Would it be asinine to propose that, in a final, no deal can be made
that would result in either/any participant earning fewer than the
total available VPs left on the table? i.e. If there are three players
left, no deal can be made that results in one player getting fewer
than three VPs. Play to WIN.
In message <1192158408.1...@e34g2000pro.googlegroups.com>,
[ quoted text not captured ]
Difficult.
If I just point out what the situation is, and I say "Ah, well, that'd
suck but if X happened, I'd only get 2VP and you'd get 3VP. Sucks.",
I'm not making a deal but both me and the other player know what's in
our interests. So we play towards that goal, even without a deal being
struck.
--
James Coupe
PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D YOU ARE IN ERROR.
EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 NO-ONE IS SCREAMING.
13D7E668C3695D623D5D THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.
On Oct 12, 3:17 am, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote:
> In message <1192158408.121519.260...@e34g2000pro.googlegroups.com>,>
> Wookie813 <veknpont...@yahoo.com> writes:
> >Would it be asinine to propose that, in a final, no deal can be made
> >that would result in either/any participant earning fewer than the
> >total available VPs left on the table? i.e. If there are three players
> >left, no deal can be made that results in one player getting fewer
> >than three VPs. Play to WIN.
>
> Difficult.
>
> If I just point out what the situation is, and I say "Ah, well, that'd
> suck but if X happened, I'd only get 2VP and you'd get 3VP. Sucks.",
> I'm not making a deal but both me and the other player know what's in
> our interests. So we play towards that goal, even without a deal being
> struck.
>
> --
> James Coupe
I'm finding it hard to relate to the discussion, my only tournament
win ever being at a very friendly pre-release!
In message <1192177043....@q5g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
Wookie813 <veknp...@yahoo.com> writes:
>I'm finding it hard to relate to the discussion, my only tournament
>win ever being at a very friendly pre-release!
The basic point is this:
Any rules change which relates to what people *say* is easily undermined
by people not using a forbidden incantation. Instead, they say
something else that communicates much the same information, without
actually making a deal or directly discussing VP.
This can have some nasty downsides. If I play with you regularly, it's
quite likely you'll understand what I mean and trust me to execute,
whereas the random interloper on the table won't understand what I mean.
Much better that we discuss things in the open than hide behind slightly
awkward discussions of what might happen.
[ quoted text not captured ]
On Oct 12, 4:24 am, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote:
> In message <1192177043.604175.41...@q5g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,>
> Wookie813 <veknpont...@yahoo.com> writes:
> >I'm finding it hard to relate to the discussion, my only tournament
> >win ever being at a very friendly pre-release!
>
> The basic point is this:
>
> Any rules change which relates to what people *say* is easily undermined
> by people not using a forbidden incantation. Instead, they say
> something else that communicates much the same information, without
> actually making a deal or directly discussing VP.
I see where you are coming from. The bulk of my gaming experience is
casual - I've only made the foray into tournaments a few times, and
most of those were small. I have played in exactly 1 regional
qualifier and made the same number of VPs on the day, so didn't have
to be bothered with things like "final table deals". I have heard
horror stories, though, of tables where the players all but divide the
table up based on decklists without ever playing their cards.
Placement deals being struck before turn 2 has ended and what not.
Just doesn't seem right.
That being said, I'm probably not the guy to come up with a
"solution" to the so-called "problem". We don't typically deal in our
casual games, unless it's akin to "Hey, man, Merlin's got 6 minions
and 22 Pool. Lay off me for a while so we can reign him in, wouldja?"
Sometime this flies, sometimes the guy just wants to clear his hand of
all that red anyway.
Deal-making is not what turns me off about constructed tournaments,
though. What turns me off most about them is the % of laser-focussed
decks. A guy sits down with a deck that features 15 copies of 6
different cards, and either gets a quick oust or doesn't, gets a GW or
no VP. I ran into a couple of these (in two games) at the GLRQ, and in
one instance (after I was the first victim), this deck's player
decided he was screwed and just talked all game long. I wonder if
anybody shares my opinion that the tendency of decks to only do 1
thing contributes to excessive dealing and lengthy games.
Even if it does, there's not much that can be done about THAT. You
can't tell people what they can't play. I like the tendency toward
versatility in combat cards of late. I think one of the reasons combat
gets screwed is that so many of the cards can only be played in
combat, and combat is easily avoided. Versatile combat cards might
make it into decks more often, and maybe there's a little more combat
in a game, and faster attrition. I dunno. Gimme more cards like
Swallowed by the Night.
That's not to say deal-making doesn't turn me off. It does. Perhaps
because I'm not good at it or have had bad experiences with it. I
think it's impossible for people to not let their personal
relationships affect their dealing. As an example, I was once dealt
off a table by a couple of guys whom I know were friends. They talked
out their reasonings and whatever, and then tag team ousted me and
duked it out between themselves. While within the rules, I have to
wonder if somewhere in there is the notion that either one of them
would rather lose to their buddy than a guy they see every once in a
while at a tourney. I know I'm always rooting for the guys I rode down
with after I've been mathematically eliminated from finals contention.
If I wasn't likely to win, I'd be more inclined to give my buddy the
favorable deal. Truth. That's why I don't like deals.
I'm not sure if any of that is worth the binary code it's written in,
but I figured I'd offer up the opinion of a lover of the game who's
not a fan of the tourney scene for consideration. Perhaps not the most
productive thing I could do, forgive me, but I had a little extra time
on my hands.
Wookie813 <veknp...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Deal-making is not what turns me off about constructed tournaments,
> though. What turns me off most about them is the % of laser-focussed
> decks. A guy sits down with a deck that features 15 copies of 6
> different cards, and either gets a quick oust or doesn't, gets a GW or
> no VP. I ran into a couple of these (in two games) at the GLRQ, and in
> one instance (after I was the first victim), this deck's player
> decided he was screwed and just talked all game long. I wonder if
> anybody shares my opinion that the tendency of decks to only do 1
> thing contributes to excessive dealing and lengthy games.
The laser-focussed decks speed-up the game, by not having as much
complexity to work on their turn as other decks.
The problem you describe clearly had nothing to do with the deck. It was
the player's choice to blab that caused the problem, and by definition, it
was the rest of your choice to allow him to do so.
Either ask him to stop talking and start playing, or just play "around"
him and don't listen to his talk. Works great, I assure you! :)
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
On Fri, 12 Oct 2007 12:40:35 -0700, Kevin M. <you...@imaspammer.org>
wrote:
> Either ask him to stop talking and start playing, or just play "around"
> him and don't listen to his talk. Works great, I assure you! :)
Not really - real assholes will claim that they consider DI / block / etc.
whenever. In fact, they'll stop the game to argue the world is flat.
There's
not much you can do in the short run - e.g. check Olivier's rant at the EC
when he realized that 5 minutes are left and he is next to be ousted. He
was
just debating the theory of relativity when time was called, and Scott was
sitting by the table. There's nothing that can stop a player from wasting
5-10 minutes completely legally. If you point it out you just get another
argument to take the time (e.g. you are rushing the game, not giving
enough
time for consideration, etc.).
--
Regards,
Daneel
Daneel wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Oct 2007 12:40:35 -0700, Kevin M. <you...@imaspammer.org>
> wrote:
>>> Either ask him to stop talking and start playing, or just play "around"
>> him and don't listen to his talk. Works great, I assure you! :)>
> Not really - real assholes will claim that they consider DI / block / etc.
> whenever. In fact, they'll stop the game to argue the world is flat.
> There's
> not much you can do in the short run
There's everything you can do in the short term:
Namely, call the stalling player for stalling and add back the time lost.