finally broken you of that bad habit? Aaron

"The Nosferatu Stuff" <roans...@yahoo.com> wrote > > Right, I really didn't want to pick on you. I realize that, and in retrospect I think it was a valid question... though *not* relevant as far as the 'rules' of the game. It's relevant as a matter of playing style and sportsmanship I think and not much else. > Honestly, I don't think anyone > that wasn't at that table would have known who it was. I'd rather wonder > about the future of our group then if Aaron or Wes was right or wrong? > I don't want any hard feelings. Of course not. > And there is a point where take backs are > okay in casual play. It's a tough one. I'd like to see less take-backs in our games, but not at the cost of the game becoming too serious. More important to me is that there is a consistency. That particular game most definitely did not have that consistency. It is not cool for me to not be allowed take-backs but for everyone else to be allowed. Either nobody does or we all do. And I'd actually vote for 'nobody'... which may sound hypocritical but I'd rather see consistency than outright silliness. I like the LA group's policy on this myelf... in any case, it's probably a good idea to establish some 'rules' for this kind of behaviour just so there will be no future controversy. Of course, using 'proxy' cards that don't actually *say* what they are supposed to be is probably more urgent (and absurd)... now you've gotten Linc and Ahmed doing it. *sigh* Cheers, WES

"The Nosferatu Stuff" <roans...@yahoo.com> wrote > > So are you saying you've changed your affiliation and are now pro-Aaron? That would be collusion :) > Cool now...well I had a neat Canadian joke but seeing how this is a > public/international forum I will save those for when I see you in > person.(then you can make fun of me for losing the nationals and all will be > right with the world) Actually I did get a chance to see some of your > Canadian people in action this weekend, congrats to team Canada for getting > someone into the big game! Thanks Aaron! Now let's see if you can find Canada on a map. > I cut up on this issue. 1/2 of me wants everyone to play by the rules, and > if you make a mistake you will learn quicker if you are punished for it. > The other 1/2 wants(as stated before) that I want you to always make the > best moves so that I know you are playing the best opponent. I do hate to > feel like I can only win by making you untap the wrong minions when I know > that playing someone with skill I would have gotten my butt handed to me! ;) It is a tough call. I don't see either way being necessarily bad... again, what is needed is *consistency*. It's not even *just* a Jyhad thing... it's a game thing in general. I *always* let my opponents take back moves in Chess. The reason is as you stated, that I want to play an opponent at the top of their game and not win on a 'technicality'. Some players actually resent this but I do it out of courtesy and respect for their skill rather than anything else. Someone who loses their queen because they didn't notice a knight is a good example. I'll let them know that their queen is in jeopardy and allow them to reconsider their move. None of this 'you took your hand off' bullshit. (As an aside, anyone who says that to me will find that I immediately resign and never play them again. It's a game not a fucking court of law). Whatever policy we choose to follow should be fair and not based on competitiveness so much as fairness. The intent here is not to take advantage of someone else's bad move--it's to make sure we are all on eqaul footing. > I'll learn you yet, Mr. Weston. Why I remember when we couldn't get you to > keep your hot little fingers off your deck after playing those Wake's. I > think I've finally broken you of that bad habit? Yeah... I have gotten better with that. I still reach for the library but I usually stop before I pick up the card. Cheers, WES

"Wes" <gh...@NOSPAMmnsi.net> wrote in message news:<9kooo...@enews4.newsguy.com>... [ quoted text not captured ] Well, it seems that no one in any other playgroups have any opinions on this, so I will just talk to you about it in person. We will have to work out something. I think we are all of the same mind, and should be able to figure this thing out. Oh, but proxy cards are my way of leveling the playing field, and testing out wierd ideas. I try to keep them simple, and when possible use little notes. I will try to only proxy cards with the correct card on them, for easy of use. I appreciate the other players wanting to use cards they cannot afford/do not own and encourage the use of proxy cards. I have also been known to create my own copies of games from index cards, so watch out! Aaron

>Oh, but proxy cards are my way of leveling the playing field, and >testing out wierd ideas. I try to keep them simple, and when possible >use little notes. I will try to only proxy cards with the correct >card on them, for easy of use. > >I appreciate the other players wanting to use cards they cannot >afford/do not own and encourage the use of proxy cards. I have also >been known to create my own copies of games from index cards, so watch >out! > >Aaron The only thing I'd like to see is if you're using proxies that they be easily identified. Like taking a bunch of Skin of Rock and marking them with the proxy card name. Saves confusion when I'm trying to rip off your arm/head/fangs.. Hmmm, guess we need a card that goes for the legs.. Get the design team on that, priority one! Bernie

On Tue, 7 Aug 2001 09:13:11 -0400, "Wes" <gh...@NOSPAMmnsi.net> wrote: >I *always* let my opponents take back moves in Chess. The reason is as you >stated, that I want to play an opponent at the top of their game and not win >on a 'technicality'. Some players actually resent this but I do it out of >courtesy and respect for their skill rather than anything else. Someone who >loses their queen because they didn't notice a knight is a good example. >I'll let them know that their queen is in jeopardy and allow them to >reconsider their move. None of this 'you took your hand off' bullshit. (As >an aside, anyone who says that to me will find that I immediately resign and >never play them again. It's a game not a fucking court of law). When testing decks or playing for friends for fun, I ALWAYS let them take back moves/cards for the exact same reason. If you are testing, you want to play the deck to it's full potential. After enough times of saying "you cant take it back", my friends would just throw in the game whenever they made a monumentally obvious mistake that I wont let them take back, since the game has no value in any outside context. I dont know many people who are into wasting that much time.

[ quoted text not captured ] Well, it's fine among friends, and good practice among new players. Most everybody gives some slack at the start. However, if you're going to play in a tournament, you won't (and shouldn't) get ANY slack. So it behooves a playgroup to get into the habit of allowing less and less takebacks as the players get more and more experienced, so you have a habit of doing everything in it's time (getting pool from the Edge, blood from hunting grounds, playing Master cards, etc.), so it doesn't cost you a game in a tournament because you've learned an "undisciplined" playstyle. It's also good for avoiding problems later on; "where do you draw the line" issues come up. Good example: How long after the fact can a guy gain blood for the Edge? Before he plays his first Master? Before he taps his first minion? Before he discards? Before the next guys turn? (the answer, of course, is (e), none of the above; if you take blood off of a Blood Doll or any other Master phase events, you've begun your Master phase, and can't get pool for keeping the Edge.) Early in a game, it's no big deal, but what if near the end of the game, down to two of you, the other guy says "Hey, I forgot to get pool for the Edge the last 2 turns," and plops two counters into his pool right then. And, you *could* have ousted him that turn, until he did that; what's more, you could still have gotten him if he had only taken 1 pool. Heated discussion arises, and with no rule and no judge, you piss off both players, and "well, you took pool for the Edge last game!" issues come up, etc. Worse yet if you're playing a Prince Vote deck, and maybe have some Parity Shifts, so he may well NOT want to take pool from the Edge, as it's optional. Sure, there are less extreme cases, but it all comes back to "where you draw the line." Different strokes for different folks, and that line usually gets drawn where everyone can agree, and sometimes you lose players over that, since "hey! It's all fun, what's with all the rules!" players and the "It is a *strategic* card game, if you don't follow the rules, why are you playing?" players can both get unhappy, depending where the line is drawn. -- Pat Ricochet Soul Jar'rn Fool of Atlanta

"Pat Ricochet" <sp...@socrates.gatech.edu> wrote > Sure, there are less extreme cases, but it all comes back to "where you > draw the line." Different strokes for different folks, and that line > usually gets drawn where everyone can agree, and sometimes you lose players > over that, since "hey! It's all fun, what's with all the rules!" players > and the "It is a *strategic* card game, if you don't follow the rules, why > are you playing?" players can both get unhappy, depending where the line is > drawn. I only have one line in the games I play. I want to help the game move faster. If I don't allow take-backs, players have to slow their play down, that means longer games, thus fewer games. I want just the opposite. Obviously tournament games are a different animal. - Jason Bell

Pat Ricochet <sp...@socrates.gatech.edu> wrote in message news:<B79701EF.63E8%sp...@socrates.gatech.edu>... > > On Tue, 7 Aug 2001 09:13:11 -0400, "Wes" <gh...@NOSPAMmnsi.net> wrote: > > > >> I *always* let my opponents take back moves in Chess. The reason is as you > >> stated, that I want to play an opponent at the top of their game and not win > >> on a 'technicality'. Some players actually resent this but I do it out of > >> courtesy and respect for their skill rather than anything else. <snip> For me, _not_ stuffing up and making a wrong move in the first place is all part of the skill. If you let people take stuff back all the time, you're elevating their skill above where it may actually be. Just say you lost. Did you lose because they were better than you, or because everytime they did something wrong you let them fix it? I guess it comes down to how much of a person's actual playing you consider to be their "skill at playing the game". <snip> > > When testing decks or playing for friends for fun, I ALWAYS let them > > take back moves/cards for the exact same reason. If you are testing, > > you want to play the deck to it's full potential. After enough times > > of saying "you cant take it back", my friends would just throw in the > > game whenever they made a monumentally obvious mistake that I wont let > > them take back, since the game has no value in any outside context. I > > dont know many people who are into wasting that much time. > > Well, it's fine among friends, and good practice among new players. > Most everybody gives some slack at the start. However, if you're going to > play in a tournament, you won't (and shouldn't) get ANY slack. So it > behooves a playgroup to get into the habit of allowing less and less > takebacks as the players get more and more experienced, so you have a habit > of doing everything in it's time (getting pool from the Edge, blood from > hunting grounds, playing Master cards, etc.), so it doesn't cost you a game > in a tournament because you've learned an "undisciplined" playstyle. In our playgroup, in social games, we allow one "take back" type thing per game per player, which we called a person's one "stuff up" (although most of the time the word "stuff" got replaced with something not allowed by VEKN sportsmanship guidlines O:). However, after a while it became a bit difficult to draw the line between a "stuff up" and just poor play. Eventually we decided that where we drew the line was "information gained". If you gained info since the time of the stuff up, you couldn't take it back. For example, you play a skill card in your masterphase, and don't replace it, and realise you'd missed gaining a pool for the edge. No information has been gained since the time when you were supposed to gain from the edge, so you could take that as your "one stuff up". But if you'd replaced the skill card, then you'd have gained information (being: what the next card in your library is) so you'd not be allowed to take it back. Also, declaring block attempts, other people playing cards, declines to block, etc, all count as "information gained". For newbies just learning, though, we were a lot more lenient. Not that that has been an issue lately as we don't really have any new players (they say they'll turn up and learn to play, but then they don't! the lying bastards!) > It's also good for avoiding problems later on; "where do you draw the > line" issues come up. Good example: How long after the fact can a guy gain > blood for the Edge? umm..yeah, see my comments above...(yes, i could cut and paste to make the order more sensible but i won't :P ) so, that's basically our whole take on the issue. I hope it at least seems fair to most of you out there. oh, and as for proxies, we just plain don't allow that. We try and emphasis how it's a tradable card game. half the fun for me is building a deck as close as i can to my imagined "ideal", and then playing, see how it goes, trade to get those other cards it "needs", and then the deck slowly gets better, causing more and more fear each time it is played....play...trade..play...trade...play...get bored, dissassemble, start again with a new concept. O:) proxies are bad. it defeats the purpose of having card sets. if you allowed unlimited proxies, then you may as well never ever buy any cards, just print out the card texts from ww's site, slip them into some sleeves and away you go. where's the fun in that? salem.

no...@nowhere.com (Jack Crow) wrote: [snip] >When testing decks or playing for friends for fun, I ALWAYS let them >take back moves/cards for the exact same reason. If you are testing, >you want to play the deck to it's full potential. After enough times >of saying "you cant take it back", my friends would just throw in the >game whenever they made a monumentally obvious mistake that I wont let >them take back, since the game has no value in any outside context. I >dont know many people who are into wasting that much time. Unfortunately, some people will start playing with that. They'll do something, see if you react, and then try taking it back. In some games, this gives them addition information. Stunts like this can result in arguments. It is much easier to say that if you do something, you have done it and allow few exceptions. For testing a deck, I think your approach is good, assuming that your co-players know they are testing a deck. Sincerely, Gene Wirchenko Computerese Irregular Verb Conjugation: I have preferences. You have biases. He/She has prejudices.

> In our playgroup, in social games, we allow one "take back" type thing > per game per player, which we called a person's one "stuff up" > (although most of the time the word "stuff" got replaced with > something not allowed by VEKN sportsmanship guidlines O:). However, > after a while it became a bit difficult to draw the line between a > "stuff up" and just poor play. > Eventually we decided that where we drew the line was "information > gained". If you gained info since the time of the stuff up, you > couldn't take it back. Seems a fairly good system. Maybe make them pay a pool, too? =) (kind of makes "I forgot to get Pool for the Edge" pointless, but this way you can blame the rule, and divert their anger. =) [snip] > oh, and as for proxies, we just plain don't allow that. We try and > emphasis how it's a tradable card game. half the fun for me is > building a deck as close as i can to my imagined "ideal", and then > playing, see how it goes, trade to get those other cards it "needs", > and then the deck slowly gets better, causing more and more fear each > time it is played....play...trade..play...trade...play...get bored, > dissassemble, start again with a new concept. O:) Well, that works in a relatively "equal" playgroup. But when someone in your group has more Disarms than the rest of the group put together, most of that from just having BOUGHT that many boxes, you could, in principle, just borrow them; but why scuff up all those cards that aren't yours? Easier to use proxies. > proxies are bad. Well, I like trading as much as the next guy, and avoid using proxies as much as I can, but: #1 reason to use and allow proxies: Cards that you DO own, but have more than one deck using them. I've *got* 8 Embrace (say); but I may well have a deck with all 8, and 3 other decks that need 2-3 each. Keeping track of all that is a royal PITA, and having to search through all your decks just to play one of them, because you're on an "Embrace Kick," and trying out lots of ideas/variants at once without madly shuffling cards back and forth between games. > it defeats the purpose of having card sets. if you allowed unlimited > proxies, then you may as well never ever buy any cards, just print out > the card texts from ww's site, slip them into some sleeves and away > you go. where's the fun in that? Well, if no one else in the group cares, it's all the fun of the regular game. You can put 30 Disarms in your deck with your printer, fine. Your deck will curl up and die from poor design. But, if you want to play in tournaments, or play with groups that *don't* allow proxies, you're SOL. And, again, you miss out on all the trading. It's also quite possibly illegal, especially if you do it for someone else. 8) [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <B797A3F0.6479%sp...@socrates.gatech.edu>, Pat Ricochet <sp...@socrates.gatech.edu> writes >But when someone in >your group has more Disarms than the rest of the group put together, most of >that from just having BOUGHT that many boxes, you could, in principle, just >borrow them; but why scuff up all those cards that aren't yours? Easier to >use proxies. Card condoms? > #1 reason to use and allow proxies: Cards that you DO own, but have >more than one deck using them. I've always found testing a deck that you *want* to play but would need to trade for first to be able to play "legally". #1 or whatever, I'm not sure. "So, if I combine 17 Renegade Garou, 9 Mythic Form, 12 Betrayers and a Soul Gem....." -- James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D EBD690ECD7A1F You scumbag, you maggot, you cheap lousy faggot B457CA213D7E6 Happy Christmas your arse, I pray God it's our last 68C3695D623D5D

Pat Ricochet <sp...@socrates.gatech.edu> wrote in message news:<B797A3F0.6479%sp...@socrates.gatech.edu>... > > In our playgroup, in social games, we allow one "take back" type thing > > per game per player, ... > > Eventually we decided that where we drew the line was "information > > gained". If you gained info since the time of the stuff up, you > > couldn't take it back. > > Seems a fairly good system. Maybe make them pay a pool, too? =) (kind > of makes "I forgot to get Pool for the Edge" pointless, but this way you can > blame the rule, and divert their anger. =) Our group keeps a jar in the middle of the table. If you screw up the order of your turn somehow (discarding before influencing, say) or draw too many cards (darn those Bum Rushes!) or commit some other little mistake, you have to drop a quarter into the jar. We use the money (about $3 a night) for refreshments. It is a good compromise between being friendly and being hard-assed.